Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 181 of 652 (694994)
04-01-2013 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by purpledawn
03-31-2013 7:19 PM


Re: Heaven and Hell
purpledawn writes:
You keep presenting the "good people can go to hell for not believing in God" version. You aren't accepting other versions. You keep going back to that one. It's your job to support it. Just because some believe it, doesn't make Christianity as a whole morally bankrupt.
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.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by purpledawn, posted 03-31-2013 7:19 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 6:49 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 182 of 652 (694997)
04-01-2013 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by GDR
03-31-2013 9:20 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
GDR writes:
Is any of that evidence? I’ll leave that up to you.
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.
Again, because some of it is obviously off track does not mean that it all is.
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.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 03-31-2013 9:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 11:31 AM Tangle has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 183 of 652 (694998)
04-01-2013 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Tangle
04-01-2013 3:57 AM


Re: Heaven and Hell
quote:
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.
You're trying to flip the responsibility. I realize it is better for you if you can keep the believers trying to defend or justify their belief instead of actually supporting your position. The claim in the OP is that Christianity is morally bankrupt. That means the system, not just one person. (Message 1)
You have taken that stance.
So one belief is unjust. Two others aren't. That means the doctrine of hell isn't a viable argument that Christianity is morally bankrupt. There is no consensus except that one will be judged. They do not have to reach a consensus for you or justify their belief. That is Christianity. The onus is on you or those who take the stance of the OP to show that Christianity, as is, is morally bankrupt.
We have very clearly shown that there is no single version of the hell doctrine and they are not all unjust. One version is not evidence of a morally bankrupt system.
What other evidence do you have that Christianity is a morally bankrupt system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 3:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 10:57 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 184 of 652 (695004)
04-01-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
03-30-2013 4:10 AM


Equivocation
If you want to toss around accusations that people are evil, perhaps you should be accurate about who you mean to address.
Have I called the people evil? I don't believe I have. Perhaps you could point to where I called a person evil so I could appologize.
I am talking about the ideas. Christianity is not a person, it is a belief system, a set of ideas. It is those ideas that I believe deserve the criticism and the label of evil.
Pretty much all of the stuff you describe is simply not central to Christianity.
Can you really, with a straight face, say that the concept of heaven and hell is not central to many Christians? I have myself been a member of a variety of churches who DO believe in heaven and hell and vicarious redemption (just to take the 2 I have focused on).


Southern Baptist
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp
God the Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. ...He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.
...
Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.
...
Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. ...Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly...the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell. ...The righteous... will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.
North American Baptist
http://www.nabconference.org/about-us/our-beliefs
We believe God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring all things to their appropriate end and establish the new heaven and the new earth (Ephesians 1:9-10, Revelation 21:1). The certain hope of the Christian is that Jesus Christ will return to the earth suddenly, personally and visibly in glory according to His promise (Titus 2:13; Revelation 1:7; 3:11; John 14:1-3). The dead will be raised, and Christ will judge mankind in righteousness (John 5:28-29). The unrighteous will be consigned to the everlasting punishment prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25-41, 46; Revelation 20;10). The righteous, in their resurrected and glorified bodies, will receive their reward and dwell forever with the Lord (Philippians 3:20-21; II Corinthians 5:10; I Thessalonians 4:13-18).
United Penecostal
Page Not Found
About Sin and Salvation
Everyone has sinned and needs salvation. Salvation comes by grace through faith based on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (See Romans 3:23-25; 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9.)
...
About the Future
Jesus Christ is coming again to catch away His church. In the end will be the final resurrection and the final judgment. The righteous will inherit eternal life, and the unrighteous eternal death. (See I Thessalonians 4:16-17; Revelation 20:11-15.)
I was only somewhat surprised to find very little about these things in a brief lookup of Methodist statements of belief. In my experience as a Methodist they certainly were a lot less forceful about the whole fire and brimstone. Nevertheless, heaven and hell and the concept of Jesus as a sacrifice were certainly a part of life as a Methodist in my church.
These are of the few churches I belonged too but I certainly could go on, my point though is not that NOBODY can create a set of beliefs that rejects these ideas and still call themselves Christian. If someone wants to come in here and say that they are a Christian and they don't believe in heaven or hell, they don't believe in Jesus as a sacrifice, etc, thats fine. If there was a word to describe the difference between that person and other Christians who OBVIOUSLY DO believe in those things, I would use that word and have encouraged Grim to use that word too.
But we don't have that word. It doesn't exist. That is why I encouraged Grim to focus on the ideas and not the labels. But to suggest that in a common understanding of Christianity, that these are ideas that have no popularity among the vast variety of Christians out there is just plain wrong. A charitable reading of the OP would understand what Grim meant when he talked about "Christianity" with respect to those ideas. Instead what we have had is an unecessary exercise in equivocation to avoid talking about the actual ideas themselves and their value or lack of value.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 4:10 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 185 of 652 (695005)
04-01-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by purpledawn
04-01-2013 6:49 AM


