Myra Hindley

[Lukaris]

Christian logic is the murdered can go to heaven while the guilty can go to hell... It's wrong.

I am guessing you have some typos here & mean something else?

 

[Tellyontellyon]

You're misunderstanding my intent here. What I expect to see from you is your provision of support for your claims/assertions. You've asserted that Myra Hindley "became a Christian."

I need to see from which sources you've drawn and, thereby, claim to have established this as a clear, unmitigated fact from which to then commence with your additional [and still morally ambiguous] criticism.

Again, it is not my job----------or the job of anyone else here-----------to find the supporting documentation for your allegation. No one has to accept a slap-n-dash form of assertion from an interlocutor. As a philosopher, I definitely don't accept that form of assertion.

No, no, no. The Statement of Purpose for this forum thread section states that it IS NOT for apologetic purposes. So, no, YOU don't get to call your own shots or how your inquiries here get to be presented. Perhaps you missed that part when you were reading the SOP for this forum section????? Here, let's read it again together:

The primary focus of this forum is Christian evangelism and discipleship, not to debate Christian Theology or challenge, attack, or argue against, Christianity.​

Statement of Purpose - Exploring Christianity Statement of Purpose

Exploring Christianity Forum Statement of Purpose This is a forum where non-Christian Seekers are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christian members (see Faith groups list) can enter into discussion with...

www.christianforums.com

Do you want to explore and discuss Christianity, honestly and transparently? Or is your preference to troll us here in a slap-n-dash fashion?

'Cuz if you're here to troll, I will definitely be THAT ONE who will take you to task. So, decide what your purpose is here.

My purpose here is to ask the questions I want to ask.. if you feel all touchy about it and don't think I'm sincere that is your issue. Or maybe you find it a hard question?
I don't think my question is really in the category of apologetics anyway. I'm not arguing against Christianity, I just point out the existence of unfairness of 'faith alone'.. and am curious as to how Christians think about it .. assuming that they do.

It is well known she converted to Christianity, and I think you are simply avoiding the issue my question posed, it goes beyond Hindley and applies more broadly to murderers and their victims in general.. It's not unknown for murderers to find Christ in prison, but their victims didn't get the chance to convert, if they weren't Christians already... Seems unfair to me...
Comment?

As for evidence... A two second Google could have cleared it up for you. Here you go..

Prayers for Myra Hindley | ICN

Prayers were said in many churches yesterday, Prisoners Sunday, for Myra Hindley, Britain's longest-serving and most reviled female prisoner, who died on Friday night. Hindley spent 36 years in prison for her role in the 'Moors Murders'.Aged 60, she died of respiratory failure at...

www.indcatholicnews.com

Now please remain on topic.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

I am guessing you have some typos here & mean something else?

I meant the victims go to hell...
A non Christian victim of a murder will likely go to hell.
But the murderer gets the chance to convert in prison and then goes to heaven. This seems unfair to me.. does it seem unfair to you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My purpose here is to ask the questions I want to ask.. if you feel all touchy about it and don't think I'm sincere that is your issue. Or maybe you find it a hard question?

Why would I find it to be a "hard" question? I've answered many of your questions these past few years.

I don't think my question is really in the category of apologetics anyway. I'm not arguing against Christianity, I just point out the existence of unfairness of 'faith alone'.. and am curious as to how Christians think about it .. assuming that they do.

Actually, your question is very close to being one requiring apologetics, but since I'm not of the "faith is only unjustified belief" camp, I'll let it pass since this inquiry of yours is [apparently] couched within a specific context and I need not be concerned with it since I know it's irrelevant to the Christian faith.

It is well known she converted to Christianity, and I think you are simply avoiding the issue my question posed, it goes beyond Hindley and applies more broadly to murderers and their victims in general.. It's not unknown for murderers to find Christ in prison, but their victims didn't get the chance to convert, if they weren't Christians already... Seems unfair to me...
Comment?

As for evidence... A two second Google could have cleared it up for you. Here you go..

Prayers for Myra Hindley | ICN

Prayers were said in many churches yesterday, Prisoners Sunday, for Myra Hindley, Britain's longest-serving and most reviled female prisoner, who died on Friday night. Hindley spent 36 years in prison for her role in the 'Moors Murders'.Aged 60, she died of respiratory failure at...

www.indcatholicnews.com

Now please remain on topic.

