Religon - a flawed basis for morality?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe so if His standards are what we base what is good and evil upon.

That's an appeal to consequences. Any evidence for your belief?

philologos wrote: »

I believe that if this world is His, God has the right to enforce His standards concerning it.

Basically do as I say, because I say so.

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahtoo: I've argued clearly time and time again on boards as to why I think God exists, you can look these up. The purpose of this thread is to discuss morality and how faith can be a basis for ethical action.

He's asking again because your arguments are terrible, no offsense but at best your an amateur apologist. There is strong evidence that faith isn't the basis of ethical action plus the fact that you have yet to provide evidence for your the veracity of your faith.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

You see the bolded word above and below? That's where the goalposts moved, and I have already dealt with it. The RCC teaches that any us, unrepetent non-believers or repentent believers MAYgo to hell, and that it is for God to decide. Any of us MAY also not go to hell, that's where trust in mercy comes in. There is an awful big difference in thinking something may happen, and thinking something should happen.

I didnt use the word 'may' until after you told me the goalposts moved....:)

Anyway, it isnt especially relevent. The assertion that it is just that a non-believer may burn in hell for eternity is as abhorrent to me as the assertion that a non-believer should burn in hell for eternity.

So getting back to the point, do you believe that it is just that I may burn for eternity for not believing in something you believe in?

And if so, do you believe that that is a sound basis upon which to develop a system of moral values? For instance, would you believe that such severe punishments for thought-crimes should form part of our legal system?

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably due to the amount of time he spends on these forums, and the atheist forums, and the gay society forums doing that thing he does..... "witnessing" I think they call it?

What about the time that you spend? - At least I don't object to your freedom to post here within the rules and regulations of boards.ie.

I've posted very rarely on the LGBT forum. I post in the A&A forum because that's of genuine interest to me, I post in humanities in general because it interests me, and I post in AH and in other forums because again it interests me.

If you feel that any of my posts cross a line. I welcome you to press the report post button and a moderator will swiftly deal with me. Otherwise fair game. I can post about what I like.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That's an appeal to consequences. Any evidence for your belief?

Plenty as far as I see it. I'm not going to go into this here you can look up my previous posts on why I believe if you're interested.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Basically do as I say, because I say so.

I trust God because what He has revealed to us makes sense. That's why I'm a Christian rather than a non-believer. I found that my previous state of agnosticism didn't make sense, it was rather only a waiting position until I managed to investigate more closely. My position of agnosticism wasn't one that I necessarily decided upon, it simply arose out of uncertainty and a lot of confusion about the big questions of life.

I'm also hugely interested in philosophy, I guess you could say I was born with a philosophical mind. This prompted a lot of curiosity, it meant that I really couldn't leave the big questions alone as other people seemed able to.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

He's asking again because your arguments are terrible, no offsense but at best your an amateur apologist. There is strong evidence that faith isn't the basis of ethical action plus the fact that you have yet to provide evidence for your the veracity of your faith.

Personally I don't mind how terrible he or anyone else feels my position is. I was simply clarifying my position since it was dishonestly skewed. I'm posting for people who may read this rather than many of those contributing. I can only hope that people with an open mind will go and look into this.

As I've said already. People can look up on the search function as to why I believe in Christ. This is about whether or not Christianity contributes to moral living and I'm arguing unequivocally yes. If people want to argue about the existence of God they can do it on another thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

What about the time that you spend?

What about it? The point was that when I say I am going to do something I do not then run away and not do it. When I say I will follow up with something I do it. So the time I spend here is irrelevant as it is not one of the possible excuses for me going back on my word.... because I have never gone back on my word.

Your error is in thinking I have anything against spending time on here. Clearly I spend some myself, though not close to what you do. The point is that you keep saying you will come back with some improved list of arguments, but you do not, you just keep on "witnessing" or whatever word you like to call it.

The time I spend here is minimal and irrelevant because it has no detrimental effect on anything else I do, or say to people I intend to do.

philologos wrote: »

At least I don't object to your freedom to post here

Have I ever objected to your freedom to post here? What is this non point you are making?

philologos wrote: »

I've posted very rarely....