Re: Heaven and Hell
purpledawn writes:
We have very clearly shown that there is no single version of the hell doctrine and they are not all unjust. One version is not evidence of a morally bankrupt system.
Nope. I have consistently said that whatever version of hell that you choose, it's morally indefensible unless a decent bloke can get to heaven.
Then, I would add, if a good bloke CAN get to heaven without accepting Christ as the saviour, religious belief is redundant.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 6:49 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 11:26 AM Tangle has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 186 of 652 (695007)
04-01-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by purpledawn
03-30-2013 6:03 AM


Re: Christianity Today
So it isn't just the idea, but the subsequent action that is a concern. See I'm not being overly pedantic.
No, you just can't give up on your redefinition of the conversation. Your pedantry is in not giving even the slightest bit of charity to what the OP means and instead focusing on a precise definition of a phrase "moral bankruptcy", for which you primary source is the almighty wikipedia. The OP is so obviously about the doctrines of Christianity when you read, you know, all of the words together as a whole bunch. People tend to write them that way because it is really hard to express an idea like that with one or two words. You have decided to have an argument with the title of the thread and not the theme of the OP.
Regarding the notion that those beliefs can be destructive, a destructive belief could simply cause a person to wallow in ignorance and live their entire life with unnecessary guilt and anxiety. It doesn't have to cause them to do a damn thing. It certainly could and likely does, but I did not join this conversation to talk about the evil actions of people and how they are motivated or not by religion.
The ideas themselves can be evaluated and reasonable people can talk about their value and purpose.
Show the destructive action in today's world that results from the beliefs considered to be immoral. Then we can debate whether the actions are immoral or not and whether they are due to the belief.
No. If you want to do that you can go start up a different conversaion with someone else. I joined this thread to talk about ideas and their value which is exactly what the OP is asking for given a reasonable reading of it.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by purpledawn, posted 03-30-2013 6:03 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 12:10 PM Jazzns has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 187 of 652 (695008)
04-01-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Tangle
04-01-2013 10:57 AM


Re: Heaven and Hell
quote:
Then, I would add, if a good bloke CAN get to heaven without accepting Christ as the saviour, religious belief is redundant.
Which you have been shown. Fortunately being redundant is not immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 10:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 11:36 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 188 of 652 (695009)
04-01-2013 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by GDR
03-30-2013 1:42 AM


Hell as a choice....really?
Why? In this life we make choices as to where and how we live. Is that evil?
And nearly all of those choices are temporary because we are temporal creatures with a focus on the present. Lewis is speaking of an eternity in hell. If hell does exist, I can guarantee the people who are in there do not continue to choose to be there. It is unfathomable to me, how a just person could come up with the idea that a choice made in a singular moment in time, could have eternal consequences and moreover it is the existence of that choice that somehow makes the fallout okay. It is not only evil, it is apologetic for that evil.
I think that we should always question. The fact that we believe that morality exists does indicate that morality actually does matter and have meaning. There does seem to be a moral standard which would indicate that there is a foundation for that standard that is external to our present existence.
You had me on the first two sentences. Then you packed a whole bunch of assumptions into that one last sentence. That therefore morality has a standard and that the standard is eternal is a totally unevidenced product of a particular belief system.
In my belief system, morality is a product of consensus. I don't expect anyone else to 100% agree with me on that but they don't have to. I just happen to think that the world actually functions more akin to my sense of the origins of morality due to how dramatically it changes with human progress.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by GDR, posted 03-30-2013 1:42 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 2:38 PM Jazzns has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 189 of 652 (695010)
04-01-2013 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tangle
04-01-2013 5:15 AM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
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.
Fair enough, but you had asked for evidence and so I gave what I believe constitutes evidence whil agreeing that the evidence is inconclusive.
Tangle writes:
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.
I have given you what I contend is a rational reason for believing what I believe. It is my contention that believing that intelligent moral beings, with incredibly complex cellular structures, and with all that goes into our DNA can some how be born out of a a chance combination of non or uni dimensional, non-intelligent particles isn't rational.
With my understanding of the Christian God I would expect that there would be ambiguity in our understanding of God, and would be suspicious if we all agreed.
JMHO

