On the civility of Theological Positions

[Divine Insight]

People reject Christianity for many different reasons.

Non-theists May Simply Reject Supernatural Claims

Often times they cite the absurdity of the supernatural claims made by the Christian doctrine. They claim that it's nonsense to believe in talking serpents, talking donkeys, someone living in the stomach of a whale for 3 days, or someone being resurrected from the dead, etc

I understand the objection to those type of claims, but I myself do not dismiss the supernatural. I allow that if a supernatural God were to actually exist, then it could certainly perform supernatural feats. So rejecting this religion on the claim that supernatural events can't possibly occur is not a debate argument that I would employ. It's not my theological position (or anti-theological position if you prefer).

I allow for supernatural events when considering supernatural religious theologies.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on Conflicts with Known Science

Everyone is aware of the continual debates over Creationism versus Evolution for example. People often cite scientific reasons why the Great Flood could not have occurred, and so on. There many conflicts between religion and science. They may even point out that the religion had taught that demon possession was responsible for disease when science has revealed natural causes, etc.

While I agree that many of these objections to religious myths have very strong merit, I do not reject Christianity, or Islam based on these principles alone.


Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based simply because they see no evidence for it.

This is once again a valid reason to reject a theology. Theological claims that cannot be supported by compelling evidence can be just as easily dismissed without any compelling evidence.

I think this is an especially good position to hold against religions where it is claimed that the God demands that a person must believe in the religion without good evidence.

But once again, I don't simply dismiss Christianity merely because it has no compelling evidence to support it.

Non-Theists May Reject a Theology based on the position that the God it describes would necessarily be an immoral monster.

This is the theological position that I take. I firmly believe that this theological position is a valid argument against Christianity. This is in fact, the strongest reason that has compelled and convinced me that the religion cannot possibly be true.

Even if I allow for supernatural magic. Even if I allow for apparent conflict with science to be dismissed. Even if I accept it on pure faith without asking for it to be supported by evidence. I would still need to reject it soley on the grounds that the God character it portrays would necessarily be extremely immoral. A monster unworthy of anyone's worship.

