The Problem of Hell

[Skavau]

If you believe nothing is absolutely true, why do you argue as if your position is true? Under your logic, it can't be. Everything is relative.

Concerning morality, my position is not true in the sense of being objective - but merely recommended. When I say murder and rape are wrong, I necessarily am referring to two different deliberate courses of action. I am saying they ought to be considered wrong. That you associate an behavioural constraint with reality only demonstrates your inept conflation of ought and is.

Well, I do believe in absolute truth. If I'm correct, then there is no false dichotomy. In fact, to claim that absolute truth doesn't exist creates a logical contradiction. The very statement becomes self-refuting if it is true.

Absolute truth is not known to exist with behavioural constraints in the context of a community.

Not trying to be dishonest, just trying to be orderly and neat. I'm talking to you so I just thought you'd remember what you said.Why would I quote your whole comment when I'm only addressing one of the specific points you've made? Anyone that wants to know more can reference your complete post above.

It was dishonest, because in the part that you snipped out - I had expressed that I did not accept absolute morality. You then quote the rest and ask me if this is "absolutely true?".

It is not an incapacity to be convinced. It was their choice not to believe the evidence was convincing. It's fallacious to assume that the capacity wasn't there.

Belief is not a choice. Belief is being convinced. I cannot turn around now and just 'decide' that Christianity is true - just as you could not sincerely believe that Islam is true just by sheer willpower. We could both pretend - but we would not truly believe it.

This would mean even if they felt the evidence was convincing they still wouldn't have been able to believe it.

Of course, you have no way of knowing this.

There is evidence. In fact, we all have the same evidence. We just all interpret it differently based on our various philosophical and theological perspectives. The evidence is only found to be insignificant and/or meaningless if a personal interpretation allows it to be.

Right... I don't see how this strengthens anything. God would know that some people would scoff, dismiss and not believe in vicarious redemption - due to the free-will he gave them.

A coin has two sides. God created us with free-will knowing that some would choose to love. This was the reasoning and true purpose behind free-will.

And those who end up in hell were not capable of love? If the purpose was indeed of desiring love, then perhaps he ought to take that into account of those unconvinced of his existence.

This would be true if "good" and "evil" were actual opposites and thus equal. However, just as darkness is the absence of light. Cold the absence of heat. A hole is the absence of dirt. So is "evil" the absence of "good".

So amorality is immoral?

The fact thatyou believe this of morality has no impact whatsover on what I said.

Also, good actions are merely normal actions. You don't do good deeds because they can lead to reward, we do good deeds because they are the proper deeds to preform. "Good" is the basis, it is not subject to a basis - like evil.

So if good actions are 'normal', then the world cannot surely be as fallen as you believe.

I thought you atheists thought the "bad" (evil) was the problem for an omnipotent and omniscient Being?

The fact that a specific concept of God that millions of people believe in endorses hell is a problem. The fact that these same people apologise and accept torture for someone's own nature is also a problem.

And again, you snipped my message that displays the context of the question I asked:

"Why is the problem the 'bad'. I have no doubt that there exist millions of people now that regardless of their religious beliefs - are on the whole, good people. They are much more prone to the good than the immoral and it outweighs it. Their 'sin' so to speak, is outweighed by their righteousness."

No one is a "good" person. That's like saying a t-shirt with a mixture of clean and dirty spots is clean because it has clean spots on it. In fact, it is the opposite. Regardless of the clean spots, the dirty spots taint the WHOLE shirt. Not the other way around.

The response to this is simply that we are not T-shirts. It is a ridiculous analogy.

This is not some moral teeter-totter. I'd like to see you pull this defense in our own court of law.

A court of law does not set itself up as a judge of my entire character and my entire life. It sets itself as amongt other things, a place where my illegal deeds can be scrutinized and my guilt or innocence verified. God however, as you believe judges our entire life and what we've done. If God does not, and only is interested in whether we noticed his son (or himself, depending on your theological drift) then sin is pointless.

This out-weighing non-sense is laughable and void of real justice. We get judged not on our good, we get judged on our wrong. The good works we have done have no say. Like I said above...they shouldn't carry any weight because they are acts that should be done.

History judges those who do well. Many organisations take deliberate notice of the good work of others.

