Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]

…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?

…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]

As Christians we are called not to judge because we don’t know, and he knows it. We don’t know who is going to be in heaven or hell. I may be in a long line all kinds of people I would not consider would or should be in that line. Maybe I don’t belong in that line…I sure am not a stranger to fucking up.
Knowing Christ, knowing God, does not necessarily mean you know his name or can even read scripture. If you do read scripture you will see that Jesus provides many ways to know him with out knowing his story or the bible itself. Faith is more than an academic knowledge of scripture. It is a relationship.
Jesus himself states that their will be may sinners (prostitutes, tax collectors, etc to use examples from scripture) in heaven even before those who consider themselves righteous…
It’s a slippery slope to try and say what God will or will not do or who is welcome. I don’t know the mind of God and neither does anybody else.

122

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.

Pick any object near you, a tack, a pen, an apple, a pot seed, whatever, and realize that if you knew everything there is to know about that object, you would know how the universe began.

Everything shares the same history and as you break them down they start to share the same properties. The protons, neutrons and electrons are the same in a pile of dog shit as they are in a bar of pure gold. When you break down those sub atomic particles, they too then have commonality with each other, and on it goes. Like the song says, “It all rolls into one”.

123

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?[/quote] Yes.
It produces in me the most solemn and humble gratitude on one hand and reminds me of how remiss I have been in sharing the faith on the other. This is one of several recent reminders lately to be honest. Though how I or you or anybody else feels about anything is ultimately irrelevant to the validity of God’s revelation. It stands entirely on it’s own authority.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…my older sister became a Jehovah’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]For now if you’re really interested please take a look at the “Trinity” thread. From the beginning as it’s strayed quite bit since then. It may be a bit cumbersome though. I would also be glad to PM you if you like, but won’t unless you say so. If we start another discussion of the nature of God, as far as is revealed by God Himself here, it will instantly be a practically irretrievable hijack. Do understand that, even more than most Christian topics and especially when you bring in heretical views of the Godhead, this one is far reaching.

124

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other.

125

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

so what is your question exactly? Because you’re not looking for evidence of God, you’re merely seeking to evidence against the existence of God. You obviously believe that your comparisons and analogies are sufficient evidence that God does not exist. You are satisfied with your conclusion and your reasoning, right? Well, then be happy with your understanding.

Why are you concerned with why some of us do not find your reasoning sufficient? Why is it of concern to you that we find sufficient evidence for the existence of God beyond your arguments and examples? It does not change your reasoning one iota, does it? Let us enjoy our ignorant superstition while you bask in your vast intelligence and logical . . .

You’re certain you are right, so sit back and enjoy your profundity . . .

126

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

so what is your question exactly? Because you’re not looking for evidence of God, you’re merely seeking to evidence against the existence of God. You obviously believe that your comparisons and analogies are sufficient evidence that God does not exist. You are satisfied with your conclusion and your reasoning, right? Well, then be happy with your understanding.

Why are you concerned with why some of us do not find your reasoning sufficient? Why is it of concern to you that we find sufficient evidence for the existence of God beyond your arguments and examples? It does not change your reasoning one iota, does it? Let us enjoy our ignorant superstition while you bask in your vast intelligence and logical . . .

You’re certain you are right, so sit back and enjoy your profundity . . .[/quote]

Did I ever say God does not exist? I think you forgot about me Irish :slight_smile:

I think my question is pretty straight forward. Why can you use the argument that God was not caused, but the universe was?

127

I could be wrong, but I think he’s being rhetorical.
EDIT: Oops, he already responded. While I’m here though. The cosmological argument in all it’s forms doesn’t attempt to prove the existence of God directly. It can only seek to demonstrate a logically inescapable uncaused first cause regardless of what you call it. Which, just to be honest, is one of my problems with it.

128

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

Even if God were cause-able, that would not change anything - it’s a moot point . . . His existence would not be altered.

129

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Erasmus wrote:

[quote]ron22 wrote:

It’s ok. You probably are way more intelligent than me anyway…being from Holland and all…[/quote]

Intelligence is the wrong word. I shouldn’t have used it. I stand corrected.
I know it’s not going to work if I ask you to examine the Bible with reason and logic, but please do.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been and will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are no gods, you will be gone, but you will have lived a good life.
[/quote]

Just curious, did you just tell a forum with a large group of Christians that we should just try and be “virtuous.” That will not get anyone to Heaven, good will to be good does not get one to Heaven, and I have never heard of a God that would accept anyone for just having good will. That is not in any Theology I know of.[/quote]

Any god worth believing in would put more importance in the way one lived their life than their belief in a god.

