Purpose For Life

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

We believe that there is a very good purpose for all the animals on this planet--to be eaten! Directly or indirectly, we hold they their entire purpose is to provide sustenance (and, to a lesser extent, comfort and companionship) to us, since we were created "special" and "higher" than the animals. And, whether I hold to Christianity or not, it still makes sense, as we seem to be the only animals that have achieved sentience and self-awareness.

 

The "we" I assume is Christians, because I'm not part of the "we" that thinks of animals or any other life form on this planet that way.

 

All life forms on this planet are part of life on planet earth. None are "special" or created "higher" as you suggest. Seems to me you're still a full-scale fundie Christian if you think in those terms. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

All life on earth is deserving of respect because we're all in this life thing together.

 

How do you know what other life forms feel? All life forms on Earth, from the smallest single-cell creature up to the largest depend on other life forms for survival.

 

I'm sure that many humans have provided enjoyable meals for many other creatures while alive and of course, when all life forms die, they provide sustenance for other life forms. No matter how "special" you think you are, you're going to be food for others when you die.

 

There is no "divine" purpose for your life or any other life on Earth. We're here because we're here, so enjoy it while it lasts, there nothing afterwards!

[MagickMonkey]

I think we're beating him up too much on the animal thing. Of course he's going to think that way until he figures out christianity is bogus. Let him work on the god thing first. The animal stuff will follow.

[R. S. Martin]

 

How do you know what other life forms feel?

 

One example of another life form is my dog. I got a five-year-old a year ago. Don't know its history but have pieced together an idea based on the types of things she seems to really like. My guess is she used to live in a backyard and/or fields, mostly the queen of the realm. Now suddenly she's supposed to be a submissive city house dog

 

So long as I interacted with her as though with another human, I just ran into trouble. Things got pretty serious. When I learned basic dog psychology and began to interact with her on the basis of dog intelligence, finally I made some headway in our relationship. Today she has pretty much accepted my leadership and seldom uses her fangs to "set the record straight."

 

They say there are no stupid dogs, only stupid owners. This case seems to prove it yet again.

 

So much for the argument for humans being the most intelligent species.

 

Oh yeah, what I was getting at. You asked how we know how other life forms feel. So often I wish I knew how my own dogs feels--what it feels like to be a dog. How does the salt on sidewalks actually feel to the paws? And how cold does the wind of a snowstorm actually feel beneath a dog's fur? I'm thinking if we can't even know these basics of our own beloved pets, how can be presume to speak for more exotic life forms.

 

Maybe I'm running at the mouth. It's getting a bit late tonight.

[denaje]

Ooook, I guess that's a sensitive subject that didn't need to be broached. Yes, the "we" I was talking about was Christians, with the whole Gen. 1:28-30 thing. I don't want to get into it if it's just going to provoke an argument, but I still don't see what's inconsistent about my position. Even from a purely atheistic/evolutionary standpoint, it's a dog-eat-dog world where each species has to do what it can to survive. Chickens eat grain, humans eat chickens, lions eat humans, and on and on it goes. I don't deny that other animals have measurable levels of intelligence (and some are surprisingly intelligent), but I guess I assumed that it was self-evident among both Christians and non-Christians that humans were still the dominant species in terms of pure intelligence. (As evidenced by our massive empires, our universities, the fact that we launched ourselves into space, etc.) If you disagree with that statement, that is fine. I'm not looking to start a war here. Like I said, I just want to understand your position, especially if it is different from mine. I resent that you call me a non-free-thinker, because that is the trait of myself that I most highly value. I'm simply trying to state my position, and the positions of other Christians (who I may or may not agree with), and I want to learn how it differs from yours, all for the purpose of bettering myself.

[oddbird1963]

 

It doesn't sound like there is a rational basis for your faith, however.

 

I have long since given up the quest to provide a rational basis for my faith. One of my college classes tried to do this, but I didn't buy any of the arguments. I fully admit that my faith is entirely irrational, but I don't yet discount that rationality is the only reason to believe something.