This is a valid theological position (or anti-theological position if you prefer). It is my sincere reasons for rejecting all the Abrahamic religions. I even refrain from dismissing other potential spiritual pictures of reality such as some Easter Mystical Philosophies, precisely because they don't demand that God is an immoral monster.

~~~~~

However, when I make these theological arguments I'm often accused of being "uncivil". Like as if it's uncivil to suggest that a God might be an immoral monster.

But if that's the crux of my theological position, then why should this be considered to be "uncivil".

I reject Christianity because as far as I can see, in order for it to be true the God it portrays would necessarily need to be an extremely immoral entity. A monster. A demon in his own right.

That is my theological position. It's not intended to be an uncivil attack against a religion. It's a sincere theological position. I reject Christianity (and Islam) precisely because, in my assessment, both of these religions have twisted their Gods into extremely hateful and uncaring monsters.

And for that view, I get blamed for having an "uncivil" attitude toward these religions.

It's a well-thought-out perspective, and I sincerely stand by it as being a valid position to take on these theologies.

This is the reason I reject these religion. And I should be able to argue for this position without being accused of being "uncivil" just because I point out that these Gods would need to be immoral monsters.

That's my true reason for rejecting these religions. Why should I be punished or silenced for holding this valid theological position?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

I'm more lenient on attacking beliefs, but when personal comments are made about another person, the hammer will come down.

The warning that you received was not because of you attacking a position, but attacking a person.

You keep making up absolute nonsense and posting it as if it represent some sort of actual truth.

Doesn't Christianity itself teach you not to lie?

How can you not see the gross dishonesty of this religious cult?

I don't see why this should be taken as a "personal insult" anymore than Christians proclaiming to others that Jesus is knocking at their door and they are refusing to answer.

Did I accuse Tam of lying here? No, not at all.

I asked a question, "Doesn't Christianity teach you not to lie?" That's not accusing anyone of lying. It's simply a question.

And my next question asks, "
How can you not see the gross dishonesty of this religious cult? "

Am I calling Tam dishonest here? No. Again, I'm asking a question about a religious cult.

I think these are fair questions.

To the first question, "Doesn't Christianity teach you not to lie?" If the answer to this is "Yes" then what is the justification in claiming to "know" that Jesus is God when the truth can only be that a person has placed their "faith" in the "hope" that Jesus was God?

In fact I should have made it clear that I was using "You" generically here. I think this question should be asked of everyone. Especially of all Christians.

I think these are fair question to ask people, especially people who are claiming to "know" a supernatural deity. That is a quite profound claim. It goes far beyond merely having "faith" in ancient stories.

Especially when they are insinuating the following:

1. I know Christ
2. I have conversed with Christ
3. You have been ignoring Christ

Seems to me that this is basically accusing the other person of ignoring Christ because Christ himself has verified to this person who "knows Christ" that the accused persons is indeed ignoring him.

This seems to me to be a very powerful personal accusation to make against non-believers of this religion. And I highly question the honesty of this sort of evangelical tactic. I think its fair game to question this type of insinuation when it is used.

Where is there any honesty in anyone claiming to know a supernatural entity?

How is that not a fair question?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 10 by Danmark]

On the use of terms like absurd, and nonsense.

Debating religion for non-theists is like trying to tango on a tightrope. Almost any term we use to describe something as being unconvincing or not compelling is going to be seen as "uncivil" by the theist. In fact, many theists would suggest that any lack of pure respect for their theology amounts to incivility. And to enforce this makes it almost impossible to criticize a theology.

I've tried in the past to use other terms instead of "absurd'. Even the term "nonsense" is deemed to be uncivil by many.

What about merely saying, "I think that is unreasonable". Sounds like a civil statement to me, but I've seen this being reported in the past in the claim that it is a personal attack proclaiming that the person making the argument is "unreasonable".

So almost anything we use can be challenged on grounds of potential incivility.

Like I say, it really is like trying to tango on a tightrope. You really need to choose your terminology very carefully, and even when you thought you used a safe word even that can be twisted into a personal attack.

In fact, look at what's happening here.

I ask a question, "Does Christianity teach you to lie?"

That's a question. It's not a claim that anyone is a liar.

But it gets reported as though I had said, "You're a liar".

Not even close.

Tango on a tightrope.

[catnip]

Where is there any honesty in anyone claiming to know a supernatural entity?

How is that not a fair question?

I may know a lot of things that you don't know. I might have experienced things you have never experienced. It does not make me (generic me--lol) a liar! I'm not dishonest. Suggesting that I am could be cruel depending on what I am claiming.

I see it as being subjective either way. I am subjectively claiming that I have had the peculiar experience of the living God and you are subjectively claiming that you haven't. And both are equally valid. I can't assume you have had the experience and ought to believe in it no more than you can assume I haven't and should not believe in it.

On the other hand, I have seen claims myself that I consider doubtful. I cannot claim, however, that person is dishonest. sighs.

???

[Danmark]

Where is there any honesty in anyone claiming to know a supernatural entity?

How is that not a fair question?

I may know a lot of things that you don't know.

In the context of Christianity, I challenge this claim.
Certainly everyone knows some things others do not.
However, I have never once seen, heard, or read ANYthing proposed by a Christian as "something he knows" that former Christians were not also aware of. Most atheists and non theists here were formerly Christians. In fact, it was their continuing research and study of Christianity that led them to renounce their Christian beliefs. So, for a great many people, their rejection of Christianity comes from knowledge, not ignorance.

[Divine Insight]

On the other hand, I have seen claims myself that I consider doubtful. I cannot claim, however, that person is dishonest. sighs.

???

I don't see where any claim that a person was being dishonest was made. A question had been asked. No claim had been made.

How the question is answered would determine how the conversation would proceed.

[catnip]

Where is there any honesty in anyone claiming to know a supernatural entity?

How is that not a fair question?

I may know a lot of things that you don't know.

In the context of Christianity, I challenge this claim.
Certainly everyone knows some things others do not.
However, I have never once seen, heard, or read ANYthing proposed by a Christian as "something he knows" that former Christians were not also aware of. Most atheists and non theists here were formerly Christians. In fact, it was their continuing research and study of Christianity that led them to renounce their Christian beliefs. So, for a great many people, their rejection of Christianity comes from knowledge, not ignorance.

That's a discussion for the boards, I suppose. I was just addressing the assumption that Christians are encouraged by their faith to lie (per the thread). In your experience it is not found to be true. And that is as far as you can really take this.

As an example and to be friendly here: Let's say we were speaking of Big Foot here. And somebody says they have seen a big foot. Science has had a devil of a time proving the existence of one. Even though hair samples have been found and examined in a lab and determined to be of an unknown primate, somehow whether or not the scientists accept the validity of the research leaves the existence of Big Foot more a matter of opinion than not. If you or I see one, then we could be accused of lying.

[catnip]

On the other hand, I have seen claims myself that I consider doubtful. I cannot claim, however, that person is dishonest. sighs.

???

I don't see where any claim that a person was being dishonest was made. A question had been asked. No claim had been made.

How the question is answered would determine how the conversation would proceed.

Continue . . . I admit it seemed more benign this morning when I read it. Have a good day.

[Bust Nak]

It's not intended to be an uncivil attack against a religion. It's a sincere theological position. I reject Christianity (and Islam) precisely because, in my assessment, both of these religions have twisted their Gods into extremely hateful and uncaring monsters....

That's my true reason for rejecting these religions. Why should I be punished or silenced for holding this valid theological position?

Just pick less emotive words. Sugar coat it. Being "less than morally perfect" is equally fatal as an argument to a supposedly perfect god.