"When I die and I discover there is nothing there and I cease to exist, it's okay."

2»

Comments

  • not if there isn't any afterlife !
  • mousethief wrote: »
    @NOprophet_NØprofit — No argument.

    Just realized I absent-mindedly used to the word "trump" in my response and for that I will burn in hell.

    I guess we'll have to get used to each other then.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Jesus' morality was no different from the world's morality: the appendix to "An Experiment in Criticism" makes this clear. If all we have of Jesus is a good moral teacher, there's no reason to be Christian at all. And even then we have to strip away all the things he says about the afterlife to get down to the merely moral teachings themselves, an exercise in circular reasoning if there ever was one. Paul was accused of preaching of two new gods in Athens: Jesus, and Resurrection. I don't think leaving out the afterlife is satisfactory from a Christian perspective. I don't think it's the Gospel at all.

    It isn't gospel, but it may be true that Jesus was a moral teacher and example, and nothing supernaturally more: that there is no resurrection, and no after life.
    That at most, we live on through our children, or sans children, by those we've associated with during life. Or both.
    That we should be living today, focussed on being good people and helping others.
    The future will take care of itself, and if this includes afterlife, that will be another adventure. Doesn't matter presently. And it should not matter presently, because faith has been taken to such extremes such that people are okay with the suffering of others, exploiting the planet for gain and harming everything in the world. Because faith seems to trump works, and seems to have for a very long time.

    That isn't faith, that's bullshit.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    We all thought you meant to type "bump" but suffered a slip of the finger.
  • demasdemas Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Jesus' morality was no different from the world's morality:

    This is probably a tangent, but, really? Because I'm not sure there really is a single 'world's morality'. There seem to be a lot of different moralities held by different societies over humanity's long history. The morality of Sparta, the morality of Leviticus, the morality of Confucius, of Mohammad, surely these are not all the same, and surely Jesus' morality was also different?

    And I can think of a number of reasons it would be a good idea for the murderers and slavers of Boko Haram to adopt the merely moral teachings of Jesus, both for their sake and their victims, even if they did not then go the next step of believing in him as their Lord and Savior...
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Jesus' morality was no different from the world's morality: the appendix to "An Experiment in Criticism" makes this clear. If all we have of Jesus is a good moral teacher, there's no reason to be Christian at all. And even then we have to strip away all the things he says about the afterlife to get down to the merely moral teachings themselves, an exercise in circular reasoning if there ever was one. Paul was accused of preaching of two new gods in Athens: Jesus, and Resurrection. I don't think leaving out the afterlife is satisfactory from a Christian perspective. I don't think it's the Gospel at all.

    It isn't gospel, but it may be true that Jesus was a moral teacher and example, and nothing supernaturally more: that there is no resurrection, and no after life.
    That at most, we live on through our children, or sans children, by those we've associated with during life. Or both.
    That we should be living today, focussed on being good people and helping others.
    The future will take care of itself, and if this includes afterlife, that will be another adventure. Doesn't matter presently. And it should not matter presently, because faith has been taken to such extremes such that people are okay with the suffering of others, exploiting the planet for gain and harming everything in the world. Because faith seems to trump works, and seems to have for a very long time.

    That isn't faith, that's bullshit.

    I agree. But this is what sells it. Do whatever you want, just pour some water on your rose of reverence periodically preferably by giving money to a church and telling others how great God is to let you make a pile of money so as to give to it, or if you're really old-fashioned, get a deathbed baptism like Constantine. You're good to go, do what ever you want. Which is why Christianity's bad reputation continues to grow. I'm particularly enjoying watching Christians protest COVID-19 restrictions.
  • Do you mean, what sells Christianity (as in, what makes converts)? Because that's not what I've seen. Most of the assholes I've met with self-seeking attitudes like you mention don't bother with conversion. They don't need it in a largely post-Christian society. Most people don't care anymore, and the assholes don't actually believe it anyway, so they're not worried about how they stand vis-a-vis God. So why bother?
  • I do not want a religious ceremony
    mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    @NOprophet_NØprofit — No argument.

    Just realized I absent-mindedly used to the word "trump" in my response and for that I will burn in hell.

    I guess we'll have to get used to each other then.

    Can I come? I mean, that would be perfect wouldn't it.
  • demas wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Jesus' morality was no different from the world's morality:

    This is probably a tangent, but, really? Because I'm not sure there really is a single 'world's morality'. There seem to be a lot of different moralities held by different societies over humanity's long history. The morality of Sparta, the morality of Leviticus, the morality of Confucius, of Mohammad, surely these are not all the same, and surely Jesus' morality was also different?

