Is the future Atheist?

[johannhowitzer]

Ironic, since it's come immediately on the coattails of the Protestant movement, which divided the political power of the church and paved the way to far greater tolerance and doctrinal honesty among Christians.  It's also worth mentioning that the Protestant movement, especially in England, spurred a dramatic rise in literacy.  People discovered the church leaders were lying to them about what the Bible actually said, and John Wycliffe and Martin Luther (for whom the famous civil rights activist was named) and others challenged the religious authorities with surprising courage.

People everywhere are capable of exactly the same level of corruption, of course.  No getting around that.  Religion makes a handy excuse in a society of sheep, but for most religions you've got to bend their meaning way out of joint first.  All the internet has done is make keeping people sheep-like more difficult.  Not that it isn't still possible if you're lazy or apathetic or both.

[Selenbrant]

For me religion is neither something good nor something you should believe.
Religion always brought death, greed, lust, wrath, pride, envy, gluttony, sloth and nowadays violation comitted by high priests.
Yeah, religion brought hope, but hope without response isnt worth a thought. People who need to believe in god in hard times are really poor.... Why not believe in yourself or in your family or friends it could even help. And if you start acting instead of believing it even will help.

[assassim]

Santa > God when it comes to eternal happiness

[johannhowitzer]

Haha, kidding?  Santa is all about you being "nice," while God (at least the God of the Bible) extends what he gives to everyone regardless of how they lived their life.  Santa would totally put coal in the poor prostitute's stocking. 

[Innominate]

Haha, kidding?  Santa is all about you being "nice," while God (at least the God of the Bible) extends what he gives to everyone regardless of how they lived their life.  Santa would totally put coal in the poor prostitute's stocking. 

Actually, the God of the Old Testament only spares good circumsised (if male) Jews from torment.

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought  with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

So uncircumsised males who lived during the period from when god said this to Abraham  at 75 years old (fairly early on, given that he is supposed to be 11 generations from Noah) and when Jesus decided that circumsision wasn't good enough any more (millions of people, easily - god killed a million Ethiopians in 2 Chronicles 14) didn't get into heaven.

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever[.]

So if somebody mutilates your genitalia (at least if you were born before Acts 8), no heaven. If you were born out of wedlock, no heaven (even if anybody since your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was born out of wedlock, no heaven). Not that anybody is currently ten generations from the Ammonites and Moabites, but if they were, no heaven.

It's kind of funny that Jesus was born to Mary and God (allegedly), who were not married; or, more likely, to Mary and Joseph, who had (allegedly) not consumated their betrothal when Jesus was conceived. In either case, Jesus was (allegedly) born out of wedlock, and hence he couldn't enter into the congregation of the lord. That must suck.

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

But unfortunately, divorce and remarriage doesn't count, so anybody born of a parent who remarried (unless it was a husband whose wife cheated on them) is likewise condemned to the tenth generation. So a huge number of people are condemned to hell through no fault of their own, even if they were perfectly pure, simply because their parent(s) remarried.

Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

This verse is chronologically preceded by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explains that people who used to commit these sins will not get to go to heaven. This verse further explains that people who still commit these sins, despite believing in god and being "born again", will not go to heaven. The ones he listed before are fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, "effeminate", "abusers of themselves with mankind" (male prostitutes who service other men), thieves, "covetous", drunkards, "revilers" (sometimes translated as "slanderers"), and extortioners. Doesn't seem that bad, really (except for the effeminate and covetous getting a raw deal). Except:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So any man who looks at a woman who is not his wife in a sexual manner goes to hell if they die before confessing their sins. Seems a little harsh, no?

[johannhowitzer]

Actually, the God of the Old Testament only spares good circumsised (if male) Jews from torment.

Then you're talking about Judaism.

It's kind of funny that Jesus was born to Mary and God (allegedly), who were not married;

So you're saying they had sex?  Did he turn into a swan?  Kidding... but God often provided exceptions for the laws he set forth, in special cases.  I'd say this was a pretty special case.  Since we appear to be working in the context of the Bible for the moment (or just the Old Testament, which is it?), you can strike the thing about Joseph from the discussion.

This verse is chronologically preceded by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explains that people who used to commit these sins will not get to go to heaven.

Do I need to quote the verse here?  You're only reading half of it.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

So any man who looks at a woman who is not his wife in a sexual manner goes to hell if they die before confessing their sins. Seems a little harsh, no?

So is being cut off for taking a bite of a piece of fruit.  Once again, though, we're talking about the OT as standalone, ignoring the "new covenant" that Jesus established, which makes no questions about the idea that everything is forgiven if you turn to God.  So I'm forced to ask you: are we discussing Judaism or Christianity?  Because you keep blurring the line.  I'd be happy to discuss Judaism if you want, or Islam, but I mentioned the "God of the Bible."

Either way, please keep inaccuracies and omissions out of your posts.  You're just making this too easy, though it's still fun to poke holes in misconceptions and it's been a nice diversion from my insomnia. 

[Innominate]

Actually, the God of the Old Testament only spares good circumsised (if male) Jews from torment.

Then you're talking about Judaism.

So you're saying that Christians don't have an Old Testament? For a long time, the laws of the Old Testament were in effect. Everybody who died between then and the New Testament would have been judged by those laws. Could you please point out a verse which says that all the people who already went to hell suddenly left hell and got into heaven when Jesus came along?

It's kind of funny that Jesus was born to Mary and God (allegedly), who were not married;

So you're saying they had sex?  Did he turn into a swan?  Kidding... but God often provided exceptions for the laws he set forth, in special cases.  I'd say this was a pretty special case.  Since we appear to be working in the context of the Bible for the moment (or just the Old Testament, which is it?), you can strike the thing about Joseph from the discussion.

