Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:45:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1020 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
<...snip interesting set of propositions...>
> 7c. Another option is that Christians MIGHT hold (I wouldn't call them
> Christians, really) is that the Bible and/or knowledge of Jesus are NOT
> necessary to truth/morality, and they were not of divine origin. Both the
> Bible and Jesus were mortal creations and are therefore not the direct works
> of God excusing God from responsibility (depending on free will definitions
> and all that) Reason: potential given.
> 8c. Ok, I'd buy that. But it does sacrifice Jesus' significance as well as
> the Bible's. Reason: based on 7c.
This is closest to the general Unitarian Universalist Christian theology
(I say "general" because UU theology doesn't require a single answer).
However there are some possible modifications, which are still generally
consistent:
- Jesus and the Bible may not be the only sources of truth (and there
have been several examinations done of various religions which find many
common threads, for example, many major religions have something like
the golden rule).
- Jesus and the Bible may be divinely inspired, but still human
creations (and therefore subject to error - absolving God of direct
responsibility - am I responsible in the least, if you, inspired by
seeing my Pirate collection, decide you should have one also, and
proceed to do something immoral to attain your collection?).
> > > > > Ah yes, but let's play for a second. What if I say "why should I?"
> > > > > What's your response? That I should do it for my own salvation?
> > > >
> > > > No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
> > >
> > > Sorry, the question shouldn't have said "why should I DO good?" but
> > > "why" should I BE good?" "Should I BE good for my own salvation?"
> >
> > No - Salvation is not based upon works. [2]
>
> Um. Ok, I'm obviously not getting through.
>
> Dave: What is human salvation based upon?
> Steve: Salvation is based upon X.
>
> Dave's re-phrased question: "Why should I X?" "Should I X for my own
> salvation? or should I X because X is a end in and of itself?"
>
> Steve: (Option 1) One should X for one's own salvation.
> (jump to conclusion 1)
>
> Steve: (Option 2) One should X because to X is good. It is an end in and of
> itself.
> Dave: (Option 2a) "X" brings self benefit in emotional form.
> (jump to conclusion 1)
>
> Dave: (Option 2b) "X" brings self benefit in physical form. (less likely)
> (jump to conclusion 1)
>
> Dave: (Option 2c) Hmm... I hadn't thought of "X". "X" appears not to benefit
> the self... (least likely)
> (jump to conclusion 2)
>
> (conclusion 1)
> Dave: "X" is therefore being selfish.
>
> (conclusion 2)
> Dave: Maybe I'm all turned around on the subject... hmm...
>
> > I'm not suggesting there is benefit, either physical or mental or
> > anything to doing good. Again - I don't "give" in order to "get",
> > I help someone because I love them.
>
> And why do you help those you love?
> 1. If I help someone I love, I get pleasure out of their being happy. It
> makes ME happy to see THEM happy.
> 2. Personally, when I help those I love (anyone really), I feel good about
> myself.
> 3. They often feel good about me in return. Which makes me feel even BETTER
> about myself.
> 4. In the event that they in turn wish to help ME (because they love me for
> helping them), I may even get some physical benefit (they'll feed me when
> I'm starving or something).
>
> > > Ok, but then just answer me this. Why should I be good? If man is
> > > inherently evil (selfish) then doesn't man need motivation?
> >
> > Man doesn't need motivation - he needs salvation.
>
> Yes, but if man is selfish, then why should he work towards salvation? Why
> bother? What has the power to make men work towards salvation other than
> some sort of motivation in emotional or phsyical benefit?
This whole rigamarole on salvation is what bugs me most about
Christians. Unless they can point out a supportable flaw in your
reasoning using reason and not emotional appeals to the "message" of
Christianity, then this strikes me as a basis to declare that it is
impossible to "debate" a Christian.
So Christians, rise to the challenge if you can, otherwise, agree that
you can not support your conclusions by using the tools of debate and
critical thinking. If we can not use critical thinking and debate to
better understand Christianity, then this debate is totally worthless. I
for one am not going to accept that your "morality" is right without
being able to critically examine your assumptions.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) Note the distinction Frank is making... he is asserting that the *debate* is worthless. Not that christianity, in and of itself, is worthless, per se. If something cannot be proven or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Exactly. Which is one thing I'm looking for. Supportable flaws in my reasoning using reasoning, not emotion. I don't care if it's from a Christian or not. My initial post served a few functions. A. To test whether or not the Christian debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I think I tend to do that-- but don't we all in these sorts of debates? :) (...) Ok, back to the issue at hand then, how exactly would one prove God's existence in a court? (...) Precicely true. However, you did bring up that you held that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
