This section details a bunch of preferentially based (and biased) arguments proposed by atheists and agnostics against religion. By being an atheist, you shut yourself off from a huge arena of social contact. I mean, when's the last time anyone's heard of an Atheist Revival? Even if there is such a thing, it wouldn't fill a stadium. There are millions of people on this earth who believe in God. Only a minority of the world's population are atheists and agnostics. While striving to be popular, their viewpoint never is. They appear abundantly on the web, but at many times in real life, their loosely knit organizations end up being paper tigers, groups of uncaring, disinterested, dispassionate individuals who have nothing in common with each other, or want nothing to do with each other. Atheism appears to be most abundant on college campuses. But everywhere else there are believers in some faith or another. Those who choose the route of atheism and agnosticism will find a life of loneliness and solitude because great numbers of people in the surrounding communities have religious beliefs. Religion involves social gatherings. Atheism and agnosticism mostly focuses on telling people to do their own thing or do what they feel like. And when these young unbelievers become old, they will find themselves lonelier, because they have closed themselves off from large religous communities, where they could have acquired caring companions and/or emotional and material support in their times of need.
"I fail to understand why you accept that rhubbish (religion)."
I prefer my life to have meaning. Atheism and agnosticism says that life is meaningless, since everything is thrown together. To stop believing, to me, is a great personal loss or risk, with little gain. Even if it's "the truth," I see no gain in telling people that God doesn't exist. It's no advantage at a funeral, that's for sure. No one can be comforted by hearing, "He will be buried and he will decompose and become fertilizer." There's no hope in that. I don't see hope in fading photographs or tempermental human memories, either. I believe that our spirits live on after death, and that God remembers us. I'd rather put my trust in God, even if I'm wrong, because human beings naturally put memories of other people into File 13. That provides me no encouragement. I prefer to have courage. If I live in fear of death, because "this is the only life I've got," then my life won't mean squat, because I will have made no risks, done nothing of significance. I would have only survived, in a shallow, self centered existence. And not survived very long, since everybody eventually dies. With my religion, I can at least hope for the resurrection to happen to me after I die.
"I don't believe in any religion because a one in a couple-hundred chance of being `right' is what I find unsatisfying."
What's the alternative? I personally find your viewpoint unsatisfying. Basically, you're giving up on the whole thing. It would behoove you to pick something so that you'll at least have a chance of picking the right religion.
"People get menangitis from kids in Christian Science and became retarded. Must be part of God's plan, though, eh? No doubt there was a lot of improvement to their souls by having to go through life with a defective intellect! Hurray for Christian Scientists!"
No, rather, I'd say that they are still idiots (Christian science is a cult), and that the future will be better. The past and the present don't look like much, sometimes definitely not wonderful, but the future will be wonderful beyond comparison. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted, Jesus said. Also, the person's spirit doesn't have to reflect what you're seeing here. And they're showing a reflection of Christ by their suffering.
"I don't have to describe or even understand how a TV or even a light switch works in order to use them and recognize their value. It is also easy to detect and use the mind and intelligence without explaining them. Not that my use matters much because there are others with better
minds and more intelligence - it is what they have done that I consider extremely valuable."
How ironic it is that you take `mind' `on faith,' with no explanation whatsoever. I don't have to describe or even understand how God works in order to recognize His value.
Me: "I am displeased about how you find angels somehow `more accessible than God.' I find this is a dead end."
Agnostic: "There are megatons of Cathedrals, Catholics, and stained glass Church windows arrayed against you. - And at least one of those Angels has a sword and a rotten attitude - be careful!"
I've got one better. The King of angels, their master. I'd like to see them try to beat me. I've got God on my side.
"Living? A risk? Nope! There is absolutely no risk at all. That would imply that an alternative exists. There is none - EVERYONE dies!"
That's `existing.' To truly `live,' means to risk. From what I surmise from your other arguments, you are merely existing. Just about everything you do in life can entail some sort of risk, even if some of them aren't obvious. I risked getting a concussion walking down the stairs today. I slipped on something.