I do not care when or where you post, that's not the point I am making. See above. I was just commenting on one POSSIBLE explanation for you continuously not coming back with an improved list despite saying you will. That is all. No more. No less. No different.

I am not objecting to your posts. So stop pretending I am. I am not objecting to you spending time here. So stop pretending I am. I am not saying any of your posts cross any lines. So stop pretending I am. Why does every thread with you result in me taking YOUR words and meanings out of MY mouth?

The other possibility is of course, and the one I actually believe, that you do not HAVE any good arguments, evidence, data, or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the core claim of your entire belief system.... the existence of this magical entity you think has some kind of authority over us.

philologos wrote: »

If you feel that any of my posts cross a line. I welcome you to press the report post button and a moderator will swiftly deal with me. Otherwise fair game. I can post about what I like.

Same answer. You are replying to things I never said. See what I just typed for answer to this too.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

I didnt use the word 'may' until after you told me the goalposts moved....:)

They'd already moved at that stage. You started off with saying anyone who doesn't believe in x, (which would include any and all non-Roman Catholics) and then it turned into unrepetent non-believers (which would indicate something very different to say someone who just happens to be Zoroastian) which would be people deliberate setting out to turn their backs not on the Church but on God. Perhaps you should be more clear.

drkpower wrote: »

Anyway, it isnt especially relevent. The assertion that it is just that a non-believer may burn in hell for eternity is as abhorrent to me as the assertion that a non-believer should burn in hell for eternity.

Could you find for me where the RCC says it is 'just'? For the context.

drkpower wrote: »

So getting back to the point, do you believe that it is just that I may burn for eternity for not believing in something you believe in?

For not believing in the same thing? No. Then again that's not what the RCC teaches so it is irrelevant. Do I think it's just for God to have the power to judge, yes I do. What becomes of you then is no business of mine.

drkpower wrote: »

And if so, do you believe that that is a sound basis upon which to develop a system of moral values?

You mean do I think people will answer for themselves one day before a higher power? Yes I do. Do I think it a sound basis upon which to develop a system of moral values? Yes I do. It is one of the building blocks which help people forgive those who have wronged them grievously.

Edit: I also do not propose that such a system be forced onto people. It has served me fairly well.

drkpower wrote: »

For instance, would you believe that such severe punishments for thought-crimes should form part of our legal system?

Punishments (obviously not the same kind of punishments) for the same kind of thing exist already. If you commit a treasonous act against the state, you will be punished for it. Even if you don't recognise the legitimacy of the state or those who act on it's behalf through the legal system.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your error is in thinking I have anything against spending time on here. Clearly I spend some myself, though not close to what you do. The point is that you keep saying you will come back with some improved list of arguments, but you do not, you just keep on "witnessing" or whatever word you like to call it.

On my own time I will, yes.

I have lots of things to do before then though, it's been / and will be a busy summer. I post as I want and am free to, I won't post as demanded.

OK?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

For not believing in the same thing? No. Then again that's not what the RCC teaches so it is irrelevant.

You need to clarify this bit before we go any further.

According to the RCC, may an unrepentent atheist go to hell merely for his lack of belief?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

OK?

Of course it is ok. I expected no different. I honestly do not think you HAVE any arguments, evidence, data OR reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the notion that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.

Nor do I expect you will ever feel moved to admit it.

So some cop out excuse like "I will do it later" was exactly what I expected really. I likely could have written your reply myself to be honest.

And AGAIN to try and get the thread back on topic, this is why I think religion a flawed basis for morality.... because one of... and in most cases THE.... core claim that each religion is based on.... remains not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. So what could it be OTHER than a very very flawed basis for morality?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

You need to clarify this bit before we go any further.

You first. To answer you latest version of the question, no according to the RCC the lack of belief by itself does not preclude the hope of salvation.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo: Calling it a cop-out excuse is nonsense when I have produced arguments before and I will again.

I'm having none of your smarmy attitude though, and I won't be taking any such from any poster on boards. Such posts deserve to be ignored. All I want to do is discuss, I'm not going to have a 1 to 1 interrogation session. That's not a discussion as far as I see it.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

You first.

I am asking you what you/the RCC believe.

I believe you should never burn in hell for eternity, Prinz, no matter what you do.

