Ok, so is it safe to say that extremism according to you is when a religious person uses their religion to justify doing evil? (That actually sounds like a pretty good working definition to me!)
I think that works.
I would call that criminal. After that, also labeling at religious extremism is something I wouldn't object to. Have you known someone to do this?
To murder for the purpose of catalysing salvation? No. To justify God's allowing a murder to happen because it catalysed salvation? Yes.
HAHA should I give you a pass as making a funny knowingly, or is this strawman # 3,723 on CF today? (Most moral decisions really shouldn't require consulting any text, of any type. The Bible is about how to relate to God; i.e., His Kingdom)
So you say, yet the majority of Christians simply do not agree. They really do look to the Bible for their ethics and morals.
Easy for a novice? Maybe. If I told you I can demonstrate, from Scripture, that is most certainly NOT the case, would you believe me?
Sure. But the novices are very much in the majority.
And then what about, even if God Judges someone, that that is above our pay grade?
I don't know what that means.
This is not the first I've heard of Mother Theresa maybe being a nogoodnick, and it probably is no surprise to you that I'm not big on reading up on RC Saints or figures. Can you explain how one "uses the poor to further their own belief in Christ?" I hope you can see how the phrase is counter-intuitive
She believed that the poor suffer on Earth because Christ suffered on Earth. To be Christlike, then, is to suffer like he did. Because she didn't want to suffer, she accumulated those who suffered so that she could experience suffering vicariously. It's a strange twist on a theme, but again, there's a logic to it.
Well I hope you know you'll get no disagreement from me there? Since I am not RC, by some definition I must be classified as a protestant (even though I don't associate with that label) and by definition do not hide from the historic fact of people doing all manner of horrible stuff due to religious belief, Christian or otherwise.
I do take exception though: it matters if it's correct Christian belief, and action follows from belief. (Religious or otherwise) Incorrect action can correctly be judged as "not Christian." And therefore the NTS fallacy really doesn't pertain to Christianity, because people can be determined to really not be following Jesus. There's nothing false about that!
Nonetheless, whether it's True Christianity or an innocent corruption thereof, it's their religious beliefs that lead them to their actions. It's semantically unimportant whether their actions are Truely Christian; they
believe that what they're doing is Christian and Godly and so forth, they
believe they're genuinely doing God's works.
My point was the action was not designed to be for the greater good; it was God's Judgment. I said this because you had said something about "for the greater good." Are we on the same page yet?
If it's not for the greater good, then it would seem to be
unequivocably evil - the usual explanation for why God would kill babies is that it's all for some greater good. If, as you say, it's not, then there would seem to be no justification for it at all.
Actually, it doesn't. I understand you think it does, and I am very well aware you can get that poison from Church circles, so this is no strawman. (Well, not of your making, anyway) I can also allow that you really aren't familiar enough with the Bible to realize what I'm saying. That's correctable!
Then people who don't believe in Christ can get to the Father? That 'through me' doesn't specifically mean 'believe in me'? I've heard that before, but again, it's in the minority. That's why not
all Christians turn into extremists; they don't
all come to those abhorrent conclusions. But
some do.
A good source of headaches and nausea for me, too. Literally. Even so, even the RCC does not say what you accuse Christianity of here, that "everyone else goes to hell." Even the RCC teaches directly against that!
According to the Catchesm, "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, eternal fire. The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).
According to the Church, those who die in a state of mortal sin, those who close their hearts to God, etc, go to hell for an eternity of suffering. This, they say, encompasses those who
know God exists but
reject him anyway. Someone who simply doesn't believe in God (an atheist who's come to that conclusion in all intellectual honest; an isolated tribesman who's never heard of Christ, etc) doesn't go to Hell.
That's the official teaching of the Church. But, right or wrong, most Christians consider hell to be a place of eternal suffering where non-Christians are unambiguously destined to go.
Let's leave whether love might be ambiguous or not for another day, shall we? You seem to have a habit of equating Evangelism with violence. Why? Is it as simple as living in merry old England, which in this respect is rather different from my Yankee upbringing? I mean, I've NEVER set foot on ground where religious persecution took place. You may well be surrounded by it, with it represented in standing architecture, plus other reminders?
Plus, the "do no violence" statement is rather profound in the incident I raised earlier, where Peter cut off somebody's ear, and Jesus told Him off. Apparently you have not come to appreciate the depth of this event.
[/quote]
Or, you're ascribing more depth than is warranted.
So you still think that you can do a better job of running this world then God.
Yes. And that a lowly human such as myself can convecieve of a better world, shows that there isn't a God who wants us to live in the best of all possible worlds, and who can do it.
It is interesting that my brother and niece were just having a conversation and he recommended the book: "Man's search for meaning" [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Psychiatrist Viktor Frankl's memoir has riveted generations of readers with its descriptions of life in Nazi death camps and its lessons for spiritual survival.
We know that God can cause all things to work out for the best. God is in control and He does not allow anything that He can not use for good. To accomplish His plan and His purpose.
Didn't you say above that God's judgement isn't the same as doing something for the greater good? Now you're saying that everything God does is for the greater good; which is it?
[/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
Although perhaps you believe your plan is better then the plan that God has for us and for this world that we are living in.[/FONT]
Indeed. I see no end that justifies the suffering in Africa, natural or man-made.
Considering the fact that Jesus was nailed to a cross, what on *Earth* makes you think that the purpose of life is to remove all suffering on Earth?
