Why does it seem the SL population hates Christians?

There isn't really a correlation between the two. The members of the XXX Cybersluts aren't telling anybody their path is wrong or that they're less worthy or that they're going to go to hell for failing to believe the way someone else does.

A person's faith (or lack thereof) in something is their business and I support them 100%. I do draw the line, however, if they decide there is something wrong with me or anyone else for not agreeing with them. In the case of Christianity, my understanding is that it is up to God to be the judge of who enters heaven, and souls on earth would be better served to follow the true teachings of Jesus -- as opposed to the interpretations of a priest or minister or televangelist.

I have no problem with a Christian presence in SL. Build churches, hold services, have fellowship. Same goes for any faith or belief system. Just, please, do not come knocking on my door proselytizing. My salvation is my own business.

Ok, here's another book that does the same thing!
The Jesus Myteries: Was the "Original Jesus" A PAGAN GOD

There are many criticisms of the scolarliness of this book. I'm not sure if its good research or not, but I'm predisposed to accept most of the work as seemingly accurate (read that to mean "it makes sense to me".

Champie, wow. That was pretty spectacular. Yes, I'm deeply enjoying my relativistic point of view, even though I'm not a relativist, actually, but apparently that doesn't matter.

First off, thanks for providing your source information since you're making such specific assertions about the way things are. I was going to ask for it anyway, and that saved me the trouble. Second, I'll freely concede this: it wasn't verbal sleight of hand after all. I misunderstood what you were doing. Now I do understand.

So a quick Google search revealed that Pascal Boyer is the author of the book mentioned. That made it easier to research it a little more from there, as I have not (I freely admit) read the book myself.

Without needing to read it, however, a couple of problems:

First, you based just about everything you said to me on the book, treating it as irrefutable fact (that is, you didn't really go into WHY your ideas are supposedly true). Your stance therefore presupposes that every book ever written is instantly, irrefutably true and cannot be said to be otherwise, which is not only silly but also indefensible since any number of books contradict one another. I could go grab a book right now and declare without further support than the title of the book itself that the central idea is correct and indisputable (note that when I DID mention a book earlier, I only suggested reading it and said I was considering its ideas, not that it couldn't be disputed), and I would be basically doing the same thing.

Second (and this should come as no surprise now), not everyone agrees with the author's conclusions. For fun, a random Web review that claims to dismantle the book:

http://www.cosmoetica.com/B99-DES54.htm

I'm not saying the review is right -- again, I haven't even read the book myself. And I might like to someday so that I can decide this for myself. But the problem is that you're arguing the author's position as fact without really trying to explain it. In your defense, it's probably impossible to explain a book's worth of an idea in a forum post, so going further, the problem is that you're trying to argue it AT ALL, or seem to be. Instead, maybe it would work better to say, "I found this book useful and interesting, and it says basically this. You should read it and see what you think."

I won't deny that the book's conclusions may be correct. And I may read it someday. On the other hand, I'm not going to accept the book's conclusions as irrefutably true here and now just because it exists and you say I should, either. Fair enough?

Actually, these are legitimate answers to the questions that were asked of you. What I hear you saying is that you believe in God because of personal experience. It sounds like you are saying that God has personally revealed Itself to you.

Having no way to disprove this, I would just except that as your reason to believe in God.

However, I do have to ask how you KNOW that Christianity is the One True religion? Muslims and Jews all worship the same God you do. God made Itself known to them personally as well. So how can you say they are wrong for believing what was revealed to them, but that you are not?

Is it possible that God reveals Itself to different people in different ways? That God chooses the way to reveal Itself that is best for that particular person? After all, you did talk about a personal relationship with God. Cookie cutter religions forced on everyone in the world is NOT personal. Isn't is possible that God gives the message that each person needs to hear?

The American Indians, whom I am sure you would refer to as pagans, worship nature. Or more correctly, the Great Spirit that moves in all things. Since God is everywhere, It's energy imbues everything in the Universe, doesn't that mean that the Indians are worshiping the same God you do? Christ never visited them, so is it fair that they go to Hell, even though they serve God in the way that It reveled Itself to them?

In other words, who are you to tell God that It can't have more than one correct way of being worshiped?

Oh, and by the way, the whole concept of Hell was invented by the Catholics in like the 11th century (give or take a few hundred years) to scare people into going to church. The Jews (upon which Christianity is based) and the early Christians had no concept of Hell. Hell was invented by man, not God.

