Unconscious Christians
Posted on Thu, 08/19/2010 - 11:44 in Viewpoint
Christians have many friends who do not believe in God, and they often wonder to themselves, “Will these friends go to heaven?” It is a very important question that needs a satisfying answer. Will many of our friends who are both agnostic and even atheist be in heaven? When we look to Scriptures and use our minds, we see that the answer is ‘Yes’.
These people will indeed be in heaven. This is because they are actually Christians, they are just unaware of it. They are ‘unconscious Christians’.
They are probably not aware of it because I do not think that even Christians are really aware of it. There is one criterion by which one loves Christ and that is loving your neighbour. Whether you have faith in Jesus or not, if you love your neighbour, you ipso facto love Christ. It is one and the same. Many atheists and agnostics love their fellow human beings and do not discriminate or treat anybody unfairly, regardless of where they come from. Such ‘unconscious Christians’ are people who do not intellectually accept Christ, but effectively, they do. They love Christ through their hearts, if not their minds. They love their neighbours, and thereby love God.
This is confirmed in Scriptures. When Jesus is asked by a scholar of the Law, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" he answered by saying, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22: 36 – 39). Asked to name one law, Jesus instead named two. He says of the first commandment (loving God), that the second (loving your neighbor) is like it. He equated one with the other, so that we know that by loving our neighbour we thereby love God. This is why Scriptures also says “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar.” (I John 4: 20).
Logically, the concept of an ‘unconscious Christian’ makes sense because we know that human beings are made in the “image and likeness” of God. The human being alone among all creatures on earth is a self-conscious person. We are replicas of God, who is the eternal self-conscious Person. So because every human being is a replica of God, it follows that if you love human beings, you love God. This all makes sense.
Now in Scriptures, Jesus spoke about ‘unconscious Christians’. On the last day, when he is standing as judge before the throng of humanity, he says to those who are to partake in heaven, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink.” We recognize the ‘unconscious Christians’ by their reply, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?” They are genuinely surprised. They did not recognize Christ in this life. But Jesus says to them, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25: 31 – 40). These people did not recognize Christ but they loved him nonetheless. So here we see ‘unconscious Christians’ going to heaven.
Now this view of things makes sense to our consciences and our minds, because we know that God is not a ridiculous and absurd God who would punish to all eternity someone who never heard about him. God is all loving, all embracing, and there are many sinners who will be in heaven (Matthew 22: 32).
Another criterion by which one loves Christ is to love life (in all its forms). Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11: 25). All life that has ever existed on earth or in the entire universe was raised into being by Christ. All plants, trees, bugs, dogs, birds, and humans find their existence because of Christ. He is “the firstborn of all creation” and “by him all things were created” (Col 1: 15 – 16). Jesus is the person of God whose omnipresence sustains the whole of creation. “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). So, generally speaking, if one loves life, one loves Christ. And by this criterion, we see that many people who do not believe in God nevertheless love God. These people want to protect the earth, and keep it free from destruction, so they can hand it down faithfully to their descendents. For them all life is precious, and beautiful. They do not think this way because God has told them in Scriptures, but because he has told them in their hearts. They do not recognize God in Scriptures, but by definition, they are Christian. By loving their neighbours and loving life, they love all things Christ, though they know it not to be him.
There are two things that a Christian should take from all of this. The first is that loving God is not just assenting to Christ intellectually, i.e. having faith. You have to DO something. Remember the story of the Good Samaritan. You have to love, with a real and passionate love, like Christ, who thirsted for love (John 19: 28). For, St Paul verily warns us that if you have “a faith that can move mountains, but have not love” you are nothing. You are “a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” (I Corinthians 13: 1 - 2). Ouch.
The second thing to realize from this is that only a Christian can love and believe in life with complete interior freedom. Christians have a truth that sets them free. An ‘unconscious Christian’ has to deal with this troubling issue: if the energy of the sun (and the entire universe for that matter) will one day dissipate, and all life die, what is really the point in loving my neighbour? Why not get what is good for me while I can? One who knows in the back of their minds that one day the earth will fail to be here can be tempted to be an anarchist, in the strictest and pejorative sense of the word. A Hitler. An anti-Christ. Life is absurd. A Christian, on the other hand, knows the effect of the cause. Loving each other will one day bring the earth to completion. Long before the sun fades away, humanity’s love for itself will intensify until it culminates in the love of God, and the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven, and God will “be all in all” (I Corinthians 15: 28).
