According to christian beliefs, where's Gandhi now?

[The Wizard]

AP, if I knew how to favorite your post in this new forum software, I would.

No, I said how can you believe Christians are arrogant when they say they are no better than anyone else? Christians are not more moral than anyone else for being Christian, they just thank God for forgiving them for their sins.

How don't you think you're better than anybody else when you say those who don't believe in your creed are murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc etc yada yada yada? Honestly. Besides, it's a pretty horrible generalization, my friend. There are tons of Christians who think they're better than all other people, and you're sounding like one of them.

I don't see how you can conflate someone's choice of belief system with personal attributes such as arrogance. Christianity isn't about being inherently better than anyone else, it's about following Christ, presumably because when they believe his teacings to be correct. Do you think all Marxists are arrogant because they only believe one model of historical analysis to be correct? Are all market liberals arrogant because they believe that the free market is the only healthy economic system?

I am not conflating either. You are confusing my comments for commentary on the internal beliefs of Christians. In reality I am whaling on the opinions Christians like PVC hold about non-Christians, irregardless of what Christians believe or don't believe, which are outrageous. Gandhi went to Hell (or at least is not moral or righteous) because he didn't believe in a cosmic Jewish zombie. Yeah, and pigs fly.

EDIT: And yes, when it comes to the Marxists, I do. The historical community has rejected Marx's version of history as not even being history, just like they rejected Hegelian idealism. As for market liberals (whom I contrast with Keynesians): there is no conclusive reason to believe they are wrong. When it comes to Christianity, however, there isn't anything to believe they aren't...

[Rhyfelwyr]

How don't you think you're better than anybody else when you say those who don't believe in your creed are murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc etc yada yada yada? Honestly. Besides, it's a pretty horrible generalization, my friend. There are tons of Christians who think they're better than all other people, and you're sounding like one of them.

Because I believe I am a murderer, thief, adulterer etc, as is every Christian.

I am not conflating either. You are confusing my comments for commentary on the internal beliefs of Christians. In reality I am whaling on the opinions Christians like PVC hold about non-Christians, irregardless of what Christians believe or don't believe, which are outrageous. Gandhi went to Hell (or at least is not moral or righteous) because he didn't believe in a cosmic Jewish zombie. Yeah, and pigs fly.

If Gandhi doesn't feel his sins need to be forgiven, then they won't be. Christianity isn't about following a moral code, it's about admitting that you can't follow it.

Since you're building Gandhi into some sort of beacon of righteousness, maybe you should think of how exactly he would describe himself. Remember, one of his most positive aspects was always his humility.

EDIT: And yes, when it comes to the Marxists, I do. The historical community has rejected Marx's version of history as not even being history, just like they rejected Hegelian idealism. As for market liberals (whom I contrast with Keynesians): there is no conclusive reason to believe they are wrong. When it comes to Christianity, however, there isn't anything to believe they aren't...

Wow, you really consider all Marxists to be arrogant just because they formed a different method of viewing history?

Also, I'm not debating who's right or wrong, so whether or not there's any reason to believe that market liberals are wrong is irrelevant.

[The Wizard]

I am getting pretty tired of you confusing my attacks on asserting moral absolutes with attacks on specific beliefs or opinions. I'll repeat this one more time: what I am criticizing is the assertion that anybody who doesn't believe in the cosmic Jewish zombie is automatically morally wrong. FYI that is just as arrogant and sickening as asserting that anybody who believes in cosmic Jewish zombies is an unintelligent, uncritical and immature person without any intellectual worth whatsoever (i.e. Dawkins).

Believing that you are just as much a murderer and adulterer as me might not be arrogant, but it's still pretty offensive. I take exception to being called a murderer, pal. I don't hold your beliefs so please don't force them on me.

Back to Gandhi. Stop trying to drag Christian beliefs into this. My point is merely that Gandhi can be moral without being Christian. No more, no less. PVC claimed that this was not possible. Nowhere did I mention any need on Gandhi's side of having them forgiven. I doubt he felt any need for the Christian god to forgive any percieved sins of his.