I'll have to disagree with this last bit since I'm only inclined to evaluate topics from a substantial and academic level and your article doesn't attain that level of substance. I'll also continue to stand by my position that it isn't whatsoever 'my' responsibility to establish your point for you and that it is your responsibility to provide more than plenty of support for your statements, inquiries, or potential gripes.

Moreover, since your question can't be addressed in a way that avoids a debate, I'm not sure how to proceed with answering your question, even if it were relevant, without descending into a debate about the question you've posed, and as we both know from what the SOP states, debate isn't allowed in this section of the forums.

 

[Lukaris]

I meant the victims go to hell...
A non Christian victim of a murder will likely go to hell.
But the murderer gets the chance to convert in prison and then goes to heaven. This seems unfair to me.. does it seem unfair to you?

First thing setting my record straight in this thread. Personally, I believe that people who die as children are usually innocent and God will be merciful to them. I provided the observation ( about 125 AD) of the philosopher Aristides ( who later became Christian) that children were considered basically innocent by Christians. I later gave the scripture from Luke that probably lined up with what Aristides saw. I expressed myself clumsily in my earlier posts and should have been clear and was not.

Yes, the Lord allows anyone to repent to the moment of death since God is of the living ( Matthew 22:32). I also believe that there are many people, like innocent murder victims, who will be given mercy. I believe scriptures like Matthew 12:30-32, Luke 12:8-10 indicates this in relation to millions of circumstances over history only God knows all & we really know none. Then there is Romans 2:6-16 that apply to millions ( billions?) of people who only knew to live by their conscience.

What St. Paul warns us of in Romans 3:1-31 is that everyone in the human race is in danger of judgment but not assumed to be guilty of hell. Isaiah 64:1-12 seems like basically a prayer for mercy because of collective human guilt in line with Romans 3. On the other hand, Ezekiel 18:1-32 presents a more varied picture more in line with Romans 2 ( especially Ezekiel 18:4-9). Ezekiel prophesied later than Isaiah so more must have been revealed to him.

I can only go by the golden rule ( see Matthew 7:12 in relation to the full context in Matthew 7:1-12) to perceive how God judges ( but not who in particular). Salvation by grace through faith must be preached to all people ( Ephesians 2:8-10). It is a very delicate balance in preaching to warn ( Colossians 1:28) but not abandon hope either ( 1 Corinthians 13:12-13).

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Why would I find it to be a "hard" question? I've answered many of your questions these past few years.

Actually, your question is very close to being one requiring apologetics, but since I'm not of the "faith is only unjustified belief" camp, I'll let it pass since this inquiry of yours is [apparently] couched within a specific context and I need not be concerned with it since I know it's irrelevant to the Christian faith.


I'll have to disagree with this last bit since I'm only inclined to evaluate topics from a substantial and academic level and your article doesn't attain that level of substance. I'll also continue to stand by my position that it isn't whatsoever 'my' responsibility to establish your point for you and that it is your responsibility to provide more than plenty of support for your statements, inquiries, or potential gripes.

Moreover, since your question can't be addressed in a way that avoids a debate, I'm not sure how to proceed with answering your question, even if it were relevant, without descending into a debate about the question you've posed, and as we both know from what the SOP states, debate isn't allowed in this section of the forums.

Lol, you require journal citations to believe that Hindley converted to Christianity? At the end of the day, I'm not a Christian and you can't expect me to be an expert on it.
But from what I understand, if you sincerely believe, you go to heaven. If I'm misinformed, let me know.
Also, a murdered person isn't always a believing Christian, not all people are Christians, so it seems that not being a Christian means you go to hell.. unless you are 'little children'..
Again, I'm not the expert here, you are. It's not for me to prove my position with academic references.. I have simply gained this impression from my reading of the Bible... It's not an academic debate, I'm not trying to debate. I simply pose my idea and then you, as a Christian, can put me right... This however seems to much to ask of you. You Christian conscience doesn't seem to extend to correcting my misunderstanding. Rather, you come up with pedantic reasons for not helping me out and putting me straight.
Perhaps I'm experiencing more of that paranoia that I seen to get from Christians. In my experience they sometimes react as if they were dealing with the devil himself.. Well, if I am the devil at least take the chance to correct my misunderstanding rather than not engaging.
If you are unwilling to help, at least refrain from hindering.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

First thing setting my record straight in this thread. Personally, I believe that people who die as children are usually innocent and God will be merciful to them. I provided the observation ( about 125 AD) of the philosopher Aristides ( who later became Christian) that children were considered basically innocent by Christians. I later gave the scripture from Luke that probably lined up with what Aristides saw. I expressed myself clumsily in my earlier posts and should have been clear and was not.