Faith without thought is meaningless to God

I'm there with you, Allana, with a few extra twists and wrinkles of my own.

I really saw a lightbulb go off when I read Shermer. He explained it thusly:

The reason that humans survived our early existence, when we were the slowest, weakest animal in the food chain, was because we developed brains that could see patterns and solve problems. (And before anyone says that God put that brain in there, ask yourself why hundreds of other evolutionary offshoots died out before homo sapiens established a foothold. Natural Selection is the harsh taskmaster that slaughtered thousands of our ancestors who weren't as bright as we are) .

So we are pattern-seeking animals, according to Shermer. We knew that animal herds travelled in patterns - it helped us hunt. We knew that changes in seasons signalled a time to migrate to warmer (or cooler) climes, or to follow a river's course. Or to know when to plant seeds and harvest. Pattern seeking is what allowed Man to thrive and prosper. It also makes us see giant animals in the clouds, Orion's shape in the stars or the face of the Virgin Mary in a water stain. We look for patterns everywhere.

As he explains it, belief in deities is the result of this pattern-seeking behavior. The first time a primitive man saw his friend die, he wanted to explain where that friend went or what happened to him and refused to accept that once the brain ceased to function that's pretty much all there was to it. Maybe wisps of smoke from the campfire introduced the idea of nontangible spirits?

So he talks about "spandrels", which is an architectural term for those dead spaces in a room design which aren't functional, but which we fill with statues, hangings, ornaments -- applied to things like spirits, the afterlife or deities they are the spandrels we've created to explain things that mystify us and for which we have no explanation.

I think all that makes a great deal of sense. Certainly more sense to me than a fickle Deity who gives a spit for the fate of artificial human nationalities, online games or the number of Amens you say on Sunday morning. The same loving Deity who regularly slaughters thousands of innocent men, women and children in tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes. Nobody's ever adequately explained that one to me.

Here's one to cook your noodle.

Why does 'heaven' exist as an inducement to treat people properly during life?

Does this just amount to religon being a bribe for good behavior?

Isn't that sad if it were true? Shouldn't you just be cool to everyone without the 'big payoff'?

You can't prove it. Since you can't prove it, quit telling people they -must- believe or they will go to hell.

Say you BELIEVE they will go to hell.

I understand belief.

Oops. Sorry. Small thing I forgot to mention earlier:

Even if we imagined your book to BE correct for a moment, Champie, forcing us to conclude that a tendency to believe incredible and indefensible things, to the point of being willing to kill and destroy for them, is hard-wired into our brains ...

Would this really be something we wouldn't want to try to rid ourselves of? We have other evolutionary traits we strive to supress because they're not beneficial (and in fact are harmful) in today's world. Why would this be any different? Maybe it was useful at one time, assuming your favored theory is true at all. But in a world where one person can potentially kill millions with a single stroke, I would argue that unreasoning belief is the last thing that will guarantee survival.

Actually that one is pretty easy to explain. Since life would just be a brief "evolutionary" stage in our existence, and the after life would be just another stage, then death is meaningless from God's point of view. Since death would not be the end of our existence, it would merely be the beginning of the next stage, then death isn't bad or good. It just is. God would see it sort of like us being asleep (alive) and then waking up (dead). No big deal. So from the point of view of an eternal after life, death is meaningless.

I should think that true believers would celebrate every time someone died. After all, they are in paradise now. Lucky bastards!

well, you gloss over a few assertions that you yourself made about 10 pages back. We don't need to rehash them here ("culture is created" was an interesting one that does deserve a mention).

As a far as being up front about my approach to introducing this material to the forums...

well, I didnt want to start by saying "I read a book.."

My participation in this thread was an exercise for me personally (presenting a new and unfamiliar book as an argument). I have long ago abandoned the notion that I should do anything in these forums with the intent of enlightening anyone (what a futile an arrogant idea). I did this for me to see how people respond to unfamiliar ideas (especially about religion). When it was clear I was doing a poor job of presenting the material I gave up the source.

At least I was TRYING to present a coherent idea rather than regurgatating bits and peices of my life long biases and opinions.

And imagine if there was no criticisms of a book about religous thought! That would be spectacular. Therefore, arguing that some disagree with the author is not an argument at all, but I appreciate your effort to delve further.

To suggest taht someone read a book and tell me what they think is also absurd. Besides, like I said, I wasnt trying to educate anyone, but present an idea and see who responds and how they respond. It was a pleasure to find others who were able to comprehend the mess I presented and others who had made similar reading choices. You are not one of them.