Even if God didn't exist, you should experience justice for your wrongs - your beliefs don't play a role.

They do according to you.

If this is your idea of Heaven, then you must be talking about a different heaven then the one found in the Bible.

So what is your idea of heaven?

I denied that believing in God pardons sins.

You did. You didn't bother to say anymore. Which is why I asked: where?

Within the concept of Christian salvation, what is doing the actual atoning of our sins?

There are plenty of different opinions on this. I could only guess which slant you take. I argue exclusively based on what Christians state.

 

[max1120]

It is not an incapacity to be convinced. It was their choice not to believe the evidence was convincing. It's fallacious to assume that the capacity wasn't there. This would mean even if they felt the evidence was convincing they still wouldn't have been able to believe it.

Not true at all. I am actually very close friends with many athiest and agnostics and I can assure you they genuinely do not believe or accept the existence of god, any god, christian or otherwise. It is not their "choice" to believe it was that they actually do not believe the evidence supports the conclusion that there is an actual god. The evidence for the existence of god is not rock solid, it would never convice a jury. Remember they call it "faith" not "facts". If all you had to do was look at the evidence it would not require "faith". Different people have different reasons for their religious affliations. I was raised Anglican, it is simply a part of who I am. For someone who was not raised in such a home it may be difficult to accept. For me I, since I do not believe god is sending everyone who geniunely disbelieves straight to hell to roast on an open pit in agony for all eternity, I do not see agnostic or athiest persons as some sort of dammed individule, just one who is not convinced of the christian explaination of god.

There is evidence. In fact, we all have the same evidence. We just all interpret it differently based on our various philosophical and theological perspectives. The evidence is only found to be insignificant and/or meaningless if a personal interpretation allows it to be.

Wrong again, the evidence is not scientific in the sense that it can be explained by scientific proofs. It is not something observable since god is unseen and no one can actually prove what happens after someone dies. Also to my knowledge no one has ever proven the existence of a "soul". None of these can be established by the use of the scientific method. "Faith" does not lend itself to such inquiry. I do not know where we would start to even formulate such an experient to "prove" the existence of a "soul" or the existence of "heaven" and "hell", much less the existence/non-existence of god?.

A coin has two sides. God created us with free-will knowing that some would choose to love. This was the reasoning and true purpose behind free-will.

Perhaps, but again this is why I suggest that hell is not and cannot be a place of extreeme torture such as burning. How can that be free will? "Do as I tell you or I will roast you in hell as you beg for mercy while flames rip apart your flesh for all eternity", is that really a choice? Free will?? It sounds more like duress or something some third world dictator might do, not a loving god who geniunely intended to give us a free choice. This is why I support the idea that in the end god may seperate those who follow him from those who do not, but he will not harm them or cause them to burn in hell. To do so would render god nothing more than a cruel narcissitic masocist no better than Kim Jung Ill or Stalin.


This would be true if "good" and "evil" were actual opposites and thus equal. However, just as darkness is the absence of light. Cold the absence of heat. A hole is the absence of dirt. So is "evil" the absence of "good".

It would be true if you lived in a world where only extreemes of light and dark, hot and cold, or good and evil existed. But we live in a world filled with various shades of gray and nuianced diffences between things which cause things to exist on a continum with total good and total evil on the extreems and a much larger area between the two extremes where most things can be found. I do not believe god does not see shades of gray. I believe he judges based on a much fuller undertanding of people and of nature than one simply based on yes and no answers.

 

[Jig]

Concerning morality, my position is not true in the sense of being objective - but merely recommended. When I say murder and rape are wrong, I necessarily am referring to two different deliberate courses of action. I am saying they ought to be considered wrong. That you associate an behavioural constraint with reality only demonstrates your inept conflation of ought and is.

So rape ought to be wrong, but since you believe it can't absolutely be wrong, it is not always wrong. Doesn't this imply that rape can be right even if you think it ought not be?

Absolute truth is not known to exist with behavioural constraints in the context of a community.

I'd like to state it this way. Absolute truth in behavioral constraints can't be seen to exist within a community of imperfect sinners. If we were all perfect, absolute truth in behavior would shine brighter than five thousand stars in a community.

