Philo,

You ask:>>> "Where have I said:" (Referring to my following words) "You consider this life to be only a testing ground for some imaginary afterlife."<<<

I think your previous post is quite clear: “The spiritual is the only purpose we can give to life, anything else is meaningless.”

Then, amazingly, you go on to say: “This life is no rehersal it is the final act and we are accountable for our actions.”

Final act before what exactly? For what ‘actions’ are we accountable? And, what does ‘accountable’ mean, if not eternal damnation?

Someone or some system of religious indoctrination has placed the fear of hell so deep in your mind that it appears you cannot escape it, or even admit it exists. If I were you, I would be somewhat annoyed about that.

A better course of action, rather than attempting to justify such indoctrination, would be to try to understand how it happened to you and not to others. Are you a special creature of your alleged god and anyone who has developed different ideas by the use of their intellect, less important to this alleged deity?

A good start would be to answer the questions I posed some time ago which have been left unanswered. Your failure in this regard is more than telling, but here they are again:

>>>Philo, with many interpretations of biblical myths and thousands of religions, do you think it wise or appropriate to indoctrinate children with any of them without a consensus based on fact. And do you think it wise or appropriate to make political decisions based on scriptural writings against the informed wishes of the majority population? I ask you to remember, when answering, that Australia still follows the democratic ideal and is not as of yet, a theocracy.<<<

David

Once, long ago, in a world of confusion and weariness, there exploded a new and exciting hope. A man appeared in Palestine and spoke in syllables that seemed to come from God. He was a Jew, steeped in the power and beauty of a religious heritage unparalleled in East or West. He was not locked in bigotry nor did he serve the interests of a single nation or a special race. His blood, indeed, was the sensitive and boiling blood of Abraham and David, the blood that would mark the Jewish peoples in ages yet to come. His vision, however, went past the boundaries of Palestine to encompass the world.
His eyes looked to everyone who hurt, and his healing hand was extended to the weak and sinful woman, the outcast leper, the blind man who had worn out his friends and relatives with his wailing.

Weary men heard him and felt a sudden surge of strength. The guilty listened to him, and began again to respect themselves as men. Fishermen followed him and so did the nobles who had discovered that wine and women did not satisfy each thirsting ache. Some men called him the "God-man," and even those skeptical of his stature marveled at the power of his words.

In a sense he had nothing new to say when he insisted that every commandment must begin and end with love. Man had learned of love before this God-man came to earth. The Egyptians had tried to love their wives, and Babylonians had been taught to treat each neighbour with dignity and respect. The Jews especially, nourished by the words of Isaias, Ezechiel, and Jeremias, had learned the responsibility of love, and for centuries had struggled to prevent the narrow and arrogant laws of men from smothering the underlying ideal of love.

contd...

Yet man had not succeeded in loving his fellow man. For every just man there were a dozen pharisees who made a mockery of God by reducing Him to a set of rules imposed on the frightened and defenseless. Thus Jesus would speak of a new commandment,
"that you love one another as I have loved you."

And so began the religion of love, to perfect and fulfill the other religions of love that proud men had reduced to the coldness of unyielding law. History had known noble ideals before, but time and fear had wrapped such ideals in the smothering moss of legal codes and tablets. Now, Christ, in a manner beyond compare, offered to men a new and thrilling vision. Paul, sparked by such a vision, wrote in a Letter to the Romans that man had been "set free from the law" and would be able to live by the sweeping spirit of love. He did not mean that there would be no religious law. He only meant that never again would a man in personal anguish have no recourse but the cold and universal rule that applied to all men. He could be a person because he could know a personal God Who refused to be bound by a single religious rite or the judgmental ruling of a high priest's tongue.

No longer could man reduce the vision of God to the dumb idols that only made permanent the pride and pettiness of man. No longer could man stuff God into the convenient pigeonholes built by men.

Men could, indeed, call Christ God, even as I do, in simple and indefensible faith. Others might find their God in "Abraham" or "personal honesty." But no longer could any man say that he had defined and comprehended God, nor that any other man was certainly without God's forgiving love. God has no name because He has no boundaries, and His love cannot be limited by the blindness or egotism of frightened men.

Foxy,

That was a rosy-eyed view of the character known as Jesus. Of course, your selective presentation did not rely on the nasty bits in the New Testament. You failed to mention how the alleged Jesus often used the threat of hell. Expecting people to believe through fear is ethically unsound. To teach children they will go to hell if they do not believe, can remain with them forever, as we witness with people on this forum.

What kind of a god relies on the threat of hell (Forever) and the process of indoctrination to maintain a pool of believers? Let me tell you. A god who is a monster. It therefore does not exist.

I have included some of those threats below. (There are many more)

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Revelations 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Are these the example of love that we should follow? Can you imagine that, if you had the power, in making anyone suffer for eternity? I have never met an Atheist who would do this.

It is simply mind boggling how people who class themselves as Christians, say they love a god, who would do this to their fellow humans.

David

Just logged on after being away to read 'Most of the atheists I know personaly use their atheism to live without conscience and fear of guilt of violating social boundaries, with no respect for others, and an excuse to be unnacountable to society. ' from Philo.
WTF? This can't be a serious statement. I see that Wizofaus and Pericles have already shot him down in flames so I don''t need to add to it.

Also, Philo, 'They do not have a mature understanding of God incarnate gracious and forgiving in their life, but rather of God as one who condemns and punishes the guilty.'. Not true. I was taught that God loves everyone, but I grew out of it as I learned more of reality - it had nothing to do with fearing a fierce God. And 'For me the spirit of a person is defined by their thinking and self image often influenced from others, not by some being that needs exorcism' - athiests don't believe in any form of possession by 'beings', so what are you getting at?
When you wrote 'the highest and most responsible of creatures - man.' you were indeed referring to the creator - man. Man is the highest creature and the one that created all the technologies of our world. Ergo, man is the Creator.

Jack, it has to be said, while you've made the most important step away from religious indoctrination - you've got a little way to go yet, given your attitudes on homosexuality and Man being the "highest creature". Go read every book you can find by Stephen Jay Gould (and a few from Dawkins for good measure). Both them quite firmly put to bed the notions that humans are somehow a "higher" species, and that homosexuality is an unnatural and dangerous perversion.
Though note there's no strong consensus yet on the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality.