- Church builds outdoor sanctuary
– A Simi Valley church has decided to build their main sanctuary
outdoors, in order to allow people to enjoy God’s creation, and to make
it more like a 140 acre park that is open to the world, instead of a
closed compound. Nice. - How to Criticize – 9 Marks, the church development organization, has published 5 points on how to criticize others.
- Demon Deacons? (apologies to Duke U.) – Deacons in a 400 member Florida church are unhappy that they are being asked to fulfill the biblical role of deacon, since they are now having to give up control of the church and start serving widows and orphans. "We were running things just fine around here. I’m not about to start serving food, or fixing someone’s porch, I’ll tell you that right now." Maybe they should learn the difference between Deacon and Elder.
- Successful Diverse Communities seen – A recent Harvard study reveals that communities with increased ethnic and racial diversity actual suffer a worse sense of community, and worse community ties. The reason? Because diversity and shared humanity are not enough to produce a tight community – you need a better common thread than being human – you need common values and ideals. And where, according to the report, is the only place in American culture that diverse communities seem to work? Survey says – Evangelical megachurches. Liberals, eat your heart out.
61 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with every point…
20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity
1. Christianity is based on fear
2. Christianity preys on the innocent
3. Christianity is based on dishonesty
4. Christianity is extremely egocentric
5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism
7. Christianity is cruel
8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
9. Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
10. Christianity produces sexual misery
11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
12. Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
13. Christianity depreciates the natural world
14. Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
15. Christianity sanctions slavery
16. Christianity is misogynistic
17. Christianity is homophobic
18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings
19. The Bible is riddled with contradictions
20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions
Here's my short retort to your silly, easily refutable claims
1. Christianity is based on love
2. Christianity speaks to the guilty – there are no innocent
3. Christianity is based on truth
4. Christianity is about surrendering your life and plans to Jesus
5. Christianity breeds humility, a servant mentality
6. Christianity breeds servanthood
7. Christianity is merciful
8. Christianity is intellectual, the basis for modern science, and balances reason with faith
9. Christianity has a healthy, unperverted view of sex
10. Christianity produces sexual freedom and joy
11. Christianity has a realistic, practical, and logical view of morality
12. Christianity encourages focus on perennial, long-term social evils with real consequences while ignoring the shifting focus of popular causes
13. Christianity appreciates the creation without worshipping it
14. Christianity models servant leadership, reverse hierarchical organizations
15. Christianity is the only ideology to EVER in the history of man defeat slavery
16. Christianity creates loving husbands and wives who understand the created purpose of man and woman in family and relationship
17. Christianity views sexual perversion for what it is – sin
18. The bible is more reliable than any historical document we have, and has proven to be so beyond doubt.
19. The bible contains some paradoxes that hide deeper spiritual truths, and has no definitive contradictions that lack a reasonable harmony.
20. Christianity accurately reflects the events of the early earth and human society, such as the deluge, which other traditions, even those supposedly older, capture with less fidelity.
seeker has just modeled Cineaste's #'s 5, 8, and 17. Way to go!
Hi Cineaste:
Too many claims, not enough time:-) I'd like to address a few of them:
1. Christianity is based on fear
I would disagree. Christianity is based on the idea that God loves us enough to have become a human being and sacrifice himself to save us. That the very creator of the universe loves us is a reason to rejoice, not to fear.
5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
I think you could argue that atheists are the ones who more frequently fall prey to that temptation. Atheists believe the vast majority of humankind–most people believe in some kind of deity–are superstitious and delusional while they, the atheists, see things clearly. If believing that you are among the few who are smart enough to see the truth counts as arrogant, I think a lot of atheists fall into that category.
6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism
Christianity teaches that the religious authorities are frequently self-serving and fail to follow the truth, that truth is what matters, not human authorities. It seems to me that the Gospel is the perfect antidote to authoritarianism.
7. Christianity is cruel
Christianity teaches us to focus on our own huge sins instead of worrying about the tiny slivers of sin of our neighbors. It teaches us to turn the other cheek, to move on when people don't accept the Gospel message we offer instead of trying to force it on them. That seems like the opposite of cruel.
11. Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
On the contrary, Christteaches that morality can be summed up by: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. That seems as broad rather than narrow.
15. Christianity sanctions slavery
Not so, I'd say. There is nothing in Christ's teachings that says people have a right to own other people as slaves. It does recognize that slaves exist, Christ uses this social fact in several analogies, and he did command the people who in those days where enslaved to act in ways that are loving toward even the people who enslaved them, but Christ's teachings don't sanction slavery.
18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings
This implies you have another (more reliable) source for Christ's teachings that you can compare the Bible to. I'd say that's debatable.
20. Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions
I've seen that claimed before, but arguably the similarities are mostly based on present day "scholars' interpreting ancient myths through the lens of Christianity.
On the other hand, suppose it's the other way around. It's possible that the so-called similarities stem from the early Christians using the common religious vocabulary of the time to describe actual miraculous events they experienced. The "ancient myth" argument against Christianity IMO misses the entire point. My personal reason for embracing Christ is that I find myself compelled by Christ, Christianity best fits my deepest intuitions and judgments and experiences during prayer and worship. It is continually confirmed by my continual reflection on life and its meaning. It's like a life experiment. Irrelevant debates about whether or not the Bible contains contradictions or whether there are good answers to those claims seems to me to be "majoring in the minors" as it were.
your Friend
keith
"Christianity is based on the idea that God loves us enough to have become a human being and sacrifice himself to save us."
Hi, Keith. This says it all for me about the statement above.
"I think you could argue that atheists are the ones who more frequently fall prey to that temptation."
Lets just assume like Seeker does that atheists are sinful arrogant monsters. Turning the argument on atheists does nothing to address "5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality."
"Christianity teaches that the religious authorities are frequently self-serving and fail to follow the truth, that truth is what matters, not human authorities."
There is no Christian truth because it all depends upon one's personal interpretation of Jesus. It's subjective. You disagree with Seeker regarding many aspects of Christianity. You do not disagree with him regarding objective truths like 2+2=4.
"Christianity teaches us to focus on our own huge sins instead of worrying about the tiny slivers of sin of our neighbors."
It also teaches original sin. Didn't God create Hell to show us His love?
"Christ teaches that morality can be summed up by: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself."
And broader still would simply be, "Love your neighbor as yourself." "God" in your context refers to a narrow interpretation of God reserved for Christians only.
"Christ uses this social fact in several analogies, and he did command the people who in those days where enslaved to act in ways that are loving toward even the people who enslaved them…"
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Nice…
"This implies you have another (more reliable) source for Christ's teachings…"
No, it implies "The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings."
"Irrelevant debates about whether or not the Bible contains contradictions…"
No surprise here. Faith is non negotiable! Check it out Keith. Why debate dogma? Why indeed?
Hi Cineaste:
Thanks for the response. Here's my reply:
"Christianity is based on the idea that God loves us enough to have become a human being and sacrifice himself to save us."
Hi, Keith. This says it all for me about the statement above. (link spoke of God saving us from himself
I don't agree that God saves us from himself. God saves us from our sins.
"I think you could argue that atheists are the ones who more frequently fall prey to that temptation."
Lets just assume like Seeker does that atheists are sinful arrogant monsters. Turning the argument on atheists does nothing to address "5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality."
Great point. My actual argument would be that neither breeds arrogance. It's not arrogant to believe you are right about something even if most people disagree with you; arrogance is what you do with that belief. Christ doesn't teach that Christians are better than everyone else and if Christians end up thinking so we are misapplying Christ's teachings IMO.
"Christianity teaches that the religious authorities are frequently self-serving and fail to follow the truth, that truth is what matters, not human authorities."
There is no Christian truth because it all depends upon one's personal interpretation of Jesus. It's subjective. You disagree with Seeker regarding many aspects of Christianity. You do not disagree with him regarding objective truths like 2+2=4.
But I might disagree with him about objective truths like whether Dick Cheney really believe Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. People disagree about objective truth all the time. But you are right to point out that there are lots of disagreements between people who call themselves Christian. On the other hand, most Christians do agree on lots.
"Christianity teaches us to focus on our own huge sins instead of worrying about the tiny slivers of sin of our neighbors."
It also teaches original sin. Didn't God create Hell to show us His love?
I don't remember if we've talked about my view of Hell or original sin. But original sin doesn't mean that people are judged for sins someone else committed. Was your point that the doctrine of Hell is cruel? That's a common objection. I do note that no one calls a doctor cruel when he says that smoking can cause cancer; the doctor would be cruel NOT to warn people.
"Christ teaches that morality can be summed up by: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself."
And broader still would simply be, "Love your neighbor as yourself." "God" in your context refers to a narrow interpretation of God reserved for Christians only.
I disagree strongly with your last sentence. God means God, for Christians or non. We Christians DO believe certain things ABOUT God that non-Christians don't believe. But even if we were wrong and Islam was right about such things, Jesus' claim that we are supposed to love God could be true. The only sense in which the claim depends on the Christian concept of God is that God (according to Christianity) IS love.
"Christ uses this social fact in several analogies, and he did command the people who in those days where enslaved to act in ways that are loving toward even the people who enslaved them…"
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
To be fair, this wasn't something Christ said; it's from the Old Testament. But also it doesn't sanction slavery. It recognizes the institution of slavery and mandates a limit on how the slave can be treated, but it doesn't suggest that slavery is morally OK. IMO this indicates something about God, namely that he sees our moral development as a process, and he guides us in that process, taking us where we are and helping us move to where we ought to be. God's instructions, like those of a good parent, are age appropriate.
