Neon Genesis

Sorry, this double posted for some reason.

So, if we can only understand the meaning behind morality through Christianity, why are there Christians in Uganda who are trying to get a bill passed that would execute gay people simply for being gay because of their absolute literal belief in the book of Leviticus? I think this is a good point to bring up, Mike. Even if you believe in God, there are still unanswered questions people have about God that have no easy answers to. Even St Paul says in his famous love chapter that we only know in part now and are seeing through a glass darkly. One example of a question with no easy answers is the problem of evil. For centuries since Epicurus first asked the question, both believers and skeptics have questioned how could a universe filled with suffering be compatible with the existence of a loving, personal, god. Likewise, many believers and skeptics have tried to come up with universal absolute answers to these questions but none of these answers have been universally accepted by everyone and people on all sides of the religious spectrum continue to ask this question and the "answers" continue to lead people into completely different directions.

You claim only true Christians can have meaningful morality so why is it that bible-believing Christians are no more moral or holier than thou than non-Christians are? The bible says you'll know who Christians are by their fruits, so where are your fruits that only true Christians can have a meaningful morality? All you have presented in favor of your understanding of morality being correct is theological arguments, but you have no evidence in favor of your arguments, so if you believe Christianity is more than just a leap of faith, where's the evidence that it's more than a leap? On the other hand, I have posted evidence to the contrary that bible-believing Christians are not morally superior to non-Christians at all or understand morality any better yet you dismiss it as being unimportant while insisting non-Christians are going to hell unless they accept your beliefs without evidence.

If you can only have an absolute moral standard if conservative Christianity is true, why don't even conservative Christians agree on what's moral? There's over 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence, each claiming to know the truth to some degree yet none of them can agree on what's moral and what isn't. There are conservative Christians who are pro-life and conservative Christians who are pro-choice. There are conservative Christians who believe it's God's will for them to murder abortion doctors and conservative Christians who believe the murderer is sinful. There are conservative Christians who support same-sex marriage and conservative Christians who are against it. There are conservative Christians who believe euthanasia should be a legal option for medical patients and conservative Christians who are against it. I could go on with more examples but if you're a member of a church congregation, I wouldn't be surprised if even in your congregation, there's a huge amount of diversity about what is moral and what isn't moral. Why are modern day conservative Christians against murdering gay people even though according to their same interpretation of the book of Leviticus, God permitted it in the OT if morals are absolute? So, if morals are only absolute if Christianity is true, what is this absolute moral standard and why can't anyone come to a universal agreement on what is moral? I have given you dozens of evidence before where religious people have been no more moral than non-religious people but this went unaddressed. You don't need anymore evidence than to look at the situation in Uganda where evangelical Christians are trying to pass a law in Uganda that would sentence gays to death just for being gay because of a literal absolute belief in the book of Leviticus.

Davidk, what evidence do you have that we can only have morals if your beliefs about Christianity is true?

Yet according to all the surveys, the most religious nations are the most violent nations while the majority of the most secular nations are the most peaceful. Just compare the violence in the U.S. to the violence in Sweden and Sweden is the most peaceful nation in the world even though the majority of the nation of Sweden is a progressive Christian or atheist. Even if we narrow it down to the U.S., the states who have the highest crime rates are the most religious, there are more fundamentalist Christians in prisons than there are atheists, evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture than any other group, evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rates, and there was a recent survey that showed the states with the highest teen pregnancies were also the most religious states. There have been religious wars started in the name of religious extremism but I haven't heard of a war started in the name of progressive Christianity yet. This doesn't mean of course that all atheists and liberal Christians are perfect and it doesn't mean all conservative Christians are evil and immoral people. There are liberals out there who can be closed minded and judgmental and there are conservatives who can be very wonderful and kind hearted people. What it does mean though is that it doesn't matter what religion you have or even if you have no religion at all, people are people and all groups of people are just as likely to make mistakes or good things as the next. There's no evidence that evangelical conservative Christians are somehow more inherently good people than the rest of society. I still don't understand why a god that claims to be loving and just would burn people with fire for all eternity that are otherwise good and moral people simply because they weren't a Christian.

What is that answer for hope that you say only Christianity has?