Yes, the Lord allows anyone to repent to the moment of death since God is of the living ( Matthew 22:32). I also believe that there are many people, like innocent murder victims, who will be given mercy. I believe scriptures like Matthew 12:30-32, Luke 12:8-10 indicates this in relation to millions of circumstances over history only God knows all & we really know none. Then there is Romans 2:6-16 that apply to millions ( billions?) of people who only knew to live by their conscience.

What St. Paul warns us of in Romans 3:1-31 is that everyone in the human race is in danger of judgment but not assumed to be guilty of hell. Isaiah 64:1-12 seems like basically a prayer for mercy because of collective human guilt in line with Romans 3. On the other hand, Ezekiel 18:1-32 presents a more varied picture more in line with Romans 2 ( especially Ezekiel 18:4-9). Ezekiel prophesied later than Isaiah so more must have been revealed to him.

I can only go by the golden rule ( see Matthew 7:12 in relation to the full context in Matthew 7:1-12) to perceive how God judges ( but not who in particular). Salvation by grace through faith must be preached to all people ( Ephesians 2:8-10). It is a very delicate balance in preaching to warn ( Colossians 1:28) but not abandon hope either ( 1 Corinthians 13:12-13).

Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. It seems that things are not so black and white as some Christians are preaching. From your answer it seems like God is better than some Christians believe.
Thank you

 

[Larniavc]

Eww, but at least God brought her back out of that mess. I can not make any assumptions, but we will find out if she was truly saved when we get to heaven.

You see, this is one of the things that makers non Christians laugh when Christians claim that their faith is a source of morality. A woman who tortured children to death many times gets an eternal reward because they self identify as a Christian but a non torture murderer who tells a white lie and does not self identify as a Christian gets eternal punishment.

Intuitively child torture murder is worse than a white lie but in Christianity they are the same i.e. same reward punishment and same conditions for either.

When younger people look at Christianity from the out side is it any surprise that they are turned off by it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol, you require journal citations to believe that Hindley converted to Christianity? At the end of the day, I'm not a Christian and you can't expect me to be an expert on it.

But from what I understand, if you sincerely believe, you go to heaven. If I'm misinformed, let me know.
Also, a murdered person isn't always a believing Christian, not all people are Christians, so it seems that not being a Christian means you go to hell.. unless you are 'little children'..
Again, I'm not the expert here, you are. It's not for me to prove my position with academic references.. I have simply gained this impression from my reading of the Bible... It's not an academic debate, I'm not trying to debate. I simply pose my idea and then you, as a Christian, can put me right... This however seems to much to ask of you. You Christian conscience doesn't seem to extend to correcting my misunderstanding. Rather, you come up with pedantic reasons for not helping me out and putting me straight.
Perhaps I'm experiencing more of that paranoia that I seen to get from Christians. In my experience they sometimes react as if they were dealing with the devil himself.. Well, if I am the devil at least take the chance to correct my misunderstanding rather than not engaging.
If you are unwilling to help, at least refrain from hindering.

Telly, I'm an Existentialist, and I'm not conceptually invested in this whole charade of the Christian life in the same way that other people, or even other Christians, are invested. This is not some game to be played in sheer accordance to premeditated denominational cues and without regard for any other impinging rational factors.

So yeah. I DO expect people to try harder if they're allegedly relying upon reason, rationality, logic and evidence to assess and engage, or even to question and critique, Christianity, just like I'd expect them to for any other important topic in life. In my view, public forums are no exception and will not be an exception, ever.

[[ Some people don't like this academic expectation I bring to the forums, but from my Existentially ensconced, Evidential and Educated point of view, that's just too bad if they don't. ]]

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

But since you're seeking an answer, I'm going to assert that the biggest kicker here for this thread is that where "fairness" and "God's wrongness" is concerned, you haven't established any moral or ethical principles that anyone else here has to recognize as being absolute and which work against Christianity.