"It seems to me, that `it's a sin to cling to or rely upon anything that's not God' is strictly enforced, most of modern devotion, and daily life, is prohibited - and that prohibition is routinely ignored. Go Directly To Hell (Do notcollect $200)."
Not so. Jesus sacrificed himself so that we could have life, and have it abundantly. It's possible to cling to and rely upon God while still going about our `normal lives.' So, barring really sinful stuff, like porn or prostitutes, etc., your heart can still be with God, no matter what you are doing. And even if it's not always with God, it doesn't mean you go directly to hell. Your idea of God is too punitive.
"I don't like the idea of demons jerking me around."
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen despite your likes or dislikes. Satan's greatest trick was to make people believe he doesn't exist. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"I prefer furry to religion. Living for being logged on 4 hours a day means living 1/6 of your life to your best. Subtracting work, sleep, and other maintenance, makes the percentage of good time much higher- providing more joy than many ever get."
So "the joy I get from being in a chat room is much greater than any joy that any religion offers." Sounds like banging your head on a mat to me.
"Buddhism says wisdom comes from within. That's good, because you don't have to bury yourself in books."
Perhaps that's why you also have so very little knowledge about the bible. But you don't have to bury yourself with books in Christianity, either. All you really need is John 3:16, `the gospel in a nutshell.' All the other books just build on that foundation.
"I think you fear death and haven't come to terms with it. By telling yourself that there is another life to go, you don't feel so bad about the `I can never get that time back' part of this life."
And I think you fear hell and haven't come to terms with it. By telling yourself that `there is no hell,' you don't feel so bad about the `If God exists, then I'm probably going to hell' part of the afterlife.
"IMHO, pretending to be happy while being an atheist beats your present act. What? Yes. Can you honestly tell me religion isnt a similar type of act?"
"My happy religion, atheism, is better than your fearful religion, Christianity."
You're making the false assumption that I'm actually that afraid of God. For those who have accepted Christ into their hearts, they have nothing to fear from God. And your happiness is totally plastic. I've had friends who are people pleasers and they put on the same kind of show, but you can kinda tell it's fake. And how happy is it to believe you're going to be plant food? Besides, who wrote this line? "Positive proof that there really IS an afterlife and judgement would drive me insane. No way for you to understand this, but it is true. Not even to joke about. There could be nothing more terrifying."
If it's an act, it's not a very good one. I mostly pray while I'm by myself, and if I were so bent on acting like the rest of my congregation, I'd jump up and dance to those children's gospel songs like the rest of my congregation does, even though it's low on the maturity scale, and we have few kids in the congregation to begin with.
"I `know' that when I die, the lights will go out for the last time. There may be a `dream' at the beginning of the sleep (instead of remembering one upon awakening), but then nothing. No risk or uncertainty at all."
I can't imagine that's a very comforting thought. Do you wear a helmet when you go outside?
"Your religious beliefs are sort of like a tragedy where the protagonist is beginning to realize he is doomed, but is trapped by his situation, the expectations of others, and the fear of himself, that he continues to the bitter end."
Oh yeah? You've got your own personal Chimeras you doggedly pursue. What makes mine any different?
"I have more reason to avoid death than you do! The difference is that when the time comes, I don't have to suffer to the bitter end for moral reasons."
Then you're not as good as you say you are. And you're afraid of death.
"Actually there is a gain to atheism. Religion reveres death. Atheism reveres life. Becoming fertilizer will feed new life; life that may go on to do great things. A soul that leaves here, improves nothing. Oh - I'm not sure (I'd have to play the recording) but it seems there was something about `ashes to ashes, ...' at the funeral. It certainly used to be a part of them in the past. That is pretty close to `fertilizer'!"
I find no comfort in the idea of being tree food, especially if the dire predictions of some scientists, about the sun burning out and the earth becoming a wasteland, are to be believed. You like to argue "what good is such and such after we die?" but you seem to have neglected this one. What good is it, for you, to be plant food? I want to continue existing in the same conscious, thinking existence I am existing in now, not as maggot food. The body becomes ashes, but it's much more comforting for people to believe that the person's spirit lives on.
