How to get to heaven

[Nico-Nico Friendo]

For all of you who are ATTEMPTING to reason with Shadowgirl, this is all I have to say . . .

"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen

This is why I think it is fruitless to argue with her . . . she is beyond the "reach of rational conviction." Probably you would be better off arguing with a guinea pig.

[Sally]

If we're feeling so threatened and worried that we can't handle what other people have to say, and we can't handle the world around us, we should seek professional help, not a philosophy/politics/controversy forum.

I didn't make an argument for abridgement of free speech, only for not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Telling people that they will burn in hell if they don't believe a certain way is the latter, as far as I can see. That isn't a philosophical statement or a rational argument, it's a blatant threat.

[Prefers Pie]

Warning. It's a warning, really. If you really believe the theater is on fire, then

don't you have an obligation to warn people? If I sincerely believed you were going

to Hell, I'd try to warn you, too.

[LonePiper]

Sally's right.

I'd like to add that it's not a problem of what a person is saying, it's how they say it. Yes - practically anything could be taken as a threat. But we're all (supposedly) intelligent human beings here - we know what's going to offend people and what's not. Sometimes we may slip up or misjudge our words, but I'm quite confident we all know how to phrase things to be threatening or not threatening.

For instance if I were to say "if you're not a hardcore environmentalist you're going to destroy the world and make everybody suffer unimaginable pain, you sicko!" you could easily take that as a threat. But I could take exactly the same opinion and phrase it in a non-threatening way, such as "I think it is everybody's duty to do what they can to save the environment, because it is ultimately tied to their own wellbeing."

And an atheist doesn't have to believe in hell to know they're being threatened with it. I've had customers threaten me at work with physical violence before - I knew they were totally full of shit, but that doesn't mean they didn't threaten me. A hollow threat is still a threat.

[edit] And I think that what Sally was saying is that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a scare tactic intended to cause panic. I don't think she meant anything about whether you believed there was a fire or not[/edit]

[Prefers Pie]

I'm just saying that if one believes other people are in mortal (immortal?) danger,

then pointing that out isn't a threat, it's a warning. SG doesn't have the power to

send your everlasting soul anywhere. (I hope.)

It's not like she's cracking her knuckles and saying, "Gee, you have some pretty nice

souls, here. . .hate to see anything happen to them."

[edit] Furthermore, the old saw about the dangers of yelling fire in a crowded theater

applies if there is no fire. If there really is a fire, maybe it's time to get out. [/edit]

[Sally]

I'm just saying that if one believes other people are in mortal (immortal?) danger,

then pointing that out isn't a threat, it's a warning.

It would indeed be a warning if there were someone behind your back with a knife poised to strike. But when you are told by someone that if you don't believe in a certain theology, you'll burn in hell (hate to keep repeating that but it is what was said), then that's not a warning, that's a psychological threat. It's a threat based on a belief, not on any factual occurrence that can be seen by you or anyone else.

[Prefers Pie]

Ok, in a way it is a threat. But the OP is not the one who is threatening you. She is

merely pointing out the threat exists. Believing what she does, she would be remiss to

not try to save you.

[Sally]

Public speech should include some consideration on the part of the speaker as to the effect on those who hear, especially if what's said could be somewhat frightening, and especially if those who hear might include very young people or easily frightened people.

I realize that people bent on conversion (or "sharing the good news") will simply say what they say anyway, whether anyone wishes to hear what they say or not. But that doesn't mean that they can't rightfully be told that it isn't appropriate to proselytize, especially by fear tactics. In any setting, to anyone.

[Prefers Pie]

Yes, 'tis odd (to say the least) to try to convert people by fear tactics, and call it

"sharing the good news." But you've got to admit it was pretty effective

for a couple hundred years.

[ProdeFemme]

ProdFemme, thank you for sharing your harrowing tale.

I am glad you have what you call your God. But it is clear, isn't it, that this God is not the God of any particular religion. If you had been brought up in another culture with another religious paradigm, and had reached out in your hour of need to that concept of God, you would have found him too. Furthermore, if you had been constantly told that within each person there is an inner strength which will allow them to cope with anything the world throws at them, you could have reached out (or perhaps "reached in" is a better term!) to that and found the strength to cope. In that case you would be an atheist who still had your "God"!

Well sure thing! ;) Though it was merely meant to illustrate at least one way in which the contentment of belief can come about without the need to try to prove or rationalize it.

