Fallacies in Christianity

[yossarian22]

How completely absurd. Choice in a deterministic world? What nonsense. For as well spoken as you are, Yossarian, you manage to say the most ridiculous things.

I view things from a different context.

The mechanism by which choice is made absolutely DOES matter, because when you start to try to explain it, you realize that there is no way to reconcile "choice" with the known laws of nature. Thus, we reject the notion of Free Will and Choice.

A concept such as the "soul" does not help the situation any at all, either. Any interactions the body has with a "supernatural" entity such as the soul violates causality and everything else we know about the world.

Again, you are forcibly dragging the context of Christianity into a reductionist viewpoint. I took fallacies in Christianity to mean "Incoherenies in Christianity", not "Inconsistencies between Christianity and a reductionist viewpoint"

If I was wrong in my interpretation, then fine. This whole thread is superfluous in the case of the latter. A system breaks when introduced to a fundamentally different context and worldview? I am shocked.

Saying "the soul is responsible for Free Will" is just a quick reply to those not intelligent enough to realize that it's not a sufficient answer.

Again, the concept of a soul breaks in reductionism. This is neither surprising nor interesting.

I suppose I should ask for clarification formally.

Are we discussing Christianity, or Christianity in a naturalistic viewpoint?

a soul doesnt solve the problem, even in principle. the soul's actions are STILL deterministic if omniscience exists.

Learn what determinism means.

Well I completely don't understand your point then. You admit to being a collection of particles, but then you go on to say that I'm not allowed to say that these particles constitute a human?

I should have never brought up the deterministic particles. It served a great rhetorical point, but leads to this confusion.

If you are prepared to argue that any deterministic particle could be considered a person, you are going down a slippery slope into nihilism (which, contrary to the opinion of most of the internet, is idiotic to the extreme. I think even Nietzsche realized this). But that is entirely another discussion, because I am going to have to shed the Christian viewpoint (and specifically deny it) as the situation dictates, which will be extremely confusing for everybody. Maybe I will just bump the thread and continue from there.

My point in my post (though I didn't actually argue anything, I just posed a question, but I will argue it here) was that, IF acting at the behest of deterministic particles is a "choice", then simple particles have the same amount of "choice" in their path of existence as humans do, ecause there is no reason that arranging a set of particles in a certain way suddenly changes anything.

We need a new thread for this. There is no reason to assume to assume that the difference between a person and a blob of particles is nonexistent.

Sure you can. If I can't be blamed for murdering someone, the justice system then can't be blamed for doing whatever it is they do to me as punishment. Nothing about not having free will makes it "wrong" to have a justice system, because even if there were no possible moral standard anymore, you'd have no basis on which to judge the acts of the court!

Read more carefully. I specifically said some. Not all, or even most.

 

[RDK]

I view things from a different context.
Again, you are forcibly dragging the context of Christianity into a reductionist viewpoint. I took fallacies in Christianity to mean "Incoherenies in Christianity", not "Inconsistencies between Christianity and a reductionist viewpoint"

Proponents of Christianity cannot take general words that essentially everyone knows the meaning of, like "all-loving", and pretend to make claims about their God that are outlandish and simply contradictory. Even if you looked at it from the standpoint of a Christian, most of what they believe is based on emotions and not actual principles or facts. The thing is that even their emotional tendencies are ridiculous and inconsistent.

Again, the concept of a soul breaks in reductionism. This is neither surprising nor interesting.

There is nothing to support the existence of a soul, therefore why should there be any reason to believe in one? Show me a soul and I'll change my tune.

We need a new thread for this. There is no reason to assume to assume that the difference between a person and a blob of particles is nonexistent.
Read more carefully. I specifically said some. Not all, or even most.

Again, this depends on your worldview more than anything.

 

[snex]

Learn what determinism means.

is this what you call a rebuttal? how about learn what "debate hall" means. if you have nothing to say, then dont post.

my point remains untouched. if omniscience exists, then you have no choices, no matter how many magic wands you wave.

 

[yossarian22]

Proponents of Christianity cannot take general words that essentially everyone knows the meaning of, like "all-loving",

Appealing to numbers isn't going to help. It is a stupid claim to be sure, but "love" "good" and "evil" remain hopelessly subjective terminology. They can dance around and pick whatever context they please.

There is nothing to support the existence of a soul, therefore why should there be any reason to believe in one? Show me a soul and I'll change my tune.
Again, this depends on your worldview more than anything.

Yes, this is precisely the problem. Any system comes out as absurd when placed in a different context. This should not surprise any of you. Christian thought and mythos clashes with modern science? Wow. That's only been shown a couple million times. Showing that the Christian philosophy fails basic tests of internal consistency is far more impressive, and at least discussable.

I was hoping for something far more interesting and less pretentious than simply laughing at a system set up over a millennium ago for clashing with science.

is this what you call a rebuttal? how about learn what "debate hall" means. if you have nothing to say, then dont post.