So, again, according to the RCC, may an unrepentent atheist go to hell merely for his lack of belief?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Calling it a cop-out excuse is nonsense when I have produced arguments before and I will again.

Poor Arguments which I already replied to but when I did you ran for the hills again.

Anyone can claim to have "produced Arguments". I could say that you are actually an alien because pineapples are yellow on the inside. There I presented AN argument. That sounds good because I can now go around claiming over and over "I presented an argument I presented an argument".

What it does not do is change the fact that the argument I just presented was totally bunk, as were yours which as I said I pointed out already which you ignored and ran.

Conversation is impossible if you insist on presenting bunk, ignoring replies, then either claiming "I presented arguments already" or simply presenting the same bunk again elsewhere.

Hiding behind false and pointless personal comments about my "Attitude" will not change that either. If an attitude of thinking people should back up their claims is to you the definition of "smarmy" then you can expect me to happily call myself smarmy until I die.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

On my own time I will, yes.

I have lots of things to do before then though, it's been / and will be a busy summer. I post as I want and am free to, I won't post as demanded.

OK?

<sarcasm>I've never heard you say that before.</sarcasm> What was the reason the last time... ...oh yes exams.

philologos

^^ A valid reason actually CerebralCortex. As a result I'll be graduating with a good degree. I don't have to respond to anything, but I do try to respond to as much as I humanly can. Such crap deserves to be ignored really. I like other people have a life and God forbid that sometimes means I can't post as much on boards

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

I believe you should never burn in hell for eternity, Prinz, no matter what you do.

Good for you. Why are you trying to force your beliefs onto others?

drkpower wrote: »

So, again, according to the RCC, may an unrepentent atheist go to hell merely for his lack of belief?

Answered above. The lack of belief alone is not the basis for why someone may or may not go to hell.

nozzferrahhtoo

prinz wrote: »

Good for you. Why are you trying to force your beliefs onto others?

Where is "force" being used here exactly?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Good for you. Why are you trying to force your beliefs onto others.

Im not, why do you think I am....?!

prinz wrote: »

Answered above. The lack of belief alone is not the basis for why someone may or may not go to hell.

That seems to be at odds with Jakkass' interpretation. It also seems to be at odds with the interpretation given by many other 'theologists'.

But in any case, you might tell me what additional sins I might have to commit before it becomes just for me to suffer eternal agony. I think this is important information to assist us in the determination as to whether the RCC might properly qualify to be the basis for a system of morality.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

^^ A valid reason actually CerebralCortex. As a result I'll be graduating with a good degree. I don't have to respond to anything, but I do try to respond to as much as I humanly can. Such crap deserves to be ignored really. I like other people have a life and God forbid that sometimes means I can't post as much on boards

Besides the point, you still come here and selectively respond, no doubt.
As per the topic the basis of your claims for the source of you faith leading to the basis for what you think is moral is central to the question.

prinz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where is "force" being used here exactly?

In an underhanded and sly way in an attempt to undermine what other people believe. As I have said any of us may go to hell, believers, non-believers whatever. Any attempt to portray it as some sort of rallying call for Catholics to get their jolies in how just it is that non believers should go to hell is a nonsense.

I'll be happy to answer more questions when mine have been.

nozzferrahhtoo

Take that gun away from his head you naughty naughty man. Recall the army that has declared martial law on his street. Stop telling him that if he does not believe what you do you will ensure he has a highly unpleasant afterlife. Disconnect the machine that you are using to alter his thought waves so he thinks like you do. Stop all this evil FORCING damn you.

Oh no wait... you have not been doing any of those things. You have just been telling him how you see it. Wow. I guess thats a bad thing?`

The day the free exchange of thought and ideas on an internet forum because "Forcing ones beliefs on others" is the day I will hang up my hat and stop posting. Grow a thicker skin I think is the better approach until then.

philologos

CerebralCortex: I honestly try to respond to as much as I can. It's absolute tripe to argue otherwise. I'd actually welcome people to PM me if they feel I've left something lingering for too long.

That said, I'm honestly not going to take such whining from you or any other poster. I can only post so much and only will post as much as I want to. I've told nozzferrahhtoo that I'm going to revise my reasons that I've already given and I'm going to do so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

That seems to be at odds with Jakkass' interpretation..

