Originally posted by Cris
This combined with some of your other statements represents one of the key reprehensible attitudes generated by Christianity. It is simple and flagrant arrogance; the assumption that without such a faith then others will be insensitive. It is both condescending and very insulting.
Most ordinary people are sensitive about the fate of other people, and this I would argue is a basic tenet of being human. That you attribute this to your self imposed elitist faith is offensive.
It's unfortunate that you experience it that way, but that is
not "the assumption".
Faith is not what permits sensitivity. But I find it strange that most anti-religious arguments go something along lines that deny the validity of human experience (the "love equals just a chemical reaction" being the most common) yet when I defend it, I'm accused of either being sentimental or elitist.
If you admit that sensitivity to the fate of other people is one of the "basic tenets of being human", why go to such great lengths to dismiss it as a fluke of evolution? If that is the source of our moral behaviour, why shouldn't God not also hold it to the highest standards? And why can't the "God of love" not regard insensitivity and selfishness as sin?
Faith not much else than sensitivity to God, and that why it should inspire faithful believers to "think twice where others would not". Not because
only they can - the whole idea is that
everybody can.
And this is, I think, the most tragic result of the Christian paradigm. That you consider that just a few decades of life as acceptable, an insignificant spec in the vast ocean of time and that death is nothing to fear or avoid is very sad. This fatalist widespread approach that prevents mankind from effectively trying to solve the real enemy – involuntary death, is sickening and to my mind characterizes an evil that is the real effect of religion – that death is a good thing.
If only a few decades of life was acceptable, there would be no expectance of eternal life. Our lives are
not insignificant. It's mostly agnostics who ask "why would the God of such an immense universe bother with us?" or "how can we even begin to know God?", as if scale or status determined significance. If we thought death was a good thing, why would we believe that Christ came to conquer death? And if I said death was a bad thing, wouldn't you just have said it's just another natural part of life? But you call it an enemy - how is that different from the Christian perspective?
The tree of eternal life will be no less poisonous than the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve was expelled from Eden because they departed from God, and God will only permit those who return to Him to eat from the second tree.
PS. I can't see how you think eternal life would make suffering more bearable. Do you know what the average age for suicide is? How many people would tolerate an eternity without love?
Just so that it is clear: death itself is neither good nor bad, it's a sign.
1 Corinthians 15
54 ... Death has been swallowed up in victory.
55 Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Without Christ, there is no Christianity. I won't even go further into this one because it's pretty pointless. Proof is within you. Proof that Christ existed is in a lot of place sin history. Even the most ardent skeptic has to acknowledge the existence of such a figure in history. His impact was just too great. Ask Cris... s/he was a Christian once [or so s/he said]... I suspect that's why s/he thinks they are 'intellectually challenged'. Such are the dangers of speaking stereotypically. Not because you were one when you were a christian doesn't mean they all were. That's simple logic don't you think? Seems to have stuck with h/im/er too.
pen your eyes, open your heart, look around you. Put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Believe in Him. Then you'll see your proof.