Would you like to see the death of religion.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

So we'd welcome the death of real faith, but would be quite happy to see religion remain as a shell?

The distinction seems moot, seeing as we regard both the basis for both as invalid. But maybe as far as I'm concerned, you're not a million miles away. If by real faith you mean trapped in dogma, never to adapt.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

John Wine wrote: »

What happens if there is evidence of good works but no evidence of faith?

Good works without faith, while it certainly is much nicer than outright evil, would have little to do with salvation since any human good works fall short in that respect.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting question - for a rather extremely put view, see here.

"So, you see, WORKS WITHOUT FAITH ARE DEAD. So-called "good works" that flow from a person without faith are dead works. And since these works are not pleasing to God, what are they? They are HATEFUL to God. They are an ABOMINATION to God."

That, as Tim might have suggested, seems to be an argument by assertion.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

"So, you see, WORKS WITHOUT FAITH ARE DEAD. So-called "good works" that flow from a person without faith are dead works. And since these works are not pleasing to God, what are they? They are HATEFUL to God. They are an ABOMINATION to God."

Somewhat more definite than PDN's "much nicer than outright evil". Apparently not. It's nice to know that when I do something charitable, I am still HATEFUL and an ABOMINATION to God.

Dades wrote: »

That, as Tim might have suggested, seems to be an argument by assertion.

Step away from the handbag, please, sir.

officially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting question - for a rather extremely put view, see here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If it is possible to have good deeds without faith, well then it is impossible to tell if good deeds come from faith.
For exampe, if a person with faith does good deeds, it could be purely a co-incidence and not cause / effect?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

If it is possible to have good deeds without faith, well then it is impossible to tell if good deeds come from faith.
For exampe, if a person with faith does good deeds, it could be purely a co-incidence and not cause / effect?

I suppose that if someone never said that they had faith, and never went to church, etc, you'd assume they had no faith.

If they said they had faith, but never went to church, or demonstrated any faith other than by works, presumably the purist would say that by not 'witnessing' they show that they don't really have faith.

If they go to church, etc, as well as works, then I guess people have to assume that they do have faith. They may be living a lie - as would someone who is corrupt, or sinning and concealing it - but there's no way of knowing, I would agree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If they go to church, etc, as well as works, then I guess people have to assume that they do have faith. They may be living a lie - as would someone who is corrupt, or sinning and concealing it - but there's no way of knowing, I would agree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It would appear PDN is saying this:

Faith + Good Deeds = Salvation
No Faith + Good Deed = No Salvation, but not as bad as evil.

PDN, can you correct me here if I am wrong.
It would appear this is just a simple stick, carrot proposition for faith / salvation and good deeds are irrelvant.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Faith + Good Deeds = Salvation
No Faith + Good Deed = No Salvation, but not as bad as evil.

That does appear to be what is being said.
Which reflects badly on God IMO, given that he's left us short in the evidence department that might result in faith.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The idea that all a Christian has to do is to believe a certain set of facts, irrespective of behaviour, is so rare that I doubt very much if anyone seriously argued such a thing on the Christianity forum. This sounds like Wicknight playing his usual games.

The Christian doctrine of justification by faith is that good works result from true faith. If there is no evidence of good works and moral improvement then faith is not genuine.

You are, of course, free to disagree with this teaching, that is your free choice (assuming you believe in free will). However, to deliberately misrepresent the teaching is, IMHO, intellectually dishonest.

My "usual" games .. sigh .. did you actually read my posts at all? :rolleyes:

As you say the Christian doctrine is that if someone has faith this faith will produce a desire to do go deeds in the person as part of being faithful. Judge the tree by its fruits as one says.

But as you say good deeds in of themselves are irrelevant to salvation. I do good deeds all the time, I ain't getting into heaven.

Salvation is not a reward for good deeds. Good deeds can be the result of salvation, but salvation itself is a consequence of faith

There is a very specific reason why a religion would have to develop such a setup to be successful at attracting people to the religion.

