-Removed-Yet you have no problem making such judgements when it suits you. Why don't you 'struggle to understand' Gods judgement with regards to blood transfusion?
You even said:
I will never bow the knee to any God who condemns/judges me for what I've done in the last 24 hrs.
Suggesting that you would judge God in some circumstances even if you don't "understand the scale and scope of God's judgement".
I enjoy your interjective posts but the more I read of you, the more I catch glimpses of what I percieve must have been a particularly poor experience with 'christianity' at some point.
The world has experienced "particularly poor experience with 'christianity'" through much of the last 2000 years. It is a matter of historical record.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have given reasons. And I have repeated them several times. But you have simply ignored them, which is your prerogative, of course.
So you need to argue that your moral system is better than theirs, or accept that we are different. So far in this thread you have assumed your moral system is better, but you haven't given reasons why.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, perhaps you are just being incoherent. I have stated the rationale that underpins my view on morality. You have not stated yours. You point out that my morality is different from many religious people's morality. On that we agree. Is yours the same as or different from that of many religious people? But it doesn't really matter if you're not interested in saying anything. If you want a theological discussion about Jesus being executed and its meaning in terms of morality, and what his life or death meant in terms of being allowed to give a blood transfusion to save a life, then you should perhaps ask a Christian.
But they are also irrelevant to our discussion. Again, why the avoidance? Why are you so reluctant to answer any question relating to Jesus? Are you not understanding what I am asking?
[b]The persecution or killing of people for their beliefs was - and is - immoral in my view.
And also irrelevant. It is not what we are discussing.
Lying to s think it is?
I personally do not, but I can understand someone else believing that it is.[/b]
Originally posted by FMFDodging the question. I clearly did not ask for any of that. Why the strawman? Why the avoidance? Especially considering that you accused Robbie of avoiding your questions for several pages, why are you doing exactly the same?
If you want a theological discussion about Jesus being executed and its meaning in terms of morality, and what his life or death meant in terms of being allowed to give a blood transfusion to save a life, then you should perhaps ask a Christian.
The question is a very simple one, and not what you are portraying it to be:
If Jesus knew his followers would be persecuted after his death, as a result of his refusal to deny his beliefs, was he morally wrong to refuse?
Originally posted by FMFIt will at least tell us whether you are being honest about your claim that you gave them. I don't believe you did, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your avoidance does not look good.
Does it really matter that you "missed them"? I don't think it does really. 😀
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have no problem with your stance on whether I "look good" or am "being honest", or not.
It will at least tell us whether you are being honest about your claim that you gave them. I don't believe you did, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your avoidance does not look good.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou want me to imagine that Jesus had some "God" like knowledge of the future or what would happen after his death? I'm not interested in speculation based on a folk tale with supernatural elements. Isn't that stuff that religionists - or Christians in particular - like to discuss? I don't know what Jesus "thought" or "knew". I think his followers should have resisted tyranny or oppression as they saw fit.
If Jesus knew his followers would be persecuted after his death, as a result of his refusal to deny his beliefs, was he morally wrong to refuse?
Originally posted by FMFNo.
You want me to imagine that Jesus had some "God" like knowledge of the future or what would happen after his death?
I'm not interested in speculation based on a folk tale with supernatural elements.
Forget the supernatural elements, forget that you think its a folk tale.
I don't know what Jesus "thought" or "knew".
I clearly said "if" ie it is hypothetically assumed that he knows or strongly suspects.
I think his followers should have resisted tyranny or oppression as they saw fit.
How is that relevant? Are you so desperately trying to avoid the question that you cant even read? Why do you keep answering questions I didn't ask? What is really so difficult here?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI will leave cult-of-personality stuff surrounding Jesus to Christian theologians. Jesus' followers should take - and always should have taken - personal and individual responsibility for what they believe - and what they do, and how they face moral dilemmas, or how they deal with being persecuted - rather than [in a sense] 'blame' their fate on someone who is dead, or [for all intents and purposes] say that they do something because someone told them to do it. Those who carry out the persecution of people for their beliefs shoulder the moral responsibility for doing so. As far as I can see, Jesus was a victim of oppression; his followers were victims of oppression. In this case, you appear to be blaming the victims for their oppression.
How is that relevant?