Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Philosophy Extracted from Religion

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 1:36:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is coming from a more positive light of religion and an optimistic look at what it could become in the near future.

I think that there should be, and there probably will be, a new movement of reformed religious thought where people will extract the philosophical aspects of religion and leave out the barbaric barbaric parts. Sort of like how Thomas Jefferson cut out all the unreasonable parts of the Bible and left the parts he liked.

Let me note that this is not religious moderation (as I criticized in the other thread).

I'm referring to a new form of thought in the vain of William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Dinesh D'Souza, C. S. Lewis, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Averroes.

These people are neither extreme nor moderate, but more of a sort of intellectual theology. When I listen to Lane Craig speak, he makes more sense than the Bible itself.

Do you guys think that the apologetics community become the majority and over rule the traditional mode of religious thought?

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 1:43:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I do feel that traditional religion will become watered down, indeed is becoming watered down. Religion of the future will be increasingly be 'self-help' movements such as Scientology, Syncretic such as Bahai, Liberal and wishy-washy such as neo-paganism and wiccan, empty social commetary and freedom such as Satanism (LaVey), or trendy such as Buhdism... but increasingly without reference to the metaphysical. Traditional religion still has some life left though.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 2:01:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 1:43:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I do feel that traditional religion will become watered down, indeed is becoming watered down.

That's religious moderation. I'm not referring to watered down religion, but intellectual theology.

Religion of the future will be increasingly be 'self-help' movements such as Scientology, Syncretic such as Bahai,

Self-help and syncretic religions aren't exactly what I had in mind. They don't get much into philsophy, but rather self help and tolerance.

Liberal and wishy-washy such as neo-paganism and wiccan, empty social commetary and freedom such as Satanism (LaVey),

Lol. Those are far from "wishy-washy."

or trendy such as Buhdism...

I don't see any such a trend.

but increasingly without reference to the metaphysical.

Metaphysics aren't going anywhere, nor am I suggesting it should be abandoned.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 2:03:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Neo-paganism is the very definition of wishy-washy... unless of course we are talking about the viking neo-nazi bunch. But anyway, just my two penny's worth.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 2:16:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 2:03:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Neo-paganism is the very definition of wishy-washy... unless of course we are talking about the viking neo-nazi bunch. But anyway, just my two penny's worth.

I see what you mean, seeing as New Age draws heavily from neo-paganism, and New Age is very wishy-washy (though, I'd argue that it does have substance to it).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 2:21:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 2:16:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/8/2010 2:03:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Neo-paganism is the very definition of wishy-washy... unless of course we are talking about the viking neo-nazi bunch. But anyway, just my two penny's worth.

I see what you mean, seeing as New Age draws heavily from neo-paganism, and New Age is very wishy-washy (though, I'd argue that it does have substance to it).

Maybe I am being unfair as it's a general religion/movement I dislike. But it is generally very soft, ultra-liberal, uber-feminist and very light on actual specific claims or religious rules.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 3:17:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

I'd discard it in a flash.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 4:21:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

Well if scripture is conveys truth then it can't be at odds with reason. I think all of us mentioned would agree to that.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 10:05:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 4:21:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

Well if scripture is conveys truth then it can't be at odds with reason. I think all of us mentioned would agree to that.

Two things.

The Holocaust is true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.

Also, I'm suggesting Jeffersons method of acknowledging some parts of scripture that are true and contain philosopical value.

It is possible to assert that only some parts of scripture are true, especially given the fallable process the Bible was compiled.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2010 10:48:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 3:17:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

I'd discard it in a flash.

Reason or scripture?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 12:57:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Holocaust is true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.

An equivocation with pop's example.

Also, I'm suggesting Jeffersons method of acknowledging some parts of scripture that are true and contain philosopical value.

It is possible to assert that only some parts of scripture are true, especially given the fallable process the Bible was compiled.

The foreseeable problem is if the theist attempts to have enough scripture sufficient for a theological system, they will come across a point in which the internal consistency of their system may conflict with reason. If it doesn't, then good for them. But I largely suspect that there are a great deal of rational roadblocks in the way, which is one of the obvious reasons I'm an atheist. The philosophers you cited are in the movement of apologetics - they largely hold the same views as other Christians, they just know how to defend it.

And on the topic of William Craig...UGH. The man appeals to the crowd, but after that there isn't much to say about him. Plantinga is the only one noteworthy, but even then his influence is limited (in the sense that though he has eliminated the strongest arguments against God [logical ones], he hasn't done much to push the case in the favor for theism).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 1:11:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 12:57:05 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
The Holocaust is true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.

An equivocation with pop's example.

How is that an equivocation? There's the Biblical paradigm of a God who sends people to an infernal concentration camp. And the Holocaust paradigm where Hitler sends people to a concentration camp.

Both could be true, but that doesn't make them consistent with reason. For example, vicarious redemption will always be at odds with reason, even if the Christian paradigm is true.

Also, I'm suggesting Jeffersons method of acknowledging some parts of scripture that are true and contain philosopical value.

It is possible to assert that only some parts of scripture are true, especially given the fallable process the Bible was compiled.