"This implies you have another (more reliable) source for Christ's teachings…"
No, it implies "The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings."
Unless you know what Jesus' teachings really were how can you say the Bible didn't accurately convey them?
"Irrelevant debates about whether or not the Bible contains contradictions…"
No surprise here. Faith is non negotiable! Check it out Keith. Why debate dogma? Why indeed?
I'm not sure what your point is here. Claims that the Bible gives bad science, or says that Jesus' family started in this city or that city aren't about what really matters in Christianity IMO. I think that's focusing on trivia when Christ offers considerably more than trivia.
your friend
Keith
“Clearly we disagree about the existence of sin”
Yup. Again, one of those subjective “truths” of Christianity.
“I also think Epicurus’ analysis is wrong”
So, Epicurus asked the wrong questions? Now you’re just puling my leg.
“…there’s nothing wrong with a what a person wants coinciding with what God wants.”
Her point is that’s it’s not really about what God wants. It’s really all about what the person wants. What God wants is a matter of interpretation. Christians, Muslims, etc. interpret what God wants to suit them. How arrogant! #5
“I don’t agree with you that no religion has objective truths. In fact I expect several do.”
No, you don’t. I feel like telling Christians that there is no evidence for [insert name of God here] is a lot like telling children that there is no evidence that their imaginary friend exists. Children claim that their imaginary friend’s existence is an objective truth but you need to break it to them that it’s actually subjective. Like God, their friend only exists in their own imagination. Unfortunately, the child perceives you as arrogant for trying to tell them their imaginary friend is, imaginary.
“It wouldn’t touch any of the essentials claims of Christianity.”
Seeker, is biblical inerrancy essential to Christianity or not? If the bible is flawed, then “#18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.”
“How do you get that original sin means people are born to go to hell? How do you get that hell means eternal torture? For that matter, how do you get that the Bible teaches there will be people who are sent eternally to hell?”
I got all that from fundamentalist evangelical Christians.
“I have made no excuses for slavery Cineaste. My point was that the Bible doesn’t sanction it. God accepts slavery? God recognizes that people do enslave people, that’s true, but how do you get that he accepts it?”
You have made, and continue to make, excuses for stupid and barbaric scripture like Exodus 21:20-21. If you see child in a brothel in India being enslaved and beaten, do you tell the slaver that if she survives a day or two “he shall not be punished?” Would you just sit there and recognize that slavery exists? No, I don’t think you would. You have better morals than Exodus 21:20-21 so stop defending it. It’s beneath you, Keith. I respect your pacifism Keith, but call a spade a spade and condemn Exodus 21:20-21 as immoral.
“Sam Harris seems to have been arguing against a strawman.”
No, you can look up the stats for yourself.
“What Jesus preached in that sermon is inconsistent with the bible.”
You don’t think so? It’s obvious
“When someone is deluded or brainwashed, everything that person hears is weaved into their delusion to strengthen it. Exodus 21:20-21 for example, shows how God guides our moral development. Whatever.”
Your response: “That’s just rhetoric.” No, Keith. It’s what I am observing you do. You are defending an immoral verse of scripture by refusing to call it for what it is, immoral. “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” Say it with me. This is immoral.
Hi Cineaste:
“I also think Epicurus’ analysis is wrong”
So, Epicurus asked the wrong questions? Now you’re just puling my leg.
I am not:-) Here’s what I am saying. Epicurus correctly claimed that God is either able or not able to prevent evil, but he was IMO wrong when he said that if God is able but chooses not to prevent evil he is malevolent. Here’s why. I would say that we human persons have the ability to make decisions, we have what some would call free will. Given free will, God has to take into account the free will decisions we make when he decides how he will promote benevolent ends. There is no reason to reject the possibility that those benevolent ends would not have been attainable unless God allowed some degree of evil. Therefore, Epicurus posed a false dichotomy, leaving out this latter possibility.
“…there’s nothing wrong with a what a person wants coinciding with what God wants.”
Her point is that’s it’s not really about what God wants. It’s really all about what the person wants.
That’s her claim but I see no reason to suppose it’s always the case. To be fair, she didn’t claim such, she just said that it’s often the case. I agree: people often rationalize things so they can appear to righteous in their own eyes.
What God wants is a matter of interpretation. Christians, Muslims, etc. interpret what God wants to suit them. How arrogant! #5
If God actually wants something then what he wants isn’t a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of disagreement. Muslims are arrogant because they think they are right while you and I are wrong? Everyone who has an opinion believes their opinion is right (follows from the definition of “having an opinion). You think you are right about God even though most people on earth don’t agree with you there. There is nothing arrogant about believing different from the majority, I’d say.
“I don’t agree with you that no religion has objective truths. In fact I expect several do.”
No, you don’t.
Of course I do!. I believe that Muslims are right that God places a premium on helping the poor for example.
“It wouldn’t touch any of the essentials claims of Christianity.”
Seeker, is biblical inerrancy essential to Christianity or not? If the bible is flawed, then “#18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.”
I guess I should let Seeker speak for himself, so all I’ll say is that the Bible not being inerrant doesn’t equate to it not being a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings, no more than a math book not being inerrant equates the math book not being a reliable guide to understanding math.
“How do you get that original sin means people are born to go to hell? How do you get that hell means eternal torture? For that matter, how do you get that the Bible teaches there will be people who are sent eternally to hell?”
I got all that from fundamentalist evangelical Christians.
Are you sure you didn’t misunderstand the nuance? I ask this seriously BTW. I am not a fundamentalist and I disagree with them about several things, so I have no skin in a dispute you have with fundamentalism. But in my experience discussing this with intelligent fundamentalists I know, there is some degree of complexity in doctrine.
“I have made no excuses for slavery Cineaste. My point was that the Bible doesn’t sanction it. God accepts slavery? God recognizes that people do enslave people, that’s true, but how do you get that he accepts it?”
You have made, and continue to make, excuses for stupid and barbaric scripture like Exodus 21:20-21.
Excuses? I’d say rather that I offered a possible way that Exodus 21 can be consistent with God being against slavery. You originally said I was making excuses for slavery; I assume you didn’t quite mean that.
If you see child in a brothel in India being enslaved and beaten, do you tell the slaver that if she survives a day or two “he shall not be punished?”Would you just sit there and recognize that slavery exists? No, I don’t think you would.
If I were actually in that situation, I would hope that I said something that would result in an improved situation for the child, as opposed to satisfying my own desire to declare that such slavery is wrong.
You have better morals than Exodus 21:20-21 so stop defending it. It’s beneath you, Keith. I respect your pacifism Keith, but call a spade a spade and condemn Exodus 21:20-21 as immoral.
Cineaste, I believe you completely misunderstand Exodus 21. You are right to be indignant at a claim that the kind of behavior described in Exodus 21 is morally OK. But IMO you are wrong to think that changing things FROM worse behavior TO Exodus 21 is immoral.
“Sam Harris seems to have been arguing against a strawman.”
No, you can look up the stats for yourself.
The reason Harris’ argument is a strawman is that it isn’t part of original sin that clumps of cells go to hell.
“When someone is deluded or brainwashed, everything that person hears is weaved into their delusion to strengthen it. Exodus 21:20-21 for example, shows how God guides our moral development. Whatever.”
Your response: “That’s just rhetoric.”
No, Keith. It’s what I am observing you do. You are defending an immoral verse of scripture by refusing to call it for what it is, immoral. “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” Say it with me. This is immoral.
You are not actually responding to my point. There is nothing wrong with a verse that says X instead of Y if X would end up with a better result than Y. Your position reminds me of the Yippies in the 60s. They cared more about staking out the moral “high” ground in their anti-war protests than they did about actually bring about the end of the Vietnam War. The passage in Exodus was addressed TO slaveholders, and your being morally appalled by the verse is nothing compared to THEIR being moved in the direction of treating people justly. Self-righteous moral posing is useless.
your friend
Keith
"…if God is able but chooses not to prevent evil he is malevolent."
Exactly. If you see a woman being raped, you don't just stand aside. You act against evil. Just watching her getting raped and doing nothing is malevolent. You see, if a loving God existed, he wouldn't allow evil like this to occur. That's Epicurus' point. You are making an excuse for God's non intervention. Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. Kindly read this parable Keith. I hope it helps you open your eyes.
So, Epicurus is right.
"That's her claim but I see no reason to suppose it's always the case."
As there is also no reason to suppose rocks are always "hard." There are some soft rocks but, rocks are hard like the skulls of theists regarding their faith.
"If God actually wants something then what he wants isn't a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of disagreement."
What God wants IS a matter of interpretation. Then people disagree about the interpretation of what God wants.
"Everyone who has an opinion believes their opinion is right"
That's what I'm saying. Religion is only opinion. Opinion is subjective. Keith, don't conflate what you believe with what you know. You believe your God exists. You have faith he exists. You do not have knowledge that he exists.
"If you see child in a brothel in India being enslaved and beaten, do you tell the slaver that if she survives a day or two "he shall not be punished? "Would you just sit there and recognize that slavery exists? No, I don't think you would."
It's morally repugnant to not condemn what the slaver is doing. And all for what? Defending Exodus 21:20-21? This is not what Jesus taught. The Jesus of the sermon on the mount would have condemned slavers.