But did God say it is so or do people claim God said it was so? Why do you think God made it sinful to not believe in conservative Christianity? Why does not being a conservative Christian hurt God? Even if we presume Christianity is the one true way, which version of Christianity should we believe in? There are over 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence, so how do we know which one we're supposed to believe is the right one? Does it not matter as long as you're a bible-believing Christian? If it doesn't matter as long as you're a bible-believing Christian, why can't progressive Christians be saved as well, and if we can include progressive Christians, why not include non-Christians? Aren't you confiding God to the bible and limiting God's power by saying this is all we need to know about God and all other beliefs are false and deserve to be punished? Isn't that turning God into an engraved image?

But what evidence is there that only true Christians can have meaning in life? There are conservative Christians who have tragically committed suicide and atheists who life satisfied lives. According to that CFI Michigan survey that I mentioned before, the majority of the atheists who were certain about their non-belief that were surveyed were just as satisfied with their lives as the theists who were certain in their beliefs. Interestingly, the people they interviewed who felt the least amount of satisfaction with their life were both theists and atheists who were doubting themselves. Conversely, Canadian atheists were the most satisfied with their lives. It's not being a true Christian that gives people satisfaction and purpose but certainty. Certainty can bring people comfort in an uncertain world where good and evil are not always black and white and there are no easy answers. Unfortunately, the double-edge sword of certainty is that it can also tempt people into thinking that they have all the answers and everyone else is wrong which can easily lead into interfaith violence, denominational schisms, and hatred and judgmentalism and you have to find the right balance in finding purpose and not letting that purpose tempt you into judgmentalism when you've found it. But there's no reason to believe that only conservative Christians can have purpose or meaning. Conservative Christianity may be the most effective at providing people with comfort and certainty, but I think that's more to do with how effective it's been in evangelizing than it being the one true way. If it was only conservative Christianity that gives meaning people to life, why do we have conservative Christian therapists? If everyone in the world was a Christian and there was no one left to evangelize, what would your purpose be?

But even if it was true, why should anyone not a conservative Christian be punished for not being a conservative Christian? I'm not asking you if a non-conservative Christian should be punished. I'm asking why should they be punished just because they're not a conservative Christian. You haven't presented any evidence that not being a conservative Christian somehow hurts other people or that it hurts themselves in some way. If you believe God is all-powerful, then how can not being a conservative Christian hurt God? Why would God make not being a conservative Christian something that deserves to be punished just because God says so?

Why is not believing in conservative Christianity an unrepentant sin that deserves to be punished?

How is not believing in Christianity an evil action? What harm is not believing in Christianity? How are non-Christians or other Christians who are not conservative Christians doing something evil that deserves punishment? And how is being burned by fire for all eternity a justifiable punishment?

Even if we presume that no religion will be special if there is no hell, which do you think is the greater injustice? That a god who claims to be loving would torture someone for all eternity for the victimless thought crime of not believing the right religion or that Christianity might not be special? Is life really so bleak that the very meaning of your existence is dependent on the torture of everyone else? I don't think for a minute that without hell you can have no purpose or meaning in your life. In fact, there was a survey recently conducted by the CFI Michigan on the lives of non-believers which was the most comprehensive study done on atheists and agnostics. One of the interesting findings they found in their research was that non-believers who were certain about their non-belief had just as satisfied and meaningful lives as believers who were certain in their beliefs, so there's no evidence that you can't have meaning or purpose without hell when these people were able to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives who don't believe in god at all. And if the purpose of my life was dependent on another person being tortured for all eternity when the only thing they did "wrong" was not believe in the right religion, I'd rather have no grand purpose in my life than have my purpose be dependent on the torture of others.