The foreseeable problem is if the theist attempts to have enough scripture sufficient for a theological system, they will come across a point in which the internal consistency of their system may conflict with reason. If it doesn't, then good for them. But I largely suspect that there are a great deal of rational roadblocks in the way, which is one of the obvious reasons I'm an atheist. The philosophers you cited are in the movement of apologetics - they largely hold the same views as other Christians, they just know how to defend it.

Which is great. I want to invoke thought and reason into religion. This will hopefully rid of traditional, blind religious thought.

And on the topic of William Craig...UGH. The man appeals to the crowd, but after that there isn't much to say about him.

Obviously I disagree with his arguments and even see flaws in them, but I find that nearly everything he says is thoughtful and in line with reason. He has an immense philosophical background and he knows what he's talking about.

Plantinga is the only one noteworthy,

Really? What about D'Souza, John Frame, and John Lennox?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 2:10:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 10:48:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:17:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

I'd discard it in a flash.

Reason or scripture?

Reason. There is no purpose in much of the scripture in the objectives of faith. Much of scripture is to assist a society, less than to assist a faith, and that society is long gone, and forever different.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 3:16:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 1:36:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This is coming from a more positive light of religion and an optimistic look at what it could become in the near future.

I think that there should be, and there probably will be, a new movement of reformed religious thought where people will extract the philosophical aspects of religion and leave out the barbaric barbaric parts. Sort of like how Thomas Jefferson cut out all the unreasonable parts of the Bible and left the parts he liked.

Let me note that this is not religious moderation (as I criticized in the other thread).

I'm referring to a new form of thought in the vain of William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Dinesh D'Souza, C. S. Lewis, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Averroes.

These people are neither extreme nor moderate, but more of a sort of intellectual theology. When I listen to Lane Craig speak, he makes more sense than the Bible itself.

Do you guys think that the apologetics community become the majority and over rule the traditional mode of religious thought?

.

C.S Lewis difinitely leant in the direction of intellectualism but he was, as a Christian, also very spiritual; hence he was able not only to produce advanced works of theology but also simplistic childrens storys too.
The Cross.. the Cross.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 4:56:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 12:57:05 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
The man appeals to the crowd, but after that there isn't much to say about him. Plantinga is the only one noteworthy, but even then his influence is limited (in the sense that though he has eliminated the strongest arguments against God [logical ones], he hasn't done much to push the case in the favor for theism).

I don't know about that. His ontological argument is still moderately discussed and his reformed epistemology is hotly discussed.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 3:34:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 2:10:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2010 10:48:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:17:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

I'd discard it in a flash.

Reason or scripture?

Reason. There is no purpose in much of the scripture in the objectives of faith. Much of scripture is to assist a society, less than to assist a faith, and that society is long gone, and forever different.

There is no purpose of scripture in the objectives of faith? Doesn't scripture tell you your objectives and objects of faith?

How can you follow the Christian path and dismiss scripture?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 4:04:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/8/2010 10:05:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/8/2010 4:21:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

Well if scripture is conveys truth then it can't be at odds with reason. I think all of us mentioned would agree to that.

Two things.

The Holocaust is true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.

The Holocaust isn't a philosophical worldview.

Also, I'm suggesting Jeffersons method of acknowledging some parts of scripture that are true and contain philosopical value.

It is possible to assert that only some parts of scripture are true, especially given the fallable process the Bible was compiled.

I feel "meh" about that. Especially when considering that I think the God is amenable to reason but only to a point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 6:41:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 4:04:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/8/2010 10:05:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/8/2010 4:21:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Well if scripture is conveys truth then it can't be at odds with reason. I think all of us mentioned would agree to that.

Two things.

The Holocaust is true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.

The Holocaust isn't a philosophical worldview.

Christianity is also a paradigm. The reality of a God who sends non-believers to an infernal concentration camp is more of a paradigm than a philosophy (though it can be a proposition of ethical philosophy.) Just like Hitler who sent Jews to concentration camps. The holocaust paradigm and the Christian paradigm are certainly comparable. It could be true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.

However, I am not dismissing the fact that there is such a thing as Christian philosophy and this is precisely what I'm getting at. You can extract the philosophical aspects of it, and leave the faith and barbarism alone.

Also, I'm suggesting Jeffersons method of acknowledging some parts of scripture that are true and contain philosopical value.

It is possible to assert that only some parts of scripture are true, especially given the fallable process the Bible was compiled.

I feel "meh" about that. Especially when considering that I think the God is amenable to reason but only to a point.

I don't know what you imply with this answer, but are you in 100% agreement with scripture? Or is it that you find parts of it unreasonable, but rightly so?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:20:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 3:34:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/9/2010 2:10:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2010 10:48:12 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:17:21 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/8/2010 3:07:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Btw, I think that there are members of DDO that certainly fall under this new form of religious thought such as popculturepooka, InquireTruth, KRFournier, BruteApologia, etc.

Have any of you guys (philosophical theists) thought of this? And would you be daring enough to discard parts of scripture that seem to be at odds with reason?

I'd discard it in a flash.

Reason or scripture?