"Excuses? I'd say rather that I offered a possible way that Exodus 21 can be consistent with God being against slavery."
But deep down, in your heart of hearts, you know that Exodus 21 is not consistent with God being against slavery. You are truly making excuses for a vile passage of scripture. You just can't bring yourself to condemn what you know should be rightfully condemned. That Exodus 21 is wrong. It was wrong when it was written and is still wrong today.
"The reason Harris' argument is a strawman is that it isn't part of original sin that clumps of cells go to hell."
Christians have assured me that clumps of 5 cells, blastocysts, are people with souls. They tell me all people are sinners. Therefore, all blastocysts are sinners. They told me sinners who do not accept Jesus as savior go to hell. Blastocysts are people who have not accepted Jesus. So, where do the blastocyst souls go when God kills them via miscarriage? Are they with the Chinese people in the afterlife who have never heard of God? Are they in hell? Where can they be?
"They cared more about staking out the moral "high" ground in their anti-war protests than they did about actually bring about the end of the Vietnam War."
This from the man who won't condemn a law that lets slavers beat their slaves to an inch of their lives and go unpunished? Pot to Kettle: "You're black."
By the way, Merry Christmas Louis, Keith, Seeker, and Aaron.
Hi Cineaste:
1. And Merry Christmas to you too, Cineaste as well as a Happy New Year. BTW in light of the conservative claim that there's a war against Christmas in the so-called liberal culture I feel the need to insure you that I am not trying to force Christian practice on you by saying "Merry Christmas". I do celebrate the religious Holy Day of Christmas, but there is also the secular holiday of Christmas that belongs to everyone from the culture, Christian or non. It's sad to me when people try to turn either of those celebrations into weapons.
Anyway, on to the debate.
1. About Exodus 21. A discussion has run out of steam when people start just repeating the same point back and forth. I just want to sum up my point. I claim that sometimes telling a person how morally repugnant they are is just moral grandstanding, sometimes it is best to choose what you say to them based on how likely your comments are to encourage the person to move to a lesser evil from a greater one. This is possibly what God intended with Exodus 21. The passage was addressed to certain people (slaveholders) at a certain time (ancient Israelite history) and IMO the passage should be judged based on whether or not it made things better than they would have been had the passage said something different. I see no reason to think that if the passage had condemned everything ABOUT slavery that this would have produced a better result.
2. About opinion: I was using the word to mean "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal", particularly when the opinion holder cannot prove to a person who doesn't agree with him that the opinion holder is right. On that definition, people can have different "opinions" as to whether or not a particular claim about an objective matter is true. The Cheney example I offered before illustrates my point: I am of the opinion that Cheney didn't really believe there was clear evidence that Iraq was reconstituting it's nuclear weapons program. I can't prove this but there is an objective fact of the matter wrt that question.
3. About "blastocysts": what your argument shows is that the assumption that a clump of cells has a soul and that the soul is guilty of sin before it has made the first decision to do anything, combined with the assumption that those souls that die before they choose to accept Jesus as their personal savior go to hell, leads to the (IMO absurd) conclusion that clumps of cells go to hell. I don't agree with that, neither would most conservative Christians I'd bet, so therefore conservative Christians will have to reject one or more of the assumptions I just mention. As a matter of logic, if a set of assumptions leads to an impossible conclusion then what follows is that at least ONE of the assumptions is false, not that the whole set ought to be junked.
4. About the moral high ground comment. It still seems to me you missed my point. Here's what I was trying to say: during the Vietnam War protests, the appropriate goal SHOULD have been to stop the war, not to show everyone how high minded the protesters were to speak out against it. If calling the war a tragic mistake was more likely to end the war than loud accusations that LBJ was a murderer then the less accusatory tone was called for. Calling the war a tragic mistake left unchallenged the idea that we had a right to use military force Vietnam had we been able to accomplish our goals there, but if giving the leaders who got us into the war a pass on that question ended the war sooner, then THAT would have been the moral thing to say.
your friend
keith
I'll sum up my points about your summation.
1. Exodus 21. "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
I see no divinity in this vile law. It's actually an immoral law made by immoral men.
2. "About opinion: I was using the word to mean "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal"
Yes, so am I. You've described religion perfectly. It's an opinion. Some people have the opinion that fairies exist. Others that their God exists. In both cases, it's just their opinion. Of course, maybe fairies and Gods exist but again, it's just an opinion. Worse, it's just faith, which is not even based on factual evidence like opinions can be.
3. "..what your argument shows is that the assumption that a clump of cells has a soul and that the soul is guilty of sin before it has made the first decision to do anything"
This is not my assumption, it's the assumption of fundamentalist Christians. It's called original sin. Combine it with their notion of personhood at conception and you get an absurdity.
1. All people are sinners.
2. All Blastocysts are people.
3. Therefore, all blastocysts are sinners.
My assumption is that God(s) and fairies don't exist, and neither do disembodied souls. And, I'm not so cruel as to believe in original sin where the children inherit guilt for the misdeeds of their parents.
4. "…the appropriate goal SHOULD have been to stop the war, not to show everyone how high minded the protesters were to speak out against it."
Duh! And, if you are not willing to even speak out against an unjust war, why then would you be willing to take the next step and take action to stop it? So, Exodus 21 is a law that lets slavers beat their slaves to within an inch of their lives and go unpunished. One needs to speak out against injustice. This law is unjust. You agree with me, but you're compelled not to say so because you can't reconcile an unjust law with something God supposedly made. So, you make up excuses in an attempt to reconcile the two.
"I claim that sometimes telling a person how morally repugnant they are is just moral grandstanding…
This isn't about you. I'm not telling you that you are morally repugnant. I'm telling you it's morally repugnant to not condemn slavery as unjust. And guess what? The Bible and the Christian God does not condemn slavery. Instead, the Christin God actually regulates slavery. Oh, and what harsh regulation! Way to go God. You really showed those slavers it's a huge step in the right direction to not actually beat your slaves to death but just to near death. Or, just maim them. Ask yourself, would Jesus approve of this law? Honestly?
Good night and good luck.
CINEASTE SAID: if God is able but chooses not to prevent evil he is malevolent.
KEITH SAID: Exodus 21:20-21 for example, shows how God guides our moral development.
While I find Keith’s answer to the problem of evil unsatisfying, it is because I do not subscribe to the theology that early man was not ready for the full truth, and God had to wait for him to mature. I think this is a bit of evolutionary contamination of theology, and it mimics the better theology which is that, though man has remained unchanged morally and spiritually (he hasn’t ‘developed’), God has decided to reveal his plan stepwise across history. But the unfolding of the gospel plan has nothing to do with man becoming ready – man is as depraved and fallen as ever.
But to Cin’s claim, while I understand this line of reasoning, there are equally good philosophic rejoinders to this claim, and I do not want to rehash them, since this discussion has been carried on repeatedly through history by more learned than ourselves. But to summarize it as I understand it, the reasons that God may not prevent evil are
(1) God, in his mercy, is suspending judgment in order to give the guilty time to repent
(2) In the interest of free will, God does not, as the atheist moralist would like in order to fill his own requirement for righteousness, act like a nanny constantly slapping our wrists for every infraction, but rather, has ceded responsibility to us – that is, humans are to manage themselves as independent agents, not children, infantilized by a smothering moralist God.
(3) God is not unjust, but WILL punish evil at the end of the age.
So the claim that God is unjust or malevolent has decent counter arguments, whether you accept them or not. But to say that this is an open and closed case for the atheist rejection of God is premature.
CIN WROTE: What God wants IS a matter of interpretation…Religion is only opinion. Opinion is subjective.
I think that you guys are talking past one another, in part due the ambiguity of this statement, which can be easily clarified.
But the statement that religion is subjective opinion is merely the unidimensional atheist-materialist view that grows out of a simplistic argument that runs thus: since religious claims about sin, salvation, the nature of God, man, and the life to come, are not empirically verifiable, then all claims about such matters are equally spurious.
The problem with this approach is that it ignores secondary and indirect evidences, and fails to admit that, while empirical research can not entirely prove the faith claims of a faith system, it can eliminate pretenders who violate the secondary evidences, such as those of history, archeology, logic, natural law (miracles aside), and common ethic.
The Atheist’s Caricature of Faith is basically a simplistic, straw man of what faith really is, and lives at the extreme opposite to those who claim “we know for sure” – which is, they claim “we can know nothing of God, and reason can not help us quantify or differentiate between the believability of such claims, because only direct empirical evidence will do.”
This is why anti-religionist atheists conflate the most wicked of religions, such as Islam, Nazism, and ancient pagan human-sacrificial religions, with such beautiful belief systems such as Christianity and Buddhism (well, they like Buddhism as long as it doesn’t make any claims about the afterlife or morality.)
CIN WROTE: Defending Exodus 21:20-21? This is not what Jesus taught. The Jesus of the sermon on the mount would have condemned slavers.
Regarding Exodus, I have a few remarks:
1. How is it, then, that xianity is the ONLY ideology in the history of mankind to stand up and eliminate human chattel slavery?
2. I think that you misunderstand slavery as it is reported in the Bible – it has a specific context, a specific meaning (it was not chattel slavery – kidnapping is condemned in scripure), and a specific reason for being described as it was – see The Bible and Slavery.
