Talk:Is the Bible an Immoral Book?

Essay
This is an essay, surely. Aceace 08:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Opium in China
Just on the Record, wp says Britain start doing stuff starting 1880 (2nd Opium War is 1860, awareness are still not up until afterwards), and Christians didn't do much until 1890 (medical evidence isn't documented, and the problem is mostly association with christians with opium.) User:K61824User_talk:K61824 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Suffering in the world
The author of the original work states that suffering in the world is "... our fault because every person who ever lived (except Jesus, the perfect Last Adam) has rebelled against the Creator." Now, I'm certain that there are plenty of people who have lived that lived completely pious and faithful lives, and that many of those people suffered needlessly in their life, especially if they were not members of the clergy. Unless, of course, she is equating "rebelled against the Creator" with comitting a sin, even if that sin is from ignorance and not malice. So, she is essentially stating that suffering is designed to make the heretics and infidels convert to Christianity so the suffering will not continue into the afterlife, completely hand-waving all the suffering undertaken by the truly riteous who have done nothing but embrace God. It also glosses over all of the irreligious and heretical people who are able to prevent themselves from suffering by the exploitation of others. So, the people whom suffering is supposed to help (the sinful heretics) also tend to be the least affected by the suffering, while the pious (who will not sin in order to relieve their suffering) are the most likely to experience it. 204.86.148.231 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Reverend Lucifer (13:23 CST, 10/18/2012)
 * Original Sin, Tainted by Sin, all sin but for some its ok because jesus is now covering them from the eternal punishment. Also Job. -- Mikal Harass  Follow 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But if suffering is justified by Original Sin, and Jesus provides forgiveness for all sins, that still doesn't address the crux of my argument, which is that her justification of suffering is that it is intended to drive people towards Christ, while the people least affected by suffering tend to be the worst of the sinners.
 * Job. Always Job and the fact that in the end, eternal punishment-- Mikal Harass  Follow 02:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Job is OT, which means that salvation through Jesus is irrelevant to that story. Also, Job was an isolated incident, wherein God was proving that the most faithful would not renounce him even if he made them thoroughly miserable, and he only did so in response to a challenge in the first place.  Job should not be considered as an explanation of why God makes the world suffer any more than Exodus should be an explanation of why there are homeless people.  Beyond that, her entire premise is that suffering is intended to lead people to Jesus, and Job was already the most faithful and a prophet at the time that God began to cause his suffering, so even if it did provide an explanation for the suffering in the world, it runs contrary to the point she was trying to make.  Job did not suffer because he rebelled against God, he was forced to suffer to prove that he would not rebel against God. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Job is a common explanation as to why the good still suffer, so it is relevant in this case as to why the good seem to still have a sucky life if its the evil ones who are meant to get punished". And for the rest, again, Some sin you did or original sin or whatever. -- Mikal Harass  Follow 04:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Job is not a good argument to support the premise when the premise is that suffering is because of sin. You can make the case that suffering exists because of Adam and Eve, but that isn't what she's stating here.  What she is stating is that suffering in the world exists as a result of "every person [except Jesus] who ever lived" rebelling against God (which makes Original Sin moot because that does not involve everyone in a rebellion against God).  In fact, Job is an even worse argument, because Job never rebelled against God.  The second part of her premise is that the suffering is a good thing if it leads a person to Jesus.  I take that to mean that she justifies horrific suffering as a tool of God to create more faithful out of the heretics.  As I said earlier, however, the people least likely to endure suffering also tend to be the least likely to be devout Christians, because those are the people willing to inflict the suffering on others to ensure they do not suffer themselves.

Is Arminian the correct spelling?
- 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean DD1, but yes, someone who adheres to i.e. the ideas of  (as opposed to other variants of Protestantism, such as Lutheranism, Calvinism or "Zwingliism"), is an Arminian, not to be confused with an Armenian, of course. We don't have an article on Arminianism on RW, but it's mentioned in the article on Presbyterianism, though possibly (wrongly?) conflating Arminianism with Calvinism — I'm not quite up to speed on the finer details distinguishing the two. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)