Email this pageViewpoints
Comment Policy
The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of CNS or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by CNS. Read more
Recent Comments
- "Unfortunately, this article
38 min 35 sec ago - That picture is such a
55 min 22 sec ago - Looks like Cayman not out of
57 min 22 sec ago - This is coming from a country
1 hour 11 min ago - Contempt of court is an
1 hour 12 min ago - all because of a lack of
1 hour 15 min ago - To all the people who go on
1 hour 30 min ago - One can collect more evidence
1 hour 32 min ago - there is also the
1 hour 33 min ago - I, for one, am throughly
1 hour 43 min ago
Search
Join Our Mailing List
Follow CNS via ...
Facebook Twitter RSS
Comments
The funny thing is: There
The funny thing is: There is no god ! ! ! Only humans and animals. The dangerous ones being the humans.
Quite frankly everyone of you
Quite frankly everyone of you in this forum need to read the book 'A NEW BEGINNING" by Florence Goring-Nozza
visit:Unibook.com/en/Dr-Florence-Nozza/A-New-Beginning
Personally, I don't like the
Atheism is a positive
Atheism is a positive disbelief in the existence of any god at all, not merely a lack of belief which may simply be agnosticism. To choose to disbelieve in the supernatural or to hold positively that there is no god is not a rational position. It is a chosen belief in the same way as people of faith have a belief. Accordingly there should be a name for you. You cannot disprove god's existence. Even if one concedes absence of evidence (which I do not) this does not equal proof of absence.
Totally incorrect. There is a
Totally incorrect. There is a difference between 'hard atheism' - "I believe there is no god" and 'soft atheism' : "I do not believe in god". There is a difference - look it up. Agnosticism is not a "lack of belief", it is not knowing whether there is a god or not.
Oh, and "you cannot disprove God's existence" ? That's your point? Really? You cannot disprove Santa's existence. You cannot disprove the Tooth Fairy's existence. You cannot disprove the existence of a duppy in my yard. You cannot disprove the existence of aliens at Pedro Castle. etc etc etc
My points were not incorrect.
My points were not incorrect. You're just trying being pedantic. The poster stated that he/she "chooses" to not believe in the supernatural. He/she did not say that they had weighed the evidence and come to the conclusion that there was no evidence in support of the supernatural. My point is that is not a rational approach although he/she has claimed to be a rational person.
Your last para is just silly. There is superabundant evidence in favour of the supernatural as is reflected in the fact that 95% of the world's population believes in a god. In order to rationally hold that there is no god you would at the minimum have to investigate and be able to dismiss all these phenomena as frauds.
Incidentally, many scientists do hold that aliens exist.
With all this talk about
With all this talk about "Christian" I would love to have some logical, rational person here try to do one seemingly simple thing:
Please give us the correct, concise and unqualified definition of the term "Christian".
This is critically important, because the essence of the original article is the writer's definition of "Christian". He proffered what to some amounts to a new and incorrect definition. So someone here must be able to give us the correct definition, for until we do all references to "Christianity" in this thread are vacuous.
For reference, an atheist here gave a clear, concise, logical and unchallenged definition of "atheist". So it follows that we can define "Christian"? No?
Go ahead!
(Good luck.)
What is Christian? What is
What is Christian?
What is Atheist?
I COULD CARE LESS...
How about -
WHAT IS a HUMAN BEING who is not brainwashed???
Because I am an atheist, I
Because I am an atheist, I can define "Christian" easily. Ironically, very few Christians, if any, can do it sensibly. They always bog down in details that favor their bias.
To be meaningful it must be defined from the perspective of an outsider, one who has no bias or vested interest in that or any other religion.
Definition: A Christian is simply one who believes in the existence of a god named Jesus and devotes some degree of loyalty to him. Everything else people may attach to that definition is debatable and subjective.
There are more than 30,000 distinct versions of Christianity active today. Each one filled with followers who are convinced they are right and the others are wrong, of course. This sort of confusion and division is inevitable when a belief system has no evidence or logical arguments to differentiate between reality and fantasy.
