ForumsWEPRThe Religion Debate Thread

704 259519
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!

Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!

I'm going to start the ball rolling:

We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?

Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj

  • 704 Replies
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

No. I would probably not trust that person. I would probably make up an excuse not to talk to him because that's just really creepy and I would run away.
Hence the reason against trusting God.

So the question is not "Why does God allow suffering on Earth?" but rather "Why doesn't God just wipe us all out?" Well because He wants to show His mercifulness and graciousness.
He should be capable of creating things well enough to get it right the first time, rather than destroying them and starting over. He also shouldn't need to show anything to anyone, what with Him being perfect almighty God and all.

Okay, I should care to explain this. God does not want robots to "worship" Him because there would be no gratitude and there would be no real love. Siri does not really love you when you tell her to say that. You would certainly not feel love just as God would not be truly glorified if He made us His slaves.
Right, so why does He demand absolute perfect unwavering obedience, unconditional love, and unerring worship from His imperfect, fallible, creations?

I believe that God made Him and that Lucifer was imperfect because he is not God. Now, it is not God's fault because Adam and Eve were completely responsible for their actions. They had the choice.
But, see, they weren't responsible. They cannot have been responsible. Everyone has myriad choices: Try to swallow your own fist? Sure! It's your choice, after all. Stand on your head with a spoon on your nose for three hours? Also your choice. Swim to the bottom of a lake? Your choice. Sleep on a stack of 100 matresses? Your choice. Play chess with a blackberry bush? Totally your choice. Simply having a choice does not make all options equally rational or meritworthy.

Would it be wrong for me to say that God is His own thing entirely?
No, but what Last4Skull is describing is a Brahmanistic interpretation of the same thing.

I agree that this is of first importance. Just to drive home the idea that God is merciful, we all fall short of God's law. In His infinite wisdom and love, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to live and die on our behalf. And then to resurrect Himself to conquer death for us.
Okay, sure, but the idea is unclear and, as far as I can see, doesn't really mean anything. In order to use this to support your claim, you would have to clearly illustrate how doing that translates to an act of mercy.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

The sacrifice was done by humans, to God. In the case of Jesus, if we consider it a sacrifice (which implies that it was God's intention, raising other questions that we won't address right now), then it was a sacrifice from God, to God. I fail to see how this, in any way, makes sense or is necessary.

Based on Leviticus 1:9, He has a fetish such that He finds the smell of blood extremely pleasurable, so this was a form of cosmic masturbation, and His orgasm was so great that it canceled out the sins. Thus, He's currently in a refractory period, so He doesn't require animal sacrifices anymore, as they were considered foreplay.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

Hm. I'm saying those are two entirely different things. Knowing they would fail does not equal knowing they had no chance of not failing.

It does due to God's Omniscience. Believing they would fail is different. We used the term "knew". If He knew they would fail and he knows everything that happened, happens and will happen, then it stands to reason that they have no chance of succeeding (because omniscient god knows they will fail). And since God knows everything, he knows that too (so God ends up knowing that they have no chance of succeeding too). That's the logic behind this. Where do you disagree Kat? o.O

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Hm. I'm saying those are two entirely different things. Knowing they would fail does not equal knowing they had no chance of not failing.
Of course it does. That's exactly what knowledge is: The proven certainty that something must be the case.

Adam and Eve chose to believe that created things could know more about a fellow created thing than the Creator of that thing.
1 People can't choose what they will believe until they already believe it, and only then if they know the belief is irrational. Adam and Eve did not choose to believe it.
2 Why wouldn't they believe that? You suggested there might be gaps in His knowledge. As far as they would know, this could have easily been one of them.

Considering that the serpent preceded his correction by prompting Eve to repeat God's injunction and the reason for it, incongruity was painfully obvious and the serpent's aim.
After the fact. At the time, however, they still have absolutely no reason to distrust what it says.

Yes, it does. Any sort of reasonings about the fruit on the part of the serpent, Adam, and/or Eve does not invalidate Don't eat this fruit.
Well, no. It doesn't. Why should it?

And, misleading is something that can only be judged after the fact, not before.
Exactly.

Now I'm just completely lost. .-. I still think you've missed my original point. I wasn't saying that people suffer only because of the choices of others, just that that particular reason of suffering is commonplace.
Well, in that case, I do apologise. It is clear to me in this light that your point is actually both valid and totally irrelevant.