The Marxist "theory of history" is not history in the first place, seeing as it's historicist speculation. And my point in general when discussing that as well as market liberalism is that claiming absolute truths requires bringing a lot of logical arguments with you to justify such a claim. There is little reason in any of the subjects we've discussed to believe there's an absolute truth in any of them, including Christianity, and so I say that it's sickeningly arrogant, in that light, to claim any.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am getting pretty tired of you confusing my attacks on asserting moral absolutes with attacks on specific beliefs or opinions. I'll repeat this one more time: what I am criticizing is the assertion that anybody who doesn't believe in the cosmic Jewish zombie is automatically morally wrong. FYI that is just as arrogant and sickening as asserting that anybody who believes in cosmic Jewish zombies is an unintelligent, uncritical and immature person without any intellectual worth whatsoever (i.e. Dawkins).

Well, Christianities view on human nature is part of the philosophy. Again, here you are still ignoring my point that Christians do not believe themselves to be any more moral than anyone else, although you seem to acknowledge it in the below paragraph.

Believing that you are just as much a murderer and adulterer as me might not be arrogant, but it's still pretty offensive. I take exception to being called a murderer, pal. I don't hold your beliefs so please don't force them on me.

Of course it should be offensive, it demands people repent for their sins. Although I don't where you make the leap from me believing something to forcing my beliefs on you.

Back to Gandhi. Stop trying to drag Christian beliefs into this. My point is merely that Gandhi can be moral without being Christian. No more, no less. PVC claimed that this was not possible. Nowhere did I mention any need on Gandhi's side of having them forgiven. I doubt he felt any need for the Christian god to forgive any percieved sins of his.

You want me to stop dragging Christian beliefs into a thread on Christianity? And hey, if you dont' believe anything Gandhi did was ever sinful, fine, but dont' be so arrogant as to say that your views on morality and sin must be right.

The Marxist "theory of history" is not history in the first place, seeing as it's historicist speculation. And my point in general when discussing that as well as market liberalism is that claiming absolute truths requires bringing a lot of logical arguments with you to justify such a claim. There is little reason in any of the subjects we've discussed to believe there's an absolute truth in any of them, including Christianity, and so I say that it's sickeningly arrogant, in that light, to claim any.

Nope, it's your opinion that there's no absolute truths in any of them. I find marxist historians often present their case in a well ordered, systematic, and thorough fashion, and I'm guessing your heavily biased against them from the way you dimiss them out of hand.

[The Wizard]

Well, Christianities view on human nature is part of the philosophy. Again, here you are still ignoring my point that Christians do not believe themselves to be any more moral than anyone else, although you seem to acknowledge it in the below paragraph.

How's that true? You might not (might) but who's to say Christians in general do? I only have cite every last preacher in my mother's family to disprove such a notion.

Of course it should be offensive, it demands people repent for their sins. Although I don't where you make the leap from me believing something to forcing my beliefs on you.

Because I haven't sinned, chum. I'm not a Christian, I have a different view of what a sin is and what isn't. Don't call me a sinner 'cause of that.

You want me to stop dragging Christian beliefs into a thread on Christianity? And hey, if you dont' believe anything Gandhi did was ever sinful, fine, but dont' be so arrogant as to say that your views on morality and sin must be right.

I want you to stop dragging Christian beliefs into an argument about how there isn't any absolute truth, yes. And when I say nobody has a monopoly on morality there isn't much you can say against it.

Nope, it's your opinion that there's no absolute truths in any of them. I find marxist historians often present their case in a well ordered, systematic, and thorough fashion, and I'm guessing your heavily biased against them from the way you dimiss them out of hand.

