Nothing good ever comes from religon!

My closest experience is with Christianity so if I make a mistake on your religion please excuse me, I didn’t mean to.

So far while reading these religious debates I hear a lot about how atheism allows people to murder, rape, and pillage. Lots of people are thanking God for the religious morals and content in the thought that religion is the base of all "good" morality. Nothing is further from the truth.
More people have died due to religion than anything I can think of. Killing in the name of God is a common practice thought history. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are just a few examples. Even today people are killing each other in the Middle East for a "Holy Land" that is nothing more than a city. Peace will never be achieved in the place that many religions see as sacred. Why paint the most holy of cities in your beliefs red with blood? What happened to tolerance?
Most of the passionate hate between religion comes from very similar religions themselves. The many factions of Christianity tend to despise one another with radical feelings not to mention Judaism which is not that much different than Christianity. Even worse is the persecution of people who are peace loving people hated because they hold different beliefs than the mainstream religions.
This hatred may not be a belief of these religions but the ignorance and bigotry breed it. Religions accept their God based on nothing yet refuse to accept basic scientific "fact" (just as a note: science has no fact but very well proven theories. ex: The laws of gravity are well proven theories) Many must take their holy book so literally that they cannot accept anything else. This goes beyond all reason and leads to complete irrationality. Is it so hard to believe that throughout history as the holy books have been translated and re-translated that words were lost or changed, meanings lost. Religion is a tool used to describe the unexplainable. If something happens that they cannot understand then "God did it." Sometimes this has lead to persecution as in the Salem witch trials. Instead of finding a viable solution to the unexplained the burnt people at the steak.
Atheists are not some evil people that are fortunate to have God's followers showing us morality. Instead it is the other way around.

As an exception to this rule I find the most shunned of beliefs that peganists seem to have an opposite affect many times and have a general appreciation of nature and life. This is just my experience and I have only scratched the surface of the thousands of different belief systems of peganists. I attribute this to the lack of any defined set of rigid beliefs and the general respect for the living their religion demands. It seems that they are accepting of others and the kindest people I know are peganists.

I am an atheist if any of you were wondering.

Also as a note atheism is NOT a religion but better described as a lack thereof.

------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

[This message has been edited by FA_Q2 (edited October 20, 2000).]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just my opinion, but I think your thread might have beeter been titled "More Bad Than Good Comes From Religion".

Most religions are exclusive, which leads to seprartism and intolerance. Only rarely have I met zealots who still had the strength to respect my beliefs as well as retain their own. Very few zealots aren't on crusades.

But what is so bad about a person who, at wits' end due to a highly stressful situation, prays to a god that might or might not be there for strength, however illusory, to keep from going nuts? What's wrong with calming a child who is afraid of the dark by telling them that a guardian angel watches over them while they sleep? And how is society hurt when a priest throws himself between police batons and the man on the ground who was getting the life beat out of him, quoting scripture to get the police to stop and show some mercy? A friend of mine who is bhuddist did volunteer work with severely retarded people because of his religion's belief that we should help these souls who were (according to their beliefs) trapped in these minds and bodies as a form of karmic punishment. He was happy to help, and the patients and the home were happy to receive the help. How is this not good?

I am also an atheist, but I see the value of religion as a source of comfort. Even organized religion has established such things as soup kitchens and the Salvation Army, as well as the St. Vincent de Paul Society. For whatever reason, how is helping people bad?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with both of the above. Beliefs make people crazy thats why its a catch-22, we want to get rid of myths, but first we must teach them how to think, but we can't because they don't trust the flesh. It seem's hopeless,,and they would need to learn how to live and treat each other before you take away thier belief.. yes ,it is hopeless.
All we can do is focus on the next generation.

LETS HOPE THEY LEARN BEFORE THEY BURN..HAHA

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I must concede that I was a little harsh in wrighting what I did and Oxygen made some good points. It is that the evils of religion tends to overshadow what good comes from it.

------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

 

I think that the Inquisition and crusades are evidence that religion does more GOOD than harm.

Religion has served to guide and nurture mankind, whatever form that religion takes. Whether it is goddess worship, paganism, hinduism, or christianity, the prupose of religion has always been to provide clear guidelines for living in society, and give a higher purpose to life. Religion has served to guide our development from the animal world into flourishing societies.

