Grad Student Humanist

Yeah, how about you actually try refuting the statement, instead of ignoring it.

The Gospel of Matthew clearly states that "Just as weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will collect out of his Kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth." Matthew 13: 40-42.

So, tell us once again how Jesus is all abut forgiveness while at the same time condemning people to Hell for all eternity. And, Hell as described here is clearly a place of torture, not "separation from God" or any other euphamism that Xtians like to use to describe Hell. It serves no rehabilitative function whatsoever and condemns men to eternal punishment for temporal sins.

Amaranth

Utterly rediculous. Much like saying "Drugs are bad", then claiming you are just clarifying by saying "I mean illegal drugs are bad" when you have been badly beaten. Like I said, not much artful, let alone original, in your dodging.

*chuckle* I'd say you might want to spend more time on your lackluster arguments, and less on paying attention to others spelling. Mine is an error of typing, and comparatively minor to your failures of the mind.

Dodging the point, once again. When you defined your version of love as pertaining to "friends, parents, siblings, partner, children etc" you changed your argument. It no longer pertains to the concept behind "free love". In fact, by acknowledging the above as a specific sub-category of love, you have in effect left open the idea of casual love, and defeated your own argument against "free love". At the very least, you are in no way any longer addressing your already off-topic assertion.

1) This makes me wonder if you even know what a logical fallacy is.

2) Your continued efforts to cover up the errors in your arguments says you do have something to justify to us.

*chuckle* You've already devolved into ad hominem. It's too late to take the moral high ground.

As to your parents...well, this particular lesson was obviously not their worst mistake.

Amaranth

Calzaer

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Llyricist

LMAO. I love that movie.

that being said, I agree with you in this case

Bumble Bee Tuna

This is a reasonable point, as we are of course interdependent if we live in a society by definition. However, it has nothing to do with Christianity.

I don't agree. Your identity is entirely personal. Your identity is you and you alone. But once again, nothing Christian about this point.

Not at all. Meaning is arbitrary, and you can choose anything to be your personal meaning, including relationships. And again: Nothing Christian here.

Definitely not. That's ridiculous. It destroys the meaning of guilt to claim that people who do not commit a crime are partially guilty of it. If we don't have free will, the conclusion is that nobody is guilty, not that we are all partially guilty. If we do have free will, only the person who chose to do the action is guilty.

This seems like about 5 different unrelated points.
I don't know what you mean by knowledge outweighing compassion.
I don't know what you mean by us being unaware of how intrconnected we are: In fact, I think it's tremendously obvious to everyone that we are interconnected as a society.
I just explained, we are not all guilty.
I would also say that we are not all equal, either, except in a few unremarkable attributes (we are all human...because you define "we" as those who are human)
I would say yes, the wise are very few, and if you give the word "better" any meaning at all then some are definitely "better" than others.

So, I disagree with half of your points, but regardless:

None of them involve Christianity.

You are STILL off topic. Start talking about Christianity. Those points may constitute YOUR worldview, but none of them are integral parts of a Christian worldview.

-B

Ispikes

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Epheisians 5.24

"Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" - Hebrew 12.9

"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." - James 4.7

we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. -2 Corinthians 10.5


They ram the 'submission to God' theme down your throat at some churchs. These are only some of the verses.

Cipher Girl

Hi danielius

Try to keep up 'Ciphergirl'! These are being addressed step by step. If you like, read over my most recent posts, and drop in some of your own thoughts.

HAHAHAHAHA. Exactly where? Though I do recall almost lost in the multitude of posts quibbling over semantics, a few half-hearted attempts at discussion. So here goes.

1) If our universe had had no light, we would not have evolved eyes, yet we all seem to have developed a faculty for evaluating questions of meaning, and an inherent desire for it. Where do these come from?

What do you mean by no light? No electromagnetic radiation at all or just the visual part of the spectrum? If you mean the latter, then organisms would simply evolve to see either infrared or ultraviolet. Oh wait, I guess that's already happened. And what exactly does this have to do with evaluating questions of meaning? Hell, more than a few organisms can perceive the visible spectrum, but do they evaluate questions of meaning? What does this have to do with Christianity?

2. Can we have justice in an injust world? We live in an inter-connected society and share in the responsibility for things good and bad. We all have blood on our hands, at least indirectly. How can we reconcile justice with forgiveness? Is it even possible?

