Dear Jesus: A letter to Jesus from a nonbeliever

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Zhavric Easy there, tiger. We know that Christians don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to their stories, but if you don't like someone's expressions then you aren't required to read them. Also, many of you do become incredibly thin-skinned when it comes to any sort of discussion like this. Did CC state something in the original post like, "Jesus, why are all your followers complete (insert nasty word)?" No, he did not. So please don't accuse someone of "demeaning" you when this was clearly not the intention of the op.

um...

I appreciate your coming to my defense, Zhav...

But...

I have engaged in some pretty damn demeaning humor towards Christianity in my time. I guess I enjoy the shock value of it.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Easy there, tiger. We know that Christians don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to their stories,

Notice the demeaning, condescending tone - you guys just can't help it, can you.

but if you don't like someone's expressions then you aren't required to read them. Also, many of you do become incredibly thin-skinned when it comes to any sort of discussion like this.

This thread is not about whether or not about how I respond to someone's expressions. The question CC has asked has to do with how God responds to him.

Did CC state something in the original post like, "Jesus, why are all your followers complete (insert nasty word)?"

No, but I notice he did start a thread entitled "Christians worship a God of torture". Since I'm new here, this may be first time that he's ever said anything that might be construed as demeaning toward Christians - you would know better than I. You can fool yourself(and you might even fool me) into believing that that title(or this thread for that matter) was not intending to needle Christians - but I don't think you'll succeed in fooling the only one that matters for the purpose of the question regarding his salvation.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: AlwaysRight No, but I notice he did start a thread entitled "Christians worship a God of torture". Since I'm new here, this may be first time that he's ever said anything that might be construed as demeaning toward Christians - you would know better than I.

More like the 1000th time...

But, Christians do worship a God of torture. You guys worship a being who created a system whereby the majority of his creations, because of their inherently sinful nature, are automatically deemed worthy of eternal torture. Only those who become Christian, no matter how nutty the religion may seem, are spared this torture.

That is a God of torture. Sure, he spares a few, but tortures all the rest. Any of us could envision a less demented system than that.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight Notice the demeaning, condescending tone - you guys just can't help it, can you.

So, let me get this straight: pointing out that you take the bible seriously and don't like having it mocked is a type of mocking? Please. Captain Chaos and I have both given out some licks to Christianity. We'll let you know if & when we decide to get demeaning.

This thread is not about whether or not about how I respond to someone's expressions. The question CC has asked has to do with how God responds to him.

Since god doesn't respond to anyone, I find this statement highly dubious.

No, but I notice he did start a thread entitled "Christians worship a God of torture". Since I'm new here, this may be first time that he's ever said anything that might be construed as demeaning toward Christians - you would know better than I. You can fool yourself(and you might even fool me) into believing that that title(or this thread for that matter) was not intending to needle Christians - but I don't think you'll succeed in fooling the only one that matters for the purpose of the question regarding his salvation.

Questioning Christianity =/= demeaning Christianity or Christians.

You worship a god that equally condemns consentual homosexuals & masturbators with murderers & rapists (all "sinners") and call him a god of love. Did you really expect all of us to agree?

[Heehoos]

Zhavric, there are as many perspectives of God on this world as there are grains of sand on the planet, and that's an under statement. Saying that someone worships a God that tortures or condemns all is implying YOUR perspective of the Christian God on them.

I am Christian and I don't feel condemnation in any way. I am in no way perfect but because I have faith, and because I feel loved, I live an honest life. I am straight-forward, generous and try to be kind. I have been brought to this point in my life after much drug/alcohol use through love alone. I realized that what I WAS doing was damaging to me and others around me, so I sought forgiveness (maybe from myself) and love. I found that in God. Faith brought me hope and joy that I could find outside of my own body chemistry.