I agree with you completely, my description is pretty religion free, I believe that one same entity is all the incarnations, however many mainstream religions are not too hip to that idea; there's little room for power in such an all encompassing spirituality (though to the Catholics credit, it was a RC priest who said that to me many years ago, while not part of the doctrine per se, the idea is not rebuked). But yes, I envision Him as a Christian version simply because that is the religion I gained my knowledge in the concept of Him from. Since I believe He answers to many names, I'm not all wrapped up in this right one/wrong one BS. Man's futile struggle for power got that ball rolling and the religious still buy into it generation after generation.

As I say, I am glad you have your God, and to try to take that away from you without replacing it with something else (eg the inner strength which you patently have in abundance) would be cruel. But if you were to claim that your God is the only God, and that people who are using other Gods to cope, or coping without any are wrong, then I would take issue with that. After all, the only true test of a coping mechanism is if it allows you to cope!

The other people of whom I can say I am glad they have their God are those who falsely claim that without God people can't be moral. I am fairly sure that without their belief in God they would be particularly immoral, so I'm glad they've got someone - even if it is a fictional someone - keeping them in check.

Both of these paragraphs I couldn't agree with more! Honestly, I don't even really have anything to add; I could have typed them myself :lol:

I rarely argue with atheists or agnostics, I like to credit open-mindedness on everyone's part for that, but the religious, oh the religious. They can get a rise out of me like no other <_<

[osito]

Here's the link to a wonderful interview that Bill Moyers did with Dr. Elaine Pagels, author of The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_pagels.html

Apropos of what both ProdeFemme and EricK have said above, Pagels argues that the secret teachings of Jesus entreat his followers to do exactly that--look within to find peace, strength, succor, and healing. For those who don't know, this gospel is one of the Nag Hammadi texts--written on scrolls which were hidden away in a cave in the third or fourth century AD and discovered in 1945.

They were hidden because the mainstream church was consolidating its power and selecting from among many manuscripts in the hands of early Christians the ones which would best serve the hierachical structure and the authority of its leaders. Of course, fundamentalists would say that God was directing the culling of illegitimate ideas from the pure body of scripture.

Gnosticism, mysticism, ecumenism and inclusionism (everyone is saved) are anathema to the hard-liners.

Yes, 'tis odd (to say the least) to try to convert people by fear tactics, and call it

"sharing the good news." But you've got to admit it was pretty effective

for a couple hundred years.

Which couple hundred years are we talking about? During the Inquisition, I don't suppose threats of an afterlife barbecue were all that necessary, because the state had the power to arrest and torture heretics and burn them alive (and lest Protestants think their hands are clean, remember Michael Servetus).

I find it fascinating that such an utterly irrational belief matrix--that of biblical inerrancy--can survive and thrive in modern society. But not only has it survived, its advocates have encased it in an armor so impermeable and charged it with fear so bone-chilling that no reason can penetrate it. Even so, this fortress of apologetics is lost on many followers, who need only to have absolute reassurance of salvation and emotional chain-jerking doled out regularly, in manageable bites. This two-thousand-year-old-millions-of-believers apparatus is a deception of unparalleled grandiosity. What would Jesus say?

I encourage all to read this interview, with special attention to the last part, where Pagels talks about faith and belief, and the enormous value of a spiritual community when we must deal with overbearing grief and loss.

[ProdeFemme]

Wow, excellent read Osito, thanks for sharing that link!

[Min Farshaw]

Shadow girl,

What about some of the indigenous tribes in remote areas of the world? They do not have Bibles, and more often than not, outsiders are not welcome to proselytize, let alone visit.

Thats that job of missionary to help by bringing them The Bible in the native laugage.

One of these days I want to be a missionary and spread the good news to them. Help them with other things and learn of the kind of life they live.

I've heard it said by many Christians that those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel (i.e. - those who lived before the time of Christ, remote tribes in the middle of the Amazon, etc.) will be given an amnesty of sorts. I don't want to put words in your mouth by assuming that you agree with this, so thought I'd ask:

If you do agree with this amnesty idea, would you not be endangering the souls of people by spreading the Gospel?

If you don't agree with this, then just what exactly does happen to people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel?

This is just another facet of "turn or burn" religions that doesn't sit well with me... We're told there's only one truth and that everyone must come to this truth or suffer the consequences, yet what we believe is often entirely the product of when and where we were born. The playing field is nowhere near being level. Being born to a Christian family in a southern state of the US means you're more likely to be given a free ticket to heaven straight away, but being born to a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia means you're pretty much screwed.