But it wouldn't have been the same thread without you! So, I am happy you joined in and posed some questions.

I for one, found your two's exchange to be extremely interesting. Thanks for posting. In fact, this whole thread is very intersting and I hope others will feel welcome to post their thoughts.

The flaming is minimum and the thoughfulness is pretty large. How unsual for an online forum!

So please, everyone, keep it coming!!

Again, you miss the point...

The point is that the brain is hard-wired for religious thought. Irrational behavior is part of the brain too. Why should it matter if its secular irrationality or religious irrationality?

Also, when did it become possible for one person to kill millions with a single stroke? Recently in human history? YES.

Perhaps you've never considered that biological evolution and social evolution happen on different time scales.

Look Alex, I tried to present the idea a BELIEF of mine until I couldn't pull it off. Then I gave up the source and explained what I was trying to do. If you are hurt because I think your ideas are as incoherent as mine, then fine. I don't have all the answers and I DO appreciate thoughtful people engaging in this sort of conversation.

We aren't adversaries.

See, this is why I feel a that pang of regret when a Bible-carrying Christian starts talking about how 'jesus' saved them. Yes, Jesus may have been an inspiration, and his teachings may have provided a gridwork to rebuild your life around. But he didn't rebuild your life, *YOU* did. *YOU* decided to use those examples, *YOU* turned thought into action, and *YOU* expended the effort to see it through and into reality.

I obviously can't speak for Jesus, but from what I've read of him, I think he'd be more impressed with your efforts, than having you attribute your hard-won successes to him.

To use another recent example, watch the First season of Deadliest Catch. One of the boat captains is a Born-Again Christian. He baited his traps with Frozen Salmon. Nomally Salmon is the best bait for crab, but the Frozen Samlon was not working. He pulled his pots and had caught next to nothing. He re-baited his traps with fresh Cod and dropped them in the same spot. When he next pulled his pots, they were nearly overflowing.

Did he thank his years of expereince with Crab Fishing for the turn around? Did he thank his knowledge for the success? No. He thanked Jesus. He made himself into a mindless tool in Jesus' hand. He took all the gifts God gave him, all the pain and struggles he's gone through to get where he is, the very Free Will that made him into God's image, and discarded it all as worthless and meaningless.

I understand "Thank you God for giving me the tools to do this." or "Thank you God for teaching me the will I needed to succeed." or "Thank you God for guiding me here so that I may make the best of myself." But never "Thank you Jesus for making me who I am." or "Thank you Jesus for doing this for me." You can lead an man to Opportunity, but cannot make him grasp it, only he can do that.

Please don't belittle yourself. I'm sure God would be upset to see you putting down one of his greatest creations.

Philosophical question:

Who is the most moral: A man who does good out of fear for his own mortal peril? Or a man who does good out of the kindness of his heart?


I could accept that, Vares, but it's not the normal answer I get from believers. Normally I hear things like "God's reasons are not always clear" or "they were sinners" (including 4-month old babies?) or "God moves in mysterious ways". All of which, to me, is a copout. Your offering makes much more logical sense, even though it still conflicts with most Christian teaching on how we must value Life. If Death is the beginning of Paradise, why wait?

Well gee... I'm sorry for losing track in a 30+ page thread.

Doesn't providing an "escape option" from going to hell prove God's love and forgiveness? An unloving God would just throw us down on this earth, ignore us, then let us suffer forever after death; that is not only option. Remember that people are choosing hell rather than to accept Christ, because they have been given the options, and have been told.




A minor discrepancy, which I honestly don't know the answer to. If you are genuinely interested then I will do some research and get back to you.



Exactly.

Lewis

Another good one is "101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History" by Gary Greenburg (President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York). In it we find out that archaeology has strong arguments against the Exodus and the genocide of the Canaanites (who were the Phoenicians) by the Israelites.

The Canaanite god Baal was actually a God of Fertility, the son of their highest god El, who was slain and rose from the dead (conquering 'Mot' or death).... thousands of years before the story of Jesus. The Old Testament made him into a demon in a massive propaganda campaign to discredit the Canaanites for their practices of infant sacrifice and temple prostitution. In Canaan, every town had their own Baal as a local god. He was the deified rival of Yahweh.

Most of the normal Christian folks I know have no idea how deeply their beliefs are rooted in Sumerian, Egyptian or Canaanite lore. And when I try to explain it their eyes glaze over.