The original point is that while this is the "correct" interpretation of Christianity (in so far as it matches closely to the Biblical scripture), it isn't actually how a lot of people, including a lot of Christians, consider either the religion does work or should work.

To them heaven is/should be a reward for good behavior in this life, and hell is punishment for bad behavior in this life.

In fact neither of those are true. Salvation is a consequence of faith, and hell is a consequence of lack of faith.

While this doesn't seem to bother the fundamentalists on the Christian forum like yourself, it actually doesn't sit well with most people who come to table with the initial view that salvation is a reward for a well lead life.

The reason for this, as suggested by myself and Scofflaw, is that this idea of reward for good behavior matches human moral instinct that has evolved to direct that altruistic behavior is inherently "good".

But again there are specific reasons why a religion would not push this idea if it was interested in its own survival as a religion.

The Christians we (atheists) view as "good" are actually those that stick more closely to the instincts of human nature, rather than the doctrine of the actual religion.

To an atheist like myself this has interesting ramifications for the idea that morality comes from the religion.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

The Christians we (atheists) view as "good" are actually those that stick more closely to the instincts of human nature, rather than the doctrine of the actual religion.

I'd venture that the doctrine in question of "faith as a necessity for salvation" isn't bad per se, but may sit easily with other doctrines that have a more proactive bearing on how the believer treats others.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I'd venture that the doctrine in question of "faith as a necessity for salvation" isn't bad per se, but may sit easily with other doctrines that have a more proactive bearing on how the believer treats others.

Well depends on what you mean by "bad"

While I don't think it is an immoral thing to teach, I don't think it is a good thing to teach either.

But more importantly I think from the idea that it is good or bad is how it simply doesn't sit with most peoples view of what a religion should do.

I am reminded of the thread about the evangelicals who came to the door of a woman and in the discussion informed her that grand father was in hell (can't remember the exact details of the example, but that was the gist)

A lot of Christian posters said that while the door stoppers should not have upset the woman, what they were teaching was not inaccurate.

The woman no doubt had the logic that her grandfather was good therefore he deserves good things in heaven, or at the very least he didn't deserve bad things in hell.

But as any of the fundamentalist Christian posters will explain, that is missing the point. If the grandfather didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior then he ain't in heaven. How good a life he lead is irrelevant to that.

As you say to me that reflects badly on God.

But the reasons why the religion would set it up that way are important to remember. If salvation was a consequence of good deeds rather than faith this idea might be nicer but it would render the religion itself rather immaterial.

As such for the religion to survive the "natural selection" of social organization and actually make it 4000 years it is necessary that it pushes a doctrine based on the idea that faith in the doctrine of the religion itself is important above all else.

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

Isn't the best thing that can happen to any believer is that they die and go to heaven?

Having a bad day, Wicknight? You seem to be in cantankerous form today.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Having a bad day, Wicknight? You seem to be in cantankerous form today.

Bad weekend Fanny TBH ... my "nonsense toleration" level is particularly low after the weekend. Long story that I won't bore people here with

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

But the reasons why the religion would set it up that way are important to remember. If salvation was a consequence of good deeds rather than faith this idea might be nicer but it would render the religion itself rather immaterial.

Not at all. It is quite easy to see how a religion could bolster itself by simply specifying which good works are most effective in leading to salvation. So, for example, attending mass and getting baptised would become very important good works, as would giving money to the church. Good heavens, a really creative version of this could even devise a scheme whereby monetary gifts to the church would be classed as good works on behalf of dead relatives to earn them salvation quicker. - "As soon as the coin clinks in the box, the soul goes free!"

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

PDN wrote:

"As soon as the coin clinks in the box, the soul goes free!"

Any similarity to the christian churches selling indulgences in the middle ages is purely coincidental, I assumes

.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

John Wine wrote: »

It would appear PDN is saying this:

Faith + Good Deeds = Salvation
No Faith + Good Deed = No Salvation, but not as bad as evil.