 

Thanks for replying, but I think you responded to the least important part of my post. I mean, it's refreshingly honest of you to acknowledge that you do not have a rational basis for your faith (belief in god, existence of an afterlife, the persistence of the "soul" after death, etc). I appreciate the candor.

 

Based on the non-rationality of your faith position, I asked you why your particular set of coping memes is to be preferred over some other set of coping memes. In other words, "Why is your "Teddy Bear" better than our "Teddy Bear?"

[MagickMonkey]

Whether or not non-human animals have any value is a subjective matter. Of course, the same could be said for human animals. Of course, humans are the most intelligent, but without a belief in god, there's less reason to view ourselves as being quite so special. We have no souls, and the rest of the animals were not placed here specifically for our exploitation.

[R. S. Martin]

Denaje, I'm not sure what you're after on these forums. We've done our best to answer your questions and you don't accept the answers. Instead, you resent that we don't accept your position uncritically. That confuses me. If you are not out to convert us to your position, why do you try to establish your Christian position and get it accepted? You say you don't want to start a war. Does all of this mean you intend to win us over to your position without protest?

 

I found something on truth-saves.com that might answer your question, providing you really want an answer:

 

What's the meaning/purpose of life?

 

Life its self has no purpose, nor should it. Life is a window of time and an opportunity for us to do meaningful things and find a purpose. As Dan Barker put it,

"there is indeed no purpose of life. There is purpose in life. If there were a purpose of life, then that would cheapen life and make us tools or slaves of someone else's purpose. Like a hammer that hangs on the garage wall waiting for someone to build something, if we humans were designed for a purpose then we would be subservient in the universe. Our value would not be in ourselves."

See the link for more.

[MagickMonkey]

Denaje, I'm not sure what you're after on these forums. We've done our best to answer your questions and you don't accept the answers. Instead, you resent that we don't accept your position uncritically. That confuses me. If you are not out to convert us to your position, why do you try to establish your Christian position and get it accepted? You say you don't want to start a war. Does all of this mean you intend to win us over to your position without protest?

 

I found something on truth-saves.com that might answer your question, providing you really want an answer:

 

What's the meaning/purpose of life?

 

Life its self has no purpose, nor should it. Life is a window of time and an opportunity for us to do meaningful things and find a purpose. As Dan Barker put it,

"there is indeed no purpose of life. There is purpose in life. If there were a purpose of life, then that would cheapen life and make us tools or slaves of someone else's purpose. Like a hammer that hangs on the garage wall waiting for someone to build something, if we humans were designed for a purpose then we would be subservient in the universe. Our value would not be in ourselves."

See the link for more.

 

I don't think he's trying to win anyone over. I think he's seriously looking for different ideas to consider. An I don't think he's necessarily rejected our answers yet. He might still be thinking them over. Let's be careful not to scare him away by being a bunch of assholes. If he ultimately disagrees and remains a christian, that's his problem, not ours.

[denaje]

Denaje, I'm not sure what you're after on these forums. We've done our best to answer your questions and you don't accept the answers. Instead, you resent that we don't accept your position uncritically. That confuses me. If you are not out to convert us to your position, why do you try to establish your Christian position and get it accepted? You say you don't want to start a war. Does all of this mean you intend to win us over to your position without protest?

 

I found something on truth-saves.com that might answer your question, providing you really want an answer:

 

What's the meaning/purpose of life?

 

Life its self has no purpose, nor should it. Life is a window of time and an opportunity for us to do meaningful things and find a purpose. As Dan Barker put it,

"there is indeed no purpose of life. There is purpose in life. If there were a purpose of life, then that would cheapen life and make us tools or slaves of someone else's purpose. Like a hammer that hangs on the garage wall waiting for someone to build something, if we humans were designed for a purpose then we would be subservient in the universe. Our value would not be in ourselves."

See the link for more.