Unless the Muslims turn out to be the ones who are right. You have better odds playing Russian Roulette.

[osito]

I've heard it said by many Christians that those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel (i.e. - those who lived before the time of Christ, remote tribes in the middle of the Amazon, etc.) will be given an amnesty of sorts. I don't want to put words in your mouth by assuming that you agree with this, so thought I'd ask:

If you do agree with this amnesty idea, would you not be endangering the souls of people by spreading the Gospel?

If you don't agree with this, then just what exactly does happen to people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel?

This is just another facet of "turn or burn" religions that doesn't sit well with me... We're told there's only one truth and that everyone must come to this truth or suffer the consequences, yet what we believe is often entirely the product of when and where we were born. The playing field is nowhere near being level. Being born to a Christian family in a southern state of the US means you're more likely to be given a free ticket to heaven straight away, but being born to a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia means you're pretty much screwed.

This targets exactly what is at-the-heart-wrong with fundamentalism. Some hard-liners believe that anyone who has not heard the good news is condemned to hell. Others believe that by virtue of Jesus' descent into hell while he hung on the cross, he redeemed those in hell deserving of his mercy. In any case, the whole concept of "amnesty" is improvisation. The Rapture--accepted by many fundies--is another example of improvisation. And there are good reasons to believe that hell itself is an improvisation. And of course for nonbelievers, the whole enchilada is improvisation.

Indeed, the "good news" becomes a hot potato, or a burden like one of those irksome, threatening and supposedly loving chain letters: you better take it seriously and pass it on (maybe reap the reward) or you will suffer the consequences. And it's couched in a message of love and redemption. What complicates things is that the experience of love and redemption is real; as Elaine Pagels says, there is substance to the ancient stories which operates today in the human heart as it did thousands of years ago. This substance is what Jung termed archetypal: it resonates potently in human consciousness because it is universal. It becomes enveloped in culture due to centuries or millennia of being circumscribed by culture--which makes it more available to its heirs. But in codifying it, this making-available fossilizes and contains it--stuffs it into a box such as a book or a church or an empire (the fate of Christianity).

I recall the words of the Chilean poet and songwriter Violeta Parra, writing of love (in Volver a los Diecisiete):

Se va enredando, enredando

Como en el muro la hiedra;

Se va brotando, brotando

Como el musguito en la piedra...

Sacred love is absolutely like this. We find it in the darkest of times, whatever we call it. We cannot contain the infinite; if we are lucky we can get a good glimpse of it and see it for what it is. In my humbled opinion, this experience is at the heart of all conceptions of the sacred; it involves a dissolution of ego--at which point great wisdom may be imparted, a dissolution of physical boundaries, and a unity with all living beings--at which point one transcends death. And it is precisely this experience which the hard-liners vilify, because it establishes the sacred within the heart of every individual on the planet, rather than consigning it to the control of one institution claiming to have The Truth.

And the experience has a physiological basis, as documented by the neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/fashion/...1RzpdmauKDteSog

ProdeFemme said above that it does not matter whether this experience is wholly internal--i.e. contained in the brain or whether it is also part of external reality. That's exactly how I feel, without delving into the questions about the nature of consciousness, the existence of extrasensory perception, and so on. It doesn't matter. The experience of the sacred has had an integrative and constellating function within human symbol systems for millennia. Not everyone knows or cares about it, and that's totally cool, so long as they don't try to intimidate or suppress those who do. Different strokes.

But those who claim to have the only path to the truth are wrong, and they need to be informed of their ignorance again and again (even if they are unable to hear), because they and their forebears have had way too loud a voice for centuries. They've built a top-heavy and erroneous case against so-called 'mainstream Christians', the so-called 'once-born', the Christians who understand the importance of works as well as grace, the ecumenical Christians who focus on brotherly love and see the same light in all paths.

Finally, please check out the Good Friday experiment. There are a number of links here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment

[Gatto]

Sacred love is absolutely like this. We find it in the darkest of times, whatever we call it. We cannot contain the infinite; if we are lucky we can get a good glimpse of it and see it for what it is. In my humbled opinion, this experience is at the heart of all conceptions of the sacred; it involves a dissolution of ego--at which point great wisdom may be imparted, a dissolution of physical boundaries, and a unity with all living beings--at which point one transcends death. And it is precisely this experience which the hard-liners vilify, because it establishes the sacred within the heart of every individual on the planet, rather than consigning it to the control of one institution claiming to have The Truth.

So it undermines privilege. As much as the fundies go on about wanting to share the "Good News", mostly, they take smug satisfaction in belonging to an elite club.

[osito]

Yes. There's a preponderance of arrogance mixed in with the ignorance. The Calvinists cooked up the concept of 'the Elect'--that is, God has preselected the souls who go to heaven, and not a leaf trembles (nor an airliner crashes) without His will.

[Shadow girl]

If so many of you think this is all just fairytale I'm speaking then why to you protest to it so much?

[-V-]

When a person comes on the scene and basically says "you are all fundimentally flawed for being different from me" people will react, thats whats happening here.

[osito]

If so many of you think this is all just fairytale I'm speaking then why to you protest to it so much?

Shadow girl, I expect that you (to yourself) believe (don't you?) that we protest because we secretly fear what you say is all true.

And I am also aware that this (invoking our supposed secret fears) is a classic "line" in the manual for arguing with non-believers. Which I am not, except by your definition of legitimate belief. Which many here are not. We protest because the voice you represent--whether you know it or not--has intimidated and oppressed and coerced and threatened people all over the planet for centuries. And while I stand up for your right to express your opinion (God knows I have been trying for months--as have others--to actually get you to debate the points raised here in a logical manner), I protest the message because it is a deception, and because it has held sway for so long. I would likewise protest the arguments of fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Judaism were I better informed about them, and were they being pushed on this community. Which they are not.

The fact is: you are not capable of holding your own in an arena of fair debate even though you repeatedly open the door to it. If God wills all things that happen, including your proselytizing, then God has willed that we respond as we are responding, and maybe He wants you to listen and consider.

[Olivier]

The fact is: you are not capable of holding your own in an arena of fair debate even though you repeatedly open the door to it. If God wills all things that happen, including your proselytizing, then God has willed that we respond as we are responding, and maybe He wants you to listen and consider.

Praise be! (all of it, but especially this^^)

[Tikva]

If so many of you think this is all just fairytale I'm speaking then why to you protest to it so much?

Shadow girl, I expect that you (to yourself) believe (don't you?) that we protest because we secretly fear what you say is all true.

And I am also aware that this (invoking our supposed secret fears) is a classic "line" in the manual for arguing with non-believers. Which I am not, except by your definition of legitimate belief. Which many here are not. We protest because the voice you represent--whether you know it or not--has intimidated and oppressed and coerced and threatened people all over the planet for centuries. And while I stand up for your right to express your opinion (God knows I have been trying for months--as have others--to actually get you to debate the points raised here in a logical manner), I protest the message because it is a deception, and because it has held sway for so long. I would likewise protest the arguments of fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Judaism were I better informed about them, and were they being pushed on this community. Which they are not.

The fact is: you are not capable of holding your own in an arena of fair debate even though you repeatedly open the door to it. If God wills all things that happen, including your proselytizing, then God has willed that we respond as we are responding, and maybe He wants you to listen and consider.

Shadow girl, what osito is saying is:

(In very simplified words) It is not "just fairy tale" we are "protesting".

We are "protesting" the extreme arrogance, (Anyone/Everyone in the world whose beliefs are not the same as Shadow girl's are WRONG!)

and scare tactics----(causing much suffering to millions of people for centuries) such as:

- If you hear the "Good News" and don't accept Jesus and be Saved, You Will Burn In Hell!!

- You must say this prayer sincerely or You Will Burn In Hell!!!

- You MUST believe the exact same religion as Shadow girl or You Will Burn In Hell!!!!

- If you don't accept the "Good News" the Devil is blinding you and You Will Burn In Hell!!!

Do you understand what osito is saying Shadow girl??????

Will you answer this very simple question???

[EricK]

If so many of you think this is all just fairytale I'm speaking then why to you protest to it so much?

A strange question indeed. The situation is that billions of adults around the world, some of the with enormous political or military power, believe in one fairytale or another and some of them detest people who believe in a different fairytale (let alone people who don't believe in any), and are prepared to kill them or deny them basic rights based on that fact alone.

And you wonder why someone might protest this situation!

[Sally]

We are not getting anywhere. When someone wraps their belief around them like an armored cloak, there's no point in talking anymore.

[Lady Matilda]

As an ex-fundamentalist Christian, I think eccentric preachy right-wing "nutcases" are misunderstood. Arguably it's their fault for refusing to listen to feedback. But I'm not convinced all preachy people are out there trying to scare helpless people into joining a giant moneymaking cult. Certainly many are, but to assume every fundamentalist who crosses your path is a slime-bucket just because of those few slime-buckets the media loves to hype on...that's prejudicial. What else can you call it?