3. If your entire view of Jesus is the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps you would be correct. But Jesus was not as one dimensional as one passage might indicate. Nowhere does he repudiate the laws of Moses, but in fact, in many places, he affirms it IN ITS ENTIRETY. So perhaps you don’t really know WWJD.
I agree that such passages seem to justify slavery and not condemn it, as well as the NT book of Philemon. They are hard to defend, and with them, it makes it hard to defend the Bible as “the word of God.”
But as Inigo so astutely stated, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
CIN WROTE: Christians have assured me that clumps of 5 cells, blastocysts, are people with souls. They tell me all people are sinners. Therefore, all blastocysts are sinners. They told me sinners who do not accept Jesus as savior go to hell. Blastocysts are people who have not accepted Jesus. So, where do the blastocyst souls go when God kills them via miscarriage?
Well, CIN, you seem to be out of your depth here, but your logic is one that all amateur theologians must consider ;).
Here are my answers:
1. I am one conservative Christian who does not believe that blastocysts are people with souls, hence c-ral. But the question of personhood, from a legal standpoint, is important and we need to have that discussion.
2. Personhood and having a soul accountable to God may not be synonymous.
3. The death of children falls under a similar rubric as those who have not heard – while all are guilty by nature, they may be granted exception in the judgment. Even more, children may have not confirmed their own sinful nature by willful sin, as we all have as adults. In Catholicism and some branches of Protestantism, there is the theology of “the age of accountability,” before which a child is NOT accountable for their sins.
Scriptural support for such is weak, but there is some support for children going to heaven without faith in Christ – see the story of David and Bathsheba’s son of adultery who died:
4. In light of original sin, you are right to ask about children who die. But the answer is, it is a bit of a mystery (that is, since the logic is inescapable and we don’t like the conclusion since it seems unthinkable, we call it a mystery ;). But there are more serious theologies to harmonize this with the justice and mercy of God – the simplest is, while we are all sinful on arrival, we are not GUILTY until we *willingly* sin – that is, until we confirm it.
But I believe that Jesus would answer your question the same way he did to those who wondered about the “innocent” who died in an accident at the Tower of Siloam (Luke 13). “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” That is, don’t worry about their fate, worry about your own! YOU know that you are guilty, and you are responsible to do something about it.
Hi Cineaste:
1. About clumps of cells and hell:
“..what your argument[emphasis added] shows is that the assumption that a clump of cells has a soul and that the soul is guilty of sin before it has made the first decision to do anything”
This is not my assumption, it’s the assumption of fundamentalist Christians. It’s called original sin. Combine it with their notion of personhood at conception and you get an absurdity.
I didn’t say those were your assumptions, I said your argument showed at least one of the assumptions you attributed to the theological conservative wrt original sin and blastocysts was wrong. You listed what you think are the pertinent assumptions:
1. All people are sinners.
2. All Blastocysts are people.
3. Therefore, all blastocysts are sinners.
Seeker explained in his response to you that he rejects (2). For those conservatives who would accept (2), I expect they’d reject (1)–they’d probably say that the subset of “people” represented by blastocysts are not yet capable of sinning. The point is: one could hold to the doctrine of Original Sin without believing (1)–or (2) as in Seeker’s case–so your proof doesn’t show Original Sin to be absurd, just the particular version you cited, one that I’ll bet almost nobody accepts.
To Seeker:
I don’t see how you can deny society has developed since the days of Exodus 21. Very few people in the Western world at least would suggest that slavery–even the kind practiced by ancient Israel–is OK. Unless you think it was OK back then you must see the ending of such slavery to be an example of social progress. There is biblical support for the idea that God helps his people gradually develop spiritually (I don’t see how this “evolution” counts as contamination). For example, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians:
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.
Paul spoke differently to them because they weren’t ready for the full truth. I guess I don’t understand why the theology you offered–that for some reason God didn’t reveal the whole truth wrt slavery–is better than the theology I offered. Exactly what do you consider to be wrong with my theology here?
your friend
Keith
"…so your proof doesn't show Original Sin to be absurd."
It shows that when combined, the two beliefs [1. All people are sinners (original sin) and 2. All Blastocysts are people], equate to an absurdity. You can see this when I said, "Combine it with their notion of personhood at conception and you get an absurdity." And yes, the Christian fundamentalists assured me that they do believe both premises are true.
As far as your "I'll bet almost nobody accepts [both premises]" comment, you are incorrect. If you are having trouble accepting what I am telling you, I can show you. It's sooo nuts.
Hi Cineaste:
These are the premises you say you combined with Original Sin:
1. All people are sinners
2. All balstocysts are people.
This would only imply that unrepentant blastocysts end up in hell if Original Sin presupposes that all people who die before they repent will end up in hell. You suggest that THE Christian fundamentalists assured you they believe those things. What I claim is that those fundamentalists would deny is that dead blastocysts end up in hell. Now you will say that they just won't accept the logic of their view, but I think there is a more charitable (and more likely) interpretation. I think they would deny your version of original sin. I think they would hold to some sort of "age of accountability" theory, and that blastocysts haven't reached that age. I think they would say that blastocysts are "people" in the sense that killing them is murder, but that they don't have the same kind of responsibility to accept or reject God's offer of grace as you or I would. I don't think any of them hold the specific ideas YOU'VE attributed to them. I think your argument doesn't include the nuance in their view, which is why I think it's a strawman argument.
your friend
Keith
"What I claim is that those fundamentalists would deny is that dead blastocysts end up in hell."
Nope. They say they don't know what happens to them. If YOU you claim that they don't end up in hell, then I would say that their claim is less arrogant. They don't pretend to have this knowledge.
"Now you will say that they just won't accept the logic of their view…"
Wrong. See above.
"I think they would deny your version of original sin."
Irrelevant. The absurdity comes from the fact that they believe all people are sinners because they inherit it from their ancestors, Adam and Eve. Since they believe blastocysts are people, that means blastocysts are also sinners.
"I think they would hold to some sort of "age of accountability" theory, and that blastocysts haven't reached that age."
You're simply wrong about this. You have to accept it. If you still don't accept it, I'll be happy to show you where they say this. They are being consistent with the teachings of St. Augustine which Martin Luther and John Calvin later adopted. Sin is the original state of man. In this sense, blastocysts are sinners because they are human beings. St. Augustine believed…
"The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo, who concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell[4][5] because of original sin." -Wiki
If you don't accept their own words, I don't know what else to add other than, "Take your blindfold off."
Hi Cineaste:
I would indeed like you to show me where contemporary fundamentalists accept the possibility that dead blastocysts end up in hell. And to be fair to fundamentalists you need to show me some who are mainstream wrt fundamentalism. That you can find some fundamentalist who thinks so doesn't prove much.
your friend
keith
Here is what they told me, Keith. And, I quote…
Tim, from: Abortion is a theological issue
Feel free to read the entire thread. Keith, I think your argument is with them, not me. On this matter, you disagree with their theology, not mine.
Furthermore…
“So yes, all people are sinners, with the exception of one — Jesus Christ.
That’s basic Christian doctrine. (I don’t say that to suggest that you should know it’s basic Christian doctrine, just to point out that it is a basic tenet of Christianity.) And it’s something all Christians agree upon.”
Note: my first premise is, “1. All people are sinners.”
Again, this is an apparent contradiction. One very easy and logical solution is to say that all men are born sinners, but not guilty until they confirm that nature by sinning.
There are other solutions, such as allowing for mystery at the edges – the teaching at those edges is unclear, and perhaps it should be, at least to confuse those who want to indulge their hubris and excuse themselves from their own guilt. For those who understand and reject the gospel, the teachings of the scriptures are unambiguous.
BTW, I'm saying that not just to be insulting, but because Jesus employed this very method – he offended the minds of the "wise, pious, and self-righteous" to expose their hearts towards God.
Hi Cineaste:
I read the link and let me first tell you seriously: I enjoyed your arguments. You do argue well. But I looked through Tim's comments AND the comments of the others and I didn't see anyone who said the unborn would end up in hell because of their original sin. In fact, one of the links Tim linked to (Al Mohler?) said the opposite. I supposed the reason you asked the question was to defeat the anti-abortion claim that "life begins at conception", trying to show that if anti-abortion Christians really believed that they'd have to believe that hell was filled with the tortured souls of blastocysts. But from what i could tell none of the people you were arguing with believe such.
your friend
Keith
Whether Christians believe blastocysts wind up in heaven or hell is completely irrelevant. It's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The point is, original sin is an absurdity not because blastocysts end up in hell, but because Christians "believe all people are sinners because they inherit it from their ancestors, Adam and Eve." This has always been the issue. One inherits many things from their parents, but the actions and misdeeds of parents are their own, not their children's. The notion of inheriting sin from "the fall" is patently absurd. But I guess Christians view God's punishment on all the billions of women forever and ever after Eve as justified, though it was she and Adam who were actually culpable, according to the myth. Crazy stuff! To get back to the point, the absurdity of original sin supports many of the 20 reasons to abandon Christianity.
Also, as I mentioned to you before, those guys just don't know what happens to blastocysts. They might go to hell and they might not. Who cares? IMO, it's a silly thing to argue over and a complete waste of time.
The point is, original sin is an absurdity not because blastocysts end up in hell, but because Christians "believe all people are sinners because they inherit it from their ancestors, Adam and Eve.
Why, besides the fact that it might offend your sensibilities, do you find this an absurdity?