130

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< Any god worth believing in would put more importance in the way one lived their life than their belief in a god.[/quote]
Any God worth believing in wouldn’t care what you think He should put more importance in. He wouldn’t and doesn’t care what I think either. He’s God and we ain’t. He tells us.

131

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

so what is your question exactly? Because you’re not looking for evidence of God, you’re merely seeking to evidence against the existence of God. You obviously believe that your comparisons and analogies are sufficient evidence that God does not exist. You are satisfied with your conclusion and your reasoning, right? Well, then be happy with your understanding.

Why are you concerned with why some of us do not find your reasoning sufficient? Why is it of concern to you that we find sufficient evidence for the existence of God beyond your arguments and examples? It does not change your reasoning one iota, does it? Let us enjoy our ignorant superstition while you bask in your vast intelligence and logical . . .

You’re certain you are right, so sit back and enjoy your profundity . . .[/quote]

Did I ever say God does not exist? I think you forgot about me Irish :slight_smile:

I think my question is pretty straight forward. Why can you use the argument that God was not caused, but the universe was?
[/quote]

yes, I was being rhetorical . . just spouting at the end of a very long day here . . .

as I alluded in my answer, I don’t use the “God was not caused” - for me it is a irrelevant line of reasoning, because we can have no knowledge beyond the physical universe other than what is revealed to us. So, the argument for/against God being caused does not bear on the question of the universe to be or not be caused.

The causality argument is merely a “tool” used to try to bring religious truth to an irreligious mind

132

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yes, sometimes those with power are corrupted with Pride, and that is a sad fact that it happens, but that is not the Truth of the Christianity.[/quote]

…what is the truth of christianity?[/quote]

You are not supposed to be prideful.

133

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]

…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?

…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]

It does not matter how we feel, God is just. We may not be able to comprehend or understand at the time why something is or even think it is unfair, however that does not mean that it is not just and right.

134

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Someone name me something that has been proven to exist without physical evidence? Even objects that we cannot see are proven true by the effects they have on other objects:

For instance:

  • Even though Black holes cannot be seen, they can be located based on the gravitational pull on the objects around them.

It is difficult to use pure logic to prove the existence of God as we have no way of verifying this. Previous logical arguments we’ve made into the existence of objects we cannot see can be proven or dis proven by their effects on other things.
[/quote]

There is none that I am aware of, however there is physical evidence of God’s effects on others.

135

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Newton’s Laws of Motion.

136

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…obviously you believe i’m damned?
[/quote]
I do. If I am to take Jesus Himself seriously I must. And that for the same reasons I was. I was and am no more or less deserving of His grace than you are.[/quote]

…it must also mean that everybody that does not believe in Jesus/the christian God [and were exposed to the bible in some way or other] is damned too, right? That’s probably close to a billion people you believe are damned. How does that make you feel?

…my older sister became a Jehova’s Witness, and she goes door to door [as they’re supposed to]; is she damned? I ask this because it confuses me how within one religion different claims of truth exist. How do you see that, and is there a difference in truth between denominations?[/quote]

are you asking if there are versions of “christianity” that do not hold the truth and are thus included with the damned?
[/quote]

Yes, they are called heretics.

137

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Erasmus wrote:

[quote]ron22 wrote:

It’s ok. You probably are way more intelligent than me anyway…being from Holland and all…[/quote]

Intelligence is the wrong word. I shouldn’t have used it. I stand corrected.
I know it’s not going to work if I ask you to examine the Bible with reason and logic, but please do.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been and will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are no gods, you will be gone, but you will have lived a good life.
[/quote]

Just curious, did you just tell a forum with a large group of Christians that we should just try and be “virtuous.” That will not get anyone to Heaven, good will to be good does not get one to Heaven, and I have never heard of a God that would accept anyone for just having good will. That is not in any Theology I know of.[/quote]

Any god worth believing in would put more importance in the way one lived their life than their belief in a god.

