Homosexual marriage

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Well, for one that's unverifiable, and for another it doesn't matter whether God exists or not, the people that worship him still do so within the context of a religious system.


Exactly. Pursue of pleasure is pursue of pleasure, whether the pleasure occures in this life or the next (which is why I said "whether in this life or another.").

The ultimate goal of the afterlife, believe it or not, is NOT to become part of The Blob, but to still be individual, AND God-like. Except this time, we'll be more appreciative than old Lucifer

[Falagar]

Don't think I said it was either.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Don't think I said it was either.

I'm just informing you...

Btw, anyone esle notice we're way off course? (as earlier pointed out by Fal)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Btw, anyone esle notice we're way off course? (as earlier pointed out by Fal)

Not really. Rights and privledges are intertwined with morality, and morality is intertwined with religion ( especially on this forum ).

Speaking of morality:

If the ten commandments are the source of law, and christianity the source of morality, why did the plight of the average person not really change much between 1500 BC and 1500 AD?

No matter what the scriptures say, the average person was little more than a slave to the relative few who held positions of power. They could be murdered, raped, abused, etc. by those who lorded over them with very little recourse. And most of these "lords" were, in fact, supported by the very churches of their respective times.

3000 years of abrahamic and later christian tradition did very little to change morality in any real world sense. It was just a bunch of "wouldn't it be nice if the world was like that" philosophy.

It was finally social and, more importantly, economic and scientific advances allowing the average person to band together with others through travel and communication that brought about the kind of morality people had philosophied about for generations. And many of those who brought about those changes, like our founding fathers, while accepting the idea of god actually rejected the idea of scripture or organized religion in favor of a more practical, humanistic approach.

Christianity did not bring about real world morality, social and economic evolution did. Should we really depend upon that same 3000-year-old tradition to make decisions for us when it failed to deliver so miserably in the past?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

Love the irony; I call you one one of your system's flaws, and you account it to error. Which scientists are telling the truth? The ones the believe that through evolution man will eventually become an improved being, or the ones that believe that they will eventually become extinct?

Im wondering how you are defining “improved� here. What Im saying is very simple. No need to split hairs on this. Evolution is a simple mindless tool that allows organisms the chance to survive by changing. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything about improving or not improving. For an “improvement� today is a hindrance tomorrow.

I don't see any animals setting up systems of morals, laws, worship. I don't see any creativity on the part of animals at all: art, lore, even history are all irrelevant to an animal. Humans are NOT animals.

If you are defining an animal as a creature that doesn’t have morals or laws or religion then you are confused about how scientific classification works. An animal is a scientific term not an insult or a group to look down on. Humans are animals because animals are multi¬cellular heterotrophic life forms capable of locomotion. They are responsive to their environment, have no cell walls and they feed by consuming other organisms and generally have a fixed body plan as they develop. So we are most certainly and without doubt animals. We are also eukaryotes. This cannot be denied either. And just to round it out we are also mammals. And a mammal is a type of ANIMAL. And just to be a stickler we are also Primates and members of the Hominid family, of the genus Homo (don’t worry… sheer coincidence I assure you…) and the species homo sapiens. If you disagree with any of that then Im not sure if we can go much further but really that’s the last I want to hear about us not being animals thank you…

There is something different operating inside of him--something that spurs him to creativity, to exalt a thing or to scorn a thing, to believeing there is something higher than himself, to have even a fleeting notion of luck or destiny. This separates him from animals.

That “thing� could be called consciousness and intellect as you describe it there. And even that is debatable. And is it your notion that ANY life form that has those characteristics cant be an animal? Must only be a human? Im sure there are some aliens somewhere right now who are highly offended…

It makes no sense to me that spirituality and morality should not be governed by laws and absolutes as well.

Where do you get off lumping spirituality in with morality? They are fundamentally and completely different things. You may believe that your morality springs from your “spirituality� but you can certainly have spirituality without it being chained down by morality. You can also have morality independent of spirituality (or more specifically religion). And by the way I agree that both things could be governed by laws. If it exists we should be able to approach it scientifically after all right? And that’s exactly what we are doing when we talk about how morality can be a natural phenomenon.

