Marcosll wrote:Kurieuo,
Sorry, please allow me to clarify a bit.
So were they "Christian" or "so-called Christians"?
Once again, the definition of Christian varies. Some Christians believe in salvation through beleif (faith) in Christ alone. So in theory, you could commit terrible acts, say you're sorry on your deathbed and go to heaven.
Many Christians who believe in salvation through faith alone do not believe such a faith is as easy as 1-2-3. It takes some a life time to come to a sincere faith in Christ.
To clarify something I disagree with (if it did not become apparent previous to now), I see Christ taught a lot more than simply choose good over evil. Christians believe one is saved through faith in Christ because such a teaching comes directly from Christ Himself. Thus, your dismay at Christians who would believe one is saved through faith in Christ should not really be targeted at those Christians who believe such a thing, but rather at Christ Himself. Many, including myself, would love for heaven to be an open door. Sadly, none of us are able to enter heaven since none of us meet God's standard. Thus, an alternate way was required, and Christ proclaimed Himself as that way.
If you disagree with this, then you are not necessarily dealing with Christians who believe one is saved via faith in Christ, but rather you are ultimately dealing with Christ Himself who claimed to be the way, the truth and the life, and who also said no one can come to the Father but through Him. (John 14:6-7) Such a teaching is not just a one time occurrence, but there are many other passages in Scripture where Jesus is taught as the only way to God (cf. Acts 4:11-12; Acts 16:30-31; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 John 2:23; 1 John 5:11-12). Early Christians often referred to themselves as followers of "the Way". For example, St Paul noted "I worship the God of our fathers
as a follower of the Way" (Acts 24:14). Thus, those who call themselves Christian while reject such a core teaching of Christ, can only find themselves outside of Christ's most central teachings. For such people, I am not sure how "Christ" really fits into the word "Christian".
Now given Christ's claims of being the Way, and given Christ convinced a great many people that He was, either Christ is self-deceived nut-case, one of the most convincing and evil liars, or Christ is telling the truth. There is really no other alternative than these choices CS Lewis presented. Only one sits well with me.
Marcosll wrote:By human constructs I meant they were for humans as opposed to other animals on the planet. If a non-human animal kills another of its kind is that considered evil?
"Good and evil are quite clearly defined by which humans - Nazi's, the US, Islamic extremists, fundamentalists?"
Once again, there are fundamental principles that transcend religions. Rape for example, I'm quite sure is one of those principles.
I would agree with you, and I think that as Christians, you and I can ground our reasoning more than other beliefs can in believing rape to be wrong. For example, "rape" is wrong because it violates the freedom of another human being, and we are to respect the lives of human beings because they are ultimately made in God's image and so we have no right to violate or take another's life.
Yet, what do those who adhere to Materialism or Physicalism have to justify their belief that rape is wrong? We may have evolved to believe rape is wrong, but once we find out that we simply evolved such a belief why care to follow it? In fact, far from being able to justify that rape is wrong some argue that it is beneficial to the human species. The logical conclusion is that there is nothing really wrong with rape however distasteful some might find it. As an article on the GodandScience.org website points out:
In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,10 authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."11 If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral? (
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html)
This is not to say those who are Materialists or Naturalists do not believe rape is wrong. Much of what we believe is wrong or right is an intuitive kind of knowledge. We all know some things are just wrong, while other things are good without really understanding why. Yet, Christianity is at least consistent with my intuited belief that rape is wrong.