A Christian would argue that, just like we inherit our physical characteristics and genetic flaws from our parents, we inherit our spiritual condition, which is spiritual separation from God.
The evidence? We all die. We all sin. In fact, no man save Jesus has EVER not sinned. You or I can't even make it through the list of the ten commandments without failing.
And whether or not I believe in the doctrine of original sin (it is not a central doctrine), I can still believe that all men have sinned.
Again, I think there are two reasons why you react so strongly. One is, you take an overly simplistic approach to the doctrine – you think that it's logical conclusion MUST be that even babies are guilty, and therefore going to hell. And anyone who doesn't follow your direct path to this conclusion is obviously being disingenuous, or at least intellectually sloppy.
However, as I have oft repeated, scriptural principles and truths do not exist in a vacuum, and interpreting them in a vacuum, rather than in a web of supporting, limiting, and related truths, always leads to such extreme conclusions.
For example, some people wrongly interpret the scripture "thou shalt not kill" as a prohibition on capital punishment. However, they neglect the other scriptures that put such a command in context, and limit it's interpretation – as we know, the chapter following the ten commandments is full of a list of capitol crimes, also commanded by God to Israel.
The second reason many people blanch at the doctrine of original sin is that it offends them – not their logic, but perhaps their sense of fairness, if not the fact that it implies that THEY are, threrfore, indicted as sinners. But being personally offended has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. I may be offended when you tell me that my obesity could kill me young.
But to conclude, I don't see you presenting any evidence as to why you believe (and that's all it can be ;) that original sin is wrong. I have provided two reasons why I think it right – the fact that ALL sin, and that all die – but this is based on the assumption that "sin leads to death" – so if all die, all have sinned.
You may find such ideas spurious, but they are somewhat essential to having a happy and free spiritual life – once you admit you have a problem, and that problem is real, then the solution becomes all the more valuable.
I'm not offended by the idea of "Original Sin." Rather, I think it's just another dogma without any evidence nor any intellectual content. I also reject it because it is an excellent instrument for political and psychic control of individuals by powerful people. I also note that other cultures throughout history had no concept of "sin" (the ancient Greeks, Asians). It is an unneeded religious overlay trying to explain why humans are so nasty. The answer is simple: we are animals cursed with self-consciousness.
Original Sin…
It's absurd!
Hi Cineaste:
Whether Christians believe blastocysts wind up in heaven or hell is completely irrelevant. It's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The point is, original sin is an absurdity not because blastocysts end up in hell, but because Christians "believe all people are sinners because they inherit it from their ancestors, Adam and Eve.
But here is the quote where you brought up blastocysts:
Moreover Keith, since those blastocysts haven't accepted Jesus, God has essentially created them only to destroy them a few hours later and on top of that, send them to hell. Christian doctrine is insane.
So how was your point NOT the claim that one of the allegedly insane things about Christian doctrine was that it implies the damnation of dead blastocysts?
It seems to me the point is that your interpretation of Original Sin–an interpretation that implies the damnation of miscarriages–is DIFFERENT from that of nearly all fundamentalists, since those fundamentalists don't believe blastocysts go to hell. If your version of original sin is different from the standard, your argument is a strawman argument. That's all I'm saying.
your friend
Keith
BTW, the reason that xians find the doctrine of original sin appealing, besides the fact that they believe it to be true, is that
– it is consistent with the idea that all men are sinners
– it is consistent with the doctrine that the fall of mankind affected all creation
– it is consistent with Paul's statement in Romans that, just as all men fell in Adam, all may be redeemed in Christ – that is, that to some extent, we were helpless in becoming sinners, and can't save ourselves, but again, must be represented by one greater than ourselves
All that is to say that it is doctrinally consistent. I can see why you might think that it is INconsistent to think that babies are somehow exempt, when the doctrine of original sin would mean that even children are damned. But that logical extension of the doctrine is not borne out in other passages, is slightly contradicted by other passages (weakly), and falls into the realm of mystery along with the idea that those who have never heard MAY have a chance.
But even IF children are doomed due to their inherited sinfulness, the question is not "do i find that offensive," but "is it true."
By comparison, if a woman makes bad choices, like smoking crack during pregnancy, the fact that her innocent child suffers may seem unfair, but it is true. And just because you or i don't like our inherited state, that doesn't make it any less true.
Hi Louis:
I'm not offended by the idea of "Original Sin." Rather, I think it's just another dogma without any evidence nor any intellectual content. I also reject it because it is an excellent instrument for political and psychic control of individuals by powerful people. I also note that other cultures throughout history had no concept of "sin" (the ancient Greeks, Asians). It is an unneeded religious overlay trying to explain why humans are so nasty. The answer is simple: we are animals cursed with self-consciousness.
Truth or Falseness can both be excellent instruments for political and psychic control. For example, the fact that Al Q'aida engineered the attacks of September 11 was misused by the Republican White House to sell people on all kinds of unrelated policies and to discourage dissent. IMO when debating claims that such and such is true, the only appropriate criterion is whether or not the claim matches reality. Allegations that the claim is itself dangerous doesn't carry any epistemological weight.
Also, about the word "sin". A lot of atheists object to the term because of its religious connotations. Most atheists would agree that people do bad things all the time. Doing bad things is what religious folks mean by "sinning", and having a tendency to do bad things is what religious folks mean by being "sinful". If both atheists and theists agree that people do bad things, then IMO its non-productive to argue about what label is applied.
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker:
IT's probably a discussion for a different thread, but IMO you have mischaracterized Paul's statement in Romans. You wrote:BTW, the reason that xians find the doctrine of original sin appealing, besides the fact that they believe it to be true, is that
– it is consistent with Paul's statement in Romans that, just as all men fell in Adam, all may be redeemed in Christ – that is, that to some extent, we were helpless in becoming sinners, and can't save ourselves, but again, must be represented by one greater than ourselves
What Romans says is:
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18 NASV)
This seems to say more than that all people have an opportunity to be redeemed; it seems to say that all people WERE redeemed.
your friend
Keith
"…since those fundamentalists don't believe blastocysts go to hell."
Ah! But this is not true is it? They don't know if blastocysts go to hell or not. So, they still allow for it. They are influenced by St. Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin.
"The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo, who concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell[4][5] because of original sin."
The alternative to going to hell for blastocysts is going to heaven. That's equally problematic. Unfortunately, purgatory no longer exists. The Pope made it so.
Also, they still think that babies are guilty of sin, which is just wacko. My opinion is that people should be judged by their actions.
Keith,
Unfortunately, you are taking that one verse out of context – if you read the verse directly above the one you quoted, you get the full picture:
Also, Romans 5 makes many comparisons between adam and christ, and makes distinctions – so I think I am correct in saying that through one man, sin entered, and through one man, sin is forgiven. And while it says ALL fell in Adam, it does not say that ALL are saved in Christ – because the second is UNLIKE the first in that the second is a GIFT, and a gift must be received.
Also, don't forget
Keith:
Also, the reason the passage you quoted does not exclude any is because it is making a different point – that in that one action in the past, redemption was provided for all men – that is, Christ does not have to crucified again for anyone. That one act provides salvation FOR all, but it does not ACCOUNT it to all – because that accounting is done when one acquires salvation by faith.
Hi Cineaste:
1. The cite you linked to (Tim's cite) Tim offered a link to Al Mohler's webpage (Al's was the article that you guys were discussing in the thread you led me to) and Al argued specifically that even young babies would end up in heaven even though they hadn't repented. That some people said they didn't know what would happen to unrepentant blastocysts doesn't imply they think that hell is a real possibility for them. I expect their "I don't know" comes from their not knowing exactly how to respond to arguments like yours. But logically Seeker's response (differentiating between being having a tendency to sin and committing sinful acts) would be a legitimate response to your argument.
2. Whether or not the Pope says purgatory exists doesn't cause purgatory to cease to exist. Either it does or it doesn't.
3. You allude to he "all babies go to heaven" view as being problematic. What problems are you referring to?
4. On the other hand, any argument that shows that hell is inconsistent with the loving qualities we Christians attribute to God would be an argument against the hell doctrine, not against Christianity per se. It would be an argument in favor of the universalism I lean toward.
your friend
keith
Hi Seeker:
Unfortunately, you are taking that one verse out of context – if you read the verse directly above the one you quoted, you get the full picture:
Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
There is nothing in that verse to say that eventually everyone won’t receive that grace, it seems to me.
Also, Romans 5 makes many comparisons between adam and christ, and makes distinctions – so I think I am correct in saying that through one man, sin entered, and through one man, sin is forgiven. And while it says ALL fell in Adam, it does not say that ALL are saved in Christ – because the second is UNLIKE the first in that the second is a GIFT, and a gift must be received.
I guess it’d be 1 Corinthians 15 that says For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
lso, don’t forget
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Well the context of 1 John seems to me to be the contrast between the Jews who opposed Christ–the supposedly righteous religious leaders–and the people who were attracted to his message. This passage still doesn’t seem to me to conflict with the possibility that eventually everyone will “believe in His name”.
your friend
Keith
"Al argued specifically that even young babies would end up in heaven even though they hadn't repented."
Again, I need to correct you. Not only is this beside the point, it's also untrue. Note that Albert Mohler also does not know what happens to blastocysts. No one does. He essentially says, I don't know, trust God. Anyone can say this. So what?