Belief is not a choice. Belief is being convinced. I cannot turn around now and just 'decide' that Christianity is true - just as you could not sincerely believe that Islam is true just by sheer willpower. We could both pretend - but we would not truly believe it.

It would certainly be incredibly difficult to choose a different choice that has deeply permeated your world view.

I still see "belief" as indirectly voluntary though.

We gain knowledge by interpreting what is set before us. We set the presuppositions and principals of such interpretation. Over the last five years, many of my presuppositions and principals of interpretation have changed. We choose to assume certain foundational constructs and follow through with compatible conclusions. It is this knowledge that directly influences our beliefs. A knowledge that stands on a shaky foundation of constantly evolving voluntary assumptions and choices.

Right... I don't see how this strengthens anything. God would know that some people would scoff, dismiss and not believe in vicarious redemption - due to the free-will he gave them.

Just because He knows that doesn't mean that was why He gave us free-will. If I gave my son a car to drive, there is a chance he will crash it, but that's not why I gave it to him. God gave us free-will to choose what is right and good. Without free-will, sure we wouldn't be able to choose wrong, but we wouldn't be able to choose love either.

And those who end up in hell were not capable of love?

My comment did not imply that. Yes, they were capable of love, but they chose to do more than just love. They also did the opposite.

God did not force them to sin. Giving them the ability to freely do whatever they wanted was necessary if he wanted them to have the ability to choose love.

So if good actions are 'normal', then the world cannot surely be as fallen as you believe.

Not really. The world is still fallen because there is sin in it. Good actions don't eradicate this sin.

The fact that a specific concept of God that millions of people believe in endorses hell is a problem. The fact that these same people apologise and accept torture for someone's own nature is also a problem.

God did not create us originally with this desire, man did it to himself. Point your finger at us, not God.

The response to this is simply that we are not T-shirts. It is a ridiculous analogy.

Ahhhhh really? You think? That is the point of analogy. It was quite fitting - even if you say it is not.

A court of law does not set itself up as a judge of my entire character and my entire life. It sets itself as amongt other things, a place where my illegal deeds can be scrutinized and my guilt or innocence verified. God however, as you believe judges our entire life and what we've done. If God does not, and only is interested in whether we noticed his son (or himself, depending on your theological drift) then sin is pointless.

If you did not accept Jesus' gift then God is not interested in whether or not you accepted Him. In this case it is God that is noticing and judging your sin. God is only interested in whether we accepted Christ, if we have accepted Christ.

History judges those who do well. Many organisations take deliberate notice of the good work of others.

And this proves that good deeds atone for bad deeds?

They do according to you.

Your beliefs can't play a role if they are not true.

 

[Skavau]

So rape ought to be wrong, but since you believe it can't absolutely be wrong, it is not always wrong. Doesn't this imply that rape can be right even if you think it ought not be?

I believe the idea of 'absolutely wrong' is an inept concept when it comes to morality. I contend rape is wrong by almost and arguably by definition. That a deliberate attempt to engage in sexual intercourse with someone against their will cannot at all be concerned with consideration for others (a foundation of morality).

I'd like to state it this way. Absolute truth in behavioral constraints can't be seen to exist within a community of imperfect sinners. If we were all perfect, absolute truth in behavior would shine brighter than five thousand stars in a community.

This is just an expression of your belief.

We gain knowledge by interpreting what is set before us. We set the presuppositions and principals of such interpretation. Over the last five years, many of my presuppositions and principals of interpretation have changed. We choose to assume certain foundational constructs and follow through with compatible conclusions. It is this knowledge that directly influences our beliefs. A knowledge that stands on a shaky foundation of constantly evolving voluntary assumptions and choices.

And your 'presuppositions' and 'principals' change by the knowledge you gain.

At any rate, you don't appear to be disputing specifically that belief is a willful choice - which must lead you to conclude that there exist people who literally cannot believe that Christianity is true. They would die in such a state and according to you, be held answerable to their 'sin' that they also could not believe to be so. What do you make of that?

Just because He knows that doesn't mean that was why He gave us free-will. If I gave my son a car to drive, there is a chance he will crash it, but that's not why I gave it to him. God gave us free-will to choose what is right and good. Without free-will, sure we wouldn't be able to choose wrong, but we wouldn't be able to choose love.