 

I don't think he's trying to win anyone over. I think he's seriously looking for different ideas to consider. An I don't think he's necessarily rejected our answers yet. He might still be thinking them over. Let's be careful not to scare him away by being a bunch of assholes. If he ultimately disagrees and remains a christian, that's his problem, not ours.

 

That's pretty much it. I don't have any desire to "win you over" or get my position accepted. I like to have intelligent, respectful debates as I ponder the various worldviews that I am presented with. I appreciate your answers, and I do not take them lightly. I disagree with some of them and agree with others, and all of them have given me pause for consideration. My mind is constantly changing on matters related to religion and has been for over a decade, and will probably be changing for years to come.

 

And just to clarify, I don't resent that you don't accept my position uncritically. In fact, I very much welcome criticism. Approaching any subject critically is the only way to learn more about it. What I resent is the assertion that I am stuck in my ways and have no desire to think for myself. This is simply not true. All I want is to learn and understand. And if I never decide that I want to reject Christianity, as MagickMonkey said, that's my own problem.

[Deva]

Denaje,

 

You seem to have been waffling around in your first post about being a Christian. You say you are, and then you say you are agnostic about God. Isn't that sort of a nonsensical statement ? By definition, Christians believe in God.

 

However, I have seen numerous "Christians" come to this site and show that they have a totally different understanding of the word "Christian" than I do, or than any historically orthodox creed would jibe with. So, are you a Christian, and if so, how do you define that word?

 

Just curious.

[Ouroboros]

Ooook, I guess that's a sensitive subject that didn't need to be broached.

I think they're reaction was more out of that you kind of expressed that we had a right to eat other animals because we're the most intelligent one. Just because we're smarter that other primates, it doesn't give us any special privileges. There's no sticker on animals bodies when they're born that says "approved to be eaten by humans because they're so clever." You probably didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I suspect that's the reason to the reaction.

 

---

 

And I looked back on your post about animals, you said something like the purpose for the animals were to be eaten, and I find that hard to believe. Just because it is a dog-eat-dog world, it doesn't mean the purpose of the existence of other animals is just so they can be food. The purpose for life is to procreate and persist, but that means that certain animals (humans included) take a shortcut and eat other animals instead of just plants.

[denaje]

And I looked back on your post about animals, you said something like the purpose for the animals were to be eaten, and I find that hard to believe. Just because it is a dog-eat-dog world, it doesn't mean the purpose of the existence of other animals is just so they can be food. The purpose for life is to procreate and persist, but that means that certain animals (humans included) take a shortcut and eat other animals instead of just plants.

 

I think the difference in opinion here comes from our respective backgrounds. I agree that from a non-Christian (or at least atheist) point of view, your statement is absolutely correct. But from a Christian perspective, you have to take into account the words of Scripture, and there it says that humans were created specially and plants and animals were created to be used by humans, etc. So I don't think we disagree about the animal issue per se, but just about a more fundamental issue. I'm very much ok with agreeing to disagree about the purpose for animals, because the disagreement really stems from something else.

You seem to have been waffling around in your first post about being a Christian. You say you are, and then you say you are agnostic about God. Isn't that sort of a nonsensical statement ? By definition, Christians believe in God.

Sorry, I probably didn't make my position very clear. In fact, I may not even be entirely sure what it is, but here goes. I define agnostic to mean that you believe that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Thus, it cannot be known whether or not God exists, and I don't claim to know either. But we can choose to believe that he exists or doesn't exist based on evidence. All scientific and logical evidence that I have seen does not point to any kind of a supernatural being. Everything that I can see can be explained by various branches of science, and it has been shown time and time again that any "gaps" in our knowledge (where God might fit in) will be filled in with naturalistic explanations soon enough. Still, this is no proof that God does not exist. People could choose to believe in God (for whatever reason) and still have a complete and consistent worldview (assuming they can reconcile the Bible with science, but I have no problem with that). So I define Christian as someone who chooses to believe that the God of the Bible exists and is worthy of worship and is the salvation for mankind. Now the reason why I choose to believe in God instead of reject the idea altogether is because it seems as if God (if he exists) gives meaning and purpose to my life that would otherwise be an empty void...and this is precisely why I posted my question in the first place. I am curious to know what purpose you see for your life and why it is preferable over the purpose that God (if he exists) would give.