And let's not be silly, okay? You know that when you call someone "Tiger" you're not assuming that they play golf. It's a name that you would use for a child and for another adult is meant to be condescending. And when you infer that Christians are only Christian because we don't have the capacity for rational thought, that's not exactly objective either. Let's not try to fool each other. You are trying to be demeaning in your language, and we can all see it fairly clearly.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Heehoos Zhavric, there are as many perspectives of God on this world as there are grains of sand on the planet, and that's an under statement. Saying that someone worships a God that tortures or condemns all is implying YOUR perspective of the Christian God on them. I am Christian and I don't feel condemnation in any way. I am in no way perfect but because I have faith, and because I feel loved, I live an honest life. I am straight-forward, generous and try to be kind. I have been brought to this point in my life after much drug/alcohol use through love alone. I realized that what I WAS doing was damaging to me and others around me, so I sought forgiveness (maybe from myself) and love. I found that in God. Faith brought me hope and joy that I could find outside of my own body chemistry. And let's not be silly, okay? You know that when you call someone "Tiger" you're not assuming that they play golf. It's a name that you would use for a child and for another adult is meant to be condescending. And when you infer that Christians are only Christian because we don't have the capacity for rational thought, that's not exactly objective either. Let's not try to fool each other. You are trying to be demeaning in your language, and we can all see it fairly clearly.

Take away the mockery, then. Is it possible to be saved if you accept the concept of Jesus, and the basic Christian morality as you understand it, if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ? At bottom, I think that's what CC is getting at. I feel much the same (though I am an atheist and Captain Chaos is not): I consider myself a good person, and I follow pretty much all of the commandments because they mesh with my own morality -- but I have no belief in god. If I'm wrong about god, but I have lived a good life absent belief in him, is that enough? Or am I damned for not choosing to believe as well as living a good life? I am not asking for a judgement, simply an interpretation of doctrine. I have been told many times that one has to accept Christ as savior to be saved; is that accurate? Or does one simply have to follow the basic rules for being human (if that makes sense)?

[Jagged]

Quote by: Captain Chaos So, does that mean I won't go to hell and be tortured forever now?

Hahaha yeah, i didn't actually read the entire letter until right now, and now i got it.Quite practical.

[Heehoos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Take away the mockery, then. Is it possible to be saved if you accept the concept of Jesus, and the basic Christian morality as you understand it, if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ? At bottom, I think that's what CC is getting at. I feel much the same (though I am an atheist and Captain Chaos is not): I consider myself a good person, and I follow pretty much all of the commandments because they mesh with my own morality -- but I have no belief in god. If I'm wrong about god, but I have lived a good life absent belief in him, is that enough? Or am I damned for not choosing to believe as well as living a good life? I am not asking for a judgement, simply an interpretation of doctrine. I have been told many times that one has to accept Christ as savior to be saved; is that accurate? Or does one simply have to follow the basic rules for being human (if that makes sense)?

You know, I'm not sure. My personal belief is that God is a loving God. And even those who were part of the Christian church after Jesus' life didn't have theories of Jesus' divinity. They thought he was the Messiah, the one to save Jerusalem from its bondage. In a way, he did. He freed them from themselves, from their own rigorous laws.

At any rate, there were aeons of human beings before Jesus. I don't believe every life before Jesus was condemned. I know it for a fact because Moses and Elijah were said to have appeared to Jesus and the apostles. How could they have done that if they were condemned? They didn't know Jesus. And I don't believe that every human being who does not know Jesus is lost.

There was meaning when Jesus said that the only way to eternal life is through him. But maybe our translation of it, or our interpretation of it isn't what was originally meant.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Heehoos Zhavric, there are as many perspectives of God on this world as there are grains of sand on the planet, and that's an under statement. Saying that someone worships a God that tortures or condemns all is implying YOUR perspective of the Christian God on them.

You're mistaking opinion with fact. Both of us can look at the Mona Lisa and muse about it being a "good" painting. However, neither one of us can deny the fact the Mona Lisa IS a painting. You can think what you want about your god, but the record (the bible) is very clear about your god torturing, smiting and killing.

I am Christian and I don't feel condemnation in any way. I am in no way perfect but because I have faith, and because I feel loved, I live an honest life. I am straight-forward, generous and try to be kind. I have been brought to this point in my life after much drug/alcohol use through love alone. I realized that what I WAS doing was damaging to me and others around me, so I sought forgiveness (maybe from myself) and love. I found that in God. Faith brought me hope and joy that I could find outside of my own body chemistry.