If not for religion, we would still be our animal selves, killing and stealing and warring. Sure there have been a couple of times when some bad apples have used the church as a means of expressing their animal agressions, but that is the result of people, not religion.

Just look at msany of the indigenous tribes in africa and southeast asia, some of whom have never seen a white man before. They dont have very highly developed religions, and they are still stuck in the stone age.

 

Corp~

I'm confused! What did you mean by this statement?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

 

“I think that the Inquisition and crusades are evidence that religion does more GOOD than harm. “

I think this is the sickest and stupidest thing I have ever heard. Next time someone dies as a result of religion ill remember to praise god for it.

“If not for religion, we would still be our animal selves, killing and stealing and warring.”

Why? Religion doesn’t further society, it hampers it. Didn’t you ever learn about the dark ages?

“Just look at msany of the indigenous tribes in africa and southeast asia, some of whom have never seen a white man before. They dont have very highly developed religions, and they are still stuck in the stone age.”

This is also COMPLETLY incorrect. These tribes are EXTREMLY religious, doing everything in the name of their Gods. They hold their values most sacred witch is more than I can say for many people in society today. Where are you getting your info??

 

Emerald- Sorry about the ambiguity. My point was that there would have been a lot more atrocities similar to the inquisition and the crusades had religion not suppressed the urges that cause them. Mankind occasionally has peaks, where the animal side comes out, but for the most part religion has suppressed these tendencies.

Fa_q2-

"Why? Religion doesn’t further society, it hampers it. Didn’t you ever learn about the dark ages?"

Ever learn about the Islamic Empire? What about the egyptian one? How about the ancient china? I could go on and on, but I wont. All of these were highly religous societies, with ruler as chief religous figure, or close to it.

"This is also COMPLETLY incorrect. These tribes are EXTREMLY religious, doing everything in the name of their Gods. They hold their values most sacred witch is more than I can say for many people in society today. Where are you getting your info??"

Maybe if you read my post again, you would see the error in your statement. I never said that the tribes were not religous, I said that the religions were not very advanced.

 

Clarify on what you mean when you refer to an "advanced" religion. How are today’s religions more advanced?

when it comes to the great empires like the Egyptian empire, the religion didn’t create advancement of the society. The great achievements weren’t born in religious beliefs or even encouraged by it. Those happened despite the religion, not because of it.



------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

 

Ancient egyptians devoted every aspect of their lives to their religion. Egyptian astronomy, astrology, math (which is where the Pythagorean theorem comes from), science, and architecture were all practiced by priests and other religous figures. The same goes with many other world empires. Every single one of the great greek philosophers and scientists (Pythagoras, Socrates, Hypocrates, Plato, etc. etc.) were high initiates of the greek Mystery Religion. They did what they did as a direct result of religion.

What I mean by advanced religion is a religion that has evolved over time, that has very clear core doctrines and principles, and that has some written holy texts. Most indigenous religions do not have any of these, and are only simple explanations for natural phenomena, that have not changed in thousands of years. I am not suggesting any sort of social darwinism, or racial superiority, simply pointing some facts out.

I am not arguing that religion has a place in modern society (although I believe it should), I am not arguing that you should convert to any sort of religion (though I believe you should), I am simply arguing that religion has been a huge factor in the civilization of mankind.


[This message has been edited by Corp.Hudson (edited October 22, 2000).]

 

Atheists are not some evil people that are fortunate to have God's followers showing us morality. Instead it is the other way around.

I will be sure to tell the thousands of Russian Christians who were imprisoned and tortured (sometimes to death) during the Communist rule that they were fortunate to have such atheists showing them morality --

>Like watching your property burn, having your children sold into slavery, your wife raped, and you kidnapped and placed into a Communist prison.

>Or how to stand in a refrigorator for several hours on end, being thawed out just before you die of freezing, only to be placed back into the icebox once you get warm.

>Or how to survive for a week on a slice of stale bread and a small cup of dirty soup.

>Or how to endure being hung upside down and whipped so forcefully until you are swinging back and forth.

>Or how to watch the Communists brutally murder your family.

>Or how to stand motionlessly for hours on end in a box filled with spikes, so that the slightest movement will rip your naked skin.

