[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by Bobifier)
Oh. You should have - I was right.

In your own esteem/opinion. For the little it's worth, I understood the post and thought it was beautiful and highly pertinent. Flowery and poetic, no doubt, but it was highly relevant and made some very important points

[Bobifier]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
In your own esteem/opinion. For the little it's worth, I understood the post and thought it was beautiful and highly pertinent. Flowery and poetic, no doubt, but it was highly relevant and made some very important points

We both know that's not true. Except the flowery bit. It was definitely flowery.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by Bobifier)
We both know that's not true. Except the flowery bit. It was definitely flowery.

What reason would I have for lying about my opinion?

[Mequa]

(Original post by Lilio Candidior)
Many of us do try our best to be loving, really, we try our best to do what is righteous in the eyes of the Lord. The thing is, it is obviously, painfully not enough. Even our best efforts att loving-kindness towards God and our fellow man is not enough to heal the bleeding wounds of this world. It is not even enough to heal our own wounds, and we walk bleeding through life. At least we are still walking.

I know I can't speak for everyone, but as I draw on my experiences together with other brothers and sisters in faith I can say that many are acutely aware of their shortcomings. No matter how hard we have tried to be the mildest and meekest, no matter how much time and money we have given away, no matter how intense our prayer is for others well-being are. The meek one turns his meekness into a thing of pride, and still has wrath in his heart for those who abuse his good nature or mock his faith. The charitable one gives away, how much was it again? If 10%, why not 20%? If 20%, why not 30%? Why not give everything you own to the poor? And the prayerful one, when he honestly reviews his prayer, finds that he prays far more for himself than for others.

Do you know what happends next, Mequa? We despair. We despair at our shortcomings, and that even when we exert ourselves, we are still part in the fallenness and suffering of this world. So, why are you so concerned with showing Christians what they already know in their hearts? What do you want us to say for our deficiency in the virtue-department? For whatever you can accuse us of, Mequa, our hearts have already put forward that accusation. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

What can the poor soul do then, strained of the burden of striving for moral excellence with certainty of an inevitable failure? To who would we go, if not to the one who has the words of eternal life? (John 6:68) For he who speaks those words of eternal life is also bleeding and broken, and with blood does he seal his community with poor sinners, who he welcomes into his body as a place of repose. And he does not accuse us when we come to him, he does not reject us for failing to uphold the high standards of virtue, for "the sacrifice you desire is a broken spirit. You will not reject a broken and repentant heart, O God." (Ps. 51:17). And there we are. Still sinning. Still hoping. Still believing. Still walking.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30)

The main problem with your post, Candidor, is that the same argument could be used to justify the behaviour of the Pharisees. Something completely at odds with Jesus' teachings.

Sure, in the Gospel the Pharisees are portrayed as arrogant and not viewing themselves as sinners. But in this respect, what is the difference between them and the majority of contemporary Christians? I'm sure many Pharisees were happy to put on the pious front and view themselves as sinners, but in arrogantly viewing themselves as better than others (compare the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector with many modern Christians' attitudes towards homosexuals), such piety is demonstrated to be false.

Of course, you could argue that Christians are saved despite being grave sinners, while the Pharisees, while being no more arrogant and hypocritical than many, many Christians, get a one-way ticket to the eternal barbeque. But this just seems like a case of special pleading.

So to claim that Christians are just broken sinners saved by God's grace, while the Gospel clearly shows Jesus condemning the Pharisees to Hell for the same sin, does seem extremely inconsistent. If you are to take what Jesus said about the Pharisees seriously, the only reasonable conclusion seems to be, not that many Christians are saved anyway, but that they are going to Hell just like the Pharisees. At least if God is both just (consistent) AND had the intention of punishing the Pharisees.

Consider the message given out to the world about Christianity by the acts of Christians. Many outside Christianity consider it an incredibly hypocritical religion, and in my view it would be unfair to say that the real-world behaviour of Christians played no considerable part in this. So not only are such Christians practicing behaviour which Jesus claimed leads to Hell, they are making Christianity look bad. And have succeeded in the latter to a very great extent. So the behaviour goes beyond mere fallibility into outright Pharisaism.

"Nobody's perfect, we are all sinners." Sure, so were the Pharisees. Why shouldn't both (Pharisees and arrogant, hypocritical Christians) share the same fate, if we are to be consistent about what the Gospel teaches?

[Lilio Candidior]

(Original post by Mequa)
The main problem with your post, Candidor, is that the same argument could be used to justify the behaviour of the Pharisees. Something completely at odds with Jesus' teachings.

Sure, in the Gospel the Pharisees are portrayed as arrogant and not viewing themselves as sinners. But in this respect, what is the difference between them and the majority of contemporary Christians? I'm sure many Pharisees were happy to put on the pious front and view themselves as sinners, but in arrogantly viewing themselves as better than others (compare the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector with many modern Christians' attitudes towards homosexuals), such piety is demonstrated to be false.

