How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]forlife wrote:
Do you not agree this is a double standard, where god is expecting Adam to behave in a different way than god himself behaves? It is ok for god to please himself and honor himself, but if Adam pleases himself and honors himself, he is condemned?

Is it more loving to give people what they want, knowing that doing so will result in endless suffering for all eternity, or is it more loving not to create them in the first place? What good does it do to give people what they want, if the end result is eternal damnation? Can you imagine burning in hell FOREVER, and how incredibly horrible that would be? Why would any loving god actually create people, knowing that their ultimate destination would be this eternal state of suffering?[/quote]

In the vastness of our sagacity and with the awesome power of our hatred, we gazed into the heavens and shouted “Gods are no better than men”, and so we stormed the gates of Mount Olympus and dragged the gods down to our earthly existence forging bands of human divination that would tie and bind them to our will . . .

No - I do not agree that it is a double standard, you are equating honoring the creation with honoring the creator . . . seems there was a verse about that . . .

"Because by them the true word of God was changed into that which false, and they gave worship and honor to the thing which is made and not unto him who made it . . . "

In your estimation Honoring yourself is equally valid with honoring the one who created you - that is the source of the problem. God’s honoring and pleasing himself does not result in an abandonment of man - He can simultaneously love man AND honor himself by that love, whereas what you call man’s “honoring himself” is choosing to not love God - they are not the same thing.

“More loving” . . . we who reject his love stand in judgment of the quality of that love . . . like a cheating spouse accusing the faithful spouse of being the cause for their own unfaithfulness . . . amazing . . .

The burning in hell (IN MY BELIEFS) is not the punishment of the physical body as you stated, but the burning of the soul in longing for that which it freely rejected - but the nature of hell is another discussion thread altogether.

What you are implying is that the punishment far outweighs the crime, and no “loving” person would have placed man in a position where he could have fallen under the penalty of so horrible a punishment. That is your great accusation against the love of God, if he REALLY loved you, he would not punish you with so great a punishment for not loving Him. But since he KNEW you were going to reject him - he should never have created you to begin with.

in human terms, it is accusing the faithful spouse of too great a punishment (loss of the relationship) for too small of a crime (unfaithfulness) and so if the faithful spouse had really loved you, they would have never gotten into a relationship with you where you could have lost the relationship by being unfaithful . . . it is the true height of selfishness to blame the creator for allowing you to reject him . . . .

382

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
You are comparing tastes for a particular flavor of ice cream (biological) with the conscious volitional choice to reject God (spiritual) - hardly a similar concept.

I’m talking about all of the cognition and decisions we make, mundane or otherwise, which psychology has proven are significantly influenced by our values, our thoughts, our attitudes, our intelligence, and our experience.[/quote]

In your estimation, apparently, the physical experience defines the Soul - that is pre-determinism. In my estimation, the Soul defines itself - that is free will.

383

[quote]pookie wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
So you would prefer a creation where we did not have free will and where we were simply little machines who did what we were told and all lived monotonous controlled lives ever after? Or would you prefer no creation at all?

Uncreated Nature rules. God-free too.

Take the multi-verse concept now in favor in quantum physics - every choice gets made and results in parallel worlds . . . life for those who do not choose to rebel against God is intertwined with the lives of those who do - it could not be any other way.

How about quantum immortality: Everytime there’s a possibility I die, in at least one parallel universe, I live. Hence, somewhere in the multiverse, we all live eternally while humanity dies around us.

here is the root of the problem for your question and its true answer . . . OMNIPRESENCE - everywhere at every moment simultaneously

When you’re taking a giant crap, do you pause to think that God is between your ass and the water?

God (as Push was trying to explain) exists in the ever-present now - he is outside of time (“before Moses was I AM”)

Guess he created grammar later…

  • there was no BEFORE creation and there is no AFTER creation for God - The moment of creation is the same moment for him as the judgment day - there is no linear chronological progression for God as your question tries to force him into.