Thanks for replying, but I think you responded to the least important part of my post. I mean, it's refreshingly honest of you to acknowledge that you do not have a rational basis for your faith (belief in god, existence of an afterlife, the persistence of the "soul" after death, etc). I appreciate the candor.

 

Based on the non-rationality of your faith position, I asked you why your particular set of coping memes is to be preferred over some other set of coping memes. In other words, "Why is your "Teddy Bear" better than our "Teddy Bear?"

 

See above. This is pretty much the question I'm asking of all of you. So far as I can see, having a soul that lives for eternity in a good place and in the presence of a good God seems to be preferable over extinction of life altogether. Is there something I'm missing here?

[MagickMonkey]

Still, this is no proof that God does not exist.

 

Why is proof of non-existence necessary? Certainly you've heard the teapot argument and have heard the problems with proving a negative. Do they not make sense to you?

 

People could choose to believe in God (for whatever reason) and still have a complete and consistent worldview (assuming they can reconcile the Bible with science, but I have no problem with that).

Well, I couldn't choose to believe in god, thought I might could do a good job of pretending. I can't choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 either. And yes, people are often really good at doing mental gymnastics to reconcile their religious beliefs with what they know about the real world. But I don't think you can take an honest, objective look at the bible and reconcile what it says with science.

 

Now the reason why I choose to believe in God instead of reject the idea altogether is because it seems as if God (if he exists) gives meaning and purpose to my life that would otherwise be an empty void...and this is precisely why I posted my question in the first place. I am curious to know what purpose you see for your life and why it is preferable over the purpose that God (if he exists) would give.

 

.....

 

So far as I can see, having a soul that lives for eternity in a good place and in the presence of a good God seems to be preferable over extinction of life altogether. Is there something I'm missing here?

 

Does believing in a fairly tale give real meaning to your live? Believing it won't make it true. If you fool yourself into believing your life has purpose, and then you simply die and cease to exist as a conscious being, your life will really be just as meaningless as if you did not believe. Maybe even more so, since your actions on earth will often be based on the premise that there will be an afterlife. I'd rather know that the time I have in this life is all that I have than assume that if I squander much of this life, it'll be ok because I'll have an eternal afterlife.

 

Quite honestly, I would prefer that there were a god and that I would get to spend an eternity with my loved ones. I would prefer that there were a couple trillion dollars in my bank account. However, what we prefer doesn't matter.

 

Once again, meaning and purpose of life IS TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT when determining the veracity of christianity or any other religion. We do not get to redesign the universe with our preferences.

[Ouroboros]

I think the difference in opinion here comes from our respective backgrounds.

Yes and no.

 

My background is Christian. I was Christian for 30 years, but my views changed after my de-conversion, of course.

 

I agree that from a non-Christian (or at least atheist) point of view, your statement is absolutely correct. But from a Christian perspective, you have to take into account the words of Scripture, and there it says that humans were created specially and plants and animals were created to be used by humans, etc. So I don't think we disagree about the animal issue per se, but just about a more fundamental issue. I'm very much ok with agreeing to disagree about the purpose for animals, because the disagreement really stems from something else.

So you're Christian still then? It sounded for a while that you were more agnostic about God and such, but now you sound a tad more convinced. Oh, well. Doesn't matter.

 

Sorry, I probably didn't make my position very clear.

...

Ah. You explained your position next.

 

Personally, I find it extremely hard--or rather impossible--to just make myself believe something I'm convinced isn't true.

 

See above. This is pretty much the question I'm asking of all of you. So far as I can see, having a soul that lives for eternity in a good place and in the presence of a good God seems to be preferable over extinction of life altogether. Is there something I'm missing here?