Of course, you could argue that Christians are saved despite being grave sinners, while the Pharisees, while being no more arrogant and hypocritical than many, many Christians, get a one-way ticket to the eternal barbeque. But this just seems like a case of special pleading.

So to claim that Christians are just broken sinners saved by God's grace, while the Gospel clearly shows Jesus condemning the Pharisees to Hell for the same sin, does seem extremely inconsistent. If you are to take what Jesus said about the Pharisees seriously, the only reasonable conclusion seems to be, not that many Christians are saved anyway, but that they are going to Hell just like the Pharisees. At least if God is both just (consistent) AND had the intention of punishing the Pharisees.

Consider the message given out to the world about Christianity by the acts of Christians. Many outside Christianity consider it an incredibly hypocritical religion, and in my view it would be unfair to say that the real-world behaviour of Christians played no considerable part in this. So not only are such Christians practicing behaviour which Jesus claimed leads to Hell, they are making Christianity look bad. And have succeeded in the latter to a very great extent. So the behaviour goes beyond mere fallibility into outright Pharisaism.

"Nobody's perfect, we are all sinners." Sure, so were the Pharisees. Why shouldn't both (Pharisees and arrogant, hypocritical Christians) share the same fate, if we are to be consistent about what the Gospel teaches?

You are making two assumptions, and one grave error in your reply to me.

The first assumption is that I am trying to justify the behavior of Christians. I am not. If the aim of your OP was to point out the hypocrisy and moral flaws of Christians, then you did a pretty good job of it in my opinion. Then again, it's not much news that sinners sin, is it? However, if your aim was to also discredit the Christian faith by saying that the moral flaws of Christians implies the falseness of the faith, or at least that the faith upheld by Christians isn't genuine, then that is misplaced criticism almost to the point of comedy. As I have said before, pointing out moral flaws in members of a religion that believes that all of humanity is fallen and in need of saving serves nothing but to support our beliefs. You must admit that it's pretty funny that you seem completely unaware that you confirm the Christian world-view with almost every post you make. If you aim to criticise Christianity, then you are making a pretty poor job of it.

The second assumption is that I, since I reject that we are saved through virtuous acts, must therefore believe that we are saved through adherence to certain dogma. That is a false assumption, as I believe that we are saved by grace through faith alone, and faith is something other than dry adherence to beliefs. I would describe it more in terms of the poverty of the heart which longs for God like the hart longs for fresh water, it is a hunger and a thirst which can only be satiated by the Bread of Life which has come down from heaven (John 6:51). It is something primal, bodily almost, which draws us into union with the body that is the Life and the Resurrection. It is that union which carries us to salvation. Not through our own efforts, but through Jesus only. Therefore I am not as willing to throw the pharisees into the fire as much as you seem to be, Mequa, as their fate is ultimately unknown to us, and the strange and awesome mercy of God tends to challange our expectations in the most curious of ways.

The most conspicous flaws in your debating is that you do not seem to follow what implications a certain argument has. For example, when I say that we are saved despite our sin, the natural implication of that is that the pharisees also can be saved despite their sin. However, you seem to assume that the implication of my argument is that pharisees must go to hell due to their sin, which really doesn't follow at all. If the pharisees are condemned, it would not be through their hypocrisy (as you say, there's plenty of that to go around), but through their rejection of the Kingdom of God. God's intention was obviously not to punish the pharisees, but to save them, just like everyone else. If you wish to put forward an effective counter-argument, then you need to correctly identified the implications of the first one, otherwise you will just look confused, as is the case here.

So, the question remains, Mequa, why are you so anxious pointing out the obvious sinfulness of Christians when that simply confirms a Christian world-view? It serves no purpose, except perhaps for fostering a smug, self-righteous attitude among your fellow sceptics.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Mequa)
According to Jesus, Matthew 5:11-12 (New International Version):

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Following Jesus' teachings, then, do you as a Christian rejoice when you are persecuted for your beliefs?

Hello Mequa,

This is a very interesting, thought-provoking question, a really good one. I have to say that Christians are humans. If a Christian does not look at the big picture, it is hard to rejoice at being persecuted. Persecution in itself is not fun, which is why most people would prefer to avoid it, and which is why many people by God's grace strive to rescue other people from persecution.

Or do you get offended and demand respect and tolerance, something surely not in line with the words of Jesus above?

Well, I don't believe that demanding respect and tolerance is against rejoicing in persecution. The reason I don't believe that is because Jesus himself was not a doormat. He did scold the religious leaders of his day. He did not kill or teach killing of those who persecuted him or who would persecute his followers, but he most definitely showed that persecution is not right. It is important to understand that Jesus' teaching in the passage above is to encourage his followers not to give up and simply stop following him when they are being persecuted.

In the same passage (the famed Sermon on the Mount), Jesus goes on to say (Matthew 5:38-40): "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."

So by following Jesus, when you are persecuted for your beliefs, do you "turn the other cheek" and refuse to resist or fight back at all (by objecting to such treatment or persecution), or do you find it more prudent to flout Jesus' command and angrily claim the entitlement to tolerance and respect thing so commonly seen in today's society?

