OP, seeing as how religion is so complex and each individual’s religious experiences and belief system is so varied and we can’t fully understand them, wouldn’t it just make more sense to judge people by their actions?

I find it odd that so many who profess not to be christian are so quick to jump to the barricades when they perceive an attack. Did you notice that? — Banno

I want to make sure I understand your comment. Are you implying that you think those of us who disagree with you are lying about being Christians in the first place? Because that’s how that reads to me, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.

"Tis a busy day, and you both deserve longer replies. But in the interim, it strikes me that you share in the view that christianity ought be judged only (or mainly) from a christian perspective; that seems to be what is implicit in the admonition to understand christianity before commenting. — Banno

Judging Christianity as a religion and making moral judgements about the people who call themselves Christians isn’t the same thing. Lewis isn’t judging the religion, or suggesting that we judge the religion. Lewis is suggesting that we should judge harshly all the people who believe in Christianity.

On one hand, OP seems to be saying we should agree with Lewis and question the moral character of all Christians because they think a villainous god is worthy of worship.

And on the other hand, when someone says, “but that’s not what Christians think”, the OP says we don’t care about what they think and we don’t need to understand what they think before we question their moral character.

So it seems like what Lewis and the OP is saying is, we should question the moral character of Christians based on what WE think they think. I disagree with that approach.

It seems to me that 'equal rights' somehow got confused with 'equality'. People are not equal. Is an idiot equal to Einstein? No. A man equal to a woman? No, there are hormonal and emotional differences. Is a bird equal to a fish? Be careful how you answer or you might end up in jail... — EnPassant

Nailed it! :up:

That's an interesting observation, are you saying Jews or Muslims allow criticizing God more than Christians? — SpaceDweller

No. I didn’t say anything at all about Jews or Muslims or any other religious people. Nor was implying anything about them. The topic is about Christians, so that’s why I am talking about Christians.

Well, yours and mine, if you like. I say a god who inflicts infinite torture for finite offences is not worthy of worship. What say you?

Ethical relativism be damned; if you defend such a villain, your moral judgement is questionable. — Banno

I’m Jewish. Therefore, I don’t think the god Christian’s worship is worthy of worship because I don’t believe he exists.

Still I don’t think Lewis makes a fair assessment of the god that Christians believe in. What Lewis is actually describing, imo, is his own view of god. A view many people share, the view that the Christian god is a genocidal-maniac-power-hungry-nutjob who will happily throw you in a pit of fire for eternity should you cross him.

And if you see god as such then you will surely label him a villain as you and Lewis have done. No argument there.

Where I think Lewis falters however is when he decides that we should question the moral character of Christians based not on their god as they see him and describe him and believe him to be, but on Lewis’s depiction.

Christians do not believe they are worshipping a “villain”. The god that Lewis describes is unrecognizable to them. Christians do not believe that god is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world. It’s as simple and as complicated as that.


Another problem with his assertion that we should question their moral character is, Lewis doesn’t believe in god or Jesus or what Christianity teaches. He doesn’t believe that his soul is at risk of eternal damnation should he anger the Christian god or “deny Jesus”.

Christians do believe that. Many because they believe Jesus or god has spoken to them, many read their religious texts and it made sense to them, many had some other conversion experience which left them 1000% convinced god and Jesus exist, many were taught that since they were very little children and are scared to death to even question his existence.

Whatever the reason, Christians belief god and Jesus are real. They believe Heaven and Hell are real. Very very real!

Therefore, Lewis is able to look at god and Jesus without any fear or any reservation whatsoever and he can feel free to be as critical and judgmental as he wants to be in assessing god’s actions and behavior. And he does that brilliantly.

Many Christians literally can’t stomach criticizing their god even a little bit. Much less as harsh as Lewis has done. For whatever reason, (their upbringing, they’re too afraid, they think he is perfect..whatever). They just don’t.

The reality is Lewis nor anyone else will ever be able to know why every individual believes what he or she believes or even precisely what they believe or how they interpret religious texts.

If you find it useful and moral to judge a group of people based on something you don’t entirely understand, then you should do that. You should always do what you feel is morally right. Always.

Personally, I feel individuals and their religious beliefs are far too complicated and complex to just focus on what they believe their god might do to dead people as a means to judge everything about their moral character.

It seems so obvious, at least to me, that the leaders of all these different political parties and their media counterparts main objective is to keep everyone fighting with each other. It would be nice if we didn’t keep letting that happen.

OK. I don't read very closely. Sorry. — Tom Storm

:rofl: I don’t read all that closely either, no worries!

Not really. It's pretty easy to see where the idea of an evil god comes from. The Old testament reveals a thuggish, vengeful god who supports slavery, genocide, rape and frequently behaves as a mass-murdering Mafia boss. People have been pointing this out for a long time and, as Isaac Asimov and others have pointed out, one of the surest pathways into atheism is reading the Bible. — Tom Storm

I don’t think you understand my questions, Tom. I’m asking how David Lewis determines and defines what is good and what is evil, just or unjust, right and wrong.


(While I am aware of the many different interpretations of the Old Testament, I’m not at all interested in debating them.)

The interesting variation here is that the argument asks us not to consider the morality of such an evil god, but of those who consider him worthy of praise or worship. — Banno

“An evil god” according to what principles? I’m always interested to know where people acquire their rules of what is good and evil.

