Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

So that's the test now is it? It's a new one on me. Where did it come from? How would it work? Why would I suddenly believe a metaphor?What's the point of faith if he suddenly presents himself uncontrovertibly?
Why would anyone deny his existence if he provided proof?I have a feeling you're making this stuff up as you go....(By the way, freewill has nothing to do, that's just another piece of religious bunkum.)

purpledawn, we're debating this, the original proposition: We can get onto what YOU want to talk about, when we're done arguing about whether the concept of heaven and hell is unjust.So far, there's been no agreement at all between the Christians here about:1. what hell is and what it entails
2. how/if a person can avoid it
3. whether a good person can be sent thereBut, on balance, it seems to me that whatever the thing is, hell is a bad place and that God will send a person to it whether they have lead a good life or not, even if they've never heard of him.That is defacto unjust and therefor immoral.

Sure, I get that.But he's doing what most 'ordinary' believers do, rationalise away the difficult bits of the bible and hope that his fluffier version turns out to be correct - even though it's a pure invention.There's a YouGuv poll out today that tells us that 75% of Irish people believe in Heaven but less than half believe in hell. ie, pick the bits you'd like to believe.But saying "I don't know" to the question about whether a good person can be sent to hell should really set all sorts of alarm bells off.
Basically the "don't know" answer followed by some wishful thinking, tells me some difficult problems are being avoided - not least the fact that the bible itself is pretty clear on the fact.

Of course I have. many times. Yes, I agree, obviously the bible is tosh.But that's not much of a defence is it? It's wrong but I believe it anyway. er, which bits do you believe? Answer, the bits that suit me and the interpretation I've made for myself. And neither, as Larni says, is Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."So just what IS the bible - Answer, again, the bits you've rationalised and choose to believeWhatever - you're still left with the concept of hell, which I say is unjust because it requires a belief in Christ above all other matters, it must therefore exclude good people who don't/can't believe and punish bad people disproportionately.The only explanation I've heard for that analysis is that God has his own morality and we can't know it.

This is what I asked: This is what he answered Yes, it's clear that the bible expects a person to believe in Christ in order to get into heaven.

And again no. I am an atheist, so my presumption is that when I die I am going nowhere.However, I don't have to assume anything on behalf of GDR because GDR has already told us that his belief is that hell is not being in heaven. That, of course, is not what every Christian believes. But then, as I say, they can pick what they prefer.

Well GDR can speak for himself, I have no wish or reason to represent him.However, the idea that hell is a seperation from god, rather than a pit of fire is fairly common - particularly amongst Catholics. But it would be an error to think that this is not a 'real' hell. The concept isn't of oblivion, it's of the torment of not being with god, which is the very worst thing imaginable, apparently.Jehova's Witnesses have utterly different ideas and don't accept hell at all.Christians can apparently believe anything they like about it - and find a defence for it in the bible - or their imaginations and revelations. When I die, i'll rot and nothing else will happen to me. I will have been deprived of everlasting happiness - or whatever it turns out to be. And if GDR is wrong and Faith and Purple are corrent, I will suffer everlasting agony.So it goes.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Not been listening to whom? Faith, Purple, GDR, You? Who?You all believe different things and I listen to you all. Who should I believe? is a better question.Sadly it's none of you until you can stump up a reason to pick between y'all.(And of course, these views are simply a handful of non-representative Christians; it necessarily excludes other Christian versions whose views vary widely - and all other religious ideas of life after death.)Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I aim to please Because I find you funny too, why else? That response was to Purple's and GDR's posts - they differ only in that Purple outrightly says it and GDR accepts that he doesn't know (the mind of God is inferred). If you have another explanation I missed it and will happily consider it. Because I'm interested in what and why people believe the things they believe.If, instead, you mean why should I believe the things you and they believe, obviously I have not yet found any, nor am I likely too given the arguments so far presented. Give it your best shot.

That is exactly what I took you to mean and is not at all a novel idea to me, you or theology. Physical Hell is obviously a mediaeval construct, we live in more sophisticated times so we invent more sophisticated hells.The result is the same - separation form god is the worst punishment a believer can imagine. Apparently. The error here is the presumption that it's Christ's message. It's not - it's any sane and decent person's message. What is being rejected - by me at least - is the idea of Christ, not the ideal.We don't need Christ to have those ideals and much of the world doesn't - but still has the ideals. Christ is redundant - Occam has sliced him out of existence.The immorality of the message is that many Christian believe that because you reject Christ, you go to hell - or at least, can't get to heaven - even if you accept the values.

Watch my lips Purple, I vill say zis only vonce (doubtful given recent history).I am an atheist, I do not have a view of what hell is or isn't because I know it doesn't exist. I'm merely playing back what those that do believe it say it is - which is everything from non-existent oblivion, fire and brimstone, to separation from god. I'm getting really bored of saying this, but it seems my role here to keep saying it anyway.If hell exists in any form, it's an immoral act to send someone to it merely because they do not believe in [God]
Where [God] is the Christian God, but might as well be the Muslim, Zoroastrian, Diyu and arguably, less so Jainist and Buddhist Gods.

And yet again (why ffs) I have to say that I am an atheist and I do not hold these beliefs, I am merely reporting what (some of) those that believe these things say.One Christian view of hell is that it is not a place but an a idea or construct where the mere knowledge that you cannot be at the side of God is the worst torture imaginable.Not my idea, not my belief, simply what some Christians believe - and maybe GDR? Although a liberal twist is that those that believe get to enjoy God's company and those that don't simply die and know no more.Whatever, the framing of the idea - it's immoral, because it disadvantages (for want of a better word) the unbeliever for simply not believing - regardless of how well he leads his life.

No, that misrepresents my views. I do not want or expect certainty, what I require is evidence. Any evidence at all. I have no reason to believe what you believe because you have given me no reason to do so - it's pretty straight forward.The fundamentalists at least claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god; they're obviously wrong because, as has been pointed out here, it errs regularly and often. Given that that is the only actual evidence apparent to me for a belief in a Christian God I must then reject it.As I understand it, your belief stems from revellation. That's a personal thing which is hard for anyone else to comment on, other than to say 'why you?' (And ignoring bogus freewill and dellusion arguments.)

I am accepting all versions, you're just not listening.There are several Christian versions of hell - which you have quoted me as saying - total oblivion (ie non-existant hell), fire and brimstone, seperation from God. (There are more, Catholics have a kind of time limited hell called Limbo, soon to be abolished apparently - there's no end to human imagination on this subject)It doesn't matter which version you choose, if the view is that the god either sends good people to it or denies them entry to heaven (the 'hell does not exist' version) simply because they do not believe in him, that is an immoral act by every definition that we have.The excuse used by those that believe in the God that you must be 'saved' to enter heaven is that God is above our version of morality and can not be judged by us.Which is, of course, a direct rejection of the loving God image that Christians prefer to project, but conforms perfectly with the abhorrent OT version, God v1.0.Take your pick.

I've heard, read and discussed all the arguments for and against a belief in God, there's no need for you to rehearse them here for my benefit, but I appreciate you taking the time. I have reached different conclusions. No, but the fact that Christians can't agree on what is on track or off track is good evidence to doubt any of it. Simply choosing what you prefer to believe isn't rational.