First, I am curious if you are a Christian. Christians are not to be doormats, but rather to fight against injustice. However, this fight against injustice is not a physical battle against other people. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, that does not mean "and keep your mouth shut" It means to not hit back and to offer peace. Usually, only people with little understanding/empathy would strike again a person who is not striking them back.

Or do you, as a matter of fact, see both above Scriptural verses as merely symbolic, and thus not to be followed as written, while taking claims such as that of Balaam's talking donkey as literal historical fact? (Numbers 22:28)

I see them as literal. However, I obviously interpret them differently than you. I interpret them to mean not to physically fight back. However, thank God that Christians have been spiritually and verbally fighting persecution and injustice (not just for Christians, but for other people as well, such as William Wilberforce fighting for justice by making slavery illegal). For people who understand Jesus' teachings, it is important that Jesus did not physically fight, yet he fought spiritually and verbally. Gandhi, a Hindu man, followed Jesus' example, not fighting persecution and oppression of his people with physical violence, but rather with kindness, demanding mutual respect. Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian man, also fought against oppression and inequality of his people not with violence, but with verbally demanding mutual respect.

Or do you prefer a more Pharisaical approach of practical application of hypocrisy, claiming that you are merely a sinner so God can forgive you for angrily objecting to persecution,

Do you believe it is sin for African Americans to protest persecution, oppression and inequality and slavery? If so, then that is between you and God. Objecting to persecution in any form is not a sin. What is a sin is striking back with violence and hatred in one's heart. Jesus' teaching to rejoice in persecution and to offer the other cheek teaches his followers to not resort to violence.

as you have otherwise dotted your theological i's and crossed your theological t's, in effect (by believing without showing the aforementioned "fruit of the Spirit") having "strained out the gnat but swallowed the camel"? (Matthew 23:24)

Again, I am curious if you are a Christian. If you are a Christian, then it is important for each Christian to judge himself/herself, and let God judge other Christians. If you are not a Christian, I do not see how it matters to you one way or another?

I would be interested to see a Christian perspective on this, as I am yet to see a Christian follow Jesus' words in rejoicing about being persecuted, refusing to give any resistance and seeing this as a grand blessing.

I am curious if you know that Jesus questioned being hit during questioning by the high priest. Please note that Jesus opened his mouth and protested the injustice, yet he did not strike back.

John 18 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=TNIV
(I boldened some.)

"19 Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

20 “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21 Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”

22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.

23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest."

Jesus, by the way, offered his cheek (and his body) to more physical abuse/torture, but he did not strike back.

More often in my experience, I've seen Christians get bent out of shape about merely having illogical aspects of their doctrines pointed out (after they put them on the table, no less), which is hardly persecution, yet many Christians both claim persecution in such cases and angrily complain about it. This confuses me, as even if it was genuine persecution (which it is not), shouldn't a real follower of Christ see this as a cause for rejoicing rather than something to complain about? After all, "great is your reward in heaven".

Again, that is a great question, but I hope you understand that protesting against injustice, whether injustice against oneself or injustice against other people (like the slaves who many Christians fought to rescue from slavery both in the UK and the USA) as well as protesting against the horrible treatment/genocide of Jewish people, is not against rejoicing in persecution. It is important to remember that Jesus told his disciples to rejoice in persecution so that they would not give up when persecution came. Rejoicing in persecution does not mean protesting against persecution, but rather to not persecute back. Jesus' command of turning the other cheek does not mean to not protest abuse, but rather to not abuse back. Many Christians all over the world are used by God to rescue people who are abused and persecuted, but they are not to abuse/persecute back.

Peace and God bless you

[Mequa]

(Original post by Lilio Candidior)
However, if your aim was to also discredit the Christian faith by saying that the moral flaws of Christians implies the falseness of the faith, or at least that the faith upheld by Christians isn't genuine, then that is misplaced criticism almost to the point of comedy.

(Original post by James 2:14-26 (NKJV))
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I know the above passage is quite difficult for Lutherans in particular to reconcile with their "sola fide" theology. But it's there.

(Original post by Lilio Candidior)
Therefore I am not as willing to throw the pharisees into the fire as much as you seem to be, Mequa, as their fate is ultimately unknown to us

Not me, Lilio. I don't even believe in Hell. But I think Jesus was pretty clear about the fate of the Pharisees:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" - Matthew 23:33 (NIV)

(Original post by Lilio Candidior)
So, the question remains, Mequa, why are you so anxious pointing out the obvious sinfulness of Christians when that simply confirms a Christian world-view?

See the quote from James above (if you can stomach it as a Lutheran). There's also this pertinent passage:

"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:16-20, NIV)

I've seen you attempt to get Martin Luther off the hook as merely a fallible sinner, using the same reasoning as above. Luther was every bit a vicious anti-semite as Adolf Hitler, and a huge inspiration for the Holocaust itself. Was he merely a fallible sinner, by Jesus' own words above, or (as an actual religious leader) an actual "bad tree" producing "rotten fruit" (e.g. massive historical suffering of Jews) worthy of being "thrown into the fire"?

