Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 01:35:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1115 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> <much indiscriminate snippage>
>
> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell,
> we're all over the map. :)
That's the trouble with jumping into the middle of these kinds of things :)
I'll see if I can describe it again-- see further down...
> I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It
> looks like you're trying to show that premise (1) christian morality and
> premise (2) your morality are logically incompatable.
>
> Is that it?
>
> Or are you trying to logically refute premise (1)?
>
> I'm really not sure, but I'll endeavour to pick at your logic. ;)
In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the
issue of fairness as I see it, and as I find flaw with it in Christianity.
If you go back and read the very first post in this thread (a la me) you'll
see the fundamental disagreement, which is roughly: I don't think it's
"right" to base 'salvation'/'truth'/'anything that would be universal' in
something that is finite for those whom it is percieved to be meant for.
In the specific, Christians hold, on SOME level, by definition I might
argue, that the Bible (New Testament at the very least) and also Jesus are
in some way related to truth/salvation/whatever. Something really big that I
guess I don't quite have a word for.
I hold that the Bible and Jesus (or direct knowledge of him coming FROM the
Bible) are finite in some respects as relates to human beings. There
are/were/will be humans who don't/didn't/won't have access to these.
However, that's just me trying on Christianity for size. And that's just one
of the problems I have with it. Again, go back and see the first post in the
thread. Things haven't changed much other than a little refining here and
there and a bit more in-depth stuff.
And, in order for me to "try Christianity on", I've got to attempt to go
with its assumptions and see if I arrive at any contradictions-- since I
expect to find some given what I stated above.
Ok, I just tried to go over it again twice and deleted it twice because I
ended up spilling into multiple areas all over again. Let's put it a bit
more simply:
If God has created a system which arbitrarily gives people access/help to
knowledge of truth, or access/help towards salvation, it violates my system
of that which is 'fair'. Does God NEED to be fair? I "sure as hell" think
so. Or at least, that is to say, fair with issues like salvation. I don't
like the idea that some person, no matter how good or deserving they might
be or no matter how much they might try, simply can NOT know of truth or
have access to salvation. Such a thing, by my book, REQUIRES equal access;
and I WON'T believe that a system that DOESN'T abide by such a rule could be
true or correct for me.
> > Most definitely. But find me a Christian who would argue otherwise.
>
> So found. Yer talking to one. :)
So you don't believe that God needs to follow fairness? To put it another
way, if you were, say, Job. If you were perfect in all respects to the
Bible's exacting specifications, and were denied entrance into Heaven and
instead were sent to eternal damnation because God just didn't feel like it,
you'd be OK with that? Needless to say, I wouldn't. But if you do, I don't
think I can argue you any further.
> I'm going to snip the rest of the back-and-forth until we sort out our
> confusion at the premise level.
Anyway-- as to my moral theory (because that's really what interests me the
most)...
I hold that morality is a concept humans may develop based on their wants
and on their interaction in a society. Hence, depending on the person and
the society, (and the specific experiences they've had), their morality
shall differ from others' and be nonetheless 'correct' or 'incorrect'.
Morality is a product of human evolution through time through the advent of
language and society, and has proven itself beneficial as societies behaving
in a 'generally moral' sense tend to thrive. (Generally moral is probably
roughly "thou shalt respect others as yourself", extended to such specifics
as "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal", etc.)
For a rather more in depth look at it, see my original post... Actually, I'd
recommend doing it anyway, even though I think I'd add in "Objectivism vs.
Subjectivism" as a new one of my original 4 points-- I think otherwise I
just hinted at it in the 1st point.
> This is fun. :)
I think so :) However, I will point out that the fun stops when someone
takes something as a personal attack. I can see this conversation going
quite awry if particular types of people were involved. But as long as it's
civilized, I find a good debate quite fun :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Hmm. A lot of christians might (probably do) hold that, but it isn't central to being christian. A christian is defined, in the broadest sense, as someone who believes in Christ.(more below) There are christian sects that believe strictly (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| <much indiscriminate snippage> I want to figure out what the heck we're debating. As far as I can tell, we're all over the map. :) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, you: (...) I may be making assumptions myself, here. What *is* your argument? It looks (...) (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
|
|
|
|