>Or being chained in a box half-filled with water, with a bucket of water being added every hour.

>Or having Christians beat for preaching to others.

Yes indeed, those Christians are definately thankful for the atheists showing them what morality is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(BTW, don't think that I am saying that all atheists are communists, or sympathize with communist ideals. Nothing of the sort! I know there are many atheists that despise communism. But isn't it comforting to know that, at least some atheists, are demonstrating the morals of their system to us fortunate Christians?)
http://www.persecution.com


[This message has been edited by Caleb (edited October 23, 2000).]

 

Caleb--

I believe you're referring to Communists, not Atheists. That Communists happened to be somewhat atheistic is, indeed, a point to reflect on. However, your attempt to establish Atheism as a violent paradigm simply does not bear the weight you hope for.

A) Communism was a political and economic concern. It's disdain for religion--all religion--comes from the abilities of various religions to undermine state activity. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religious concern. It's disdain for religion--all religion except it's own self--comes from the arrogant assumption of its own superlative character.

B) If you really want to skip the more refined academic considerations of history and proactively defend Christianity against charges of its savageries, I think, "He did it first," or "He did it worse" is a pale excuse. In the sense of those self-assuming justifications, I might declare that: 1) Christians have already destroyed everyone who "did it first", so what's the beef with the rest of us? or 2) That the "Atheists" who persecuted the Russian Christians, as a result of their (atheistic) Communism, came to mimic their theistic, Imperial predecessors.

Caleb, do you really think that nobody of any other faith ever had to go through those sorts of things? What is it about Christianity that its larger expression of itself so badly wants to play up the bruises it has taken while burying the notion that it ever hurt anyone?

I might just say that since Christians were such fans of committing such atrocities against their own Christian brethren that I don't know what you're worried about.

I might decide that it's best to point out that there was an official church in Russia under the Communists, and that it was the individual's choice to partake or not. I have pointed out before that the issue then seems to become whether your faith is set according to the man with the gun or the man with the robe and collar.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

tiassa, gotta love your posts -- they're so agreeable!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I believe you're referring to Communists, not Atheists.

So do I! What a coincidence. Did you not read my parenthetical disclaimer?

That Communists happened to be somewhat atheistic is, indeed, a point to reflect on.

Yes it is. That is my point, except I would definately take out the word "somewhat," and replace "happened to be" with "were."

However, your attempt to establish Atheism as a violent paradigm simply does not bear the weight you hope for.

Perhaps because that was not my attempt. I'm glad to hear that I am not giving weight to arguments that I am not arguing.

Caleb, do you really think that nobody of any other faith ever had to go through those sorts of things?

No. Did I say that?

What is it about Christianity that its larger expression of itself so badly wants to play up the bruises it has taken...

I don't know, maybe nothing, at least I'm not trying to play up any bruises if that's what you mean.

I might decide that it's best to point out that there was an official church in Russia under the Communists, and that it was the individual's choice to partake or not.

I'm glad you might decide to do that, since I might decide it best to point out that the 'official' church -- used as the opiate of the people -- was monitered closely by the government, and any of them that believed communism was wrong were shut down. For that matter, any of them that taught that Christ was the most important thing in life (which he is) were also shut down. On top of that, it became illeagal to import Bibles. These factors, when coupled together, effectively forced the TRUE church, that taught the gospel message, to go underground. Lot of good an official church can do if it can't preach the gospel! Anyone that "chose to partake" of this underground church was imprisoned and tortured if caught, and possibly killed.

I'm just stating facts, not trying to raise Christian sympathies.

 

A simple question: Is Alice Walker a good writer?

Now, to make it a little bit more complex, I offer the following phrases which might arise in a review of Ms Walker's work:

* Ms Walker is a premiere black author ....
* Ms Walker is a premiere female author ....
* Ms Walker is a premiere black-female author ....

To apply any of the above ideas, we must necessarily limit our judgement of Ms Walker's literary talent and expressive breadth to a comparison against dark-skinned authors, female authors, or dark-skinned female authors. What we never, by the above ideas, engage is the idea that Ms Alice Walker is a premiere author, period.

Ms Walker, in my opinion, is one Hell of an author who happens to be black.