Your definition is
Your definition is ridiculously broad, subjective and inaccurate. It would include as Christians the Ku Klux Klan although there movement is expressly based on hate and is explicitly evil - the very opposite of Christ's message. Perhaps that is your intention so you can then discredit Christianity.
If taken literally it would exclude orthodox Christians who hold that Jesus Christ is God the Son and not "a god". This is not some detail, but is absolutely fundamental.
As an atheist you can afford
As an atheist you can afford to be careless with your definition of Christian. For a Christian this is a very serious matter.
There are not of course "more than 30,000 distinct versions of Christianity today" who are convinced that they are right and the others are wrong". In the vast majority of cases there is no theological difference on any fundamental issue. Distinctions are often according to country. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church is seen as a different denomination from the Greek Orthodox church when in reality they are not different "versions" of Christianity at all.
Why do I have the feeling
Why do I have the feeling that this is not sincere but an attempt to bait Christians into opposing each other? Divide and conquer, eh?
It's amazing how we
It's amazing how we "humanize", an all knowing, all loving, all merciful, awesome God. Remember, we are made in His image, not the other way around.
Badir, email me sometime. We need to sit and chat, I can see that you can find scriptures, let's talk about the truth.
Many conflicting opinions are
Many conflicting opinions are being expressed, therefore some of the people have to be wrong.
If Christianity proves to be wrong, then Christians will have enjoyed a happy, confident life, thriving on the promises found in the Holy Bible, and looking forward to the greatest delights that one could ever dream of.
Meanwhile the atheists pleasure in this life is no greater than the happiness that Christians enjoy, and if the atheists philosophy eventually turns out to be wrong, the result would be sad indeed.
I choose happiness with hope.
Burnard Tibbetts
I wonderful example of
I wonderful example of advocating religion as an opiate.
Mr. Burnard, what you have
Mr. Burnard, what you have offered is a paraphrase of an argument known as "Pascal's Wager". And, like just about every Christian I know, you are expert at taking things out of context. Pascal's basis for choosing to believe in God was based solely on probability (i.e. gambling theory). Pascal wrote: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is...God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?"
Pascal argues thus: Since our rational mind and reasoning capabilities are incapable of allowing us to render a sound decision regarding God's existence, then we must rely upon on a logic model that weighs the payoff versus the stakes gambled.
But therein lies the rub: What you have offered is - like Pascal - a purely selfish motive for belief that is based solely on saving your own backside and avoiding damnation. For a man who would condemn gambling, you seem to place an exquisitely high value on making a wager! Beats anything Las Vegas can offer, I tell ya. Mr. B., I am glad to welcome you into the ranks of the Pro-Gambling crowd. Come referendum time, I trust you will support introduction of casino gambling as you believe in gambling big!
But I am not finished with you yet:
For your wager assumes the 66-book Bible and the Baptist/Protestant verbal plenary, free-will, vicarious sacrifice belief model is the only true and correct way to worship Jehovah God. No? However, this model fails to take into account that within "Christianity", around 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in this world! Many of those are at odds with the way you believe and a significant number of those differences are "mortal" issues.
Pascal's Wager (and your reworded proposition) is built around belief systems that offers eternal bliss or total damnation, depending on the bettor's choice. Must I remind you that such a wager is not the exclusive territory of Christianity? Islam has an eternal paradise and a "hell". Thus, the same wager is valid in the context of belief in Islam. (Gee, throw in dying in a jihad-based suicide bombing and the kinda hot promise of 72 virgins in Paradise, and the blown-apart Muslim seem to have obtained an even better deal than yours!)
Within the definition of Christianity there are "Seventh Day" folks, Catholics, The Metropolitan (gay/lesbian) Church, to name a few. So you are saying that all these Christian believers will go to Heaven too? Yes or no?
So, what is it exactly that you are wagering? Are you wagering that your "Christian" belief system is true and others (such as Catholic worship of Mary is idolatry, Adventist legalism nullifies grace, the gay Christian churches are hell-bound, etc) are full of lies and therefore empty, fruitless wagers?
