ForumsWEPRThe Religion Debate Thread

704 259523
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
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

@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.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

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.
Many of the Buddhist monks who devote their entire lives to peace, abstinence, benevolence, and quiet introspection will die without asking God or Jesus for salvation or knowing the words of the gospel. They are dedicated to what they believe to be right and do whatever they can to improve the wellbeing of others. Should they not be accepted into paradise all the same?

I do not believe in this moral stance. I don't even support the killing of anyone. There is another way. (Hint: through Christ)
That way is obviously fallible. Yet, according to your explanation, if a few devout Christians were to commit global infanticide by killing every single child as soon as they were born, all of those souls would be guaranteed salvation and the killers, by repenting and gaining forgiveness, would be saved as well. That's ... really disturbing.
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

@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.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ORIGINAL TEXT. They were all lost to time. There are hundreds of versions and translations. Each one alters the meaning in some way, often very significantly. Some have verses that others don't, such as the questionable ending to Mark mentioning snakes and poison. Others have had entire books added or removed. Some push the narrative of a trinity by muddling the different Hebrew and Greek words for God and using them interchangeably. This alters the very nature of God's relation to Jesus. If that can be messed with, anything can be. Unless you're saying He's sloppy and carefree, God intended for His message to be a certain way. Either the edition is holy or deceitful. We don't have any original texts of any of the books, so we're always looking at a copy of a copy of a handwritten document. Human error does a lot. There have even been scribes who intentionally altered or added words and phrases by their own judgement. Considering that this seems to be the most important thing you can possibly learn about, as it may directly relate to getting a good eternal afterlife or not, how do you discern which one is accurate? You can't possibly read them all.

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)

There's no way to guarantee that a baby will grow up to follow Christ. Killing them is a guarantee, thus it is the logical choice. And if the killer truly repents, they get paradise as well anyway.

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.

If literally any transgression can be cancelled out and forgiven through Jesus, then there's no real consequence to breaking any biblical laws.

I pray that some of you might accept the gospel.

Does God know the future? If so, is your prayer a frivolous attempt to influence His decisions that are set in stone? Or are you questioning His divine judgement by not trusting Him to do the right thing? It's either useless or an insult to God.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

@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)

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Knowing is not planning, nor is it dictating every singe action within that knowledge.
So you're saying that He came up with this whole scenario on a whim without even thinking of the consequences? Or are you suggesting that He just doesn't care what the outcome is, so long as He can say that they had a choice?

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

"Of course it does."

Your point being ...?

Here, let me backtrack a bit. On page 11, Emp said the following:
If God KNEW they would fail, then He did NOT believe they were ready. Knowing that they're not ready, and setting it up anyway, means that it WAS the goal [to have them fail].
To which you responded:
If He knew that they had no chance of succeeding, then you would be correct.

Therefore, if you hold to this assertion, one of three conclusions must be true. I.e., God's knowledge is incomplete, and/or He set them up to fail, and/or He acted on a whim without thinking.

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.
1 Isn't God supposed to be beyond any mortal comprehension?
2 If His other instructions were as vague and incomprehensible as those regarding the tree (and if Genesis is the definitive record of these events, they most certainly were), it's no surprise that they would need clarification.

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.
You appear to be having difficulty understanding how causality works. If God knows something WILL occur, God also knows by necessity that it MUST occur. For any non-stochastic event, WILL and MUST mean exactly the same thing. If the event is a decision, that decision is still being made. The decision maker isn't being compelled to choose option A against their will, nor is A the only option they can consider. It's just the one they will pick for whatever reason they do so. Yes, they actually had to choose A, not because it was known beforehand, but because that's the one they prefer.

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'?
Okay, let's pretend for the moment that God did not intend for them to fail and actually wanted them to make a well-informed decision, but He already put the tree in the garden. God should by all means know the following are certain:

- Adam and Eve, through experience and biological design, will regard the fruit of such a tree as food unless they are properly informed of its actual effects.
- There is a serpent in the area who will coax them into eating the fruit unless they are duly warned that its claims are not to be believed and do not take precedence over His own.
- They will not be able to make an informed decision unless it is clearly explained that they must make a choice with real and serious ramifications to themselves and all their descendants.
- They cannot be held accountable for either outcome unless they fully understand what both of those outcomes are.

So, what does God do? Well, in this version of the story, He goes to Adam and Eve and tells them all about this mysterious tree. He tells them of whatever knowledge it grants as well as all of its costs. He warns them not to speak with that serpent, not to heed what it says, and, above all, why they should not do so. He explains exactly what will happen, in as much detail as they want, both if they eat the fruit and if they do not. He tells them why He is letting them decide for themselves and why this is a choice that they must make. He uses His almighty powers to communicate all of this to them in a way that cannot be misunderstood. Then He lets them go and choose what they will, knowing that He has done all He can to remain fair and impartial.
Adam and Eve weigh their options carefully, paying no heed to a chattering creature in the background. After some deliberation and for reasons we may never know, they decide that, though it will mean many hardships, it is best for everyone that they eat the fruit.
God opens the gates to allow them out into the world. Although heartbroken to see them go, He knows it would be unfair to keep them any longer. They wave farewell and wander off, never to return.

The End.

*closes book* And that, children, is the story of the fair choice. It is not, however, the story of Genesis.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

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.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

@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.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I think we chased him off :/

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

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

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

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

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

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.
Okay, but creation itself is basically the script. Unless He somehow ignored the variables He set for them, He would have had every opportunity to get everything exactly the way He wanted without impinging on their freedom. Even if He did, that would still put the blame back on Him: Intentional or not, He made eating the fruit seem like the better option.

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.
I mean their decision to eat the fruit.

You are also ignoring my previous response to the allegation that this is a belief I hold.
Not at all. You will notice that I explicitly stated that this was conditional upon you holding to that assertion.

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.
Okay.

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.
No. That is exactly what does not happen. They go of their own volition and He lets them. There is no punishment; they just reap what they sow, which is hard but in the long run apparently better (otherwise, they'd choose differently and we'd need to contrive some other way to explain why we don't live in paradise).

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.
It's a cost they would need to be prepared for, and if that's the kind of knowledge it grants, it should be mandatory when He gives them this kind of decision; not forbidden.

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.
We've already established that it just lies and contradicts what He says. By telling them the whole truth, as in my story, He gives them both sides of the argument and allows them to judge for themselves what is best, which is the epitome of fairness and impartiality.

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%.
Would He not know the reasoning each of them follows to arrive at their final decision? If He has that and understands the working of their minds, as He should, this would make their actions deterministic (and therefore known to Him since the dawn of time) or stochastic (and therefore beyond anyone's control). Either way, the blame doesn't lie on them.
AClSllXVlll
offline
AClSllXVlll
741 posts
Blacksmith

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?

EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

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?

Adding the alternative to that question, if they accept evolution, how does Jesus fit in without the act of original sin? There are specific passages that directly reference Jesus canceling out Adam, such as Romans 5:12-21.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

Where did everyone go?

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

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

Showing 196-210 of 704