Does it make a difference when Ms Walker writes about black people or white people? If a story is about a certain cultural phenomenon largely restricted to dark-skinned Americans, is it a "black" story, or a story that happens to be about dark-skinned people?
__________

At any rate, you say that Communists were atheists as if there is some integral connection. The connection is that churches generally either actively promote or protest governments. That the general lack of churches statistically eliminates the "protest" category seems to be a very economical idea, politically.

The way you're expressing the relationship between Communism and atheism, it sounds as if a bunch of atheists rose up one day in 1918, shrugged off God, looked around, realized they had overthrown what must have been a just government

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and then instituted a Communist regime, which went completely south from the word Go despite the most noble attempts of the political world to reinforce their evil vision?

See, if I point toward your list of atrocities when those atrocities were committed by people calling themselves Christians, the atrocities were committed with the belief that this is what God wants, and that it is, therefore, morally just.

If I look at your list of atrocities when attributed to "atheism", I see an atheistic necessity born of an ongoing struggle to control the idolatrous incarnation of money.

Of your parenthetic disclaimer I can only note that you're so desperate to vilify atheism as a practicable religion that you're making a bad comparison. Could you please demonstrate which atheist morals the "atheists" were demonstrating? I would be very careful about choosing even the doctrinal works of any claimed "Atheist" group, since you know what that kind of sectarian nitpicketing gets. But could you demonstrate, in any way, shape, or form, please, that the Communist Revolution was specifically, primarily, or exclusively about destroying God and persecuting the Christians?

I can demonstrate that Christian-based atrocities were primarily about God. I think God's an unfortunate victim of the Communist struggle.

What's the difference between being tortured and killed for being wrong about your religion and going to Hell?

Once again I assert that the difference is in the individual Christian's ego; that is, the difference is in the pride one feels when hurting themselves by a God of their own creation as compared to the humiliation one feels when hurting themselves by a God invented by someone else.

Nails of the cross, or the rifle ... if it weren't for "official" churches like this, there would be no "official" churches in the free world. Christianity might well have disappeared into the mire had it not obtained the political power to oppress and destroy in the name of righteousness.

You're right. You didn't include these sections, including the one I'm repeating anyway:

Now, does this mean that you're not attributing the violence of your list of atrocities to atheism? Seems you've flat confused me. You've offered a list of Communist-sponsored atrocities as evidence of what constitutes atheistic morality, but you're not trying to show that atheistic morals are violent?

Just because Christians choose to make God their primary method of interacting with the Universe does not mean that everyone else does. Just because everything a Christian does is supposed to be inspired by their faith does not mean that an atheist is bound to some abstract Dogma which tells the atheist what to do even when such behavior is clearly counterproductive.

Show me an atheistic counterpoint to the Ten Commandments, to the Eucharist, to the Catechism. If you show me an organization with any less than 13 million members (the low end of the estimated worldwide Jewish population, taken from a comedian's biography, actually) then you're obviously seeking an unnecessary issue.

Just because atheism is protected by the First Amendment doesn't make it a religion.

On the other hand, would you dare tell me that the world's (how many) billions of Christians all believe exactly the same thing, either practically or morally?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 23, 2000).]

 

Yes it is true that many atrocities have been committed by atheists, but not as a result of atheism. The Crusades were a direct result of Christianity. Communist oppression had nothing to do with atheism, rather a direct result of Communism. I do not blame the atrocities created by Hitler and his regime on religion, even though he was a devout Catholic. These events were separate from the beliefs of the people leading them, a political game more than religious.

"Ancient egyptians devoted every aspect of their lives to their religion. Egyptian astronomy, astrology, math (which is where the Pythagorean theorem comes from), science, and architecture were all practiced by priests and other religous figures. The same goes with many other world empires. Every single one of the great greek philosophers and scientists (Pythagoras, Socrates, Hypocrates, Plato, etc. etc.) were high initiates of the greek Mystery Religion. They did what they did as a direct result of religion.”

As far as the Greeks went this is not true. Pythagoras, Socrates, Hypocrates, Plato, and so on were philosophers who relied on pure logic not religion. It is no doubt that these men devoted their life to religion but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was because of religion that they were able to intellectually prosper. The same would go for the Egyptians.