The real point, which I have repeatedly made to you is…
"Whether Christians believe blastocysts wind up in heaven or hell is completely irrelevant. It's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The point is, original sin is an absurdity not because blastocysts end up in hell, but because Christians "believe all people are sinners because they inherit it from their ancestors, Adam and Eve." This has always been the issue. One inherits many things from their parents, but the actions and misdeeds of parents are their own, not their children's. The notion of inheriting sin from "the fall" is patently absurd. But I guess Christians view God's punishment on all the billions of women forever and ever after Eve as justified, though it was she and Adam who were actually culpable, according to the myth. Crazy stuff! To get back to the point, the absurdity of original sin supports many of the 20 reasons to abandon Christianity."
Until you understand this, you'll just keep getting side tracked with irrelevant and inconsequential points of theology, i.e blastocysts going to hell. You're just wasting time and quibbling with blastocysts and hell.
Hi Cineaste:
Al argued specifically that even young babies would end up in heaven even though they hadn't repented."
Again, I need to correct you. Not only is this beside the point, it's also untrue. Note that Albert Mohler also does not know what happens to blastocysts. No one does. He essentially says, I don't know, trust God. Anyone can say this. So what?
1. In one of his responses to you, Tim linked to an Al Mohler post entitled "In the Shadow of Death–The Little Ones Are Safe With Jesus". This is the Al Mohler post I am referring to. I assumed you read it since it was linked in a response to you. It said:
"I am convinced that those who die in infancy and early childhood–along with the severely cognitively impaired–go to Heaven when they die. That is quite a claim, but it stands within the mainstream of orthodox Christian theology throughout the centuries, and I believe it is biblically and theologically sustainable."
Now I think this response is quite relevant to your claim, but even if I were wrong about that, I was right about what Al Mohler said about young babies and hell. I originally asked you for an example of a person from the mainstream of fundamentalism who believed that unrepentant blastocysts would end up in hell and you offered Tim's website as an example. From what I can tell that website DIDN'T support the notion of blastocystic damnation.
2. You then complained that I keep getting sidetracked by the "irrelevant and inconsequential points of theology, i.e blastocysts going to hell. ". But you are the one who brought blastocysts and their supposed damnation into the discussion, as an illustration of how supposedly wacky the current doctrine of Original Sin is. I am arguing that you misunderstand the doctrine, as evidenced by the fact you said what you said about blastocysts and hell. It's your misunderstanding of the doctrine that is relevant, your original claim about blastocysts and hell just illustrate your misunderstanding.
3. Even if your understanding of original sin were correct, and even if that version of original sin is absurd, this doesn't give a reason to reject Christianity. It would just show that a particular theological theory was wrong. A Christian who believed the Bible to be God's word AND who saw the absurdity could quite properly point out that the idea of original sin was INFERRED from the bible, not explicitly mentioned. This Christian would say that you had shown that the IFFERENCE was wrong.
your friend
Keith
cin: You keep saying that the idea of original sin is absurd, perhaps because it might indicate that millions will end up in hell. But you have not really explained WHY it is absurd. But let me guess:
1. You think the idea of millions going to hell is unjust or unfair.
But by what standard do you make such a claim? By what assumptions, and what logic?
Perhaps what is just is that no one goes to heaven, since all are guilty. Perhaps the death and punishment of JESUS is what is unfair and unjust.
2. You think that the whole idea of hell, or eternal justice is absurd
Though if a just God exists, you would support his punishment of Hitler, perhaps, but not sinners like yourself because you compare yourself to Hitler instead of Jesus or Mother Theresa. So which is it? Is God damned if he punishes sinners, and damned if he does not?
3. You are offended at the inheritance of a sinful nature, and the associated guilt
You wrote " One inherits many things from their parents, but the actions and misdeeds of parents are their own, not their children's. The notion of inheriting sin from "the fall" is patently absurd."
You inherit diseases from them, is that patently absurd too? Even, as I have explained in my harmonizing of original sin and the innocence of children, you only inherit a sinful nature, your real problem is that you HAVE confirmed it by sinning yourself. And since everyone sins (even mother theresa and ghandi ;), all have proven to have this "sinful nature" inherited from Adam. So why argue with the plain fact that, inherited or not, we all prove to be sinners?
You are spitting against the wind here, and it seems to me, probably because you dislike the *implications* of the doctrine (your helplessness and guilt, the reality of millions going to hell), since I think I have provided a perfectly logical explanation for how children could be innocent. And Keith has provided references to this childhood innocence being the standard xian doctrine, which has been logically tested and developed in systematic theology over centuries.
KEITH:
There is nothing in that verse to say that eventually everyone won't receive that grace, it seems to me.
You are correct, but other passages do say that. For example:
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
And many, many more.
This passage, as you may have unwittingly alluded to, is NOT (I believe) discussing whether or not salvation is *given* to all, but merely that it is AVAILABLE to all through the sacrifice of Jesus.
While there may be a faint hope of universal salvation, I would say based on the bible, that's a real long shot, if not an outright contradiction (though God may do as he likes).
"From what I can tell that website DIDN'T support the notion of blastocystic damnation."
ROFL! No. Actually, they don't know.
"But you are the one who brought blastocysts and their supposed damnation into the discussion, as an illustration of how supposedly wacky the current doctrine of Original Sin is."
They agreed with premise 1 and 2. So, you get #3. Try as you might, you can't escape the logic. And, you have to admit, anyone of believes in #3 believes in an absurdity. I think anyone who believes #1 and #2 also have absurd beliefs but I don't think you'd go that far. Who cares whether they think blastocysts end up in heaven or hell. It's completely irrelevant.
"Even if your understanding of original sin were correct…"
Of course it's correct…
"The Western tradition, both Catholic and Protestant, concerning original sin is largely based on writings by Augustine of Hippo, who concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell[4][5] because of original sin."
"Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin"
If you disagree fine, but I'm not going by your personal interpretation of original sin. I've read what those who wrote the doctrine of original sin said about it and Tim is just being faithful to that doctrine, though you might not like it. I may think he holds an absurd belief, but at least Tim doesn't interpret original sin to suit his own perspective.
The problem with your syllogism is that you are using the ambiguous term "are sinners."
The fallacy is that you don't say WHEN they are attributed that term, or what it means, so when you say "blastocysts are people," premise 3 does NOT automatically result, so your logic is invalid.
AND, you have failed to address my comments, which probably means your logic does not really account for my responses – i.e. your answer may not stand up to real criticism.
Again, point one of your syllogism is faulty.
Hi Cineaste:
Your response was a little hostile. Since most of the time you've been civil I assume you are getting frustrated by what you see as my thickness here. Maybe you think I am being deliberately thick, arguing in bad faith. I assure you I am trying to fairly consider and respond to your arguments, and I don't THINK I've been thick. Anyway. let me address your points.
ROFL! No. Actually, they don't know [whether unrepentant blastocysts end up in hell].
Well, Al Mohler, current President of the Southern Baptist convention, who was the one cited by the website you linked to, says that babies who die end up in heaven, he doesn't say he doesn't know. Mohler is exactly the kind of mainstream fundamentalist I was asking you to cite. So which mainstream figures were the ones who said "I don't know"? Al Mohler, at least, doesn't believe that Original Sin implies what you say it does.
Of course, you might say that Al Mohler doesn't understand Original Sin because whatever he thinks about babies in hell, original sin implies they exist. you offer a syllogism to prove just that, and if Mohler can't accept the logical conclusion then that's too bad for Al Mohler. But as Seeker points out, your argument depends on presuppositions about the meanings and consequences of ambiguous theological terms like "sinner". Seeker suggests that you assume things about sinners that aren't necessary, making your argument unsound. AFAICS you haven't answered his point.
On the other hand, Augustine's Original Sin matches your description of Original Sin, so it would be unfair of me to present you as making it up. If you were debating with Augustine I would agree you were not arguing against a strawman. But I don't see that the contemporary fundamentalists share Augustine's view, and I asked you to cite contemporaries. You tell me that Tim–the world famous theologian:-)–says he doesn't know the fate unrepentant blastocysts. But I reread his responses to you and he never suggested such a thing. He did say that babies are sinners from the beginning, but he never said that they'd be damned. In fact, from what I read he seemed to equating being a sinner with being predisposed to sin, which is to say, that baby will end up committing sins after he grows to the age to make moral choices. That's how Tim understands Original Sin.
How am I misreading their views?
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker:
You are correct, but other passages do say that.
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
And many, many more.
I guess we are going to get sidetracked here:-). I have a couple of responses.
1. I don't think there are MANY verses that say that some will be lost forever. Most of the verses I've seen that speak of post mortem suffering don't even hint that the suffering lasts forever.
2. I'm not sure this verse does either. I am quoting from Matthew 7 here, please withhold your answer until after I go through the whole passage because the case I am presenting depends on the connection between the passages.
13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it…Mt 7:13-14
The key word here is "few".
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves…..Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Mt 15,21
From the context, it seems to me that Jesus wasn't talking about the duration of the post mortem state. It seems to me his point was to warn his followers not to fall for religious fakes. How to tell religious fakes? They are the ones who talk big but don't obey Christ. It is interesting that Matthew 7 is where Jesus warns us to worry about the giant log in our own eye before we worry about the tiny splinter in our brother's eye. Self righteous condemnation of others seems to be the mark of religious fakery.
