How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Okay, now who is to say that such a person exists?

There are numerous biblical references stating that people are going to suffer forever in hell. [/quote]

You really shouldn’t believe everything you read. I’m offering the infinite mercy/contrition argument so you can sleep at night. Take it or leave it.

[quote]Who is to say that enormous good - potentially spanning generations and generations - did not come out of that suffering?

Are you going to argue that a benevolent god would deliberately promote an atrocity like a jewish concentration camp, in the name of the greater good? Seriously? [/quote]

God did not PROMOTE AN ATROCITY. Forgetting free-will again, are we?

[quote]perhaps what God would see before the “actuality” of his choices" would be the (nearly?) infinite potential choices and paths he might make. That would prolly be closer to true foreknowledge of the type we’re discussing.

Again, that wouldn’t be omniscience. By definition, omniscience is the knowledge of all things that have happened, are currently happening, and WILL happen in the future, not just the knowledge of the possibility of those things.[/quote]

It’s a perfectly reasonable and perhaps more accurate definition of omniscience. I’m offering it to resolve your dilemma; and so you can sleep at night. Take it or leave it.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
So you believe all humans have the breath of life, and thus will live forever, but that no other living thing on the planet has the breath of life (animals, birds, plants, germs, etc.)?

yes

Do you also believe that only humans have free will, and that no other living thing has free will?[/quote]

If you have a real question just ask it - I’m not going to spend hours answering questions that I have already answered . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Even so, even if John resolutely turns his back on the good and God in this life, John’s choices may well bring him into a deeper relation to God that it would appear.

You’re forgetting the omniscience of god. Omniscience means perfect, absolute, complete knowledge of the choices John and Mary will make, and of the end result of those choices. It doesn’t imply god made these choices for John and Mary, only that god knows IN ADVANCE what those choices are, and what will result from them.

So back to the question:

If god KNOWS IN ADVANCE that John will make poor choices that will result in endless suffering…why wouldn’t god choose NOT to create John, and thus spare John from this horrible fate?[/quote]

WHY should God spare John from what John wants?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
One could argue that if it hasn’t happened yet (because God is observing the unfolding of “our” time), the actions do not come under the category of “the knowable.”

That argument would require changing the definition of omniscience. Most people believe that omniscience means perfect knowledge of past, present, and future. [/quote]

Most people believe that cholesterol causes heart disease. So what?

[quote]Regarding scripture: once again, my beliefs are founded in doctrine/theology of the Church. I think you keep thinking Bible = Church. NOT TRUE. There are many things in the Bible that are mythical, poetic, etc. You can find an utterance in the Bible to justify or cast doubt or mock just about anything.

So you call yourself a Christian, but believe that true prophecy doesn’t exist?

[/quote]

Sure I do.

[forlife]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
You really shouldn’t believe everything you read.[/quote]

Amen, brother! Hopefully you apply the same liberal standard to biblical passages about those evil gays

God did not PROMOTE AN ATROCITY. Forgetting free-will again, are we?

Allow me to rephrase:

Do you believe god would choose to create Hitler, knowing in advance that Hitler would promote such atrocities as jewish concentration camps, even if those atrocities happened to benefit others in the long run?

It’s a perfectly reasonable and perhaps more accurate definition of omniscience.

Except that it doesn’t reconcile with the commonly held definition of omniscience, nor does it reconcile with the commonly held Christian belief that prophecy is real.

[forlife]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Do you also believe that only humans have free will, and that no other living thing has free will?

If you have a real question just ask it - I’m not going to spend hours answering questions that I have already answered . . .[/quote]

It was a real question, and it would have taken less effort to type “Yes” or “No” than to type the above.

So what is it?

[forlife]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
WHY should God spare John from what John wants?[/quote]

Is it beneficent to give people what they want, when you KNOW that doing so will lead to their eternal agony, suffering, and torment? You may take some satisfaction in saying “I told you so”, but beneficent? Seriously?