“What I mean by advanced religion is a religion that has evolved over time, that has very clear core doctrines and principles, and that has some written holy texts. Most indigenous religions do not have any of these, and are only simple explanations for natural phenomena, that have not changed in thousands of years. I am not suggesting any sort of social darwinism, or racial superiority, simply pointing some facts out.”

I would like to point out that the Greeks do not have holy texts as far as I can tell. They may have parables and stories but not a holy book or any real set of a rigid system of beliefs or core doctrines and principals.

With that said, it is also pertinent to point out that the only reason you have a holy book is due to society and population density. The reason African tribes are devoid of any grater technology and “advanced” religion is due to the fact that they only live in small groups in an aria where their exposure to ideas is limited. This is not a result or religion but geology. I would also venture to say that Christianity is also just an explanation of natural phenomena with a few rules attached. African tribesmen beliefs also have rules of their own as well as prayer. Are these two religions really so different that one can be described as primitive and the other advanced? I think not.


------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

 

First off, the greeks had many texts relating to religion (The Oddysey, The Iliad, Oedipus Rex, etc. etc.). Secondly, I am not referring to what is typically known as the greek religion, with Zeus and Posieden... I am referring to the religion of the educated greeks, the Greek Mystery religion. The only reason that no texts from the Mystery religion survive to this day is that the christians and mohammedans burned them (mostly due to the amazing similarities of mystery religions to christianity).

The greek philosophers were not men of reason, logic, or science. Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, etc. etc., were all zelouts who wandered the countryside, performing miracles and preaching their religion. These were not the dry philosophers sitting around and thinking, as most history textbooks would have you think. These were wild and colorful men whose every movement was a result of the mystery religions (which came from the egyptian cult of Osiris).

The egyptians were also very similar, in that their science and logic came directly from religion. Every monument the egyptians ever built (in the old kingdom) was in some way dedicated to influence the gods, or a persons ka. The great works (including the intellectual works) were all a result of the religion.

 

tiassa,

There you go, reading between the lines again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I was originally replying to this statement:

Atheists are not some evil people that are fortunate to have God's followers showing us morality. Instead it is the other way around.

I was not trying to prove that this statement is always false, just trying to show that it is definantly NOT always true, so I gave one example. Let me clarify something in my parenthetic statement. When I said:

But isn't it comforting to know that, at least some atheists, are demonstrating the morals of their system to us fortunate Christians?)

"their system" was not refering to the whole of atheism. Surely, as the rest of my disclaimer says, that would be a faulty conclusion. "their system" meant the particular type of atheism associated with Communism. On a smaller scale, I meant the personal type of atheism held by each guard -- each one had their own unique world-view based on atheism. My point was not to vilify atheism, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I am just trying to show that the original statement -- that Christians should be thankful to atheism showing it morality -- was a faulty one.

What's the difference between being tortured and killed for being wrong about your religion and going to Hell?

The true Christian endures pain, suffering, and torture on this earth, but recieves his reward in heaven, for all eternity. The false Christian, in the official church, has a bit easier time on earth, but in all eternity, he will spend his time in Hell, seperated from God, and Hell is alot worse than any earthly torture. Man can persecute another man's body, but he cannot harm the soul. The soul is safe with God. Hell on the other hand, persecutes the eternal soul.

 

On a completely different topic,
(mostly due to the amazing similarities of mystery religions to christianity).

Just like there are amazing similarities between a counterfeit doller bill, and a real one, but only one is the real thing.

I have a passive interest in this, but I haven't done enough research to know much about it. Based on what VERY little I have read, I have a theory that, shortly after the flood (of Noah), or maybe after the tower of Babel incident, Satan wanted to try and corrupt God's plan, so he had Chaldean (Babylonian) preists begin a mystery religion that included many aspects of what Satan knew would be God's plan. He intended this to be a counterfeit religion. I even understand there is a legend in ancient Babylonian mythology - something about a virgin birth?

So after it began, this mystery religion spread from Babylonia to the rest of the Middle East -- It can be seen in the Caananite's Baal alters, and Asheroth poles -- and made its way to Egypt. From there, it further spread to Greece. Then, the Roman Empire assimilated it, like they did everything else. In each case, this mystery religion adapted itself somewhat to the individual cultures, but it always included polytheism. There is always a godess of fertility, for instance, in all of these religions, whether it be Asheroth, Venus, Orisis(?), or something else.