Jakkass isn't Roman Catholic. I would expect his interpretation to differ from the Roman Catholic position. I mean more than once you were asked to specify what organisation it was you were referring to which you dodged which in the end will only lead to a confusion of your own construction.

drkpower wrote: »

It also seems to be at odds with the interpretation given by many other 'theologists'. ..

Like who? I suppose these theologians are all Roman Catholic and fully subscribed to Vatican II? Care to link?

drkpower wrote: »

But in any case, you might tell me what additional sins I might have to commit before it becomes just for me to suffer eternal agony. I think this is important information to assist us in the determination as to whether the RCC might properly qualify to be the basis for a system of morality.

Perhaps as the original point was yours you could answer some of the now many questions you have skipped over? You made the assertion, is it not the usual protocol in these situations for you to back it up?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

Jakkass isn't Roman Catholic. I would expect his interpretation to differ from the Roman Catholic position. I mean more than once you were asked to specify what organisation it was you were referring to which you dodged which in the end will only lead to a confusion of your own construction.?

At the very outset, I asked you to take it up with Jakkass, as he had previously made that assertion. Did you?

But in any case, you believe it is just that I may burn in hell for eternity in certain circumstances. I would like to know what those circumstances are to determine whether your religon should form the basis of morality, as per the thread title.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps as the original point was yours you could answer some of the now many questions you have skipped over? You made the assertion, is it not the usual protocol in these situations for you to back it up?

My original point was aimed at an assertion Jakkass once made, which I explained to you from the outset.

Since then, I have been trying to get you to set out your own religon's views on when & why I should go to hell. But I am still waiting for full answers.

If there is anything you would like me to answer, fire ahead, and I'll do my best.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

At the very outset, I asked you to take it up with Jakkass, as he had previously made that assertion. Did you?

So you make an ambiguous claim, refuse to clarify it and then tell me to 'take it up' with another poster?

drkpower wrote: »

But in any case, you believe it is just that I may burn in hell for eternity in certain circumstances. I would like to know what those circumstances are to determine whether your religon should form the basis of morality, as per the thread title.

I don't know what those circumstances are. I could be in those circumstances myself. We trust and have faith that none of us will end up in hell for eternity. I don't care what your determinations are tbh, my faith impacts upon my sense of morality and vice versa. I am not saying my faith should form the basis of anyone else's morality so it's irrelevant what you want to determine.

drkpower wrote: »

My original point was aimed at an assertion Jakkass once made, which I explained to you from the outset..

You mean 'take it up with Jakkass' when I asked you to explain your comment? Great explanation.

drkpower wrote: »

Since then, I have been trying to get you to set out your own religon's views on when & why I should go to hell. But I am still waiting for full answers.

What so you can determine if it 'qualifies' to be a foundation for a moral outlook? Tell me what influences your moral outlook and let me determine if it qualifies..

drkpower wrote: »

as to whether the RCC might properly qualify to be the basis for a system of morality..

By the by my faith and morality are intertwined. Not the RCC and my morality. Not to mention the fact that I am not in full communion with the RCC myself.

drkpower wrote: »

If there is anything you would like me to answer, fire ahead, and I'll do my best.

What organisation were you referring to?

Where does the RCC refer to the just nature of people burning in hell for eternity?

What theologians differ in their interpretations of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on non-Catholics burning in hell for etenity solely for their lack of belief as I have presented it here?

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

So you make an ambiguous claim, refuse to clarify it and then tell me to 'take it up' with another poster??

The claim was made by Jakkass!!! If it is ambiguous, or needs to be clarified, take it up with him. I said this at the very outset.

And when you claimed that the RCC did not hold that view, I said, thats grand, what views do they (you) hold as to the justness of me suffering eternal pain. But you arent really explaining your/the RCC's position.

prinz wrote: »

What so you can determine if it 'qualifies' to be a foundation for a moral outlook? Tell me what influences your moral outlook and let me determine if it qualifies..

Look at the thread title. The question is whether religion is a flawed basis for morality. In respect of what Jakkass asserts to be his religon's view, I have demostrated that his religon is a flawed basis for morality.