We can be glad that the story turned out to have happy ending, that good came of bad, but probably we would continue to allege that flunking out of school is not desirable.
Probably because this story does not represent the majority of flunkees, which brings us back to the question of how the final exam could be fair to them, given that it's virtually (if not absolutely) unpassable by design, confusingly worded, and impossible to study for.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

Let's start off with telling you what I am here for. I am not here to debate all of your arguments and be right. (I admit that I was, but I've realized my duty.) Rather, I am presenting you the gospel and praying that the Holy Spirit will work in your hearts so you might accept it. I find truth, joy, peace, righteousness (not self-righteousness), and most importantly love in the gospel. To people without God, without the Holy Spirit in their hearts, the gospel makes no sense. God makes the first move. Not me. So I have decided to let the Holy Spirit do His work and I pray that some of you might accept the gospel. I've done my job here and presented the gospel, so if the Holy Spirit has indeed softened your heart to the gospel and it interests you in some way, you have plenty of options to learn more about God. I am more than happy to explain it to you on my page or feel free to research it yourself. I know there are some sources that oppose the gospel, but once you come to Christ you're immediately saved. Once you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are guaranteed eternal life. But there are so many more facets to the gospel than just salvation. Please, I encourage you to talk about it with me. I just find no use in arguing because it won't bear any fruit. As long as I have told you the gospel, my job here is done. Even if your questions are meant to destroy the gospel, I would much rather you ask me in a more intimate setting where we can discuss your problem with God and religion. But just for anyone who is new to the thread and doesn't want to read back hella far to find where I talk about Christ, the gospel is this:
God is the holiest of holies. As such, he cannot accept anything short of perfection in following His laws. But humans are natural sinners. We have all done something to violate God's law. Even if it was just because you called someone a bad name for example. Because of this, we all deserve to die. Even more, none of us deserve to be in the presence of God. Nevertheless, He is not just this omnipotent, omniscient, cosmic judge. God loves us also. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ who is also God, to live among us. God, who was completely satisfied in His heavenly throne, chose to live in a broken world for our sake. Jesus not only lived a perfect life in His time here, but also He was tempted just as we are. Following His sinless and blameless life, He died a brutal and humiliating death as the ultimate sacrifice. All of our sins were transferred to this one man and God poured out all His wrath on Him. We were payed by His blood so we are no longer slaves to sin but we now belong to the kingdom of Heaven. We took Jesus's place as the rightful heir of God and we as Christians are basically brothers and sisters now. Three days after His death, Jesus resurrected. Jesus conquered death through the Resurrection and that's how our spirits have eternal life.
Like I said, there is so much more to the gospel than your salvation. Like how we are now the children of God and how we are His heirs to name a couple. God bless.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

We have all done something to violate God's law. Even if it was just because you called someone a bad name for example.

Where do dying newborns fit into this system?

Adam and Eve chose to believe that created things could know more about a fellow created thing than the Creator of that thing.

You can't choose a belief. Either a thing has met a standard to convince you, or it hasn't.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

@EmperorPalpatine
They have not done anything to violate the law, so I assume they go to heaven if something bad were to happen to them. Wouldn't you agree?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

@lozerfac3

Rather, I am presenting you the gospel and praying that the Holy Spirit will work in your hearts so you might accept it. I find truth, joy, peace, righteousness (not self-righteousness), and most importantly love in the gospel. To people without God, without the Holy Spirit in their hearts, the gospel makes no sense. God makes the first move. Not me. So I have decided to let the Holy Spirit do His work and I pray that some of you might accept the gospel. I've done my job here and presented the gospel, so if the Holy Spirit has indeed softened your heart to the gospel and it interests you in some way, you have plenty of options to learn more about God.
When you get all preachy like this, you inevitably push people away. We've presented logical and well reasoned arguments to you, and while you have managed to explain a few of your views, the majority of what we've got in return is meaningless and circular. It's a message without any substance which leads me to conclude that you don't really understand much about this stuff either.

God is the holiest of holies. As such, he cannot accept anything short of perfection in following His laws. But humans are natural sinners. We have all done something to violate God's law. [...] none of us deserve to be in the presence of God. Nevertheless, He is not just this omnipotent, omniscient, cosmic judge. God loves us also. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ [...] He died a brutal and humiliating death as the ultimate sacrifice. All of our sins were transferred to this one man and God poured out all His wrath on Him. [...] Jesus conquered death through the Resurrection and that's how our spirits have eternal life.
(abridged)
Sorry, but this just reaffirms my suspicion that the whole idea is utterly nonsensical.


@KatPryde
I am not talking about 'belief,' nor am I turning "knowing they will fail" into "knowing they might fail". God knew their action. Fine. That is not some sort of predestination or destiny, where because God knows they will do something, they are bound to do that whether they want to or not. God knows it will happen because that is the choice that will be made by those making the choice.
And that is the choice that will be made because that was exactly the way He, in all His wisdom, had planned it. There is no way around this other than conceding that He is not really omniscient.

And that 'something' is not Adam and Eve being incapable of making a decision.
I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise.

Adam and Eve were presented with two sets of divergent information, and they went with one over another. Hence, they did choose.
They chose an action based on their belief. They didn't choose to believe it.

1). I did no such thing.
2). I had no part in anything of what happened in Eden.
1 Whatever your intention, you certainly did.
2 So? As you stated on page 11: "If He knew that they had no chance of succeeding, then you would be correct." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but given your standpoint this seems to demonstrate that you believe that God does not possess total knowledge of everything. Why, then, would it be an act of betrayal for them to hold a similar belief, at least in your interpretation?

Not after the fact. Incongruity was the serpent's argument. 'That may have been what God said, but, really, He was lying to you.'
And how do you suppose they would understand that this "lying" thing was not something God might actually do?

