4 ms·

> An atheist doesn't need to be saved, so there's no path to worry about. There are many straight and narrow paths which exclude the supernatural as motivation

> An atheist doesn't need to be saved, so there's no path to worry about. There are many straight and narrow paths which exclude the supernatural as motivation. Spirituality and deep-seated moral compasses are not the exclusive domain of theists. Some of the most spiritual people I know are atheists. All of the least spiritual people I know are rabid Christians. Both facts are certainly a result of my particular circumstances and aren't meant to generalize to either group. > On the contrary, it's really pointless to try hard to be a good person if getting to heaven is the concern. Many seminary lectures have been filled by the intellectual quagmires that grow out of "let grace abound". > I don't know who teaches this stuff people have in their heads IME growing up in the church, mostly American Protestants. And I don't only mean that in a coy way. Many American Protestant churches do not require their clergy attend seminary. The result is predictable -- some excellent diamonds in the rough giving competent sermons, surrounded by a whole bunch of crazy rants vaguely grounded in some words that do indeed come from the bible.

toasterlovin 8y ago
Thank you for your nuanced opinion.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  And you. I ver much agree with your sentiment that: > I have consistently found intensely, cerebrally religious people to be some of my favorite people to talk to. And I see so much good come from people who seat religion at the head of their table But have equally seen other things at the heads of those good tables. And some truly bad fruit in each case! My own understanding today is that there are many good people in the world, all feeling different parts of the elephant, and we all need each other to figure out the whole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_parable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_...
humanrebar 8y ago
I think you're missing what I'm saying. It's mostly a literary point. Here's the context: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." If there are many ways and they don't necessarily lead to salvation but self-determined good things, then we're not talking about the way anymore. We're basically disagreeing with Jesus (the speaker). That's anyone's prerogative, for sure, but a different metaphor is warranted at that point. EDIT: Reading your other comments, it looks like the "blind men and the elephant" metaphor is your preference, which is fair, but it's contradictory to the "straight and narrow path" metaphor. > Many seminary lectures have been filled by the intellectual quagmires that grow out of "let grace abound". How a Christian should behave and how people get to heaven are two separate questions. Ephesians 2:8 and Galatians 2:16 are pretty straightforward. And there are plenty of other supporting verses besides. But my point here is that people look at Christians and get caught up in the question of who are good people, which is really a secondary concern in Christian theology. It makes sense to assume it's a big deal to salvation theology since most world religions (and casual personal theologies besides) make achievement a central concern. But there's nothing in the Bible that says the worst Christian is better than the best atheist or anything. Or that Christians deserve any special consideration that agnostic people don't.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > But my point here is that people look at Christians and get caught up in the question of who are good people, which is really a secondary concern in Christian theology. I think "secondary concern" is a stretch. The entire religion is centered around the notion of sin; without sin, justification (and therefore Christ) is unnecessary. Regardless, the important point is that: > how a Christian should behave and how people get to heaven are two separate questions I.e., regardless of whether goodness is a secondary concern in Christian theology, it is not a secondary concern in Christian culture. Which is significant because you are explicitly asking for: >> appreciation and celebration of a culture and people. and in response to a thread rooted with claims about the goodness of Christians.

toasterlovin 8y ago

Thank you for your nuanced opinion.

throwawayjava 8y ago
And you. I ver much agree with your sentiment that: > I have consistently found intensely, cerebrally religious people to be some of my favorite people to talk to. And I see so much good come from people who seat religion at the head of their table But have equally seen other things at the heads of those good tables. And some truly bad fruit in each case! My own understanding today is that there are many good people in the world, all feeling different parts of the elephant, and we all need each other to figure out the whole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_parable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_...

humanrebar 8y ago

I think you're missing what I'm saying. It's mostly a literary point. Here's the context: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." If there are many ways and they don't necessarily lead to salvation but self-determined good things, then we're not talking about the way anymore. We're basically disagreeing with Jesus (the speaker). That's anyone's prerogative, for sure, but a different metaphor is warranted at that point. EDIT: Reading your other comments, it looks like the "blind men and the elephant" metaphor is your preference, which is fair, but it's contradictory to the "straight and narrow path" metaphor. > Many seminary lectures have been filled by the intellectual quagmires that grow out of "let grace abound". How a Christian should behave and how people get to heaven are two separate questions. Ephesians 2:8 and Galatians 2:16 are pretty straightforward. And there are plenty of other supporting verses besides. But my point here is that people look at Christians and get caught up in the question of who are good people, which is really a secondary concern in Christian theology. It makes sense to assume it's a big deal to salvation theology since most world religions (and casual personal theologies besides) make achievement a central concern. But there's nothing in the Bible that says the worst Christian is better than the best atheist or anything. Or that Christians deserve any special consideration that agnostic people don't.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> But my point here is that people look at Christians and get caught up in the question of who are good people, which is really a secondary concern in Christian theology. I think "secondary concern" is a stretch. The entire religion is centered around the notion of sin; without sin, justification (and therefore Christ) is unnecessary. Regardless, the important point is that: > how a Christian should behave and how people get to heaven are two separate questions I.e., regardless of whether goodness is a secondary concern in Christian theology, it is not a secondary concern in Christian culture. Which is significant because you are explicitly asking for: >> appreciation and celebration of a culture and people. and in response to a thread rooted with claims about the goodness of Christians.