UGH -

those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

The above opinion was the EXACT justification given during the Inquisition.

The basis was they would force others to convert to Christianity before executing them- but it was all well and good becuase their soul was saved.

*****
It is all fine that you believe that those who dont accept Christ will go to hell. Its another thing entirely to push that belief on them.

Again theres no way to know for sure unless you die. Thats why its called Faith, I suppose.

I dont think I could ever be sure enough of any belief in anything that Id tell other people they were damned.

Im personally of the "fence sitter" group -Though Id love to have more faith, especially of the blind variety.

A closed mind is a less troubled one after all

I think that the issue comes from the fact that since God created all things, that he would have to create Hell. The debate is that a loving God would not create a hell, and that the concept of "salvation" is really more along the lines of spiritual extortion. Like paying the Mafia for "protection" on a godly scale. It's less of "accept my gift because I love you" and more of "join, for the reasons we want you to, or die".

This very statement is why you have 36 pages of angry retorts. People don't like being told that they are being judged and going to hell because Lewis Nerd says so. What is so bloody hard to understand about that? You are just being rude and obnoxious like you want people to hate you and keep arguing, which I am failing to see the point in because obviously the ignorance and self-righteousness that you wrap yourself in are quite comfortable and the possibility of you even seeing another persons point of view is unattainable.

So according to you every Jew, every Muslim, every atheist, evey Buddhist, Every Hindu, every Pagan, every Agnostic and so on and so forth is a worthless piece of shit that doesn't deserve to be saved for not accepting Christ as their personal savior and that they should and deserve to go to hell??????

All I have to say to that is you come across as a RACIST BIGOT & ANTISEMITE

No, it doesn't. The mere fact that an all powerful God even allows someone, ANYONE, to exist in eternal pain and suffering means that It is not all forgiving and all loving. If God was truly all loving, there is no way It would be able to allow that manner of suffering. Why can't a person be forgiven after death? All forgiving means just that, all forgiving. Any time, any where. In fact, it also implies that the person doesn't even have to ask for it, that it will just be given by default.

Add to that the fact that freewill doesn't exist, that no one really ever chooses anything. No one would choose to be in eternal pain and suffer.

And yes, of course I am really interested in hearing how you can explain those two passages. Since one must be incorrect, that casts doubts on all the other passages. Don't you want to know how to reconcile them? You are basing your faith on this book, so I would think that you would be very curious how those two passages can exist in conflict with each other. After all, you have a vested interest.

Oh, and please do me the courtesy of dispensing with the sarcasm. I am respectful enough not to be derisive to you, please do the same for me.

Not my choice.... I'm only telling you what the Bible says.



That's not what I'm saying at all. Salvation through Christ is open to ANYONE - even you - regardless of what they may believe now. It's an unconditional free gift by the grace of God to all who choose to ask for it.



That oversteps the boundary of acceptability, and consider yourself reported for it. Have you noticed that despite extreme provocation, I haven't had to resort to profanities anywhere in this thread?

Lewis

Lewis, touting it around like it's a "free gift", one of the most ridiculed piles ever to reach Xtian rhetoric, actually hurts your argument.

Because it's not free, and therefore not a gift. It's a threat. I'll repost this for you.

A loving God would not create a hell, and the concept of "salvation" is really more along the lines of spiritual extortion. Like paying the Mafia for "protection" on a godly scale. It's less of "accept my gift because I love you" and more of "join, for the reasons we want you to, or die".

Exactly! I would think that any devout Christian would wake up every morning HOPING to die that day. Longing for it. Praying for it in fact. And that they would celebrate anytime a loved one died.

No matter what else can be said about suicide bombers, there is no question about their faith in what they believe. Whether you agree with their believe or not, you can't deny that they TRULY believe in it.

Go for it I double dog dare you. AR me all you want. If you have the right to tell us that every NON christian is going to hell etc. than I have the right to call you a RACIST BIGOT ANTISEMITE for it. You are NOT GOD remember that and are an utterly despicable person for using GODS WORDS to spew HATE and VITRIOLE in judgement of others. What do you expect? The rest of us hell dwellers to send you flowers and say thanks for pointing out that we are all damned to hell and are less than human for not accepting jesus.


(now would be a good time for a res mod to close this thread methinks.)

Jen, calm down. His Bible says that those who judge will be judged themselves accordingly. So, let his God judge him according to his Law, the Law Lewis has chosen for himself.

Don't let his negativity fill you with hate, or you'll find yourself committing equivalent evil.