[forlife]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So you call yourself a Christian, but believe that true prophecy doesn’t exist?

Sure I do.
[/quote]

If you believe in true prophecy, you must logically believe in the ability to know the future.

[THE_CLAMP_DOWN]

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

By that definition, god would not be omniscient.

Also, it contradicts scriptures supporting the omniscience of god, like Jeremiah 1:5 which I quoted earlier.[/quote]

yes…yes…there are clear errors in defining god.
A god cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. You cannot see the future and change it as well.

And if they were omnibenevolent, they can only make the morally best decision. =no free will.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
You really shouldn’t believe everything you read.

Amen, brother! Hopefully you apply the same liberal standard to biblical passages about those evil gays ;)[/quote]

I don’t think gays are evil.

[quote]God did not PROMOTE AN ATROCITY. Forgetting free-will again, are we?

Allow me to rephrase:

Do you believe god would choose to create Hitler, knowing in advance that Hitler would promote such atrocities as jewish concentration camps, even if those atrocities happened to benefit others in the long run? [/quote]

Again, your assuming that infinite mercy/contrition does not exist; that God knew exactly what Hitler would do; and that you as a limited, finite human being can assess the ultimate outcome. How do you know whether those Jews are now in complete rapture by God’s side - remembering “all of that” as but a distant dream?

When it comes down to it, I think you want God-like knowledge of things that you simply cannot have.

[quote] It’s a perfectly reasonable and perhaps more accurate definition of omniscience.

Except that it doesn’t reconcile with the commonly held definition of omniscience, nor does it reconcile with the commonly held Christian belief that prophecy is real.[/quote]

It’s a fine definition of omniscience. It’s just slightly more nuanced than what is commonly held. What is commonly held in most things is usually wrong. “Omniscience” among theologians is not the simplified thing we commonly make it out to be. If we approached a genuine theologian about this question of yours, s/he would prolly make mince-meat out of both of us.

As far as prophecy is concerned: God knows he is going to send his son down and intervenes in time (via dreams, inspiration, words, etc.) to foreshadow his coming. That’s perfectly consistent.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? Yes, I was an am willing to alter my beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. wait - let me say it again . . . and again . … . and again . . .

Actually, that’s not what I asked…at all. I didn’t ask if you needed overwhelming evidence to change your beliefs. I asked if there was even the POSSIBILITY that one of the five reasons you cited was invalid, that you would be willing to change your beliefs.

I’m asking this because you said earlier that you had “incontrovertible proof” for your beliefs, which by definition means absolute, unassailable, proof. If it were shown that even a possibility exists that one of your beliefs is invalid, you could no longer claim that your proof was incontrovertible.

I am very committed to my beliefs because of the price I paid to possess them.

This is common to human decision making. The more we invest in our decisions, the harder it is to back away from them, even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. It’s called escalating commitment, and has been the subject of a lot of psychological research. Point being: you might want to consider how that search leads to an unjustified level of commitment, simply by virtue of the effort you put into the search. [/quote]

Stop playing games - if you have something to discuss, let’s discuss it.

I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

Let me say it again . . . I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

Let me say it again . . . I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

Let me say it again . . . I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

I only claimed “incontrovertible” proof for the validity of 2+2=4, now didn’t I?

unjustified level of commitment - whatever . . . like I said before . . .Let me say it again . . . I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

Let me say it again . . . I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

Let me say it again . . . I have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I would be willing to alter my beliefs if proved wrong - what else do you need to know about this issue?

can we move on now?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
So you call yourself a Christian, but believe that true prophecy doesn’t exist?

Sure I do.

If you believe in true prophecy, you must logically believe in the ability to know the future.[/quote]

God knew he was going to send down his own son, and so intervened in time (via dreams, inspiration, words, etc.) to foreshadow his coming. That’s perfectly consistent.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Do you also believe that only humans have free will, and that no other living thing has free will?

If you have a real question just ask it - I’m not going to spend hours answering questions that I have already answered . . .

