Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2011, 01:33 PM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
(26-08-2011 09:22 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Doc.

Thank you for contextualising your beliefs to within the US.

OK. Now where talking real talk.

Rob Bell is the pastor of an Evangelical megachurch called Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville Michigan. And you are absolutely right. Many in the American Evangelical community are quite upset with him. But that's because he's creating a schism within the Evangelical church. Some Evangelicals denounce him as a heretic preaching false gospel, other Evangelicals embrace him. The reason this schism exists is because within Evangelical theology, the idea that Gandhi and everyone who has never heard of Jesus will burn in hell has become widespread. So if you wanna harp on the Evangelical church for forgiving a mass murderer and letting him into heaven while damning Gandhi to hell, go right ahead. All of that being said, know for fact, as demonstrated by pastor Bell, that there is a movement within the Evangelical church to move away from such theology.

It's interesting that you bring up purgatory because that proves that Catholics do not believe Gandhi is in hell. Purgatory is a place where those who do not know Jesus and those who are repentant for their sins but did not have a chance to confess (last rites) go to be purified so they can then ascend to Heaven and be in God's love. Probably not the most pleasant place, but it is certainly not hell.

So yes, it is a minority position (as far as I know) within the Evangelical church. So yes, your anecdotal experiences just happen to be accurate because you're surrounded by Evangelicals. But if we are talking about Christianity as a whole, as a category that includes over 38 000 denominations, one cannot say that the vast majority of those denominations share that part of Evangelical theology (I have no idea what the actual ratio is).

So the point is proved doubly. A schism exists within Evangelical theology and not all denominations believe that all those who do not accept Jesus, for whatever reason, regardless of their character, will go to hell.

With a little luck, Rob Bell's theology will spread within the Evangelical church.


The problem with the idea of 38,000 denominations is that they claim themselves true while 37,999 are false. You can never say my ideals are the true way to Christ.

[Image: buddhasig.png]
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” ~ Gautama Buddha
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 06:43 PM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
(26-08-2011 09:22 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Is it right to forgive a mass murderer if they repent and accept Jesus? I say yes.

Does it make me a bad person if I say "no"? There are certain actions for which you can never apologize and for which their is no forgiveness.

As for the issue at hand: Ghost, Stark - I think you are both missing the point here. Whether or not there are sects of Christianity that reject the idea that a serial killer can be accepted into heaven solely by accepting Jesus as his savior is irrelevant. What is relevant to the point is that there are those who do and they are offering this scumbag the solace that his sins, and specifically his murder of innocent women, is forgiven and all is now right in his world. He's been offered his sense of salvation. And, this is not some rogue sect of Christianity that has this view. According to a 2008 Gallup poll, 40% of the US population believe the bible is literally true. It's a sure bet that a large percentage of that population will take the view that Berkowitz is now "saved" and heaven bound, while that same population will also believe that people like Ghandi are in hell or purgatory. Is the percentage that believes this 25%? 35%? I really don't know or care.

Personally, I've got a life and am not overly concerned about the mental health and psychologically well being of serial killers. As long as we keep people like that locked up until they are worm food, I'm good. The rest of it is really irrelevant to me. But, since we are on the topic I do think it's worth pointing out that the numbers game here is just not a valid argument against Doc's point.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 09:06 PM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
Hey, Doc.

Sure?

Hey, BnW.

It doesn't make you a bad person... I guess. It does mean that I disagree with you though.

I think you created a point. I don't think anyone was talking about Christians rejecting salvation for murderers. That being said, they're not just handing out forgiveness like candy. The person needs to repent and be remorseful. That might not mean anything to you but it’s important to me.

I don't get what you mean about the numbers game.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2011, 11:38 PM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
(26-08-2011 09:06 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Doc.

Sure?

How you do you prove that your way is the true way to Christ and all others are false?

[Image: buddhasig.png]
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” ~ Gautama Buddha
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2011, 06:33 AM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
(26-08-2011 09:22 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Sines.