No wonder He’s too busy to answer prayers. Everything happens at once for Him.

Just like ForLife does not understand free will (and tries to force pre-determinism into it), you do not understand God’s omnipresence and are trying to force linear progression on a timeless being.

That’s even harder than forcing sense and reason into a believer.

You sit and judge a timeless being from your limited perspective and accuse him of being evil for applying the natural consequences upon people for choices they made entirely of their own free will . . . all the while ignoring his nature and ours for a semantic construct.

And when an earthquake topples a school and kills a few hundred children, it’s not Evil, it’s Entertainment. Cancer, Tay Sachs disease, Harlequin Ichthyosis… all Good Godly Fun.

[/quote]

wow - do you suffer from diarrhea of the brain often?

384

Pookie - love your avatar, but do not appreciate the insulting condescension and denigration of my beliefs.

If you do not share them, that’s fine. But do you have to be so irreverent of what I hold dear? I have never treated you in a similar manner, yet you feel perfectly justified to do so to me?

regardless of your lack of respect for me - I still find many of your posts absolutely entertaining!

Thanks for jumping in - hope we can actually have some real conversations in the future.

385

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:

…I would like to request that the Christians on this forum restrain from throwing out accusations such as “you are just angry” or “you don’t want to hear my beliefs”. …

I would like to request that the atheists and agnostics on this forum restrain from throwing out accusations such as “you are a fairy tale believer” or “you don’t want to hear my scientific superiority”.[/quote]

And “flying spaghetti monster”

386

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Just got caught up reading what everyone had to say.

I would like to request that the Christians on this forum restrain from throwing out accusations such as “you are just angry” or “you don’t want to hear my beliefs”. Someone being angry or not has nothing to do with the truth. Since we are talking about the truth, I see these accusations as nothing more than drop down from the reasoning, cognitive level to the feeling level. I would hate to think that all there is to believing or not believing in god-fearing religions is feelings, because that would imply that truth according to measurable reality does not matter.

Also, no one even tried to answer two questions:

  1. What would you think of God if you held him to the same standards he holds you (so far the only answer has been “I can’t do that because I’m a mortal”. Don’t bother responding to this question if that is your answer because it’s been said and is not an answer, but a reason NOT TO ANSWER)
    [/quote]

Fine, I’ll answer. God cannot be “held” to the same standard as us, because he is not us. We can hold a dog to the same standard as us, because a dog is not use. We can only hold ourselves to our own standard. It like trying to hold an orange to the standard of an apple, it’s gonna fail.
Second, God can do things we cannot because he created it and it all belongs to him. He can do what he wants. It’s good to be the king. For my experience, He been very kind to me, but when I have a gripe, I take it up with him. The problem of evil bothers me too at times, but we cannot be at the most finite levels of those interactions and we cannot know that what we perceive to be â??evil’ is always so, it may be unpleasant, but it may not be evil. To answer that, you first have to go through the agonizing exercise of defining â??good’ and â??evil’, then you can assign what event fit in to what categories. The problem here is you cannot define those words, we can have some sense of what they mean, but a concrete definition is not possible, or hasn’t been discovered as of yet.

We are finite and limited in knowledge. We are not the same thing as God, see above. When God was here in person form he did hold himself to the same standards, to the point of being tortured and killed.

387

[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Wow- thanks for going there.

And please understand that this is stated within the context of my beliefs . . . . Therein lies the secret of the answer I posited for Oleena’s question - which she has studiously ignored.

At no point have I seen you contradict anything that I’ve said. I’ve seen you say that you don’t feel that I understood what you wrote, but as far as I can see, nothing that you’ve wrote has been an answer to the question I proposed. I already stated that the concept of free will is irrevelent to my question because god already knew which way his creation would decide with the free will he gave it.

I am making one assumption here that is not clearly backed up in the Bible, and only one. That assumption is that god had a choice in making the universe. BEFORE he created anyone, before he created sin, before he created free will, he knew that what he was creating would result in 1000s upon 1000s burning in hell for eternity. Whether or not his creation has free will is not important because he already knew what they would decide before he brought them into existance, and apparently he had a choice about whether or not to bring them into existance. I am not talking about the moment after the first human decided to sin or what god did after that.