Sure, Lutheranism today isn't anti-semitic, but one could make the same arguments for following a brand of neo-Nazism as for following Lutherism. Take, for example, David Myatt's "reformed ethical" brand of neo-Nazism which he called "Reichsfolk". Reichsfolk attempts to purge the worst of the racist elements from Hitler's ideology, while still venerating Hitler himself as a great (though fallible) man. Should we consider following it? If not, why Lutherism? Luther and Hitler were both sinners, sinners sin, sure, but why let one rabid anti-semite off the hook and perpetuate his ideas, while condemning another? (Before anyone calls "Godwin's Law", try actually looking up Luther's book "On The Jews and their Lies", and his real historical influence on Hitler).

Furthermore, the take home message I got from many Christians is, "I'm saved. You're screwed." A manifestation of the Kingdom of God and Fruit of the Spirit (in fallible form) - or "rotten fruit" from a "bad tree" and "brood of vipers" with a "dead faith" destined to be "condemned" and "thrown into the fire"? I guess it all depends which Bible verses you want to emphasise! Which at least shows the flaws in Biblical exegesis as a method of arriving at truth.

The Bible may well be more like a Rorschach inkblot than believers like to admit, where the interpretation read into it is largely a product of what the particular believer is inclined to see. At least the likes of Westboro Baptist with their "God Hates Fags" message aren't watering down what the Bible teaches (in both the Old and New Testaments) about homosexuality and hell - although it might not be the best advertisement for the faith. Hence fundamentalists hate them as much as liberal believers - it makes them look bad!

[Lilio Candidior]

(Original post by Mequa)
I know the above passage is quite difficult for Lutherans in particular to reconcile with their "sola fide" theology. But it's there.



Not me, Lilio. I don't even believe in Hell. But I think Jesus was pretty clear about the fate of the Pharisees:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" - Matthew 23:33 (NIV)



See the quote from James above (if you can stomach it as a Lutheran). There's also this pertinent passage:

"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:16-20, NIV)

I've seen you attempt to get Martin Luther off the hook as merely a fallible sinner, using the same reasoning as above. Luther was every bit a vicious anti-semite as Adolf Hitler, and a huge inspiration for the Holocaust itself. Was he merely a fallible sinner, by Jesus' own words above, or (as an actual religious leader) an actual "bad tree" producing "rotten fruit" (e.g. massive historical suffering of Jews) worthy of being "thrown into the fire"?

Sure, Lutheranism today isn't anti-semitic, but one could make the same arguments for following a brand of neo-Nazism as for following Lutherism. Take, for example, David Myatt's "reformed ethical" brand of neo-Nazism which he called "Reichsfolk". Reichsfolk attempts to purge the worst of the racist elements from Hitler's ideology, while still venerating Hitler himself as a great (though fallible) man. Should we consider following it? If not, why Lutherism? Luther and Hitler were both sinners, sinners sin, sure, but why let one rabid anti-semite off the hook and perpetuate his ideas, while condemning another? (Before anyone calls "Godwin's Law", try actually looking up Luther's book "On The Jews and their Lies", and his real historical influence on Hitler).

Furthermore, the take home message I got from many Christians is, "I'm saved. You're screwed." A manifestation of the Kingdom of God and Fruit of the Spirit (in fallible form) - or "rotten fruit" from a "bad tree" and "brood of vipers" with a "dead faith" destined to be "condemned" and "thrown into the fire"? I guess it all depends which Bible verses you want to emphasise! Which at least shows the flaws in Biblical exegesis as a method of arriving at truth.

The Bible may well be more like a Rorschach inkblot than believers like to admit, where the interpretation read into it is largely a product of what the particular believer is inclined to see. At least the likes of Westboro Baptist with their "God Hates Fags" message aren't watering down what the Bible teaches (in both the Old and New Testaments) about homosexuality and hell - although it might not be the best advertisement for the faith. Hence fundamentalists hate them as much as liberal believers - it makes them look bad!

I see that instead of engaging with my previous post and the three counter-arguments that I put forward you have chosen to abandon your positions, instead creating a new topic over the validity of Lutheranism (criticism which I have soundly refuted elsewhere, and if you'd start a thread on them I will gladly do so again). I can not see any reason for you to do this, except if you actually have no arguments to defend yourself with. Bringing up more accounts of the misdeeds of Christian will not serve you one bit if you don't meet the arguments put forward. You debate like a broadcaster, repeating the same thing over and over again in vain hope of that the sheer repetition of your argument will defeat the criticism put forward. Thankfully, the denizens of TSR Religion is literate enough to see that this is useless.

It is sad that our exchanges always are so one-sided, for I take little pleasure in winning debates on what is essentially a walkover.

[Florrick]

(Original post by Politricks)
Because religion has no place in the work place, and any religion which can be so hateful and offensive that it claims that people who don't agree with their view of how the world came to be deserve to go to hell, should only expect mockery.