Yeah. Maybe. It all depends on what kind of life that eternal life is. Since Christianity claims that unbelievers go to Hell because of the unmitigated hereditary sin, I'm not sure eternal life is so great for 2/3rds of humanity (or probably more, since a majority of the Christian denominations are heretics in the view of some other denomination.)

[oddbird1963]

 

See above. This is pretty much the question I'm asking of all of you. So far as I can see, having a soul that lives for eternity in a good place and in the presence of a good God seems to be preferable over extinction of life altogether. Is there something I'm missing here?

I think the faith you describe is a fantasy created to reassure yourself in the face of life's anxieties. The choice is not between having a soul that lives for eternity in a good place vs extinction over life, but the completely subjective belief - the wish - that one has a soul, etc., and the conclusion that, based on the evidence, there is probably no god or afterlife.

 

As such, it is a pick and choose faith. Any conclusion about the world or the universe or God based on that faith is completely random, spurious and unreliable. Your faith exists purely for your own self-satisfaction.

 

Any critique of if could be easily dismissed by "moving the goal post" and saying THAT is not my faith THIS (pointing to the goal post you have just moved) is my faith.

 

Plus, I've lived the mind game of Christianity and it is NOT preferable. It's no longer believable. And choosing to "believe" in god because 'you can't prove god DOESN'T exist' would make me feel like an lame brained idiot.

 

I think learning to live within the confines of reality is preferable to choosing a fantasy because reality is too difficult to live with. It is the equivalent of choosing to take LSD or ecstasy every day because you can't handle the realities of daily life.

[Ouroboros]

As such, it is a pick and choose faith.

It made me think.

 

If we pick our belief, as Denaje suggests, for the purpose of making us feel good, and we can choose anything and any religion we want, then why not just make up one that is better than Christianity?

 

So here goes...

 

My religion is that all people are equal. Everyone goes to Heaven. People who do evil and bad things are punished for a while, but God changes their "soul" to become pure, and then they enter Heaven too, and we all (in our godly mindset) forgive and move on.

 

Why even add Jesus or holy books to the mix?

[oddbird1963]

As such, it is a pick and choose faith.

It made me think.

 

If we pick our belief, as Denaje suggests, for the purpose of making us feel good, and we can choose anything and any religion we want, then why not just make up one that is better than Christianity?

 

So here goes...

 

My religion is that all people are equal. Everyone goes to Heaven. People who do evil and bad things are punished for a while, but God changes their "soul" to become pure, and then they enter Heaven too, and we all (in our godly mindset) forgive and move on.

 

Why even add Jesus or holy books to the mix?

". . . there's just something about that name?"

 

You're right. Why not choose a god who didn't let over half of all humans born die before reaching adulthood?

 

But that's the thing. Do these "i believe because it's preferable" people believe their God actually does things in the world for real humans?

 

If so, then they have the same problems died in the wool literalist theists have. God doesn't appear to care about humanity. yet the thought of such a god is preferable?

 

That's the thing about gods of choice, so to speak. They can only exist in the imagination the way fairies or unicorns or Harry Potter or the Zeus of movie scripts exists. Once you claim this god acted in the real world, the dream bubble bursts and all the same issues that lead one to conclude agnosticism or atheism come rushing in like a torrent.

[Ouroboros]

@Oddbird

 

Amen.

[R. S. Martin]

As such, it is a pick and choose faith.

It made me think.

 

If we pick our belief, as Denaje suggests, for the purpose of making us feel good, and we can choose anything and any religion we want, then why not just make up one that is better than Christianity?

 

So here goes...

 

My religion is that all people are equal. Everyone goes to Heaven. People who do evil and bad things are punished for a while, but God changes their "soul" to become pure, and then they enter Heaven too, and we all (in our godly mindset) forgive and move on.

 

Why even add Jesus or holy books to the mix?

". . . there's just something about that name?"

 

You're right. Why not choose a god who didn't let over half of all humans born die before reaching adulthood?