What do you have to say about the original choice he made to bring all of humanity into existance knowing BEFORE HE DID IT that he was going to destroy it several times and burn 1000s upon 1000s for eternity in hell.

[/quote]

What, God’s not allow to have a cook out? Talk about double standards!

388

[quote]pat wrote:
The notion Godâ??s existence can be derived through pure reason.[/quote]

Er, no.

Oddly, those seem to correlate pretty strongly with atheism.

You mean that even with no one to think them, thoughts exist?

5 billion years ago, when the Earth hadn’t even formed, did Batman exist?

Dishonesty implies willful deception. The toaster you describe is defective, nothing more.

Not yet.

Ah yes, the Matryoshka doll theory of the universe. Make up a random theory to fit something said. Pretend that the just made up theory actually applies to the real universe; conclude we were right.

Nice ploy. Try it on your toaster, he might fall for it.

I’m sorry you’re unable to make a case for God’s existence. That must be annoying.

389

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
wow - do you suffer from diarrhea of the brain often?[/quote]

I suppose it’s better than amenorrhea.

390

[quote]pookie wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:He created human to please himself, If you actually took time to read the bible you would understand that.

…if this is true, then the matter of free-will must be revisited:

If God created mankind to please himself, and he gave us free-will, then he must’ve known that we’d make decisions that would not please him. This is illogical. So, how would you reconcile this?

No it’s not illogical. Would it please him if he made us into robots who had no choice but to love and worship him? Of course not. Only love that is freely chosen is meaningful.

If God knows in advance all our choices, then we’re just puppets following a script. We just don’t know it. We then have as much free will as the characters in a movie do. They look like they’re making choices and taking important split second decisions, but they’ll get to the pre-ordained end in 90 minutes just like the script says.

Cool 3D movie, though.

[/quote]

There are two problems with determinism. A) It requires time to be a factor. B) If even one thing isn’t the result of predetermination, the whole argument is false.

It is paradoxical for sure. Taking time out of it makes it a little easier, but it is difficult to reconcile, how something can be known yet still have been freely chosen. I know that we live in a world of functional paradoxes, so based on that, it’s possible though I cannot reconcile how. According to Xeno we should not be able to move, but move we do. Perhaps I can figure out over a sifter of Whiskey and a nice cigar.

392

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
The notion God’s existence can be derived through pure reason.

Er, no.
[/quote]
Er, yes. The first person to do it had not prior knowledge or concept of a God, Aristotle. He lived in a society of many gods, yet by exercise of pure reason he conceived the cosmological argument.
So yes, not only can it be done, it has been.

Ur, no. You are an empiricist. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist to you. But that is a limited view. There is much that cannot be measured and yet still exists.
The exercise will lead you to two conclusions. God could exist, but we cannot prove it. At which point you have to make a choice. He does exist, He does not exist, you don’t know and don’t care. All you have done is make a choice, but can you say you did so with all the facts?

That’s not what I said, but I suppose it is possible. You assume you posses your own thoughts, but you cannot know that to be the case. Yes, thoughts can exist out side the mind.
The points is that those are objects that do exist, but cannot be measured, period. Or are you contending those things do not exist? Are you saying you don’t think of things? You don’t have ideas?

I would say it is possible, but not likely.

I thought you were a determinist? That would mean nothing is willful and therefore deception does not exist. Or you could argue for collective conscuoisness at a atomic level and there for it does have will and enjoyed fucking up you toast. It is still laughing madly.

You don’t have to be defensive, that is fact. There is nothing random about, unless by some miracle you have discovered the smallest undividable particle that makes up all matter. Are you saying you have made this discovery and just haven’t unleash it on the whole world?
Please, do tell?

I have made the case many times and you have yet to refute it, that must be annoying. I am not annoyed I rather enjoy the discussions.

