Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

Originally posted by FMF
So I've kind of ducked out of your [b]'You actually believe the children are going to be tortured before they reach adulthood if they don't hear from you NOW about the torture while they are still children, so what do you do?' scenario, and I have rejected your train analogy. Therefore, if you want to duck out of my genital mutilation scenario ...[text shortened]... y 'chop off the children's heads and send them to heaven' scenario, I will understand. 😛[/b]

I most certainly don't want to "duck" out of anything. I merely ignore it for the time being seeing how we have not cleared up the first part.

But yes, the question "should we kill children before they can sin and risk a one-way trip to hell" is a logical follow-up.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
These are loaded words which may not properly describe how the one doing the proselytizing feels.

I appreciate your subjecting my ideas to scrutiny here, but I would be curious to hear your non-devil's advocate answer to the OP question, [making what you will of the weasel word "certain" appearing no less than three times in it! 😉 ]

"Can assailing certain people, in certain conditions and circumstances, with an ideology imbued with such extraordinary violence and anger be morally unsound in certain circumstances?"

Originally posted by FMF
[b]So let's change it up a little bit. God reveals himself to you. He shows you exactly what happens to those vulnerable people you speak of if they don't believe. It's horrible. Eternal burning flash and all. He tells you that you can change these people's minds, even if it means scaring them $hItless. Let's assume you are absolutely convinced of what you've se ...[text shortened]... o accommodate my own conjecture about myself in some hypothetical state of borderline insanity.

It's clear from this that you are unwilling or unable to consider the OP you yourself started from the POV of someone who truly believes these things.

Which makes me wonder what you were going for with this thread?

Were you actually interested in what true believers feel, or was it just a poorly disguised jab at those people whose believes you don't share?

Yes, the real me also believes I would have to protect people from the character I described, but that's neither here nor there. The question is, what would be the moral obligation of this character?

Originally posted by FMF
Christians telling non-believer children, for example, that they are going to get tortured forever if they don't become Christians.

Ya, i hear you.

They themselves need to worry about that. Scripture is heavy handed against those who harm children, even with just words.

Originally posted by FMF
I appreciate your subjecting my ideas to scrutiny here, but I would be curious to hear your non-devil's advocate answer to the OP question, [making what you will of the weasel word "certain" appearing no less than three times in it! 😉 ]

"Can assailing certain people, in certain conditions and circumstances, with an ideology imbued with such extraordinary violence and anger be morally unsound in certain circumstances?"

The goal of these believers is clearly to GUARD the people from violence and anger, which is a morally sound thing to do.

Yes, in reality I think that a) most believers are acting out of selfish reasons and b) there is no such thing as hell thus the possible damage caused to the "vulnerables" is not warranted. In the case of a) the actions are clearly not morally sound, but in the case where someone truly believes in hell he would be right in considering his own proselytizing morally sound.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
It's clear from this that you are unwilling or unable to consider the OP you yourself started from the POV of someone who truly believes these things.

You appear to me, for all intents and purposes, with your POV stuff, to be asking me... 'If you believed it was morally sound and important to treat children in this way, would you believe it was morally sound to do so?' I am nonplussed by it.

Originally posted by FMF
You appear to me, for all intents and purposes, with your POV stuff, to be asking me... 'If you believed it was morally sound and important to treat children in this way, would you believe it was morally sound to do so?' I am nonplussed by it.

Then you have clearly not read my question - which was asked in the clearest way possible - correctly, and you should try again.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]So let's change it up a little bit. God reveals himself to you. He shows you exactly what happens to those vulnerable people you speak of if they don't believe. It's horrible. Eternal burning flash and all. He tells you that you can change these people's minds, even if it means scaring them $hItless. Let's assume you are absolutely convinced of what you've se ...[text shortened]... o accommodate my own conjecture about myself in some hypothetical state of borderline insanity.

I understand what you are talking about. But God isn't looking to throw anyone into a lake of fire. Does Hell exist yes! But the Christians who have mislead you, no matter how good their intentions are. Don't understand all of the scripture.

Just because someone doesn't believe like i do, or go to church or has no faith in God, doesn't mean anything. The bottom line has to do with Love. You love your children - God is there. You have compassion for others - God is there. The bible is full of these examples.

Those who go to hell, really deserve it. Those who are the devil. Like someone who sells another into slavery. And even the most evil of a person can have a change of heart.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Which makes me wonder what you were going for with this thread?

Were you actually interested in what true believers feel, or was it just a poorly disguised jab at those people whose believes you don't share?

I have been demonstrating my interest in what adherents to torturer god theology think and feel for years and years both here and in civvy street. What I was "going for" in this thread was related to the substance of the topic drift stuff. "I personally don’t think the theology of torture is morally unsound, and I don't think trying to persuade (or threaten) me that I will be tortured for being an unbeliever is morally unsound, but does assailing 'vulnerable people' with it run the risk of being morally unsound?" I don’t have to pretend to be RJHinds or sonship to pose this question.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
I understand what you are talking about. But God isn't looking to throw anyone into a lake of fire. Does Hell exist yes! But the Christians who have mislead you, no matter how good their intentions are. Don't understand all of the scripture.

I understand the reasonable and pacifying nature of your comments although there is little or no unreasonable conflict going on here that's in need of them! 🙂

But I don’t believe a single word of the toturer god stuff and didn't believe it when I was a Christian either.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Then you have clearly not read my question - which was asked in the clearest way possible - correctly, and you should try again.

I think I have got to the very essence of it with the way I have paraphrased it .

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The goal of these believers is clearly to GUARD the people from violence and anger, which is a morally sound thing to do.

Yes, in reality I think that a) most believers are acting out of selfish reasons and b) there is no such thing as hell thus the possible damage caused to the "vulnerables" is not warranted. In the case of a) the actions are clea ...[text shortened]... one truly believes in hell he would be right in considering his own proselytizing morally sound.

So in other words, in reality you don't think it's morally sound, but if you DID think it was morally sound, then you would disagree with the real you? 😉

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The question is, what would be the moral obligation of this character?

To my way of thinking their bottom line moral obligation would be for them to seek permission from the parents or legal guardians before trying to gain access to the children or other persons unable to give their informed consent.

Originally posted by FMF
I will be interested to see whether anyone comes forward to argue that such behavior towards children and adults (or at least those who are vulnerable in the ways I touched upon) can be rationalized and is justified So far nobody has (unless I've overlooked a post somewhere). It will be interesting if nobody does.

Not yet. Lately some of my queries have produced silence from some of the more vocal of posters.

Originally posted by JS357
Not yet. Lately some of my queries have produced silence from some of the more vocal of posters.

Perhaps your queries have been like bromide in their usually vocal tea? 😉