    And I can think of a number of reasons it would be a good idea for the murderers and slavers of Boko Haram to adopt the merely moral teachings of Jesus, both for their sake and their victims, even if they did not then go the next step of believing in him as their Lord and Savior...

    I can't find a good overview of Lewis's argument in the appendix of Abolition of Man, but he basically looks at various beliefs of various religions and teachings and find that they line up admirably in many areas. That you can find an immoral group that has bad morals really is beside the point.
  • I recall that too. In fact, he says, "“Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you want.” The basic concept of sexual chastity is a given. Similarly, while cultures disagree about things like capital punishment, killing in war, and the like, they all agree that you may not simply kill anyone you want at any time for any reason. The basic concept of murder is a given. (I'm talking here of morality on a culture-wide basis--you can always find the odd individual who appears to be totally amoral, or anti-moral. And I suppose in some cases it might extend so far as a minor cult, though this is very very rare. But not a full-scale human culture.)

    Really, you can do this for all the basic categories. Theft is outlawed in every culture. But we differ in exactly where we draw the line--for example, the concept of eminent domain would outrage a great many people, including some who live in countries where it exists and they simply haven't come across it before. Parents are entitled to special consideration from children in every culture, though in some it is legally enforced and in others this is handled through social pressure--and how long, and to what extent one must honor/obey/support parents is a matter of debate. But that the basic obligation exists is not under dispute in any culture.

    So human morality is sort of like a species. You can find individual examples all over the place, and each is slightly different from the others. But they are all recognizably one species.
  • demasdemas Shipmate
    Sure, its all cladistics - but this is a bit like defining a man as a four limbed warm blooded creature and then claiming that people are no different to squirrels.

    Many cultures historically and even today believe that slavery is morally acceptable. Sure, most cultures believe that "you must not simply have any woman you want". But there is a big difference between the version of that which flows from the underlying belief in the humanity of that woman, and the version which flows from the belief that the woman must be left alone because she is some other man's property.

    "The basic concept of murder is a given." No it isn't. Sure all cultures have the concept of unacceptable killing. But a Spartan killing a Helot wasn't unacceptable in their culture, and can’t be just ascribed to single amoral/immoral individuals. Likewise we could think about abortion, euthanasia and killing an intruder with a deadly weapon as contested categories of killing, and that’s just within the post-Christian West.

    The quote I was reacting to was “Jesus' morality was no different from the world's morality:”, not “every society has some conception of acceptable and unacceptable acts”


  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited February 27
    demas wrote: »
    Sure, its all cladistics - but this is a bit like defining a man as a four limbed warm blooded creature and then claiming that people are no different to squirrels.

    Reminded of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/opinion/humans-animals-philosophy.html
    mousethief wrote: »
    Jesus' morality was no different from the world's morality: the appendix to "An Experiment in Criticism" makes this clear. If all we have of Jesus is a good moral teacher, there's no reason to be Christian at all. And even then we have to strip away all the things he says about the afterlife to get down to the merely moral teachings themselves, an exercise in circular reasoning if there ever was one. Paul was accused of preaching of two new gods in Athens: Jesus, and Resurrection. I don't think leaving out the afterlife is satisfactory from a Christian perspective. I don't think it's the Gospel at all.

    It isn't gospel, but it may be true that Jesus was a moral teacher and example, and nothing supernaturally more: that there is no resurrection, and no after life.
    That at most, we live on through our children, or sans children, by those we've associated with during life. Or both.
    That we should be living today, focussed on being good people and helping others.
    The future will take care of itself, and if this includes afterlife, that will be another adventure. Doesn't matter presently. And it should not matter presently, because faith has been taken to such extremes such that people are okay with the suffering of others, exploiting the planet for gain and harming everything in the world. Because faith seems to trump works, and seems to have for a very long time.

    That isn't faith, that's bullshit.

    I agree. But this is what sells it. Do whatever you want, just pour some water on your rose of reverence periodically preferably by giving money to a church and telling others how great God is to let you make a pile of money so as to give to it, or if you're really old-fashioned, get a deathbed baptism like Constantine. You're good to go, do what ever you want. Which is why Christianity's bad reputation continues to grow. I'm particularly enjoying watching Christians protest COVID-19 restrictions.

    Of course. It’s far easier to find ever more intricate ways to worship the Christian God than it is to follow Him. Particularly if we insist that worship must be a collective or corporate activity since that will lend itself to much more convenient, time-limited activities which only require a bit of audience participation. Convenience sells, even in the Church.

    Far easier than trying to adhere to even one of Jesus’s “You have heard that it was said” statements in Matthew 5.
Sign In or Register to comment.