It was a real question, and it would have taken less effort to type “Yes” or “No” than to type the above.

So what is it?[/quote]

yes

[IrishSteel]

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
WHY should God spare John from what John wants?

Is it beneficent to give people what they want, when you KNOW that doing so will lead to their eternal agony, suffering, and torment? You may take some satisfaction in saying “I told you so”, but beneficent? Seriously?[/quote]

round and round and round . . . notice that you again proved my point by continually stating the “eternal agony, suffering, and torment”

It’s not the love, but the punishment you have a problem with.

EDIT - see my post below . . .

[pat]

[quote]Oleena wrote:
To summarize, the christians gained freedom to practice their religion, and then were not as kind to other religions, such as paganism, which they did take over through various means including force at some points. Here’s a little fun reading on it:

The Sociology of Religion

http://www.tolueislam.org/Bazm/Joommal/ASK_3_1.htm

pat wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I was refering to the actions around and before Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire and it spread throughout Europe. Plenty of blood from other branches of christianity and pagan religions was shed to instill religious order.

pushharder wrote:
pat wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pat wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:

inquisition, which everyone loves to forget and make escuses for.

Are you out of your dolphin-wannabe head? WHO in the name of chickens and bonobos everywhere is making excuses for the Inquisition? The perpetrators of the Inquisition are locked in chains awaiting Judgment Day as we speak and they aint got themselves a good enough lawyer to get ‘em off. Holy Headstocks, Batmanoleeme, I can’t believe you lobbed this hand grenade. Those men weren’t Christians. They were evil, despicable, black-hearted fiends. You have got to snap out of it. You’re trippin’, sweetheart.

Most women of the Middle Ages were totally dominated by men. Any man in the family could order a woman to do as he wished. If a woman refused, she was beat into submission, as disobedience was considered a crime against God.

If a man did that he was following his sinful heart not Christianity. Quit attaching the sinful practices of man to what Christ set out for his followers.

Which inquisition are you referring too?

There were several. I would imagine the Spanish Inquisition is the most famous.

The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by King Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain. Pope Sixtus spoke out against it but was powerless to stop it, especially in that he needed military assistance on the eastern front of the war. That inquisition was not carried out by the church, that is a myth.
It was really an excuse to break the Moors who didn’t want to high tale it out of Iberia.

I guess it would have been better for you to ask Oleeme. She was the one who first mentioned it.

Other than the persistent execution of Christians during this period, I am not sure of which blood you speak. Constantine made religious tolerance the order of the empire and stopped the persecution of Christians. But there was no overt campaign to convert by force. At least I am not aware of it.

[/quote]

Lots of people have done lots of bad things in the name of one thing or another. Obviously Christianity was not spared. It can be said unequivocally, those who persecuted others where not following Christian teaching.
Now the other link was interesting, but a bit liberal with the facts. Since muslims believe that Jesus was taken away to heaven in a chariot, it is imperative that they try to make the Christian story of Jesus as false as possible. I’d say ol’ Joommal has an axe to grind. He is loose with the facts. The Church started with Peter. Council of Nicaea (300 years later) was to get all the various churches on the same page. The leaders of the church at the time found that from place to place there were vast differences.

The fact that many of the church holidays land on pagan holidays is no accident. Since nobody knew Jesus’s actual B-day or the day he died, they placed the commemoration days in line with the pagan holidays. There are a number of reasons for it. One was to crowd out the pagan holidays with Christian holidays. Also, kept the pagan converts on there natural rhythms. There was no great conspiracy behind this, it just worked out that way and the traditions have not really changed.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Em, you are acting in a very unpoltroonish manner. Please don’t screw up my characterizations of agnostics. ;-)[/quote]

I’m going to behave more poltroonishly later, in another thread. We agnostics can’t hold our poltroonery in for any length of time, you know that!

[IrishSteel]

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m not into semantics games, and I’m sure you aren’t either so let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt.

“John and Mary both have the opportunity and the ability to confess and profess.” Agreed.

“John chooses not to, and Mary choose to.” Agreed.

