Comment: Bits and Pieces

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Part II of my reply to "A Reply" (see in situ)

Bits and Pieces

"I don't know if all Christians believe in an afterlife.."

I guess a lot depends on how one defines the label 'Christian'. Words ought to mean something definite and limited. This is not to be narrow minded, but a matter of communicating clearly. The way Christians have dealt with labeling fellow Christians who hold various doctrinal differences amongst themselves is to add descriptors or denominational distinctions. Of course, somethings are so outside the bounds of common acceptance amongst Christians that the label 'Christian' simply does not apply. I submit that if you find a self described Christian who claims to not believe in the afterlife, then you have not met a Christian under the vast majority's limits of the term. Again, this is not a matter of doctrinal purity, but of communicating clearly.

"What I comprehend from the references made to 'Heaven' the Kingdom of Heaven, etc.. Is that Jesus was talking about a state of mind an ideology a philosophy that would place Man in a position where Man could realize that all Men are equal and that Man should not bow to any other Man in slavery."

It does not trouble me to agree that he did discuss our state of mind. But it is inaccurate to say that is all he discussed with regard to the Kingdom of Heaven.

"The interiorization of the ideas he defended would elevate man to "heaven" before death, not after it."

Given your presuppositions, this must be the case. From a Christian perspective (in my more narrow understanding of the label 'Christian'), Christ did seek to elevate man before death, as well as after.

"I accept in the Idea of God as created by Man but not in any genuine deity or supreme being and I do not consider myself a chemical sack."

Of course you don't... nor does anyone else - which simply goes to show that some people are more consistent with the implications of their presuppositions than others.

"I believe in human worth and dignity because we have the capacity to discuss and develop Ideas that otherwise may not have been addressed in the Universe."

Does this worth and dignity apply universally to all men? What of those who neither discuss or care about discussing such questions? What of those who, through mental impairment, are incapable of comprehending such questions? If human worth is bestowed by actions and capabilities, then what of those who do not act or cannot act? Are they something less than worthy?