PDN, can you correct me here if I am wrong.
It would appear this is just a simple stick, carrot proposition for faith / salvation and good deeds are irrelvant.

Real Faith (which always produces Good Deeds) = Salvation
Pretend Faith (with no Good Deeds) = No Salvation
No Faith + Good Deeds = No Salvation, but not as bad as pretend faith. (Give me a nice atheist over a religious hypocrite anyday)

Perhaps a simple analogy (but not an argument from analogy, er John) may serve as an illustration.

I love my wife which makes for a good marriage.
Because I love my wife, I therefore like to do things for her (Buy gifts, flowers etc. + stuff that I prefer not to discuss in company).
If I professed to love my wife but never did anything nice for her, then it would be reasonable to doubt whether my love was real. Certainly it would not make for a good marriage.
However, just doing nice things for my wife, without actually loving her, would not be a basis for a good marriage either.

Now, you could reasonably state that true love is the one essential ingredient for a good marriage. It would also be true to say that doing nice things for my wife is insufficient to make a good marriage. However, it does not follow that as long as I love my wife then I'll have a good marriage even if I never do anything nice for her.

An imperfect analogy (as most illustrations are) but one that emphasises how works is a result of salvation, not a cause.

bogwalrus

Yes - through proactive secularism

Heaven is quite attractive to me though i find it hard to logically believe it exists. If you were to look at all religions they have the same sort of values such as believe in our god, do good deeds and you will be saved. I think its the simplicity of these religions that is flawed. If you were to think of a more complex idea of religion such as-believe in "a" god (or higher being), respect all living things and your fellow man and you will be saved. (you will be saved=heaven, though i don't exactly mean a place in the sky i kinda mean you will live a good life with little pain and suffering.) If you think about it Heaven could be described as the time spent on the earth. If you do good deeds you will live a good life, if you do bad deeds.....It kinda makes sense that if everyone lived a life of goods deeds there would be no wars,suffering etc

So when the idea of religion is made more complex you actually get a fairly good basis for living.

I think some1 should come up with another group of people separate to atheism/religion/agnosticism to describe a person who just lives a life of good deeds so that they live a happy life and not believe in an afterlife. Then enforce it and brainwash the youth with it!!!=)

bogwalrus

Yes - through proactive secularism

my my i really didn't make much sense there. do i even have a point?? i thought i did.

Sorry

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Bad weekend Fanny TBH ... my "nonsense toleration" level is particularly low after the weekend. Long story that I won't bore people here with

Well I'm sorry to hear that

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. It is quite easy to see how a religion could bolster itself by simply specifying which good works are most effective in leading to salvation.

Well it could certain bolster itself by specifying which good deeds, but to rely on a doctrine where good deeds alone are the method to gain the rewards of the religion simply wouldn't work. Which is why most religions don't.

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, attending mass and getting baptised would become very important good works

I don't think either of them would be considered good works by most people. How does attending mass and getting baptised benefit other people?

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

However, just doing nice things for my wife, without actually loving her, would not be a basis for a good marriage either.

I know you've put that forward as an imperfect analogy, but it does highlight the main sticking point IMO. For a start unless you enter a marriage with them it's perfectly acceptable to treat someone well, and not love them. So why would someone require to be loved so badly that they would damn them regardless of the type of life they've led? It all sounds a bit Fatal Attraction tbh!

bogwalrus wrote: »

If you think about it Heaven could be described as the time spent on the earth. If you do good deeds you will live a good life, if you do bad deeds.....It kinda makes sense that if everyone lived a life of goods deeds there would be no wars,suffering etc

This sounds like the Kingdom of Heaven ideal as described toward the end of the His Dark Materials books. Highly recommended!

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

So why would someone require to be loved so badly that they would damn them regardless of the type of life they've led? It all sounds a bit Fatal Attraction tbh!

