[extropy-chat] embedded in open hearts
fauxever at sprynet.com
Sun Apr 10 20:08:33 UTC 2005
From: "David Lubkin" <extropy at unreasonable.com>
> You appear to conflate distinct concepts.
> 1. There is an after-life.
> 2. It is better than this one.
> 3. Only people who (a) believe our dogma and (b) behave themselves get to
> 4. Everyone else (a) stays here, (b) gets a chance to redeem themselves,
> or > (c) goes somewhere else for punishment.
I may conflate them, but I personally don't believe in any of the above.
> Different religions and denominations preach different combinations of
> these concepts. Catholicism may rely on all of them, but it doesn't
> necessarily have to.
What I was questioning (and wondering about was ...) are religions like
Christianity and Judaism mutually exclusive or not? When I was growing up
they "were." Then this neologism came into use: "Judeo-Christian." WTF?
> Judaism, for example, does not have either the concept of hell or
> admission > criteria for heaven, and has millions of followers who attempt
> to live > moral lives; the only explicit carrot or stick is pleasing or
> disappointing > their deity. Variants of Buddhism don't even have that to
> motivate > adherents; ethical behavior is its own reward.
Yes, I know. Not disappointing the tri-deity (and praising him/them) seems
to be the obligation of Christians, as well. If I were a Christian or a
Jew, my concern would be ... why is my deity so insecure that he needs the
validation of his prominence from his flock of
oh-so-mundane-and-humble-and-merely human subjects?
I am not a theist of any kind (mono- poly- or pan-). However, I, too,
believe in virtue being its own reward (but am not keen on, you know,
"rituals" accompanying some even somewhat nontheistic so-called religions).
More information about the extropy-chat