There is that chance, you realize, that you are imposing an animistic or super-animistic presence onto morality that may not be there. Understandable but incorrect. To me “morality� makes sense biologically and culturally. It does not need a god engine to make it acceptable in our universe. But to you its clear evidence of a higher power while the equivalent behavior in other animals is ignored.

But that’s neither here nor there in regards to what you are really saying when you use the term “morality� to justify discrimination against homosexuals so just ignore that tangent there.

But you are asking for a secular reason why I would reasonably vote against gay marriage.

No. Im asking for a verifiable valid reason for you to overtly attempt to BAN certain people from doing something you can do. Christians are actively and overtly attempting to create state constitutional amendments by the dozens that actually declare gays may NOT marry. That’s not a passive reactionary thing at all. That’s an active aggressive and quite discriminatory thing. I think its reasonable to ask WHY you feel you have the right to arbitrarily discriminate in this way and what data you have to back this up with.

What I am trying to show you is that my morals are not founded on a religious system, and that my reason for believeing homosexuality is wrong is not simply because some book told me so. It is because GOD says so.

Theres no difference though. The bible or god. It’s the same rational.

Unfortunately, perhaps, God is not only the God of the religious, but also of the secular. 'God makes the rain fall on the good as well as the wicked,' is a proverb often enough repeated.
You see, Adam and Eve were told not to eat a fruit. Because they did, mankind fell from perfection. WHY? Because they ate a fruit? What is wrong with eating a fruit? It surely did not hurt anyone, including the willing parties that ate it. No, but because they rebelled against God. Not some moral system, but their Maker. God makes some choices purely choices; to simply choose to do as He says, or to not do as He says. It is possible that homosexuality is one of those choices: maybe it doesn't harm anyone (and that, I suppose, is debatable). But God said No. And I might repeat that God is the God of the secular as well as the religious.

This is not evidence. You will need to point to specific evidence as to why ‘our’ god allows us to discriminate against homosexuals other then “because he says so�. Especially if you are attempting to use this reasoning to pass legislation and get things through a “secular� institution like a court of law.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Not really, you could just continue and call it freedom of speech, and part of the pursuit of happiness.

No one said you couldn’t shout that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry or any other horrible thing about gays. Go ahead and SAY it all you like. What you cant do is force me into a cage and say its your right to freedom of speech. That’s why they use the word SPEECH in there and not “freedom to discriminate�…

The point is not whether we "evolved" to be against homosexuality, it's whether "nature" if that is all there is above us, told us to be against it. In other words it may be just as "natural" to be against homosexuality as anything else.

Its also natural to kill and rape and commit infanticide and do all sorts of horrible things but does that mean we should actually write these things into constitutional amendments and justify it by saying yeah well nature has caused me to want to discriminate against gays so we may as well make it official? Why just pick gay marriage then? What about all the other stuff?

But you are not really giving a reason why it is wrong, from an atheistical POV, to be racist.

Because A) Im not an atheist B) racism being wrong has nothing to do with atheism and C) I don’t need rules from a book or from a god to explain to me WHY racism shouldn’t be allowed in a just society.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Aquilonis

Also, to end, I'm sure people have said this, but what in the world is the problem with two gay guys signing papers in a courthouse? It's certainly not my problem, it doesn't break my leg, and it doesn't break any fundamentalist legs either. Honestly, what I think the fundamentalists are doing here are poking their righteous noses into people's business like they own marriage. They do not, it is an institution that is multireligious and multiethnic, and it is unfair and pretentious to deny two people the right to be happy just because they like a different gender than somebody else. Anyway, just my opinion- I'm straight, I'm going to marry a girl, and really I don't see my world falling apart if someone I know decides to marry a guy. It's totally irrelevant...

Good to see College Park is still churning out some thinkers in this day and age. Go Terps.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If the ten commandments are the source of law, and christianity the source of morality, why did the plight of the average person not really change much between 1500 BC and 1500 AD?

No matter what the scriptures say, the average person was little more than a slave to the relative few who held positions of power. They could be murdered, d, abused, etc. by those who lorded over them with very little recourse. And most of these "lords" were, in fact, supported by the very churches of their respective times.

3000 years of abrahamic and later christian tradition did very little to change morality in any real world sense. It was just a bunch of "wouldn't it be nice if the world was like that" philosophy.