393

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Pookie - love your avatar, but do not appreciate the insulting condescension and denigration of my beliefs.

If you do not share them, that’s fine. But do you have to be so irreverent of what I hold dear?[/quote]

Actually, yes I do. If you just had a favorite book or movie that you liked and I didn’t, I wouldn’t care.

Unfortunately, Christianity still has a large number of follower from myriads of little sects, and collectively, the beliefs they have affect everyone since those beliefs shape their thinking. The problem is that since many of those beliefs are contrary to what we now know to be true, people make bad decisions, bad choices, and worse: vote for people making the same bad decisions and choices.

Religion has long had a free pass. Just because it was “religious” you had to automatically give it respect. You either joined in, or silently tolerated it, but you couldn’t say anything if you found bits of it funny or outright ridiculous. Religion, at least the vast majority of them, have shown themselves to be entirely unworthy of such respect.

I have nothing against you personally. I quite convinced you’re a nice guy and a productive member of society. My sarcasm isn’t directed at you, the person, but it is directed at your beliefs, most of which I find ridiculous.

If you can get over the heavy sarcasm of the previous reply, I’d like to know how someone living in this modern world can read the story of Adam and Eve and even contemplate for a second that that story might be true.

I’d like to know what you make of evil when it is not man made. Sure, man does evil because he has free will… but what of natural disasters who kill people? Or dreadful diseases that kill billions? Kids that are born with only a few short painful lives to live… How does one reconcile that with an infinitely loving God without spraining both brain lobes?

You’re one of the rare Christian I’ve seen who can manage to reply calmly and politely to a post he finds insulting. Good to know you at least apply the good parts of Christianity along with the weird ones.

394

[quote]pat wrote:
It is paradoxical for sure. Taking time out of it makes it a little easier, but it is difficult to reconcile, how something can be known yet still have been freely chosen. I know that we live in a world of functional paradoxes, so based on that, it’s possible though I cannot reconcile how. According to Xeno we should not be able to move, but move we do. Perhaps I can figure out over a sifter of Whiskey and a nice cigar. [/quote]

Xeno was wrong, he just didn’t know how to explain it back then.

But again, you’re just handwaving and throwing out a bunch of unrelated nonsensical sentences because you can’t reconcile free will with known outcomes. Saying “it’s a paradox” and bringing out Xeno in explains nothing. It’s not a paradox; if God already knows all of your choices, then you’re just a character in his movie.

395

So who on this thread believes that god does in fact cause miracles? Im talking things such as people being alive when they shouldnt be kinda thing. Dont post any of those ‘oh every child that is born is a miracle’ stuff.

396

So who on this thread believes that god does in fact cause miracles? Im talking things such as people being alive when they shouldnt be kinda thing. Dont post any of those ‘oh every child that is born is a miracle’ stuff.

397

[quote]pat wrote:
Er, yes. The first person to do it had not prior knowledge or concept of a God, Aristotle. He lived in a society of many gods, yet by exercise of pure reason he conceived the cosmological argument. [/quote]

All the cosmological arguments are flawed in one way or another. Generally in multiple ways. We had a thread where you presented that argument - you even used of of the weaker ones - and I pointed out all the various problems it had.

[quote]Ur, no. You are an empiricist. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist to you. But that is a limited view. There is much that cannot be measured and yet still exists.
The exercise will lead you to two conclusions. God could exist, but we cannot prove it. At which point you have to make a choice. He does exist, He does not exist, you don’t know and don’t care. All you have done is make a choice, but can you say you did so with all the facts?[/quote]

Actually, I don’t deny his existence. I can’t know any more than anyone else can. I think it’s unlikely, highly improbable, but I could be wrong. I see no evidence to convince me otherwise.

The other problem you have - and one that was pointed out to you when you posted your cosmological argument: Even if you could show beyond a doubt that the universe has a cause, you couldn’t tell anything about that cause except that it caused the universe.

