Yes, but we don't use fairytales to base any sensible discussion off, do we?

Why do you assume those are the only two options - how about a third way where we are neither good nor evil and only show ourselves to lean towards one or the other by how we conduct our lives?

I think most Christians would disagree with your take, indeed the concept of original sin is the exact opposite of what you are postulating.

You misunderstand. I found the malapropism amusing. I understood what you were getting at but the word you need is " aberrations".

I think he was suggesting that cnts is an abbreviation of the full word "cunts", which will obviously not appear on here and leave a large gap in my sentence.

Edit: turns out you can see it - I wrote it without the "u" to avoid the filters.

No, it wasn't clumsiness on their part. It was a pointed effort to undermine the point I was trying to make by going off on a complete tangent and arguing a point I never even made.

People do it on this forum. Not sure why.

Not sure why others jumped on the bandwagon and started arguing the same point which as I wrote, I hadn't even made.



May be you should have studied geography or something rather than theology? Just a thought.

I think you'll find that a lot of Christians are not modern at all. And that's the problem (and the main reason for this thread).

Anyway, who gets to decide who is a Christian anyway? Is there an exam? If there isn't then there ought to be - and I'll bet there's a high failure rate.

Given that religion is a choice (in civilized countries, anyway), I think it's fairly obvious that any individual can decide to be a Christian.

All individuals identifying as Christian are perfectly capable of doing unchristian things, of course.

In a philosophical discussion, it is quite proper to say "If A is true, then B follows". Whether A is actually true is irrelevant. You proposed that everyone being evil precludes a knowledge of good. I've demonstrated a hypothetical universe where this would not be the case. I don't. I was going to propose some other possibilities drawn from non-Christian philosophies, but felt that it would detract. Although ... if we are neither good nor evil, where do the abstract concepts of good and evil arise, in your view? Yes. I did said that. EF is part of our daily entertainment. Threads go off topic. Does it matter when it's not massively serious anyway? I studied Maths. I was quite good at it as well. Theology and philosophy are just for fun. In mathematics the arguments can be quite subtle and complex. Same goes for theology and philosophy. For my next trick I shall demonstrate that 12 angels can dance on the head of pin... Any who calls themselves a Christian, could work maybe?

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

The failure rate is 100%

HTH

I don't know how you define modern but I know quite a few Christians who I would not consider especially modern but who don't have a problem with homosexuality. Or if they do they don't talk about it. I even know one very un-modern Christian who is also openly gay. He sings in a choir that specializes in Gregorian plainsong, and he is writing a PhD thesis about medievil religious paintings, so you can't get much more old fashioned than that. I see and read of a lot of intolerant Christians on the media and so don't doubt that they really exist, but for some reason my paths and theirs rarely seem to cross.

No, I said there would be no need for a human concept of "good" and "evil" if everyone is evil by default; indeed there is no possible concept of good or evil in that scenario.

This is the whole concept of moral relativism.

This.

I suspect that most Christians are nice, normal people. Most leaders who seek to use Christianity, however, as a device for turning people against a group of "Sinner Xs", are not too nice and not too Christian.

It doesn't surprise me. Within the Anglican church, there is the liberal wing and the evangelical wing, and a spectrum between them. In this context, liberal means holding to liberal theology, whereas evangelical means (loosely) that they hold to the bible being the source of all authority in theological matters.

There is also the traditionalist wing and the modernist wing. Some traditionalist are evangelical, some are liberal. Similarly for modernists. Attitudes towards homosexuality don't strictly follow either axis.

Well, as John says, God's house has many wings.

Anecdotal, for sure, but I've been a Christian for about ten years, have attended all kinds of services in three different countries and have heard precisely one sermon which preached any kind of intolerance, and that was such a load of unfocussed nonsense that I can't even remember what he was chuntering on about. I know that state school teachers got a mention, which made me chuckle.

Every other sermon was either wishy-washy "let's love everyone and look after hedgehogs" woolly jumper stuff; serious and erudite theological brain-challengers (in German); or utterly terrifying "look at yourself, seriously, look at the state of yourself - and you think you can judge OTHERS?" traditional thundering sermons.

I like the last sort the best.

I respectfully disagree, on the basis of "no true Scotsman", i.e. "No true Christian would be less than nice; if someone claiming to be Christian does some less than nice, then they're no true Christian". Common informal fallacy, and a great shield to hypocrisy and double-standards. Please try to follow my reasoning:

I think most religions today are marred by the heritage of dogmas written hundreds of years ago. Any TRUE religious person today would be incapable of fitting in any society, perhaps outside of the Taliban, or ISIS. Therefore, in a civilized society, nobody is really, truly religious. It's a comtemporary interpretation of the religion, as each individual sees fit.

__________________
The internet makes it easy to be a jerk and forget the person we're talking to is a human. It also makes us see messages from awful people and assume they come from normal peers.

That's a myth. They're just normal people and you have all sorts.

Damn, scrolled too fast and read that as "wigs".

See my post earlier. To my mind, anyone who says they are a Christian can be one, irrelevant of how much of the bible they want to cherry pick.

Most normal people are nice. Society would break down were that not the case.

Maybe if you are a monk or a nun/sister....