But still, what about Mt 7:21? Well a couple of possibilities:
1. Jesus here refers to what will happen on "that day", presumably the famous Day of Judgment. On that day the self-righteous folks Jesus warned about throughout Matthew will be surprised, they will receive their comeuppance. But at some point AFTER that day, they will see how they were wrong, they will repent, and will be embraced by Christ who never ceases to seek after the one Lost Sheep until the sheep is found.
2. Maybe there is a difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal salvation. An argument in favor of this notion is that in Romans 5…
"For as through the one man's disobedience (D)the many (E)were made sinners, even so through (F)the obedience of the One (G)the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19)
The phrasing alone suggests that the same "THE many" who were made sinners will end up being made righteous through Christ's work on the cross. But some argue that "many' might not mean "all". I don't think that applies here because of the phrase "THE many", but even if "many" doesn't imply all, it surely implies more than "few". So arguably the Matthew 7 passage is referring to something different from Romans 5.
While there may be a faint hope of universal salvation, I would say based on the bible, that's a real long shot, if not an outright contradiction (though God may do as he likes).
Here's my hope–and I hope it's more than faint: that even those who hold to the more common Christian view about hell would WANT universalism to be true. Sometimes I don't get that impression from some of such folks.
your friend
keith
While I share your hope that many will be saved, perhaps even all, we must remember that God is also a God of truth and justice.
The day of the Lord will be "great and terrible" – and for some (many?) there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." And not just for unloving religious hypocrites, but for those who deny that God's awful wrath and purity demanded the death of Christ.
We don't need to go into the whole universal salvation discussion, but I think that
a) scriptures do teach that not all will be saved
b) that those who are without christ, esp. those who reject him, will not be saved from the "second death" (eternal punishment)
c) universaism to a great extent obviates the need to obey the great commission
But back on the topic CIN raised – does the doctrine of Original Sin mean that aborted babies go to hell? On it's face, yes. But there are other balancing doctrines, as well as the mystery of God's grace which don't make that the inevitable doctrine, nor the one that most evangelicals have adopted. I don't think that Cineaste has an open and shut case on this one, and rejecting xianity on this point seems spurious, and can only really be counted as an offense to the doctrine of man's goodness, his ability to save himself, and an unrealistic view of fairness that says that children never suffer from their parents' mistakes.
"Well, Al Mohler, current President of the Southern Baptist convention, who was the one cited by the website you linked to, says that babies who die end up in heaven…"
Again, allow me to correct you. Actually, Mohler does not know. And again, who cares?
"You tell me that Tim–the world famous theologian:-)–says he doesn't know the fate unrepentant blastocysts."
Smiley face aside, your sarcasm is unwarranted. Tim is just being honest when he says does not know. Neither do you. So, stop pretending that you do.
Bottom Line…
1. All people are sinners. (They agreed)
2. All Blastocysts are people. (They agreed)
3. Therefore, all blastocysts are sinners. (This follows since they agreed with 1 and 2)
See anything having to do with hell? Neither do I. Though you struggle against the inevitable, the logic of my argument is compelling, for this is a sound and valid argument, camestres. Once the Christians agree with the first 2 premises of original sin and personhood at conception, which they have, an absurdity follows. You can quibble till you're blue in the face Keith, but the conversation on Tim's blog has already taken place. You're just crying over spilled milk.
"I assume you are getting frustrated by what you see as my thickness here."
Not really. When I get truly fed up I'll simply stop speaking to you. We stopped communicating long ago in this thread. Do you have anything relevant to say about my arguments or are you simply going to continue with pointless quibbling?
Hi Cineaste
Previously: "Well, Al Mohler, current President of the Southern Baptist convention, who was the one cited by the website you linked to, says that babies who die end up in heaven…"
Again, allow me to correct you. Actually, Mohler does not know. And again, who cares?
Did you read the link? Al Mohler doesn't say he doen't know. Who cares? Not me if you no longer claim that the doctrine of Original Sin as proclaimed by contemporary fundamentalists implies that unrepentant blastocysts are hell bound. But if you DO claim such then it matters that the President of one of the most important strands of fundamentalism teaches the opposite.
"You tell me that Tim–the world famous theologian:-)–says he doesn't know the fate unrepentant blastocysts."
Smiley face aside, your sarcasm is unwarranted. Tim is just being honest when he says does not know. Neither do you. So, stop pretending that you do.
The reason for my smiley face was that my sarcasm wasn't intended to be mockery; it was gentle teasing nada mas. I didn't see that Tim said he didn't know whether or not blastocysts are in hell BTW.
And how do you get that I claim to know they don't any more than you know the same thing?
Bottom Line…
1. All people are sinners. (They agreed)
2. All Blastocysts are people. (They agreed)
3. Therefore, all blastocysts are sinners. (This follows since they agreed with 1 and 2)
See anything having to do with hell? Neither do I. Though you struggle against the inevitable, the logic of my argument is compelling, for this is a sound and valid argument, camestres. Once the Christians agree with the first 2 premises of original sin and personhood at conception, which they have, an absurdity follows.
Once you draw the distinction between being a sinner and committing a sin, a distinction Tim made, IMO there is no absurdity. Saying that the sin nature–that is, the tendency to commit sins–is inherited seems no more absurd that any other claimed inherited trait. IMO it would be absurd to claim, as Augustine did, that because of this inherited trait unrepentant babies end up in hell, but since you say that's not your point then we can drop the issue.
You can quibble till you're blue in the face Keith, but the conversation on Tim's blog has already taken place. You're just crying over spilled milk.
Honestly Cineaste, I am not crying at all about this issue. We just disagree.
"I assume you are getting frustrated by what you see as my thickness here."
Not really. When I get truly fed up I'll simply stop speaking to you. We stopped communicating long ago in this thread. Do you have anything relevant to say about my arguments or are you simply going to continue with pointless quibbling?
Neither. I don't see the quibbling as pointless and it seems to me you were the one who brought up the damned blastocysts as an illustration of the absurdity of Original Sin. That's what started this particular quibble, quibbling that I am more than happy to drop.
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker:
While I share your hope that many will be saved, perhaps even all, we must remember that God is also a God of truth and justice.
Exactly, but I don't see a conflict between God the lover and God the Truth and Justice dispenser. I see universal salvation as God's way of restoring truth and justice from the lies and injustice our sins produce. I am not suggesting there's a place for sin in paradise, I am suggesting that in the end God will successfully change us all so that none of us embrace injustice and lies.
The day of the Lord will be "great and terrible" – and for some (many?) there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." And not just for unloving religious hypocrites, but for those who deny that God's awful wrath and purity demanded the death of Christ.
I tend to think that the reason the Cross was necessary was to somehow repair the spiritual damage our sin caused, not that it was necessary because of God's purity. I don't see any biblical support for the idea that those who don't agree with the reason you just claimed for the cross are at risk of damnation, even if some people are at risk. Mostly
We don't need to go into the whole universal salvation discussion, but I think that
a) scriptures do teach that not all will be saved
b) that those who are without christ, esp. those who reject him, will not be saved from the "second death" (eternal punishment)
c) universaism to a great extent obviates the need to obey the great commission
Yes, we can debate universalism in some other post, but I do want to respond to your point (c). I don't see how universalism obviates the need for witnessing. For one thing, universalism doesn't deny the need for post mortem correction, and helping people avoid this unpleasantness would be of value. But maybe more importantly, the objection seems to me to presuppose that future benefit is the only reason for conversion. If everyone ends up in heaven anyway, then why should people accept Christ now, the argument goes. But why wait? I tend to think that salvation IS conversion, and sooner is better than later. As Jesus said in John:
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
This seems to say that eternal life is is QUALITY of life, something available to us right now, and delaying eternal life would make no sense at all.
your friend
keith
Well, again, that is a nice sentiment, but I find it unbiblical – and when I say God's "purity," I mean his Holiness, his justice, his righteousness which can not stand sin.
While hard core fundies make God into an always angry God, I think universalists avert justice by making God into an all accepting God, accepting even of sin. I know you will deny that, but your sentiments regarding universal salvation are not biblical, and I think offensive to the idea of loving justice, and esp. to the justice that was meted out on christ at the cross. I know you don't mean it that way, but I think those ideas are exactly that – an offense to the gospel of the cross.
“Did you read the link? Al Mohler doesn’t say he doen’t know.”
[shrug] Once again, he doesn’t know. Moreover, no one cares.
“Once you draw the distinction between being a sinner and committing a sin, a distinction Tim made, IMO there is no absurdity.”
Of course there’s no absurdity to you. You’re a Christian. I might think Jesus coming to America is absurd but to a Mormon, it makes perfect sense. In the same way, talking snakes, the sun stopping in the middle of the sky, and original sin makes sense to many Christians. Tim pointed out to me that…
“So yes, all people are sinners, with the exception of one — Jesus Christ.
That’s basic Christian doctrine. (I don’t say that to suggest that you should know it’s basic Christian doctrine, just to point out that it is a basic tenet of Christianity.) And it’s something all Christians agree upon.”
“…the tendency to commit sins–is inherited seems no more absurd that any other claimed inherited trait.”