Not all addictions are chemical-based, my friend. Sounds like you've simply swapped a chemical addiction for a memetic one. If it helps you, then more power to you. Just don't expect everyone else to believe it or nod & smile when you make statements which are demonstrably false.

And let's not be silly, okay? You know that when you call someone "Tiger" you're not assuming that they play golf. It's a name that you would use for a child and for another adult is meant to be condescending. And when you infer that Christians are only Christian because we don't have the capacity for rational thought, that's not exactly objective either. Let's not try to fool each other. You are trying to be demeaning in your language, and we can all see it fairly clearly.

You can read into my tone anything you like. Calling someone "Tiger" is what I do when another debator is being a little overzealous... pouncing on an issue like a big cat. Cats don't always look before they leap.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Quote by: Zhavric So, let me get this straight: pointing out that you take the bible seriously and don't like having it mocked is a type of mocking? Please. Captain Chaos and I have both given out some licks to Christianity. We'll let you know if & when we decide to get demeaning.

No, the mockery is in the smug, condescending tone. HeeHoos articulated the difference quite well. Don't get me wrong, it's not about my feelings, it's about his intentions - because that's what God, if he exists, will be judging by.

Since god doesn't respond to anyone, I find this statement highly dubious.

Well, he's the one who wrote the letter to Jesus, presumably to elicit a response if Jesus really exists. If, on the other hand, the letter was merely an insincere jest intended to make light of christias and their beliefs then I was perfectly correct in characterizing it as mockery.

Questioning Christianity =/= demeaning Christianity or Christians.

A rather obvious statement. Equally obvious is that demeaning Christianity =/= sincere questioning of Christianity. The former is done in the vein of sort of a sadistic pleasure (as CC said for shock value), the latter represents a genuine, sincere quest for understanding. On cannot begin to shed light on his question "am I saved since I wrote that letter?" without first understanding the real attitude(that only God can truly discern) with which it was written.

You worship a god that equally condemns consentual homosexuals & masturbators with murderers & rapists (all "sinners") and call him a god of love. Did you really expect all of us to agree?

I worship a God who gives us free will to choose our eternal destinies. We can choose to live in relationship with Him or we can choose to deny Him the relationship he created us for. Whichever decision we make in this life determines whether we spend eternity in communion with Him or separated from Him. Either way, he honors our choice. If we are rebellious against Him on earth, why should He expect us to be any less troublesome in heaven.

Skeptics seem to want a God that allows us to deny Him and rebel against Him and mock him(with all intellectual sincerity) or just pay him no attention while we follow our own free wills our whole lives as though we are our own little gods - but then at the end of our lives, override our freewill and force us to spend eternity with him in heaven.

As a Christian, I don't spend alot of time contemplating the specific nature of "hell" since it's not an issue for me. The Bible, as I read it, is pretty vague about such things anyway, though what it has to say doesn't depict it as a very inviting existence. It is generally skeptics who seem more interested in speculating on what Hell will be like. However, the overriding point to remember about hell is that it is a "place" of separation from God, which would indicate to me that any torture or suffering or torment that might go on there, will be the doing of it's "inhabitants" and not of God. God has simply said, "Your will be done" and we are free to exist apart from him - which is death. I suspect that the biblical descriptions of hell are merely describing the degenerate "world" these souls have build for themselves - completely absent of God's grace.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zhavric Easy there, tiger. We know that Christians don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to their stories, but if you don't like someone's expressions then you aren't required to read them. Also, many of you do become incredibly thin-skinned when it comes to any sort of discussion like this. Did CC state something in the original post like, "Jesus, why are all your followers complete (insert nasty word)?" No, he did not. So please don't accuse someone of "demeaning" you when this was clearly not the intention of the op.

Zed, you can't say a word about getting touchy when your pet cosmology is attacked. Case in point: your overactive and emotionally-charged participation in religious threads. I find this pretty interesting, actually. Sincere Christians get upset about perceived insults to their faith because of the love of its Author. What do atheists get so upset about?:eek:

[Zhavric]

Skeptics seem to want a God that allows us to deny Him and rebel against Him and mock him(with all intellectual sincerity) or just pay him no attention while we follow our own free wills our whole lives as though we are our own little gods - but then at the end of our lives, override our freewill and force us to spend eternity with him in heaven.