It was finally social and, more importantly, economic and scientific advances allowing the average person to band together with others through travel and communication that brought about the kind of morality people had philosophied about for generations. And many of those who brought about those changes, like our founding fathers, while accepting the idea of god actually rejected the idea of scripture or organized religion in favor of a more practical, humanistic approach.

Christianity did not bring about real world morality, social and economic evolution did. Should we really depend upon that same 3000-year-old tradition to make decisions for us when it failed to deliver so miserably in the past?

It did not fail to deliver but to those who did not follow it. First you say that Christianity should not be forced on anyone. And then you blame it for not solving the world's problems. If we did like the Shoguns and killed every offender, sure, there would be no offenders. But humanity is allowed--by Christianity even--to do what it wishes. Only when you become a Christian is it your responsibility to be better. And even then--a Christian is not a super-hero. We make mistakes too. It's the reason the Bible says we (Christians) 'have no continuing city'--as long as we live in an imperfect world, imperfect ourselves, we cannot really make any kind of utopia.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If you are defining an animal as a creature that doesn’t have morals or laws or religion then you are confused about how scientific classification works. An animal is a scientific term not an insult or a group to look down on. Humans are animals because animals are multi¬cellular heterotrophic life forms capable of locomotion. They are responsive to their environment, have no cell walls and they feed by consuming other organisms and generally have a fixed body plan as they develop. So we are most certainly and without doubt animals. We are also eukaryotes. This cannot be denied either. And just to round it out we are also mammals. And a mammal is a type of ANIMAL. And just to be a stickler we are also Primates and members of the Hominid family, of the genus Homo (don’t worry… sheer coincidence I assure you…) and the species homo sapiens. If you disagree with any of that then Im not sure if we can go much further but really that’s the last I want to hear about us not being animals thank you…

I know how science defines humans. We are discussing a faulty science, anyway--one that bases its whole premise on evolution.
At anyrate, physically, a human may be classified as an animal. I understand that well. But ask a phsycologist: humans and animals are completely different in that respect, for the reasons I mentioned.

Where do you get off lumping spirituality in with morality? They are fundamentally and completely different things. You may believe that your morality springs from your “spirituality� but you can certainly have spirituality without it being chained down by morality. You can also have morality independent of spirituality (or more specifically religion). And by the way I agree that both things could be governed by laws. If it exists we should be able to approach it scientifically after all right? And that’s exactly what we are doing when we talk about how morality can be a natural phenomenon.

But the world is not made up of separate systems floating around. Sorry for 'lumping', but after all the human is comprised of a physical body and a non-physical thought-process. How can these two things co-exist, I ask you? These things are all bound up within us: spirituality, morality (actually, the morality has ALWAYS stemmed from spirituality), and physicality.

But that’s neither here nor there in regards to what you are really saying when you use the term “morality� to justify discrimination against homosexuals so just ignore that tangent there.

I am not discriminating against homosexuals. I will grant the homosexual every right to do as they wish. If they want to marry, and they can get the vote, fine! The one thing I will not concede is that their behavior is right, or that I condone it. But I feel the same way about my supervisor, who is living with his -friend. Nevertheless I like him as a person and even consider him my friend.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its also natural to kill and rape and commit infanticide and do all sorts of horrible things but does that mean we should actually write these things into constitutional amendments and justify it by saying yeah well nature has caused me to want to discriminate against gays so we may as well make it official? Why just pick gay marriage then? What about all the other stuff?

Hey now, I'm just using YOUR previous stance to reason

BJ has answered part of my thoughts on this already: he says that people act worse when there isn't a "moral society" around them.
My point, using the moral relativity POV is that you CAN "justify" being a jerk as much as being "good"

Because A) Im not an atheist

Tell me how you aren't.

B) racism being wrong has nothing to do with atheism

and C) I don’t need rules from a book or from a god to explain to me WHY racism shouldn’t be allowed in a just society.

Instead you're deciding to make your own rules...aha! Exactly what we christians have been accused of all along...

Here's my main point:
I don't understand how a person who believes in moral relativity can justify his following of some traditional morals other than by saying he doesn't feel like breaking them. Nor can he justify any belief in morals if he does follow them but doesn't believe that they are "already there", other than by saying that they don't produce the desired result.