And if you absolutely knew your son would use it irresponsibly and crash it, would you then provide him with the car? I would further ask if you would punish your sun for irresponsibly using it.

God did not force them to sin. Giving them the ability to freely do whatever they wanted was necessary if he wanted them to have the ability to choose love either.

So as I asked previously: if love and morality were the objectives, why a belief-based system of salvation? That doesn't make sense.

Not really. The world is still fallen because there is sin in it. Good actions don't eradicate this sin.

You have a bizarre definition of fallen that appears to mean 'not a utopia'. Visions of Equilibrium are flashing through my head.

God did not create us originally with this desire, man did it to himself. Point your finger at us, not God.

What desire? This response doesn't relate to my point: "The fact that a specific concept of God that millions of people believe in endorses hell is a problem. The fact that these same people apologise and accept torture for someone's own nature is also a problem."

So I don't quite get what you're referring to.

Ahhhhh really? You think? That is the point of analogy. It was quite fitting - even if you say it is not.

It was not fitting (pun intended... yours?). A T-shirt can be considered dirty if it has only some marks on it. Human behaviour cannot be examined in the same way.

If you did not accept Jesus' gift then God is not interested in whether or not you accepted Him. In this case it is God is noticing and judging your sin. God is only interested in whether we accepted Christ if we have accepted Christ.

So then, God isn't really interested in sin or acts of goodness. He is only interested in, as you say, whether we took his obscure offer.

And this proves that good deeds atone for bad deeds?

Yes! They can do!

History is filled with many examples of people trying to do an inordinate amount of good to make up for bad. It is only the pseudo-judgment and almost nihilistic vision of 'original sin' and a 'fallen world' that bring attention only to the bad.

Your beliefs can't play a role if they are not true.

Well, that's what you contend God decrees.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?

No.

/thread

 

[Jig]

I believe the idea of 'absolutely wrong' is an inept concept when it comes to morality. I contend rape is wrong by almost and arguably by definition. That a deliberate attempt to engage in sexual intercourse with someone against their will cannot at all be concerned with consideration for others (a foundation of morality).

You claim that rape is not moral by definition. I'd like you to give me you're definition of "moral" and show me exactly how you're coming to this conclusion because the definitions I've found for "moral" includes terms like "good" and "right" - terms you've deemed subjective. This would mean that the definition of "moral" is relative - making it useless to make definitive claims upon like you have done. Saying "rape is not moral by definition" is a useless statement if it can't be determined to always be true. It merely becomes your opinion.

If the idea of absolute wrong is indeed an inept concept within the realm of morality, this means there is also no absolute right. If this is the case every action is inherently neutral and can be considered only right or wrong depending on subjective non-absolute factors.

Subsequently, this also means rape and/or murder can't be considered definitively wrong.

Holding on to your position means you'd have to admit that rape couldn't always be considered wrong because if it could be we would be dealing with an absolute.

At any rate, you don't appear to be disputing specifically that belief is a willful choice - which must lead you to conclude that there exist people who literally cannot believe that Christianity is true.

So, you believe that absolutes don't exist within morality but exist in human abilities? You're claiming that some people simply are not able to believe that Christianity is true. This means it would be absolutely impossible for them to do so.

They would die in such a state and according to you, be held answerable to their 'sin' that they also could not believe to be so. What do you make of that?

I don't hold to the position that some people are absolutely incapable to believe Christianity is true.

And if you absolutely knew your son would use it irresponsibly and crash it, would you then provide him with the car? I would further ask if you would punish your sun for irresponsibly using it.

Yes, I'd still give it to him. Not because I know of some future wrong doing, but because of the future good he'd do with the car - giving rides to people who needed them, allowing him to go shopping and go to school. Even if I knew my son would act irresponsibly, my foreknowledge has nothing to do with him actually committing a wrong act. He freely choose to do it. Wrongful behavior needs to be dealt with.

So as I asked previously: if love and morality were the objectives, why a belief-based system of salvation? That doesn't make sense.

When God made the first people, there was no belief-based system of salvation. Only when they sinned, did God implement a system to rescue them.

You have a bizarre definition of fallen that appears to mean 'not a utopia'. Visions of Equilibrium are flashing through my head.