It is not enough to merely 'believe in Christianity' as many groups declare other groups to be hell-bound if they do not hold certain doctrines to be true. Paraphrasing your own words: Within Christianity, many conflicting opinions are being expressed, therefore some of the people have to be wrong. I am not as gracious. If there are so many conflicting dogmas and doctrines, then some so-called "Christians" are outright blatant liars. But who?
How do we bet wisely here? What Christian group is the right one to place our bet on? Lots of choices. What is the truth?
Please, be honest and do tell us plainly what you are betting on, for your argument is valid only if the terms of the wager are manifest. You were bold enough to sign your name, are you bold enough to give answer about your beliefs openly? Or will you do as so many "Christians" do and merely dilly-dally around the issue with lots of words and no substance?
"Mr. Burnard, what you have
"Mr. Burnard, what you have offered is a paraphrase of an argument known as "Pascal's Wager". And, like just about every Christian I know, you are expert at taking things out of context. Pascal's basis for choosing to believe in God was based solely on probability (i.e. gambling theory)".
Why is that the most pompous and self-assured are the ones most likely to get it wrong?
Pascal was a man of faith who had had intense spiritual experience that changed his life. He spent the last 8 years of his life in a Jansenist Monastery leading an ascetic life. He wrote Apologie de la religion Chrétienne (Apology of the Christian Religion) (for your benefit "apology" here means "defence", not saying that your are sorry about the Christian religion).
Pascal wrote: "Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is". No, his basis for believing in God was not "solely...gambling theory". It was not about "selfishness" as you define it.
Pascal's wager was simply Pascal's mathematical brain's effort to show why faith is not contrary to reason. Incidentally, Pascal did have a particular faith in mind, namely Jansenism (a Roman Catholic sect whose teachings were similar to Protestants). So you see, it is you that has taken Pascal's wager out of context, and to the extent that Mr. Tibbetts was responding to atheists his use of it was entirely appropriate.
So, when you feel the urge to talk down someone again, please at least ensure that you actually what you are talking about.
Yes, Mr. Tibbetts, that's a
Yes, Mr. Tibbetts, that's a fine argument for getting drunk every day too. It's also an excellent call to be a Muslim or to follow any other religion.
To help you see the light, here is your post with a few slight modifications:
"If Islam proves to be wrong, then Muslims will have enjoyed a happy, confident life, thriving on the promises found in the Koran, and looking forward to the greatest delights that one could ever dream of.
Meanwhile the Christians pleasure in this life is no greater than the happiness that Muslims enjoy, and if the Christians' philosophy eventually turns out to be wrong, the result would be sad indeed.
I choose happiness with hope."
You can plug in Scientologist, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever you want. The point is, your point is pointless.
"Yes, Mr. Tibbetts, that's a
"Yes, Mr. Tibbetts, that's a fine argument for getting drunk every day too"
Huh? In case no one told you, getting drunk every day is really very bad for your well-being - health, relationships, work - you name it.
And just when you were chastising Mr. Tibbetts for his lack of logic.
Oh really? Well, too
Oh really? Well, too much Christianity every day is "very bad for your well-being - health, relationships, work - you name it."
Which has caused more pain, suffering, death, destruction and hindered progress, booze or Jesus?
Not even close, Christianity has produced a bodycount and path of destruction through history that alcohol doesn't come any where close to.
It's a fact.
"Which has caused more pain,
"Which has caused more pain, suffering, death, destruction and hindered progress, booze or Jesus?".
No contest. Booze. Absurd comparison. Christianity has been, and continues to be, one of the greatest forces for good in this world. Yes, we know about the inquisition and the crusades etc. but one cannot make generalizations from these. What we need are more genuine Christians.
What is the case for Booze? We all know the case against.
No one is making a "case for
No one is making a "case for booze". Just pointing out to you that alcohol has done less harm to the world than Christianity.
No one ever launched a crusade or enslaved millions of people in the name of whiskey.
Just ask any sane person who they would choose to spend eternity with:
A few jolly drunks
or
Pastor Al, the Pope, Rev. Sykes, Benny Hinn, George W. Bush, and McKeeva Bush.
Case closed.
aquarium
Few drunks are jolly, and
Few drunks are jolly, and then only for a short time. That is your argument?!