Was about to say the same thing.

Not getting married is not the same as eternal torment in hell* ... in fact some would say it is the exact opposite!

* interesting sideline, possibly for a different thread, is the idea that I've seen on the Christian forum a few times lately that hell isn't actually that bad, it is simply being away from God, but that the eternal suffering aspect isn't true or at least shouldn't be true. I think personally that this is a realization on the part of the Christians considering this that it isn't actually that fair for God to send someone to a place of eternal punishment and torment simply for not believing in/loving him and that this is not what an all loving God would do

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Yes, except for my religion.

Real Faith (which always produces Good Deeds) = Salvation

wha?

9/11 was a good deed?

Zombrex

Mordeth wrote: »

wha?

9/11 was a good deed?

Well obviously they didn't have "real" faith

... see what he did there :eek:

Real faith can't produce bad things. Any bad things are produced by non-real (fake?) faith. Therefore the religion, or the act of faith, cannot be seen as contributing to bad things. It is a flaw of the person, not a flaw of the faith/religion/god

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Yes, except for my religion.

oooooh

sorry, rookie mistake.

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

Well obviously they didn't have "real" faith

... see what he did there :eek:

Real faith can't produce bad things. Any bad things are produced by non-real (fake?) faith. Therefore the religion, or the act of faith, cannot be seen as contributing to bad things. It is a flaw of the person, not a flaw of the faith/religion/god

Surely, no one would ever argue that!
Reminds me of Hitchins phrase that we are created sick and commanded to be well. Drawing a line between psychopaths that are full of faith and 'regular' people who are full of faith is rubbish. It has been demonstrated that someone who follows the letter of their religous text becomes a fundamentalist and fundamentlaists carry out arocities in the name of their faith. Whether that person is corrupting innocence around them or a suicide bomber is immaterial. They are both deluded in thinking that ultimately whatever they do they do in the name of religon and God. This is biggest incentive for thier recruitment and action. Reminds me of the the line 'it takes religon to make good people do bad thigs'.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well obviously they didn't have "real" faith

... see what he did there :eek:

Real faith can't produce bad things. Any bad things are produced by non-real (fake?) faith. Therefore the religion, or the act of faith, cannot be seen as contributing to bad things. It is a flaw of the person, not a flaw of the faith/religion/god

You know fine well I'm talking about "Real Faith" in the biblical sense, where faith means more than just a belief or commitment in something.

Hitler had real faith in the Third Reich, Mao had real faith in his ideals. But that has nothing to do with the faith in Christ that saves.

BTW, I would definitely say that the acts of people are frequently due to a flaw in religion - including religion that you would see as 'Christianity'. Bad religion, particularly Christendom, frequently causes bad things.

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I would definitely say that the acts of people are frequently due to a flaw in religion - including religion that you would see as 'Christianity'. Bad religion, particularly Christendom, frequently causes bad things.

yeh, but its hard to find a 'real' christian murdering etc. come on PDN give them a chance;)

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

PDN wrote: »

Real Faith (which always produces Good Deeds) = Salvation
Pretend Faith (with no Good Deeds) = No Salvation
No Faith + Good Deeds = No Salvation, but not as bad as pretend faith. (Give me a nice atheist over a religious hypocrite anyday)

What about:
Pretend faith with loads of Good Deeds?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You know fine well I'm talking about "Real Faith" in the biblical sense, where faith means more than just a belief or commitment in something.

Well that was kinda my point. You think they don't have actual faith, because you believe that if they had real faith they wouldn't fly planes into buildings.

They, obviously didn't agree. If they did they wouldn't fly planes into buildings.

PDN wrote: »

But that has nothing to do with the faith in Christ that saves.

According to who?

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I would definitely say that the acts of people are frequently due to a flaw in religion - including religion that you would see as 'Christianity'. Bad religion, particularly Christendom, frequently causes bad things.

But not your religion funnily enough ...