# conservative Christians are going to Hell (with the rest of us) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2009, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375 "2009-03-05T11:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/41 "2009-03-06T12:51:13Z")
[QUOTE=MichaelJohnBertrand] Well let me dial you in, then. The issue at hand is whether or not people follow the Bible or not. I’m saying, nobody does. [/QUOTE] No. That would be a different debate from your original post and one I would not argue with. Your debate was: [QUOTE=MichaelJohnBertrand] **conservative Christians are going to Hell (with the rest of us)** I wrote this article a long time back and, well, I haven’t been part of a rip-roaring religious debate in a while, so I thought I’d post this and stir the embers a bit. **Think you’ll make it to the Pearly Gates? Better read up on the Bible, sinner.** [/QUOTE] Bolding mine. From there you quote a lot of the bible that talks about certain acts. None of the quotes you give say you won’t get into heaven. [QUOTE=MichaelJohnBertrand] Well, for starters, there’s Matthew 5:41-42 "Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you. If you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners. " [/QUOTE] But he doesn’t go on to say _or you won’t get into heaven._ As I said, the quotes you gave are for a holy life here on earth. I quoted several passages that tell us that heaven is acquired by faith, not by acts. Do people follow \*all \*the bible? Hell no. Does \*any \*member of \*any \*religion follow all their holy books. Hell no. Does any single person follow \*all \*the rules of their society? Hell no. But your thesis that Christians won’t make it into heaven based on your passages is nonsense. Are you changing the debate? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/42 "2009-03-06T16:18:37Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > To paraphrase your three paragraphs there: > > 1. I (mswas) know more about Christianity than you do. Never said any such thing. The fundamental mistakes being made her are very simplistic. Saying that I am acting like an elitist is like saying that if I tell you 7x2=14 I am being an elitist about math. > [@](#): > > 1. Stoning people to death who could mislead the Jews was the epitome of good. I never said any such thing. > [@](#): > > 1. I (mswas) have no idea when the Jews were supposed to stop. Well 1 out of 3 ain’t bad. > [@](#): > > Well to comment on items 1 and 2, the Christian doctrine is that the Mosaic law lasted until Jesus came down to teach a new way. Of course, this probably didn’t save James the Just, possible brother of Jesus, from being stoned to death under precisely this very law. Ok, comment away on the stuff I didnt say. I have no opinion on the things you made up. > [@](#): > > But so, assuming this Christian teaching to be true–i.e. that the Jews were to stone to death anyone who taught the teachings of false gods and false prophets–all the way from ~1300 BCE to 1 CE, then you are saying that for a full millenia were in such a precarious position of being overwhelmed by another religion that it was the very epitome of Godliness to stone your child to death if, for instance, he tried to convert you to Zoroastrianism? You are just making numbers up here. Your child would have had to have been converted by someone else for this to occur. Tribal culture just really didn’t work like this. That’s the problem, people are trying to apply a modern secular humanist ethic to a tribe of antiquity and as a result no real conversation can be had about it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/43 "2009-03-06T16:19:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yeah, the 7 letters of Paul which are generally accepted as authentic are all from the 40’s and 50’s CE. He even claims to have met apostles (though he is sketch about telling us exactly what they believed). Jesus died 33 CE, so 40s to 50s CE isn’t that implausible. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/44 "2009-03-06T16:20:44Z")
> [@MichaelJohnBertrand](#): > > Hmmm. You’re getting very close to the line of “personal insult” here. How about we attack one another’s arguments and not each other, mmmkay? I did attack the argument and not the person. If one cannot view history without applying a modern ethic to it, they aren’t making a real argument about it. If that’s offensive, then _shrug_. People are welcome to find my arguments to be invalid for whatever reason too. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/45 "2009-03-06T16:30:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Who is “they?” The Jews that wrote down the law. > [@](#): > > Nice try, but I understand it just fine. Many of the rules we’re talking about (and I should have excepted the quotes attributed to Jesus in this) have nothing to do with being “good” in that they have nothing to do with ethical behavior towards others, but either with ritual behavior in church, or with cultural purity. No, you clearly don’t understand just fine, the laws were set down as what is good. You have a separate idea of ‘ethical’ behavior based on your own modern context. These were the rules that they saw as being good. You can’t switch between moral relativism and moral objectivism at will. It has everything to do with Good because to a devoutly religious person the laws of God are ‘the Good’. If you know anything about religion at all, particularly Abrahamic faiths, then you know this to be true. If you dispute this, then, well, you’re just wrong, it’s not even about opinion at that point. There is a single correct answer here. > [@](#): > > I assume by “book of law,” you mean Deuteronomy. It lays out a lot more than basic ethics. It’s obsessed with ritual and cultural purity as well as the imposition of class and gender roles as well as demands of fealty to the local temple (i.e the local king). Yes, yes it is. > [@](#): > > Having said that, you shouldn’t need a book to tell you how to be good, because, according to Genesis, everybody already knows good from evil. Are you saying some people don’t? If they don’t know good from evil, then how can they be morally accountable for anything. Your opinion of the ‘ought’ is really irrelevant here. I am more interested in the ‘is’ of this situation. What did they believe, and why did they set down these laws? Your question about moral accountability is a very interesting one and a great argument against legalistic piety, but people set down their books of law for a reason. You can claim that their laws are not, ‘Good’, but that’s not really interesting or relevant. I don’t care how YOU feel about it. What matters is the motivation to write down these books of law. > [@](#): > > Your Bible says that I already know good from evil. Is that true or isn’t it? Since when is it ‘My’ bible? I have several bibles, and I think they probably say the same thing that your bible says. I get most of my bible reading from Bible Gateway, like most people on the internet. As I said it’s definitely an interesting argument. > [@](#): > > If it IS true, then I must be right in thinking it would be evil to try to kill my family for trying to get me to worship idols. If I’m wrong in thinking that, the Genesis is wrong in saying that I know good from evil, and if I don’t know good from evil, I’m not morally accountable for anything I do or say. Either way, there’s no reason to consult a book. Either my conscience is correct (and so following it makes me good) or my conscience is wrong, which means the Bible is also wrong, and therefore unreliable as a moral guide. Well, I guess it depends on whether or not you believe in Jewish exceptionalism, or more importantly whether the people living at the time believed that their God was really real, and they had an actual relationship with him via their prophets. You’re hijacking the thread to soapbox your opinion. The thread is about the legal strictures placed by the bible, and not about your philosophizing of them. What you are talking about is a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/46 "2009-03-06T16:31:46Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well to comment on items 1 and 2, the Christian doctrine is that the Mosaic law lasted until Jesus came down to teach a new way. Of course, this probably didn’t save James the Just, possible brother of Jesus, from being stoned to death under precisely this very law. Not at all. There is absolute no indication that James was killed out of obedience to the Mosaic Law. If you think otherwise, then could you perhaps cite the precise prohibition within the Mosaic Law with which he was charged? The execution of James was ordered by the High Priest Ananus because James refused to denounce his brother Jesus as the “gate unto salvation.” This is NOT the same as saying that he was killed in accordance with Mosaic Law. And even if it were, it still does not support your objection. After all, Ananus was not a follower of Jesus, so his actions cannot be taken as a reflection of Christian belief. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/47 "2009-03-06T16:35:15Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > Yeah, since you are unable to counter the argument, this is probably the best you can do. :rolleyes: I’m not sure if he missed the point, or is deliberately choosing to ignore it. So, I will unlimber my own two by four. It’s simple, ITR. The “righteous christians” are no shining paragons of excellence. They violate the Bible as much as everyone else. However, somehow, they have decided that their “crimes and misdemeanors” are less serious than anyone else’s. Further, they hold other people in judgement, but make sure that no one judges them. It’s a double standard, and it’s hypocrisy. Right in “their” Bible, is one of MY favorite quotes: “Judge not, lest ye be judged according to thine own standards”. They sure violated THAT one. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/48 "2009-03-06T16:38:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Jesus died 33 CE, so 40s to 50s CE isn’t that implausible. Actually, if Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king (as Matthew says), and if we accept his age at death as 33 (which is not explicitly stated in the Gospels, but inferred from Mark’s claim that he began his ministry at 30 and John’s claim that his ministry included three Passovers), then the crucifixion would have to have occurred before 30 CE (because Herod died in 4 BCE…the 6th Century monk who devised the BC/AD dating system got his date for Jesus’ birth wrong). Having said that, I never said that the dating of Paul’s letters were implausible. I was actually defending them as semi-contemporaneous with Jesus. Paul never claims to have personally met Jesus, though. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/49 "2009-03-06T16:39:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > They viewed the lack of faith as a virus that if left unchecked could eat away at the very fabric of their society. Wait a minute. Stoning your own children to death does not eat away at the fabric of society? Questioning the god that tells you to stone your children to death eats away at the fabric of society? So you’re telling me that questioning god is worse for a society than stoning your children to death. Is that what you’re telling me? It doesn’t sound right to me. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/50 "2009-03-06T16:40:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Me either. I wan’t even aware that such a thing existed. What I’m giving you is actual historical and Biblical scholarship. If you want to pretend that these sorts of accepted dates are uncontroversial feel free. I choose to recognize that different people have different views on these dates. It is not simply accepted that the stories of Exodus and Deuteronomy are pure mythology as you claim. Stating otherwise is argument by assertion. > [@](#): > > Yeah, but the Israelites were originally Canaanites. They didn’t come into the region as cultural Israelites, they _emerged_ from it that way. Right, this is a controversial statement. You may be right, but you might not be. It’s not simply accepted that Moses is a fictional character. > [@](#): > > Even if we accept the Exodus mythology as history, all that would mean is that they came into the region as invading marauders who justified the sacking and slaughter of the regions they invaded by claiming it was the will of their own tribal god. Even in their mythological context, these stories were not about self-defense, but about conquest. Yea and? So what, tribes warred with each other for territorial supremacy in history. What’s your point? Your separating of self-defense and conquest is simplistic to the extreme. Sometimes there is no difference, sometimes one has to choose between conquering and being conquered. They decided to conquer the territory in order to ensure their own safety, as many other tribes and states have done throughout history. Wishy-Washy liberal coffee house equivocation is really really boring. History was a nasty and brutal affair. As I said I don’t really care how YOU feel about what they did. I am more interested in what they did and why they might have done it. To put it simply your personal ethical judgments are irrelevant. I don’t care if it is right or wrong in some objective sense. (according to you) > [@](#): > > I’m the only one of the two of us who HAS made an effort to study the historical context. These stories do not reflect history, they reflect an _invented_ history. They were made up long after the events they purport to describe. Made up and written down are two different things. They might have been the writing of an oral history. You are just making really sophomoric mistakes where if you gave it even a modicum of deeper thought you wouldn’t toss around these facts as though you know for sure what happened. Not everyone agrees with you, and it is possible that there was a period of time before Deuteronomy was written from the oral history. I’m not saying your facts are wrong, I am just saying you’re giving them a shallow analysis and are too willing to accept one party line. I know people who would school you in the arguments, who would know your arguments before you make them, who disagree with you. This whole, “I have studied this more than you.”, argument doesn’t hold water because I’ve heard many opinions from many people who have studied it more than I have that disagree with yours. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/51 "2009-03-06T16:42:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Actually, if Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king (as Matthew says), and if we accept his age at death as 33 (which is not explicitly stated in the Gospels, but inferred from Mark’s claim that he began his ministry at 30 and John’s claim that his ministry included three Passovers), then the crucifixion would have to have occurred before 30 CE (because Herod died in 4 BCE…the 6th Century monk who devised the BC/AD dating system got his date for Jesus’ birth wrong). That’s plausible, but having exact dating isn’t particularly important. When dealing with ancient history, giving or taking a decade is perfectly acceptable. > [@](#): > > Having said that, I never said that the dating of Paul’s letters were implausible. I was actually defending them as semi-contemporaneous with Jesus. Paul never claims to have personally met Jesus, though. Ok, well then we aren’t disagreeing. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/52 "2009-03-06T16:45:06Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Wait a minute. Stoning your own children to death does not eat away at the fabric of society? I am talking about the Jews in Deuteronomy. > [@](#): > > Questioning the god that tells you to stone your children to death eats away at the fabric of society? If you believe your God is really real and the source of your tribe’s continued existence then yeah. > [@](#): > > So you’re telling me that questioning god is worse for a society than stoning your children to death. Is that what you’re telling me? It doesn’t sound right to me. I know, you are unable to divorce yourself from your modern context. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/53 "2009-03-06T16:54:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > But so, assuming this Christian teaching to be true–i.e. that the Jews were to stone to death anyone who taught the teachings of false gods and false prophets–all the way from ~1300 BCE to 1 CE… BTW, I’d like to carefully point out that you haven’t provided any citation for this claim. Where does the Old Testament say that the Jews were commanded to stone to death ANYONE who promoted the teachings of false gods and false prophets? You’re building your case on this foundation, so I think that’s a fair question to ask. The OP cited Deuteronomy 13, but that specifically mentions _close relatives_ who entice people to worship false gods. Obviously, you can’t use that passage to claim that James the Just was executed in accordance with Mosaic Law – not unless you can show that Ananus was one of his immediate family members. I can’t fault anyone for being troubled by Deuteronomy 13, but as **mswas** said, one should at least make an effort to understand the situation of the Hebrews before lambasting their views. They weren’t merely surrounded by people who taught innocently wrongheaded concepts of God. Rather, they were surrounded by the Chaldeans and other tribes that taught worship of [Baal (aka Hadad or Moloch)](http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Moloch/), a pagan deity who was worshipped through abominable acts of [child sacrifice](http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Moloch#Appearance). This worship included rituals in which a fire was ignited within a hollow statue of Baal until it glowed red hot. Children were then placed within its fiery hot hands, and through some mechanism, the hands were lifted up to the statue’s mouth, causing the children to tumble into the statue and be consumed by the flames. Now one might say, “But that doesn’t justify killing these Baal worshippers!” I think that’s an overly simplistic objection, especially when viewed in light of eternity, but that’s ultimately a separate debate. The point remains that the Jews were NOT commanded to kill anyone whatsoever who worshipped a different god. Rather, they were to prevent their own nation from being contaminated by such teachings – and when you see what Baal worship was like, it’s not hard to imagine why such extreme measures were commanded. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/54 "2009-03-06T17:02:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, you clearly don’t understand just fine, the laws were set down as what is good. You have a separate idea of ‘ethical’ behavior based on your own modern context. These were the rules that they saw as being good. You can’t switch between moral relativism and moral objectivism at will. Moral relativist, my ass, I’m a moral absolutist, dude. What’s right is always right, what’s wrong is always wrong. What have I said that implies the slightest belief in moral relativism? It sounds like you’re the one trying to make a relativist argument > [@](#): > > It has everything to do with Good because to a devoutly religious person the laws of God are ‘the Good’. Tautology. > [@](#): > > If you know anything about religion at all, particularly Abrahamic faiths, then you know this to be true. If you dispute this, then, well, you’re just wrong, it’s not even about opinion at that point. There is a single correct answer here. I know that saying “good is whatever God says it is” is tautological and renders the whole concept of good and eveil arbitrary and meaningless. > [@](#): > > Your opinion of the ‘ought’ is really irrelevant here. I am more interested in the ‘is’ of this situation. What did they believe, and why did they set down these