Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 09-23-2002, 06:39 AM

Quote:

The hypocritical thing about this passage from Lewis, is that Lewis argues that without Christianity, atheists cannot say that the Nazis were bad. Indeed Lewis wrote 'Mere Christianity'
in order to argue that.

Now you're reading his mind with impunity. I nominate you for "Cynical Interpretation of the Week" award.

Egads.

Radorth

CX · 09-23-2002, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
This belongs more appropriately in Misc. Religious Discussions or Rants, Raves, and Preaching

Agreed. Off we go...

ex-preacher · 09-23-2002, 07:12 AM

Let me re-phrase it for you, ilgwig:

Christianity is the only religion which teaches that a totally vile person, such as Adolf Hitler, can be forgiven for anything and go to heaven if he trusts in Jesus, while someone who is good, say Anne Frank, will spend an eternity in hell for not trusting in Jesus. What a beautiful religion.

Is that any better?

MortalWombat · 09-23-2002, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


Now you're reading his mind with impunity. I nominate you for "Cynical Interpretation of the Week" award.

Egads.

Radorth

The difference is that we can actually have a clue what was in Lewis' mind because:
1) He actually existed and
2) He actually put his thoughts down on paper.

Bible Humper · 09-23-2002, 12:36 PM

Quote:

'That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But god does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst of this material, will stand naked.'

Quote:

Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.

It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as friends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But god does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.

So Yahweh is a moral relativist after all?

I guess the Ten Commandments should be edited now to say "thou shalt not steal unless you really need to or were brought up to think it was ok", etc.

No objective standards after all, everything has caveats.

There are even more interesting implications if we explore the role of brain chemistry in human behavior, and then take a look at the christian conception of the soul in light of this theology of Lewis.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]

Vinnie · 09-23-2002, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Let me re-phrase it for you, ilgwig:
Christianity is the only religion which teaches that a totally vile person, such as Adolf Hitler, can be forgiven for anything and go to heaven if he trusts in Jesus, while someone who is good, say Anne Frank, will spend an eternity in hell for not trusting in Jesus. What a beautiful religion.

Is that any better?

Not in the least! As an ex preacher you should know that the conservative brand of Xianity that you are arguing against says everyone is vile and evil and in need of forgiveness (including Anne Frank). You are doing a good job of knocking down straw men thoguh

Then again maybe you are critiquing the Christian world view using naturalistic definitions of "good" and "vile". Not that I think that would be fallacious or anything

Vinnie

Steven Carr · 09-24-2002, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:


Speaking of gibberesh

A lot of Christians would argue thus: An action is born out by heredity, enviroment and free will. It is quite simple:

H + E + FW = A

As far as I can remember/understand, Lewis is saying that God can see what we did and takes into account our heredity and enviroment. He knows our "heart" so to speak.

So I am going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess and say no, Lewis probably did not subscribe to the idiotic notion that we created ourselves.

Vinnie

As Christians believe 'original sin' is part of our inheritance, are you claiming that God does takes original sin into account and will not condemn us for original sin?

ex-preacher · 09-24-2002, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:


Not in the least! As an ex preacher you should know that the conservative brand of Xianity that you are arguing against says everyone is vile and evil and in need of forgiveness (including Anne Frank). You are doing a good job of knocking down straw men thoguh

Then again maybe you are critiquing the Christian world view using naturalistic definitions of "good" and "vile". Not that I think that would be fallacious or anything

Vinnie

Let me try again, Vinnie (by the way, Vinnie is much better than your old name - illwigwam):

Christianity is the only religion which teaches that Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson could be forgiven for anything and go to heaven if they trusted in Jesus, while Anne Frank and Gandhi, will spend an eternity in hell for not trusting in Jesus. What a beautiful religion.

Is that up to your specifications?

Vinnie · 09-24-2002, 09:50 AM

Quote:

As Christians believe 'original sin' is part of our inheritance, are you claiming that God does takes original sin into account and will not condemn us for original sin?

Personally, I don't subscribe to the notion of original sin. But on a side note I would say sin is defined by free will decisions that are not in conformity with God's will. Ergo, saying we could be condemned by some "genetic" or "inherited" state of sinfullness is meaningless to me. I don't think all Christians who subscribe to the notion of original sin say we are guilty because of original sin either but that is another discussion. Inheriting "sin" makes no sense to me whatsoever. It also seems to make the theodice problem insolvable because if we inherit sin that makes it seem like "sin" is a "thing" or "being" as opposed to a free will choice. My distinction can be challenged, of course.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 09-24-2002, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Let me try again, Vinnie (by the way, Vinnie is much better than your old name - illwigwam):

I concur.

Quote:

Christianity is the only religion which teaches that Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson could be forgiven for anything and go to heaven if they trusted in Jesus, while Anne Frank and Gandhi, will spend an eternity in hell for not trusting in Jesus. What a beautiful religion.

Is that up to your specifications?

It is slightly better in that you have cloaked the straw man and made it harder to spot. The problem is you said close to the same thing as you did the last time. Your contrast between "Gandhi + Anne Frank" and "Manson + Hitler" does not have the terms "vile" or "good" but they are clearly implied! Otherwise you wouldn't be making much off a point would you? You've managed to say the same thing in other words. The only difference here is that you included "trust in Jesus."

Christianity is not monolithic and I personally don't subscribe to the scenario you are drawing. In my estimation, many of the more conservative Christians do, however so I will pursue it.

First it seems your objection boils down to the issue of why is it possible for "good" people go to hell while 'bad' people can go to heaven. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of your position? Of course this brings us back to the conservative stance that no one is good and that all are bad and deserve hell. Whether such a stance can be factually demonstrated or shown to correspond to reality is another discussion.

You could also run into a response asking you to define �good� and �bad�.

My own personal definition of evil is something along the lines of �a non-conformity between a person�s will and God�s will.� So to do good is to do something which co-aligns with God�s will. To commit evil is the exact opposite�to do something contrary to the will of God. Now we run into the issue of defining a good person as opposed to a bad person. Could we say a person who consistently does good is a good person and a person who consistently does bad is a bad person? Conservative Christianity would posit that none of us consistently do good and so with those definitions can a person whose life is not in conformity with God�s salfvific will go to heaven? In other words, can a �bad� person actually go to heaven under this scenario? By definition they seem to be mutually exclusive.

Though it must be said you are obviously not using the Christian definition of good and evil here. How you find it logical to critique the Christian philosophy with external definitions from a different framework makes no sense to me, though.

Let�s examine your (apparently?) fuzzy and easy to equivocate comparative human standard of �good� and �evil� and see what we get.

What you are basically saying is that people who seem �good� to us can theoretically go to hell while people who seem �bad� to us can theoretically go to heaven. While many Christians would accept this position it should be noted that you are not presenting a formal argument, you are giving us your opinion. So what it seems you are basically saying is, �I don�t like the Christian view� but you are offering nothing solid that demonstrates the position is inconsistent or logically contradictory. Neither have you demonstrated that it is morally repugnant using defined terms and a formal argument. You have simply been using unsubstantiated and undefined comparative human standards to declare it repugnant.

On a side note, is there any evidence that you can offer as to why a person who �truly� repents of wrongdoing should not be forgiven?

Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2002, 07:12 AM	#13
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	Let me re-phrase it for you, ilgwig: Christianity is the only religion which teaches that a totally vile person, such as Adolf Hitler, can be forgiven for anything and go to heaven if he trusts in Jesus, while someone who is good, say Anne Frank, will spend an eternity in hell for not trusting in Jesus. What a beautiful religion. Is that any better?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.