Question??.........."Will They Get To Heaven?"

[youbet]

Going back to OP and his original question.........

Zipper, why do you ask? Why do you give a sh*t? Were you just laying on the rug in front of the hearth when something woke you and you needed to know this? What?

 

[benny]

Going back to OP and his original question.........

Zipper, why do you ask? Why do you give a sh*t? Were you just laying on the rug in front of the hearth when something woke you and you needed to know this? What?

There are those who consider that religion, any religion, is a disease. Others are fervent believers and are convinced there is a heaven as there is a hell. Problem is that no one has been to either place and come back to tell us. So a thread such as this may be intellectually stimulating but can not, by definition, be conclusive. Of course it would be the ultimate irony if Zipper ever ended up in heaven. But, if so, that we will never know either.

 

[sgeeeee]

[quote='max' ]
. . . Problem is that no one has been to either place and come back to tell us. . .
[/quote]Maybe not, but I did work for Satan for about 5 years.

 

[bosco]

I believe these folks are usually referred to as "pitchers" and "catchers".
Let's keep our sports metaphors operative. BTW, this must be the dumbest topic I've seen since I signed on.

JG

how about "tight ends" and "wide receivers"?

I agree with your assessment of the topic.

 

[PsyopRanger]

This is my continued question…

Atheists want the right not to believe, which in my Christian opinion is fine.

However, where is the mutual respect for those that choose to believe?

These threads poke fun at believers and right wing figures which makes me further lose respect for the atheists I am offering my respect to because of their lack of mutual respect for the other side’s beliefs.

I believe only God can judge a person’s deeds and if you ask for true, honest forgiveness of your wrongdoings, you will be forgiven. I was also forced fed a lot of Christian and Catholic BS for years but I continued searching until I found a section of Christianity that I agreed with. I don’t agree with a lot of the dogma and traditional crap but I do believe in living at a higher moral standard and doing things for the greater good rather than living simply for myself.

While I am a Christian, I also respect the rights of those who do not believe and I am not out trying to convert people, I believe a person has to accept faith of their own free will, NOT be “talked/coerced” into it with the tactics of guilt, fear and submission for fear of “eternal damnation”

It seems many here have seen the ultra-conservative side of Christianity and that is what your view of the whole religion is?

Maybe I am wrong, but why can we not respect each others differences and beliefs instead of constantly challenging and debating these areas?

Don’t the liberals preach tolerance?? That goes both ways.

My 2 cents.

 

[donheff]

This is my continued question…

Atheists want the right not to believe, which in my Christian opinion is fine.

However, where is the mutual respect for those that choose to believe?

These threads poke fun at believers and right wing figures which makes me further lose respect for the atheists I am offering my respect to because of their lack of mutual respect for the other side’s beliefs.

Psyop:

I don't like to denigrate people because of their religious beliefs and didn't participate in any of the more "humorous" aspects of this thread (although a lot of my lack of comfort had more to do with the borderline anti-gay aspects than anti-Christian). But if you look at the various threads where "atheists" have "attacked" Christians you will see that it is always fundamentalists that are attacked - not mainstream Christians. The "attacks" are really self defense. The religious right regularly attacks "godless atheists" and "secular humanists." Even non-fundamentalist right wingers regularly attack liberals for their religious beliefs. Have you ever listened to the vicious attacks Catholic Bill O'Rightly makes on secular humanists? If I had to espouse a religion it would be "secular humanism" so I consider those attacks to be directed toward my beliefs. And the religious right forcefully attempts to impose its social agenda on those of us who don't agree. It is refreshing to see the most vocal of these dangerous zealots exposed as hypocrites.

 

[brewer12345]

What donheff said. Pllus:

I have news for you, POR. Its not just the non-religious who make fun of walking anuses like Haggard, Dobson, etc., it is also those of us who are religious but who find the radical agenda of the nutballs repulsive.

 

[azanon]

Believe it or not, there was a time I would write something that sounded just like Gumby's (since i used to be a christain). I'm well versed in both the OT and NT; even have 6 college semeter hours in it. The Bible is a cleaverly written book and i'm not surprised its the #1 overall best seller, because it has an explanation for everything (albeit severely lacking in many cases).

There's some nice feel good versus in there even if you're not a believer though, and I think its an important book to study and be aware of whether you're a believer or not. I don't know if it is a mistaken to recommend a book so powerful as to have created 2 billion followers, but I guess some things are worth the risk.

 

[laurence]

What donheff said. Pllus:

I have news for you, POR. Its not just the non-religious who make fun of walking anuses like Haggard, Dobson, etc., it is also those of us who are religious but who find the radical agenda of the nutballs repulsive.

Amen to that! From another guy who goes to church weekly and finds all the Swaggart/Haggart/Dobson crowd creepy and evil.

 

[youbet]

What donheff said. Pllus:

I have news for you, POR. Its not just the non-religious who make fun of walking anuses like Haggard, Dobson, etc., it is also those of us who are religious but who find the radical agenda of the nutballs repulsive.

And it's even broader than the Haggard, Dobson, etc., crowd. Look at the wierd antics of the bead-clickers headquartered in Rome. Thank goodness those folks are letting their leadership know they aren't going to tolerate the crap anymore!

 

[astromeria]

It's my husband's fundamentalist sister who shuns us, not us atheists shunning her. We extend the olive branch often. She (her whole family, even the kids about my daughter's age) declined to attend my daughter's wedding.