"I totally believe that finding solid proof that God exists and that the soul and afterlife are real would be paralytic (more likely, deadly), and that is nothing to dismiss lightly."
You seem to miss the point. God and spiritual issues are not hazardous to your health.
Me: "You have argued that you want to see God speaking out of a cloud or something."
Agnostic: "I think I said that would be what it would take to convince me-but I'm sure as earth not hoping for it."
Me: "I hope you get it."
Agnostic: "Even though I had said it would kill me or drive me insane?"
Oh, don't be so melodramatic. Maybe that's why you don't see God, then. God doesn't want you to go crazy.
"My list of sins and disbeliefs is long, so when you mentioned the Sabbath, I considered it one more reason my post - croak existance would be spent breathing sulphur dioxide and complaining about the heat."
I'm sorry for throwing that misconception at you. There are many other ways to keep the Sabbath holy besides going to church. School doesn't forgive absences, work doesn't forgive absences, but God does. Jesus wasn't sent into the world to condemn you, but to save you(John 3:17). God will forgive everything you have done and/or will do, intentional or not. The only requirement is belief. You are forgiven for all your sins. Only disbelief condemns you. But that can be cured by simply believing. The bible says that we don't need to worship in Jerusalem (and similarly, temples or churches), but in spirit and in truth. We can lead our own worship services, and they don't have to be at church. I've enjoyed much informal worship at people's houses and around campfires. And to think that heaven is nothing more than a big church is unimaginative. If we can worship God anywhere, heaven should be vaster than a mere building. Our hearts are God's temple, God's church.
"I don't like the idea of some guy holding a book and stopwatch, counting down the seconds until a garbage truck mows me down. A universe - class God should run a better show than that. (I want to be mowed down by a limo, at least!)"
If you believed what the bible says about God's personality, you wouldn't be saying that. God does all things for good for those who love Him.
"I don't see any way to be happy about the existence of God (et al), regardless of how many Bible verses you can quote about rejoicing and comforting."
As if you could merely pick and choose a religion based on euphoria! How hypocritical! Well, certainly, if I had your gloomy and pessimistic misconceptions about God, it wouldn't make me very happy, either. But thankfully I don't share in those sentiments. Besides, I don't see any way to be happy about the non-existence of God (et al), regardless of how many scientific theories you can quote about evolution and genetics. It's illogical to judge religion on the premise of happiness. If you say that happiness is all that makes a religion worthwhile, then you want drugs, not religion. One of my childhood friends was an unbeliever, and while he might have appeared happy on the exterior, you could tell it was an act. Even though he got to do everything he wanted to do, sitting at home on Sundays to watch football, it still didn't bring him joy. Atheism does not bring joy. Yes, the guy probably had emotional and social problems I'm not aware of. The guy was a people pleaser, trying to make all his friends happy at once. But social and emotional problems occur to Christians, too. And if you believe that Christianity has to make your life devoid of all sadness, pain and suffering in order to be true, you have more in common with Christian Science than you know.
"Once you croak, it will be a little too late to find out you screwed up in the proper way to serve and honor God."
But if I follow your line of reasoning, I'd discover it was a little too late to find out I screwed up by not trying to serve and honor God at all.
"Years ago I saw (on TV) some orthodox Jews who spend all day (and probably most of the night) arguing about the meaning of this or that passage. At the time, I thought `what an astonishing waste of a life!'."
Then you'd probably say the same about mine. But my religion teaches me something yours doesn't. That our labor is not in vain, that God will reward our hard work.
"The only thing certain is that spirits are watching watching watching,, and waiting for their chance to judge everything and everyone. Find great joy in that, and still claim to be sane!"
That would only be a problem if you worried about other religions in addition to Christianity. If you're on God's good side, who cares what the other spirits think? You've got the `top dog' on your side.
"I haven't the slightest worry about death. You are the one who has to wonder what will happen afterwards, and worry that you missed some critical detail that only Gabriel noticed - the one that will mean a one - way trip to Club Hades!"