Which skeptics are those? They sound as "real" as Jesus.

Skeptics are individuals who acknowledge there is no evidence for god (and even less for Jesus). Divorce yourself from this idea that skeptics / atheists are people who believe a god exists, but simply choose not to acknowledge him. This useless argument is the other side of the coin of "Theists know god isn't real and just really want him to be real". It's an argument I don't use and actively discourage other atheists from using.

[Heehoos]

Quote by: Zhavric You're mistaking opinion with fact. Both of us can look at the Mona Lisa and muse about it being a "good" painting. However, neither one of us can deny the fact the Mona Lisa IS a painting. You can think what you want about your god, but the record (the bible) is very clear about your god torturing, smiting and killing. .

The New Testament of the bible (have you read it?) Talks about defending the weak and the poor, about standing against hypocracy, and about loving all despite the odds. The Old Testament is a tribal account of their view of God. You understand how tribes worked, don't you? There were many tribes in the old land. If things were going well, you were blessed. If things weren't going well, someone in the tribe was obviously screwing up. If you won in battle, it's because it was God's will. But it is valuable because it is the cultural history of an ancient people who sought a single God over multiple.

Quote by: Zhavric Not all addictions are chemical-based, my friend. Sounds like you've simply swapped a chemical addiction for a memetic one. If it helps you, then more power to you. Just don't expect everyone else to believe it or nod & smile when you make statements which are demonstrably false.

You can talk about things being false statements after you have walked in everybody else's shoes and understood their experiences. Until then, your spouting that things are "false" just because you haven't experienced them is just noise.

[ImAlwaysRight]

I consider myself a good person, and I follow pretty much all of the commandments because they mesh with my own morality -- but I have no belief in god. If I'm wrong about god, but I have lived a good life absent belief in him, is that enough? Or am I damned for not choosing to believe as well as living a good life?

That's a very good question. As HeeHoos pointed out, there are obviously biblical reasons for believing that salvation is possible without actual belief in Jesus by name. To the old testament figures he named, I would also add babies. Therefore, it seems to me that the purist belief that nobody is saved that does not profess belief in Jesus by name unnecessarily puts God back in the same box that Jesus's sacrifice was intended get him out of - so to speak.

Now, if by "a good person" you mean that you have lived a sinless life, then the bible doesn't shed any light on your question since the bible states that no such person exists. But I doubt that's what you meant to imply.

I look at it like this. God created us to live in personal relation with him for eternity. Despite being warned of the consequences, man sinned, effectively disqualifying everyone from eternal life with God - which presented a problem for God who still loves us and wants relationship with us. It would violate his own nature to simply overlook his own law - even for people who sincerely yearn for God. He solved this problem by taking the punishment himself. Therefore, when the Jesus says "nobody comes to the Father but through me", I think he means that it is through him that the law( the wages of sin is death)would be fulfilled - the price(death) would be paid. At that point, our sin is no longer an impediment to allowing the eternal relationships with us that God intended.

The ball is now in our court to choose between eternal relationship with God or eternal separation from Him. God will grant our wishes either way. Unlike babies, or the menally retarded or Hindu's who have never heard the Gospel message, it sounds like you have had ample opportunity to contemplate your decision and have consciously chosen to have nothing to do with God.

Now, you may think your disbelief is sincerely arrived at through purely rational means. You may be one of those who thinks that if there actually is a judgement, you'll outwit God on the judgment stand by making the case that if he wanted you to believe in him, he should not have made you so rational or should have revealed himself to you more directly. The problem with this defense is that He is just as likely to respond with something like "But I made you didn't I - what more proof did you need".

As for those who simply never had the opportunity to know about Jesus, I certainly believe that God will judge them righeously according to what is in their heart - but that this only possible because of what Jesus did.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Zed, you can't say a word about getting touchy when your pet cosmology is attacked. Case in point: your overactive and emotionally-charged participation in religious threads. I find this pretty interesting, actually. Sincere Christians get upset about perceived insults to their faith because of the love of its Author. What do atheists get so upset about?:eek:

Call me Zhavric, or Zhav.

