Either way, its kind of silly. While I've recently been linking bad drivers as having strong religous beliefs, and most the population here in North Carolina cannot drive. I still feel that there is a vast number of us who do not need some kind of imaginary motivation to get us going, be it good or bad. (see of topic question below)

Why do believers need an everlasting life to get you to do good things? Or everlasting suffering life to keep you from doing bad things?

***Off topic***
I've read bumper stickers that say "Don't drive faster then your gaurdian angel can fly". I must ask, exactly how fast do angels fly? I would think somewhere around the speed of light, since we obviosly cannot see them. Does this mean according to that bumper sticker that I may drive as fast as I like? Do you think this arguement would hold up in court?

"Yes your honor, I contend that I am Not Guilty to the charge of speeds in excess of 200 mph. My guarding angel can fly at 188,000 miles per second, so God is protecting me."

"Why do you need to be prodded with enfuriating behaviour in order to lose your contempt?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bariyon:
You seem to have a lot of contempt for christians...

---

Point 1: Christians are not the only religious group that believes in an afterlife with rewards and punishments.

Point 2: More importantly, you confuse "contempt for Christians" with "contempt for Christianity". I cannot speak for megashawn, but as for myself, I think most religious people are very well-intentioned and simply mislead. I have no contempt for them (if anything, pity). It is because of my concern for this segment of my human family that I have contempt for all superstition and the hatred, ignorance, and suffering it breeds. It is a foul disease on mankind. If I had contempt for Christians, I would be happy that they were inflicted with Christiantiy. I am not.

quote:

---

You seem to have a lot of contempt for christians. Contempt is not very advanced. The doctor orders that you be exposed to infuriating behaviour yet more until you lose your contempt.

"Why do you need to be prodded with enfuriating behaviour in order to lose your contempt?"

---

DT, thanks, feel free to speek for me anytime in the future. I'm away on the weekends most the time.

As to you Bariyon, I don't understand what your talking about. I don't hold any specific discrimination against an individual per what they believe.

Also, while I made a few christian relations, such as Fire and Brimstone, I don't see anywhere in my original post saying anything specifically directed to Christians.

This question can apply to any religion that uses threats and promises to control behavior.

Infact, your assumptions really have shown that you hold contempt for anyone that does not believe your beliefs to be correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by megashawn:

quote:

---

---

Also, while I made a few christian relations, such as Fire and Brimstone, I don't see anywhere in my original post saying anything specifically directed to Christians.

This question can apply to any religion that uses threats and promises to control behavior.

Infact, your assumptions really have shown that you hold contempt for anyone that does not believe your beliefs to be correct.

"Waiting for your modern Mesiah to take away all the hatred that darkens the light in your eyes, still I'm waiting on..." - Disturbed

---

I guess religion at one time needed a carrot and stick to coerce those that weren't convinced by the arguments into believing. If there's no hell on the menu, you can respond in the same way as you respond to a telesales person, "Thanks, but not thanks". But if the sales person had the power to say and enforce, "If you don't buy my lifetsyle gadget, you'll burn forever in hell when you die", well then you'd buy the gadget - unless of course you were prepared to burn for your beliefs, which some are.

These days the hell argument doesn't carry so much weight but it has stuck around as a vestige from former more primitive days. I don't think most sane, balanced, educated and enlightened christians actually believe that there is a place where you sit and burn for all eternity. They probably define hell these days as a state of being without god. But that's just a guess.

quote:

---

They probably define hell these days as a state of being without god. But that's just a guess.

---

Well, as far as that goes, they'd be in hell right here.

Thanks for the response. Be nice if some christians would respond. But if they view hell as the above, I guess its not quite as threating as fire and brimstone.

But it still leaves the question of why must one be motivated by threats or promises of eternal suffering or Heaven?

So it is kind of logical from my point of view. To truly understand whats happening we need like a joint theorum with heaps of religions ideas mixed together. Everything has to be read in context so when something is said it doesn't necessarily mean what it says/

quote:

---

So if the start of the Bible is right which is most likely as a) it has been around for ages and b) many religions start with the same stuff.

---

And the majority of the religions that start with the "same stuff" probably predate the bible by many years.

The epic of Gilgamesh is much older then any form of the bible. Is it right on that merit alone?

Also, what religions are these? I'm aware of a few religions that predate christianity, judaism and such. I can't think of any with the "same stuff". Many pagan and wiccan religions predate any form of a Christian tale. Indians were on the North American continent for many years before christ was a twinkle in the holy spirits eye (do they have eyes?)

Also, the story of moses has all but been discounted as myth. Egyptoligst show that the people who built the pyramids were valued laborers, not forced slaves. But one can ignore this type of info to keep his good faith.