When politicians need to claim atheism/secular humanism in order to get elected, I'll start worrying about discrimination against Christians. When humanists as well as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists stop being figures of fear or fun in American popular culture, I'll start thinking about discrimination against Christians. In fact, when fundamentalist Christians stop berating the more liberal Christian sects, I'll start taking their issues seriously. It would help if they's start by behaving in a "Chistian manner" toward the lepers (ostracized) of our society: people with AIDS, gay people, poor people. What would Jesus do, eh?!

 

[youbet]

aspects than anti-Christian). But if you look at the various threads where "atheists" have "attacked" Christians you will see that it is always fundamentalists that are attacked - not mainstream Christians.

I don't think "always" is correct Don. There were numerous mean-spiritied criticisms of folks who believe in an afterlife, whether that belief stemmed from a fundamentalist or more progressive point of view.

 

[azanon]

So true astromeria.... good (accurate) post.

 

[HFWR]

nm...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

What would Jesus do, eh?!

What indeed? Look, in our family we have a bit of everything. Catholics,
Protestants (including hard core conservatives)
atheists, agnostics, and several of degrees of all these;
plus some stuff you maybe never heard of. I am happy for all who
believe whatever they want and if it provides a lifestyle and a comfort
level, so much the better. Unless their views negatively impact me,
I have no problem. Of course, in the real world there is always that danger.

JG

 

[youbet]

What indeed? Look, in our family we have a bit of everything. Catholics,
Protestants (including hard core conservatives)
atheists, agnostics, and several of degrees of all these;
plus some stuff you maybe never heard of. I am happy for all who
believe whatever they want and if it provides a lifestyle and a comfort
level, so much the better. Unless their views negatively impact me,
I have no problem. Of course, in the real world there is always that danger.

JG

JG, that's a great attitude!

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[youbet]

Yep, I've noticed that same thing Gumby. Very well stated. Thanks for that post.

 

[brewer12345]

I'm not sure I buy your analysis, Gumby. Rethuglicans have tried wrapping themselves in exreme religious views in many places (especially in the South and West) because the idiot "core" voters they think they can carry to get their 51% respond to this nonsense. Centrists tend to ignore this stuff, and those of us who are religious but Democrat/liberal wouldn't even think of voting for these slimebags and generally separate politics from our faith. So when I see some right wing thug posing as the "Xtian" candidate, all it translates to for me is "religious extremist roughly equivalent to a Jihadist."

Frankly, unless the Pope or one of his understudies (bishop, priest, etc.) endorses a candidate, I will remain unconvinced that any of these so-called "Xtian" politicians are any more religious/Christian/moral than a used condom.

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[brewer12345]

Gumby, I think we are operating under different premises. You seem to believe that people can be convinced by the positioning of the other side. That might work for the centrists, but for Inbred Jed the Xtian Conservative (and Patrick Fitgerald & Gerald Fitzpatrick, the Upper East Side gay couple) I doubt that is a valid assumption. Since all politicians care about these days is getting to 51% of voters (not building a coalition/consensus), we will continue to see more divisive campaigns based on meaningless "wedge" issues.

 

[samclem]

Just out of curiosity--Did Jesus ask his followers to care for the weak, or did he tell them to have their government do it with money seized from other people? I think only the later course of action requires religion to drive a political solution.

But, your observation is a good one. There's a fundamental schism in the Republicam party between "social conservatives" (generally Christians who want the government to force their view of what s "right" on everyone) and limited-government conservatives (who want less intrusion by government in peples lives). These views are fundamentally incompatible, but both groups hold their nose and vote Republican because they fear the alternative (a bigger government that doesn't impose "morals").

I just wish religious groups would tend to their knitting without demanding to put the coercive power of government at their disposal. Do you think the best way to help the poor is to give them money? Okay, give them all you want to give them, but don't ask the government to collect alms for you. Do you think homosexuality is wrong? Okay, go ahead and fight to keep them out of private organizations (e.g. the Boy Scouts, your church, etc) but don't use the power of government to discriminate against gays for employment in the public sector.

Some issues can't be handled this way, but most can. Both religion and government are better off when kept separate.

 

[yakers]

Its worse that that, one of the problems of getting religion mixed up in politics is that you get politics mixed up in religion. The republican right wants to use the state to advocate conservative religious practices. They specifically are attacking liberal churches who have a socially active agenda, like opposing the current war. My church is literally under attack by the current administration sending in the IRS while conservative churches continue their political agendas. Getting rid of liberal churches is part of the republican plan for getting rid of liberals.

http://tinyurl.com/yk9ug4

 

[donheff]

Bruce Bawer's "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity" makes this claim very well.

 

[brewer12345]

Its worse that that, one of the problems of getting religion mixed up in politics is that you get politics mixed up in religion. The republican right wants to use the state to advocate conservative religious practices. They specifically are attacking liberal churches who have a socially active agenda, like opposing the current war. My church is literally under attack by the current administration sending in the IRS while conservative churches continue their political agendas. Getting rid of liberal churches is part of the republican plan for getting rid of liberals.

http://tinyurl.com/yk9ug4

If you listen to any radio profgram from "Focus on the Family" (James Donson's platform for gay-bashing), it sounds an awful lot like a political advertisement for a certain party. Yet they mysteriously don't seem to have any tax issues.

I think Pope Benedict and his minions are safe.