Does Neutrality exist?

[chrispalasz]

On the thread: "How do we know God is the good guy?" -
Tigerlilly wrote:

God is the enemy of Satan, yet we only have one point of view, and I doubt we know the true nature of went on from a neutral persepective.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 1579#11579

I propose that neutrality does not exist. I think that anyone claiming to hold a "neutral" perspective on something is living a bias. The concept of "neutral" comes from a simple lack of understanding and lack of knowledge. We can only consider ourselves neutral if we don't have the facts... So, let's debate this issue.

Here's the question:
Does neutrality exist? Please support your stance.

[Amphigorey]

I believe that its <b>extremely dangerous</b> to claim that because someone does not share your belief system that that person is "evil". Black and white doesn't work. It may have been ok in the 15th century, but today Neutrality is an abolute moral necessity in this debate.

If you can't win people over by demonstrating the value of your position, relegating them to the pit is merely capitulation to your own weak arguments.

[chrispalasz]

Amphigorey: I believe that its extremely dangerous to claim that because someone does not share your belief system that that person is "evil". Black and white doesn't work. It may have been ok in the 15th century

Well I believe it is extremely dangerous to not be a Christian... which is to defy God.

And I beg to differ. Black and White works for God.

Amphigorey: If you can't win people over by demonstrating the value of your position, relegating them to the pit is merely capitulation to your own weak arguments.

I don't know what you mean when you say "relegating them to the pit". Maybe you could clarify that for me. Thanks.

One partial objective to living as a Christian is to demonstrate through living, as Jesus Christ did, the value of this position. Jesus' disciples saw the value of His position... to the point where they wanted to spread the word to everyone.

Amphigorey: today Neutrality is an abolute moral necessity in this debate.

Please expand on this. Why do you say neutrality is a necessity? Explain what a neutral position is. Is your position neutral? Is my position neutral?

[Amphigorey]

You're right, I'm not being very clear.

Well I believe it is extremely dangerous to not be a Christian... which is to defy God.

And I beg to differ. Black and White works for God.

I don't know what you mean when you say "relegating them to the pit". Maybe you could clarify that for me. Thanks.

pit = hell

Why do you say neutrality is a necessity? Explain what a neutral position is. Is your position neutral? Is my position neutral?

My apologies. I believe Neutrality is necessary, because, on a broader political scale, I hope we can stop killing each other over our beliefs. I hope our societies can embrace religious and human diversity as inherent because I believe it's useless to try to legislate thought and/or biology. Because, as I've posted elsewhere, I believe diversity is how humans experiment and explore, and because experimentation and exploration are a hallmarks of intelligence.

I think my position is at least more neutral than yours' simply because not sharing my beliefs has no consequences for you. There is no danger in not being an Atheist. That is, I don't maintain that not sharing my beliefs is going to condemn you to an eternity of suffering.

My position is more neutral because I don't believe adherence or non-adherence to any religious belief holds any sort of existential consequence for us as individuals or for our societies. Yes, I do feel that we have moral obligations towards society; but I don't confuse morality with religion.

When I said that you have to demonstrate the value of your position without relegating the rest of us to the pit, I meant in part the value to a diverse or secular society that does not share your beliefs. My position is more neutral than yours since I can at least tolerate diversity without condemning it.

[BeHereNow]

Greenlight311 writes: Well I believe it is extremely dangerous to not be a Christian... which is to defy God.

I assume, Greenlight311, that you mean it is dangerous for the individual, because he is defying God he will pay the price. This is exactly what make it dangerous for the rest of society. In the end, your type of Christianity will always demand that everyone be of one mind. As long as you are in the minority this is not likely to happen. If you ever had a 60% majority I believe the other 40% would be forced to convert, leave the country, or die.
What you really desire is a state sponsored religion.
You want everyone to pass the litmus test you devise, using particular sections of the Bible to support your personal beliefs. You want "unbelievers" to be labeled "dangerous". I agree that in your society it would be dangerous to not be a Christian, not because of Gods judgment, but because of mans judgment.

We have seen this happen repeatedly throughtout history for two millenium.

[chrispalasz]

On Judgement Day - everyone will pay their dues. Everyone will kneel before God on that day - and He will pronounce Just Judgement on us all.

People that would disobey God, willingly... the people that would do what you speak of will also pay.

People of "my" Christianity (as you call it) have obligations. When we choose to live as a Christian - we choose to work towards the better human life and the better human existance. We choose to love everyone - even our enemies, and pray for them... even bless them. We choose to serve everyone, and offer what we have to them. We choose to obey the laws of God as demonstrated by Jesus Christ; and although we know we will always fail, we will keep getting back up and trying again. We choose to be witnesses, attesting to the Truth. As the Body of Christ - we choose to be His love to the world. That's what True Christianity is about. That's what "my" Christianity is about.

[BeHereNow]

Greenlight311 writes: That's what True Christianity is about. That's what "my" Christianity is about.

I believe I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. The fact remains that I never met a Christian who did not believe they were a "true Christian" (or at least that good members of their church were), and yet there is much disagreement about doctrine and interpretation of scripture.
If you believe you are all correct (Catholic, Baptist, Charismatic, Mormons, LDS, Protestant, etc), Id like to see that argument. Otherwise you're just another voice in the wilderness (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[chrispalasz]

BeHereNow: I believe I understand what you are saying, and I respect that. The fact remains that I never met a Christian who did not believe they were a "true Christian" (or at least that good members of their church were), and yet there is much disagreement about doctrine and interpretation of scripture.
If you believe you are all correct (Catholic, Baptist, Charismatic, Mormons, LDS, Protestant, etc), Id like to see that argument. Otherwise you're just another voice in the wilderness (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I'm not saying they're all true. I will never say that. I am also not saying that they are all false. First I believe that it's the individual, not the denomination, that makes a True Christian. But there are few denominations that I would say do not agree with Christ.

I am just another voice in the wilderness... but it is the voice of Christ, and not just another person claiming the truth. Of course, it makes sense that nobody would admit they are not a "true" Christian. Pretty much the same thing can be said about anybody or anything.

[seen da light]

I would like to foremostly agree with the fact that certain demoninations aren't in fact true Christianity.lets take for example the catholic church.
Nowhere does it tell christians to have a pope.Nowhere does it tell us to make church such a pompous precession of fancy dressed people.
What the catholic church does,is no where in scripture.It is traditions that have been added to the word of god.
another example is of the methodist church.Here they baptise babies. the commandments are clear ,to repent and be baptised.can babies repent?they don't even know spiritual right from wrong yet.so thus it is a tradition that is questionable when compared to the biblical model(note that is how you compare churches)

back to the topic-can anyone be truely neutral?
Never.A person, no matter how illiterate on the matter always has an opinion on something.they have either been in that situation, seen that situation or heard of it and have their own view on the matter.debators especially are extreemely opinionated.How else do you debate unless you are coming from somewhere?
Any one who claims neutrality in essence is lying.tThat in itself is not being neutral.Truely neutral is a eutopean idea brought forth by people who wish to comfort themselves into believing that they are neutral thus better then the arguing parties.No one is truely neutral nor will anyone ever be.

God bless

[BeHereNow]

seen da lightI would like to foremostly agree with the fact that certain demoninations aren't in fact true Christianity.lets take for example the catholic church.

If Catholics do not belong to a true Christian Church, please name a denomination that you believe is true Christian. I will then apply your criteria to determine if you are correct.