Oh no. Jesus has me covered. He died for all the sins I ever committed or will commit. I'm certain that his death paid for all the sins in my life, even the ones I've forgotten. The worst thing I could do is try to claim heaven by my own merit. Without Jesus, I'd be living in fear of Club Hades. But nothing can take away my forgiveness. All I have to do is keep believing.
"I don't see why you'd want to be a Christian. You'd be in constant fear of hell."
There's no hell for believers in Christ.
"It is human, not Christian, to give to charity and forgive people."
This assertion flies in the face of evidence. Our world is full of human beings who murder, steal, cheat, lie and cause lasting emotional damage in other human beings. While you may argue this is `inhuman,' this is actually the natural human state. In the Judeo-Christian faith, we learn to love people we hate, to love those we can't stand, to love even the debauched bum. People who argue that it is `human' to do good are the same people who hold long standing grudges against other people, showing hatred, not love, to people that offend them or hurt their feelings, and give to family and friends while ignoring the poor and needy. While it's human to hate these types of people, it's not Christian.
"It used to be quite the thing, you know - monks and nuns isolated from society as much as possible. Oh sure, the occational meal and bug-infested cot for a passing bum, but nothing like the aid our secular government and philanthropic organizations hand out. In fact, I don't know of any large scale openly religious ones beyond the Salvation Army and Catholic Relief."
Gosh! "Bug infested cots!" Such an ugly picture! So unlike Christian homeless shelters today! You put too much faith in the government. Frankly, I have heard only about Christian philanthropic organizations. The secular ones are almost unknown to me. The government's welfare is okay, and an exception, but it can't do everything. Red Cross began Christian, by the way.
"We have medical knowledge to tell us how to live a good, sensible life. We don't need religion."
Right, like the medical knowledge that tells you "it's okay to sleep with people you're not married to as long as you're using contraceptives." Clearly, you, as an atheist, are only as moral as your options. And how good and moral a lifestyle can you live if you use pornography, which, while having no ill medical effects, makes you a morally corrupt person? Of course, then, there is Romans 6:21, which says, "But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death." So, maybe the medical argument holds some water, but in others, such as the respect for Divinity, it's more like a sieve.
"Cartoons (or TV shows or science fiction novels) provide just as good a moral lesson as anything you can learn from the pulpit at church or in the bible. It just depends on the show."
Frankly, this argument is ridiculous. The moral lessons and solutions one learns from cartoons are extremely simplified. This is also true for their solutions to moral dilemmas. Characters on cartoons may receive light punishments for heinous crimes, or learn that revenge is much better and easier than forgiveness. This does not even help you `to be a better human being.' There's too many shows where the solution to every problem is "shoot the bad guy!"
"Stargate is just as good as religion. It is on broadcast TV here. StarGate is a good - vs - evil story, and I root for the good guys (who use intelligence) to win over the bad guys (who use emotion and force)."
Right. So you get a great moral message every week: shoot the bad guy.
"Most of our morals are the same - only not for the same reasons: You want to please a spook; I want to keep society together and not feel like a louse."