Reason. There is no purpose in much of the scripture in the objectives of faith. Much of scripture is to assist a society, less than to assist a faith, and that society is long gone, and forever different.

There is no purpose of scripture in the objectives of faith? Doesn't scripture tell you your objectives and objects of faith?

How can you follow the Christian path and dismiss scripture?

The objective of faith is assisted by some scripture but not all.
Telling me what to eat, and how to eat it does nothing for my relationship with God. The teachings of Christ do assist me in my relationship with God. Telling me to be circumcised doesn't assist my relationship with God, loving my enemy does. Yeah, i guess i would take the Jeffersonian approach. The objectives of faith are fairly clear, and often scripture muddies the waters.

I will tell you, not to get off the subject (because that never happens). In my life i am considered a fairly devout person, serious about his faith. In this site i have been called a semi-christian, not real christian, not serious in my religion. This has been in PM's and on forums. I don't mind this at all, on the contrary i welcome it, but it does cause me some thought. In me there is great disconnect between religion and faith, well perhaps not disconnect, but great distinction.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 2:45:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/10/2010 6:41:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Christianity is also a paradigm. The reality of a God who sends non-believers to an infernal concentration camp is more of a paradigm than a philosophy (though it can be a proposition of ethical philosophy.) Just like Hitler who sent Jews to concentration camps. The holocaust paradigm and the Christian paradigm are certainly comparable. It could be true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.


You're aware that there is more than one interpretation of hell besides the whole fire and brimstone thing, right?

However, I am not dismissing the fact that there is such a thing as Christian philosophy and this is precisely what I'm getting at. You can extract the philosophical aspects of it, and leave the faith and barbarism alone.


Cutting out faith from Christianity is impossible.

Also, I'm suggesting Jeffersons method of acknowledging some parts of scripture that are true and contain philosopical value.

It is possible to assert that only some parts of scripture are true, especially given the fallable process the Bible was compiled.

I feel "meh" about that. Especially when considering that I think the God is amenable to reason but only to a point.

I don't know what you imply with this answer, but are you in 100% agreement with scripture? Or is it that you find parts of it unreasonable, but rightly so?

No, I mean any (honest) Christian will tell you there are more difficult parts of scripture than others. I find some things harder to understand than others but I think that is to be expected. That doesn't mean I think it's unreasonable, though.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2010 3:27:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 2:45:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/10/2010 6:41:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Christianity is also a paradigm. The reality of a God who sends non-believers to an infernal concentration camp is more of a paradigm than a philosophy (though it can be a proposition of ethical philosophy.) Just like Hitler who sent Jews to concentration camps. The holocaust paradigm and the Christian paradigm are certainly comparable. It could be true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.


You're aware that there is more than one interpretation of hell besides the whole fire and brimstone thing, right?

Didn't Jesus describe it as the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

However, I am not dismissing the fact that there is such a thing as Christian philosophy and this is precisely what I'm getting at. You can extract the philosophical aspects of it, and leave the faith and barbarism alone.


Cutting out faith from Christianity is impossible.

True.

I don't know what you imply with this answer, but are you in 100% agreement with scripture? Or is it that you find parts of it unreasonable, but rightly so?

No, I mean any (honest) Christian will tell you there are more difficult parts of scripture than others. I find some things harder to understand than others but I think that is to be expected. That doesn't mean I think it's unreasonable, though.

But surely you don't follow the laws of the Old Testament?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2010 3:04:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2010 3:27:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/11/2010 2:45:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/10/2010 6:41:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Christianity is also a paradigm. The reality of a God who sends non-believers to an infernal concentration camp is more of a paradigm than a philosophy (though it can be a proposition of ethical philosophy.) Just like Hitler who sent Jews to concentration camps. The holocaust paradigm and the Christian paradigm are certainly comparable. It could be true, but it doesn't make it reasonable.


You're aware that there is more than one interpretation of hell besides the whole fire and brimstone thing, right?

Didn't Jesus describe it as the "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

However, I am not dismissing the fact that there is such a thing as Christian philosophy and this is precisely what I'm getting at. You can extract the philosophical aspects of it, and leave the faith and barbarism alone.


Cutting out faith from Christianity is impossible.

True.


I don't know what you imply with this answer, but are you in 100% agreement with scripture? Or is it that you find parts of it unreasonable, but rightly so?

No, I mean any (honest) Christian will tell you there are more difficult parts of scripture than others. I find some things harder to understand than others but I think that is to be expected. That doesn't mean I think it's unreasonable, though.

But surely you don't follow the laws of the Old Testament?

How long have you been here?

The perfect Law was handed to the Jews through Moses, an imperfect man.
The Law was to be used as a personal bench mark and as a deterent to sin.
What, of course, happened was that some Jews used the Law to elevate themselves whilst persecuting others.

Jesus said to the Pharisees:

" Go and learn what this scripture means 'I desire mercy not sacrifice.' "

and:

" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. "

So, the Law shows how serious the offence is, what is just, BUT we are all required to show mercy.

You cannot show mercy unless the seriousness of the offence and the harshness of the punishment is apparent.
The Cross.. the Cross.