I did have something to say. I suggest you pick up a dictionary are look up terms before you use them.

the soul's actions are STILL deterministic if omniscience exists.

Here, I will look it up for you.

Determinism (very roughly)- the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

My statement was not a rebuttal, because you had yet to make an argument.

 

[arrowhead]

do you seriously think there aren't internal consistencies within christianity?

 

[snex]

Here, I will look it up for you.

Determinism (very roughly)- the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

My statement was not a rebuttal, because you had yet to make an argument.

maybe you just have a reading comprehension problem. the argument is that omniscience conflicts with free will, regardless of how that free will is actualized. claiming "SOUL!" doesnt solve the problem for you.

if omniscience exists, then omniscience is a law of nature. and it necessitates every event that actually happens, including any choices you think you are making. thus, since those choices are illusionary, there is no free will. free will requires that given several options, one can freely pick between them. if omniscience exists, one cannot do so - one can only pick the single option that omniscience has declared must be picked.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Appealing to numbers isn't going to help. It is a stupid claim to be sure, but "love" "good" and "evil" remain hopelessly subjective terminology. They can dance around and pick whatever context they please.

So being all loving can also mean that you like chocolate milk with your cereal? If there is no definition of all-loving, then it means nothing. In fact, I can claim that I am more "all-loving" than God! The word is subjective, so my statement is true.

 

[Skywalker]

So being all loving can also mean that you like chocolate milk with your cereal? If there is no definition of all-loving, then it means nothing. In fact, I can claim that I am more "all-loving" than God! The word is subjective, so my statement is true.

Existence does not require definition. I can define myself, but chances are, the definition will be HORRIFICALLY incorrect. And it is impossible to define a word in relation to Him due to the inherent obstacle of the lacking of omnipotence (imho). 99% of the things in our world have yet to be defined or proven. But do they still exist? Definitely.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Existence does not require definition. I can define myself, but chances are, the definition will be HORRIFICALLY incorrect. And it is impossible to define a word in relation to Him due to the inherent obstacle of the lacking of omnipotence (imho). 99% of the things in our world have yet to be defined or proven. But do they still exist? Definitely.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here honestly.

 

[RDK]

the soul's actions are STILL deterministic if omniscience exists.

Here, I will look it up for you.

Determinism (very roughly)- the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

How are the soul's actions still deterministic if operating under omniscience? The two ideas completely contradict each other. Every choice you make has already been established; even evangelistic Christians believe this--it's called Predestination.

You still haven't explained why you think two conditions like free will and omniscience can coexist when they're obviously mutually exclusive.

 

[Skywalker]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here honestly.

You don't have to define something to prove that it's real, or that it exists.

Seemed pretty simple to me.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

You don't have to define something to prove that it's real, or that it exists.

Seemed pretty simple to me.

If you don't have a definition, how would you even know what "it" is, or carry on a debate about its existence?

 

[snex]

If you don't have a definition, how would you even know what "it" is, or carry on a debate about its existence?

you can just point at it. we dont need to define "chair" for me to point at a chair and say the word "chair."

even when you cant point at something, you still dont need a rigorous definition. we cant point at dark matter, and we cant offer much of a definition of it, but we know its there by the effects it has.

we dont need an exact definition of "all-loving." regardless of what definition you use, nobody can possibly agree that eternal torture is a part of it, else it loses all meaning completely.

 

[Steck]

Why do we think of the Christian god as all loving anyway? I don't think there is any biblical basis for saying that. It may say that he is very loving (ie "god is love") which ties in with his large amount of forgiveness for sinners. But he also has his limits which is shown both in the punishment of wrong-doers who have rejected him in Revelation and the numerous cities of idol worshipers destroyed in the OT. I wonder how all this "all loving" idea got started?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

you can just point at it. we dont need to define "chair" for me to point at a chair and say the word "chair."

Well I would consider pointing at it, assuming it is a discrete object, 'defining' it, in a sense, since you can refer to it distinctly from all other objects.

even when you cant point at something, you still dont need a rigorous definition. we cant point at dark matter, and we cant offer much of a definition of it, but we know its there by the effects it has.

But dark matter and the chair both known observable things. My problem with Skywalker's earlier post if I understand it is that he would seem to apply this to things that we haven't yet observed in the first place, in which case there's nothing to point at, or more generally, no observation that we can distinguish from others, to carry on a conversation about.

 

[RDK]

Why do we think of the Christian god as all loving anyway? I don't think there is any biblical basis for saying that. It may say that he is very loving (ie "god is love") which ties in with his large amount of forgiveness for sinners. But he also has his limits which is shown both in the punishment of wrong-doers who have rejected him in Revelation and the numerous cities of idol worshipers destroyed in the OT. I wonder how all this "all loving" idea got started?

