aha!!! Don’t you believe in the 10 Commandments, especially “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife?”
::runs away fast::
Libertarian asked:
I’m sorry, but the actual computer equipment details for the SDMB are strictly confidential. If I told you, I’d have to kill you. And I don’t really want to do that.
Can someone provide a URL for the LBMB (see, now I’m doing it…future generations will never know what I’m talking about)?
Oh, man, not “Left Behind…”
Why oh why did the Nicean Council decide that Revelations belonged in the Bible, when Maccabees doesn’t? Think of all the craziness that would have been avoided from this one leeetle change in the time-line…
Sure, Here is a link that supports his assertion: Left Behind Message Board
FriendofGod
I don’t want to pick on you FoG, but is anyone else bothered by this statement? Does a “bit of openness” equal “YOUR” way of thinking? You are only marking those who already lean to your way of thinking. Did Jesus say something about not coming to save the righteous, but the wicked? I’m not saying that those who don’t believe in Jesus are wicked (because that would make me wicked, which I am not), but it seems to be that in your zeal to be what you have been told is a good “Christian” you are over-looking the original message.
Lemur866
And if only Martin Luther would have left it out in his translation, as he almost did. You don’t hear many Catholics mention much talk of the “tribulation” and “the beast”. It’s those Protestant, literalist, “born-again”, evangelical types.
See, this is why we get annoyed. Your example is of someone living in a bad way, doing bad things to his/herself.
We are NOT doing any kind of horrible thing to death.
You feel we’re doomed. Tough noogies for you. We don’t care; we think otherwise.
No offense, but that’s exactly what many people who drink themselves to death WOULD say.
I’m sorry, but this is a sore point for me. One of my uncles died due to alcohol abuse, and I’m on the verge of losing another. Neither one felt that they were doing anything wrong.
I’m not going to take sides in this whole evangelism debate, but I just had to address your point. As I said, it’s a sore point for me.
I’ve had relatives die from drinking themselves to death. It happens. It will/can kill you.
[/hijack]
JTC and Saint Zero, the point is that FoG’s comparison of non-Christian beliefs to the self-destructive lives of alcoholics is both inapt and insulting. Myron was not denying the fact of alcoholism! He was quite rightly taking FoG to task for his poorly drawn comparison.
Zero and Cornpone: Right, no argument on the dangers of alcoholism or the capability of some alcoholics for denial. But an important difference between being alcoholic and being damned—and one reason why many non-religious people such as Myron (and me) strongly resent being compared to self-destructive alcoholics—is that there exists a scientific and medical consensus about what alcoholism can do to you and how it operates and why you should listen to a doctor if s/he tells you you’re drinking too much.
There is absolutely no similar consensus among world religious authorities about the salvific efficacy [Wow. Excuse me a moment while I say that again. Salvific efficacy. Right.] of Christianity or any other religion: in fact, one group’s salvation is always some other group’s damnation. Since religious types cannot even agree among themselves what is necessary for a successful afterlife, much less obtain any scientific consensus to back them up, non-religious types naturally consider it intolerably arrogant of them to treat dissenters like addicts in denial.
In short: Tell me that I’m an alcoholic (assuming you’re somebody licensed to dispense medical advice, or even a layman who’s savvy about addiction) and I’ll examine my drinking patterns very seriously, because I know there are clear-cut criteria and well-documented consequences for this problem. Tell me that I’m damned to hell for all eternity and I’ll point out that neither your opinion nor anybody else’s is automatically more authoritative than mine on this subject, and that since I completely disagree with you I’m better off ignoring your advice.
[Note added in preview: Or in even shorter, what xenophon just said.]
Nevertheless, if someone is suitably convinced that turning away from Jesus (or Mohammed, or whoever) IS self-destructive, then I think it’s perfectly reasonable for that person to warn others.
Put it this way. If you are convinced that a bomb is about to detonate within a building, would you warn its occupants? Or would you wait until they could all arrive at some “consensus” before you start spreading your words of alarm?