You harp about Biblical literalism, but the fact is, THEY are the ones in the minority, not the other way around.

Ugh, I'm almost ready to give up. I just can't make my point clear to you.

Quote:Most Christian theology is based on interpretations of the Bible. Accept it. Call it cherry picking, call it eveidencelss, call it stupid, it's what is. Any theories that fail to accept that are simply rejecting observation.

Duh. This is not a shock to me. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying they shouldn't do it, based on what else they believe. I'm sure you can turn up some exceptions. I know there are people who are more consistent. But they're not here, they're not the majority and they're not who I'm talking about. If you ask the average christian whether or not the bible is the word of god (figurative or literal) they will say yes. And then they're stuck with why they ignore some parts of what they admit is the word of god.

That's my problem. Most christians believe in contradictory things. By raising evil bible passages, I hope to shock them into realizing that this is not the word of a kind and loving god. Maybe they'll at least stop accepting it as 100% true. But once they do that, they'll be stuck with the dilemma of why they believe in the radical claims of miracles, but not in the holy endorsement of all that killing. Eventually, these people get down to believing in God for even less reason than they had before, since they can't even trust the bible. Now, all they have is personal feelings, most of the time.

It's getting to be that the only requirement for being a christian these days is to believe that a man called Jesus, who may or may not have been a god or just a moral teacher, existed. Hell, I bet you can find a few people who call themselves christians who don't even neccesarily believe Jesus existed, but that it doesn't matter, in the same way that Socrates existence is irrelevant. Call me crazy, but I think religions should be a little more exclusive.

So, stop raising the exceptions to the rule. I wasn't talking about the people who think the Bible is a collection of historical documents written by humans about their encounters with the divine. I was talking about people who will say they believe the bible is the word of god, but flat out ignore plain and simply spoken passages. Stuff that cannot be interpreted as anything other than what they say by anyone even remotely honest. People who, rather than changing their belief that the bible is the word of a loving god, just pretend the horrible passages don't exist. That's who I was criticizing. Okay?

Quote:Now. I really don't know what you're saying about beliefs because I haven't expressed any. I find that truly puzzling. To answer your question, I am an Agnostic.

Obviously you're agnostic. But that doesn't tell me what you actually believe on the topic. You seem to be an extremely agnostic theist. A 3 on the Dawkins scale, so to speak. Just barely on the god side of "50/50 chance of god or no god". Part of the reason why I wanted to know is so that I could get a hold of some actual belief to talk about it. Because when I talked about christians, you kept raising the exceptions. You were basically not letting me talk generally, so I wanted the position you were defending to be specified so I knew what I was up against. Now I know you're just playin' devils advocate for the most part. Which is infuriating, because you won't let me talk generally, but you also aren't really raising any specific things to talk about either. And because liberal christians believe what they want to believe, I have no real way to guess at what an average liberal christian believes, so that I can talk about that.

I'm stuck in friggin' limbo here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2011, 08:07 AM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
Maybe this will help Sines case. The abrahamic religions are the largest appeal to authority the western civilization seems to have. From god to priests there are many hierarchical tiers for people to turn to in understanding the questions they don't want to think about. Generally the extreme cherry picker (all christians cherry pick but some do it in leaps and bounds) is more listening to their preacher discuss his views of biblical truth than looking at the real basis of the bible. This tends to hold true because during church no one questions and discusses with the preacher. He will sit on his pulpit and give a "lesson" which he has deemed useful for his congregation. Many will listen and some will disagree, but no one will really discuss it. This is because he is an authority figure and he has a right to thrust his views on the rest of us due to his closeness to god. Even members that seek different churches due to disagreements never really put the preacher into question, he is a man above reproach.