One of the key aspirations of religion is to inspire others.


And that's not very inspiring.


If a Muslim/Christian/Jew wanted to pray (for example) during their break period at work, would you find this unacceptable?

[DoctorVertigo]

To "rejoice" at being persecuted is a bit far. Better than crying about it anyway.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Florrick)
One of the key aspirations of religion is to inspire others.


And that's not very inspiring.


If a Muslim/Christian/Jew wanted to pray (for example) during their break period at work, would you find this unacceptable?

Do you know what I don't find very inspiring about religion?
I don't find it inspiring when Muslim students feel like they have to walk out of evolution lectures or classes.
I don't find it inspiring when states like North Carolina feel they have to suppress the rights of homosexuals because their god doesn't like it.

No, it's not unacceptable for somebody to pray during a break period, they're entitled to do so should they wish.

[Florrick]

(Original post by Politricks)
Do you know what I don't find very inspiring about religion?
I don't find it inspiring when Muslim students feel like they have to walk out of evolution lectures or classes.
I don't find it inspiring when states like North Carolina feel they have to suppress the rights of homosexuals because their god doesn't like it.

This is not what I was alluding to in the first place. I was referring to your own post- "who don't agree with their view of how the world came to be deserve to go to hell".

I understand where you're coming from. It's insulting. Anyone who goes sharing this view isn't exactly inspiring their faith at all, in my opinion.

No, it's not unacceptable for somebody to pray during a break period, they're entitled to do so should they wish.

Cool.

[c.macarthur]

(Original post by Mequa)
According to the Bible itself, committing adultery and bearing false witness are just as sinful as having gay sex. Yet many (heterosexual) Christians, who just so happen to have committed the former "sins" (mea culpa, mea culpa, they say), actively express their scorn and disdain against those who practice the latter, clearly giving the impression that they see themselves as superior. I can point to a number of real-life experiences I have had of this. My dad, for example (a practicing Jehovah's Witness of 20 years) admits having broken every one of the 10 Commandments (except murder), has repeatedly committed adultery, yet eschews the popular Christian attitude of "love the sinner, hate the sin" in favour of seeing nothing wrong with actually hating homosexuals, and being highly vocal about his hatred towards this group. Presumably he feels superior to them, and a more righteous person, as do many other Christians in my experience. (They are, after all, "saved"...)


I think to many atheists, what they find offensive is not so much the concept that Hell exists. Or even that all non-believers get to go there and be tortured for eternity. The former are mere superstitions to an atheist.

No, what is found most offensive is the belief - with this process being supposedly overseen by a perfectly just, wise and benevolent being who is being worshipped - that this is fair and right, that it is somehow perfectly right and just that Christians get to enjoy eternal bliss in Heaven while all atheists get to suffer eternal pain in Hell - for an Orwellian thought crime, no less - and that the aforementioned being is taken as the pinnacle of moral rightness. That is something which warrants a critical response, in my view. It's not "intolerant" to question the moral rightness of a doctrine which condemns people to eternal torture for a thought crime, and views this as perfectly right.

But, in my view, there is something seriously objectionable in an attitude of claiming one is being persecuted for openly promoting such a doctrine of eternal damnation of all non-believers as the product of a perfectly fair, loving and good God, when such a doctrine is not as warmly received as one would personally like.

To cry "intolerance" or "bigotry" in such a case (implying one is owed more tolerance) also seems exceptionally un-Christian, given the clear admonitions of the very individual Christians claim to follow.

Firstly, thank you for having a decent, inoffensive debate.

Acts such as committing adultery and bearing false witness are indeed sinful, I wouldn't condone them either. However, I have to say telling a lie is far easier than deciding on a particular lifestyle choice. Obviously this doesn't make it right either but if someone shows remorse and truly wants to be forgiven then, according to the Bible, they will be. I've actually just had a wee look and found that I've broken at least 6 of the 10 commandments (not that they're fundamentally what it's all about) but the point is that whole Christian faith is built on the idea of God's forgiveness, thankfully.

The main problem that comes up in all of these discussions is how to actually define a Christian. A lot of us have probably seen somewhere something along the lines of 'Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you car'. Very true. This is why it's incredibly difficult to argue on behalf of 'the Church' or Christians in general. Many of these people go through the motions but in their hearts they are not Christians and this shows in their lives. They talk the talk but do not walk the walk, therefore it becomes very easy for anybody to find examples of dreadfully immoral so-called Christians (such as the ones who thought it appropriate to burn folk at the stake and such things). I imagine some Muslims have the same issue when they're all labelled as terrorists.

I am sorry that you've come across 'Christians' who feel themselves to be superior, humility is something I value greatly and which crops up in the Bible a fair few times (Proverbs 11:2 'When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.') Another main commandment of the Bible is that we should be good witnesses for the gospel, our lives should mirror our beliefs. I don't believe we can do this if we're always looking down on the people around us.