 

But that's the thing. Do these "i believe because it's preferable" people believe their God actually does things in the world for real humans?

 

If so, then they have the same problems died in the wool literalist theists have. God doesn't appear to care about humanity. yet the thought of such a god is preferable?

 

That's the thing about gods of choice, so to speak. They can only exist in the imagination the way fairies or unicorns or Harry Potter or the Zeus of movie scripts exists. Once you claim this god acted in the real world, the dream bubble bursts and all the same issues that lead one to conclude agnosticism or atheism come rushing in like a torrent.

 

That's the argument I've been making in this thread all along, only better worded.

[denaje]

As such, it is a pick and choose faith.

It made me think.

 

If we pick our belief, as Denaje suggests, for the purpose of making us feel good, and we can choose anything and any religion we want, then why not just make up one that is better than Christianity?

 

So here goes...

 

My religion is that all people are equal. Everyone goes to Heaven. People who do evil and bad things are punished for a while, but God changes their "soul" to become pure, and then they enter Heaven too, and we all (in our godly mindset) forgive and move on.

 

Why even add Jesus or holy books to the mix?

 

Ah, and that's the thing. See, our definitions of Christianity are far different. I came to the same conclusions you did. Despite all the watering-down that goes on in the church, I still felt this feeling tugging at me that said, "But just look! God can't be good! How could a good God send people to hell for eternity just for the sake of punishing them?!" Everything in the Bible that talked about God's love contradicted what I was taught about God's wrath. It didn't make sense at all. So I started thinking and researching, and I stumbled onto the concept of universal reconciliation and the belief of Christian Universalism. I did a thorough study of the Greek word aionos, which is used in the New Testament as a description of a period of time and how it relates to punishment in the afterlife. The only places where the Bible even describes hell clearly are places that are obviously metaphorical (like in Revelation), and all the other places it uses a form of the word aionos, which does not necessarily imply eternity.

 

After much deliberation, my conclusion is that the religion Jesus taught was actually exactly along the lines of what you said here...all people are equally loved by God. Everyone goes to heaven. People who reject God are punished for a limited time for the sake of chastisement and reformation instead of simply for the sake of punishment itself. There is no fire and brimstone and no eternal torment of souls. Believers of God are no better than anyone else, and one day, God will reconcile all to him.

 

Again, I'm not seeking to convert you or get you to change your mind. Take what I say with a grain of salt, but this belief seems to be much less repugnant than the fire-and-brimstone Christianity that is preached on Sunday mornings. And yes, I know that just because it's "nicer" doesn't make it any more likely to be true. In fact, in light of what I know, it probably isn't. But it seems much more true to the spirit of the religion and more accurate when you look at the original text. This "version" of Christianity is very much different from the one you dislike so much. Does it make me an ex-Christian then? I don't know, maybe it does. I agree with what Ann Rice said a while ago...she said that she still believes in Jesus and worships God, but she wanted to leave the bigotry and the hatred and the Christian culture label behind. She accepts Christ but rejects Christianity. So maybe it is a "pick and choose" faith, but I also feel this kind of faith is more Biblically supported than the washed-out American Christianity that tells us to hate gay people and convert as many non-believers as we can before the rapture so they don't wind up in hell. To me, that kind of Christianity is downright hypocritical and heretical.

[MagickMonkey]

As such, it is a pick and choose faith.

It made me think.

 

If we pick our belief, as Denaje suggests, for the purpose of making us feel good, and we can choose anything and any religion we want, then why not just make up one that is better than Christianity?

 

So here goes...

 

My religion is that all people are equal. Everyone goes to Heaven. People who do evil and bad things are punished for a while, but God changes their "soul" to become pure, and then they enter Heaven too, and we all (in our godly mindset) forgive and move on.

 

Why even add Jesus or holy books to the mix?