Most, not all. And I'm sure you do a lovely job keeping society together. Uh-huh. Right. My religion teaches that human society is inevitably going to fall apart anyway, and we will be left with the society of Christ. I fail to see why your personal behavior as an individual will make a fart's difference in a hailstorm when it comes to keeping society together. And it takes a lot less to make me feel like a louse. I feel bad for dishonoring my God. When I neglect to pray before eating or going to bed, or when I don't meet with other believers once a week for worship or bible study, for example. I also feel like a louse when I see a homeless person or stranded motorist and don't help them, or when I spend money on things that I don't need and could be better spent on charity. My Islamic friend sent this to me: "The Belief in Allah and Ethical Responsibility: A person who believes in Allah tends to be more ethically responsible than a person who does not believe. This belief makes a person feel that he is observed by Allah everywhere and on all occasions. This feeling makes a person as clean as possible and as far from sin as possible." I tend to agree with this. It's more than just obedience to ancient civil codes or avoiding the feeling of being a louse. I believe that the bible contains the absolute truth and morality. You have proven that an unbeliever, while maybe not seeing morality as relative, does pick and choose what morals he keeps, thus making it somewhat relative. While you choose some of the ten commandments as your personal morality, that doesn't reflect at all what other atheists are choosing. To unbelievers, it's relative to the person's preferences. You don't follow the `God commandments,' just the ones about respecting humans. Many rock musicians are atheists. They pick and choose their morals, too. They decide it's okay to sleep with groupies and snort coke. To them, it's relative. If you did a study of the various cultures of the world, I assume, because you're an atheist, you'd think less about the ten commandments being `a good idea.' There was a sociology professor at my college who lectured on how, in some countries, there's no such thing as statutory law(I might not have the correct term here, but...). The men held hands with underage girls in movie theaters, and they slept with underage girls, and that was considered acceptable. If you're Hindu, you'd let the untouchable man drown because you didn't want to touch him and get negative karma. Situation ethics. I don't find the concept agreeable. To survive, a rugby team resorts to cannibalism. I'd prefer to die trying to get help than eat my comrades. I guess it wouldn't matter to you, since you value animal life more than human life. I don't appreciate you using the word `spook' to describe my God. A spook is a lesser entity, like a ghost. `Spook' indicates something small and of little power or consequence. A spook can be put into an ecto containment unit. God makes the people who build the ecto containment unit, and would just laugh at people trying to shut him up inside one.
"We have historical knowledge to tell us how to live a good, sensible life. We don't need religion."
This logic is faulty because religion and Christianity is a part of history. In fact, Christianity has been responsible for a great number of charities, hospitals, other humanitarian organizations, and people of astoundingly good morals throughout history. So, if you're looking for your morality in history, look no further.
"We have knowledge and intelligence to tell us how to live a good, sensible life. We don't need religion."
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
"You don't need religion or Christianity to do good works. All Christianity is is a set of ideals. Good works result just as easily from acting on any ideals. You don't need to be Christian to give to charity. Charity is a good service that makes you feel good, no gods or religion required."
I talk more about the `Christianity is just a set of ideals' argument in another section. Yes, you don't need Christianity to do good deeds, but it helps. Otherwise, your good deeds won't be very many. There's simply not enough people out there to pat your back. And you certainly aren't going to become perfect without faith in Christ. What happens if you're doing good deeds and no one thanks you or rewards you for it? A person with religous beliefs can reconcile the lack of thanks because they believe there will be a reward from God. An atheist has....? I haven't seen much activity from non-religious charitable organizations. I don't doubt there are such things, I don't doubt some good comes from them, but I feel that if they're doing really well, they've got religious people working for them. There has to be at least a kernel of faith in the volunteers who do the jobs for no money, refusing to embezzle or steal from the organization. And there are a lot of `hunger funds' that do nothing at all but petition the government for useless programs, to set up a one world government instead of actually giving to people or helping them improve their lot in life. Religion, at least, gives people a motivation and incentive to do good, to be active, without payment or reward, instead of careless and self centered. There's a thrust and an ultimate goal to everthing they do, even if the rewards are currently `intangible.'
"I don't know about Bill Gates, or the boards of pharmaceutical companies and major industrialists, but they fork over major moola for the tax writeoffs and good PR. Remember Andrew Carnagie. He made a fortune, then because his publicist told him he could buy good publicity with donations, he built buildings on college campuses, and built libraries in many cities. That doesn't sound very godly to me, but they were `good works'."
But "they have already received their reward," then. I don't agree with that definition of "good works." I don't see philanthropy as a good work. Dan Quayle, I believe, used a scholarship for African Americans to pay for his schooling. Truly good works are caring for the poor and needy, not naming buildings after yourself, especially at colleges where the prime goal is to make money or getting famous. It's like naming a building at a factory. Jesus said not to blow a trumpet before you when you make alms, announcing that you made alms. Blowing a trumpet, in this era, is PR and tax writeoffs.
"`Take care of strangers, not just yourself or your family and friends. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Give shelter to the homeless. Visit ailing elderly people. Give to the poor'...Everyone is forced to do that (except for bums). It is called taxation and redistribution of wealth, a.k.a. state socialism."
