Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 06:22:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1003 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
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 that, there are christian sects that acknowledge him as the One True
God, and lots and lots of shades in between. Now before I get bitten by that,
allow me to specify "believes in Christ" as believing Christ has some aspect of
divinity, not just allowing his existence as a man.
> 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.
Ok. My take on it, as a christian, is that christianity is not the only path,
nor necessarily the best path to whatever God has in mind. Maybe that's where
my confusion is; Many of the assumptions you're making about christianity do
not apply to christianity as I understand it, or as I practise it. But I am
also 100% certain that there are christians out there who consider me
heretical, so <shrug>. Take me with a grain of salt, I guess, but I certainly
consider myself christian, and so do most of the people I know - although I'll
admit that I don't generally get this in-depth.
> > > 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.
hmm. I hadn't thought it terms of your specific example, but I suppose that
according to my way of thinking, it could happen. I can't say as I'd exactly
be happy down there, but I have to acknowledge that it could happen. I don't
personally believe God is like that, but I don't know, and I could be wrong.
Let me back it up to a more fundamental level. I personally believe much like
you do, that morality is subjective, relative, and mutable over time. I
believe that there may be an "ideal" moral code for human behavior, and that
God has given us clues & guidelines, sufficient to our understanding, that can
help us evolve towards that ideal morality.
I could be wrong. God could be the white-bearded Old Testiment God of Wrath
that sends wolves to tear apart children that laugh at his prophets.
But more specifically (bad me - getting sidetracked!), you wanted a christian
who would argue that "God does not necessarily have the same moral obligation
as a human". I would argue that. I would argue that the moral code we have
evolved to date (and are evolving towards) is a *human* moral code, and that
God is not human, and not necessarily bound by it.
> 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.
I did. Some neat ideas, well presented. It does help with understanding how
the flow of the debate got around to here.
> > 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 :)
:)
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) 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... (...) In this particular part of my post where I bring this up, I'm addressing the issue of fairness as I see (...) (24 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
