Liberal isn’t the stereotype of theist you seem to think he is.
For some odd reason I just got this incredible urge to reread my copy of Archie & Mehitabel 
In some ways no; in some ways yes. His desire to wave off real world evil as trivial is quite stereotypical.
No, no, you’re right, PC.
His responses seem to be generic christian,
but they are worthy of praise (yes, pun intended)
because he addresses the point in question,
not rambling like hell (intended) like some little
imp (I can’t stop the puns!) like me. 
When I see your posts,
I find they have made me sad;
They are not haiku.
Eeee! What a cute story!
But I still think Frith is more believable than god.
At least Frith had a sense of humor when dealing with rabbits.
Well, this is what I was briefly alluding to above when I mentioned free will and the problem of evil. The usual theistic explanation for great moral evil is that it is the result of human free will. But the type of human free will that would make sense of this type of theodicy–libertarian free will (again, not to be confused with the political position)–is simply incoherent. So *that * excuse for allowing the Mobutu Sese Sekos of the world to exist simply doesn’t work. But we’ve probably had enough free will threads around here already…
I find this wrong (and disturbing) on so many levels. On the disturbing level, it is this sort of thinking that makes religion potentially so dangerous–if what you do to people here on earth doesn’t really matter, then anything is allowed.
But this of course can’t be what you are saying (if for no other reason than that it would commit you to an absurd morality). For starters, Christ’s ‘sacrifice’ would become totally meaningless since he lost nothing but his body and his physical life, which don’t matter.
Suffering matters. If someone is in agony because of cancer, or river blindness, or because they are being tortured, this is bad, even if it doesn’t affect their soul. If this is false, why should we give two shits about Jesus’ crucifixion?
ETA:
Again, I think this sort of libertarianism about free will is incoherent. I won’t hijack this thread to argue this, though.
What school and what year?
Wait a minute. This argument is valid when you make it, but when it is applied against religion, apparently making sense does not apply to the supernatural?
Really interesting point about christ’s crucifixion, S&I.
If you run a search on the word “Tris” appearing in threads this one comes up.
Now, I knew I hadn’t posted in it, and the subject mentioned in the OP wasn’t something I really had any input about, but, well, I was mentioned in it. So . . . I read the thread. On the whole it was fairly unhappy. It started out with an atheist explaining why theists get defensive. After that, it went downhill.
I feel no need to defend God. I occasionally find it . . . tempting to defend people of great faith who cannot “defend” themselves from the scorn of those who measure all human worth by some personal measure of validity based on logic. It’s hard to do, without falling into the same trap myself. I am somewhat facile with words of logic and words of passion and I can often move the emotions of those who listen to my words. However, that is a very vain and certainly theologically dangerous thing to do.
The rage is the thing. The anger and the pain scream out of the rhetoric far more loudly than any rational counterpoint, or faithful witness. Surely the defense of Christ’s message cannot be accomplished by vilifying atheists, any more than rational discourse can be displayed in uncharitable personal characterizations of believers. Yet this ongoing spitting contest seems to me to be typical of the current state of theological debate at the SDMB. (Consider as a point of interest: It was not always so.)
I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God, and the Savior of all mankind. I believe he loves you. But I don’t think that can be proven. I am absolutely certain that it will not be proven by me, because I think that even trying to do would be an evil act, on my part. If you believe that my Lord and Savior is evil, and you hate and despise Him, and hate and despise me for my faith, well . . . Sorry about that.
If you hurt the feelings of people I love, I will try not to bear a grudge. I might fail at that, though. I certainly won’t accept your logical explanations of why you must revile others for disagreeing with your point of view. Choosing to be insulting is not an exercise of logic. It’s not even good rhetoric, and certainly has no better purpose than feeding ones own ego, and a poor diet it provides. But that doesn’t really matter either.
But for the warriors on either side of this war of belief, I have some advice. If all you wish is to not believe, that takes no argument at all. If you wish to defeat Christ, then you must offer the faithful something to take the place of their faith, and their love. If you seek to defend Christ, you must do so with sacrifice, with love, and with works, not words.
TrisGood post, thanks for taking the time.
Here are my feelings/views on the above for what it’s worth. I’m not replying because I felt you were referring to me specifically or defending anything in that manner but just expressing my feelings about your thoughts and observations.
I, for one, don’t measure all “human worth by some personal measure of validity based on logic” and think that to do so would make my life less enjoyable so I’m with you there. Not everything can be logically explained or defended and to assert that something can be when it doesn’t apply seems an exercise in futility.
As for rage, I agree. You said, “Surely the defense of Christ’s message cannot be accomplished by vilifying atheists, any more than rational discourse can be displayed in uncharitable personal characterizations of believers.” Those are, as I guess you intended, referring to two different things which seems appropriate. On the one had defending Christ’s message (and I’m not sure that the theology requires that it even be defended come to think of it) can’t be accomplished by vilifying atheists, I agree. We were taught to do convert by works and example; we actually weren’t taught anything about defense.