People die everyday, everywhere, all over the entire Globe we live on, and they die for all kinds of reasons and in different degrees of comportment regarding the Christian faith.

Furthermore, we know from any engagement with the New Testament that our hearing any other person simply say, "I believe that Jesus is Lord" isn't by any stretch of the interpretive imagination a guarantee that that person will, in the end, end up in heaven. So, it's not an established fact that Myra Hindley's faith is a done deal. It still remains to be seen.

As for those persons she murdered, their individual and personal situations are not something either YOU or I can know in extreme detail, so even in their cases, it's not a done deal as to whether or not any of them will, or will not, end up in heaven. From our earthbound perspective, each person under consideration is a big ? until the Day of Judgement, regardless of how and when they died. This applies to me and my family members just as much as it applies to you, or your other family members.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Telly, I'm an Existentialist, and I'm not conceptually invested in this whole charade of the Christian life in the same way that other people, or even other Christians, are invested. This is not some game to be played in sheer accordance to premeditated denominational cues and without regard for any other impinging rational factors.

So yeah. I DO expect people to try harder if they're allegedly relying upon reason, rationality, logic and evidence to assess and engage, or even to question and critique, Christianity, just like I'd expect them to for any other important topic in life. In my view, public forums are no exception and will not be an exception, ever.

[[ Some people don't like this academic expectation I bring to the forums, but from my Existentially ensconced, Evidential and Educated point of view, that's just too bad if they don't. ]]

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

But since you're seeking an answer, I'm going to assert that the biggest kicker here for this thread is that where "fairness" and "God's wrongness" is concerned, you haven't established any moral or ethical principles that anyone else here has to recognize as being absolute and which work against Christianity.

People die everyday, everywhere, all over the entire Globe we live on, and they die for all kinds of reasons and in different degrees of comportment regarding the Christian faith.

Furthermore, we know from any engagement with the New Testament that our hearing any other person simply say, "I believe that Jesus is Lord" isn't by any stretch of the interpretive imagination a guarantee that that person will, in the end, end up in heaven. So, it's not an established fact that Myra Hindley's faith is a done deal. It still remains to be seen.

As for those persons she murdered, their individual and personal situations are not something either YOU or I can know in extreme detail, so even in their cases, it's not a done deal as to whether or not any of them will, or will not, end up in heaven. From our earthbound perspective, each person under consideration is a big ? until the Day of Judgement, regardless of how and when they died. This applies to me and my family members just as much as it applies to you, or your other family members.

Well, good luck with your search for absolute knowledge. Why you think you are likely to find it in academic journals or in the theories of philosophers fails me.

Personally, I think absolute truths are a fantasy and if your life and mental wellbeing depends on such a grandiose level of knowledge before you can have an opinion, then I wonder how you navigate getting out of bed in the morning. It doesn't sound like an approach to life, and to other people, that is fit for purpose. But have at it, it's your life.

For me, I'm in favour of an approach based on experience. If I poke myself in the eye, it hurts. My personal preference is not to hurt myself.. so I strive to avoid it. I may share that experience with others. Then, if others wish to avoid pain, they may avoid poking themselves in the eye... In the same way, poking other people in the eye is likely to turn out badly for all concerned. Eg. If you poked me in the eye, I would want to stop you doing it again and might do it back to you, or even come at you with a chair or a hatchet or some such.
Then again, experience tells me that if I come at you with a hatchet then other people might come at me with a hatchet, or at least take me to jail..
So it's experience... you do what you do and you get what you get. It's not based in moral absolutes.. it's based on like and dislike, pleasure and suffering.
I'm a Buddhist, so I tend to think of action and reaction... The Buddhist word literally meaning 'action' is Karma.

When Buddhists talk about 'Absolute' truth, we mean the absence of essence, no absolute self, no soul..

But I'm not here to talk about Buddhism.... I'm on hear to ask Christians about what THEY believe...
The average run-of-the-mill Christian I mean, not the intellectual powerhouses such as yourself... you'll only be talking over the top of my head and I haven't got enough will to live to wrestle with all of that.

 

[AlexB23]

You see, this is one of the things that makers non Christians laugh when Christians claim that their faith is a source of morality. A woman who tortured children to death many times gets an eternal reward because they self identify as a Christian but a non torture murderer who tells a white lie and does not self identify as a Christian gets eternal punishment.

