Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

@lozerfac3

Thanks for answering. You seem like a nice guy with good intentions. However, I must respectfully disagree with not just your point of view, but religion on the whole. Perhaps we accept the point that every human is born sinful (If only because one of our two ancestors ate a forbidden fruit, thereby condemning all of humanity for all of history to a sinful life). We might also hypothetically accept that God is real, notwithstanding the desperately and badly translated nature of the Bible (Supposedly God's actual words) and notwithstanding the thousands and thousands of Christian sects/churches that exist today.

But it seems to fly in the face of justice, virtue and everything morally precious to say that Hitler, no doubt the most twisted, depraved, callous persona of evil in history, can be saved simply by genuinely accepting religion, even with all the blood on his hand. And not just that! To say that a gentle person who has done no "evil" for his entire life, except the "evil" of not accepting a belief (Which to most people, is genuinely plausible, given the completely confused and muddled nature of religion), has to go to Hell and suffer eternal torture, is quite reprehensible.

Perhaps to us, lucky folk who can sit at a computer and not to have to worry about our lives, can plausibly believe in the clean niceness of religion. We can go to a great church, meet a friendly pastor on a weekly basis, bask in a friendly religious community. But to the people in poor and backward countries, maybe such words only ring hollow.

To answer your question, a man like Hitler is capable of salvation just like any of us are. I believe that to God, we are all as condemnable as Hitler. Even the "good" man. I put good in quotes because he is human, subject to our sinful nature but also under the grace and mercy of the God. You might find someone who is the nicest person you ever met, but that person may have lusted for something or thought about something wrong once in his/her life. Unless the person is Jesus, you can assume the person has sin in his heart.

I do not believe in this moral stance. I don't even support the killing of anyone. There is another way. (Hint: through Christ)

@lozerfac3

I would say so. I guess any version that ultimately does not change the meaning of the original text. I haven't really looked into it.

There are even inconsistencies between narratives of Jesus WITHIN the Gospel. Within the bible, numbers have weight, they carry meanings beyond their face value (such as in Revelation: the number 7 is extremely prevalent; God's throne has 24 seats around it; God's city was described as square with each side 12,000 furlongs [1500mi or about 2400km] in length, with 3 gates made of pearls on each side, surrounded by a jasper wall 144 cubits [216ft or about 66m] high).
Knowing that numbers are important, surely the number of people Jesus physically healed must be very significant. But, among other things, there's a significant contrast regarding his healing of blind people near Jericho. Matthew says it was 2 blind men on the road OUT of the city, Luke says it was 1 blind man on the road INTO the city, and Mark says it was 1 blind man on the road OUT of the city. Who, if any, are correct?

I do not believe in this moral stance. I don't even support the killing of anyone. There is another way. (Hint: through Christ)

Of course they do. Please allow me to explain another time. It is getting late over here. But essentially, laws can be categorized by the covenants of God.

I pray that some of you might accept the gospel.

@HahiHa

With due respect for your beliefs, but when I said I can't make sense of it, I don't mean I'm some kind of lost lamb searching for answers.

I appreciate that and I understand you.

Well, if you are going to just preach the gospel, I'm afraid that's where I *lose interest.

I admit that when I first came to this forum, my first intention was to logically destroy any arguments against my own beliefs. After a couple of posts in, I began to realize that forcing my faith is futile solely because that's not how people work. So I agree with you in that I have my own beliefs as you do yours and that it is fun to debate. I also realize that it is not my job to change people. That is God's decision.

Now, if you have the patience for one more argument... why do you pray for us? I appreciate the intention, but you made it rather clear that it is futile, I would say. Supposedly, it is our own 'decision' to accept Jesus as our savior or not, which is the only point that really matters to God, right? Granting that and assuming that prayer does not influence other people's free will nor God's adamant position on salvation, why do you pray for people?

Sure thing. Let's begin. Free will is ours, but it can certainly be influenced. Our choices are influenced all the time. Without the Holy Spirit continuously working in our lives with the intention to sanctify us since we have been saved, we are slaves to our sinful nature. We would not be able to even think to seek God much less make the decision to accept Jesus. However, the Holy Spirit will move you to Him and eventually you will begin to seek Him. At that moment you do accept the free gift of salvation (note that if you are of God's elect, your name has already been written in the Book of Life* way before you accept Him) you have been born again. When we are born again, we break form the bondage of sin and the Holy Spirit engages us in sanctification so that our decisions will be centered around the glorification of God. What matters to God is if we obey Him, but without His Spirit we cannot and that is where Jesus comes in to intervene for us.
So why should we pray at all if God's will seemingly overrides our decisions? Forgive me if it seems like I'm neglecting you, but I think gotquestions.org explains it best. If you care to take the time. Nothing is without meaning.

Now, another question that might come up is, why am I here still? I don't know. I really do enjoy speaking out about my faith though. I guess I want to show that Christianity is a valid religion. More than its practices, I want to show that people can have a true relationship with God despite our spiritual deadness, through Jesus Christ.

*The Book of Life: every name of those who have been born again. This theology is very unattractive, but it is truth nonetheless. As Paul wrote:

13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
(Romans 9:13-18)

Then Paul says in agreement with all these things I have said:

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
(Romans 9:19-24)

Knowing is not planning, nor is it dictating every singe action within that knowledge.

"Knowing they would fail does not equal knowing they had no chance of not failing."

"Of course it does."

From their previous interactions with Him, they would have begun to get an idea of His character, forming a basis on which they could judge His possible actions.

That is the same thing. They could have eaten the fruit, or they could have not eaten the fruit. It's either one or the other. If they cannot make the 'right' decision, then they cannot make a decision, period, because they would just be shunted along into the only option available to them.

How would going into detail help, when all the serpent has to say is 'That won't happen to you. Instead, these others things will happen [going into more detail than just 'your eyes will be opened'], and God knows it'?

Analogy: Person is standing before a fork in the road. God knows they will choose Road A. That does not automatically mean that Road B does not exist, or is invisible to Person, or is so unattractively deplorable that Person has no desire or interest in considering it.

^ What FishPreferred said. Just because we are going into determinism does not mean there are never decisions to be made. It only means that in the current scenario the chosen options were inevitable but they were still chosen for whatever reason. Altering some minor things in those scenarios would possibly lead to different options chosen. So it was still a decision, Adam and Eve's decision. We are just arguing that in the scenario as described in Genesis, choosing to eat the Fruit was inevitable. And as such, God knew that they would eat it and since it is inevitable, they had no chance of not eating it.

Let's assume for a moment that the point in which you disagree is false. Let's say they DID have a chance of passing that test. God would know this too due to his omniscience. So the result of the test would become like a statistics result in his head (67% yes, 33% no). Which however ridiculous may sound, would shoot down the first sentence (God knew they would eat the Fruit). So God would no longer know whether they would eat the fruit or not, so assuming they had a chance of NOT eating the fruit leads to a false conclusion about God's omniscience.

How would going into detail help, when all the serpent has to say is 'That won't happen to you. Instead, these others things will happen [going into more detail than just 'your eyes will be opened'], and God knows it'?

It would have been more honest. It would mean that Adam and Eve would know the full extent of their actions, they would not just be tricked by a mixture of their own arrogance and curiosity. That's what constitutes an informed decision, just like Fish said.

@lozerfac3
Thank you for your answer. Well, this was interesting: I learned something new and got a suspicion confirmed.

What I learned from your answer:
The 'choice' of accepting Jesus is not a real choice. I kinda already knew that before for two reasons, 1) because faith is not a choice, and 2) because even when assuming the Christian canon to be true, the options are heavily biased (eternal ****ation vs. eternal worship of God (none of which sounds very attractive to me, to be honest)). Now you mentioned a third reason: 3) the Holy Spirit influences our free will. I find this really strange, considering free will is frequently put forward by Christians as given to us by God because he loves us and wants us to make our own decisions; and now you're telling me his spirit pulls us towards him anyway so that we may worship him? That's what I call a huge fail-safe scam. Very sly of you, God

What suspicion the link confirmed:
Praying for someone is ultimately selfish, not altruistic. By praying for something/someone, you are - so the link tells me - understanding or getting closer to God/Jesus, and not actually expecting your prayers to come true. All it does is raise your standing with God, because it proves you show concern for someone (are benevolent) and he likes it when you talk to him (i.e. pray). You are stroking his ego, which actually makes sense considering we exist to worship him.

I think we chased him off :/

I doubt it. It hasn't even been a day since his last post. He's probably busy, give it a week.

Well I mean, yeah I'm done lol. Unless you have genuine questions to grow in your faith, but I'm done debating. It was definitely fun though. Thanks guys

I'm saying that God knew the option that they would choose, but they did not select that option because they were unwittingly following some script He had written.

Day late in asking this but...did you mean by "the choice that will be made", 'the act of choosing' or 'the end result of such an act'? I assumed the latter, but your reply suggests I was wrong.... Forgive me, if that is the case.

You are also ignoring my previous response to the allegation that this is a belief I hold.

The other instructions for humankind -- (1). "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over" the animals; (2.) "to tend and keep" the Garden -- are found, respectively, in the first chapter of Genesis (1.) which is a greatly condensed, macro-view of the entire creation process and in the narrative of the creation of man (2.) and is stated by the narrator as the reason for God putting Adam in the Garden. In either case, those are not necessarily the exact phrases that God used in communicating with Adam and Eve.

Though, at the end of your story, Adam and Eve would persist in their disobedience despite being properly informed, duly warned, clearly explained [to], and fully understand[ing]. Not only would the end result be the same, thus meaning that a more detailed -- the most possibly complete -- explanation would be meaningless, the punishment would be harsher because they would have grasped so crystal-clear what their sundering their relationship with God and their disobedience would work and would have continued to pursue that course.

In which case they wouldn't need to eat the fruit anymore, as they would already have acquired the knowledge. Also, eating the fruit in and of itself comes with no cost; the cost is in the disobedience.

I think it's clear that in both stories the fruit is really only there for symbolic purposes. In Genesis, it's there to show them that they are unworthy of paradise, so that it seems justifiable when He kicks them out. In The Fair Choice, it's a representation of their becoming independent, as opposed to having them just suddenly come to the conclusion that they want to leave. Neither makes for a very good defence of God's designs, but in my story He can at least say He did it all for them.

This is not being fair and impartial; this is poisoning their minds against the serpent so they will not hear the serpent's argument and consider for themselves what it claims.

Though, even going with the 'probability' meaning, even if God hypothetically did and does deal with statistics, that wouldn't invalidate His omniscience. He would know there would be a 67% chance of disobedience, 33% chance of obedience; He would know their behavior would fall within the 67%.

I have a simple question.

If you believe in Creation and Adam and Eve, are you refusing that evolution is real?
Most Catholics completely deny the "theory" of evolution, are you doing the same, despite all of the evidence that states it as truth?

I have a simple question.
If you believe in Creation and Adam and Eve, are you refusing that evolution is real?
Most Catholics completely deny the "theory" of evolution, are you doing the same, despite all of the evidence that states it as truth?

Where did everyone go?

The atheist/agnostics are waiting for a reply from the religious people