So if this is the way it is, I'm allowed to not give a dang about the stuff you want to go your way, and I can make it so that being evil is the best thing.
(You see BJ, I understand this stuff, and I still don't believe it)

I'm not saying moral relativists are going to run wild and kill everyone once they've figured out their belief that morals are relative, and I don't believe that they will because I don't believe that morals are relative in the first place, and even if they do, and I think we all really "know" even if we say we don't believe in our knowing.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

[QUOTE=Falagar]Welcome Aquilonis! This thread needs a sign. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter", or something

Everything that happens has a cause and effect, which will differ with the nature of the thing and cause. So yes, as I don't believe in any platonic 'true nature'. That doesn't mean everything that happens is 'right', though.

Platonic, what? I've not read anything of Plato's on nature; just Aristotle, and a little Epictetus.

No, they brought with them the parts God wanted them to bring. Not very strange, considering how the church had been behaving the last centuries.

From my experience, they tend to a) either deny they got them from the Catholic Church, or b) simply acknowledge it.

Sorry, missed the 'ipso facto'. Still, how do you decide what things are 'natural' and what things aren't?

Through whatever means are available.

Happiness would be a better word. Anyway, replace 'Pleasure' with 'God' (...'queen' with 'king' - according to most people, anyway) and the virtues with 'humans' you have a picture of how some philosophers may concider Christianity.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

No; The religious system was founded on the idea of God. You are putting the cart before the horse.

True, but they are basically inseparable today, unless you want to hold to a stark naked theism, with nothing attached.

Originally Posted by bj

I think that was the gist of much of jesus' teachings as well.

Oh, don't be silly.

Originally Posted by falagar

Well, for one that's unverifiable, and for another it doesn't matter whether God exists or not, the people that worship him still do so within the context of a religious system.

She didn't say that God exists, she just said that the religious system was founded upon the idea of God, which I think is fairly clear. How would there have been a religion before the idea of God? What would it have been about?

Originally Posted by Hec

The ultimate goal of the afterlife, believe it or not, is NOT to become part of The Blob, but to still be individual, AND God-like. Except this time, we'll be more appreciative than old Lucifer

No, there is no goal of the afterlife. That IS the goal.

If the ten commandments are the source of law, and christianity the source of morality, why did the plight of the average person not really change much between 1500 BC and 1500 AD?

I won't even bother.

I don't see any animals setting up systems of morals, laws, worship. I don't see any creativity on the part of animals at all: art, lore, even history are all irrelevant to an animal. Humans are NOT animals.

Rosie, humans are animals; an animal is a sensitive organism. Humans are not, however, mere animals, but rational animals.

I know how science defines humans. We are discussing a faulty science, anyway--one that bases its whole premise on evolution.

And which science is that? I cannot think of a science that bases its whole premise on evolution (though I may be willing to concede 'faulty' ).

Originally Posted by Hec

Tell me how you aren't.

In theory.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, there is no goal of the afterlife. That IS the goal.

Well, it's a Given from the afterlife, but not The Goal, yes.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

She didn't say that God exists, she just said that the religious system was founded upon the idea of God, which I think is fairly clear. How would there have been a religion before the idea of God? What would it have been about?

Oh Gwai, don't be so insensitive! It would be about humanism

"Near Mankind to thee, nearer to thee"

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im wondering how you are defining “improved� here. What Im saying is very simple. No need to split hairs on this. Evolution is a simple mindless tool that allows organisms the chance to survive by changing. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything about improving or not improving. For an “improvement� today is a hindrance tomorrow.

From what I've heard, we were only able to survive BECAUSE we were improved, now don't turn around and jibber about how that's not the case.

Humans are animals because animals are multi¬cellular heterotrophic life forms capable of locomotion.

That's not what she meant at all. Seen an ape's library recently Rex? That's what she meant.

If you disagree with any of that then Im not sure if we can go much further but really that’s the last I want to hear about us not being animals thank you…

Nobody said we weren't made out of the same stuff animals are, but of course I suppose that's the only similarity worth noting.

That “thing� could be called consciousness and intellect as you describe it there. And even that is debatable. And is it your notion that ANY life form that has those characteristics cant be an animal? Must only be a human? Im sure there are some aliens somewhere right now who are highly offended…

How do they know we're offending them? They must have...supernatural powers!