Of course we can have justice in an unjust world. Most of the time (at east in the US or Europe) most murderers, rapists, molesters, etc get caught and punished. Of course we live in an interconnected world, so does the rest of nature. Forgiveness for what? And exactly how does this show Christianity is a reasonable worldview?

3. Why do we always let ourselves down? I could have done all sorts of useful, worthwhile things today, yet I haven't. What is this standard, this completeness, we seem fallen from? And if there is no standard, what are we aiming for at all?

Well if you feel so bad about yourself, then perhaps you need therapy (or ditch the Christianity). If embracing Christianity causes you to feel this way then you are an example of why I'm not a Christian. I not some poor worthless sinner crawling on my hands and knees to grovel for a few scraps of forgiveness from a cold-hearted temper tantrum throwing minor deity. And exactly how does this show Christianity is a reasonable worldview?

Well, so far danielius you have not shown how Christianity is a reasonable world view. In fact, for all of your claiming to be Christian, you've shown very little Christian specific theology. The only thing you have mentioned that is specifically Christian is the forgiveness bit. Forgiveness from what exactly? And this is reasonable because...? And before this, have you even shown this tyrant god exists at all? Remember, even if you could show a god exists, how does this imply the Christian god exists?

Biff the unclean

I'm still wondering how Christianity is a reasonable world view for Dan himself? You say you are Gay and live with your partner in a little house with a nice garden.

The Christian world-view says that you are a mortal sinner for being gay. You and your partner are Damned to the deepest pit of Hell forever where the flesh will burn from your bones 'til the end of time. According to Christianity the relationship you have with your partner is an abomination that you should give up and renounce this very instant. You are both deserving of death for what you feel for one another.

So how can this possibly be a reasonable world-view for you to hold?
You don't actual believe these terrible things about yourself and your partner, do you?
But then if you don't think that you yourself are damned then you don't hold the Christian world-view so why are you saying that you do?

wade-w

A couple of observations:

Resorting to criticizing your opponent's spelling is usually a sign that you are losing a debate. It is also an ad hominem argument (the real thing, not the way people constantly misuse the term).

Danelius, you seem to know little about your professed faith. In one post, you refer to the trinity as mother, father, and son. I've always heard the trinity expressed as father, son, and holy ghost. I've never quite understood what is referred by this ghost, but I don't think its supposed to be anyone's mother.

Your claims that it is impossible for a person to follow more than one train of thought is patently false. It takes a bit of practice, but I know it can be done. For example, Mozart was known for being able to compose and carry on unrelated conversations at the same time.

As others have stated, you have yet to address your OP in any way; none of your assertions seem to be directly related to showing that xtianity is a reasonable world view.

Please, get to your point. Or at least show some sign of heading in that direction. Otherwise, this thread is in danger of being closed for meaningless semantical games.

danielius

For context:

(Matthew 13:24-26;37-42)

The above is a 'parable', and is not to be taken literally. Let me tell you what I think it is saying...

It's talking about 'good' and 'bad' and the fact that often the two are nearly indistinguishable, until coming to full maturity. When a politician speaks in a folksy manner about 'the ethic of work', it isn't easy to know what he is precisely advocating, and whether in the end it will turn out to be good or bad for the world, wheat or weed.

Now, the poster speculated that the wheat and weeds both referred to people, and indeed Jesus does speak in terms of the 'sons of the kingdom/of the evil one'. Though, I for my part, think that they refer to actions, not people. Christianity affirms: 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. So this is a consistent view.

Actions, including words, are hard to distinguish - good or bad - until the consequences can be clearly seen. But attempting to pull out of society all things that we consider 'bad' would do more harm than good.

So I think that when the conclusion speaks of 'weeping' and 'gnashing of teeth', I think it is comparable to how Christianity affirms the living of Life, or the death of Death. Weeping shall itself weep, and gnashing shall itself gnash.

I don't believe that people are 'condemned to hell for all eternity'. Your above quote from the Bible does not necessarily support such a viewpoint.

Absolutely agree with you. Trying to dilute the issue of hell is not the way to address it.

I don't want to need to spend any more time on this. The word 'drugs' is almost always used in a negative sense outside of formal debate and medical establishments. Clarification in such an instance is entirely appropriate.

Nowhere do I acknowledge any such thing. Love always involves commitment, therefore the term 'casual love' is an oxymoron. There are many words in English for what you are referring to: 'lust', 'casual sex' etc.

I believe in free will, but not in absolute free will, which is impossible. I'm sitting down, so I can't choose to sit down again. My free will - my ability to choose from a number of different paths of action - is a real but mitigated one. Therefore, any responsibility arising from an action I commit - good or bad - is real, but mitigated. Actors don't take all the credit when they win an award, why should criminals have to take all the rap when they lose a case in court?

Do you hold a poor, black, uneducated, frightened boy 'personally responsible' for shooting a man? Or would you admit that the boy certainly pulled the trigger, but that there were all sorts of preconditioning factors which led up to that final decision, factors which society has itself a responsibility for?

A dangerous point of view in my opinion. And to say that the belief in equality is not a Christian one is just not true. 'All men are created equal' relates directly to the doctrine that 'all men are created in the image of God'.

My mother has nine children. I read in my local newspaper recently a letter which said that poor women shouldn't be allowed to have children - after all, they can't afford to bring them up well, and they're a burden on the state. I can speak from very personal experience when I state positively that that is just completely, utterly wrong and misguided. A rich mother finds it no easier to bring up a baby than a poor mother in essentials. Of course, the wealthy have advantages, but all mothers are amateurs in the very literal sense of the word - 'amateur' from the Latin word for love. To have a family is the most human thing, because it is the most loving thing. And there is no dignity comparable to that of the Mother.

There is an important distinction, as the original poster claimed that Christianity was very similar in this to Islam.

Muslims hold that by systematised ritual, five daily prayers, compulsory thirty days of fasting, compulsory alms-giving etc., they are submitting to Allah.

Christians hold that by simply pursuing their unique nature, freed from the requirement of compulsory prayers or fasting, they are 'submitting' to God. Every time I drop an apple, I am submitting to gravity. Every time I spell a word, I am submitting to the rules of word formation.

I think the problem with submitting arises when a person submits to rules rather than to principles.

Do you agree with the death penalty in the U.S?

I'm exceedingly well, and very happy. Once again, I appreciate all your concern for me. It's sweet.

Whether we like to admit it or not, none of us meet our own standards. That's why we are always trying to improve ourselves, with more education, career promotion, more money etc. Now, there is nothing at all wrong with improving oneself, but the question arises - why improve yourself? You only improve that which isn't already complete.

Christianity says none of us can reach that completeness on our own. We need to reach outside of ourselves even to be at all meaningful. It doesn't matter if I call myself Daniel, unless there are others out there who aren't me. So, we reach outside of ourselves for that which we also cannot give ourselves - forgiveness.

Thank you. It feels like the first time someone has addressed me as a person, a human being, rather than 'another Xtian'.

Well, I don't agree that 'the' Christian world-view says that I'm going to hell for being gay. I agree that Christianity emphasises family, but even as a gay man, I have absolutely no problem with this. I have no problem with the idea of one person loving one person, and I'm supportive of the continuing debates within the church over gay marriage and gay bishops (one was elected in New Hampshire very recently I read somewhere).

I guess you're trying to point to certain references in the Bible. But Christians don't believe that eating pork is an abomination, nor do we think we should stone a person to death for working on the sabbath. We make a distinction between rules and principles, and say that when someone acts out of love, then they are within the Law. All I am doing is fulfilling my nature as a gay man, out of love for my partner and the relationship we share.

Also, I'm aware that the N.T refers to homosexuality in a few places, but I'm not convinced that it refers explicitly to *all* gay relationships. I have no problem with drawing the line at gay infidelity, rape, prostitution, abuse etc., just as I draw the line at straight infidelity, rape etc.

If there are specific verses you'd like me to address, please give me the references to them. Many thanks.

Criticising an opponent's spelling is a sign that I am criticising an opponent's spelling. It's usually, though I will grant not always, an indication that the message itself is rushed, argumentative and so forth. We spell words correctly for a reason, and a large part of it comes down to respect for language as well as for the debate itself.

No. I said that the holy trinity is represented by Mother, Father and Child. It's a metaphor. Trinity is the Christian attempt to speak to the question of God's nature, as loving and relational.

I've clarified my position, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Danielius