Delete comment from: Debunking Christianity
Bluemongoose,
I am not a psychic, but I knew that you'd flip that "don't diss belief systems unfamiliar to you" charge upon me. The answer, of course, is that I was a Christian for my entire life up until the last year, and for most of that year, I have been engaging many Christians such as yourself in discussions about religion. So I do know the territory.
As I have discussed in another thread, I believe that morality is conditional, not relativistic. That is, the conditions can be close to absolute. If an outcome is desired for a certain scenario, the action will most likely be the same for me and for someone else.
"Benefit of ultimate punishment and reward: Good behavior derived from fear of punishment and unspoiled kids without entitlement issues."
What? If we end up in hell for one finite life of mistakes, with no chance to apply those lessons, then what exactly have we learned? Then the whole project is just futile, isn't it? One life of mistake, bam, then you're damned. So such learning wouldn't really matter in the end if ultimate punishment and reward is the outcome.
Also, it is better to have people act because of fear of punishment, or is it better that people act out of deeply rooted ethical principles or from universal concern and empathy for others?
Christians love to ask, how can you look at Martin Luther King Jr. and not be inspired by his Christian faith? The thing is, he recognized that he had solidarity with all of humanity. He acted not because of reward and punishment, but because of his tremendous empathy for humankind. His moral principles were even deeper than those ascribed by his religion.
"You're leaving out the age-old practice of the older generation passing on knowledge to younger generations. Also, the young can visually see mistakes made by their elders and learn that way. You limit things too much."
What does that have to do with the idea of ultimate punishment/reward? This is tangential - you're changing the subject on me. Does the older generation passing on concepts to the younger generation really have *anything* to do with what we were talking about? There is nothing I said which opposes the idea that moral precepts should be shared between generations.
However, the morals that are shared between generations are imperfect - our morality is constantly being revised. A European elder of today might say that all killing is wrong, even capital punishment. A European elder of the 18th century might argue that it's legitimate to hang someone for stealing a loaf of bread. This point is tangential at best, but it still works better for my argument.
"Uncontrollable factors. If we believe God is not a human and, therefore, doesn't have the same limitations we humans do, why do you believe reaching millions of Muslims is too hard for Him?"
Quick to judge, eh? I don't believe "judge not, lest ye be judged". I believe "apply your discernment to everything". You've got to judge and be judged - or how do you function? But I should've given you the benefit of the doubt here. I apologize.
Why do I believe that reaching over a billion Muslims is too hard for God? Could it be that more Christians converted to Islam than the reverse? Whatever he's doing, it doesn't appear to be working, so that is a practical justification for you.
Also, if belief is somewhat determined by who your parents are and where you are born (even if the chances are only slightly greater that you will not be a Christian), then it is not loving to judge that person who has even a slightly greater chance of not believing due to uncontrollable factors on the same level as someone born elsewhere.
Riddle (me) this: maybe God is limited by our free will?
Free will, eh?
Then riddle me this: did you choose to be born where you are? Did you choose your parents? Did you choose what country/society you were born in? Just a thought.
Jul 1, 2009, 12:34:12 PM