Well to go right back to the start, Hell was never meant for man, it was meant for Satan. But after he corrupted man we began to do wrong things and since God is without sin how could he just be ok with this? How can we expect to go through life doing wrong things every single day without paying for it? There are always consequences. I expect you know this but the main point of the gospel is that Jesus took this punishment for us. However, if we say we don't want to accept that and neither do we want to ask God for his forgiveness it seems pretty just to me that we should take the punishment ourselves when we die, it's not like the chance wasn't there to get out of it. It is not for merely a 'thought crime' that the punishment exists, it is for doing wrong with lack of remorse and rejecting God's love and forgiveness.

I know that to an atheist all that is completely irrelevant because they believe there is no God, no Jesus and no later punishment for their wrongdoing. I'm just trying to explain to you why I believe the things I do, it does seem pretty just to me that there should always be a consequence for something wrong and I just thank God that it's not me that has to take it.

Personally, I don't cry 'intolerance' at the first sign of debate, in fact I'm perfectly happy to discuss this, my problem is with the changing of laws and the immense pressure on all different religions to perform ceremonies or simply accept things which go against their doctrine. They shouldn't be told what to think any more than you should be forced to sit in a Church, Mosque, Synagogue and listen to preaching.

And back to the original question, the idea of rejoicing in persecution is not to get a great deal of pleasure out of being mocked or indeed tortured. If people attack you in any way it is because they have recognised a difference in you. If you're a Christian then as I said, witnessing is extremely important, so the fact that people are noticing the way in which you choose to live your life shows that you have been successful to some extent. And we do rejoice in doing God's work.

[Mequa]

(Original post by c.macarthur)
if we say we don't want to accept that and neither do we want to ask God for his forgiveness it seems pretty just to me that we should take the punishment ourselves when we die, it's not like the chance wasn't there to get out of it. It is not for merely a 'thought crime' that the punishment exists, it is for doing wrong with lack of remorse and rejecting God's love and forgiveness.

Let me quote David Hume on this point:

(Original post by On the Immortality of the Soul)
Punishment, without any proper end or purpose, is inconsistent with our ideas of goodness and justice, and no end can be served by it after the whole scene is closed. Punishment, according to our conception, should bear some proportion to the offence. Why then eternal punishment for the temporary offences of so frail a creature as man? Can any one approve of Alexander's rage, who intended to exterminate a whole nation because they had seized his favorite horse Bucephalus?

If the doctrine (mythology) put forward was finite punishment for finite sin, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

The problem is, mythology (as I see it) is not merely false stories, but something which actively shapes the attitudes of the believer in it, vis-à-vis, religious bigotry.

As for "thought crime", even if all humans are born in sin, for a god to only save those with beliefs he approves of is indeed to judge on the basis of a thought crime. If, according to a doctrine, all atheists are (deservedly) damned to Hell because they (in many cases) cannot see adequate justification for belief in God, following their own conscience regarding intellectual integrity, while only believers of the correct stripe get a chance at eternal bliss, that is a pretty sickening and bigoted doctrine. I reject anyone as a personal friend who subscribes to it, for the same reasons I wouldn't be friends with a militant racist, sexist, fascist, etc. Bigotry is still bigotry, with or without a halo.

Only I would argue it is worse in the case of the fundamentalist Christian, as they actively justify the notion that it's right and just for all atheists to be tortured forever for not sharing their beliefs. Eternal torture implies infinite suffering - much worse than what Hitler or Stalin dished out. So morally speaking, one who worships a supposedly all-powerful being who they believe to oversee eternal torture (especially on the basis of belief making the difference between "a chance" and "no chance"), believing this to be totally just and deserved somehow, is not only no better than a person who idolises Hitler - he is worse. And if this bigotry is subscribed to based on dogmatic belief in the inerrancy of an old book, he is pretty deluded too. Why not treat it as a reductio ad absurdum instead, and give up on the inerrantism?

Is this persecution? No, move to North Korea if you want to experience that. Personally, I think fundamentalists deserve to have their moral stance ripped to pieces. If they want freedom to spread their message, others also deserve the freedom to counter it. Logic alone is ineffective - a combination of logic AND rhetoric is the best combination to really get the message home. I've had people on this very forum (both Christian and Muslim) tell me openly that my atheist friend who died in a car accident age 20 is now in Hell for all eternity. And that they don't care and I should run to my mother for sympathy. And that I'm a bigot myself for not showing their stance more "tolerance" (which they somehow feel entitled to). Jesus Christ.

If someone goes around pushing such a message, can't they be said to be courting hostility? And are those who object really "intolerant bigots" themselves, lacking a belief in the rightness of eternal torture in contrast?

By all means, have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean speech should be without consequence. I'm all for moderate Christians, Wiccans, Jews, Satanists etc. having freedom of worship, but the moment someone pushes the belief on me that eternal torture for all atheists is right, that my friend is damned to Hell forever and that it's only right that I follow if I don't come across to their way of thinking, they can expect their "sacred cow" to be torn apart publicly and without mercy.