On the flip side, I expressed a view that is uncharitable to the belief, not to the “personal characterizations of believers.” When that expression apparently offended someone, an uncharitable reply was sent my way. From that point, I gave up rational discourse and the actual substance of the conversation then devolved as you pointed out into tangents about drivel within which I participated. I’ve become inclined to believe in an agenda on the part of many believers that presupposes an agenda on the part of non-believers like myself and seems hellbent on bending all possible reasonable discourse into logical absurdities (not that everything must be logical to be true, but announcing something as logical when it isn’t just creates another tangent or calling something evidence when it isn’t, etc.), solipsisms, and smiley-ridden one-upsmanships in that familiar religiously-common “I’ll pray for you” condescension bit or “you can’t prove what you believe either” as if I ever said the believers must prove what they believe to me using objective, scientific evidence. To attempt it seems silly to me. Folks then say non-religious beliefs are equally unprovable at which point, my head explodes. Not because, as some may flatter themselves to think, they’ve expressed some great truth but because it’s so absurd I’m almost literally speechless (I know, hard to imagine! 
)
It’s interesting and heartening to know that religious conversations haven’t always devolved at the SDMB. It seems to me a typical thing lately in the media in general and in our continuing balkanization of culture in this country. Probably it will only get worse. I think the political landscape is part of this picture as well.
As for reviling others (as opposed to their beliefs), that’s probably all too human. If one reviles a dictator’s ideology it’s pretty hard not to revile the dictator himself. I try to separate the two in my mind but I find it very, very difficult to do and mostly just stay away from those that believe things I find offensive or stupid and/or try to talk about neutral subjects (which are getting fewer by the minute, it seems) out in society or where the subject isn’t overtly up for discussion and debate.
As for choosing to be insulting, as was pointed out by the person I apparently offended, there may be some views that are inherently insulting and no way to express them without insult being received. Cost of open discussion, perhaps.
And finally, about your advice. I, for one, don’t wish not to believe. I simply don’t. It isn’t a wish that I try to further with logic. Not to be argumentative, but it is a subtle distinction. I’m sure there are people on the non-believer side that feel a need not to believe and urgently defend that need with logic. As for me, I just don’t believe, but it’s not due to any wish not to. It just doesn’t inspire belief in me anymore and doesn’t feel truthful. As for “defeating Christ” I don’t believe in the existence of that concept/person/deity so I wouldn’t try to defeat something I don’t even think exists if that’s what you meant. If you meant to convert believers into non-believers, I’ve done that before in my personal life but I wouldn’t try to do that on this board or with strangers except insofar as may be a side effect of having a discussion about the subject. What replaced my religious faith and religious love was detachment, fascination, curiosity, and non-religious but mystical affection (love, if you will) in a broad sense as a consequence of moral relativism.
Again, thanks for the post.
Actually, I gave DT a whole thread.
I haven’t said they are blocked from doing good by a universal measure. I’m saying that you cannot even know what another man values, which is why Christians are forbidden to make moral judgments about others.
I think we can in fact assume that God is more clever than you. And so if you can see the problem in changing the laws of physics to suit one purpose, why would you be surprised that He can see at least as much? Regarding constraints, we are morally unconstrained. The notion of morality cannot be excluded from free will in a theological sense; otherwise, we’re just talking about laws of physics which have nothing to do with God.
Yes, we are. We may not be physically free, but that’s beside the point. In other words, maybe we are restrained in jail and therefore cannot harm people on Elm Street. Nevertheless, our moral freedom remains. We are free to hate those people just because they’re black or Jewish or Indian. Punctuating that hatred with a fist or club is just a physical thing. What is ugly (or beautiful) is in the heart.
Fair? I’m sorry, but that’s a ridiculous interpretation of what I said in the mortgage thread. I specified “creditworthy” people for a reason.
I never said it doesn’t matter. Please do not alter the points I make to accomodate your presumptions.
What I’m saying — no more no less — is that the evil is to be found not in the action carried out, but in the dark heart that made the moral decision to carry out the act. A person whose intention to commit mass murder is foiled by some physical obstacle is just as evil as the person who managed to unload his clip.
The disturbing thing to me is the judgment of morality based on outward appearances or irrational assumptions. Nothing could be more dangerous, and accounts for every sort of bigotry from the Crusades to Witch hunting to denial of rights to gays. If you see a businessman in a nice suit giving food to a hungry beggar, you might likely think ‘What a good man, being so kind to the poor.’ But unbeknownst to you, his intention is to lure the beggar into his car where he will kill and rape him. The apparent act of “kindness” is just as evil as the rest of the plan.
An insult thread that died before my post is hardly an answer.
But as I said, I don’t really expect you to stand and defend your contention that mass murder is no big deal. Any more than I expected you to defend your statement that you loved God more than your mother.
Just lame comebacks, as prleone said.
Are you incapable of debating without lying and misrepresenting? Nevermind. The answer is obvious.
As said, lame comebacks.
So, I guess we know how you’re going to vote in the Pit thread on “liar in GD”, right?