Based on my own fundy psychology, I'm convinced - and I'd love to run a study of this somehow - fundamentalist preachers are after two things other than "saving the world":

1. Prove to themselves that they are good Christians and will not go to Hell

2. Stick it to a society that has been hostile toward them

Fundies are naive, not irrational. Most of them could work through a math or logic problem that you need a lot of reason to tackle. But their social intelligence and self-esteem, I intuit, are low.

[Olivier]

I think you're on target with the low-self esteem thing, but I think a result of that is that a lot of fundamentalist clergy are in it for the power they have over their congregations.

One of the striking aspects of the sort of fundamentalism paraded before us by Shadow girl is the idea that without God, you are worthless, doomed to both Hell in the afterlife, and an unfulfilled life on Earth. All notions of personal worth depend on external validation from God, and to a lesser extent your church peers.

In traditional Christianity, giving credit for your accomplishments and better qualities to God is a form of humility and modesty, and this is no bad thing from a societal perspective.

But fundamental Christianity turns all this on its head. Rather than use external validation as a form of modesty, fundamentalists treat God's approval as a stamp of superiority: we're going to heaven (and you're not), we're Rapture ready (and you're not); we're good in God's eyes (and you're not); you could be better if you were just more like us because we're the FUCKING BEST!!!!! (because God says so).

It's this utter warping of Christ's teaching of humility and universal tolerance that to me is the most ugly aspect of fundamentalism. The idiotic recasting of the lessons of the Bible to make believers the chosen people, so much so that through the fundamentalist lens, for example, the Good Samaritan is currently burning in Hell. This sort of fundamentalism is not really Christian at all in the sense of "following from the teachings of Christ". From a biblical perspective, it's actually quite Satanic, having fallen victim to the temptations of the most loathsome forms of pride.

[ProdeFemme]

If so many of you think this is all just fairytale I'm speaking then why to you protest to it so much?

Well, though I do not believe religion to be a fairytale, I protest this for the same reasons I protest white supremacy; I do not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, want absolutely ANYONE AT ALL to have the impression that this is the opinion of the majority. So I do my best to smite this BS whenever I come across it.

And yes, it is comparable, both use bullying and fear-mongering tactics to attempt to control the situation. I can appreciate different views, if nothing else I find it very interesting, but I despise religious intolerance; no one on earth is fit to say who is right and who is wrong, because no moral is genuinely privy to that information.

[Sally]

As an ex-fundamentalist Christian, I think eccentric preachy right-wing "nutcases" are misunderstood. Arguably it's their fault for refusing to listen to feedback. But I'm not convinced all preachy people are out there trying to scare helpless people into joining a giant moneymaking cult. Certainly many are, but to assume every fundamentalist who crosses your path is a slime-bucket just because of those few slime-buckets the media loves to hype on...that's prejudicial. What else can you call it?

I don't think anyone's claimed that Shadow Girl is trying to convert us to be part of a moneymaking cult, nor have we called her (or any fundie) a slimebucket.

Fundies are naive, not irrational.

That's a matter of opinion. I think they're irrational because they don't appear to think rationally. How else do you define irrationality?

[Lady Matilda]

I don't think anyone's claimed that Shadow Girl is trying to convert us to be part of a moneymaking cult, nor have we called her (or any fundie) a slimebucket.

It's certainly implied in what people are saying. Maybe it's not a moneymaking cult, but people believe she's trying to scare us into joining her cult, for sure.

That's a matter of opinion. I think they're irrational because they don't appear to think rationally. How else do you define irrationality?

It's not a matter of opinion if you believe rationality can be measured (e.g. IQ tests). Which is a more rational way to judge a person: by your own intuition or by objective measurement?

[-V-]

Are you saying that its rational to believe in something there is no evidence of?

[Tikva]

I don't think anyone's claimed that Shadow Girl is trying to convert us to be part of a moneymaking cult, nor have we called her (or any fundie) a slimebucket.

It's certainly implied in what people are saying. Maybe it's not a moneymaking cult, but people believe she's trying to scare us into joining her cult, for sure.

No one has "implied" anything. We've said exactly what we mean. And Sally's right, no one has called SG a "slimebucket", or "implied" it.

It's also not true that "people believe she's trying to scare us into joining her cult..".

It's not a 'belief'.

It's a known fact.