On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

When you make a general criticism, that doesn’t represent a significant amount of the people being represented, then I think it’s ok to point out the straw man being posited. And I don’t see nothing wrong with a center of study evolving, as long as it’s basis is knowledge and insight. Whether you are talking about science or theology. My theology has evolved a lot over the years.

However even if there is some small group of people who would ignorantly say what the other poster did, it certainly is not biblical.

Christian doctrine isn't what a majority of people at a specific point in time think.  That's an ad populism fail which also ignores the history and pluralism of Christianity.

If Steve wants to amend his complaint to simply that we don't understand him, I will willingly accede.

Possessing knowledge and insight seem to be at war with a subject evolving, depending upon how one conceives of knowledge.  Ultimately, I suspect, however you conceive knowledge, theology will end up holding the short stick relative to science.

Rule 1 of debating a theist "you don't understand X (when their losing ) " Of course we do they just dislike the fact it's absurd 

Rule 2 "lot's of people agree with us therefore were right "