I believe God created the world perfect. It was a utopia in a sense that everything was perfect. When sin entered into the world it fell. The world became less than perfect - no longer meeting the criteria for utopia, wouldn't you say?

It was not fitting (pun intended... yours?). A T-shirt can be considered dirty if it has only some marks on it. Human behaviour cannot be examined in the same way.

You're not very good at understanding analogies. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. Get over it. I'd like to see you come up with a better analogy.

So then, God isn't really interested in sin or acts of goodness. He is only interested in, as you say, whether we took his obscure offer.

This is only true for those who have ALREADY accepted what Jesus' did.

Yes! They can do!

How does helping an old lady across the street atone for me stealing a pack of gum?

History is filled with many examples of people trying to do an inordinate amount of good to make up for bad. It is only the pseudo-judgment and almost nihilistic vision of 'original sin' and a 'fallen world' that bring attention only to the bad.

So if I murdered someone when I was 23 and for the next 55 years I do an insane amount of good things, such as going down to Africa to drill water wells - which saves thousands from dehydration, etc. How did this justify the death of the innocent person? That person is still dead. That persons family is still mourning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Juicy, juicy post. Nom.

You claim that rape is not moral by definition. I'd like you to give me you're definition of "moral" and show me exactly how you're coming to this conclusion because the definitions I've found for "moral" includes terms like "good" and "right" - terms you've deemed subjective. This would mean that the definition of "moral" is relative - making it useless to make definitive claims upon like you have done. Saying "rape is not moral by definition" is a useless statement if it can't be determined to always be true. It merely becomes your opinion.

The definition is itself subjective. His definition of morality is such that rape is immoral. It's a subjective definition that could, in principle, differ from someone else's, but which, fortunately, few do (a distinction Objectivists/Realists latch onto as proof of an objective morality).

If the idea of absolute wrong is indeed an inept concept within the realm of morality, this means there is also no absolute right. If this is the case every action is inherently neutral and can be considered only right or wrong depending on subjective non-absolute factors.

Yup. Such as the entire society coming together to punish the rapist. It's worth noting that moral relativism doesn't lead to moral nihilism, or moral anarchy; the moral relativist still asserts a moral code, however subjective that may be.

Subsequently, this also means rape and/or murder can't be considered definitively wrong.

Holding on to your position means you'd have to admit that rape couldn't always be considered wrong because if it could be we would be dealing with an absolute.

Absolute, in morality, refers to an objective truth (i.e., one that is true regardless of our views), rather than one which is simply always true (i.e., one which could still be arbitrarily defined). It's an important distinction when dealing with the nature of morality.
A moral declaration (e.g., "Rape is wrong") can be an absolute declaration without necessarily being objective, since one could, in principle, define 'immorality' to be 'rape'. Thus, rape would indeed be wrong in any and all circumstances: it is Absolutely™ wrong. It's still relative and subjective to the definition, but it's also still absolute.

 

[The Penitent Man]

If I were to rape or kill someone you care about, then all this convoluted garbage becomes painfully simple. Then you would instantly know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If I were to rape or kill someone you care about, then all this convoluted garbage becomes painfully simple. Then you would instantly know.

You act as if moral relativists don't consider rape to be immoral. We do. If you rape someone I care about, then that is, in my opinion, immoral, and I will punish you for it. You and I may disagree with why rape is immoral, but we both agree that it is.

 

[The Penitent Man]

You act as if moral relativists don't consider rape to be immoral. We do. If you rape someone I care about, then that is, in my opinion, immoral, and I will punish you for it. You and I may disagree with why rape is immoral, but we both agree that it is.

And if I were to rape someone you didn't care about? Would it be immoral for the same reason?

 

[Skavau]

You claim that rape is not moral by definition. I'd like you to give me you're definition of "moral" and show me exactly how you're coming to this conclusion because the definitions I've found for "moral" includes terms like "good" and "right" - terms you've deemed subjective.

To rape someone is to attack someone else in deliberate disregard of their own personal interests. It is to deliberately cause suffering to another being with the motive being a desire for power over them and/or to harm them.

Morality is generally, what ought within the context of a community of people. Rape is selfish and counter-intuitive to further the above ideal. The same can be expressed of murder.

This would mean that the definition of "moral" is relative - making it useless to make definitive claims upon like you have done. Saying "rape is not moral by definition" is a useless statement if it can't be determined to always be true. It merely becomes your opinion.