138

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Erasmus wrote:

[quote]ron22 wrote:

It’s ok. You probably are way more intelligent than me anyway…being from Holland and all…[/quote]

Intelligence is the wrong word. I shouldn’t have used it. I stand corrected.
I know it’s not going to work if I ask you to examine the Bible with reason and logic, but please do.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been and will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are no gods, you will be gone, but you will have lived a good life.
[/quote]

Just curious, did you just tell a forum with a large group of Christians that we should just try and be “virtuous.” That will not get anyone to Heaven, good will to be good does not get one to Heaven, and I have never heard of a God that would accept anyone for just having good will. That is not in any Theology I know of.[/quote]

Any god worth believing in would put more importance in the way one lived their life than their belief in a god.[/quote]

Faith AND works. When you have faith you have works. Plus, I do not determine what is worthy and what is not when it comes to God.

139

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
The Kalam argument has flaws in the causal premise.

“…there is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable.” – J. L. Mackie.

Also:

B = things that begin to exist
C = things that are caused
u = the universe

  1. all B is C
  2. u is B
  3. u is C

Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist, “all B” is equivalent to “u”, thus rendering the actual argument circular:

  1. u is C
  2. u is B
  3. u is C[/quote]
    I don’t think you watched the video since the argument is presented not as a syllogism but as 3 exhaustive dilemmas . The first quote only has weight against the causal premise in an empirical approach or an inductive generalization of reality only if your argument “the universe is the only thing that began to exist” stands. It has no weight against the causal premise in a metaphysical approach or as a necessary truth that applies to all reality and logic especially when one considers what nothing really is. It isn’t a dark “empty” void as many of us imagine as there is still space-time, zero point energy and a rich sea of sub atomic particles resulting from the properties of the space. Nothing is literally nothing, at the singularity there is no space, time etc…
    Second for your argument that the universe is the only thing that began to exist. You have to hold that nothing else came into existence since then or that things coming into existence is equivalent to the universe coming into existence. I did not exist when the universe began to exist, but I began to exist and exist now. The stuff I am made of doesn’t make me who I am since all the atoms of our body are replaced periodically over time. I would watch the video and if you want to go to where your objection is answered go watch at 38:00.[/quote]

Problem is that none of what you say above relates to the real current theories of the origin of the universe.

140

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Leibnizian argument: Debunking Christianity: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

And the the Cosmological argument about the First Cause, it’s exemption from cause is essentially special pleading. You’ll have to explain how or why the First Cause is exempt.[/quote]

The First Cause is exempt by definition. For something to cause and yet not be caused it cannot have any sort of a cause. If it did, it would not be the first cause, it would be the second or third. And uncaused-cause, necessarily must not be cause and yet be able to cause. Which is the case here.

I don’t think the author did a sufficient job of debunking the argument. He argued extensively about the Principal of Sufficient reason, which is a long way of saying that if it exists, it must have been caused by something else. You cannot assume anything like a “contingent yet independent” being with out some sort of a priori proof. Saying they do is simply not sufficient…You need to identify that which is exists and is not caused or effected. He uses an example of ‘matter-energy’ but that doesn’t make sense either, where did this ‘matter energy’ come from. If it just is, then prove that. First, we don’t “know” matter-energy to exist in the first place. Second, if we did “know” we would have to further prove that all it’s properties exists with out cause, for no reason. He also argues the principals like ‘triangles have three angles’ stand alone, but that’s simply not true. While the principal sufficiently explains something about triangles, it does not necessarily mean that it stands alone…Actually it is born of mathematical principles. Angles are something and triangles are something, so right there you have at least two necessities required exist for that statement to be true and if you want to get really high and think about the properties with in the statement, ‘triangles have three angles’ you can see that the principle does not stand alone, but that it is assembled from other things.
Lastly, he seems to ignore the basics of the Cosmological form that is a breaking down of “things” or “beings”. You cannot rip things apart eternally you either run out of ‘material’ or your run in to something that cannot be broken apart. The latter being more likely.

He made some legit criticisms about the Principal of Sufficient reason, but it hardly does away with the Cosmological form. The biggest problem is with the name, “Sufficient” is not necessary. Necessity is what’s needed. It is the basis on which the theoretical science of cosmology is based. It is what atheist cosmologists try and yet fail to debunk, at least so far have.

Atheists have an easy job, they have to prove that something can come from nothing. All they need is one example of it. Problem is, that does not exist. Since we cannot emulate nothingness, it can never be empirically tested.
[/quote]

It does exist and it happens all the time, do a quick search on quantum events.