Ask a Christian Theologian

[TheDean]

EXACTLY. And it wasn't even "just in case" it was "so i can get drunk".
Also, i like what you said, however, if i was you i wouldn't baptise my child at all and wait until they are old enough to decide from themselves. Even without realising, you are imposing your religion on them. And even though you may not force it, you are influencing the kid's decision.

Well I hope I would influence their decision. As a Christian parent (In this scenario! I'm not ready to be a father just yet...despite what my wife wants), I would be raising my children to be Christians. You may not see Christianity as truth, but Christians, go figure, see it as the absolute truth, so of course we'd raise our children to have the same views and values as we do.

Every parent does it.

Don't you think the parent who is an anti-theist will influence the religious choice of their children? Of course they would! How could the child not be influenced by it when, whenever their parent talks about religion, they keep hearing how it's a bunch of baloney. That influences them.

I'll be consciously raising my children to be Christians when I eventually do become a parent. If, once they are old enough to choose for themselves, decide to leave their faith, I'd be heartbroken, but I'd still love them and it would still be their choice to make.

if i do have kids ever, i plan to not mention religion at all. Then, we can discuss and evaluate it when they are older. I will only give my opinion before that if asked to.

 

[TheDean]

in my mind i can see a slight difference, fair is more abuout equality to me.

Nevertheless, i only use "fair" because i don't have anything better, but what i mean is, i already said this to TGLT but Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is 'fair', but good or bad? I don't think they even come into it.

At this point, you are essentially making a moral statement - fairness is good, unfairness is bad. Saying that you should follow the Golden Rule because it is fair is just removing the problem one step - you're still saying, "You should do this because it is intrinsically better than the alternative." Note that most moral systems are more complex than this - mercy is usually considered "good" although it is unfair by definition.

Not only that, but Dean just used a Bible verse to defend his position. Irony?

Ironic? Probably. But i never said there is nothing good to take form the bible. I just sid the stories are less-than believable. And what i was trying to get at is simple: i don't hit you in your face because i don't want someone to hit me in the face. I don't hurt others because i wouldn't like it in reverse. Good and bad don't come into it.

 

[Baby Tea]

Ironic? Probably. But i never said there is nothing good to take form the bible. I just sid the stories are less-than believable. And what i was trying to get at is simple: i don't hit you in your face because i don't want someone to hit me in the face. I don't hurt others because i wouldn't like it in reverse. Good and bad don't come into it.

Are you kidding me, Dean? You must be.

You don't hit people because you don't want to get his because it would be BAD for you. Good and bad have everything to do with it. In fact, they are at the CORE of it.

 

[Baby Tea]

... Relative to a degree, as Cheeze will point out: most moral systems have a lot in common with each other.

How do you interpret the multiplicity of religiously-driven moral systems -- even within Christianity? Do you say that all of these god-dependent moral ideas are therefore "relative"? Or do you just assume that some of them are wrong?

You don't need God to assert that one system of beliefs is better than another.

-- Alex

What you do need God for is the authority to say what is right or wrong in the first place. Other wise it's 'He said she said' and who is right?

General commonalities a moral unification does not make. Almost anyone could say that killing is wrong, but what about in war? For self defense? In defense of another? For revenge? For personal freedom? For a perceived evil? You might have answers, I would probably have different ones, and so would the next person. Where is commonality now?

 

[Alex_P]

... Relative to a degree, as Cheeze will point out: most moral systems have a lot in common with each other.

How do you interpret the multiplicity of religiously-driven moral systems -- even within Christianity? Do you say that all of these god-dependent moral ideas are therefore "relative"? Or do you just assume that some of them are wrong?

You don't need God to assert that one system of beliefs is better than another.

-- Alex

What you do need God for is the authority to say what is right or wrong in the first place. Other wise it's 'He said she said' and who is right?

General commonalities a moral unification does not make. Almost anyone could say that killing is wrong, but what about in war? For self defense? In defense of another? For revenge? For personal freedom? For a perceived evil? You might have answers, I would probably have different ones, and so would the next person. Where is commonality now?

Who is right? You can think about it and then present some kind of argument -- logical, aesthetic, pragmatic, whatever -- for why one way makes sense than another.

There is just as much "he-said-she-said" between theologians as there is between secular moral philosophers.

Let me put it this way:
You think Christianity is the right way to go. You think the God of Christianity is the true moral authority.
You meet some other guy who fervently believes in... oh, I dunno, how about whatever ancient baby-killing god the Phillistines supposedly worshipped?
You say one thing. He says another. Neither of you walk away convinced by what the other said.
Does that mean that there is no possible way your beliefs can't be objectively better than his?

(Personally, I don't assume there is a "Truth" and I'm quite fine with there not being one. But that's not the only way to think about these things.)

-- Alex

 

[Redlac]

*did not bother reading the last 22 pages and just wants his question answered*

I'm a weak atheist, meaning that don't believe in a God, but am open to the possibility that there could be one. Let's go with the Christian one, for convenience's sake.

Additionally, I do not actually believe that Jesus died for my sins. Primarily because he's human, and was thus destined to die anyway, and secondarily because in my eyes, I haven't committed any sins that would prevent me from getting into Heaven. However, IF he did save me, then I'm grateful for it, and I appreciate the effort regardless of whether he did.

My question is: Will that get me into Heaven, if the Christians are right about God and Jesus and all that jazz? Or will I get sent to Hell for my beliefs? Or is there some other option, like limbo or Purgatory?

Ok Kage, it depends on which brand of Christian you ask. Those on the Conservative side will say you're Hellbound, because you don't believe the key things that get you into heaven. Those on the Liberal side would be less inclined to write you off so quickly. In short, a Conservative Evangelical would say yes, whereas a Roman Catholic might say you may end up in purgatory.

Personally, I cannot say if God will let you in or not, because it's not my call, it's his. As I have said before, he will be fair about the decision. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask, after all, this is what the thread is about. Hope that helps.

 

[GothmogII]

... Relative to a degree, as Cheeze will point out: most moral systems have a lot in common with each other.

How do you interpret the multiplicity of religiously-driven moral systems -- even within Christianity? Do you say that all of these god-dependent moral ideas are therefore "relative"? Or do you just assume that some of them are wrong?

You don't need God to assert that one system of beliefs is better than another.

-- Alex

What you do need God for is the authority to say what is right or wrong in the first place. Other wise it's 'He said she said' and who is right?

General commonalities a moral unification does not make. Almost anyone could say that killing is wrong, but what about in war? For self defense? In defense of another? For revenge? For personal freedom? For a perceived evil? You might have answers, I would probably have different ones, and so would the next person. Where is commonality now?

By the by...isn't that not how it works anyway? I mean, just look at the Escapist as a crude reference, let's say, start a topic on the death penalty or how prisoners of war should be treated. On all sides, christian, atheist or whatever, you'll have people with opinions on it, some think it's perfectly okay to kill all serious criminals, some only reserve that for rape or murder, some think all killing no matter the reason is inherently wrong. In wartime, some people would say it's perfectly okay to torture PoWs, after all it could save lives, some think it's monstrous, some don't care. By the by of course.


Actually, what -does- the bible say on how to treat criminals? As I read it, the OT comes down hard on murderers and rapists for the most part (and I doubt many see that as a problem of course). But, by that same token, couldn't a child get stoned for disrespecting it's parents?

What about torture? I mean, the big ten state: Thou shall not kill/murder, but, nothing about torture? No: Thou shall not commit un-needed harm on another. Or even: Thou shall not commit bodily harm on another. Now granted, the New Testament would have some words on this, however, it doesn't explicitly state that it's unacceptable (although it's evidenced more by action then put to words I suppose).

And what about the wars? You know, the ones were god says: 'Here, this is now your country, make war with those who do not believe.' Yes yes, he doesn't actually say that. But, wasn't he basically giving his blessing to his 'chosen people' to war with the other people who happened to be living in the lands he sought fit to give. After all, -he- made them, why shouldn't he be free to give them away to whoever he wants? And besides, those people were all godless heathens anyway, you shouldn't feel too bad about them having their homes burned and their foreskins chopped off (seriously wth 0_o?).

But of course that's the 'Old' god, the new one had a change of heart, and hired a kickass PR manager. Jesus did good work to turn old 'I love, but it's tough love n' floods god' into, 'I'm still awesome and almighty, only slightly more kid friendly now yay!'

Above is a -gross- simplification, and I'm sure, highly inaccurate, however, that is still the correct gist imo, even if my tone seems a little hostile.

 

[Alex_P]

By the by...isn't that not how it works anyway?

Yup. Even if you accept every single thing in the Bible as divinely inspired and beyond reproach, you're still left with a lot of stuff you have to interpret or extrapolate for yourself. So, at best -- if a Christian God exists and if the Bible is an accurate representation of his "Word" and if your fallible, sinful mind didn't misunderstand something when you read it -- it's still more like a set of "general commonalities" (plus a somewhat haphazard set of specifics tailored to guiding an ancient agrarian society) rather than a complete "moral unification."