As for your religon's view, I am waiting for a proper explanation of when your religon believes I should suffer eternal pain. I havent got that explanation yet.

I dont have a religon. I dont think you should ever suffer eternal pain.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

The claim was made by Jakkass!!! If it is ambiguous, or needs to be clarified, take it up with him. I said this at the very outset.

On this thread? Can you not explain yourself about what you posted on this thread? I have searched the thread and I cannot find where Jakkass referred to any organisation teaching that people should be sent to hell?

drkpower wrote: »

But you arent really explaining your/the RCC's position.

Ha....

drkpower wrote: »

I havent got that explanation yet..

drkpower wrote: »

I dont have a religon. I dont think you should ever suffer eternal pain.

Funnily enough, we agree :eek: Then again there are differences as to what suffering eternal pain actually entails.

No answers to any of my questions I note.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

On this thread? Can you not explain yourself about what you posted on this thread? I have searched the thread and I cannot find where Jakkass referred to any organisation teaching that people should be sent to hell?.

FFS, he made the assertion on a previous thread. My first contribution to this thread related to his prior assertion. Rather than take it up with Jakkass, as i suggested you do, you have decided to wade into this and engage in a fruitless back and forth on this point.

Take a step back, Prinz; this is getting you nowhere.

prinz wrote: »

Ha....

Im not sure what you are trying to communicate here. Would you like to try and explain when your religon believes I should go to hell (whatever that entails) so that we can evaluate whether it should form the basis of our moral values.

prinz wrote: »

No answers to any of my questions I note.

What, these? They are all irrelevent, given your misunderstanding as explained above..

What organisation were you referring to? Jakkass' religon presumably.
Where does the RCC refer to the just nature of people burning in hell for eternity? I'm not sure; I was referring to Jakkass' assertions.
What theologians differ in their interpretations of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on non-Catholics burning in hell for etenity solely for their lack of belief as I have presented it here? I have no idea.

philologos

It should be noted that when I post here I don't post on behalf of any particular organisation or church but rather on the basis of how I have understood Christianity. I do agree with prinz here:

Answered above. The lack of belief alone is not the basis for why someone may or may not go to hell.

It isn't the lack of belief alone certainly. It is sin as far as I see it. Sin being falling short of God's standard. I am as guilty under this definition as anyone else is.

Jesus paid for the sins of the world on the cross. We can accept His offer of forgiveness and accept the ransom that He paid for us in full or reject it.

So yes prinz as far as I see it even if we disagree otherwise is correct in saying that it isn't your non-belief that is the reason but rather sin.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

So yes prinz as far as I see it even if we disagree otherwise is correct in saying that it isn't your non-belief that is the reason but rather sin.

Is your position changing again, or do you class a lack of belief as a 'sin'?

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Is your position changing again, or do you class a lack of belief as a 'sin'?

It's never changed.

Jesus took the sins of the world upon Him on the cross, and by accepting this and repenting I.E aiming to restore ones relationship with God one can be forgiven.

If not, then not.

God ultimately punishes us for sin. As I've said already, I'm as guilty as anyone else.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

Jesus took etc..... .

In english please.

Is 'lack of belief' in and of itself considered as a 'sin' that might justify eternal suffering in hell?

philologos

I think rejecting God is a sin in and of itself, but it is not the only sin that people will ultimately commit.

You managed to interpret my position all this time despite being corrected as people being punished for disbelieving. This isn't the position at all. The position is that if one rejects God's standards and rejects His offer of salvation (through Jesus dying on the cross) that they can't be forgiven and their sin will be punished.

The Christian position is rightfully called good news because it is good news for all who accept it.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I think rejecting God is a sin in and of itself.......

Ok; so lack of belief, alone, may justify eternal suffering.

It seems you are not sure what it is you believe, Jakkass. Even on the last page, you have misrepresented yourself at least twice.

Anyway, I think we can all confirm that your religon is, indeed, a flawed basis for morality, given it would damn good people to eternal suffering for an inoffensive thought-crime.

Now, lets see if Prinz's one is any better.

philologos

How have I misrepresented myself? I assume by that you mean that I didn't fit the caricature that you wanted me to fit into?