[c.macarthur]

(Original post by Mequa)
Let me quote David Hume on this point:



If the doctrine (mythology) put forward was finite punishment for finite sin, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

The problem is, mythology (as I see it) is not merely false stories, but something which actively shapes the attitudes of the believer in it, vis-à-vis, religious bigotry.

As for "thought crime", even if all humans are born in sin, for a god to only save those with beliefs he approves of is indeed to judge on the basis of a thought crime. If, according to a doctrine, all atheists are (deservedly) damned to Hell because they (in many cases) cannot see adequate justification for belief in God, following their own conscience regarding intellectual integrity, while only believers of the correct stripe get a chance at eternal bliss, that is a pretty sickening and bigoted doctrine. I reject anyone as a personal friend who subscribes to it, for the same reasons I wouldn't be friends with a militant racist, sexist, fascist, etc. Bigotry is still bigotry, with or without a halo.

Only I would argue it is worse in the case of the fundamentalist Christian, as they actively justify the notion that it's right and just for all atheists to be tortured forever for not sharing their beliefs. Eternal torture implies infinite suffering - much worse than what Hitler or Stalin dished out. So morally speaking, one who worships a supposedly all-powerful being who they believe to oversee eternal torture (especially on the basis of belief making the difference between "a chance" and "no chance"), believing this to be totally just and deserved somehow, is not only no better than a person who idolises Hitler - he is worse. And if this bigotry is subscribed to based on dogmatic belief in the inerrancy of an old book, he is pretty deluded too. Why not treat it as a reductio ad absurdum instead, and give up on the inerrantism?

Is this persecution? No, move to North Korea if you want to experience that. Personally, I think fundamentalists deserve to have their moral stance ripped to pieces. If they want freedom to spread their message, others also deserve the freedom to counter it. Logic alone is ineffective - a combination of logic AND rhetoric is the best combination to really get the message home. I've had people on this very forum (both Christian and Muslim) tell me openly that my atheist friend who died in a car accident age 20 is now in Hell for all eternity. And that they don't care and I should run to my mother for sympathy. And that I'm a bigot myself for not showing their stance more "tolerance" (which they somehow feel entitled to). Jesus Christ.

If someone goes around pushing such a message, can't they be said to be courting hostility? And are those who object really "intolerant bigots" themselves, lacking a belief in the rightness of eternal torture in contrast?

By all means, have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean speech should be without consequence. I'm all for moderate Christians, Wiccans, Jews, Satanists etc. having freedom of worship, but the moment someone pushes the belief on me that eternal torture for all atheists is right, that my friend is damned to Hell forever and that it's only right that I follow if I don't come across to their way of thinking, they can expect their "sacred cow" to be torn apart publicly and without mercy.

That's just it - it comes down to whether you consider them 'false stories' or truth, a personal choice. But Christianity is not merely a source of religious bigotry, I don't consider it a coincidence that Britain was far more prosperous when it truly was a Christian country.

But think about what the Bible actually says (and therefore what we actually believe) - if somebody, during their life on earth, could not see adequate justification for God's existence then why would he want them to spend eternity in his kingdom? 'Oops. You are real...' doesn't really suffice, it's a bit late by then. And he is God after all, his approval is kind of important. To say you reject anyone as a friend who follows religious doctrine is really quite harsh, imagine my situation if I said the same of atheists or indeed homosexuals? I'd be a few mates down. Once again, I am not a bigot, I do not approve of bigotry from any religious or non-religious person so we are agreed, yes?

And I certainly hope you're not calling me a fundamentalist or worse than Hitler/Stalin simply because I believe in punishment for wrongdoing? Because I believe in justice? In loving your neighbours whatever colour/sex/or indeed sexual orientation they are even though I don't agree with the practice? I said before that the idea of hell may not be pleasant but I still believe it to be truth and I think we need to stop running from and dismissing things which horrify us. That would be like running from Hitler instead of dealing with the situation.

Of course there should be freedom to counter it but within reason! There is no harm in debate, as I said already it's the pressure to give in and simply discard parts of the Bible that I'm not ok with. Which, by the way, is a lot more than just an 'old book'. The prophesies in it are really very interesting and give it rather a lot of credibility... Quite incredible that thousands of years ago it talks about Israel's enemies attacking her from the North (I have literally just read an article about Lebanon and Syria's hostility), it says she will be lulled into a false sense of security by false treaties, what is the Western world constantly calling for even though we know a real treaty will never happen? It talks about the earth being terrified by the roaring of the seas in days to come... Sounds quite like a tsunami to me. And I don't think they had advanced meteorological equipment at their disposal. It is also historically accurate in many, many ways.

As well as this, it speaks so much wisdom - the book of Proverbs is quite incredible. It promotes values of integrity, honesty, loyalty, every good characteristic we are supposed to be... It offers fantastic advice on every situation. Certainly in my church at home we could do with reading a lot more of the Bible and a lot less of reading ridiculous wee poems and Latin chants nobody understands. (There we have many classic cases of going through the traditional motions without actually living a Christian life.)