See above.

Subsequently, this also means rape and/or murder can't be considered definitively wrong.

I suspect you load the term 'definitively wrong' with all sorts of assumptions. What do you mean by it?

Holding on to your position means you'd have to admit that rape couldn't always be considered wrong because if it could be we would be dealing with an absolute.

Not at all. Read above.

Rape cannot be moral because it refuses to deal with morality, full stop. It has no interest in it.

So, you believe that absolutes don't exist within morality but exist in human abilities? You're claiming that some people simply are not able to believe that Christianity is true. This means it would be absolutely impossible for them to do so.

Sure. If you like. Some people don't have/don't get the sufficient information or credible evidence they need in their lifetime to be convinced of Christianity. Some of these people are born in different religious environments where a different religion is proposed to be true (which they follow). In each instance, they are both being honest - and could not come to anything more.

I don't hold to the position that some people are absolutely incapable to believe Christianity is true

Some people live in foundationally different environments than you and are witness to many different prevailing ideologies.They themselves have no reason to accept Christianity.

Yes, I'd still give it to him. Not because I know of some future wrong doing, but because of the future good he'd do with the car - giving rides to people who needed them, allowing him to go shopping and go to school. Even if I knew my son would act irresponsibly, my foreknowledge has nothing to do with him actually committing a wrong act. He freely choose to do it. Wrongful behavior needs to be dealt with.

Well, there we are then - you consider it fine to not warn people of their own actions and still tie them to their fate (even if dangerous). If I absolutely knew, I would inform my son of my sudden prophecy.

But would you punish him also, by the way?

When God made the first people, there was no belief-based system of salvation. Only when they sinned, did God implement a system to rescue them.

Yes, but there is a belief-based salvation now. So as I asked previously: if love and morality were the objectives, why a belief-based system of salvation? That doesn't make sense.

I believe God created the world perfect. It was a utopia in a sense that everything was perfect. When sin entered into the world it fell. The world became less than perfect - no longer meeting the criteria for utopia, wouldn't you say?

Yes, but it hardly met the criteria for a dystopia. I said that you have a bizarre definition of failure, or a 'fallen world' - which, is 'not a utopia'.

You're not very good at understanding analogies. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. Get over it. I'd like to see you come up with a better analogy.

I probably could not. But then I am not defending the ridiculous.

Although I have seen some very good analogies on this topic.

This is only true for those who have ALREADY accepted what Jesus' did.

But it is true that everyone else must also accept what Jesus did and then seek his forgiveness, right? A belief-based offer.

So if I murdered someone when I was 23 and for the next 55 years I do an insane amount of good things, such as going down to Africa to drill water wells - which saves thousands from dehydration, etc. How did this justify the death of the innocent person? That person is still dead. That persons family is still mourning.

It doesn't. People do not do good in order to justify their previous crimes. They do it to show they have moved on and are capable of doing good acts. To show they have changed as a person. It is a responsibility based motivation that is far less sanctimonious, evasive and scapegoating than vicarious redemption.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And if I were to rape someone you didn't care about? Would it be immoral for the same reason?

Yes. I am of the opinion that no one, not even someone as quintessentially evil as Hitler, is worthy of being raped, murdered, etc.

 

[Jig]

To rape someone is to attack someone else in deliberate disregard of their own personal interests. It is to deliberately cause suffering to another being with the motive being a desire for power over them and/or to harm them.

Is causing another human to suffer always wrong?

Morality is generally, what ought within the context of a community of people. Rape is selfish and counter-intuitive to further the above ideal. The same can be expressed of murder.

Most reasons to have an abortion are selfish and counter-intuitive to further the same above ideal - yet in my country it is legal. I consider abortion murder and so do millions of other people.

Who's to say what "ought" to be right or wrong within a community of people? What if there is a 50/50 split in agreement?

What relative factors are considered to be authoritative in determining what is right or wrong; culture practices, societal needs, family traditions, personal beliefs, etc.? Surely not all of the above. And if you could determine which, how could you be absolutely sure?

I suspect you load the term 'definitively wrong' with all sorts of assumptions. What do you mean by it?

