For example, here is one of them:
A lot of Christianity (and any religion, really) hinges on similar suppositions.Originally Posted by beefeater
Here, if one accepts the first two statements, then punishment becomes allowable and heaven/salvation becomes necessary and loving/merciful. If one does not accept the first two statements, then what follows seems not only absurd but cruel.
unless of course you assume that any rebellion or ounce of human will raised against God taints one, making them imperfect, and a perfect God cannot bear imperfection, and imperfection must be either (1) punished or (2) purified.
Even CHristians still argue about whether hell is punitive or reparative in nature... funny, huh? Just like much of our own legal system?
you know the answer to that, dude:My favorite defense they'll use when you point out inconsistencies: "I don't make the rules; that's just how it is!", as if they're unable to pick up on the fact that my criticisms of the inconsistencies suggest that the entire system is nonsense.
It ranges from either people assume their POV is correct to start with, or they have had certain life experiences/insights that suggest to them it is reasonable to accept that premise.
Just because you feel indignation when people see things differently with you doesn't mean you don't need to try to better consider their stance and/or argument.
No, it CAN make logical sense; it's just irrelevant either way in the long run since nothing can ever be perfectly known, although consistency of any sort buttresses faith claims when faith wavers.Of course, consistency isn't the point. It's not supposed to make logical sense, because that would defeat the purpose of faith.