My reaction was that even if Adam and Eve had no choice but to accept the serpent's claims as fact, because the serpent did not contradict the command, therefore the command would still have remained as fact in Adam and Eve's minds. For Adam and Eve to lay aside the command, the serpent would have needed to contradict that such a command remained in force.
Yet, as I stated earlier, they would have no means of understanding deception or applying critical thinking to assertions, but it's obvious that the two sets of information (and, by extension, the command) cannot logically be true of the same fruit.

That was not the purpose of that metaphor.
It still conforms remarkably well to the situation, however, which is a definite plus.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Haha @lozerfac3, forgive our community, since most of us fall into the skeptics/atheists/agnostics category. We're all very used to a debating style, so if it seems heated, it's nothing personal!

Do stay around though! Remember, you aren't obliged to respond to every single point raised.

-----------

Okay, let me pose a common question. Imagine a person who has for all his life committed terrible crimes that the law would come down harshly upon. Murder, rape, theft. Now, imagine that he knows of, but has never accepted Christ in his heart throughout his life. Yet in his last days, he genuinely repents and accepts Christ, not through fear of Hell, not through any pressure, not because of an impending sense of mortality. In fact, let's go with a cliched example - Hitler. If Hitler, mass murderer of millions and tyrant of Germany, had in his last few days, whilst held up in his bunker, accepted Christ - Will such a person still make it to Heaven?

Now compare this to a good person who for his entire life, not done harm. He donates not just money, but blood as well whenever he can. He never says a bad word about another. He is well loved by his friends and family. He volunteers at soup kitchens on Sundays instead of going to Church. But this good person chooses not to accept Christ, because he either a) Believes in another religion, or b) Decides of his own free will not to. Will such a person go to Hell?

How do we reconcile these two scenarios?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

*I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise. Unless you mean this:

They did not have an obligation to know the consequences, God had the obligation to inform them of those consequences ONLY IF He really did want them to have a choice. You cannot make a choice without knowing the full extent of your actions. Like the analogy I've used before, it's like a parent asking their 5 year old kid whether it wants to leave the house and fend for itself. That's literally it. No other info got passed down. And that it is a choice a 5 year old cannot possibly do by itself
But I'm fairly certain he was referring specifically to an informed choice as opposed to just picking something on a whim.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

@FishPreferred

When you get all preachy like this, you inevitably push people away.

The same can be said if I continued to argue, but I understand that. Thank you.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

And that 'something' is not Adam and Eve being incapable of making a decision.

We've accepted that God knew Adam and Eve would fail His test. Which means He knew they would eat the Fruit. By extension, they had no chance of passing the test (of not eating the fruit). Since God knows everything, God knew this too. So we end up with God knowing they had no chance of succeeding. That is not the same as Adam and Eve being incapable of making a decision. That's just knowing they cannot make the 'right' decision. But being God, he could influence Adam and Eve differently. There are not only 2 scenarios on this, it's not just "either they would have the choice, or God would make mindless robots". In the first scenario, there are many ways to present things any way you wish. I've argued that if God really did want them to have a choice, He should have informed them of the consequences of their actions with anything more than a vague 'Death'.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

@lozerfac3

They have not done anything to violate the law, so I assume they go to heaven if something bad were to happen to them. Wouldn't you agree?

This adds the moral stance that killing infants is the only way to absolutely ensure that they get there, which is not sustainable.

Do you believe the bible/scripture is inerrant? Which version?

Do any biblical laws actually matter? Ten Commandments? The other hundreds in Leviticus and elsewhere?

The same can be said if I continued to argue, but I understand that. Thank you.

Not here it can't.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

@nichodemus
Haha no worries. Because you asked and you're so welcoming, here is what the Scriptures says:

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
(Matthew 20:1-16)

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. (But as Christians, we are not called to be judgmental, but to understand that each one of us needs Jesus. Everyone is on the same level of hopelessness.) As you can see in this parable, this man's generosity was offensive to the workers who worked more than the others, just as God's sacrifice is offensive to us. I hope you see the analogy. This doesn't mean that we have to work for our salvation. The point is that no matter how much sin we have committed and no matter how much sin we did not commit (because we have probably sinned more than once) or good we do, the gift of Jesus is still worth our lives. So don't let the gospel be offensive. It's a free gift for all.

@EmperorPalpatine

This adds the moral stance that killing infants is the only way to absolutely ensure that they get there, which is not sustainable.

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

Do you believe the bible/scripture is inerrant? Which version?

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.

Do any biblical laws actually matter? Ten Commandments? The other hundreds in Leviticus and elsewhere?

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.

Not here it can't.

I definitely won't push people away from the argument. But I might as well be pushing them away from the truth if I stray from the message of the gospel.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Well, if you are going to just preach the gospel, I'm afraid that's where I loose interest. 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 know very well why I don't believe in God (or any deity) and the flaws in the Bible are only part of it; I just like to debate them and hear what people have to say. It was interesting to read some of your arguments, but preaching ain't what I'm here for.

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?

Showing 181-195 of 704