We get "upset" when Christians go to the mods and claim they're being insulted by non-believers. It's annoying to have to tiptoe around hyper-sensitive individuals who claim foul at fairly benign comments. We poke fun and question and get characerized as villains for it. I'm not having any of it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Heehoos The New Testament of the bible (have you read it?) Talks about defending the weak and the poor, about standing against hypocracy, and about loving all despite the odds. The Old Testament is a tribal account of their view of God. You understand how tribes worked, don't you? There were many tribes in the old land. If things were going well, you were blessed. If things weren't going well, someone in the tribe was obviously screwing up. If you won in battle, it's because it was God's will. But it is valuable because it is the cultural history of an ancient people who sought a single God over multiple.

Many Christians believe there's something in the NT that negates the rules in the OT and it's a good thing they do because the killing in the OT doesn't stop. You kill your kids for talking back to you. You kill your spouse for disobeying you. You kill your neighbors for worshiping other gods. The murder goes on and on...

... yet this is supposed to be a peaceful loving god?

And I could start a whole other thread on the NT. To sum it up, it's a form of propaganda as I detailed in another thread.

You can talk about things being false statements after you have walked in everybody else's shoes and understood their experiences. Until then, your spouting that things are "false" just because you haven't experienced them is just noise.

Really? So, if someone came to you... some stranger approached you in the grocery store and told you that a can a turnips spoke to them about god... you'd have to believe them because you haven't walked in their shoes or understood their experiences? You're logic is highly flawed as the opposite is true: given what you've stated, why would you conclude something true before walking in everybody else's shoes?

Jesus and god are demonstrably false.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Which skeptics are those? They sound as "real" as Jesus.

Those who are quick to point out the percieved injustice of a God that would not force them into heaven(i.e. send them to hell) against their will. This is often used as an argument against the existence of the Christian God - who Christians presume to be a just God. I've found that for people who don't believe in God, skeptics often have formulated very specific ideas about what God ought to be like if he did exist - almost as if they would be better at being God than God himself, if he existed. Which, of course, according to the Bible, is how our troubles began in the first place.

[Zhavric]

Close, but no.

If I say "unicorn", you probably think four-legged horse-like animal with a single horn on its head. We can muse about unicorns because we know things about horses and have the capacity for abstract thought.

A unicorn, for example, isn't a computer. A unicorn would be able to run like a horse. etc.

When we look at the attributes Christians try to give to god, they don't make sense. While not as overtly contradictory as "married batchelors" or "square circles", the notion of unwilled suffering existing in a universe with a "tri-omni" god is no less impossible.

Apologists will bend over backwards in attempts to rationalize these incongruities. Usually, this amounts to little more than fallacious attacks against skeptics or attempting to change the rules... and there's never an ounce of evidence to back up any of it.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Jesus and god are demonstrably false.

Did I miss the part where you demonstrated? Otherwise, it would be more accurate to say "Jesus and God are presumptively(by skeptics) false". There's a huge difference. Presuming your conclusion(that god doesn't exist) you can simply declare the experiences of millions of other people throughout the ages to be inherently invalid since they would tend to contradict your presumptive conclusion. You have merely confused that fallacious, circular logic with a "demonstration" that god doesn't exist.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ImAlwaysRight Did I miss the part where you demonstrated?

You did, in fact.

Otherwise, it would be more accurate to say "Jesus and God are presumptively(by skeptics) false". There's a huge difference. Presuming your conclusion(that god doesn't exist) you can simply declare the experiences of millions of other people throughout the ages to be inherently invalid since they would tend to contradict your presumptive conclusion.

People through out the ages thought the world was flat. Do not fall victim to appealing to popular opinion or tradition.

You have merely confused that fallacious, circular logic with a "demonstration" that god doesn't exist.

There's a whole thread explaining why god doesn't exist, nor is it a fallacy. The fallacy is assuming he DOES exist.