Since I know him personally there is no question in my mind that I would like to spend eternity with people like Pastor Al. But you know, I really shouldn't dignify this nonsense by responding so I am signing off.
No way, I do not
No way,
I do not want to go to fantasy land anymore than I want to go to disneyland.
remember all the whores will be in hell, the booze and the drugs not to mention rock and roll.
hell is the place for me and i have a reservation already booked!
Well I'll be doggone -
Well I'll be doggone - judging by these comments it does appear that Cayman has done a complete 180 from being a "conservative Christian country" to a rather Atheistic country.
What a difference a generation makes, as this for dang sure could have never happened in my mother's childhood.
Well, I guess the good news is that we now know that anything is possible in this country - hopefully a few other things can be "turned around" as well.
Lastly, I would just like to offer a bit of support for the personality of the Viewpoint poster.
Badir is "good people" and it does bother me somewhat to witness this beating that he has been subjected to.
My dear Badir Awe, Whether
My dear Badir Awe,
Whether you like it or not, you & all of your fundie Christian friends are ATHEISTS
You do not believe in Allah, Thor, Zeus etc etc therefore you are atheist to those gods, you cannot pick & choose
Wake up you are a bright young man. Just think...we have been on this earth between 200k and a Million years...
So your man in the sky waited until 2000 years ago, a dot in the space of time, to announce himself & our purpose
If you were born in Libya, Pakistan or Sierra Leone would you be as confident
3 words to shatter your dreams: KING JAMES VERSION...
dwell on what that means
Can we please move on from this wasteful drivel before its too late?!
Its so boring to still go over all this fairytale rubbish when a simple biology lesson @ aged 7 would deal with all this racism & homophobia fuelling drivel
We are all the same, connected, as one...just not from a rib or piece of clay
Build a bridge & get over it. Life is far more beautiful & amazing as it is, without having to make up stories about how we would like it to be
Amen
I think you need some help
I think you need some help with the terminology. Atheism is disbelief in the existence of a god or gods of any sort, so no, Christians are not atheists as the believe the Yahweh as the one true and living God. It is obviously nonsense to think it that theism means you must believe in every single god that anyone in any culture anywhere might embrace. If you believe in many gods then you are a polytheist. if you believe that there are many gods but only one worthy of worship then you are henotheist.
You clearly either have not read or do not understand the Bible if you think that it is saying that God waited until 2,000 years ago to announce himself and our purpose. He revealed that in the beginning when man was in close communion with God.
If loving each other alone
If loving each other alone was enough, why would Jesus have to die and rise again?
Would Hitler be in heaven? What he did was out of love for his country and fellow man. He was genuinely out for the 'better of mankind'. His love even drove him to kill. I do NOT agree or approve of Hitler's behavior but only use it to offer a basis for discussion.
Each person's love and what they do for it is relative to him/ herself. The love described by Christ is the love only He is capable of. The love that sees human filth and evil and instead of allowing us no hope but to go to hell, His grace provided a way through His death AND resurrection. HOWEVER, you cannot exempt the important part on our end. The acceptance of what He has done and the carrying out of Romans 10:9.
If we could get to heaven by love, wouldn't that mean that getting to heaven was based on some point system? We could then get to heaven by our actions... as if it was something we could do to control God? (Faith and not by works, is it not?) If I love 3 people but hate 4 then hell? By I could love 5 and hate 4 then I'd be set right? Wrong! Do we think that God is so stupid we can fool him by creating our own criteria and ways to Him? No one gets to the Father except through Christ and belief in Christ does not just rest in our inconsistent forms of love. Some say sex is love. Can I then have sex with my neighbors and use that as criteria for heaven? By the sounds of your post, you might say yes.
I pray we not mock God (those who believe He exists for I would not require such from those who don't) and stop compromising the GOSPEL and all it is just for comfort.
(Note: this is not ment to an argument for Christianity but a response to the viewpoint of someone who claims to be Christian. Whether God exist or not is another subject but it is already assumed in the viewpoint and so the tone of my response...)
Wow, no wonder Cayman is
Wow, no wonder Cayman is going to hell in a bread basket. If this is the drivel we come with, we are doomed.
If you all put that much energy in trying to help with things that matter, like reducing crime...