Intuitively child torture murder is worse than a white lie but in Christianity they are the same i.e. same reward punishment and same conditions for either.

When younger people look at Christianity from the out side is it any surprise that they are turned off by it?

I made a post about this very thing, about a Florida woman who used "God told me so" as her excuse to commit violence. For the Florida woman who shot at cars from her vehicle during the April 8, 2024 eclipse under the guise of "God told me so," her actions also contradicted both Biblical passages. The woman's erroneous belief that God was instructing her to shoot bullets at cars was not in line with the teachings of kindness, forgiveness, and non-violence found in these passages. Her actions could be seen as a form of wrath, anger, or malice, which are explicitly condemned in Ephesians 4:31-32. The use of violence, even if motivated by religious beliefs, is not justified and goes against the teachings of both Jesus and Paul. Instead, Christians are called to respond to conflicts and disagreements with love, forgiveness, and compassion.


Florida woman uses religion as an excuse to commit violence:

Florida Woman Fired Weapon multiple times during Eclipse

Hello folks. On April 7th, I was thinking to myself about the solar eclipse for the next day. While thinking that, I had a premonition that something bad in the news would happen. Not because of the eclipse itself (eclipses are perfectly safe), but that someone would fire a weapon on a group of...

www.christianforums.com

One of my first devotionals (April 2024) discussed how Jesus never taught us to use violence:

Ephesians 4:31-32 & Matthew 26:52 Study

Ephesians 4 and Matthew 26 are important passages for us to follow as Christians, as we must try to maintain peacefulness. I will list two real world examples where a cult in the 1990s, and a woman during the April 8, 2024 eclipse, which I discussed about in the current events subforum, decided...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Larniavc]

I made a post about this very thing, about a Florida woman who used "God told me so" as her excuse to commit violence. For the Florida woman who shot at cars from her vehicle during the April 8, 2024 eclipse under the guise of "God told me so," her actions also contradicted both Biblical passages. The woman's erroneous belief that God was instructing her to shoot bullets at cars was not in line with the teachings of kindness, forgiveness, and non-violence found in these passages. Her actions could be seen as a form of wrath, anger, or malice, which are explicitly condemned in Ephesians 4:31-32. The use of violence, even if motivated by religious beliefs, is not justified and goes against the teachings of both Jesus and Paul. Instead, Christians are called to respond to conflicts and disagreements with love, forgiveness, and compassion.


Florida woman uses religion as an excuse to commit violence:

Florida Woman Fired Weapon multiple times during Eclipse

Hello folks. On April 7th, I was thinking to myself about the solar eclipse for the next day. While thinking that, I had a premonition that something bad in the news would happen. Not because of the eclipse itself (eclipses are perfectly safe), but that someone would fire a weapon on a group of...

www.christianforums.com

One of my first devotionals (April 2024) discussed how Jesus never taught us to use violence:

Ephesians 4:31-32 & Matthew 26:52 Study

Ephesians 4 and Matthew 26 are important passages for us to follow as Christians, as we must try to maintain peacefulness. I will list two real world examples where a cult in the 1990s, and a woman during the April 8, 2024 eclipse, which I discussed about in the current events subforum, decided...

www.christianforums.com

Not sure what any of that has to do with my post; can you elaborate.

 

[AlexB23]

Not sure what any of that has to do with my post; can you elaborate.

Your post deals with how some Christians use God as an excuse for hurting people, when in reality, God does not stand for violence. His Son, Jesus says we must lay down our swords.

So, this woman who tortured her own kids is totally off her rockers (just as the woman who shot at cars during the 2024 eclipse), and deserves a lifetime prison sentence without parole, ideally on Guantanamo Bay, or isolated far from any kids. God never commands people to kill. The evil desires of some psychopaths do. Those evil desires are not from God, but are from the fallen world we live in, as God gave people free will, and humans sinned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, good luck with your search for absolute knowledge. Why you think you are likely to find it in academic journals or in the theories of philosophers fails me.

Obviously, you missed the part where I mentioned both existentialism and evidentialism as aspects of my own outlook on life. If you had paid attention and understood what I meant, you wouldn't be implying that I applied anything about absolute perception to myself. No one has absolute perception by which to extol, measure and support "absolute values" or "absolute morality."

