On non-belief and the existence of God

[ShaMan]

So the idea that hell could be avoided if the Gospel was never preached is not one that actually makes sense from a Christian perspective.

I'm genuinely curious. What is this "Gospel" you speak of? Can you walk me through it without labeling me wicked or evil or sinful at the outset of the tale?

[Michael]

Sure, the Gospel (good news) is that Jesus Christ is King.

[ShaMan]

Sure, the Gospel (good news) is that Jesus Christ is King.

And that matters to me how exactly?

[StealthySkeptic]

Welsh. Well, to put it in more concrete terms, it is the choice of healing hurts or causing hurts, feeding the poor or exploiting them, getting us much for ourselves as we can or giving as much of ourselves as we can. This is what is at stake in the Christian view. This is what the parable of the sheep and goats is all about.

And we can see this in little ways. Do we get up in the morning with the intent to be as kind to people as we can? Or do we get up in the morning looking to look after ourselves as much as we can, even at the expense of others? I have known people of both kinds, and you can see heaven and hell starting to build around them each, even now.

OK, I can see what you mean about how rejecting Christianity as an organized system of religion is different than rejecting Christian values (and not, it would seem, the faux ones like "condescend upon thy gay neighbor" or "deny thy female neighbor choice" but the ones most reasonable people can get behind).

Two questions. First (playing devil's advocate- hah) why bother with any religion? If all Christianity offers is a feel good repackaging of the Golden Rule and not a heaven or hell or entice or frighten me with, why bother being a Christian specifically?

Secondly (playing fundie's advocate now) doesn't this negate the need to convert people to Christianity? Sure, this avoids the problem of 4 billion souls (at least) in hell for being born in the wrong geographical location, but then what's the point of growing Christianity specifically if normally nice people are fine where they are?

[Michael]

Sure, the Gospel (good news) is that Jesus Christ is King.

And that matters to me how exactly?

Because those who care about goodness can be assured, in the words of Julian of Norwich, that all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

[ShaMan]

And that matters to me how exactly?

Because those who care about goodness can be assured, in the words of Julian of Norwich, that all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.

I care about goodness. What's your point?

[Michael]

Welsh. Well, to put it in more concrete terms, it is the choice of healing hurts or causing hurts, feeding the poor or exploiting them, getting us much for ourselves as we can or giving as much of ourselves as we can. This is what is at stake in the Christian view. This is what the parable of the sheep and goats is all about.

And we can see this in little ways. Do we get up in the morning with the intent to be as kind to people as we can? Or do we get up in the morning looking to look after ourselves as much as we can, even at the expense of others? I have known people of both kinds, and you can see heaven and hell starting to build around them each, even now.

OK, I can see what you mean about how rejecting Christianity as an organized system of religion is different than rejecting Christian values (and not, it would seem, the faux ones like "condescend upon thy gay neighbor" or "deny thy female neighbor choice" but the ones most reasonable people can get behind).

Two questions. First (playing devil's advocate- hah) why bother with any religion? If all Christianity offers is a feel good repackaging of the Golden Rule and not a heaven or hell or entice or frighten me with, why bother being a Christian specifically?

Secondly (playing fundie's advocate now) doesn't this negate the need to convert people to Christianity? Sure, this avoids the problem of 4 billion souls (at least) in hell for being born in the wrong geographical location, but then what's the point of growing Christianity specifically if normally nice people are fine where they are?

Nurture is still important, I would say. As a community of people, are we building a hell that will trap people further in that hell, or can me make decisions now to try and prevent that. Again I would say we shouldn't see the future as totally distinct from the present. The vast majority of Jesus's teachings are about now. Jesus is a leader for us, a blueprint if you like, of that better living now. That's why it is good news that Jesus is King, as he models a selfless life. Which tsar, or Caesar, or fuhrer, or president could do that? The good news is that Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or Mao Tse Tung, aren't King. It's a shame but this 'moral influence' view of Jesus has waned somewhat in Western Christianity, but I see much sense and wisdom in it (the Protestant churches major on 'penal substitution' which the older traditional churches don't actually hold to, and in fact reject).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_inf..._atonement

[StealthySkeptic]

OK, I can see what you mean about how rejecting Christianity as an organized system of religion is different than rejecting Christian values (and not, it would seem, the faux ones like "condescend upon thy gay neighbor" or "deny thy female neighbor choice" but the ones most reasonable people can get behind).

Two questions. First (playing devil's advocate- hah) why bother with any religion? If all Christianity offers is a feel good repackaging of the Golden Rule and not a heaven or hell or entice or frighten me with, why bother being a Christian specifically?

Secondly (playing fundie's advocate now) doesn't this negate the need to convert people to Christianity? Sure, this avoids the problem of 4 billion souls (at least) in hell for being born in the wrong geographical location, but then what's the point of growing Christianity specifically if normally nice people are fine where they are?

Nurture is still important, I would say. As a community of people, are we building a hell that will trap people further in that hell, or can me make decisions now to try and prevent that. Again I would say we shouldn't see the future as totally distinct from the present. The vast majority of Jesus's teachings are about now. Jesus is a leader for us, a blueprint if you like, of that better living now. That's why it is good news that Jesus is King, as he models a selfless life. Which tsar, or Caesar, or fuhrer, or president could do that? The good news is that Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or Mao Tse Tung, aren't King. It's a shame but this 'moral influence' view of Jesus has waned somewhat in Western Christianity, but I see much sense and wisdom in it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_inf..._atonement

What I think I meant is- why not just be a good, non-religious person who doesn't give two hoots about Christianity? And why bother growing Christianity specifically if all that's needed is to do good and be nice people?

[Michael]

It's a nice ideal, but I tend to think we have a tendency of messing things up. But, also, why would a good person reject the personification of goodness? Why wouldn't they embrace and welcome it? If Christianity is true, then Christ would/should surely be welcomed by all who want goodness and love to prevail.

[ShaMan]

why would a good person reject the personification of goodness?

To say that Jesus was the personification of goodness requires me to make a judgment of his character. Am I not capable of judgment errors?

The "personification of goodness" is entirely subjective.