That's not good enough. It doesn't cover all needs. To sit back and hope the government will take care of it is lazy and irresponsible. And the government is hard to control. They often make cuts in welfare to give special breaks to special interest groups. Every day, thousands of people are dying of malnutrition and other factors of poverty. Obviously, this would be a perfect time for you to argue, "God shouldn't let that happen." But regardless of what you believe, there are people dying because of their poverty. The real issue here is `what am I doing about it?' `How can I help?' If you just sit back and argue that `the government will handle it' and `there's no God,' and just continue to do nothing about it, then you'll be partly responsible for the deaths. I admit, I'm not perfect in this regard, either, but I've got a religion that tells me it must be done. And it's a `good idea.' Food kitchens and assistance programs aren't always government funded. A lot of times churches or generous individuals support them instead. It's not about merely donating money.
"There are only seven deadly sins, so I don't need to worry about avoiding any others. As long as I avoid the seven deadly sins, I'm a good person."
The seven deadly sins are not entirely biblical in origin (sloth and gluttony, for example). They were invented by Catholicism, and very loosely based on the bible. But they're good in catching criminals. A person with the deadly sin of sloth can be caught sleeping somewhere, a glutton will leave food wrappers. It's more useful for criminal investigation than serious moral or ethical discussions. Instead of those, try these deadly sins on for size:
"The standards you live by are a combination of civil/criminal codes of today, and law and psychology from the past. What you don't seem to understand is that I DO TOO!"
I don't think you understand me. I believe the standards I live by are instructions from God. I live by God's word. If modern civil/criminal codes coincide with it, fine. If they contradict it, then I'm going by God's word. For example, I refuse to live by the rules of the separation of church and state. There are civil/criminal codes against violating that separation, but I don't care.
"If helping the poor actually gives someone the opportunity to repair their messed up life, that is not a waste of time. If the collection plate money does the same, fine. But if you do it because you are trying to buy a front row seat in God's choir - I do consider that bogus."
Then you are like Esau. You forsake heavenly or spiritual rewards for the sake of physical things, like Esau gave up his birthright for a single meal.
Me: "Religion governs your living in more than just a physical way- it is a guideline for your actions."
Agnostic: "So is simply thinking about tomorrow."
That implies that there is one. That takes faith. And is it your tomorrow, or someone else's, that you're thinking about?
"Usually someone who starts a business has to show a little consideration for people and not rip them too much or it won't last long. As long as people have a business running, they must be doing something right. No religion is required. To maintain a business means to stay out of trouble."
While running a business involves people skills, running a business does not make you perfect, nor is it an indicator of being a good person. "What they don't know won't hurt them" is a popular phrase. Child molesters and adulterers can appear to be `respectable businessmen' and have long, seemingly respectable careers, but do evil in secret when the doors are closed for the night. A business owner may also abuse his family, emotionally and physically, and no amount of `respectable business' can solve it.
"As for having godly people working for charities, hiring only 2 people pretty much gurantees that, because half claim to be religious. (And you can't judge their honesty, because only God can do that!)"
Yes, but you can't do very much with only two people. Besides, you can also ask the supposedly Christian employee, "Now, was that a truly Christian thing to do?" and "I might not see what you're doing here, but do you feel you're right with God?" In a company of Christians, I can appeal to a divine authority, and make the employees reconsider either their faith or their actions. In an atheist organization, authority isn't taken seriously.
"`There has to be at least a kernel of godliness in the volunteers who do the jobs for no money?' Is that how it is measured? What then of those who are paid to administer the funds? If a fund has only paid workers, it is ungodly and the money and works should be refused?"
There is no human way to measure godliness, or we'd all get arrogant with each other about it. God uses whatever means necessary to provide for the poor, even if it takes bribing people. But others, like me, feel motivated to help the poor for no money whatsoever. Paid workers exchange treasure on earth for treasures in heaven. That doesn't mean they go to hell, it just means they'll get less stuff in heaven than other people who volunteer.