laws? Notwithstanding your erroneous understanding of how and when they were written down, even your relativist “historical context” defense fails to anything but beg the question. Basically, this is a discussion about whether some of what the Bible alleges to be “good” is really good at all. Your defense is simply to say that it’s good simply because the Bible says so. That the fact that it’s in the Bible is proof in itself that it’s good. That’s no defense at all. It’s just an attempt to define moral good as synonomous with the Bible, and to accuse anyone who questions that of not understanding the Bible. It’s nonsense. > [@](#): > > Your question about moral accountability is a very interesting one and a great argument against legalistic piety, but people set down their books of law for a reason. You can claim that their laws are not, ‘Good’, but that’s not really interesting or relevant. I don’t care how YOU feel about it. What matters is the motivation to write down these books of law. No, the motivation of the authors really doesn’t matter at all unless you think that morality can change. If you’re a moral absolutist (as I am), then what’s right is always right and what’s wrong is always wrong. > [@](#): > > You’re hijacking the thread to soapbox your opinion. The thread is about the legal strictures placed by the bible, and not about your philosophizing of them. What you are talking about is a different thread. Don’t be silly. This thread is about the defensibility of the morality expressed in the Bible. Opinions on that morality are the point of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/55 "2009-03-06T17:12:40Z")
> [@bouv](#): > > Where did he say ALL Christians? I don’t mean to take this out on you, but this is a trend I see far too much around here. Someone will say “why does [group X] do this?” and a large number of arguments revolve around the “well, not EVERY member of [group X] does that!” > > While that may be true, in several of those cases a large majority and/or the official leaders of [group X] DO do that, and rarely do the posters say "why do ALL members of [group X] do this. Well, many Muslims are against Gay Marriage also. Do you have any evidence that a large majority of Christians are against Gay Marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/56 "2009-03-06T17:13:59Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > BTW, I’d like to carefully point out that you haven’t provided any citation for this claim. Where does the Old Testament say that the Jews were commanded to stone to death ANYONE who promoted the teachings of false gods and false prophets? You’re building your case on this foundation, so I think that’s a fair question to ask. > > The OP cited Deuteronomy 13, but that specifically mentions _close relatives_ who entice people to worship false gods. Obviously, you can’t use that passage to claim that James the Just was executed in accordance with Mosaic Law – not unless you can show that Ananus was one of his immediate family members. Besides close relatives, it also mentions friends (13:6), doing diligent inquiry to track _anyone_ down (13:14), and nearby villages that have fallen prey (13:15-16). Admittedly in the last case you’re supposed to use sword and fire to do the killing, but I’d generally mark that up as being just as much murdering someone as stoning them to death. > [@](#): > > I can’t fault anyone for being troubled by Deuteronomy 13, but as **mswas** said, one should at least make an effort to understand the situation of the Hebrews before lambasting their views. They weren’t merely surrounded by people who taught innocently wrongheaded concepts of God. Rather, they were surrounded by the Chaldeans and other tribes that taught worship of [Baal (aka Hadad or Moloch)](http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Moloch/), a pagan deity who was worshipped through abominable acts of [child sacrifice](http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Moloch#Appearance). This worship included rituals in which a fire was ignited within a hollow statue of Baal until it glowed red hot. Children were then placed within its fiery hot hands, and through some mechanism, the hands were lifted up to the statue’s mouth, causing the children to tumble into the statue and be consumed by the flames. Well, like how I asked mswas to show me the expiration date, I’m going to have to ask you where God or Moses said that Deuteronomy 13 is only limited to false prophets _who advocate human sacrifice_. I don’t see where Zoroastrianism is put on the okay list. But maybe you do. I can certainly show that people claiming to be a false prophet were executed by the Jewish people a thousand years later, so it seems that they missed the child-sacrificers-only part as well. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/57 "2009-03-06T17:21:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Wow, this OP is even more pitiful than the title suggests. > > **Michael** , you seem to think that I’ll be extremely surprised to learn that I’m a sinner. Actually, the entire point of Christianity is that everybody on earth is a sinner. I was going to pop into the thread to point out that the OP is naive to assume that conservative Christians would be shamed to learn that they are continually and intentionally sinning, but here you’ve gone and personified it. Of course Christians sin as much as they please; if all your sins are forgiven by a magic sky fairy, why wouldn’t you sin to your heart’s content? Like, duh. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/58 "2009-03-06T17:21:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Paul is really the closest thing we have to a contemporary source about Jesus. He’s not a primary source, but he at least claims to be a secondary source. > . Except, of course the Gospel of John, which was apparently dictated by that Apostle in his later years. The Gospel was also edited by John’s disciples. Mark also was a contempory of Jesus. There is some doubt whether or not Mark was the sole or even the author of the Gospel attributed to him. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/59 "2009-03-06T17:22:43Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I know, you are unable to divorce yourself from your modern context. No, what I am saying is that no matter what the context is, killing your children is wrong. You are making, as was just pointed out, an argument based on moral relativity. Killing children is immoral today, but killing children was moral in some other culture. The problem is that it then becomes impossible to have any kind of discussion about morality at all, because you can declare anything you want “moral,” and make up a justification for it. This technique can even be used to moralize the most heinous acts imaginable, like killing your own children. As you have just shown, if you twist your mind around enough, you can come up with a reason why killing children is moral. So how are we ever supposed to have a conversation about morality? You are willing to declare horrible unfathomable acts “moral” to avoid the life-altering admission that your god is immoral. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375/60 "2009-03-06T17:25:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Moral relativist, my ass, I’m a moral absolutist, dude. What’s right is always right, what’s wrong is always wrong. What have I said that implies the slightest belief in moral relativism? It sounds like you’re the one trying to make a relativist argument Yes I am. But this still isn’t about your opinion. You might be right about there being an objective morality that stems from a mystical universal consciousness that is innate. > [@](#): > > Tautology. Doesn’t make it wrong. > [@](#): > > I know that saying “good is whatever God says it is” is tautological and renders the whole concept of good and eveil arbitrary and meaningless. And yet it is the foundation of Abrahamic faiths. > [@](#): > > Notwithstanding your erroneous understanding of how and when they were written down, even your relativist “historical context” defense fails to anything but beg the question. Basically, this is a discussion about whether some of what the Bible alleges to be “good” is really good at all. Your defense is simply to say that it’s good simply because the Bible says so. That the fact that it’s in the Bible is proof in itself that it’s good. That’s no defense at all. It’s just an attempt to define moral good as synonomous with the Bible, and to accuse anyone who questions that of not understanding the Bible. It’s nonsense. No that’s not what this discussion is about. It’s what you WANT it to be about so you can hobby-horse it, but it’s not about that. It’s about people being wrong in the context of their own religion. We aren’t attempting to determine what is objectively good, we are working at determining whether it is possible to live up to the strictures of the bible. Your characterization of my views are well, a straw man. I am not accusing anyone of anything. You are the only one spouting your moral judgments here. I am talking about context. > [@](#): > > No, the motivation of the authors really doesn’t matter at all unless you think that morality can change. If you’re a moral absolutist (as I am), then what’s right is always right and what’s wrong is always wrong. Then you are just attempting to hijack this thread to soapbox your own views. > [@](#): > > Don’t be silly. This thread is about the defensibility of the morality expressed in the Bible. Opinions on that morality are the point of the discussion. No, this thread is about whether or not someone can live up to the expectations set by the bible. Not about whether or not DtC agrees with the bible. Your opinion is irrelevant and uninteresting to me because I already am well aware of your opinion of the bible, as are I bet 99% of the posters in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-christians-are-going-to-hell-with-the-rest-of-us/488375.md?page=4)