Quote:
Originally posted by Vinnie:
<strong>
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?</strong>
|
That's an interesting observation (and a nice sidestep of the main point). Is it possible that the notions of "good" and "evil" have some meaning apart from religion?
<strong>
Quote:
|
You've managed to say the same thing in other words. The only difference here is that you included "trust in Jesus."</strong>
|
Actually, I had changed that in the previous version.
<strong>
Quote:
|
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.</strong>
|
This of course brings up the question: Why can't honest and intelligent Christians agree on what their religion teaches? Has their God given them instructions that are too confusing? I am interested, Vinnie, what are your views? Why do you feel the need to defend views that you don't hold?
<strong>
Quote:
|
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?</strong>
|
You got it. Although you are the one assuming that Anne Frank and Gandhi are "good" while Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson are "bad." Why do you assume that?
<strong>
Quote:
|
Of course this brings us back to the conservative stance that no one is good and that all are bad and deserve hell.</strong>
|
A truly sick notion. No one deserves hell. No one.
<strong>
Quote:
|
Whether such a stance can be factually demonstrated or shown to correspond to reality is another discussion.</strong>
|
So why do you bring it up?
<strong>
Quote:
|
You could also run into a response asking you to define “good” and “bad”.</strong>
|
good = long-term pleasure and happiness
bad = pain and sadness
<strong>
Quote:
|
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.</strong>
|
So if an Israelite butchers a Canaanite child in accordance with God's command, he is doing good. But if he has mercy and spares the child, he is doing evil. How grotesque.
You also have the huge problem of discerning God's will. Many Christians think God wills total pacifism, while others think God wills war and others are somewhere in between. Are these people stupid or insincere? Or has their God given conflicting or confusing instructions? Is this because he is evil or just incompetent?
<strong>
Quote:
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.</strong>
|
ramble on
<strong>
Quote:
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.</strong>
|
That's some mighty fancy footwork there, Vinnie. Are you that afraid of the implications of your own theology (or whoever's theology that you are defending)?
<strong>
Quote:
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?
</strong>
|
The question of forgiveness is up to the person who has been hurt. Why don't you ask Anne Frank, who must be burning in hell, if she forgives God.
09-25-2002, 06:50 AM