People #1 - The Bible is a
People
#1 - The Bible is a book that was put together into one canon, and consist of the views or "REVELATIONS" of around 40 different authors, throughout the span of about1500 years. The book consist of poetry, history, certain ethical standards, prophecy, and various stories.
#2 - REVELATION, when applied to the Bible, means something communicated immediately from God to man. The Bible states that "holy men spoke as they were moved by the Spirit of God." Note what has been revealed to the 40 so authors of the Bible is a revelation to them only, because most naturally, when it is written down or told to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth person, and so on, it becomes HEARSAY to every other person! Hence, not a direct experience to every other person!
#3 - Considering pointers #1 and #2, people are not obliged to take the Bible as Truth (unless some personal REVELATION has told them to do so); or else, by taking the words of the book to be true, they would be accepting HEARSAY as a part of evidence! Thus, to accept HEARSAY as TRUTH would be to insult one's own intelligence, one's own five senses, and the personal mind of reason God has endowed you with.
#4 - Now perhaps you say there must be some kind of "Word of God" for my life. There must be a divine REVELATION that is not HEARSAY, that is the full TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. I and most others in the spirit of humanity, can only refer you to yourself, because who knows the TRUTH better than you, yourself? Who can judge another person who has had a completely different REVELATION than the other?
THE WORD OF GOD IS SIMPLY "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE," and it is this word of God that no human being can alter or counterfeit!
#5 - And you may ask, is there not a UNIVERSAL REVELATION, which all mankind share in common? Yes. It is a mutual experience by everyone - called CREATION. When we live in harmony with Creation, sustaining life and loving others, we are living in harmony with God. We obey and follow the "Word of God."
But this does not mean that FAITH doesn't have its purpose; it is just not the bases for what is TRUTH! Rather, it your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF ALL THINGS AND CREATION THAT IS TRUTH!
NOW PEOPLE, ALIGN YOURSELVES TO LIVE IN HARMONY WITH IT'S UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES, such as, humility, fairness, love, human dignity, justice, nurturance, service, et cetera...
Peace
As an atheist, can someone
As an atheist, can someone explain why my going to the bookstore on a Sunday upsets the Baby Jesus given that I don't believe that the sky fairy was his Baby Daddy or that there is a sky fairy at all?
As an atheist, why would you
As an atheist, why would you want to know? What difference would it make?
Because I would like to go to
Because I would like to go to the bookstore on a Sunday and get a bit annoyed that the sky fairy brigade veto it because they don't want to upset the imaginary baby daddy of the baby Jesus.
The point, as you have
The point, as you have demonstrated, is that it really does not matter to you what the answer "why?" is.
The bookstore must be closed
The bookstore must be closed on the Sabbath (well, one of the Sabbaths, anyway) because Baby Jesus did not come to "overturn the law but to uphold it". This means we are supposed to still pay attention to the Old Testament stuff, except for slavery, wife killing, killing gays, and so on (God was wrong about those things, according to today's Christians. Well, fortunately most of them feel that way, anyway)
So, you can't buy a book on Sunday (or Friday evening, or Saturday, depending on who's rules you follow) because the Bible demands that anyone who does any form of work on the Sabbath "must be put to death". Nice.
I don't think putting off a book purchase until Monday in order to prevent the staff of our local bookstores from being executed by Christians is too much to ask.
Ps. Badir, you are really an "unconscious atheist". You simply imagine that you are a Christian. The fact that you have a brain and can think means you are an unconscious atheist.
Beneath the delusion you are an atheist.
What an ignorant post. Why
What an ignorant post. Why don't you try reading the bible with the purpose of understanding instead of selecting verses out of context in an effort to ridicule it?
The absurdity of your comment is proven by the fact that the Pharisees wanted to execute Jesus for breaking the Sabbath law. Jesus explained that the entire law is fulfilled by loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbour as yourself.
George Carlin on the topic
George Carlin on the topic [cleaned up a little]:
"In the B[S] Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to [BS], big-time, major league [BS], you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest [BS] story ever told.
Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you.
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good [BS] story. Holy S[xxx]!"