Behind your personal philosophy lays a lurking elephant. In saying that morality is relative, you must dismiss any and all absolutes. It is impossible for you to admit that rape is absolutely wrong. If rape is not absolutely wrong, there must be some relative context in which it can be considered good. If not, then it becomes absolutely morally wrong.

Rape cannot be moral because it refuses to deal with morality, full stop. It has no interest in it.

You have yet to define what you mean by morality. Are you saying that morality can be defined in definitive and absolute terms? If not than it is pointless to make definitive and absolute statements based on a relative and ambiguous definition.

Sure. If you like. Some people don't have/don't get the sufficient information or credible evidence they need in their lifetime to be convinced of Christianity. Some of these people are born in different religious environments where a different religion is proposed to be true (which they follow). In each instance, they are both being honest - and could not come to anything more.

What of the millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, atheists, etc. that have converted to Christianity? It is not impossible.

Some people live in foundationally different environments than you and are witness to many different prevailing ideologies.They themselves have no reason to accept Christianity.

Yet, some still do.

Yes, but there is a belief-based salvation now. So as I asked previously: if love and morality were the objectives, why a belief-based system of salvation? That doesn't make sense.

Love is the main objective of free-will. The need for a salvation system is based on the failure to perfectly meet this objective.

I probably could not. But then I am not defending the ridiculous.

Your not? It's not ridiculous to believe abiogenesis occurred at some point in the far distant past?

Although I have seen some very good analogies on this topic.

Care to share?

It doesn't. People do not do good in order to justify their previous crimes. They do it to show they have moved on and are capable of doing good acts. To show they have changed as a person. It is a responsibility based motivation that is far less sanctimonious, evasive and scapegoating than vicarious redemption.

What should we do with those who do wrong constantly?

 

[The Penitent Man]

Yes. I am of the opinion that no one, not even someone as quintessentially evil as Hitler, is worthy of being raped, murdered, etc.

That is encouraging.

 

[nathanlandon1]

It's not so much about "hell" and "eternal fire and brimstone." Hell is separation from God - full separation. So, there may be sunshine and clouds, water, etc., but the important thing is the spiritual separation from the God. It is the result of a spiritual death, whether active (dying) or passive (dead). Spiritual death is the act of consuming one's self through the avenue of sin.

Look around the world now: some people would call this [a type of] hell, and the reason for this is the majority of people in the world are destroying themselves through sinful, selfish, immoral and abominable acts, especially justified as good works. We are not in Hell yet, but are quickly striving toward Hell on Earth. When The Satan comes to earth as an angel of light to "save the day," we will be closest to Hell on Earth.

In my opinion, I do not think Hell is eternal fire and damnation. I think we are getting a glimpse of what hell is like on this earth: spotted justice, the rich get richer and poor poorer, fatherless children, widows, death, destruction, murder, rape, insatiable sexual appetites, polygamy/polyandry, God seems like He is no where to be found, people pray for hope endlessly, depression, suicide. etc. As a result, the world is NOT perfect and it never will be in this state. In fact, the earth dying. I believe Hell will be like this except there will be no hope, and people will consume their spirits to death (literally) with sin.

Now, with that said, this whole life like is a weeder course. We are all born with a big handicap (tendency toward sin,) but we were given a Savior so that we would know we were loved and cared for. Now (and even before) is the time that we make the decision ourselves. If we want to follow God we will be with Him forever (called Heaven.) If we choose to follow The Satan, we will be with him forever (called "Hell".) Either way, God is giving us exactly what we want, and He is being a complete gentleman.

 

[Skavau]

Is causing another human to suffer always wrong?

Deliberately intending to cause another human to suffer is wrong. Someone inadvertently causing someone to suffer is regrettable, but you could not claim their motive was evil. The universe does not recognise this (thus it cannot be 'objective'), but I contend we ought to.

Most reasons to have an abortion are selfish and counter-intuitive to further the same above ideal - yet in my country it is legal. I consider abortion murder and so do millions of other people.

Of course, you cannot pretend to know why everyone has an abortion. At any rate, fine. You view abortion is murder. The topic of abortion is not something I would outright claim is understood to be either acceptable, or unacceptable. I recognise that millions of people view it in a negative light.

Who's to say what "ought" to be right or wrong within a community of people? What if there is a 50/50 split in agreement?