"How about when our government sends relief supplies to foreign disaster sites? The money was extorted from us taxpayers under threat of fine or jail, was handled by paid beaurocrats, paid to farmers and factory owners for goods, and probably shipped on military craft. Not much godliness in any of that!"
The Lord loves a cheerful giver. And, since you call it `extortion,' it certainly isn't cheerful. God uses whatever means he can to feed the poor, so that no one will lack what they need. But since someone forced us to provide for these people, and we get no reward for it on earth, we must be gaining a stockpile of treasure in heaven. Secular relief funds, like the Hunger Project, World Goodwill, Bread For The World, and holistic health based hunger funds, or the United Nations hunger fund, are designed with more emphasis on instituting a form of global communism than actually feeding people. If they had their way, they'd be using governmental extortion to do their job.
"You (Christian) are on the wrong path - not the path of enjoying life, but one that concentrates more on death (or at least minimizes this existence, which I believe to be the only one)."
I prefer to think of it as an expansion, not a minimization. But who are you to tell me what is the wrong path? You don't believe any path is right. My religion in no way limits me from having fun and enjoying myself, unless you define sinful things (like debauchery, prostitutes, pornography, drugs, etc.) as "fun." It was God's idea for fun, enjoyable things to exist. Many things we consider fun can even be used, enjoyably, in the praise of God. You can praise God with electronics, artwork, just about anything fun regular people do. And furthermore, if you don't change your path, I will be having ten times more fun after death than you ever will. How fun is it to live life with the belief that "you just rot in the ground when you die"?
"You believe all of the Bible because it is the True Inspired Word of God, much of the OT is just plain boring, and not at all beneficial to anyone's soul. Only a very dedicated monomaniacal type would commit to memory all the unpronouncable names and places of who begat, dwelt in, moved from, inherited, etc, and how many gold hooks are to be used in what type and size of curtains supported by what design of how many silver sockets, etc, in what layout of courtyard in front of the Tabernacle, etc."
I didn't mean to say that every passage has obvious spiritual value, or that I have memorized all the people, places and things of the bible. To the contrary, it seems like every time I open the bible, it seems to be something different. I get something new out of it each time. A lot of people make the mistake of trying to read the entire bible cover to cover. There are a lot of portions that are rather boring and rather unimportant. In Christianity, the begats are used for the purpose of pointing out that Jesus is a descendant of David, that Jesus is, in fact, Jewish. The locations are important to archeologists. The design and the layout and the stuff of the tabernacle is for the purpose of the builders, and somewhere along the lines of the building of that temple or another, you can see the disparity between the first and the second temple in terms of the presence of God, or the presence of wealth, or the presence of the ark of the covenant. A lot of non-Messianic rabbis argue that the second temple is greater than the first one because it had more riches or something, but the description of Solomon's temple counters that idea.
"Jesus forgives all your past, present, and future sins? This is another extremely far reaching thought-precedent that implies I am not only my brother's keeper, but am also responsible for the sins of my father. I don't want either responsibility! I can't claim that managing my own life has been a glorious success- and now I have to run someone else's- including the dead? No thanks!"
You may not want it, but you still have it. Think about it. If your father was Hitler or Charles Manson, wouldn't you see the burden of sin passed down to you? But, regardless, you don't need to worry about it. You don't need to be responsible for their sin, because Jesus has forgiven all sin, from Adam to the sins of our children's children. The only thing you need to do is repent, confess your sins and believe. Some people advocate praying for the forgiveness of generational sins, but I believe God has that taken care of, even if we were able to know everything our great, great, great grandfathers did wrong. I answered the `I am not my brother's keeper' argument in another section. You may not want to be your brother's keeper, but you are his keeper, like it or not. Ignoring your responsibility is, well, irresponsible. No one said you had to dictate how they should live their life. I've tried that myself and found it impossible. Really, that is a very fair and loving thing for God to do. After all, what if you get in a terrible accident while still carrying unconfessed sins? If Jesus died only for the sins you confessed, then you'd go to hell for something you did at childhood or something you forgot, or something you did immediately before the accident. But Jesus died for all people's sins for all time, so there is no condemnation for a believer in Christ, even if they die with unconfessed sins.