Anyway, after the TRUE religion, Christianity, began, the counterfeit religion, based in Rome, tried to corrupt it. It is my belief that this occured when the Roman Catholic Church began (apologies to any Catholics out there). In fact, we can see the polytheism in this religion when one considers the multitude of 'patron saints' that are honored on certain feast days when they suppossedly did some supernatural wonder. In fact, their equivalent of the godess of fertility is the Virgin Mary, who they place on an equal with God, contrary to Scriptures. Also, the Catholic Church includes certain rituals that are similar to what may have been performed by a member of the mystery religion. Also, the pope, like the divine right of egyptian kings, is seen as being infailable, again contrary to Scripture - and history. I even heard once (I can't find the source, and I don't know how reliable this is), that the pope wears a ring with the symbol of Dagon, the fish-god of the Phillistines. For all these reasons, I believe that Catholicism is a counterfeit religion - perhaps it means well, but it is leading thousands astray, and hiding the truth of salvation by Grace, not works.

Actually, the Bible mentions mystery religion, in Revelation. It describes it as a woman (the godess of fertility/Holy Virgin ?) and says that it is riding the dragon (Satan). It calls it MYSTERY Babylon (showing that it originated in Babylon), and condemns it for its wickedness. It even makes a reference to sitting on seven hills. Remember, Rome is known as the city of seven hills. If you want, you can read the prophecy of it in Revelation 17 and 18. Beware though. Not even Bible scholars can be sure what all this means is going to happen. I know I have more questions than answers. Certainly, it (the prophecy) makes more sense as we approach the time of fulfilment - like it is easy to see how a city could be destroyed by fire in one hour with nuclear weapons, something unimaginable to the author of this book - but not everything in it can be interpreted, since the future hasn't happened yet. Also, alot of it might not make sense out of context.

Let me conclude by saying that I would like to know more sometime about Mystery Religions, since I think this counterfeit religion is such a big part of world events, past, present, and future.

 

Yes. That's why it's good to restrict oneself to the "their" at hand. For instance, Soviet Communists. BTW ... ever read Koestler's Darkness at Noon? Good book that deals with morality through Communist perspectives.

At that point we must establish those guards' individual concerns. I remind you that Ireland was, in the 19th century, considered a Protestant nation. However, it would not have been pleasant to ask a Catholic about that at the time. What is in a person's heart ...? Well, I point to Harper Lee ... I haven't walked that particular mile, yet. Here, we also find a question (raised often by theists) of whether atheism is a proper religion. In that case, if atheism is a religion, I believe that atrocities are par for the course.

Fair, but it only works as long as we take a cohesive body of ideas and call it atheism, and allow that nothing else is atheism; you know, kind of like a religious canon?

* So the Orthodox churchgoing Christian in Russia now burns in Hell?

I forget to whom I said it first, but I know I've said it a couple of times here recently:

It appears, as nearly as I can derive from rhetoric, that the only difference is who is doing the threatening, and whether they're doing it with a gun or with the assumption of God's authority.

Nobody has to threaten anyone if your morality doesn't find its authority in the a priori assumption of certain Gods.

Morality then becomes about what's right, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with dominion.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

 

* So the Orthodox churchgoing Christian in Russia now burns in Hell?

Good question. It all depends on who the churchgoer is, and if they were truly a Christian. Let me put it this way - the official church (and, for context, we're still talking about during the Communist rule) did not teach how to become a true Christian. If the government caught them doing that (and they had spies from the secret police everywhere) then they would throw the pastor in prison and get a new one who would "cooperate." The pastors of these churches were also required to report anything they knew about their members to the communists. So, it was very difficult to become a Christian in an 'official' church. They were merely out for show -- and to act as the opiate. Now that does not mean that an individual, or several individuals, in the church might not be saved. The communists could moniter the teaching of the church, but not the content of the church-member's hearts. So I don't believe that everyone in these churches were unsaved - alot of the true christians actually went to them in addition to attending the Underground Church, despite the risk of being found out. But on the other hand, I don't believe that everyone who sits in any church - gov. controlled or not - is necessarily saved. It is NOT attendance at a church that saves someone, it is a personal relationship of love with the one true God of love.

[This message has been edited by Caleb (edited October 24, 2000).]