A world with many religions or a world with zero religions

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheTrueCentrist

Guest
I propose that if our goal is to get a maximum number of people into heaven, then it is desirable to have a world with no organized religions rather than a world with many.
  1. It is possible to go to heaven even if you are not a member of the true religion; we can say, for the sake of argument, that this is Catholicism. To do so you must:
    a. Be ignorant of the true religion through no fault of your own.
    b. Obey “natural law” or the laws “written in our hearts.” Basically you must be a good person.
  2. If there exist many religions and exactly one “true” religion then there will exist people who reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion
  3. If people reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion then those people will not go to heaven.
  4. Some people who reject the true religion are good people, i.e. would satisfy criteria 1b.
  5. If there are no religions then people cannot reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion.
  6. Therefore, the set of people who go to heaven is larger in the case of zero religions. Specifically, the people who get into heaven are:
    No religions|Many religions
All good people|All good peopleless the set of people who rejected the true religion

Since we have claim that the set of good people who reject the true religion is non-empty, then more people would get into heaven if there were no religions than if there were many.

NOTE: this is not a discussion of atheism since our goal is “to get a maximum number of people into heaven.”
 
I think you’ve created an excellent post. I know that a lot of devout Catholics will answer that knowing about God and being able to partake in the sacraments is the greatest thing in life!

So, their answer would be, it’s better having religion, so as to give people the chance to experience the sacraments and know the fullness of truth.

I of course will say that it is much better having zero religion and then letting the chips fall where they may.

If you don’t know about the sacraments, then you don’t know what you are missing. So clearly, it is better not to have them, as you won’t risk anyone rejecting them or God.
 
God brought religion for a reason.
With only natural laws, we are able to view these from imperfect and differing perspectives.
Thus, no unity. With the Holy Catholic Church, we have a single unity with apostolic perspective on natural law that was divinely revealed for a reason. So that we may be able to better understand not only how things should be, but why things should be those ways.
 
Durus said:
If you don’t know about the sacraments, then you don’t know what you are missing. So clearly, it is better not to have them, as you won’t risk anyone rejecting them or God.
Click to expand...
No, not clearly.
 
PeterJohn said:
God brought religion for a reason.
With only natural laws, we are able to view these from imperfect and differing perspectives.
Thus, no unity. With the Holy Catholic Church, we have a single unity with apostolic perspective on natural law that was divinely revealed for a reason. So that we may be able to better understand not only how things should be, but why things should be those ways.
Click to expand...
God also gave man free will, which completely muddled the entire concept of getting everyone into the same boat.

The vast majority of the world isn’t Christian and of course, absolutely does not believe that Jesus is the son of God.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
I propose that if our goal is to get a maximum number of people into heaven, then it is desirable to have a world with no organized religions rather than a world with many.
  1. It is possible to go to heaven even if you are not a member of the true religion; we can say, for the sake of argument, that this is Catholicism. To do so you must:
    a. Be ignorant of the true religion through no fault of your own.
    b. Obey “natural law” or the laws “written in our hearts.” Basically you must be a good person.
  2. If there exist many religions and exactly one “true” religion then there will exist people who reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion
  3. If people reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion then those people will not go to heaven.
  4. Some people who reject the true religion are good people, i.e. would satisfy criteria 1b.
  5. If there are no religions then people cannot reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion.
  6. Therefore, the set of people who go to heaven is larger in the case of zero religions. Specifically, the people who get into heaven are:
    No religions|Many religions
All good people|All good peopleless the set of people who rejected the true religion

Since we have claim that the set of good people who reject the true religion is non-empty, then more people would get into heaven if there were no religions than if there were many.

NOTE: this is not a discussion of atheism since our goal is “to get a maximum number of people into heaven.”
Click to expand...
No religion =Hitler Stalin,communist china.
 
PeterJohn said:
No, not clearly.
Click to expand...
If the question is getting the most people to heaven…

It is far easier being a good person with Jesus in his heart, than it is to be a Catholic who dies without a single mortal sin on his soul.

Fact.
 