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997
I am a believer, yet I think
I am a believer, yet I think this Carlin monologue on religion is pure genius! I get a kick out of the way Carlin mocks the mockery of God's love that Christianity has made out of The Creator's message.
Basically organised religion in the Cayman Islands of today says" Don't touch, taste, hear, see, smell, enjoy, (and especially do NOT be gay) because if you do, you will burn forever and ever. Oh...and...BRING MONEY!
Thanks so much for posting the excerpt from Carlin and bringing a smile into my day!
(I hadda give ya a "Thumbs Up" for this one!)
Carlin is not mocking "the
Carlin is not mocking "the mockery of God's love that Christianity has made out of The Creator's message". Carlin mocks the very idea that there is a creator who may have a message. You say you are a "believer" and yet his comments bring you smiles. Believer in what exactly?
The substance of Carlin's
The substance of Carlin's mockery was derived from the caricature of God as presented by organised religions. It is safe to assume that Carlin's only exposure to God was via contact with "believers", (most likely "so-called Christians") most of whom have no clear idea of who God is.
Cariln may be easily forgiven if he offends. But as to the "believers" who contributed to Carlin's cynicism: "...it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea".
"It is safe to assume that
"It is safe to assume that Carlin's only exposure to God was via contact with "believers", (most likely "so-called Christians") most of whom have no clear idea of who God is".
Why would it be safe to assume that? Was he illiterate? Was he not able to meet any genuine people of faith in his 7 decades of life? Did he have no capacity to appreciate the wonder of the universe? It seems to me that would be a ridiculous assumption.
In view of the quotation above according to Carlin religion has a very clear and detailed concept of who God is, he just thought that idea was absurd.
Just to be clear, Carlin was not merely cynical about religion, he was an atheist. The quotation in one of the posts above shows that he did not believe in a god at all whether he is the Christian God or any other god. Rather than maliciously suggesting that it must have been because he met some "believers" whose caricature of God "contributed to his cynicism" and made him disbelieve in any god (which is obviously absurd) why don't you read a bio for an account of Carlin's atheism, rather than post nonsense?
Proof that Carlin is basing
Proof that Carlin is basing his comments on a caricature:
"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!"
That's hardly a correct understanding of the one true God.
Maybe you should start your
Maybe you should start your own religion where you can authoritatively define and convey the correct understanding of the one true God. LOL.
The point, which you continue to miss, is that you evidently do not know sufficient about Carlin to make the comments you have. Your quote does not show that Carlin was "basing his comments on a caricature" but rather that he was himself creating a caricature for the purpose of ridicule because he himself did not believe in any god.
Anyway, you are like a mule so there is no point in continuing this exchange.
I won't even get going on
I won't even get going on the "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" (or for that matter CNS) bit.
Good and thought provoking article even for me, an Agnostic.
Defined by Thomas Henry Huxley as:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)
George Carlin, wacky & funny but always thought-provoking. One of my favourite's by him is the Ten Commandments rant. A good laugh and makes one ponder.
George Carlin on the Ten Commandments:
HAHA....thanks for
HAHA....thanks for that...especially loved the last commandment..
"THY SHALL KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF"...
AMEN!
AMEN!
I have rarely read such a
I have rarely read such a badly constructed ill thought out arguent in my life. Utter drivel and nonsense from start to end - a comfort blanket for the faith deluded and afraid. Intellectually dishonest cowards who shiver in the dark and mutter prayers to make the sun come back, grovelling in the dust of superstition too afraid to stand up and look around.
XXXXXXXX
I am an ATHEIST. This is a philosophy. It is, in simple terms (XXXXX), a total disbelief in the supernatural, It isnt just disbelief in YOUR god, its disbelief in ALL gods, ALL faiths, and ALL articles of faith. I disbelieve in your god and so called messiah in the same way I disbelieve ( as do you) in Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Horus, Zues, Odin, Thor, Jupiter Capitolina, and any other "invisible friend" you can name.
As an intelligent atheist with a sound grip on history and evidential fact, I also disbelieve in the fictional construct character you call Jesus. You consider him your messiah, I consider him a badly cobbled together construct of the many "messiahs" of the time, including Appalonius of Tyre and Yehuda Ben Pantera. You can do a three monkeys all you like, but I will still ask you to explain the direct plagarism in the New Testament from other earlier Hellenic, Roman, and Egyptian texts and apprant glaring contradictions in even the most basic facts of the Jesus story. Archaeology and geology serve to totally discredit every word of the Old Testament - no Jericho walls, no flood, no exodus....etc etc etc.