To tell you that about your friend is simply stating a belief, to say they don't care is insensitive and cruel. But there is another benefit of faith... My uncle was killed in Iraq and I don't know how my family would have got through it without their faith, there is no substitution for the comfort it offers.

If you present your argument in a hostile manner, you will get a hostile response but you can put across Christian views without encouraging hostility. And nobody is an 'intolerant bigot' for lacking a belief but they are for insulting, trying to forcefully change or refusing to live at peace with those who have different beliefs. It works both ways.

Well that's fair enough because nobody should be 'pushing' beliefs on you. As I said already, all personal choice as it should be.

[alliwrig]

"And there is salvation in no one else: for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. " Acts 4:12

[pyjamatrousers.]

(Original post by Mequa)
According to Jesus, Matthew 5:11-12 (New International Version):

So by following Jesus, when you are persecuted for your beliefs, do you "turn the other cheek" and refuse to resist or fight back at all (by objecting to such treatment or persecution), or do you find it more prudent to flout Jesus' command and angrily claim the entitlement to tolerance and respect thing so commonly seen in today's society?

Or do you, as a matter of fact, see both above Scriptural verses as merely symbolic, and thus not to be followed as written, while taking claims such as that of Balaam's talking donkey as literal historical fact? (Numbers 22:28)

Or do you prefer a more Pharisaical approach of practical application of hypocrisy, claiming that you are merely a sinner so God can forgive you for angrily objecting to persecution, as you have otherwise dotted your theological i's and crossed your theological t's, in effect (by believing without showing the aforementioned "fruit of the Spirit") having "strained out the gnat but swallowed the camel"? (Matthew 23:24)

I would be interested to see a Christian perspective on this, as I am yet to see a Christian follow Jesus' words in rejoicing about being persecuted, refusing to give any resistance and seeing this as a grand blessing. More often in my experience, I've seen Christians get bent out of shape about merely having illogical aspects of their doctrines pointed out (after they put them on the table, no less), which is hardly persecution, yet many Christians both claim persecution in such cases and angrily complain about it. This confuses me, as even if it was genuine persecution (which it is not), shouldn't a real follower of Christ see this as a cause for rejoicing rather than something to complain about? After all, "great is your reward in heaven".

Your point is very valid but it is very difficult. Christians are humans as well you know and can't be perfect. They rely on God's grace to help them but Christians often forget God in their day to day lives. You're right, Christians should follow what Jesus said but Christians are human beings and they are not perfect.

[Mequa]

I thought this video (aimed at a certain YouTube user but applicable to many) was quite apt here, in describing those who don't demonstrably walk the walk (c.f. Galatians 5:22-23).



The video's author is most certainly not a Christian, but seems to understand the implications of the ethical prescriptions much better than many who claim the title.

If you think about it, the Galatians passage shows that while Christians are not perfect, still there much be demonstrable "fruits" to show one is actually a Christian. Saying "we are all sinners" is no excuse when a Christian does not display such fruits by, for instance, retaliating instead of turning the other cheek (which is a principle of LaVeyan Satanism, in fact).

There has to be a demonstrable and visible effect on behaviour, albeit fallible, if God's people are known by their fruits - to show they actually stand out from the mass of mankind.

"No one's perfect, we are all sinners" therefore doesn't cut it as an excuse from a Biblical standpoint, when the nominal Christian does not demonstrate fruit of the Spirit:

(Original post by Matthew 7:16-21)
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Are a group of Christians (e.g. Evangelicals) known for their hypocrisy? If so, they aren't, as a group, true followers of Christ. No other conclusion is possible if the Bible is taken as a source of beliefs.

[Mequa]

(Original post by c.macarthur)
To tell you that about your friend is simply stating a belief

On the contrary, to tell someone that their friend is being tortured forever in Hell with no chance of ever escaping, particularly simply due to the fact that they do not share one's beliefs, is EXTREMELY offensive (even for people who don't believe in Hell) and betrays a lack of compassion and empathy. It is insulting the memory of a deceased friend in the worst possible way, not "simply stating a belief". It is also likely to generate a highly hostile reaction, which is very understandable.

As an atheist and former Bible believer, I take comfort in knowing that my dead friend is now at peace, not subject to eternal suffering because he couldn't swallow a dogmatic belief. If your opinion is that he is being tortured forever, you can keep that to yourself, thank you.

I'm afraid it is bigoted and uncaring (to the extreme) to hold that everyone who doesn't share your beliefs will be justly tortured forever (overseen by an all-powerful and loving deity), and not see anything wrong with this - a compassionate person wouldn't hold to such dogma, and fully appreciate the consequences of it, without extreme heartache.

Such fundamentalist dogma is also Pharisaical in its lack of manifestation of compassion (see my last post), and there are very good reasons to reject such a dogmatic, literalist interpretation of the Bible. It's incompatible with a loving God, for one, which is why many Christians migrate towards Universalism or Annihilationism instead of swallowing a dogmatic, and highly bigoted, Fundamentalist or Evangelical exegesis.