I'm not a PC but from my understanding of researching the PC faith and interacting with other PCs here, I think you're misunderstanding PC faith by claiming PCs believe all morals are equal. One analogy I think that would help better understand this position is the parable of the blind men and the elephant:

But where in the bible does it say what the purpose of humanity is? What would you define as the Christian purpose of humanity? If faith is a gift, what makes you think you can decide who Jesus can give salvation to? If it turned out the Christian afterlife does exist and Jesus decided to give salvation to an atheist, would you then question his decision because you believe only true Christians should be saved? No, I don't think I could make a list because I don't think there is such a thing as correct set of things to believe as I think focusing on a correct set of things to believe is missing the point of Jesus' message. I think Jesus' message was primarily about this life and how our actions effect this life rather than about believing the right things to score brownie points with God is turning faith into a work and misses what Jesus was about. I highly recommend reading the book The Case For God by Karen Armstrong but if you want to know what I think the key aspect of Jesus' message was, I think Mark 12:28-34 sums it up as the most important part

And yet the nation of Sweden seems to be doing just fine without the god of fundamentalist Christianity: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=1

How would they lose all their meaning of existence? All paths may lead to Rome but that doesn't mean that all the paths were pointless unless there's only one route you can take to get to Rome. Again, I think the opposite is true that if Christianity is the one true way, individuality becomes meaningless because our existence then becomes dependent on what one person says is the truth. We can no longer think for ourselves and we have to be forced to agree with what the group leader says is truth or else we are no longer considered part of the group and the group leader takes over all our thoughts and this is how cults get started. I'm not saying that all Christians who believe in hell are in a cult or can't think for themselves but I think it's a potentially dangerous belief and it's this absolutism that leads to religious in-fighting, violence and persecution of anyone who thinks individually. If you believe we cannot save ourselves, why do you believe you can save yourself if you believe the right set of beliefs and say the correct things about Jesus but if someone says something different about God, then they are not saved? Is not insisting that to be saved we must believe in your interpretation of scripture not preaching that we can save ourselves? If you believe we are saved by grace and not by works, are you not turning faith into a work? But where in the bible does it say Christianity is the complete package? In 1 Cor 13, St Paul says that none of us have seen the truth yet but one day we might know the truth. Also notice that he says that out of faith, hope, and love, love and not faith are the most important of those three for us to have. Why would Paul say love is more important than faith if it was important to have a correct set of beliefs to be saved? But you're trying to impose a modern day method of reading history onto a religious text written in a time period where such a method did not exist. In the Greek version of the NT, the original word for faith literally means trust. In the ancient world, faith was an action and your commitment to the church as an institution. It was simply presumed by just about everyone that the gods existed and could do miracles. Belief in the literal facts of myths wasn't the point because it was simply assumed the gods did miracles. Even in Jesus' time, there were messiahs all over the place who people believed could do miracles and so it was the message of the story that was considered more important than the facts. But even in ancient Judaism and Christianity, there was never a single universally accepted interpretation of scriptures and the authors were always constantly updating their texts to address their current concerns. Faith only became to mean belief in facts in modern times in reaction to the Enlightenment movement and the doctrine of sola scriptua was invented by Martin Luther. How could the early Christians believe sola scriptua was a requirement when it hadn't been invented yet?

But I think the opposite is true, that if you believe your way is the one true way and anyone who doesn't agree deserves to be tortured by God for all eternity, then it's a harder temptation to resit putting yourself on God's throne and judging humanity in God's place. If you believe you and people who agree with you alone are God's elect, it's only a step away from believing everyone else is God's unchosen, which is a step away from believing everyone else is God's rejected. And if you believe everyone else that doesn't agree with you is God's rejected, what's to stop one from believing that their enemies are God's enemies and so anything that's done to them no matter how immoral it is is sanctified by God? Again, I don't mean to say all Christians who believe in hell are also immoral, but as I pointed out, all the evidence points to that there's no connection between your morality and a lack of belief in hell. Then why didn't God intervene and save Jepthah's daughter at the last minute like he did for Abraham's son if this is a literal story? If it was all Jephthah's fault, why didn't God just punish him instead of dragging his innocent daughter into it? What was right about God's commandment in Numbers 31:16-18? So if you accept inflicting intense pain on others is evil, why is it moral for God to torture people in hell for eternity?

If morals disappear because of universalism, please explain why according to this survey, bible-believing evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture as being moral and just than any other group. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html Do you think Jesus, who taught to love your enemies, would support tortue? Please explain why the non-believers surveyed were behaving more "Christlike" than the evangelicals if a lack of belief in hell leads to immorality. What evidence do you have to support this claim? So do you believe Judges 11:29-40 was divinely inspired by God if God would only command good things and the bible is intended to be read literally? But you claim that unless people believe in your "orthodox" version of Christianity, this will make them be immoral yet Jesus uses an example of someone who did not believe in the orthodox religion who was moral and that believing in the orthodox religion does not make you automatically good. Please define what you think the real meaning of good and evil is. Do you believe torture is always immoral?