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 5:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Tangle, posted 04-01-2013 5:32 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 190 of 652 (695012)
04-01-2013 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by purpledawn
04-01-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Heaven and Hell
purpledawn writes:
Which you have been shown.
Good. Then we can move on.
Fortunately being redundant is not immoral.
Correct. It means unnecessary.
It seems that we're done here.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 11:26 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 191 of 652 (695013)
04-01-2013 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Jazzns
04-01-2013 11:11 AM


Re: Christianity Today
Then provide a better working definition.
quote:
You have decided to have an argument with the title of the thread and not the theme of the OP.
No I haven't.
From the OP: "I propose that Christianity is essentially a morally bankrupt system."
That's not the title. Then he provided his reasons which have been addressed.
People can also wallow in ignorance and live their entire life with unnecessary guilt and anxiety outside of Christianity. That points more to personality types as opposed to the system or doctrines.
quote:
The ideas themselves can be evaluated and reasonable people can talk about their value and purpose.
Value and purpose for who? Value and purpose are in the eye of the beholder.
quote:
No. If you want to do that you can go start up a different conversaion with someone else. I joined this thread to talk about ideas and their value which is exactly what the OP is asking for given a reasonable reading of it.
You can stop responding to me any time you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:11 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 3:56 PM purpledawn has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 192 of 652 (695015)
04-01-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Jazzns
04-01-2013 11:26 AM


Re: Hell as a choice....really?
Jazzns writes:
And nearly all of those choices are temporary because we are temporal creatures with a focus on the present. Lewis is speaking of an eternity in hell. If hell does exist, I can guarantee the people who are in there do not continue to choose to be there. It is unfathomable to me, how a just person could come up with the idea that a choice made in a singular moment in time, could have eternal consequences and moreover it is the existence of that choice that somehow makes the fallout okay. It is not only evil, it is apologetic for that evil.
I don’t see it as a choice made in a single moment of time. I see it more as a trajectory of the choices that we make. Do we overtime make choices that more and more reject the love of others in favour of the love of self, or do we continue to be more and more concerned with others and less concerned about our own self interest. I am only saying that the trajectory that we establish extends in to the next life. Again, if you read CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce that is, IMHO, roughly what he is saying.
GDR writes:
I think that we should always question. The fact that we believe that morality exists does indicate that morality actually doe s matter and have meaning. There does seem to be a moral standard which would indicate that there is a foundation for that standard that is external to our present existence.
Jazzns writes:
You had me on the first two sentences. Then you packed a whole bunch of assumptions into that one last sentence. That therefore morality has a standard and that the standard is eternal is a totally unevidenced product of a particular belief system.
In my belief system, morality is a product of consensus. I don't expect anyone else to 100% agree with me on that but they don't have to. I just happen to think that the world actually functions more akin to my sense of the origins of morality due to how dramatically it changes with human progress.
In my view morality isn’t about what we do. It seems to me that what we do is a result of our morality and where we agree is that what we do is largely affected by the consensus of our society. Certain acts in some societies would be considered to be moral but the reverse in other societies.
IMHO morality is about why we do what we do. For example if you go on the computer and without telling anyone donate $100 to a third world charity because you are concerned about the plight of the people there then you have performed a moral act. If however you decide to donate to the same third world charity by announcing it in front of a group of people in order for them to see what a generous guy you are then it ceases to be a moral act. The act is the same but the morality is different.
So I go back to saying that there does seem to be a moral standard that is universally true that has nothing to do with the consensus of individual societies and of course that standard is essentiallyto do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Societal consensus may or may not adhere to that universal standard but I think that we would both agree that if they did we would live in a much better world.
My belief is that that universal standard would be universally adhered to when God renews all that is for those whose trajectory of life here has led them to that. If we choose to make concern for ourselves, even at the expense of others, the focus of our lives we will be allowed to do that for eternity.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:26 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:54 PM GDR has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(2)
Message 193 of 652 (695016)
04-01-2013 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by purpledawn
04-01-2013 12:10 PM