I am also an ANTI-THEIST. This means I actively advocate an end to any place for organised religions in public life and politics. Organised religions, and partiularly the filth of the three Abrahamic faiths, are the biggest threat to global security there is. In their names hideous acts are committed by the faithful on a DAILY basis, and the body count grows on and on. Ive seen first hand the hatred and murder commited in religions names in the Balkans, then in Asia and SE Asia. I grew up in a country torn apart by sectarian religions, and under the constant threat of a bomb planted by one side or the other. Ill be damned if I let evil faith driven swine do that to my kids, have drawn a line in the sand and said ENOUGH!
I advocate HUMANIST beliefs enshrined in the Golden Rule - treat others as you would have yourself treated. And dont claim thats a Christian belief...it was carved into the walls of an Egyptian temple a few thousand years before the earliest book of the Old Testament was even written down, attributed to a teacher who was born to a virgin, was a carpenter who had desciples, was crucified and rose on the third day....sound familiar? His name was HORUS...that Egytian bloke with the hawk head. Its found in India, in Assyria, in Persia.....all over. In other words its a HUMAN rule, not a divine one.
DO NOT seek to patronise me or make my beliefs cheap and shabby wth your faith driven drivel and threadbare patchwork quilt theology. I will have none of it, nor none of your nonsense. I advocate a universal simple humanist philosophy a thousand years older than your shabby hate filled hypocritical set of superstitions and lies, thees, thous, and thou shalt nots.
There is NO god, NO heaven. Man made god to fill in the gaps when we knew nothing about how the world worked. Now we do, and god is fading along with those gaps.
This is it - make the best of it because when you die you rot. This world, this universe is full of wonder and grandeur, and if thats not enough for you its a damn shame.
You carry on whispering to your fears concerns and worries to your invisible mate in your head.... Ill be on the beach at night staring up at the stars and wondering whether theres another being like me looking back from that star system so bright up above, or appreciating the wonder of Brownian motion as demonstrated by smoke from my cigarrette in a dusk filled room. your world is a waiting room and test centre for the next life, I live mine full of wonder at this life I have.
Yours is a world full of fear and darkness and a life spent on your knees like a slave to an invisible arbitary master whose only voice is your own.
I stand upright in the light.
Wow. The objective, logical
Wow. The objective, logical atheists are putting thumbs down to factual posts which expose the falsehoods of one of their brethren, and continuing to put thumbs up for the exposed falsehood. All of course without any comment attached. So much for intellectual integrity. It guess it goes to show that facts and logical reasoning are not what distinguish atheists from theists after all. When you are prepared to lie in order to attack what you oppose then you must lack confidence in your case.
This is what Wikipedia has to
This is what Wikipedia has to say on the supposed Horus/Jesus parallels:
At this point we should be hearing apologies from you, but I suspect we won't. And to think you criticised Christians as "intellectually dishonest cowards".
Ok, unlike the person whom
Ok, unlike the person whom you are so critical of, I will not classify Christians as "intellectually dishonest cowards". I will classify them as intellectually crippled believers in spooky unproven tales.
That better?
Lest you think you are special in me singling you out, I hold the same opinion of staunch evolutionists and other adherents of organised religions.
The truth is that for all your passion your beliefs are not one whit more "proven" than Islam or any other religion or evolutionary science. Both you and the dogmatic evolutionary scientist and the atheist and the Muslim hold personal beliefs that are impossible to prove and are thus solely faith-based.
You quote scholars who deny the truth of what Massey wrote. Big freaking deal! A well-learned atheist can dig up countless "scholars" who think the Bible is bunk. An educated "Christian" can do the same about scholars who regard atheists as stupid. So the opinion of so-called "scholars" just because they are classified as such is next to worthless.
So why waste your precious time trying to prove or disprove what cannot be factually supported or denied? Believe what you want to believe just keep it out of my face and we can be friends.
You are pretty darned intellectually crippled if you think you can prove your point.
Post new comment