Atheists believe in neither heaven nor hell. Heaven and hell are the creations of religion, so whatever criteria is required for admission into either are determined by whichever religion is being discussed for the purpose of example.
Under the christian doctrine, a person who leads a moral lifestyle yet does not acknowledge god will not get into heaven. So, if christianity is reality, then an atheist who is good will not get into heaven, assuming that it exists.
...
See... that's a raw deal.
If God does exist... it doesn't matter what Atheists believe or don't believe. And Christian Doctrine places this condition (belief) on us in order to be rewarded with heaven. The Atheist (or Jew or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu) that does good deeds and treats and respects people and God's creation with a good heart... well, does God see these people and condemn them or ignore them or simply turns a blind eye to them?
And a Christian that truely believes in his heart... but, screws over his co-workers and/or neighbors (falling under the temptation of Satan)... asks for and receives forgiveness from Jesus... he gets in?
Somehow... it just don't seem right.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
See... that's a raw deal.
If God does exist... it doesn't matter what Atheists believe or don't believe. And Christian Doctrine places this condition (belief) on us in order to be rewarded with heaven. The Atheist (or Jew or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu) that does good deeds and treats and respects people and God's creation with a good heart... well, does God see these people and condemn them or ignore them or simply turns a blind eye to them?
And a Christian that truely believes in his heart... but, screws over his co-workers and/or neighbors (falling under the temptation of Satan)... asks for and receives forgiveness from Jesus... he gets in?
Somehow... it just don't seem right.
I wouldn't call it a raw deal. It just doesn't make very much sense. It doesn't really address the concept of remorse to the extent that it should eventually be addressed if society is really interested in inching its way toward a utopian environment.
Before a person can "change" his ways, he must first be able to admit that he is wrong. I think the assumption with asking forgiveness from christ is that in order for a person to ask for that forgiveness, he must've at some point seen the wrong in his actions.
The "raw deal" is the assumption that people will take advantage of christ's forgiveness and commit wrongdoings because they know that they will eventually be forgiven by christ. That, of course, isn't fair to the rest of us.
But, that scenario assumes that said person was committing wrong-doings "knowingly" in the presence of god. I don't think it's possible to truly acknowledge god's existence while committing acts that are against his orders.
And so when that person exhibits a pattern of committing wrong-doings while later asking forgiveness, we're not witnessing a person who is "slyly" defying god. I think we're instead witnessing someone who is struggling to be moral under the direction of religion. It's almost like an inner-conflict. If it wasn't, then that person would not be asking forgiveness.
And that's where we find the shortcoming of religion. It doesn't account for human nature. That is, it doesn't inspire true remorse. On the other hand, it is possible to feel remorse without a fear or acknowledgment of god.
And I think followers of christianity know this. They know that asking christ for forgiveness doesn't exactly mean feeling remorseful. That is, it isn't a guarantee of change. And so they become suspicious of one another. Suspicion leads to distrust, and distrust is the root of all evil, IMO.
I think most people in the world live day to day perceiving other people on a "scale" of importance, relevance...etc. The scale is hardly ever balanced. When it is, that person has achieved trust. That person has the ability to look upon another person without considering importance, relevance...etc.
For some people, those scales are really tipped. Those people end up in prison or they become the CEO of a major corporation. They just have lost touch with their ability to see people on an even keel. But, instead of looking down the scale, they're always looking up the scale. That is, at least, the psychologist's perception of anti-social behavior. The truly criminally insane harbor a deep-seated self-hatred that causes them to live in fear of their fellow man. They act out on this fear by "asserting" their place on the other end of the scale. They "assert" by depriving others of basic human rights.
That's where god comes into play. By identifying with a being that is outside of the scale, people suddenly feel comfortable in their own skin. Since they've lost the concept of a "balanced" scale through years and years of living in a distrusting environment, they finally discover peace of mind by being on the other end of the scale -the "higher" end.
And I believe it works. But, the problem is not the "raw deal" part of it. The problem is just that it isn't logical. And by that I mean that it still utilizes the scale. In reality, there should be no scale.
Comments
See... that's a raw deal.
If God does exist... it doesn't matter what Atheists believe or don't believe. And Christian Doctrine places this condition (belief) on us in order to be rewarded with heaven. The Atheist (or Jew or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu) that does good deeds and treats and respects people and God's creation with a good heart... well, does God see these people and condemn them or ignore them or simply turns a blind eye to them?
And a Christian that truely believes in his heart... but, screws over his co-workers and/or neighbors (falling under the temptation of Satan)... asks for and receives forgiveness from Jesus... he gets in?
Somehow... it just don't seem right.
Hail, Hail!!!
I wouldn't call it a raw deal. It just doesn't make very much sense. It doesn't really address the concept of remorse to the extent that it should eventually be addressed if society is really interested in inching its way toward a utopian environment.
Before a person can "change" his ways, he must first be able to admit that he is wrong. I think the assumption with asking forgiveness from christ is that in order for a person to ask for that forgiveness, he must've at some point seen the wrong in his actions.
The "raw deal" is the assumption that people will take advantage of christ's forgiveness and commit wrongdoings because they know that they will eventually be forgiven by christ. That, of course, isn't fair to the rest of us.
But, that scenario assumes that said person was committing wrong-doings "knowingly" in the presence of god. I don't think it's possible to truly acknowledge god's existence while committing acts that are against his orders.
And so when that person exhibits a pattern of committing wrong-doings while later asking forgiveness, we're not witnessing a person who is "slyly" defying god. I think we're instead witnessing someone who is struggling to be moral under the direction of religion. It's almost like an inner-conflict. If it wasn't, then that person would not be asking forgiveness.
And that's where we find the shortcoming of religion. It doesn't account for human nature. That is, it doesn't inspire true remorse. On the other hand, it is possible to feel remorse without a fear or acknowledgment of god.
And I think followers of christianity know this. They know that asking christ for forgiveness doesn't exactly mean feeling remorseful. That is, it isn't a guarantee of change. And so they become suspicious of one another. Suspicion leads to distrust, and distrust is the root of all evil, IMO.
I think most people in the world live day to day perceiving other people on a "scale" of importance, relevance...etc. The scale is hardly ever balanced. When it is, that person has achieved trust. That person has the ability to look upon another person without considering importance, relevance...etc.
For some people, those scales are really tipped. Those people end up in prison or they become the CEO of a major corporation. They just have lost touch with their ability to see people on an even keel. But, instead of looking down the scale, they're always looking up the scale. That is, at least, the psychologist's perception of anti-social behavior. The truly criminally insane harbor a deep-seated self-hatred that causes them to live in fear of their fellow man. They act out on this fear by "asserting" their place on the other end of the scale. They "assert" by depriving others of basic human rights.
That's where god comes into play. By identifying with a being that is outside of the scale, people suddenly feel comfortable in their own skin. Since they've lost the concept of a "balanced" scale through years and years of living in a distrusting environment, they finally discover peace of mind by being on the other end of the scale -the "higher" end.
And I believe it works. But, the problem is not the "raw deal" part of it. The problem is just that it isn't logical. And by that I mean that it still utilizes the scale. In reality, there should be no scale.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825