Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abaya
Let me clarify: I don't find the idea of hell disturbing, because indeed, I don't give a rat's ass about it.
|
Oh, but you will
As my grandmother always says, sometimes some people get too big for their britches (a.k.a, you think you know more than you actually do).
Quote:
|
What I find disturbing is that when an evangelical Christian interacts with me, the primary thought in their mind (in one way or another) is that "here is an unsaved person," or that I have "rejected my salvation," that I am somehow "wretched," "corrupt," etc. in their minds. It doesn't matter what else I am capable of, or what is going on in my life, etc... all that matters is whether or not they can relate to me (or not) as a fellow person going to heaven. I find it extremely annoying. I much prefer to simply interact as two humans, both doing the best we can, regardless of where we believe we're going (or not) after we die. But Christians are compelled to *worry* about where other people are going when they die. I wish they wouldn't bother, frankly.
|
Let's see... How can I put this in a delicate manner... It really doesn't matter what you find as annoying. One of the underlying premise of almost any belief system-- Philosophical, social and/or political-- Is to garner as many adherents as possible (I know I've said this before but it gets ignored every single time). You choose not to follow the teachings of Christ, so as far as Christianity is concerned you're wrong and need to be converted. Whether you're a "good" person or not is pretty irrelevent.
Quote:
|
And since you asked, with Buddhism there is no "eternal damnation," and there isn't really even a "conversion." You either live it, or you don't. If I was forced to choose another belief system, I would have to go with that one. Not the pop-culture one that is served up in, say, Theravada Buddhism, however... (which I'm most familiar with from Thai culture), but something more adherent to doctrine.
|
Phew... That was a close one, seeing as how I said "
all" and/or any other word resembling as much. Ya' know, I'm not the smartest person in the world (Hah! Who am I kidding? Yes, I am) I could have almost sworn-- Almost-- That I said, and I quote, "
I'm not familiar with too many religions in which you're not subjected to eternal damnation unless you convert". Yes, yes. I know all about Buddhism, hence what caused me to make my initial statement. I'm not understanding why you seem to love focusing on bits and pieces of what I write out while ignoring the rest. It's, mildly put, annoying >_>
Quote:
|
By the way, what's up with the demeaning attitude here? I'd appreciate it if you toned it down a bit.
|
I have no attitude. I'm, as we Southern black folk tend to say, telling it like it is. But if you want me to cop an attitude, then I can
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, i would imagine the line is drawn depending on how rigidly one clings to one's own sense of dogma. I think that the idea that there is only one way to be a true christian is fairly ridiculous. For it to hold water there would need to be some way for a particular sect to make reasonable claim to being the only true christian sect, a claim which isn't really credible, since even under the umbrella of major denominational classifications there can be a pretty wide spread in terms of belief. The only reason people claim that their way is the one true way is because that's what they think their god wants them to believe, which, you know, doesn't make it true.
|
So does this mean I could start a new brand of atheism which worships Jesus as the son of God and still have it be branded as a true form of as atheism? I'm just wondering because it appears to me this is what you're saying.