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Platonic, what? I've not read anything of Plato's on nature; just Aristotle, and a little Epictetus.

Platon, the idea-world ("the idea of a horse") and all that.

From my experience, they tend to a) either deny they got them from the Catholic Church, or b) simply acknowledge it.

Hm, I've heard a few protestants site the Old Testament in debate. Though I'm not sure most of them even consider where a lot of the things they take for granted come from.

Through whatever means are available.

Seems a bit..vague.

Oh, don't be silly.


She didn't say that God exists, she just said that the religious system was founded upon the idea of God, which I think is fairly clear. How would there have been a religion before the idea of God? What would it have been about?

I could swear it said "founded on God".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Platon, the idea-world ("the idea of a horse") and all that.

'idea-world'...hmm...I've heard Form, Platonic Idea, etc...oh, I see! You mean where the Forms all live, don't you?

Well, anyway, Platonic forms are hardly nature. I can see the similarity; something approaches the form of a horse, and thus becomes more fully horse, etc., but there is a difference between that and nature. Nature is inherent, for one thing, not exterior, as a Form. Also, things necessarily act in accordance with their nature, I believe (though I haven't given it too much thought). Please note that my argument is that homosexuality is contrary to the nature of the sexual act, not contrary to the nature of the 'sex-ers', as it were. We can easily violate the nature of something else.

Seems a bit..vague.

Doesn't it, though. Intentionally so. The number of sources whence one derives conclusions re: nature are vast.

I could swear it said "founded on God".

Idea of God. I don't think she meant a Platonic Idea, though.

[Rían]

great job, Hector, Rosie and Gwai!
*gets some more popcorn*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

great job, Hector, Rosie and Gwai!
*gets some more popcorn*

Definitely agree .

I'm just going to add a point about pleasure and Christianity.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

No; The religious system was founded on the idea of God. You are putting the cart before the horse.

I emphatically agree.

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

The ulimate goal of Christianity is to reconcile men to God. Not to pursue pleasure. The goal is to be sinless that we may make ourselves right with God and escape judgement and eternal punishment. If it is the pursuit of any pleasure, it is the pursuit of pleasure in the next life, not this one.

I don't think that Christianity's point is even remotely the pursuit of pleasure, but I also don't think that the goal is to escape judgment. That would be more of a fear-based religion.

But Falagar and Brownjenkins, I think joy (that's the word you're looking for if you're talking about Christianity, not pleasure) is one product of the relationship with God. That's one of the fruits of the Spirit. It's not "the" goal, or the utmost emphasis, but it is one automatic byproduct of the relationship with God. If you plant a seed that blooms into a flower, it (depending on the type) will have many petals. Joy would be one of those petals, along with many others. Those petals are automatic results of what is planted, but it's not really a goal. We'd die for Christ because we love him, and many Christians have died in severe agony for Christ, especially in this last century. They die out of love for a person and (as a result of love for that person) out of love for what's right, not out of pleasure. If pleasure were the goal, we'd have abandoned the path of Christianity long ago and embraced more of the temptations the world offers. They are what you'd go for if you're looking for pleasure.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

It did not fail to deliver but to those who did not follow it. First you say that Christianity should not be forced on anyone. And then you blame it for not solving the world's problems. If we did like the Shoguns and killed every offender, sure, there would be no offenders. But humanity is allowed--by Christianity even--to do what it wishes. Only when you become a Christian is it your responsibility to be better. And even then--a Christian is not a super-hero. We make mistakes too. It's the reason the Bible says we (Christians) 'have no continuing city'--as long as we live in an imperfect world, imperfect ourselves, we cannot really make any kind of utopia.

I don't mean to place blame. I'm simply saying that, in general, the christian movement hasn't been all that great at encouraging the morality it preaches. A morality that I think is generally a good one, though I disagree with some parts of it.

I'm simply stating the fact that 3000 years of abrahamic tradition and 1500 years of christian tradition did very little, if anything, to change the moral status quo for 95% of the world's population.

By comparision, economic and scientific advances in the last few hundreds years have done a lot to address the inequality between the haves and the have nots. It's not utopia, but it's a whole lot better than anything we've had before.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Here's my main point:
I don't understand how a person who believes in moral relativity can justify his following of some traditional morals other than by saying he doesn't feel like breaking them. Nor can he justify any belief in morals if he does follow them but doesn't believe that they are "already there", other than by saying that they don't produce the desired result.

