If Jesus truly died for the sins of humanity, (as I once fervently believed) it seems to me that the only reasonable view is that of the Universalists - we're all covered - no pre-conditions, no belief requirements, no entrance exam. Universal sanctification, no damnation. (Though, practically everyone I know would want to make a few exceptions for the really really evil bastards - but strict Universalism says no, everyone gets spiritually overhauled and reunited with the big G.) Every other view ends up excluding enormous numbers of essentially good people, and I don't think any compassionate human of the 21st century should countenance such injustice.

So, Kevy, I bet you're covered. :)

So if I do follow a spiritual path, that includes believing in God, does this mean I'm a bad person?

I don't see where anything said in this thread so far would lead to that conclusion, no.

Most of the kindest and most giving people I know have some kind of belief. A few don't. Some of the nastiest I've ever met are believers. A few of them aren't.

There are plenty of other things to lead to the conclusion that I'm a bad person :)

I'm not really keen on the ads, but that's about it.

I know that the ads would have bothered the hell out of me back in my believing days. Part of that is because beliefs and world views are so closely tied in with how we view and value ourselves (and others). It's a deeply personal concern that hits us where we live.

It is also true that, for me anyway, when I used to encounter direct challenges to God belief, they made me very uncomfortable, because deep down, I was afraid the doubters might be on to something. For me, anyway, those fears came true, but I ended up happier that way. Everyone's mileage will vary, and that's totally groovy with me.

Last week, after Prop 8 passed, I was having a conversation with GC about religion, particularly about the comments that some were making about the various religious groups that went out of their way to push for the hateful legislation.

I was defending the people on LoT who were saying terrible things about the Mormon Church.

I guess I've grown to believe that most of the religious people that I've encountered in my life use their religion - and more specifically the dogma attached to their religion - as a crutch, something to give meaning and hope to their lives. When they stop using their crutch to prop themselves up and start swinging it around to hurt others, it reminds me that there are an awful lot of people walking around with potential weapons. And that scares me.

So when people say, "Hate the club, don't hate its members," I find it difficult to see the distinction. In theory, I support a libertarian reading of the 2nd Amendment, but I've been in places in America where people toting their guns around gave me the willies. I feel the same way about people who "cling to their religion."

This ad campaign makes me smile, because it underlines my reality that I don't need that crutch, and I don't have to assume that my fellow humans are cripples.

Jesus Saves Sinners
...and redeems them for valuable prizes.

Out of curiosity (and this gets to the core of Richard Dawkins view of atheism), do you consider those two possibilities to be equally likely?


I, for example, also view both as possible. One is just a hell of a lot more likely than the other.