My point here is, the bible is not a reliable source of information. You can say "oral tradition was very accurate", but come on. As I've pointed out, a message cannot keep content being passed through 20 ppl in 5 minutes, much less hundreds or thousands of people over many years. Even simple changes in culture or language from one generation to the next (as culture and language does, which is quite apparent) could make drastic changes to the original content of the story. Really, if you think about it, its quite reasonable to assume that the story would change with each generation. You want to use the bible as a credible point to argue from, you need to verify its integrity. Since this is not possible, and your all powerfull god doesn't want to help with this slight problem, it becomes quite apparent he is either a cruel ass or non existant.

You can argue this point, but only by ignoring the obvious.

(edited cause I forgot some stuff)

You are questioning the need for concepts such as eternal life and eternal suffering. But first of all, you should be questioning what eternal life and eternal suffering really are.

You should know that the bible contains mysteries, and to everything there is a surface meaning, and a hidden meaning.

If you want to learn about eternal suffering, I suggest you read the parable of the sheep and the goats, told by Jesus. Yes, it's a scary story, Jesus tells some really scary stories. But keep reading it, all the time asking who are the sheep, and who are the goats. When the true meaning of what he is saying dawns on you, your appreciation of the bible will be transformed.

It is my understanding that "eternal life" is a mystery also, but I think I have made my point.

I know I haven't answered your question, but it may modify the question you are asking.

http://scripturebase.tripod.com/parables/parable_sheep_goats.html

These seems relevant to the topic, so I'll go with it.

quote:

---

25:35 - For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
25:36 - Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
25:37 - Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
25:38 - When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
25:39 - Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
25:40 - And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

---

As best as I can tell, this part is referring to the persons who showed kindess and charity to those in need. As I've come from a state of being in need, I identify very well with the group of people being helped. Likewise, now that I have gotten myself to a postion of being able to help others, I do so quite often.

On the other hand, however, I can't think of how many times I've been sneared at or picked on by people calling themselves Christians. I remember one time recently, I had a flat tire on the road beside a church that was just letting out. I had a spare tire and lug wrench, but no jack. I sat in hopes that one of the fine christians would be kind enough to spare a few minutes and loan me a jack. I sat, facing the traffic pouring out of the church, with my spare tire and wrech in hand, and waved at everyone as they drove right by. After the traffic died off, I started walking home. Fortunatly, I only lived about 2 miles away. Once again, I was shown that I can only count on myself to get things accomplished.

Anyhow, while I could talk about the rest of this article, just the sheep do enough. Honestly, its rather insulting that Christian beliefs refer to me as a sheep. I have had no sheperd to tend to me. Only myself.

And you are right, it still does nothing to my original question; Why is it that you need be motivated by the promise of reward and pleasure or the threat of torment and pain? This only backs up my reasoning.

Jesus (or his inventor?) had some excellent ideas on how to live. Unfortunatly, its quite apparent that many of his modern day followers have slipped quite far from his teachings.

Did you read the entire sheep and goats parable, from verse 31 to 46? Anyway, your task was not an easy one, because it takes much reading of the bible before it begins to make any substantial sense. It is not my intention to openly explain the parable to you (that would spoil your fun), besides I'm no authority, but I am willing to give you some hints to open it up for you.

1. A person is "righteous" until he realises he is a sinner.
2. When a person realises he is a sinner, then the refining process can begin.
3. The son of man in the parable was given his daily bread by the righteous ones. Did he enjoy eating it?

The ones who did not stop to help you at the side of the road, which hand would you set them on?

Many christians are not shaken even slightly by talk about everlasting punishment, because in their righteousness they are convinced that no harm will come to them. But if this changes, and the seed of conviction creeps in that they are sinful, then ... (what happens?)

Do you see what I'm trying to say? Don't worry too much if you don't. As I said, I'm dropping hints, not openly explaining.

quote:

---

The ones who did not stop to help you at the side of the road, which hand would you set them on?

---

I would not put them on either hand. They are humans. Humans, can be assess. If the shoe was on the other foot and they were in need of help, I'd stop, even if I knew it was a person who passed me by.

As best as I understand the story, The people whom help the sick, hungry, confined, etc, unconditionally, are the ones who go to his right, or get to be the sheep.

I heard another person refer to the "goats" as being terror, fear and hatred.

The only thing this story has done for me is shown that I should be calling christians goats instead of sheeps.

Keep on questioning. It is my experience that the bible does stand up to questioning ... eventually.

quote:

---

Its cool how you've grouped all people who believe in anything into one sticky mass of 'GOD DON'T LET ME GO TO HELL' goo. However, the coolest part by far is how you're totally biased from the outset and you have no desire to actually have a conversation with anyone, just to lure people in so you can try to make them look foolish.

Neat! Good luck, I look forward seeing more generalizations and snared victims!