Not my opinion -- the consensus amongst historians, rather. I caution you against mixing up Marxian/materialist history (using Marx's idea of modes of production to analyze history) and Marxist history (as found in The Capital), which is historicism much like Hegelian idealism (it's where Marx got his dialectics, after all). It's pure speculation, and not history or historiography. Such systems of thought cannot be tested and are thusly not scientific in the first place.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Y’know, I never doubted why all the greatest of the philosophers/prophets never wrote down their beliefs - Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu (according to the story, he never wanted to write anything and when leaving the Middle Kingdom for ever, before his death, border guard persuaded Lao Tzu, after a long argument, that he should leave behind a written work; so Lao Tzu did, writing a single page.)

It is because it is easier, more convenient, more popular, more efficient to leave the text as ambiguous as possible to allow multiple interpretations without watering and stripping down the message overmuch. Pick n’ choose as well as ‘my own interpretation’ is what creates and sustains the countless Christian denominations. It has let centuries of ‘believers’ to accommodate all sorts of rubbish with their ‘faith’.

I think the vast differences between various Christian denominations is not because of an inconsistant message in the Bible itself, but because of the various philosophies and mind-sets through which people have viewed the Bible throughout the past 2,000 years. Once Christianity became established in western society, it was never going to be possible to drop it once it played such an important social role, and so rather than abandoning the Christian religion with the different social demands of changing societies, they instead twisted it to suit their needs. Obviously I'm biased, but I think a lot of the liberal interpretations of the Bible are based more on what philosophers think God should be like, rather than the way he is portrayed in the Bible. In addition to this, due to the incredibly harsh message of the Bible when it comes to human nature (total depravity etc), people go to all sorts of lenghts attempting to derive their own doctrines to aviod these uncomfortable messages, while still keeping the nicer ones of a loving God etc.

Of course, this issue is a testable one. And I would recommend John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ* as an excellent work still unrefuted today, which comprehensively deals with a great number of the doctrines based on the ideas of various philosophers, and shows in each case their clear opposition to the message of the Bible.

Although I have of courses talked of the message throughout the Bible as a whole (as opposed to doctrines based on quoting a few verses), another of Owen's works, A Display of Arminianism*, provides neat little tables at the end of each chapter which blatantly shows how the teachings Rome, Arminians, and liberal Protestant churches are at total variance with that of the scripture.

* I tried to link you to each of these works, but I get a message saying the site is under maintanace due to large traffic growth. Still, you should be able to access them later through this site. Just look for them under John Owen.

How's that true? You might not (might) but who's to say Christians in general do? I only have cite every last preacher in my mother's family to disprove such a notion.

Of course, there are denomination differences, but when you debate with me here, your're just debating with one guy, not some representative for all the denominations of Christianity.

Because I haven't sinned, chum. I'm not a Christian, I have a different view of what a sin is and what isn't. Don't call me a sinner 'cause of that.

I can call you a sinner just like you can call me arrogant, I hardly think that's forcing beliefs on others by anyone's understanding of what that involves. If you don't believe it's sin, then fine, that's your business.

I want you to stop dragging Christian beliefs into an argument about how there isn't any absolute truth, yes. And when I say nobody has a monopoly on morality there isn't much you can say against it.

And who are you to say that no particular faith is right when it comes to morality?

Not my opinion -- the consensus amongst historians, rather. I caution you against mixing up Marxian/materialist history (using Marx's idea of modes of production to analyze history) and Marxist history (as found in The Capital), which is historicism much like Hegelian idealism (it's where Marx got his dialectics, after all). It's pure speculation, and not history or historiography. Such systems of thought cannot be tested and are thusly not scientific in the first place.

I still don't understand about whether or not someone is right, or whether or not someone makes claims that can be scientifically tested, has to do with personal traits such as arrogance.

[The Wizard]

And who are you to say that no particular faith is right when it comes to morality?

Someone using plain and simple logic. Any person believing in anything can be moral.

I still don't understand about whether or not someone is right, or whether or not someone makes claims that can be scientifically tested, has to do with personal traits such as arrogance.

Something that can be tested, and passes the test, can be said to be truthful. But when that's not possible, it is arrogance to proceed to claim the truth anyways (the absolute one, even).