But does the bible say that you can only tell good apart from evil if you believe in heaven and hell? I don't recall scripture saying this. In fact, in the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus uses a Samaritan, a non-Jew, as an example of someone who was a good neighbor who's example we should follow even though the Good Samaritan was not a follower of the "true" religion of Jesus' time. Jesus did not believe in all the "orthodox" doctrines that were accepted by Jews in his time yet Christians praise him as the messiah. And if there was a connection between morality and a belief in hell, why is it that according to surveys, the nations which are the most violent are the ones which are most religious, the states which are most religious have the highest crime rates, and there are more Christians in prison than non-Christians? I'm not using this as an anti-religious argument and I'm not saying all Christians who believe in heaven and hell are bad people. There are many conservative Christians who are wonderful and kind people but my point is that if there was a connection between belief in hell and morality, wouldn't we see this in the fruit of the Spirit of the Christian? Wouldn't you agree there's more to Christianity and behaving morally than simply beliefs? Doesn't James say faith without works is dead and that even the devil believes? Is it not more what you do with your faith that matters moreso than what your faith is itself? I also don't understand how having a heaven without hell takes away our free will anymore so than us having no choice to die at all takes away our free will. Interestingly, there is a verse in Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 which says everyone is saved, both humans and even animals: I also love this one video of Bishop Spong where he talks about how hell is an invention of the church:

Edit: I accidentally clicked quote when I meant to edit. Sorry for this.

Speaking as a gay man, I think the difference between accepting homosexuality and accepting something like pedophilia is that a child is incapable of consenting to sex. Homosexuality doesn't hurt others but rape and pedophilia do because the person who engaged in them didn't consent, but I think it depends on how one defines acceptance. Does it mean accepting their actions or accepting the person that wants to change while not endorsing the actions of their past? If we mean the former, I don't think it's dogmatic in itself to set limits to inclusiveness where it's reasonable but I don't see it so much as setting limits to inclusiveness as much as I see it as making sure people are safe and protected from harm. It's sort of like the question of should we tolerate homophobia or racism or other harmful actions. I think it's an oxymoron to tolerate intolerance and likewise I also think it's an oxymoron to tolerate harmful acts. At the same time, I think if someone had a dark immoral past but served their time and is willing to change, they should be accepted while we also make the precautions of keeping people safe from harm. It's like in the early church, Paul was an ex-murderer and used to persecute the church, but he changed his way and he's since been accepted almost universally by the majority of Christians, but people still have difficulty accepting other people with dark pasts that are willing to change. But even in the early church, Paul was not automatically trusted and people showed caution before accepting him because of his past actions towards the church. I know 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 has been abused in the past to justify gay conversion therapies, but I think it still makes a powerful point on different issues.

I do still like a lot of classic Christian hymns, like I still love Amazing Grace although I don't care for those new modern versions of the song that youth groups love to sing for some reason. But some of the lyrics in conservative church hymns are kind of creepy to me with the obsession they place on the torture of Jesus and being Christian martyrs. I think the most creepy song I've heard has been "There's A Fountain Filled With Blood" and then there's that song "Wonderful Cross." And I didn't know Casting Crowns were PC. Their song "What If His People Prayed" sounded more conservative to me but then that was their debut album.

Thanks for all the recommendations! I'll have to check them out! And Ray Boltz has his pro-gay marriage song to listen to free from his official site and if I'm not mistaken, I think Ray Boltz now performs concerts at Metropolitan Community churches: http://rayboltzblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/dont-tell-me-who-to-love-the-new-single/

Is it just me or does it seem like the majority of Christian music is aimed at conservative Christians? The only Christian song I can think of that isn't is a song Ray Boltz made after he came out of the closet that's a pro-gay marriage song from a Christian perspective called Don't Tell Me Who To Love, but is there any other Christian music out there with more of a progressive slant to it?