Also: By saying the above are you suggesting that it is possible for a person to be infallible? (leaving irreligion aside)

drkpower wrote: »

Anyway, I think we can all confirm that your religon is, indeed, a flawed basis for morality, given it would damn good people to eternal suffering for an inoffensive thought-crime.

Who are good people?
How are you determining what is good?

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

FFS, he made the assertion on a previous thread. My first contribution to this thread related to his prior assertion.

Right, my mind reading skills are obviously a bit off today, hence the confusion. How silly of me to ask for clarification.

drkpower wrote: »

Rather than take it up with Jakkass, as i suggested you do, you have decided to wade into this and engage in a fruitless back and forth on this point.

Yes, rather than explaining yourself in 30 odd seconds.

drkpower wrote: »

Take a step back, Prinz; this is getting you nowhere.

..and it's clear why.

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure what you are trying to communicate here. Would you like to try and explain when your religon believes I should go to hell (whatever that entails) so that we can evaluate whether it should form the basis of our moral values.

As I have explained as has Jakkass from his point of view sins = bad. None of the Christian churches that I'm aware of teaches that people should (I notice the shift away from 'may' back to 'should' here) go to hell. What they do teach is that this decision is up to God and we must put our faith in God's mercy. Is that a simple enough breakdown for you? Does what might or might not happen after death impact upon my morals or values right now on a day to day basis? No.

drkpower wrote: »

What organisation were you referring to? Jakkass' religon presumably.

It wasn't that difficult after all.

drkpower wrote: »

What theologians differ in their interpretations of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on non-Catholics burning in hell for etenity solely for their lack of belief as I have presented it here? I have no idea.

You have no idea, yet you know what interpretations "many of them give" and are able to tell me that I am at odds with them in mine? .....and you tell me to 'take a step back'.

drkpower wrote: »

Anyway, I think we can all confirm that your religon is, indeed, a flawed basis for morality, given it would damn good people to eternal suffering for an inoffensive thought-crime

It really seems that you have a major struggle grasping contemporary understandings of theological issues. From the Catechism of the RCC

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Note, free choice and self-exclusion. It is not a punishment to be imposed on us, but a condition we choose for ourselves. Nobody is being damned.. from my point of view (you know not being dead and that) if anyone ends up in 'hell' it is because they choose that state not because they have been damned to it against their will.

Earlier in the thread you put 'theologists' indicating that you believe theology to be a bit of a nonsense field of study (apologies if I picked that up incorrectly), yet all you've done since is try to engage in a theological discussion about what happens after death in an attempt to disqualify (qualification being your word) whatever religion as a good starting place to develop a broader moral outlook. Do you see the irony in that? Perhaps a better place to start such a discussion would be what the various religions teach about what followers should do when they are alive on this planet rather than a hypothetical what might happen after death discussion. I don't see that gets us anywhere.

If someone believes that after they die they are going to hop on a giant meatball and float on up to the flying spaghetti monster next to the pink unicorn and chocolate teapot that information alone is not enough to qualify or disqualify their moral outlook on life before death. I'd much prefer to base it any opinion on their morals on what they believe with regard to how they conduct themselves, and how they view and interact with other people.

The theology of the afterlife is best left for another discussion unless it impacts directly upon someone's behaviour before death. As most Christian denominations assume that everyone is a sinner, that even though we are sinners we have been saved if that's what we want then I don't believe many live their lives based on a reward/punishment post-death basis, but rather by the guidelines we have inherited on how we should live our lives for the benefit of ourselves and those we live with in this life it would be far more beneficial in terms of this thread to discuss those instructions if needs be.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

philologos wrote: »

I think rejecting God is a sin in and of itself, but it is not the only sin that people will ultimately commit.

You managed to interpret my position all this time despite being corrected as people being punished for disbelieving. This isn't the position at all. The position is that if one rejects God's standards and rejects His offer of salvation (through Jesus dying on the cross) that they can't be forgiven and their sin will be punished.

Eternal punishment for finite crimes. I've never been able to understand how anyone regards this as moral.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Eternal punishment for finite crimes. I've never been able to understand how anyone regards this as moral.

If someone does not believe in any life after death whatsoever would life imprisonment not count as an 'eternal punishment'?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

prinz wrote: »

If someone does not believe in any life after death whatsoever would life imprisonment not count as an 'eternal punishment'?