Must we wait until everyone accepts our beliefs before we choose to act on them? I think not.
Way back when, there was no consensus that slavery was immoral either. Was it “intolerably arrogant” for the anti-slavery factions to protest the wrongdoings of slavery?
For that matter, there is no consensus among non-religous types that warning people about Hell is inappropriate. (They may not believe that Hell exists, but there is no consensus that these warnings constitute wrongful behavior.) Is it therefore inappropriate for non-religious types to criticize people who do warn them about the dangers of Hell?
You can’t change an alcoholic’s behavior by telling him that alcohol is bad for him, or that living without alcohol is good for him. While the metaphor is inept on several levels, even if it was not so far off base, it fails in that aspect as well.
You don’t save souls. You love them. You don’t condemn sinners, you give them love. You are not God, you have no right to judge, unless you wish to be judged by those same standards. Christians are sinners. Those who do not know the Lord cannot deny Him. It is Christians who seek to make pronouncements of righteousness in His name who have denied Him. The Lord is the one who saves souls, not the saved ones. Trust Him, not them.
Insulting and belittling people in Jesus’ name is not faithful. Neither is it likely to be particularly successful in spreading the good news. The really good news is that sanctimonious preachers of sin and damnation speak only for themselves, and the judgments they speak of are of themselves. Jesus offers love, for each one who will take it.
Tris
True enough; however, there is nothing inherently insulting in the statement “Your behavior is self-destructive and dangerous” – whether the danger is alcoholism or hellfire. As with so many things, it all depends on HOW you say it.
I am constantly puzzled by those people who take correction as a personal insult, but then seek to correct the very people who correct them. The very statement, “You have no business judging my actions” is itself judgmental, an attempt to correct someone else. I just wish more people would see that.
JTC: *Way back when, there was no consensus that slavery was immoral either. Was it “intolerably arrogant” for the anti-slavery factions to protest the wrongdoings of slavery? *
Bad analogy. The immorality of slavery is strictly a moral issue (obviously), and thus is always going to be a question of opinion. I’m not speaking of a consensus of opinion, I’m speaking of a consensus about facts. What is arrogant is for religious people to speak to others as though they had some recognized factual basis for considering them in danger of hellfire, rather than a mere faith-based opinion. That is why the comparison with alcoholics is insulting.
JTC, I can find studies that show what happens to an alcoholic. There are uncountable pictures and eyewitness accounts of the the end result. If you want to compare not believing in your religion to alcoholism, show me video tape, or at least a 8x10 glossy, of someone burning in hell for not believing, o.k.?
Wait, lemme check… no, haven’t lost any sleep yet.
Bye, FriendofGod. Don’t let the modem hit you on the ass on your way out.
Esprix
So you’re saying we need to produce hard evidence before we can act on our convictions?
By the same standard then, the non-religous crowd should produce scientific evidence that hell does NOT exist before they say that proselytizers should not speak to them of damnation. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Look, I’m not arguing that hell exists, or that the Christian gospel is true. That’s irrelevant to the question at hand. I’m arguing about whether it is morally offensive for someone to express alarm about going to hell.
Once again, consider the case of a bomb in a building. If someone is genuinely convinced that there is a bomb about to go off, then he needs to warn the occupants of that building. Maybe he’s right, and maybe not. Should he first produce scientific evidence of the bomb’s existence before he starts warning everyone?
First of all, are you serious in saying that the immorality of slavery is strictly a matter of opinion? I daresay that any reasonably moral person would say that slavery is strictly wrong.
Ultimately, it’s a matter of conviction. A concerned citizen may not have absolute proof that a bomb is about to go off in his neighbor’s home, but he would be justified in warning its residents. It is not necessary to prove one’s facts before acting on one’s convictions – especially in situations where absolute proof can not be obtained eitehr way (e.g. the existence or non-existence of hell).
Yes. A bomb exists; heaven and hell are beliefs.
But if you insist on this erroneous analogy, then remember that even after warning everyone of a bomb, people still have a choice whether or not to stay in the building.
Esprix