What category is this?

[hindu]

The person who believe is god is theist and who doesn't believe in atheist.

religious people reserve seats in heaven for those who follow god and hell for all others...atheists reject both.

Third one accepts heaven but give right to entry to anyone who does good deeds even if he is atheist.

 

Thanks

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

What's your point? What do you wish to discuss?

 

[hindu]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

What's your point? What do you wish to discuss?

 

I wish to discuss sanatana Dharma and make people aware that there is nothing called hinduism...its geographical representation and above all we donot believe in concept of "ism".

Anyways charm is gone of this question now ...will come with something new 

Thanks

[Strange]

3 hours ago, hindu said:

religious people reserve seats in heaven for those who follow god and hell for all others...

Some religious people in some religions. Many religions have no concept of heaven. Many have no concept of hell. 

And not all religions that have heaven or hell reserve them for people who believe / do good or otherwise. 

2 hours ago, hindu said:

I wish to discuss sanatana Dharma

You didn’t say that in your first post. 

2 hours ago, hindu said:

make people aware that there is nothing called hinduism...its geographical representation and above all we donot believe in concept of "ism".

A good argument can be made that Hinduism is an inappropriate term, applied inappropriately by foreign powers. You haven’t attempted to do that. 

(Saying you don’t believe in “-isms” is a bit silly; we know that atheism, socialism, racism, fascism, feminism, patriotism and many others exist.)

[Phi for All]

You're asking what category your third believer falls into? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a religion's afterlife that welcomes non-believers. Is that what sanatana Dharma does?

A friend of mine wrote a paper while in seminary about a Christian heaven where God doesn't judge who gets into it, but rather the person themself decides if they're worthy or not. If not, they stand outside heaven, miserable that they can't get in until they accept their own worth. Your third scenario reminded me of that paper, since all are welcome no matter what they believed in life.

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure I've ever heard of a religion's afterlife that welcomes non-believers.

There are branches of Christianity that think that it is purely how you lived your life that determines if you go to heaven, not whether you belief.

34 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

A friend of mine wrote a paper while in seminary about a Christian heaven where God doesn't judge who gets into it, but rather the person themself decides if they're worthy or not. If not, they stand outside heaven, miserable that they can't get in until they accept their own worth.

What a great idea! Although they should probably be offered counselling. (Sounds a bit like the plot of The Good Place movie.)

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

There are branches of Christianity that think that it is purely how you lived your life that determines if you go to heaven, not whether you belief.

Interesting. Why not focus on living a good life then, and skip the whole belief/worship cycle? How do these Christians interpret the old favorite John 3:16 re belief in Jesus?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What a great idea! Although they should probably be offered counselling. (Sounds a bit like the plot of The Good Place movie.)

More like the series Lucifer (where the devil actually gets a therapist, ala Tony Soprano). Hell is a never ending loop of the time you most regret in your life, the part you feel the most guilt over. You can leave anytime you like, but you can never check out until you've resolved your guilt.

 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why not focus on living a good life then, and skip the whole belief/worship cycle?

Some do. (I have known Christians who are fairly ambiguous about belief in either god or christ; the message is more important than the medium, I guess.)

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How do these Christians interpret the old favorite John 3:16 re belief in Jesus?

Perhaps it says that belief is a sufficient but not necessary condition.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

More like the series Lucifer (where the devil actually gets a therapist, ala Tony Soprano). Hell is a never ending loop of the time you most regret in your life, the part you feel the most guilt over. You can leave anytime you like, but you can never check out until you've resolved your guilt.

So more like Groundhog Day, then?  

I haven't watched Lucifer, seen some trailers. Looks quite fun.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Perhaps it says that belief is a sufficient but not necessary condition.

This would certainly cover two scenarios that always bother me, the person who has led a righteous life without a specific belief (or follows a non-Christian religion), and the person who has never heard of Christianity but is nonetheless a very good person. It also seems like the OP's third category, where deeds matter more than worship.

I think if this category still believes in god(s), they're still theists. Does one have to believe in a personally-involved god(s) to be a theist?

I would call a category like this "tolerant" or "inclusive". I'm sure follower in other categories have different names for them. 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

I haven't watched Lucifer, seen some trailers. Looks quite fun.

The series is saved from mediocrity by some excellent edgy characterizations yanked from Neil Gaiman's comics, and eventually grows out of it's procedural format to become a very fun show. Surprising LOL moments, which are always a treat. 

31 minutes ago, Strange said:

So more like Groundhog Day, then?  

If I had to believe in a god(s), it would be one who intervened in our lives this way. Do-overs when you screw up bigtime, keep at it until you get it right, then your life (and time itself ) continues, hopefully with everyone wiser, happier, and better off than before. 

Church of the Infinite Mulligan.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This would certainly cover two scenarios that always bother me, the person who has led a righteous life without a specific belief (or follows a non-Christian religion), and the person who has never heard of Christianity but is nonetheless a very good person. It also seems like the OP's third category, where deeds matter more than worship.

Who cares? 

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who cares? 

This seems like an off-topic response no matter what thread it's posted to.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

This seems like an off-topic response no matter what thread it's posted to.

But in this thread?

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But in this thread?

Not all religions are as negatively judgemental as you.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Not all religions are as negatively judgemental as you.

Indeed, they mostly start out being tolerant.

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This would certainly cover two scenarios that always bother me, the person who has led a righteous life without a specific belief (or follows a non-Christian religion), and the person who has never heard of Christianity but is nonetheless a very good person. It also seems like the OP's third category, where deeds matter more than worship.

Who cares? 

My point is, heaven/nirvana/etc. is not about what happens tomorrow/after death; heaven/nirvana/etc. is only available now and hell, is worrying that I'm not good enough. To paraphrase 'Catch 22': me, happy, happy, happy dead... you, worry, worry, worry dead...  

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

My point is, heaven/nirvana/etc. is not about what happens tomorrow/after death; heaven/nirvana/etc. is only available now and hell, is worrying that I'm not good enough. To paraphrase 'Catch 22': me, happy, happy, happy dead... you, worry, worry, worry dead...  

You're still replying "Screw your labels!" to a thread asking about a particular label. Why don't you simply NOT participate? That's what I do when someone opens a thread about a question re stamp-collecting. I don't post, "Who cares about that?" 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're still replying "Screw your labels!" to a thread asking about a particular label. Why don't you simply NOT participate? That's what I do when someone opens a thread about a question re stamp-collecting. I don't post, "Who cares about that?" 

 

[dimreepr]

On 6/8/2019 at 4:42 PM, Phi for All said:

You're still replying "Screw your labels!" to a thread asking about a particular label. 

No, I'm saying labels get in the way of rational discourse. 

On 6/8/2019 at 4:42 PM, Phi for All said:

Why don't you simply NOT participate? 

Because I Care about the potential damage that labels/polarisation creates.

On 6/8/2019 at 4:42 PM, Phi for All said:

That's what I do when someone opens a thread about a question re stamp-collecting. I don't post, "Who cares about that?"

I do get your point...