Even if you used the definition of just "loving", problems still arise. I wouldn't describe someone who sends people to burn for eternity as "loving". The kind of words that pop up in my mind are things like "bitter" and "maniacal".

But I think it gets derived more from the idea that Christians throw around about God being the "ultimate source" of love. God is, by nature, unlimited, so how can you say his love has limits? Time and time again the Bible shows God throwing away practicality for what could be considered personal fancy, or just plain emotion. No matter how you look at it, God's view of love is twisted from what people would call the norm.

 

[yossarian22]

do you seriously think there aren't internal consistencies within christianity?

Of course not.
I think I said as much at least 2 times.

words words words, mischaracterization, words words...

if omniscience exists, then omniscience is a law of nature.

Uh, no.
If omniscience exists, then omniscience exists. Your (quite frankly pathetic) attempts at shoving naturalism through every orifice of philosophy is exceedingly idiotic and annoying.

"Hey theists, why don't you occupy a position that, at best, turns your god into an irrelevant bit of psuedo-philosophical musings?"

I don't accept a fundamental premise, so the rest of your argument is worthless cruft. And hell, let's just call the supernatural "God" shall we? Theism is kind of nice that way. No "falsifiability" arguments, or I will be sadly forced to show that such a criterion leads to solipsism. Again.

If there is no definition of all-loving, then it means nothing..

And you stumble onto my point. The word is essentially meaningless in a debate.

Pick better fallacies in Christianity. Preferably ones that show how Christianity refutes itself within its given context. Not how naturalism or science clashes with Christianity, because those are boring and have been done millions of times.

 

[snex]

mindless crap

hey since your post is just mindless crap, i dont need to offer a substantive reply. awesome how debates work that way isnt it?

perhaps youd like to try again?

 

[yossarian22]

hey since your post is just mindless crap, i dont need to offer a substantive reply. awesome how debates work that way isnt it?

perhaps youd like to try again?

I have a reason for disregarding the rest of your post; I disagree with seems to be a fundamental premise that is unsubstantiated and unwarranted. Until you back that statement up, there is no reason to continue.

 

[snex]

I have a reason for disregarding the rest of your post; I disagree with seems to be a fundamental premise that is unsubstantiated and unwarranted. Until you back that statement up, there is no reason to continue.

i havent made any statements. i asked you what a "natural process" was in the context of your definition of "supernatural." you still havent answered.

until and unless you do, i will take this as evidence that you cannot offer a coherent definition of "supernatural."

 

[RDK]

He can't because it's virtually impossible. Something is only supernatural as long as it's not able to be observed. If it can be, then it's natural.

 

[TVTMaster]

Okay, here we go.

Okay, here's one thing: there's no such thing as "free will". Our supposedly free will is a collection of DNA, circumstances, upbringing, and our brain's interpretation of such events. Even with no outside force specifically controlling us, every though we have is part of our brain's interpretation and routines for dealing with input. So, as such, an omnipotent God who controls every circumstance and can interpret and predict every bit of it, knows and controls our free will. As such, even though our will is our own, we and our circumstances are shaped by his plan and thus are brought about by him. So yeah, our "free will" has nothing to do with why he allows sin.

Now, imagine that he had created man without sin. There would have been full, great enjoyment in God's glory, with man seeing many of his attributes of his glory. Yeah, it would be good. But one thing must be clear: God, above anything else, seeks after his own glory and his name. And since he's actually that great and perfect, it's fine for him to be self-obsessed whereas not for us sinful creatures. And so, he wants to show us his glory in its full capacity. And one of his glorious attributes is mercy, grace. Now, with no sin to be forgiven from, how would his perfect people be able to comprehend his glorious grace? They could not. And thus, he could not display his mercy and grace. And, since the heart of all he is is a passion for his glory, it would be a corrupt, sinful thing for him to simply not display it. And thus, he had to create a situation is which grace was urgently needed and very much on display.

Now the issue is God's responsibility for sin. If he created a world in which sin happened, and he is completely in control of it, then would he not logically be a sinner? This is actually where many who try to defend Christianity logically get stuck.
God creates man, and man's limited brain and imperfect soul lead to corruption from sin. Satan's temptation in the garden was God's instrument for planting the seeds of rebellion and causing the fall of man. God's setting up of the pieces for which he knows lead to sin is entirely for his glory for the ultimate goal of grace. Satan and man, on the other hand, sin because it is their inherent nature. They like it.
God also does not directly do the sinning- it is the working of the human brain that premeditates the sin and commits it. It is our responsibility on the highest level that it can be. God, on the other hand, brings about the sin but does not take responsibility for it- much like Shakespeare is not responsible under the law for, for instance, the murder of King Duncan. He brought about the event, but none would say he is guilty of murder under the law. On the other hand, anyone would condemn Macbeth for the heinous act.