Personally, I think absolute truths are a fantasy and if your life and mental wellbeing depends on such a grandiose level of knowledge before you can have an opinion, then I wonder how you navigate getting out of bed in the morning. It doesn't sound like an approach to life, and to other people, that is fit for purpose. But have at it, it's your life.

You seem to have missed the details I offered. You can do better.

For me, I'm in favour of an approach based on experience. If I poke myself in the eye, it hurts. My personal preference is not to hurt myself.. so I strive to avoid it. I may share that experience with others. Then, if others wish to avoid pain, they may avoid poking themselves in the eye... In the same way, poking other people in the eye is likely to turn out badly for all concerned. Eg. If you poked me in the eye, I would want to stop you doing it again and might do it back to you, or even come at you with a chair or a hatchet or some such.
Then again, experience tells me that if I come at you with a hatchet then other people might come at me with a hatchet, or at least take me to jail..
So it's experience... you do what you do and you get what you get. It's not based in moral absolutes.. it's based on like and dislike, pleasure and suffering.
I'm a Buddhist, so I tend to think of action and reaction... The Buddhist word literally meaning 'action' is Karma.

Reliance upon some ephemeral definition of subjective experience isn't the sort of conceptual engagement with Reality that pays any dividends in the long run. I'd suggest you begin to rethink and test your own perception and epistemological assumptions for coherence and integrity.

When Buddhists talk about 'Absolute' truth, we mean the absence of essence, no absolute self, no soul..

And? Both Kierkegaard and Sartre, one a Christian existentialist and the other an atheist existentialist, would have said something not too dissimilar to what Siddhartha Gautama said where our existence and relation to any possible absolutes are concerned.

But I'm not here to talk about Buddhism.... I'm on hear to ask Christians about what THEY believe...
The average run-of-the-mill Christian I mean, not the intellectual powerhouses such as yourself... you'll only be talking over the top of my head and I haven't got enough will to live to wrestle with all of that.

The first lesson we can all learn is: life isn't fair for any of us. Fairness is not a part of our evolutionary setting. So, invoking an expectation for "fairness" in our existence probably isn't the best place to expect any sort of axiom, even where Christianity is concerned.

 

[Larniavc]

Your post deals with how some Christians use God as an excuse for hurting people,

Not at all. It was about the moral absolutism Christians engage in when they assign the value of 'sin' to any act proscribed in the Bible regardless of a common sense evaluation of the severity of malfeasance.

 

[AlexB23]

Not at all. It was about the moral absolutism Christians engage in when they assign the value of 'sin' to any act proscribed in the Bible regardless of a common sense evaluation of the severity of malfeasance.

Luckily, I am not one of those Christians. Plus hey, God forgives us of sins. Anyways, this thread is a little old, so I have to partake in other ones. Have a good day, man.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Obviously, you missed the part where I mentioned both existentialism and evidentialism as aspects of my own outlook on life. If you had paid attention and understood what I meant, you wouldn't be implying that I applied anything about absolute perception to myself. No one has absolute perception by which to extol, measure and support "absolute values" or "absolute morality."

You seem to have missed the details I offered. You can do better.

Reliance upon some ephemeral definition of subjective experience isn't the sort of conceptual engagement with Reality that pays any dividends in the long run. I'd suggest you begin to rethink and test your own perception and epistemological assumptions for coherence and integrity.

And? Both Kierkegaard and Sartre, one a Christian existentialist and the other an atheist existentialist, would have said something not too dissimilar to what Siddhartha Gautama said where our existence and relation to any possible absolutes are concerned.


The first lesson we can all learn is: life isn't fair for any of us. Fairness is not a part of our evolutionary setting. So, invoking an expectation for "fairness" in our existence probably isn't the best place to expect any sort of axiom, even where Christianity is concerned.

I was under the impression that Christians believe in a god, and that they believe god is good and righteous, and fair... a fair judge, a righteous judge. In an Absolute sense. I'm not mistaken in thinking Christians believe that am I?

Then you would expect that this god would deal with people fairly... I think Christians would believe that god deals with people fairly. I think the average Christian would believe that.

They describe a fallen earth that isn't necessarily fair.. but god is considered fair. So it seems fair game to enquire about god's fairness and to try to understand it.

What do you mean by absolute perception, what's that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was under the impression that Christians believe in a god, and that they believe god is good and righteous, and fair... a fair judge, a righteous judge. In an Absolute sense. I'm not mistaken in thinking Christians believe that am I?