Unity is important.
Just think of your life, if no one agrees with you wouldn’t that suck? If everyone agreed with you , then you would always do what you wanted and it would be approved by everyone! So if you loved bowling and said “let’s go bowling!” everyone of your friends would agree and go have so much fun bowling the night away!!!
😃
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
I propose that if our goal is to get a maximum number of people into heaven, then it is desirable to have a world with no organized religions rather than a world with many.
  1. It is possible to go to heaven even if you are not a member of the true religion; we can say, for the sake of argument, that this is Catholicism. To do so you must:
    a. Be ignorant of the true religion through no fault of your own.
    b. Obey “natural law” or the laws “written in our hearts.” Basically you must be a good person.
  2. If there exist many religions and exactly one “true” religion then there will exist people who reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion
  3. If people reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion then those people will not go to heaven.
  4. Some people who reject the true religion are good people, i.e. would satisfy criteria 1b.
  5. If there are no religions then people cannot reject the true religion in favor of an untrue religion.
  6. Therefore, the set of people who go to heaven is larger in the case of zero religions. Specifically, the people who get into heaven are:
    No religions|Many religions
All good people|All good peopleless the set of people who rejected the true religion

Since we have claim that the set of good people who reject the true religion is non-empty, then more people would get into heaven if there were no religions than if there were many.

NOTE: this is not a discussion of atheism since our goal is “to get a maximum number of people into heaven.”
Click to expand...
False dichotomy --as if the two sets of Many religions and no religions were the ONLY possibilities. . .(they are not).

False premises listed and false conclusions drawn.

Again, the idea that if you ‘wipe out’ the true religion by insisting that there be NO religion and that somehow that means you can’t reject the true religion is ludicrous.
 
What is your definition of “truth” and where did you learn this definition?
 
Durus said:
If the question is getting the most people to heaven…

It is far easier being a good person with Jesus in his heart, than it is to be a Catholic who dies without a single mortal sin on his soul.

Fact.
Click to expand...
Am I to understand that you think a ‘good person with Jesus in his heart’ doesn’t commit mortal sin?

That it is EASIER not to sin mortally if you aren’t Catholic? That seems to be what you’re saying. . .

Also, saying ‘fact’ at the end of a statement doesn’t make it so. 😃
 
Durus said:
If the question is getting the most people to heaven…

It is far easier being a good person with Jesus in his heart, than it is to be a Catholic who dies without a single mortal sin on his soul.

Fact.
Click to expand...
Not all people should go to heaven. Some are baddies!!
Jesus is in my heart and it makes Catholicism easy! :rolleyes:
Maybe if you had Jesus in yours, it would be easy for you too!👍
 
PeterJohn said:
Not all people should go to heaven. Some are baddies!!
Jesus is in my heart and it makes Catholicism easy! :rolleyes:
Maybe if you had Jesus in yours, it would be easy for you too!👍
Click to expand...
I agree. . .I wonder why people think that Catholics don’t have Jesus in their hearts.

June is the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, too.

Gosh, we Catholics think about Jesus so much. . .and in communion, we receive Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, into our own bodies. . .can’t get much closer than that.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
False dichotomy --as if the two sets of Many religions and no religions were the ONLY possibilities. . .(they are not).

False premises listed and false conclusions drawn.

Again, the idea that if you ‘wipe out’ the true religion by insisting that there be NO religion and that somehow that means you can’t reject the true religion is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was a dichotomy. I said “of the two, this one is preferable.” If there was a tray that had apple and blueberry pie on it, I could say “of the two, I’d prefer apple” regardless of whether or not cherry pie was also available.
 
PeterJohn said:
No religion =Hitler Stalin,communist china.
Click to expand...
Hitler was a Catholic and the German Army was a Christian Army.

Mein Kamf is riddled with excerpts related to God and many of Hitlers speeches employ God as a tool of propaganda.

Awfully strange behaviour for an Atheist, speaking to Atheists? No?

The separation of Church and State does not lead to blood shed.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
I didn’t say it was a dichotomy. I said “of the two, this one is preferable.” If there was a tray that had apple and blueberry pie on it, I could say “of the two, I’d prefer apple” regardless of whether or not cherry pie was also available.
Click to expand...
But if you’re trying to argue a point in which cherry pie is essential, and then refusing to allow it on the plate, you’re making a useless argument.
 
PeterJohn said:
Not all people should go to heaven. Some are baddies!!
Jesus is in my heart and it makes Catholicism easy! :rolleyes:
Maybe if you had Jesus in yours, it would be easy for you too!👍
Click to expand...
…except I reject the notion of him being real and I understand completely what I am rejecting.
 
PeterJohn said:
Unity is important.
Just think of your life, if no one agrees with you wouldn’t that suck? If everyone agreed with you , then you would always do what you wanted and it would be approved by everyone! So if you loved bowling and said “let’s go bowling!” everyone of your friends would agree and go have so much fun bowling the night away!!!
😃
Click to expand...
Isn’t that the definition of heaven?

Everyone blissfully happy, worshipping God non-stop?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
But if you’re trying to argue a point in which cherry pie is essential, and then refusing to allow it on the plate, you’re making a useless argument.
Click to expand...
So which alternative do you believe is so essential?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top