And then God brings his son into the picture. Becoming fully man as well as fully God, Jesus lives a life without sin, dies on the cross, and is ressurected. His being man makes the wrath of God he takes on behalf of sinners makes this perfect life applicable for his own salvation. His deity allows him to survive the wrath, and also makes such sacrifice effectual for all men, not only for himself. This makes those who follow him to be considered blameless in the sight of his justice (justification). And so, those who are called to become children of God, and accept his sacrifice, repent of sin, and devote their lives to Him, are given a renewed heart that no longer has an inherent nature of sin (regeneration), despite the ability to do it, and are made more like him (sanctification), until death when sanctification is completed, and we no longer can sin.

Those who reject Christ are fully responsible for their actions and heart and go to you-know-where. God's love does not exceed his perogative for justice, and but one sin is offensive enough to God's holy and supreme nature to dictate condemnation unless the person repents and follows him (it's too late once you're dead). Actually, people who are "better people" and do more good works yet are not saved get somewhat less punishment in hell (despite it being more pain than anything on Earth), but are ultimately subject to God's eternal, equal divine wrath (not to be confused with hell, which is a place of finite suffering with discrimination based on works- it's the Bahamas compared to the final

Spoiler

un

resting place for unbelievers.) when the end and Judgement Day comes.

ON THE SABBATH DAY

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5

Romans 14:5 isn't contradicting anything- it's saying some people think some things about days and others think otherwise, and then saying you shouldn't just be wishy-washy and undecided. Which position the Bible supports is clear and assumed to be commonly known due to the Ten Commandments. Also, it's widely debated among Christian scholars, but the Sabbath is less important after Jesus's sacrifice. It's still God's day and is meant not to be as stressful and such, but it's not a sin to have a stressful Sabbath anymore. Also, all those crazy things about what kind of things are allowed on the Sabbath in the OT are eliminated by the new covenant, which is an altered set of rules imposed over the Mosaic covenant that reduces specific restrictions that came from the fact that Jesus hadn't come yet and the cultural identity of Israel at the time. Certain things not included in the imperfect Mosaic covenant were also added to the new covenant, so you need to look when you see a contradiction between OT vs NT books and verses. Mosaic laws are assumed to be negated unless they are the 10 commandments or are restated in the New Testament (NT). For example, multiple wives in Old Testament (OT) were not banned in Mosaic law because culture would have made it impossible to enforce, thus the command waited until the new covenant, when the culture was no longer saturated.

ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH

"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

The end of the world is assumed as a teaching in the Bible and thus such talk about an eternal earth, which pops up multiple times, is retroactively assumed to mean "for ever until the end comes, which we know is obviously gonna happen."


ON SEEING GOD

"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

...In his full, complete revelation of himself. Prophets and apostles have witnessed God on many occasions, but never fully.

ON HUMAN SACRIFICE

"... Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God..." -- Leviticus 18:21
[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] "... If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering" (Judges 11:30-31).

[The terms were acceptable to god -- remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future -- so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] -- Judges 11:29-34

Hello? This was meant to show the lack of wisdom in promising such unspecific things. See the Shakespeare analogy. God letting it happen was not sinful, but Jephthah did sin.

ON THE POWER OF GOD

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

For one thing, that's where the KJV isn't a good translation: For one thing, and although this is a common mistranslation in widely accepted versions, it puts driving out the mountain men after "the Lord was with Judah" thus linking success with failure on the same person's part. Also, the Hebrew text and certain translations put "they" instead of "he" and disassociate success in the mountains with failure in the valley. The inability was on the part of Judah, not God. I suggest checking out the Bethany Parallel Commentary on the Old Testament for a better explanation.

ON DEALING WITH PERSONAL INJURY

"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39

Mosaic covenant versus new covenant again. Eye for an eye is Mosaic, the other cheek is new.

ON CIRCUMCISION

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2

Whoop-de-doo, covenant differences again.


ON INCEST

"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16

I dunno about the Mosaic covenant and its rules on whether or not half-sisters count of whatever, but either way his laws on divorce were more important in that case, and either way it doesn't tell us what his reaction to their marriage was when it happened. And before God called him, he was a pagan in Canaan and had already married her. So yeah, they did the wrong thing, but Sarah being blessed has nothing to do with whether or not God approved of their marriage.

ON TRUSTING GOD

"A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD..." -- Proverbs 12:2
Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." -- Job 2:3

A good man does obtain favor with God. That doesn't mean nothing bad ever happens to him, and in Job's case he gained more in the end anyway. Bad things happen to good men anyway, and God had a big reason to let such things happen. Job definitely had God's favor. In the end he was better off than ever before, blessed immensely by God.

ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE

"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart..." -- Ecclesiastes 9:7
"...they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not..." -- 1 Corinthians 7:30

This was specifically referring to marriage, and in context he specifically says: there's nothing really wrong with it, but it's better to do [insert 7:30 here]. Rejoicing joyfully is great, but obviously there are situations that call for different attitudes. These don't say what they say for every waking moment. I'm frankly disgusted how someone can take something out of context like that and use it to prove a false point.