-- Alex

 

[Anarchemitis]

To whoever thinks Christians live by "blind faith":

• [sup]7[/sup]"We live by faith, not by sight."
  2 Corinthians 5:7

 

[Redlac]

Gothmogil,

A quick skim of an online concordance reveals that torture doesn't feature that much in the Old Testament. Lots of outright killing though, for murder, rape and the like. Torture appears lots in the New Testament, but that refers to those being persecuted for their beliefs.

The only thing I can think of that's anywhere near torture in the OT is:

Leviticus 24:19-21 (New International Version)

19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

Meanwhile, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to give to Caesar what was his and to God what is his. Basically, Church and state shouldn't really mix, to which I agree. The apostles also write that the authorities, whether good or bad are there because of God, so we should respect them and let them handle all the governmental stuff while we go about following God and so on.

War is an interesting question, to which I sought an answer whilst studying theology. My eventual, and possibly flawed answer was this: Angels, who did not fall as we did, are allowed to wage war on the fallen demons. So with that in mind, God telling people to wage war against heathens can be viewed in a different light. I'm still going to ask God why he felt it necessary though.

Also.. what was the name of the claymation from where you got your avatar? I remember it from years ago and I can't remember the name of it to track it down! I know it had Mark Twain and some kids and something about a balloon..

 

[Amund]

Does to OP still answer Questions?

 

[GothmogII]

Spoiler: snip

Gothmogil,

A quick skim of an online concordance reveals that torture doesn't feature that much in the Old Testament. Lots of outright killing though, for murder, rape and the like. Torture appears lots in the New Testament, but that refers to those being persecuted for their beliefs.

The only thing I can think of that's anywhere near torture in the OT is:

Leviticus 24:19-21 (New International Version)

19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

Meanwhile, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to give to Caesar what was his and to God what is his. Basically, Church and state shouldn't really mix, to which I agree. The apostles also write that the authorities, whether good or bad are there because of God, so we should respect them and let them handle all the governmental stuff while we go about following God and so on.

War is an interesting question, to which I sought an answer whilst studying theology. My eventual, and possibly flawed answer was this: Angels, who did not fall as we did, are allowed to wage war on the fallen demons. So with that in mind, God telling people to wage war against heathens can be viewed in a different light. I'm still going to ask God why he felt it necessary though.

Also.. what was the name of the claymation from where you got your avatar? I remember it from years ago and I can't remember the name of it to track it down! I know it had Mark Twain and some kids and something about a balloon..

Mmm, thank you for answering that somewhat. As for my avatar, it's uhm...'Satan' from The Adventures of Mark Twain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Mark_Twain_(1985_film)

*kaff*....

 

[Low Frost]

This thread goes on and on, whilst mine gets locked. Where is the justice?
Oh well, this thread is a fascinating read by it's own right.

 

[TheDean]

Ironic? Probably. But i never said there is nothing good to take form the bible. I just sid the stories are less-than believable. And what i was trying to get at is simple: i don't hit you in your face because i don't want someone to hit me in the face. I don't hurt others because i wouldn't like it in reverse. Good and bad don't come into it.

Are you kidding me, Dean? You must be.

You don't hit people because you don't want to get his because it would be BAD for you. Good and bad have everything to do with it. In fact, they are at the CORE of it.

Bad for me, ok. But what i mean is i'm not using a kind of universal this is good to do, this is a bad thing, etc.

 

[Baby Tea]

Bad for me, ok. But what i mean is i'm not using a kind of universal this is good to do, this is a bad thing, etc.

Who is talking about universal morality? I would say it doesn't exist in a non-theist worldview (Though other have been arguing differently as of late). I'm saying fair and unfair are the same as good or bad, which you say doesn't exist, therefore the same treatment goes for 'fairness'. You haven't shown me how they are different.

 

[TheDean]

Bad for me, ok. But what i mean is i'm not using a kind of universal this is good to do, this is a bad thing, etc.

Who is talking about universal morality? I would say it doesn't exist in a non-theist worldview (Though other have been arguing differently as of late). I'm saying fair and unfair are the same as good or bad, which you say doesn't exist, therefore the same treatment goes for 'fairness'. You haven't shown me how they are different.

Maybe i never will. I can't describe it, but it seems different to me. Fair isn't the best word to use, i am just going with this. Don't do something to someone else that you don't want asomeone to do to you. I can't put it any simpler. It doesn't matter what that thing is, whether it is good or bad, fair or unfair.

 

[TheDean]

Does to OP still answer Questions?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH! i think he gave up on that on like page 3. This has since become an extension to the original thread.

 

[Amund]

Does to OP still answer Questions?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH! i think he gave up on that on like page 3. This has since become an extension to the original thread.

poor guy.... <_<