Ah, but that’s not original sin is it now? Please, allow me to educate you a bit about Christian doctrine. Original sin means that children inherit guilt for the misdeeds committed by their distant ancestors, Adam and Eve. I’ll try to draw a mental picture for you. If your great great great great great grandfather committed a heinous murder. You shouldn’t be punished for it. He is the one culpable for his actions, not you. If you were punished and imprisoned for your great grandfather’s murder, I’m sure you would feel it was absurd. Unfortunately, many Christians can’t make the connection between the absurdity of the great grandson being punished for the sins and misdeeds of his grandfather with, all Adam & Eve’s descendants being punished with painful childbirth, toiling for a living, and being denied Eden; the doctrine of original sin. I’m confident that you will fail to draw the obvious parallel with these two absurdities, but that’s not surprising. I’ll brace myself for more quibbling. :) [gentle teasing nada mas]
Hi Cineaste:
…the tendency to commit sins–is inherited seems no more absurd that any other claimed inherited trait."
Ah, but that's not original sin is it now? Please, allow me to educate you a bit about Christian doctrine. Original sin means that children inherit guilt for the misdeeds committed by their distant ancestors, Adam and Eve. I'll try to draw a mental picture for you…
Don't really need the mental picture Cineaste. You say that Original sin means that children inherit guilt from A and E. Can you please cite a current mainstream fundamentalist who says that children are born guilty of sins they didn't commit?
your friend
Keith
Hi Seeker:
You wrote:
Well, again, that is a nice sentiment, but I find it unbiblical – and when I say God's "purity," I mean his Holiness, his justice, his righteousness which can not stand sin.
What I was asking though is: where (from the Bible) do you get that a person who doesn't agree with you about the REASON the crucifixion was necessary is at risk for damnation because of his belief?
While hard core fundies make God into an always angry God, I think universalists avert justice by making God into an all accepting God, accepting even of sin.
I don't know why you think that universalism differs from your view wrt God's acceptance of sin.
I know you will deny that, but your sentiments regarding universal salvation are not biblical, and I think offensive to the idea of loving justice, and esp. to the justice that was meted out on christ at the cross. I know you don't mean it that way, but I think those ideas are exactly that – an offense to the gospel of the cross.
I am really confused by your reaction. You and I both agree that we are saved by God's grace, not by our works. You and I both agree that salvation requires repentance. Our only difference here is our estimate of how many people will end up saved. So how is my view offensive? How is it more offensive than the idea that God predestined people to everlasting damnation (I don't mean to impute this Calvinistic double predestination to you if you don't hold that view)? How is universal salvation via God's grace any more offensive to justice than the more limited salvation by grace you accept? You believe it was possible for God to remove the stain of our sins from us without violating justice, you don't consider that to be offensive to justice. So where is the offense in my view?
BTW, the universalism I am proposing is not idiosyncratic; there have been throughout Christian history many believers who accepted the Universal Reconciliation I proposed.
your friend
keith
Can you please cite a current mainstream fundamentalist who says that children are born guilty of sins they didn't commit?
If I name the founders of the denomination, does that count? :) I mean, most Protestants adhere to John Calvin's and Martin Luther's doctrine. Do Quakers believe differently than mainstream Protestants regarding original sin?
For what it's worth that's what the doctrine of original sin IS. You may not like it Keith, but it is what it is. Can you accept this fact?
This brings us back to the point, which you dodged…
"If your great great great great great grandfather committed a heinous murder. You shouldn't be punished for it. He is the one culpable for his actions, not you. If you were punished and imprisoned for your great grandfather's murder, I'm sure you would feel it was absurd. Unfortunately, many Christians can't make the connection between the absurdity of the great grandson being punished for the sins and misdeeds of his grandfather with, all Adam & Eve's descendants being punished with painful childbirth, toiling for a living, and being denied Eden; the doctrine of original sin."
Hi Cineaste:
It seems to me you continue to avoid answering my question. You keep saying what Original Sin is, but what you cite is the Doctrine as expoused by Augustine; you do not cite any contemporary sources who endorse that view. That’s all I’ve asked you to do. The Bible doesn’t explicitly mention Original Sin; Augustine inferred the doctrine from Paul’s writings:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—…(Romans 5:12)
Augustine took this to mean what you said, namely all humanity inherited Adam’s guilt. But I don’t see that follows at all. It seems to me that the above passage is perfectly consistent with the idea that humanity inherited a tendency to sin, the same as I inherited a predisposition toward alcoholism from my dad’s family. In fact, that last sentence, “…because all HAVE sinned…” seems to support the version of inherited sinfulness I offered.
Now you ask me if I can handle the alleged fact that Original Sin holds that guilt is inherited. Of course I could handle that! I’m not a fundamentalist, I disagree with fundamentalists about several things, I disagree with them about hell for crying out loud! But if you are right that most fundamentalists hold to Original Sin as you described it then you should be able to cite them. That’s all I’ve asked from you.
your friend
Keith
"You keep saying what Original Sin is, but what you cite is the Doctrine as expoused by Augustine; you do not cite any contemporary sources who endorse that view."
But if you are right that most fundamentalists hold to Original Sin as you described it then you should be able to cite them.
If I name the founders of the denomination, does that count? :) I mean, most Protestants adhere to John Calvin's and Martin Luther's doctrine. (contemporary source meaning Catholics and Protestants follow Calvin's and Luther's teachings today.) Do Quakers believe differently than mainstream Protestants regarding original sin?
"Augustine took this to mean what you said, namely all humanity inherited Adam's guilt. But I don't see that follows at all."
Fine and dandy for you. As I said before, I think you interpret original sin to conform to your own world view. However, the doctrine of original sin as viewed by mainstream Catholics and Protestants is different from your personal conception of it, or maybe the Quaker conception of it. I feel you just don't like to listen. I don't think your being "thick," as you put it. I just feel you have nothing of substance to reply to me with anymore. Yet you insist on replying anyway. Are you doing this just to hear me talk?
Hi Cineaste:
"You keep saying what Original Sin is, but what you cite is the Doctrine as expoused by Augustine; you do not cite any contemporary sources who endorse that view."
But if you are right that most fundamentalists hold to Original Sin as you described it then you should be able to cite them.
If I name the founders of the denomination, does that count? :) I mean, most Protestants adhere to John Calvin's and Martin Luther's doctrine. (contemporary source meaning Catholics and Protestants follow Calvin's and Luther's teachings today.) Do Quakers believe differently than mainstream Protestants regarding original sin?
To answer your question: no it doesn't count:-) The reason is: I asked for contemporary Christian leaders. I'm not just being a punk here. I suspect that most contemporary fundamentalists disagree with the Augustinian position on Original Sin (I know Al Mohler disagrees, based on his comments about babies and salvation). I would claim that fundamentalist Christianity is BY DEFINITION whatever it is that fundamentalist Christians claim to be true, so when (I suspect) they claim to believe in Original Sin but reject the Augustinian view, they mean something at least slightly different by the phrase than what Augustine meant. Now if they claim to believe what Augustine said about original sin but in fact believe something different, well that just means they are miscontruing what Augustine believed. It doesn't show their view of original sin to be wrong. The point is: when yuo criticize a person's beliefs you ought to limit yourself to what they in fact teach, it's not legit to criticize beliefs they don't actually have.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that Augustinianism is absurd. In fact, I might even go far enough to call it heresy, were I in a position to decide such matters.
This brings us back to the point, which you dodged…
"If your great great great great great grandfather committed a heinous murder. You shouldn't be punished for it. He is the one culpable for his actions, not you. If you were punished and imprisoned for your great grandfather's murder, I'm sure you would feel it was absurd. Unfortunately, many Christians can't make the connection between the absurdity of the great grandson being punished for the sins and misdeeds of his grandfather with, all Adam & Eve's descendants being punished with painful childbirth, toiling for a living, and being denied Eden; the doctrine of original sin."
Stop quibbling, Keith. Even Seeker is not this bad.
I really wasn't trying to dodge any of your statements, Cineaste. I didn't respond to your grandmother example because it seemed to me to be an illustration of the absurdity of Augustine's view and I was challenging the claim that fundamentalists accept Augustine's view.
But what about the "painful childbirth" etc. Well I would say that it is a fact that our sins can cause harm to other people, in fact that's part of what makes them sins. I don't believe in Adam and Eve, but even if I did I wouldn't believe that women deserve pain because of something Adam did. Not being God I don't know what reason he has for doing the things he does, but I see no reason to think that a mere human like myself would be in a position to 2nd guess an infinite intelligence about the wisdom of his plans.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cineaste:
"Augustine took this to mean what you said, namely all humanity inherited Adam's guilt. But I don't see that follows at all."
Fine and dandy for you. As I said before, I think you interpret original sin to conform to your own world view.
Gee Cineaste, I quoted the verse for you. Either it implies Augustinian Original Sin or it doesn't. I think it doesn't and I told you so. Wrt that comment of mine, it doesn't matter who disagrees with my interpretation. I believe in original sin and I disagree with Augustianism, which means I don't agree with Augustine's Original Sin–neither do most contemporary fundamentalists as far as I can tell. That means your objection to Augustine's view is irrelevant to current fundamentalism.
I feel you just don't like to listen. I don't think your being "thick," as you put it. I just feel you have nothing of substance to reply to me with anymore. Yet you insist on replying anyway. Are you doing this just to hear me talk?
Really? I had the same feeling about your responses to mine. You continue to criticize a view that apparently isn't supported by any contemporary fundamentalists. You haven't offered a single source that says different. Your quote from Wikipedia doesn't say so, and even if it did, you should be able to actually produce quotes from contemporary fundamentalism endorsing the Augutine view. Yuo haven't done so.
your friend
keith