Generally, the one that does not impede upon the rights of others. 50% of people may view homosexual marriage as unacceptable, or it could even be 75% or 99% for all I personally care - but them imposing their viewpoints as criteria to infringe upon the liberty of others is unacceptable. To accept such ideals of domination is to sleepwalk into oppression. We all value our liberty. Remember this.

What relative factors are considered to be authoritative in determining what is right or wrong; culture practices, societal needs, family traditions, personal beliefs, etc.? Surely not all of the above. And if you could determine which, how could you be absolutely sure?

You can't: I've already told you this.

Behind your personal philosophy lays a lurking elephant. In saying that morality is relative, you must dismiss any and all absolutes. It is impossible for you to admit that rape is absolutely wrong. If rape is not absolutely wrong, there must be some relative context in which it can be considered good. If not, then it becomes absolutely morally wrong.

I've already told you that I consider rape by definition, immoral. You can keep lying about what I think as you like - but it will not do you any good.

On this: I should ask you the following - defend how morality can be absolute. You presumably contend it is. So I ask you how can you make such claims.

You have yet to define what you mean by morality. Are you saying that morality can be defined in definitive and absolute terms? If not than it is pointless to make definitive and absolute statements based on a relative and ambiguous definition.

Yes, morality has a specific term. It is and can only be a profession of what ought or ought not with the deliberate consideration of others within the context of a community. The act of homosexual intercourse between two consenting adults is not either moral or amoral because the act of consent has remedied the need for compromise. Rape however is a forceful act on another human being in spite of their willingness to engage in it. That is why I consider it always wrong in any civilised society.

What of the millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, atheists, etc. that have converted to Christianity? It is not impossible.

What of them? This is a diversion. It is possible for anyone technically, to convert to Christianity. But they have to be convinced of Christianity. They have to honestly accept it and the concepts contained within. Millions of Atheists, hindus, Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists, etc have not converted to Christianity - and from their own perspective, for wholly pragmatic and logical reasons.

Yet, some still do.

Yet, some don't. What is your point?

Love is the main objective of free-will. The need for a salvation system is based on the failure to perfectly meet this objective.

And the 'salvation system' still fails to perfectly meet this objective - as those who confess the need for a saviour are merely passing the buck of their 'sin' onto another. They are not perfect, they have merely signed a spiritual deal to be considered exempt in response for their obedience and constant self-hating in the name of Jesus. So I ask again, given that it is inept in both solution as well as conclusion - why provide a belief-based salvation when the problem is love and morality? Surely God could specifically choose those that have tried as much as they could, to act with the consideration of others in point.

Your not? It's not ridiculous to believe abiogenesis occurred at some point in the far distant past?

I'm not trying to produce analogies to defend it. Anyway, a quick slash of Occam's Razor deems it more likely than divine creation.

Care to share?

There is an epic thread in the Non-Christian Religion subforum called 'Atheists, please 'splain' (that has since split into two after hitting 100 pages) that contains some fantastic analogies by Non-Christians. I may search for them if you like, but not now.

What should we do with those who do wrong constantly?

Lock them up, or terminate their life as to protect the innocent.

Notice no note of torture.

 

[Skavau]

It's not so much about "hell" and "eternal fire and brimstone." Hell is separation from God - full separation. So, there may be sunshine and clouds, water, etc., but the important thing is the spiritual separation from the God. It is the result of a spiritual death, whether active (dying) or passive (dead). Spiritual death is the act of consuming one's self through the avenue of sin.

So what about Muslims?

Now, with that said, this whole life like is a weeder course. We are all born with a big handicap (tendency toward sin,) but we were given a Savior so that we would know we were loved and cared for. Now (and even before) is the time that we make the decision ourselves. If we want to follow God we will be with Him forever (called Heaven.) If we choose to follow The Satan, we will be with him forever (called "Hell".) Either way, God is giving us exactly what we want, and He is being a complete gentleman.

I haven't chosen Satan. I simply don't believe in Christianity.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Gracchus]

God is not unjust. He is required to judge sin.

And leprechauns are required to put curlers in Goldilocks' hair.

 

[The Penitent Man]

And leprechauns are required to put curlers in Goldilocks' hair.

Show me where it says leprechauns are required to do that.