ON PUNISHING CRIME

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

Ezekiel spoke of individuals who did not follow their fathers, whereas Exodus spoke of those who did follow in the ways of their fathers, such as generations of those who follow false religions. Those who don't follow in their father's ways don't get judged. Simple.

ON TEMPTATION

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

Mistranslation in the KJV. In the ESV and most other translations it says 'test' instead of 'tempt' in Genesis, which is of course what he actually did.

ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26

That happens in certain texts. It's meant to mean to hate someone in a comparative sense, hating their sinfulness in comparison to God. In fact, in many other places it says to hate yourself, whereas other places say that your body is a temple to God. This is again in a different sense- we hate our fallenness but must see ourselves as God's instruments, and thus must normally keep oneself safe in order to be ready for God's work.

ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9
"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29

Job was saying that, and it was later spoken against by God himself in the same book, correcting Job. Okay yeah, duh. Stop taking this stuff out of context. Plus, Job may have been referring metaphorically to the state of being physically alive in this body. Moving on!

ON THE END OF THE WORLD

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33
"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:11-12
"Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18
"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1 Peter 4:7
These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the "Son of God." The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.

I want to laugh, but I can't. The Romans quote was referring to preparing for death (and going to heaven), Jesus in Matthew was talking about the coming of the new covenant (sometimes described as a kingdom), which was soon after that meeting, when Jesus was crucified. Everything else was not talking about the immediate end- we know not when Jesus will come, and was written by James, who had no idea when it would end (and God didn't tell him, despite him being inspired by God to write this), and was thus saying that it may be soon, and was simultaneously giving warnings to Christians to be spiritually ready. It is the last time in that there will be no more big events or changes until the end. Context is everything.

 

[RDK]

Okay, here's one thing: there's no such thing as "free will". Our supposedly free will is a collection of DNA, circumstances, upbringing, and our brain's interpretation of such events. Even with no outside force specifically controlling us, every though we have is part of our brain's interpretation and routines for dealing with input. So, as such, an omnipotent God who controls every circumstance and can interpret and predict every bit of it, knows and controls our free will. As such, even though our will is our own, we and our circumstances are shaped by his plan and thus are brought about by him. So yeah, our "free will" has nothing to do with why he allows sin.

I don't see how predestination fits in with a Christian viewpoint, but w/e. You're correct; free will is an illusion.

Now, imagine that he had created man without sin. There would have been full, great enjoyment in God's glory, with man seeing many of his attributes of his glory. Yeah, it would be good. But one thing must be clear: God, above anything else, seeks after his own glory and his name.

I personally view this as just sad more than anything else.

More to the point--why does God need "imperfect beings" to fawn over his glory? He's god. He's all-powerful and all-knowing. He shouldn't need anything. This is why the concept of the Christian God is utterly ridiculous. He contradicts himself at every possible turn.

And since he's actually that great and perfect, it's fine for him to be self-obsessed whereas not for us sinful creatures.

Why? Doesn't Man doe great and perfect things? Why does God get to brag about what he does when it's a sin for humans to be self-obsessed? More ridiculous notions.

And so, he wants to show us his glory in its full capacity. And one of his glorious attributes is mercy, grace. Now, with no sin to be forgiven from, how would his perfect people be able to comprehend his glorious grace?

Everything was apparently created by God. That being the "point", why did he create reality like that? Concepts like "sin", "grace", and "mercy" don't need to exist. He could have created a system just as effective, but without having sin in the picture. Grace and mercy don't need to be attached with sin unless he purposely made it that way.

What you're not considering is that God is, as proposed by Christians, "outside" of space and time (at least our understanding of it). You're looking at God from the viewpoint of our reality. But when you look at it from the viewpoint of "He's God--he can do whatever the hell he wants", why would he create it like he did? Doesn't make any sense.

They could not. And thus, he could not display his mercy and grace. And, since the heart of all he is is a passion for his glory, it would be a corrupt, sinful thing for him to simply not display it. And thus, he had to create a situation is which grace was urgently needed and very much on display.

Again--why? You're restricting him by his own rules.

Now the issue is God's responsibility for sin. If he created a world in which sin happened, and he is completely in control of it, then would he not logically be a sinner? This is actually where many who try to defend Christianity logically get stuck.
God creates man, and man's limited brain and imperfect soul lead to corruption from sin.

Where the hell did sin come from? Had to come from somewhere.

Satan's temptation in the garden was God's instrument for planting the seeds of rebellion and causing the fall of man. God's setting up of the pieces for which he knows lead to sin is entirely for his glory for the ultimate goal of grace. Satan and man, on the other hand, sin because it is their inherent nature. They like it.

So apparently us recognizing God's glory is more important to him than salvation and going to heaven.

Layman's terms--God would rather have us go to hell for not accepting him than for us to choose our own path. Again--how that is considered "good" and "holy" is beyond me.

God also does not directly do the sinning- it is the working of the human brain that premeditates the sin and commits it.

But where did the sin come from? God had to have given us the capacity to sin. So why is he not responsible for it?

It is our responsibility on the highest level that it can be. God, on the other hand, brings about the sin but does not take responsibility for it- much like Shakespeare is not responsible under the law for, for instance, the murder of King Duncan.

Wow. I can't believe you're actually using this as an argument. Nobody is really killed because Shakespeare made a story where people die.

He brought about the event, but none would say he is guilty of murder under the law. On the other hand, anyone would condemn Macbeth for the heinous act.

WTF?

And then God brings his son into the picture. Becoming fully man as well as fully God, Jesus lives a life without sin, dies on the cross, and is ressurected. His being man makes the wrath of God he takes on behalf of sinners makes this perfect life applicable for his own salvation. His deity allows him to survive the wrath, and also makes such sacrifice effectual for all men, not only for himself. This makes those who follow him to be considered blameless in the sight of his justice (justification). And so, those who are called to become children of God, and accept his sacrifice, repent of sin, and devote their lives to Him, are given a renewed heart that no longer has an inherent nature of sin (regeneration), despite the ability to do it, and are made more like him (sanctification), until death when sanctification is completed, and we no longer can sin.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary red tape for a supposedly all-powerful God.

Those who reject Christ are fully responsible for their actions and heart and go to you-know-where.

But I thought you said at the beginning of your post that there is no such thing as free will? Contradictions.

God's love does not exceed his perogative for justice, and but one sin is offensive enough to God's holy and supreme nature to dictate condemnation unless the person repents and follows him (it's too late once you're dead).

Sounds more like he has a temper problem than anything to do with "justice". You wouldn't murder your son for making one mistake, would you?

Actually, people who are "better people" and do more good works yet are not saved get somewhat less punishment in hell (despite it being more pain than anything on Earth), but are ultimately subject to God's eternal, equal divine wrath (not to be confused with hell, which is a place of finite suffering with discrimination based on works- it's the Bahamas compared to the final

Spoiler

un

resting place for unbelievers.) when the end and Judgement Day comes.

I don't know where the hell you're getting this from. It says nothing about different levels of punishment based on earthly works anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Deleted member]

RDK stop whoring yourself out to noobs. You're posting like a cheap hooker! Just givin' it all away...

What happened to us..?

I wanna grow old with you.

(or just continue the dwyp debate, lol)

 

[TVTMaster]

I don't see how predestination fits in with a Christian viewpoint, but w/e. You're correct; free will is an illusion.

It's called Calvinism. Look it up.

I personally view this as just sad more than anything else.

More to the point--why does God need "imperfect beings" to fawn over his glory? He's god. He's all-powerful and all-knowing. He shouldn't need anything. This is why the concept of the Christian God is utterly ridiculous. He contradicts himself at every possible turn.

He doesn't need us. It's part of his nature to create, and create he did.

Why? Doesn't Man doe great and perfect things? Why does God get to brag about what he does when it's a sin for humans to be self-obsessed? More ridiculous notions.

Man does some great things, but God is the only one who does nothing but great and perfect things.

Everything was apparently created by God. That being the "point", why did he create reality like that? Concepts like "sin", "grace", and "mercy" don't need to exist. He could have created a system just as effective, but without having sin in the picture. Grace and mercy don't need to be attached with sin unless he purposely made it that way.

What you're not considering is that God is, as proposed by Christians, "outside" of space and time (at least our understanding of it). You're looking at God from the viewpoint of our reality. But when you look at it from the viewpoint of "He's God--he can do whatever the hell he wants", why would he create it like he did? Doesn't make any sense.

Well, first off, grace and mercy show a kind of love that contrasts with an alternative- sin. Sin, by definition, is defiance of God's law, and by extension his nature. Also, man kind of needs a benchmark for his greatness, and with first having been in a horrible position, it would be far more glorious due to having a comparison. "Hooray! He's so great and awesome! He's better than, um, what exactly?"

Again--why? You're restricting him by his own rules.

He does that himself. His infinitely good nature is his rules- it's not a restriction as much as "whatever the hell he wants".

Where the hell did sin come from? Had to come from somewhere.

It is a defiance of his law. Sin isn't a thing that appears so much as a disobedience of something that already is. God made it so that people/Satan would defy him, for his glory in showing grace and mercy.

So apparently us recognizing God's glory is more important to him than salvation and going to heaven.

Layman's terms--God would rather have us go to hell for not accepting him than for us to choose our own path. Again--how that is considered "good" and "holy" is beyond me.

You hit it square on the head. Look at it this way: he creates a universe and sets down his just laws, and the people he creates flip him off and day "I don't care that you did this all for me. I'm going to do 'whatever the hell I want'. God's nature is infinite goodness, and sin is a rejection of his entire nature, as is any 'not accepting him', as you put it. So God decides to give them a second chance, and some say "okay, we'll go with what you want" and are way better off. The others say "no, I don't care that you put your son under your own unimaginable wrath for me. I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want anyway". Okay, so they both insult and reject his very nature and essence, and also reject the atoning sacrifice made to save him from the first rejection. Kind of a big deal for the most holy being in the universe.

Wow. I can't believe you're actually using this as an argument. Nobody is really killed because Shakespeare made a story where people die.

The relationship of author to character is far less of a gap between the relationship between God and man. Authors completely control the characters in fiction, and the characters "think" on a level far below that of the author. And in the same way, God completely controls us, and we think on a far lower level, again controlled by God, our author. What exactly do you mean by "really killed" When God causes sin, he's not sinning against some other god.

But where did the sin come from? God had to have given us the capacity to sin. So why is he not responsible for it?

The sin is our defiance of God's laws. He brought it about that we would do so that we could see his glory in grace and mercy, which by the way are not situational things that simply arise as some kind of response to sin. They are more complex parts of God's nature.

WTF?

Not an actual argument. Ignoring.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary red tape for a supposedly all-powerful God.

All-powerful, all-just, all-loving, et cetera. Power and 'do whatever the well he wants' are not the only part of his nature. You're assuming that beyond power and will, he has no specific nature.

But I thought you said at the beginning of your post that there is no such thing as free will? Contradictions.

Yes. Free will is not the only level on which responsibility occurs. In the analogy, Macbeth is responsible for Duncan's death, correct?

Sounds more like he has a temper problem than anything to do with "justice". You wouldn't murder your son for making one mistake, would you?

Man was not his sons until Jesus died, and even then it was only those who accepted the sacrifice. God does not murder his sons, he murders his enemies who rage against him.

I don't know where the hell you're getting this from. It says nothing about different levels of punishment based on earthly works anywhere in the Bible.

"They will be judged based on their works", somewhere in Romans, I believe. This applies to punishment in hell as well as levels of reward in heaven, although works are nothing but a small indicator in regard to where people go.

And I would appreciate not being called a noob, Delorted-whatever.

 

[Deleted member]

It's pretty amusing that no one will reply to that post because you didn't quote chain.

And yes simply where *are* my manners? What's the politically correct term used these days? Forgive me, I'm so old fashioned.

Fool? Boor? Sheep? I dunno bro, noob looks to suffice.

 

[snex]

TVTMaster is obviously an amateur calvinist. he thinks we somehow have the CHOICE to accept or reject jesus.

its not us flipping off god when god is the one who orchestrates us to go to hell no matter what. its him flipping off us.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

TVTMaster, your argument is: God is perfect, so he can kill people (Sin), yet humans are imperfect because they sin. Because humans are imperfect, it is not okay for them to sin. Circular logic is a fallacy, and so your argument falls apart.

 

[snex]

TVTMaster, your argument is: God is perfect, so he can kill people (Sin), yet humans are imperfect because they sin. Because humans are imperfect, it is not okay for them to sin. Circular logic is a fallacy, and so your argument falls apart.

calvinism is a denomination that openly admits to circular logic - they think its a good thing.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

calvinism is a denomination that openly admits to circular logic - they think its a good thing.

Well then there's no reason to even debate - If we allow fallacies, it's impossible.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

calvinism is a denomination that openly admits to circular logic - they think its a good thing.

Well then there's no reason to even debate - If we allow fallacies, it's impossible to argue.

 

[yossarian22]

Okay, here's one thing: there's no such thing as "free will". Our supposedly free will is a collection of DNA, circumstances, upbringing, and our brain's interpretation of such events.

So, in summary, free will is an easily dismissed strawman? Thanks for that absolutely riveting statement.

And we didn't really need a giant wall of text which can be summarized in one line: "Determinism does not require the rejection of moral responsibility." The rest of your post is theological cruft.

TVTMaster, your argument is: God is perfect, so he can kill people (Sin), yet humans are imperfect because they sin. Because humans are imperfect, it is not okay for them to sin. Circular logic is a fallacy, and so your argument falls apart.

His argument may have been poorly phrased, but it is quite an old one.

P1: Perfect things cannot sin. (Anybody who thinks this point is uncontested is a fool)
P2: God is perfect.
P3: People are not perfect.

C1: God cannot sin.
C2: People can sin.

Sin is explicitly undesirability by definition; it is something we should not do. God is not able to sin (this clashes with a supposedly omnipotent god, but I don't remember the Bible ever explicitly saying God is omnipotent. If it does, could I please have the verse? Even if it does, rephrasing P1 to "Perfect things never sin" would work), but people are. Combine this with the notion that one does not need a choice to be morally responsible for one's actions, and we have a somewhat salvageable system. Of course, this system never addresses where exactly good and evil comes from, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

Anyhow, your last statement is a fallacy in and of itself. Just because something is a logical fallacy, it does not mean it is false.

 

[RDK]

But it is stupid and illogical and there's no reason to believe it. And BTW, there's plenty of verses that imply God's omnipotence.

But Jesus looked at them and said, With men this is impossible, but all things are possible with God

For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment

Also, this all depends on a clear definition of "omnipotence", but for all intents and purposes, Christian doctrine asserts that God is all-powerful, which is self-contradictory and illogical.

So, in summary, free will is an easily dismissed strawman? Thanks for that absolutely riveting statement.

And we didn't really need a giant wall of text which can be summarized in one line: "Determinism does not require the rejection of moral responsibility." The rest of your post is theological cruft.

What? All he was saying is that free will is an illusion and the nature of individual choice is a lot more gray than Christians make it out to be. Like it or not, not everyone is equal.

And your point about moral responsibility is moot. Morals are relative; in the natural world, there is no "right" or "wrong".

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

His argument may have been poorly phrased, but it is quite an old one.

P1: Perfect things cannot sin. (Anybody who thinks this point is uncontested is a fool)
P2: God is perfect.
P3: People are not perfect.

C1: God cannot sin.
C2: People can sin.

Sin is explicitly undesirability by definition; it is something we should not do. God is not able to sin (this clashes with a supposedly omnipotent god, but I don't remember the Bible ever explicitly saying God is omnipotent. If it does, could I please have the verse? Even if it does, rephrasing P1 to "Perfect things never sin" would work), but people are. Combine this with the notion that one does not need a choice to be morally responsible for one's actions, and we have a somewhat salvageable system. Of course, this system never addresses where exactly good and evil comes from, which opens up a whole other can of worms.

Anyhow, your last statement is a fallacy in and of itself. Just because something is a logical fallacy, it does not mean it is false.

God has killed people. Killing is a sin. This means that either:

A. God is not perfect, or
B. A perfect being can sin

Now tell me, what makes people imperfect? My understanding was that we are imperfect because... we sin.

"One does not need a choice to be morally responsible for one's actions." What? You mean that I can be responsible for something I didn't choose to do? That's contradictory:

Responsible:

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.

*Definitions that did not relate to the topic were removed

If you are responsible for an action, you had to have chosen to do it. There is a slice of cake. It was on your plate a minute ago, and now it is not. If you did not remove the cake from the plate, you are not responsible for the cake being moved.

You could not have decided to do something (be responsible) if you did not decide to do it. See what I mean? Explain more about how you can be responsible for something you didn't have the choice not to do.

 

[marthanoob]

God has killed people. Killing is a sin. This means that either:

A. God is not perfect, or
B. A perfect being can sin

I doubt sin can even be relevant to God. God can do whatever he wants. He will always be "perfect".
Humans on the other hand are "imperfect" because we sin. We cannot be compared to God, nor are we allowed to imitate him (exact eternal punishment on sinners), we simply do what He tells us.
He holds all power and privaledge; we are sheep. It is as simple as that.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

I doubt sin can even be relevant to God. God can do whatever he wants. He will always be "perfect".
Humans on the other hand are "imperfect" because we sin. We cannot be compared to God, nor are we allowed to imitate him (exact eternal punishment on sinners), we simply do what He tells us.
He holds all power and privaledge; we are sheep. It is as simple as that.

So hypocrisy is okay because he's god? Doesn't anything seem a little bit wrong in there? You're now portraying him as a hypocritical, sadistic overlord. He can do whatever he wants, but decides to tell us what to do? For what reason? How could it be important for us not to kill if he can just go and do it if he wants?

 

[marthanoob]

So hypocrisy is okay because he's god? Doesn't anything seem a little bit wrong in there? You're now portraying him as a hypocritical, sadistic overlord. He can do whatever he wants, but decides to tell us what to do? For what reason? How could it be important for us not to kill if he can just go and do it if he wants?

Exactly.
That's why I seriously doubt the Christian interpretation of his existence.
But that's all in my opinion.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Oh... I thought you were arguing pro-god. I guess I just re-stated your point then. Oh well.

 

[TVTMaster]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up. God, yes, has killed people. Killing, however, is not necessarily murder, when the law is involved. God has killed because people have breached his laws. Merriam-Webster dictionary, "murder" definition 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. God has only killed directly for a breach of law. People naturally dying is a different matter- physical death happens because of the person's sin. Afterwards, people going to hell are those who have undergone physical death as a part of their fallen state and have not received Christ's sacrifice. If Christ's sacrifice is received, after the physical death of the fallen body, the person gets eternal life with God. God has not sinned by murdering anyone- all acts of killing committed by God were due to a just execution of his law.

 

[Eor]

You should try to read the thread