---

I really wish you 1 post wonders would start reading the entire story before you make such a baseless assumption. This is why you are 1 post wonders.

Anyhow, I don't have to group people up, your religion has done it for me. I also do not have to try and make one look foolish, as ones silly beliefs can do that for them. I understand that there are people out there who spend most there time caring for others. I realize there motivation is religous. I also know there is a good portion of people out there committing numerous crimes and murders, also religously motivated.

I don't have a problem with religous people. If I did, I wouldn't have any friends. My problem comes when;

A) They refuse any explanation or to further there own knowledge simply because they have an answer in the bible (or whatever mythological book you read)
B) They refuse others, such as children, the right to learn in an unbiased enviroment so that they may arrive at there own conclusions, instead enrolling them in Sunday school sometimes before they can read and write. They are programmed with bible mythology and before you know it, a whole new generation is ready to start the cycle over.

If you step back and look at almost any religous system, it is quite systematic. Its had 1000's of years to perfect itself, and the more confusion you cast on the followers, the more intrigued they become.

I have a serious problem with the people who say "God works in mysterious ways" and such nonsense to rationalize the cruelty and brutality that there OMNIPOTENT leader allows to happen.

I got lots of reasons to say the things I say. Don't think your going to shoot them down with 1 post.

My post was pretty sarcasm-heavy. I guess I was using it to counteract your own attitude of superiority. Who exactly do you expect to speak to when you treat your proposed audience like idiots?

I said the thing about the 1 post wonders because you get that kind of thing all the time. I'm suprised to see you back for another round.

I assumed you were religous, as I usually do not catch much scorning and ridicule from people without religous beliefs.

My problem is this. Of all the things I've said, in this topic alone, your response to me so far has consisted of 12 sentances. Obviously, you didn't make it much past the first post, and instantly decided to reply with what I'm guessing is what you tell all the people who step on your toes.

I do not consider a person who has religous beliefs an idiot. I do however, consider there beliefs to be pointless, and usually leads to a suppresion of knowledge.

Why not go try this on another topic? Surely I'm not the only person on this forum that has offended you? Please, enlighten me.

My mind is not shut to any possibility, I've said it before, and for your sake I'll say it again. The first all powerfull mythological being that wants to reveal himself to me will have the strongest follower of all times. If he cant spare the time to enlighten me, then I'd rather suffer in whatever form of hell he has prepared for me.

And, if your not religous, wtf are you bugging me for?

--edited in--

quote:

---

Is my original point still worthless?

---

No. Your first post posed some decent questions. Your second post is where the worthlessness comes into play. You ask questions or make accusations, then when they are answered, you simply ignore them and keep *****ing.

1 posters have a special place in my heart. 2 posts is something alright, but lets see if you make it to 10.

My point is that you're being condescending. You know as well as I do that calling someone's holy book 'mythological' is just a chance for you to preemptively try to make yourself look superior. Same for your sneering reference to OMNIPOTENCE.

And nothing about me or my beliefs matters. You WANT me to be some haughty, easily-offended Christian who got his guff up because of your posts so that you can easily dismiss my opinions as worthless. If I'm an atheist then you know that you're in trouble, cuz, hey, I agree with you -- I just might be right.

I refer to the bible as mythology for simple reasons; its a myth. Maybe some of its true, but likely most of it is false. Modern understanding has shown that many of the claims of the bible are completly false and/or impossible. If, some shred of evidence were to surface, say an explanation for how Noah built a boat large enough to house 2 of each species, including the ones exclusive to Australia, kept everyone fed and alive for 40 days, and returned the animals to make it look as if a flood never happened. This type of story is pure myth.

But this is all besides the point, and you are making a great attempt at hijacking this topic. Why not attempt to answer some of the questions asked, instead of simply taking cheap shots at me.

If you are an atheist, well, I'm just gonna let that one go.

But, unless you've speant countless hours reading many threads I've participated in, you really don't have any room to make such a conclusion about me. As you can see by my lil side note in the first post, this topic was 1/2 considered a joke to begin with.

But you are right, I do clump most hardcore believers into a group of people who are 1) Brainwashed so hard through there life they really can't see the fallacys of there beliefs, and choose to ignore them went brought to there attention, or 2) Probably just on this forum for the kicks trying to egg on an arguement.

As of your contribution so far, be you atheist or not, I'd say you'd fall into #2.

I guess this makes me a 4-post wonder. This is no place for an intellectual discussion. I hate to leave just on this account, but if a person like you has 645 posts going strong and your way of belittling others doesn't even meet with opposition, I'm not interested in finding out what the rest of the forum is like.

So, I (seriously) am sorry we had to meet and part in such a bitter way, though I will concede that the initial bitterness was mostly my own fault for my excessive sarcasm. Regardless, I'll leave with a quote that is interesting not so much for the quote itself, but the context.