 

Ah, and that's the thing. See, our definitions of Christianity are far different. I came to the same conclusions you did. Despite all the watering-down that goes on in the church, I still felt this feeling tugging at me that said, "But just look! God can't be good! How could a good God send people to hell for eternity just for the sake of punishing them?!" Everything in the Bible that talked about God's love contradicted what I was taught about God's wrath. It didn't make sense at all. So I started thinking and researching, and I stumbled onto the concept of universal reconciliation and the belief of Christian Universalism. I did a thorough study of the Greek word aionos, which is used in the New Testament as a description of a period of time and how it relates to punishment in the afterlife. The only places where the Bible even describes hell clearly are places that are obviously metaphorical (like in Revelation), and all the other places it uses a form of the word aionos, which does not necessarily imply eternity.

 

After much deliberation, my conclusion is that the religion Jesus taught was actually exactly along the lines of what you said here...all people are equally loved by God. Everyone goes to heaven. People who reject God are punished for a limited time for the sake of chastisement and reformation instead of simply for the sake of punishment itself. There is no fire and brimstone and no eternal torment of souls. Believers of God are no better than anyone else, and one day, God will reconcile all to him.

 

Again, I'm not seeking to convert you or get you to change your mind. Take what I say with a grain of salt, but this belief seems to be much less repugnant than the fire-and-brimstone Christianity that is preached on Sunday mornings. And yes, I know that just because it's "nicer" doesn't make it any more likely to be true. In fact, in light of what I know, it probably isn't. But it seems much more true to the spirit of the religion and more accurate when you look at the original text. This "version" of Christianity is very much different from the one you dislike so much. Does it make me an ex-Christian then? I don't know, maybe it does. I agree with what Ann Rice said a while ago...she said that she still believes in Jesus and worships God, but she wanted to leave the bigotry and the hatred and the Christian culture label behind. She accepts Christ but rejects Christianity. So maybe it is a "pick and choose" faith, but I also feel this kind of faith is more Biblically supported than the washed-out American Christianity that tells us to hate gay people and convert as many non-believers as we can before the rapture so they don't wind up in hell. To me, that kind of Christianity is downright hypocritical and heretical.

 

I guess the most important thing here is that you're not a fundie.

[denaje]

I guess the most important thing here is that you're not a fundie.

 

Haha. Agreed. I know it infuriates you that there are people who try to convert you at every corner and say you're an evil person going to hell. It infuriates me that there are people who call themselves Christians who are doing it. In fact, I'm not immune either. A pastor once condemned me to hell because I believe in evolution. (Though not to my face, thankfully...it was worked into the sermon.)

[MagickMonkey]

I guess the most important thing here is that you're not a fundie.

 

Haha. Agreed. I know it infuriates you that there are people who try to convert you at every corner and say you're an evil person going to hell. It infuriates me that there are people who call themselves Christians who are doing it. In fact, I'm not immune either. A pastor once condemned me to hell because I believe in evolution. (Though not to my face, thankfully...it was worked into the sermon.)

 

Well, there's the evolution thing, and the fact that you clearly do not realize that the bible was originally written in king james english. Keep your greek bullshit to yourself.

[Ouroboros]

Ah, and that's the thing. See, our definitions of Christianity are far different.

...

Cool.

 

Again, I'm not seeking to convert you or get you to change your mind.

...

Ok. I won't try to de-convert you either.

[oddbird1963]

Even though danje is obviously a nice guy with a kinder, gentler doctine, isn't what is being offered up here just another version of "True Christianity?" And not a whole lot of people who are Christians follow that doctrine. So who's to say his "Christianity" is really "Christianity?"

 

And does this god really interact with people in the real world inside of time and history, other than providing perceived relief from perceived meaninglessness within the confines of ones own imagination?

 

Is this universalist christian god's only sphere of influence to just wait, like a hungry outdoor pet, for us to die so he can cart us off to reform school or let us in to the heavenly paradise?

 

Is it socially inappropriate, at this point, to ask such questions?

 

Or is it just a vain request to have these questions actually dealt with?