Using the (flawed) argument to show a cause and then calling that cause God, puts the cart before the horses.

The cause could be natural, like everything else we’ve encoutered in the universe. We could be in matrix-like construct created by advanced, but non-divine beings; the universe’s creator could be a flawed creature himself (the Demiurge - explaining the flawed and evil universe), etc.

There are countless explanations you don’t even consider. Why? Because you’re working backwards from the conclusion you wish to find. You’ve been taught from childhood that God exists. From personal preference - we all like to be right, to please parents and peers, etc. you look for ways to reinforce that view. You don’t look at the facts, as you say, and see to what conclusion they lead you to.

More nonsensical mumbo-jumbo.

So when you want a car, you think one up, get in and drive away?

If you can’t distinguish between a thing and the idea of that thing, then we’re wasting time here. I believe most toddlers master that distinction sometime before they’re 4.

[quote]5 billion years ago, when the Earth hadn’t even formed, did Batman exist?

I would say it is possible, but not likely.[/quote]

Would you like to buy this superb bridge I’m now imagining?

Didn’t you just say I was an empiricist? Do you feel that labeling people as you go along makes you seem somewhat smarter, or that it proves a point?

Wrong on both counts.

It’s not fact outside your head.

You just said that such a particle couldn’t exist.

Very odd that you started your cosmological argument back then by explaining that an infinite series of cause was impossible (because you needed an uncaused cause) but now you’re arguing that you can have an infinite subdivision of matter.

Your science is just as convincing as your religion. Do you worship at the Church of Contradiction?

Descartes had the same problem you do: Non-existence of God was a non-starter. When you eliminate a possibility from the outset, then you’ll ignore anything that points to it, or twist it until it fits.

You can find your argument, better versions of it even, all over the internet, along with detailed refutations.

398

[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
So who on this thread believes that god does in fact cause miracles? Im talking things such as people being alive when they shouldnt be kinda thing. Dont post any of those ‘oh every child that is born is a miracle’ stuff.[/quote]

Ive been in situation where there’s no way other than a miracle that I survived. From cars flipping to drowning to being shot

Ive been close to dying many times, in all three of those examples there was nobody around to help me-except a divine force.

if you ever wondered why I’m so intense on my vampiric lifestyle, its because I seemingly have been in situations that wouldve killed many. thats where the undying nature of vampirism comes into play for me. As a vampire I can work for God and help bring the shadowy souls into the light of God. I can connect with them in a way that most people of religion cant.

Your Immortal <--------------- ( thats where this comes from)
Count Rockula

399

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
So who on this thread believes that god does in fact cause miracles? Im talking things such as people being alive when they shouldnt be kinda thing. Dont post any of those ‘oh every child that is born is a miracle’ stuff.

Ive been in situation where there’s no way other than a miracle that I survived. From cars flipping to drowning to being shot

Ive been close to dying many times, in all three of those examples there was nobody around to help me-except a divine force.

if you ever wondered why I’m so intense on my vampiric lifestyle, its because I seemingly have been in situations that wouldve killed many. thats where the undying nature of vampirism comes into play for me. As a vampire I can work for God and help bring the shadowy souls into the light of God. I can connect with them in a way that most people of religion cant.

Your Immortal <--------------- ( thats where this comes from)
Count Rockula
[/quote]

I was knocked down by a car about 4 years ago. I shouldn’t say knocked down, I went for a quick flight first. It was dumb luck that I survived, nothing more.

Or perhaps it was God rewarding me, because there were some pretty hot nurses at the hospital.

400

Eh, I don’t need bible verses to reaffirm my disbelief in religion. It just makes more sense that no ONE religion is right, or that NO religion is right. Every religion has it’s own version of the bible, and debating it just leaves you running in circles forever getting nowhere. What makes one particular religion right and another wrong? It’s like that one quote: “I contend to you that we are both atheists. I just don’t believe in one more religion than you do. When you truly understand why you don’t believe in the others, you’ll understand why i don’t believe in yours.” Or something like that.