Obviously Christians don’t believe that their God is an evil god so worshipping him isn’t a problem for them. David Lewis, both doesn’t believe in the Christian god and finds him evil and therefore has a problem with the morality of those who do believe in him.

But what is evil and what is moral or immoral, just or unjust? We know what Christians use to answer these questions (biblical texts, the church etc) but where does David Lewis get his definition of right and wrong, good and evil, just or unjust? And how does he know he’s right and Christians are wrong?

There will never be a civil war in America. People are way too addicted to their phones to go to battle.

I joined this forum mainly because I got tired of sitting around doing nothing while everyone around me was staring at their screens.

So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free. — god must be atheist

This is exactly my take away as well.

And Qmeri since you disagree with this take and almost every other post made on your thread, I’m confused as to why you’re not trying to make your point more clear or understandable. You don’t seem bothered by the fact that we’re four pages in and whatever you initially wanted to discuss isn’t at all clear.

Maybe it would help if you gave an example of what someone, who actually understood your initial post, might say.

Does anyone in this thread actually “hate vegans”?

I’ve read every comment in this thread and I have no idea what the OP actually wants us to discuss.

These need to be verified. And since you made the claim, you need to verify these claims. I am sorry.

You need to cite some examples of your claim, with names and dates and location which we can verify independently. If you don't, your claim does not have any power of reason or any valid value for an argument. — god must be atheist

Why are you sorry for stating your opinion?

Can you name anyone who lost their job just for stating their opinion against the federal government's Covid policy? I'm guessing you can't. If there were people who did, it was a very few. On the other hand, at least one person was prosecuted for telling the truth, e.g. the person who managed the Covid database for the State of Florida. School funding has been withheld to school districts in Florida that implemented Covid policies recommended by the CDC.

800,000 people have died from Covid in the US. How are there two sides to that fact? — T Clark

Laura Krolczyk (you can
feel free to google her and what happened to her, it’s sickening) lost her job for saying, on Facebook, "Trump supporters need to pledge to give up their ventilators for someone else ... and not go to the hospital." And in your own comment you point out that someone was “prosecuted for telling the truth”. Both of these examples illustrate very clearly that freedom of speech is under attack.

I understand in todays climate it’s very easy to just assume that everything someone says is based on their own political beliefs and then go from there.


But my comment wasn’t about political views, I just used two examples to support my stated opinion that everyone’s free speech is under attack.

I’m not at all interested in specifically talking about or debating any election or COVID. I haven’t stated my personal political views or my personal views on COVID anywhere. Why would I? I’m talking about free speech.

However, based on your response to my comment, I can see that the OP’s concerns that my comment will derail their thread about free speech into one about politics in America is legitimate. And I can assure you I absolutely don’t want to do that.

There are several examples of people losing their jobs or being otherwise unfairly maligned for simply stating their opinions on LGBTQ issues, racial issues, religious issues, etc and not just in America but other countries as well. I just picked two examples to illustrate that, that doesn’t mean I want to talk about those topics specifically. On the contrary, I don’t debate those specific issues online or anywhere else because they always spin out of control.

My point is simple. I don’t care what your beliefs are, everyone on the planet should be granted freedom of speech to express themselves, without fear of prosecution, losing their job or being labeled some negative term. Sadly, that’s not the case.

Free speech is most definitely under attack in America nowadays. For ex, rather one agreed that the last presidential election was stolen or that the election went off fair and square, both sides should have been able to state their opinions on the matter equally. And yet, as we all saw, they were not.

The same thing happened with COVID. People actually lost their jobs for simply stating their opinions on the policies and mandates. People from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, where attacked viciously and suffered real world consequences simply for stating opinions on highly controversial issues, that few people found to be anything but confusing anyway. But the rule of thumb nowadays seems to be, if someone disagrees with you, they are guilty of “hate speech”. They’re also racist or sexist or some type of phobic or a snowflake or a nazi or a feminazi or a bigot or a man hater or woman hater….and on and on.

It’s just plain nutty out there!

I think some people express opinions to solely rile people up and some do it because they believe they can teach or educate or help others and some people offer opinions to both educate and irritate/anger simultaneously. (Those aren’t the only reasons, imo, either, just some common ones.)

Personally, I can’t stand conflict. I don’t like how it makes me feel. In fact, I have never once felt better during or after a conflict ended than I did before it began.

Having said that, here in internet land, it’s easy to feel like almost everyone is looking for something to be angry or irritated about b/c it just seems to be the case.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post OP, “well done”. =)

Lol I had never heard of the “rubber duck method” before so I just looked it up. You are correct, it’s exactly what I was (unknowingly) referring to.

And you’re right, it can be effective!

The best way to learn most things is to study them as if you’re going to be required to teach them to someone else. You could for example, take your notes from class and when you’re back home, pretend to be teaching what you learned that day to someone else. Reference your notes and/or books as needed while doing so.

If you’re lucky enough to have a friend or family member who will let you, teach them the lesson you learned that day. If they ask you questions, look them up on the spot and discuss the answer(s). The more you teach others or share with them what you learned, the more it will stick with you and it will also help you memorize more information. In teaching others, you almost always end up teaching yourself as well.

I tried doing this myself in college and it helped me tremendously.

Best of luck!!

~ laura