No because that's not eternity, its just the rest if your life. Eternal punishment would literally never come to an end.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

No because that's not eternity, its just the rest if your life. Eternal punishment would literally never come to an end.

We have no concept of what eternity means or feels like. There was an eternity before you were born, how did that affect you?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

prinz wrote: »

We have no concept of what eternity means or feels like. There was an eternity before you were born, how did that affect you?

It didn't affect me because I didn't exist. The whole point of hell would be that I would exist forever and be in constant suffering.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

It didn't affect me because I didn't exist. The whole point of hell would be that I would exist forever and be in constant suffering.

Hell is usually thought of as a separation from God, not the fires and pitchfork idea. In that way it could be complete nothingness and lack of self awareness.

philologos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Eternal punishment for finite crimes. I've never been able to understand how anyone regards this as moral.

Morality as far as I see it is based on God Himself. What God regards as good ultimately is good, and what God regards as evil is ultimately evil.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

prinz wrote: »

Hell is usually thought of as a separation from God, not the fires and pitchfork idea. In that way it could be complete nothingness and lack of self awareness.

I don't know Bible you've been reading but Jesus was quite adamant on the whole 'everlasting fire' side of things.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I don't know Bible you've been reading but Jesus was quite adamant on the whole 'everlasting fire' side of things.

Perhaps that woud be a good thread opener on the Christianity forum.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I'd argue no more than any other form of philosophical thought when skewed including atheism. In fact I'd argue that it is a tiny minority of cases, unless you are suggesting that most of us are interested in suicide bombing.

When I'm talking about abuse I'm including psychological abuse which Christians are comfortably guilty of.

Telling a child that they were born bad and that some guy who lived 2000 years ago was tortured and murdered because of their 'badness' is simply psychological abuse.

Circumcising boys and cutting off the clitoris of girls is vile irredeemable adult-on-child assault.

Simply put my faith comes down to being thankful to God for the life that He has given me, and in being interested in using every moment I have to give Him the glory that He deserves whether that is in my work, in my relationships, my family, my friends, in everything I put my hands to.

Do I fail to do this? Certainly! However, it is a development and growth process to learn to put ones selfish interests aside and look to what is most important in all things. That for me is God.

Dude, seriously, I've shown no interest in your personal beliefs so I can't for the life of me think why you keep rambling on about them. I've told you that before. I don't know why you continue to do this when you respond to a post I've made unless you think it will help me see the light or something.

When I talk about theists I'm not singling you out. I don't mean to offend you personally in any way.

philologos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When I'm talking about abuse I'm including psychological abuse which Christians are comfortably guilty of.

Telling a child that they were born bad and that some guy who lived 2000 years ago was tortured and murdered because of their 'badness' is simply psychological abuse.

Nonsense.

It's nothing about being "born bad". It's about what we've actually done.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Circumcising boys and cutting off the clitoris of girls is vile irredeemable adult-on-child assault.

I advocate neither.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Dude, seriously, I've shown no interest in your personal beliefs so I can't for the life of me think why you keep rambling on about them. I've told you that before. I don't know why you continue to do this when you respond to a post I've made unless you think it will help me see the light or something.

Since when was it all about you? It's relevant to the discussion we're currently having.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No offence intended.

None taken.

prinz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Telling a child that they were born bad.. .

You mean telling a child that humans aren't perfect? Yeah awful.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

and that some guy who lived 2000 years ago was tortured and murdered because of their 'badness' is simply psychological abuse.

Eh no. That's not how it is explained. Although I am sure you will tell me how it is done.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Circumcising boys and cutting off the clitoris of girls is vile irredeemable adult-on-child assault..

How many Christian denominations instruct people to circumcise or FGM their children?

dvpower

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I don't know Bible you've been reading but Jesus was quite adamant on the whole 'everlasting fire' side of things.

There seems to be some variation in what Catholics view Hell as being, from an actual place of punishment, to a state where you are actually tormented, to a seperation from God, to some kind of annihilation.
I presume that the whole range of views can reasonably be come to by interpreting the bible.

This is a problem with using religion as a basis for morality - there's a lot of wriggle room depending on your (or, likely, someone else's) interpretation.