“It is the weight of the punishment - not the main story that you have a problem with.” Disagreed.

The problem is not that John and Mary are making choices. It is not that a punishment exists.

The problem is that omniscience means god KNOWS what these choices and consequences will be.

Once again, as you have already pointed out, this KNOWLEDGE doesn’t mean god is making these choices for John and Mary. It only means that god knows what choices they will make.

So let’s talk about the real question instead of running down rabbit holes.

How can you describe your god as benevolent, when despite KNOWING WITHOUT A SINGLE DOUBT THAT JOHN IS GOING TO SUFFER FOREVER, GOD STILL CHOOSES TO CREATE JOHN?[/quote]

I’ll try again . . .

Your definition of love is that it would not cause/create something that it knows would have to suffer - you emphasis is always the level of suffering.

Let me demonstrate this very clearly.

A parent knows that if they give birth to a child they will love that child. They also know that they will have to punish that child, that that child will know pain and suffering both emotional and physical throughout its existence and will someday have to die and endure separation from them. Does giving birth to that child knowing that there will undoubtedly be punishment and pain and suffering and death and separation in its future mean that the parents do not love that child and should not have given birth to it? Of course not.

And then your next response will be . . . “but the parents are not giving birth to child that must suffer for ETERNITY” - so you can understand that Love of a being is not negated by definite punishment, pain, suffering, death and separation - but then insist that because of a specific amount of suffering that then Love would be negated - it all revolves around the extent of the punishment.

Oleena made this point so well herself: We know we love our children before they are born, but we know that they will suffer. We know we will have to punish them. We know that they will experience pain. We know that we cannot be with them forever in this world. We know that they will have to die - but no one questions our love for our children and our choice to give birth to them. Our love cannot prevent their pain, suffering, punishment, separation and death - but our love is never questioned even though we CHOSE to give life to them.

On the other hand, God loved us before we were born, but he knows that some would suffer, he knows that he will have to punish some, he knows that some will experience pain, he knows that some will be separated from him - BUT in his great love he made a way so that NO ONE would HAVE to suffer, NO ONE would HAVE to be punished, NO ONE would HAVE to experience pain/torment, NO ONE wold HAVE to endure separation . . . something that no loving parent, no matter how much they loved, could ever do.

Just as a human parent gives life and loves despite the bad, so too God loves and gives life despite the bad - but unlike the parent - God made a way so that no one would have to endure the bad . . . it is that simple!!

[katzenjammer]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Just as a human parent gives life and loves despite the bad, so too God loves and gives life despite the bad - but unlike the parent - God made a way so that no one would have to endure the bad . . . it is that simple!!

You and I both know that for the main antagonists of this thread, Oleeme, forlife, et al, this discussion is not about simplicity nor the attainment of it. It is not about the distillation of complex ideas. It is not about the search for Truth. It is not about the examination of history and faith and religion and spirituality. It is about mocking. Look at the very first post for proof. The quiz that started this thread is a mockery. The first few posts were all about mockery. It was a mutual masturbation orgy. A group jerk.[/quote]

I thought it was an attempt by Oleena to confirm her own existence. Does she exist if this thread stops?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Just as a human parent gives life and loves despite the bad, so too God loves and gives life despite the bad - but unlike the parent - God made a way so that no one would have to endure the bad . . . it is that simple!!

You and I both know that for the main antagonists of this thread, Oleeme, forlife, et al, this discussion is not about simplicity nor the attainment of it. It is not about the distillation of complex ideas. It is not about the search for Truth. It is not about the examination of history and faith and religion and spirituality. It is about mocking. Look at the very first post for proof. The quiz that started this thread is a mockery. The first few posts were all about mockery. It was a mutual masturbation orgy. A group jerk.[/quote]

QFT - but I think some others might be reading this and curious to know what the real answers are . . . if I have to put up with some mocking to give voice to reason, I guess I can manage - doesn’t mean we can’t call them on it or have fun at the same time right?