Maybe the difference between my thinking and that of other Christians you've heard from is that I operate from the angle of critical thinking, and in doing so, I think it is a fairly vague and ambiguous idea to posit that something superlative like "absolute fairness" can be recognized and equitably evaluated without prejudice.

So no, God isn't "fair" in the sense that those of us living in the West so often conceptualize it as being, according to our modern notion(s) of Ethics.

Take as an example the hurdle that simply quoting the following verse [~ by Paul] poses to us in this regard:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1).​

Does this verse sound like anything we'd agree with today as expressing inherent fairness? I'd suggest it doesn't for obvious reasons (like the fact that we, today, assume that what is "fair" would be for a master to free his slaves, automatically and unreservedly), and what's more, so very many other examples can, and already have, been cited by so many biblical skeptics over the last few centuries. The book of Job could be another example.

None of this is to say that God is injust, but rather that His Divine Ethics is often over our heads and somewhat alien to how we tend to think about life and social discourse.

Then you would expect that this god would deal with people fairly... I think Christians would believe that god deals with people fairly. I think the average Christian would believe that.

Well, people are confused about a great many things these days. That's why I promote education and critical thinking, whether people like it or not.

They describe a fallen earth that isn't necessarily fair.. but god is considered fair. So it seems fair game to enquire about god's fairness and to try to understand it.

Semantically speaking, I don't think we can say that God is "fair" in any way we typically recognize and use the term today. Hence, this is one reason so many people are jumping ship from the Christian faith and becoming not only ex-Christians, but angry ex-Christians.

What do you mean by absolute perception, what's that?

By absolute perception, I mean the ability to perceive in a way that simulates how God, Himself, perceives, which is essentially an impossibility for us lowly humans to achieve all by ourselves.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Maybe the difference between my thinking and that of other Christians you've heard from is that I operate from the angle of critical thinking, and in doing so, I think it is a fairly vague and ambiguous idea to posit that something superlative like "absolute fairness" can be recognized and equitably evaluated without prejudice.

So no, God isn't "fair" in the sense that those of us living in the West so often conceptualize it as being, according to our modern notion(s) of Ethics.

Take as an example the hurdle that simply quoting the following verse [~ by Paul] poses to us in this regard:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1).​

Does this verse sound like anything we'd agree with today as expressing inherent fairness? I'd suggest it doesn't for obvious reasons (like the fact that we, today, assume that what is "fair" would be for a master to free his slaves, automatically and unreservedly), and what's more, so very many other examples can, and already have, been cited by so many biblical skeptics over the last few centuries. The book of Job could be another example.

None of this is to say that God is injust, but rather that His Divine Ethics is often over our heads and somewhat alien to how we tend to think about life and social discourse.

Well, people are confused about a great many things these days. That's why I promote education and critical thinking, whether people like it or not.

Semantically speaking, I don't think we can say that God is "fair" in any way we typically recognize and use the term today. Hence, this is one reason so many people are jumping ship from the Christian faith and becoming not only ex-Christians, but angry ex-Christians.


By absolute perception, I mean the ability to perceive in a way that simulates how God, Himself, perceives, which is essentially an impossibility for us lowly humans to achieve all by ourselves.

Thank you for your answer, I'm sure your position is interesting and worthy of discussion... the only thing is I'm not here for that.
I'm interested in what the average Christian thinks about these things. I'm not really interested in debating whether my questions are valid from the point of view of a philosophy or existentialism, or doing a critical analysis etc. etc.

Though I'm sure there are more philosophical forums for that, and it's a worthy discussion to be had.. it's just that I'm not interested in discussing it in this particular thread.. but thank you for your contributions so far.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your answer, I'm sure your position is interesting and worthy of discussion... the only thing is I'm not here for that.
I'm interested in what the average Christian thinks about these things. I'm not really interested in debating whether my questions are valid from the point of view of a philosophy or existentialism, or doing a critical analysis etc. etc.

Though I'm sure there are more philosophical forums for that, and it's a worthy discussion to be had.. it's just that I'm not interested in discussing it in this particular thread.. but thank you for your contributions so far.

Oh, I see. You're here for the Social Psychology angle of it all, trying to figure us poor Christians out. Well, have "fun" with that.