NarathzulArantheal
New member
- Sep 17, 2011
- 12
- 0
- 1
...want to silence its critics? Think about it, which is the better outcome: To silence a critic and violate one person's rights of speech or to have one or more people go to hell because they listened to the critic and disbelieved?
This is why there's a logical pathway from being a strong Christian believer to censorship and oppression.
the Christian - That's nice, but I want you to answer the actual question I asked.
Annsan_In_him - I don't think you fairly deal with the point. What I showcase here is the very reasoning used to justify Christian oppression for millenia in the West through the middle ages into the dawn of modernity: Because if someone doesn't believe, it's your moral imperative to do anything in your power to convince him of it because it would be immoral to let him damn himself and especially others around him to an eternal torment while you watched. If someone breathes poison out of his mouth, it would be immoral to let him be around others.
The question is why you don't recognize this logic.
Ross - I don't necessarily feel you are being logical. The question is what exactly is wrong with the logic that of violating someone's speech rights is better than watching him and people around him being damned to an eternal torment? Almost no-one thinks like this today because Christians have learned to ignore parts of their religion and become more civilized.
Anthony D - But I don't, the question is if you really believe in Christianity, why don't you? I'm bringing up an inconsistency in your religion and your behaviour and asking how you deal with it.
Jim - Dawkins for example has turned many people away from Christianity. Is it moral in your view to let him damn people like that? Think about the two sides of the scales, on one side you have silencing one person, on the other you have millions of people suffering in hell if you don't silence him. Which is the morally better option?
za - It's irrelevant to this cost-benefit analysis what Jesus did. That Jesus didn't behave this way doesn't at all affect the core logic which leads from acceptance of Christianity into silencing critics.
John G - It's of course true there are other responses to critics than merely censoring them, but what if you're losing the debate? Then you'd be tempted to respond with oppression if you calculated you could succeed because that's the only way you could prevent lots of people from going to hell.
This is why there's a logical pathway from being a strong Christian believer to censorship and oppression.
the Christian - That's nice, but I want you to answer the actual question I asked.
Annsan_In_him - I don't think you fairly deal with the point. What I showcase here is the very reasoning used to justify Christian oppression for millenia in the West through the middle ages into the dawn of modernity: Because if someone doesn't believe, it's your moral imperative to do anything in your power to convince him of it because it would be immoral to let him damn himself and especially others around him to an eternal torment while you watched. If someone breathes poison out of his mouth, it would be immoral to let him be around others.
The question is why you don't recognize this logic.
Ross - I don't necessarily feel you are being logical. The question is what exactly is wrong with the logic that of violating someone's speech rights is better than watching him and people around him being damned to an eternal torment? Almost no-one thinks like this today because Christians have learned to ignore parts of their religion and become more civilized.
Anthony D - But I don't, the question is if you really believe in Christianity, why don't you? I'm bringing up an inconsistency in your religion and your behaviour and asking how you deal with it.
Jim - Dawkins for example has turned many people away from Christianity. Is it moral in your view to let him damn people like that? Think about the two sides of the scales, on one side you have silencing one person, on the other you have millions of people suffering in hell if you don't silence him. Which is the morally better option?
za - It's irrelevant to this cost-benefit analysis what Jesus did. That Jesus didn't behave this way doesn't at all affect the core logic which leads from acceptance of Christianity into silencing critics.
John G - It's of course true there are other responses to critics than merely censoring them, but what if you're losing the debate? Then you'd be tempted to respond with oppression if you calculated you could succeed because that's the only way you could prevent lots of people from going to hell.