True, it is very Jehovah-like to make arbitrary exceptions to his rules.

This verse is chronologically preceded by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explains that people who used to commit these sins will not get to go to heaven.

Do I need to quote the verse here?  You're only reading half of it.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I know I didn't quote it, but I most definitely did read it. Reading the quote from Galatians we see the line "that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Note the present tense, rather than the past tense. In other words, the people who still commit that list of sins will go to hell (unless they are again "washed ... sanctified ... [and] justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."). They were washed, but they did sin, so they are unclean until again washed. Although, depending on whether you are Catholic or not, you may believe that baptism is a recurrent, permanent affair which doesn't require repeating even for subsequent sin. Which means, since I was baptised, I can murder the Pope if I want to and still be set for life.

So any man who looks at a woman who is not his wife in a sexual manner goes to hell if they die before confessing their sins. Seems a little harsh, no?

So is being cut off for taking a bite of a piece of fruit.  Once again, though, we're talking about the OT as standalone, ignoring the "new covenant" that Jesus established, which makes no questions about the idea that everything is forgiven if you turn to God.  So I'm forced to ask you: are we discussing Judaism or Christianity?  Because you keep blurring the line.  I'd be happy to discuss Judaism if you want, or Islam, but I mentioned the "God of the Bible."

All the quotes that led to the quoted conclusion were from the New Testament, so presumably they were said in light of the "new covenant".

Either way, please keep inaccuracies and omissions out of your posts.  You're just making this too easy, though it's still fun to poke holes in misconceptions and it's been a nice diversion from my insomnia. 

Please provide bible verses which refute my claims, rather than referring to modern Christian doctrine which is often not rooted in the bible at all. Just because the clergy says it doesn't make it true. After all, there are so many disagreements among Christian sects that you usually only find a few things on which they all agree.

The quotation most often used by fundamentalists to reject the liberal Christian philosophy that "the OT laws were just a practice round, lol" is this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The word translated as "fulfill" is πληρόω (plēroō), which has the meanings (according to Strong's concordance):
1) To cause to abound
2) To fully fill (i.e. render complete)
3) To perfect
4) To carry into effect

Jesus didn't remove the old laws, he just added new ones. The only person who disagrees is Paul, who says that following any laws (secular or Jewish) is a hindrance to being Christian. It's no wonder the modern church prefers Paul's word over Jesus'.

[johannhowitzer]

So you're saying that Christians don't have an Old Testament?

Don't put words in my mouth.  You said the "God of the Old Testament" - implying exclusion of the New Testament.

Could you please point out a verse which says that all the people who already went to hell suddenly left hell and got into heaven when Jesus came along?

I don't intend to.  I do have a question, though, out of curiosity only: do you believe every human who has ever lived should wind up escaping hell, assuming such a place exists?  If you don't, then you only disagree with the Bible about where the "line" should be drawn.

All the quotes that led to the quoted conclusion were from the New Testament, so presumably they were said in light of the "new covenant".

No, those verses from the NT you quoted were referring to the old covenant.  Just because something's in one half of the Bible doesn't mean it can't refer to stuff from the other half.

Which means, since I was baptised, I can murder the Pope if I want to and still be set for life.

Fun fact: I've heard there were people in the middle ages who bought indulgences for "future sins" and then used them to rob priests of more than the cost of the indulgence.  Way to work the system, eh? 

You're missing the point.  Jesus did not abolish the Law or Prophets, in even most modern Christian doctrine I've come across.  Rather, he paid the penalty for humans breaking the rules.  That's the essence of the NT, it's pretty hard to miss.  The OT laws weren't a "practice round," they're still in place - perfection is the standard.  Harsh, perhaps, but over the whole Bible it's obvious that 1) God holds humanity to a perfect standard, 2) humanity exercises free will to betray that standard, and from then on it's impossible to recapture, 3) God steps in and puts himself in the electric chair for us, since he can't lower the standard and still be just.  There's a book I've been meaning to read called "101 Things God Can't Do" - omnipotence is actually not provided for in the Bible, many people don't know that.  (It's a logical impossibility anyway...)  Omniscience neither.

Speaking of exceptions to the rules, the ones the God of the Bible made have always been either 1) God gets to do something we're not allowed to do, but the rules were for us all along, or 2) God fulfills the rules in some way that doesn't leave us out to dry, like a substitute fall guy in the case of Jesus.

Anyway, that's my understanding of God as the Bible describes him, and I'll leave it FWIW.  Not really interested in continuing this discussion, since I was never out to prove anything to anyone, and didn't have a stake in the matter.  I was just having fun.

[Italy2]

Ever since the Renaissance, fewer and fewer people look to religion to find answers.  They believe that scinece can provide what they need because they provide people with certainity.

This can be seen as a problem...

[Selenbrant]

Ever since the Renaissance, fewer and fewer people look to religion to find answers.  They believe that scinece can provide what they need because they provide people with certainity.

This can be seen as a problem...

Then stop using science and all its developments, start with your computer.
And its a problem more and more people stop believing nonsense?

[Boingo]

Wow.  It turns out the future really IS atheist. And there's a graph to prove it'll happen in 140 years (at least for the USA, that is.)

(http://imageplay.net/)

It turns out we'll have wiped out disease, poverty and hunger before that happens though.  Oh, and we'll be able to upload our minds into computers and we'll have mastered interstellar travel.  So hold on to that the future-is-atheist dream--not long now! (http://www.futuretimeline.net/23rdcentury/2200-2249.htm#antimatter-fueled-starships)

[johannhowitzer]

You're assuming a linear path rather than a logarithmic.  I wonder what the spike in the late 90s represents?