Sri Lumpa said:
Actually you are right, I should have said "Almost but probably no cigar " as your argument was against player1x3and I can't speak for him but I hope you understand why, when talking about things you cannot prove through experiment and thus have to rely on the word of others, it is better to rely on sources taht you know the person you are arguing with finds authoritative.
Sure but a perfect being should get it right the first time, even if his material is flawed (especially given that he created the material he works with too).
Question of wording. I agree with you that there are requirements beyond morality, I disagree with you that it makes it "supermoral" (more than moral) and think it makes it less than moral. It is like if you had a driving test where you had to know not only how to drive but also something totally unrelated to driving. It would corrupt and diminish the test as you would then reject good drivers that failed the part unrelated to driving.
Then you do equate morality with god.
So you don't see the god ordered act of violence against the city of jericho as moral? How does that square off with god being either moral or the source of morality?
I can't say that I care much that they took their own life, tragic as taht may be, as they are the primary sufferers of that act. I care a whole lot more that they took other people's life. And I don't care whether god allows people to take their own life or not, that is none of his business.
I am not falling "a bit" or at all on relativism, I am arguing that claiming that god is the source of morality is moral relativism as you then have two different scales for judging morals, one applying to everybody and the other applying to god.
Yes, because if religions are not about encouraging and rewarding morality then they are about encouraging and rewarding other things, like belief. I don't give a rat's ass about belief because what is is and what isn't isn't regardless of what you believe or don't but the moral system of religions has an impact on today's world. If religions didn't claim to be about morality but said they were about rewarding belief (among other things) then I wouldn't care much about them but since they tend to take the moral high ground they open themselves to scrutiny of the morality of their beliefs.
So some sins are not about morality? Well, then being a sinner can't be such a bad thing then, as long as the only sins you commit are the ones not related to morality.
It is not so much "why should he not be seen as the truth, path and life" as like you pointed it relies entirely on faith. It is "why should god be assumed as completely moral when we can judge his moral character from his actions described in the bible".
For the question of his existence, maybe, but for the question of whether he is moral then you can use reason and what he told us about his actions.
First, remember that it only applies if your contention that good people not knowing of Jesus would be saved as otherwise your action or inaction would not change anything. That said, if he was good then your action put him in a mortal peril and as such you are as guilty if he is damned as a Jigsaw (in the Saw movies) is guilty of the murder of the people he puts in trapped rooms. If you had done nothing then his salvation would have been his responsability but if you taught him things that damned him by default then you are the one who put him in that damning situation and thus are the one bearing the responsiblity of his damnation.
You are not letting him know of the world. If you did you could perform experiment to explain to him how it works. What you are doing is trying to teach him of another world that you cannot prove exist. In such a situation it is reasonable for people not to believe you as you cannot support your teachings with the world but only with the words of others.
Maybe you should start by saying "if you listen to me you risk being tortured for eternity". If they still choose to take the risk and listen to you then it is their own choosing and thus their own responsibility. But if you start talking about how Jesus is the son of god and if you believe in him and love him you will be saved, and then add "by the way, now that you know that then if you don't believe in him you will be tortured forever" then you forced that knowledge on them with no warning and doing so put them in grave peril so their damnation would then be on your head.
Exactly, there are part that do not need belief in a supernatural being to be taught. If missionaries taught about the golden rule and about being compassionate but refrained from talking about salvation until a warning was given and accepted by the listener(s) then there is no problem. But if they don't and talk about it with no warning and no concern of whether they want to hear then their actions deliberately puts them in peril and thus the consequence are on the missionary. |
But God didn`t fail. In a way, knowing how we were at the time, He chose not to impose, given our limitations. Doing otherwise would have probably been pointless.
But it is more then moral. Doing good is one thing, but loving or hating someone is beyond morality. Those who hate God: it`s beyond morality, but is still a sin. So, you see, there are sins that are outside of morality, most likely because they exist even if there isn`t a situation where you can apply morality or not. For instance, suicide is a sin. It`the rejection of life.
I do equate morality with God. I just read the other way around.
And no, i don`t find anything coming from God as immoral. So to me there aren`t two sets of morals as God is the absolute morality. The case being where Jesus lived what He teached.
You can judge God through His actions, of course. But please remember that you aren`t seeing another person and not even one that thinks like you - that is human as you. There`s a lot of God that no one knows.
About good people, yes, you can say there`s a risk of said person not believing. But as i said, his damnation is not my fault. It`s his decisions and actions that will give him heaven or hell. And that is the same principle for someone who doesn`t know the word of God. So, there is no damnation by default for anyone, whatever the case is.
Also, when you speak of proof, it`s fairest (spelling) if you say that the proof you have is not the one you want or accept. Because other people find it more than enough.
Me teaching someone about God is no different than telling someone what is moral and immoral according to people around the world. It`s the same situation. Teaching the ways of man will give him a path for either fates as much as speaking to him about God opens a path for either fates. In that way, everyone is responsible for everyone`s demise in hell. Because everyone puts everyone at risk when they show something immoral or a sin.
I don`t see that as a responsability of mine but of that who goes the wrong way. It`s still 50/50 before and after the word of God.
You are also starting from the point where you have someone who is good and will remain good for the rest of his life. No one can be positively sure that said person is good and also that he will still be good for life. The only way you know that - if you can know - is at the end of a person`s life, but then it might be late for saving him.
And as i said, there`s more to the word of God than the concern of salvation or damnation. It`s about teaching how you can find yourself in God; it`s about a Father be known by their sons and a Father showing their sons how much He loves them. You can`t take appart the word of God.