Re: Christianity Today
Then provide a better working definition.
I have.
Message 113
From the OP: "I propose that Christianity is essentially a morally bankrupt system."
And the vast vast majority of the OP remains below that statement. Those words describe what he is using to evaluate Christianity. He is not talking about actions he is talking about ideas. So yes, once again you are pedantically correct. He does REPEAT the words from the title in the text of the OP, but you completely missed my criticism in that what you are doing is focusing on a simple phrase "morally bankrupt" rather than totality and context of all the words used to compose the OP. You are not reading for understanding. You are reading in a way to narrow the focus of this topic to a point that it becomes an idea both easy to dismiss and totally irrelevant.
The point remains PD, that the person who started this thread, and the people who have joined in on his side such as myself and Tangle, are actually interested in the THEME of the OP which is addressing the value of the ideas expressed as common Christian beliefs.
Value and purpose for who? Value and purpose are in the eye of the beholder.
Us, the people evaluating it and debating it. No one was so naive that they would think that this conversation was going to change a believer's evaluation of their faith. If an argument being winnable was a precondition for having a discussion on this forum then there would be no threads.
You can stop responding to me any time you want.
You are the one issuing demands, that people answer to your framing of the problem around actions instead of ideas. You are the one who started the conversation on this thread with me by proclaiming me as off topic regarding moral bankruptcy. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me, rather than let you get away with your shell game, to point out that you are desiring a different conversation than everyone else.
Edited by Jazzns, : Reduced my own pedantry.

If we long for our planet to be important, there is something we can do about it. We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. --Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 12:10 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 04-01-2013 6:57 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 194 of 652 (695020)
04-01-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by GDR
04-01-2013 11:31 AM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
GDR writes:
Fair enough, but you had asked for evidence and so I gave what I believe constitutes evidence whil agreeing that the evidence is inconclusive.
I suspect that you know that the evidence you accept is a bit less than inconclusive.
From what you say, you went looking for an answer and, not surprisingly, you found one.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 11:31 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by GDR, posted 04-01-2013 7:26 PM Tangle has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 195 of 652 (695024)
04-01-2013 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Jazzns
04-01-2013 3:56 PM


Re: Christianity Today
quote:
I have.
Message 113
An that's where you said that some of you feel these ideas are destructive. That deals with action, but you won't address the actions. That's like not hearing the charges in court. If the Christians don't see destructive actions associated with these ideas, how can their ideas be destructive? You apparently see it, but won't say.
How can one talk rationally about it when the opposition won't present the supposed destruction.
quote:
The point remains PD, that the person who started this thread, and the people who have joined in on his side such as myself and Tangle, are actually interested in the THEME of the OP which is addressing the value of the ideas expressed as common Christian beliefs.
I don't feel you and Tangle are really interested in the value. I feel the attempt is to cry immoral and lump beliefs together, but not really address the value the beliefs have for Christians.
Tangle writes:
Biblically or otherwise, it's wicked to punish people who lead good lives just because they find that the evidence for a creator is inadequate to support a belief or because they were born in the wrong country to the wrong parents.
THAT is what we're discussing, whether Christianity is morally bankrupt. The concept of hell where good peope are sent for no fault of their own is the proof Message 142
Just as you squawked because you felt I was too literal about moral bankruptcy, your side may be viewing the doctrines (when we can discern real doctrine out of that mess) too literally. The basic idea is that good people go to heaven and bad people to to hell. I don't feel the one's who believe in the erroneous idea of eternal torture really believe that good people will be included. There are always exceptions of course.
As Christians try to explain the value, the opposition just cries immoral, useless, imaginary, myth, etc.
It doesn't help to point out mistranslations, because the opposition jumps to current beliefs. Take God as real to cry immoral but fake when it suits.
quote:
You are the one who started the conversation on this thread with me by proclaiming me as off topic regarding moral bankruptcy.
I didn't proclaim you off topic in my first post to you. (Message 95) I don't see that I did in any response. We just had a difference of opinion on what moral bankruptcy is.
I was moving away from "moral bankruptcy" and just looking at the morality of the ideas. My post didn't deal with moral bankruptcy. But your response asked "why would I assume we weren't talking about moral bankruptcy?" and blew off my points concerning vicarious redemption.
I gave the definition I was using in Message 77. Neither you, nor the originator corrected my impression. In Message 80, he said he meant something different, but didn't elaborate. I told you that is why I assumed we weren't talking about moral bankruptcy anymore in Message 106 and provided my definition again. You say he talking about the negative quality of the ideas and I'm being to pedantic. But you didn't provide any support that that is what moral bankruptcy is.
I guess you're not the only one who thinks there's a shell game going on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 3:56 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Jazzns, posted 04-01-2013 11:26 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024