This is where literalists and moderates actually break in an interesting way. The literalist sees the book as his answer to life and the preacher as his guide helping him to see the truth. In this way all literalists while having many varying opinions on what's important have a similar way of thinking. The moderates see the book as a useful tome of secrets which they can use to find answers, but see the real answers as being those stated by the preacher who has the understanding of how best to interpret things. In this way moderates are more willing to accept bullshit than literalists.

The reason this matters outside of Sines issue with cognitive dissonance is because those who are most willing to listen to a preacher and simply accept what he says are most willing to support bigoted ideas, and fall into many other pit traps from the many charismatic "leaders" using appeals to emotion for personal gain. The literalist actually holds them a bit more credulous than the moderate in many cases because they see every instance as a reason to review that persons statement against the word of god. The moderate after determining that this charismatic person has been right in the past will accept the next thing that is said.

Yes literalists are extremists who put religion in a higher priority level than really should be done, but due to this they are more capable of following their views when interacting with things besides religion. A moderate is more likely to accept something simply based on someone else's authority within the secular world. This is a way that the moderates actually become more of sheep than their extremist counterparts. Which I'm sure everyone has known for a long time. Extremism is a small amount of any existence, no matter what there will be more moderates than extremists. The moderates however are the ones being influenced and controlled, so when push comes to shove it is their malleability which leads to many of the truly distasteful aspects of religions of personal gain.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
28-08-2011, 12:22 AM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
Hey, Doc.

You don't.

Hey, Sines.

Your tactic works fine for Bible thumpers. But only for them.

My contention is that the Biblical literalists are the exception to the rule, therefore, I'm not bringing up exceptions.

I see what you're criticising. I just don't agree with your criticism.

I am not a Theist. I am an Agnostic. On the Dawkins scale I would be a four. I don't know why you think I'm a Theist. I've never once expressed anything that could be construed as belief in God.

I don't like to play devil's advocate. It's not worth anyone's time. I have a clear position that I promote and defend.

At the moment, my position is clear. Not all Christians believe that Gandhi is in hell. That’s my position for no other reason than it’s factual.

Hey, Lilith.

Quote:A moderate is more likely to accept something simply based on someone else's authority within the secular world. This is a way that the moderates actually become more of sheep than their extremist counterparts.

I don't think I could disagree more.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2011, 07:31 AM
RE: Born again logic with "Son of Sam" Killer
I'm just going by experience Ghost =p The crazies might be crazy but they know what they want. The moderates aren't really crazy but they are used to authority figures and often give reverence to them. People who don't make hardline decisions are the people who are willing to shift their ideas, in essence that makes them the sheep. The hardline yes and no are the people who you kill off or find a use for in a totalitarian government (whichever is against you). The world is full of people who don't make definite choices and the ones referred to as sheep are these people, because an appeal to emotion is enough to alter their opinions and sway their choices.

Her statement about the danger of believing in the ridiculous is on the fact that if you base your life on the ridiculous you are likely to make irrational choices. Not irrational for everyone but extremely contradictory even for yourself. Being a hardline christian means you know what you want and you're not going to be swayed, but being a moderate means you're perfectly willing to go both ways.

Realize how many people in the world do not go through all the trying pains that you do to attain the middle ground. Most people who are more in the middle are only there because they haven't decided, not because it is important for them to stay in the middle. The majority of the world could care less about the middle ground in practice, many like it in ideals but they'll never fight for their ideals.

There are many christians who make completely contradictory choices in life and these people would be the ones who follow their preacher over the bible generally. The hardliners are pretty set in their ways and know what they want. How does this make the ones willing to do something new dangerous? Cults and unifying ideas are the bait for the middle ground and can often launch huge issues. Of course there's no way to stop a large number of the population from not having a hardline answer, but that doesn't make them immensely better than those that do. It leads to it's own quite dangerous problems.

By the way I kept christian in there since it was the thread topic but I'm in many cases discussing the middle ground. It's good to have one but there aren't many staunch defenders of it. You made a choice to be in the middle Ghost, guess how many other people actually chose that.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: