From: SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Religious Roulette
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:23:51 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Oct15.011648.22998@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:

>If the religion is true, and once you die and were . . .
>
>                       NOT Following It             Following It
>
>Atheism           !    Nothing Happens     !      Nothing Happens      !
>                  !                        !                           !
>Pantheism         !                        !                           !
>   (New Age,      !    Go around another   !      Go around another    !
>    Buddism,      !    time.               !      time.                !
>    Hinduism)     !                        !                           !
>
>Monotheism        !                        !                           !
>                  !                        !                           !
> Christianity     !     You are in for     !      Eternal Life         !
>                  !     eternal torment    !      in Paradise.         !
>                  !     in hell.           !                           !

I have some difficulties with the above chart:  Many (almost all?) forms
of Buddhism cannot be very accurately classified as pantheistic.  I
believe that the same could be said for several traditions within
Hinduism.  I am not sure that the post-mortal dichotomy for Christianity
is correct - I am under the impression that Seventh Day Adventists
do not believe in "eternal torment in hell."

In light of an assertion made later in this posting it is a peculiar
oversight to have omitted the Zoroastrian faith from the monotheism
category.

>    So what does atheism and pantheism have to offer?  It doesn't make
>a difference whether one believes it or doesn't believe it.  So is there
>really a point in following one of those?   Is there a point in
>arguing its cause, whatever that is, and if one, so what?

First of all, in the case of the second rather incorrectly labelled
category the results characterized as "go around another time" are
very misleading.  _How_ one "goes around" is predicated in part on
whether previous actions were morally skillful or unskillful, so the
moral quality of one's life matters very much in terms of what fruit
it will produce.

However I think there is another basis for objecting to the chart above,
and one which atheists may also agree with.  The chart focuses totally
on embracing a system of belief for a post-death payoff.  I think
this emphasis is very strong in some Christian denominations which
are obsessed with being "creedaly correct" and legalistic in observance.
But for many people (both atheist and religious) this has very little
to do with belief and/or faith.  Several Buddhist traditions emphasize
the appropriateness of their teaching in terms of _this_ life and pay
almost no attention to questions of what occurs after death.

This chart seems to lean strongly toward the be-good-and-daddy-will-
give-you-a-lollipop-and-if-you-don't-he'll-whup-your-butt approach
to the religious life.

>    Christianity. Now here's a clear cut choice.   It DOES make a
>difference whether one follows Christ or not.  But what about all

I seem to have excised a part of the posting I wanted to comment
on.  Mr. Ceccarelli, as I recall, dismissed consideration of Islam,
the LDS, etc. and their scriptures by appealing to the originality
of the Christian scriptures.  I believe that the Gathas of the
Zoroastrian faith, which is monotheistic, pre-date Jewish and
Christian scriptures.  There used to be one or two Parsis who
read this group, perhaps if they still do they can comment.

Jack Carroll
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:18230 alt.atheism:18996