So if this is the way it is, I'm allowed to not give a dang about the stuff you want to go your way, and I can make it so that being evil is the best thing.
(You see BJ, I understand this stuff, and I still don't believe it)

No, you don't understand it.

So I'll repeat myself again as simply as possible:

An intelligent person realizes that one's own happiness is effected by the happiness of those around us.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

'idea-world'...hmm...I've heard Form, Platonic Idea, etc...oh, I see! You mean where the Forms all live, don't you?

Well, anyway, Platonic forms are hardly nature. I can see the similarity; something approaches the form of a horse, and thus becomes more fully horse, etc., but there is a difference between that and nature. Nature is inherent, for one thing, not exterior, as a Form. Also, things necessarily act in accordance with their nature, I believe (though I haven't given it too much thought). Please note that my argument is that homosexuality is contrary to the nature of the sexual act, not contrary to the nature of the 'sex-ers', as it were. We can easily violate the nature of something else.

I'm don't think there's any easy way to separate the nature of the intercourse with the nature of the 'sex-ers', as the method, value and attraction will vary a great deal from specie to specie (and, as you said, things act in accordance with their nature)...but seems like we've reached at least some kind of standstill. The closest we're probable to get a "conclusion", I suppose.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But Falagar and Brownjenkins, I think joy (that's the word you're looking for if you're talking about Christianity, not pleasure) is one product of the relationship with God. That's one of the fruits of the Spirit. It's not "the" goal, or the utmost emphasis, but it is one automatic byproduct of the relationship with God. If you plant a seed that blooms into a flower, it (depending on the type) will have many petals. Joy would be one of those petals, along with many others. Those petals are automatic results of what is planted, but it's not really a goal. We'd die for Christ because we love him, and many Christians have died in severe agony for Christ, especially in this last century. They die out of love for a person and (as a result of love for that person) out of love for what's right, not out of pleasure. If pleasure were the goal, we'd have abandoned the path of Christianity long ago and embraced more of the temptations the world offers. They are what you'd go for if you're looking for pleasure.

I'd use the word 'happiness' in both cases. You are correct in that Christianity largely views it as a byproduct and places God in the centre (as it has to, naturally). I think we'll disagree on why people die for Christianity - personally I think many have a less personal approach, but die (where it's necessary) for an idea they believe to be true, and for the love of an ideal, not so much a person (though in this case the person and the ideal is one and the same, which of course confuses things) - to be allowed entrance into Heaven and be with God (and thus experience true bliss) is, me thinks, the main drive behind the faithful. To abstain from pleasure in this life to experience wonders in the next would seem like a small price to pay for many (though there also are many that haven't been "strong" enough)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I'd use the word 'happiness' in both cases. You are correct in that Christianity largely views it as a byproduct and places God in the centre (as it has to, naturally).

"Happiness" is just as off-track as "pleasure," and for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I think we'll disagree on why people die for Christianity - personally I think many have a less personal approach, but die (where it's necessary) for an idea they believe to be true, and for the love of an ideal, not so much a person (though in this case the person and the ideal is one and the same, which of course confuses things) - to be allowed entrance into Heaven and be with God (and thus experience true bliss) is, me thinks, the main drive behind the faithful.

Huh. Well, as you suspected, we'll be disagreeing on this point . I agree with you about the person and ideal (what's right) being one and the same. Just speaking for myself, though, I almost never think about heaven, and none of what I do in my Christian walk is motivated by thoughts of heaven. My grandmother, also, is the same way, and I think all my family is.

Here's why: If you are in love with a person and experiencing joy with him now, what's the point of looking forward to loving and experiencing joy with him later?

Originally Posted by Falagar

To abstain from pleasure in this life to experience wonders in the next would seem like a small price to pay for many (though there also are many that haven't been "strong" enough)

You probably are right that some people do it for those reasons. I don't think that they will be the majority, though.

My own view is that those who do NOT have a close personal bond with Christ (those who just are looking to an ideal- the ones you've just described) often will be more likely to fall away than those who have a real relationship with Christ. So loving the person (and what's right- you're right that in this case you can do both at the same time) is going to usually be the reason for martyrdom.