What is Christianity? (A CALM discussion of what it's about)

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief.

 

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa.

 

 

 

You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe.

 

Yeah, I think so too. In this concept, the non-believers are considered subpar.

 

 

 

I can not actually beleive you agree with this. You are saying Christians are worth more than non believers, thats called inequality. It's as bad as racism.

 

I don't agree with it, but thank you for your outrage - Hopefully, it will be a human facet for certain posters in this thread who continue to believe that their god is benevolent and that free-will can exist under their system.

 

 

 

 

Can you please actually explain why someone who believes in the Islamic God affects someone else to beleive in the Christian God, when both are already pre-destined to these choices? What relation do they have to one another? Please do not answer with "We need evil to know love" because it does not explain anything.

 

God sentences all non-believers, including Muslims, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers.

 

 

 

Allah sentences all non-believers, including Christians, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers.

 

 

 

I used Christianity in my self-debate instead of Islam because this thread is about Christianity.

 

 

 

This thread assumes the existance of the Christian God. Please answer the question.

 

Yes, this thread assumes the existence of the Christian God. That is why I have been talking about the Christian God in every single one of my posts. :P

 

 

 

"Sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ"

 

Are you God? If you aren't, then how do you know sacrifices ended with Jesus?

 

 

 

It is one of the main outcomes of Jesus' death. The end of moasic sacrifices, because God sacrificed his son to atone us of our sins.

 

 

 

Mosaic sacrifice refers to Jesus' martyrdom. The kind of sacrifice that has happened afterwards, in which billions are sent to hell so that a few may be educated in God's "correct" viewpoint/conditioning, is not martyrdom.

[kelem_ryu]

Hm.. you could interpret it that way:

 

 

 

Believing in god and accepting the teachings of Jesus is a "metaphysical" necessity for the soul to be in a healthy state. As long as you don't the soul will suffer. Like it is a necessity to eat healthy and keep in shape. Otherwise your body will suffer. Nobody complains about this, or think it's unfair in any way. So maybe love and faith is nourishment for the soul and Jesus kindly points out that "fact" (fact in the sense of this interpretation). Different gods might contain too much sugar or fat and aren't healthy. You may eat them, but it will harm you in the long run.

 

 

 

I'm not particular religious and certainly not christian, but imo that is the only way the love vs. going to hell thing would make any sense.

 

 

 

I quote myself here because:

 

 

 

a) I'm an attention seeker and nobody seemed to even read my post and

 

B) i think this is an interesting point

[Hume]

 

 

 

I don't agree with it, but thank you for your outrage - Hopefully, it will be a human facet for certain posters in this thread who continue to believe that their god is benevolent and that free-will can exist under their system.

 

 

 

So why are you arguing for this being correct?

 

 

 

Yes, this thread assumes the existence of the Christian God. That is why I have been talking about the Christian God in every single one of my posts. :P

 

 

 

So answer my question, why does a non believer have to exist so someone already pre-destined to believe can believe?

 

 

 

 

Mosaic sacrifice refers to Jesus' martyrdom. The kind of sacrifice that has happened afterwards, in which billions are sent to hell so that a few may be educated in God's "correct" viewpoint/conditioning, is not martyrdom.

 

 

 

So God sacrificing us so that you can have faith is not martyrdom? God is the one making the sacrifice here, we are the sacrifice to you apparently.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

 

 

I don't agree with it, but thank you for your outrage - Hopefully, it will be a human facet for certain posters in this thread who continue to believe that their god is benevolent and that free-will can exist under their system.

 

 

 

So why are you arguing for this being correct?

 

I am arguing for this to be correct assuming the Christian God exists. I personally think that it is despicable, and I hope that the Christians who read this thread will, at the very least, become doubtful of their conceptions of what their God is and does.

 

 

 

Yes, this thread assumes the existence of the Christian God. That is why I have been talking about the Christian God in every single one of my posts. :P

 

 

 

So answer my question, why does a non believer have to exist so someone already pre-destined to believe can believe?

 

The non-believer is part of the environment that enhances the believer's belief to a higher level, or what Christians call "true love." God designed these background characters of sin so that his believers would have a catalogue of experiences that would bring them up to God's desired standards.

 

 

 

 

Mosaic sacrifice refers to Jesus' martyrdom. The kind of sacrifice that has happened afterwards, in which billions are sent to hell so that a few may be educated in God's "correct" viewpoint/conditioning, is not martyrdom.

 

 

 

So God sacrificing us so that you can have faith is not martyrdom? God is the one making the sacrifice here, we are the sacrifice to you apparently.

 

First of all, *I* am an agnostic, so I will be one of the many riding the first-class train to hell ;)

 

 

 

God sacrificing non-believers is not martyrdom in the Christian sense (everything I write in this thread assumes that the Christian God exists and Christianity is the right religion). Jesus martyred himself as a believer, so he would be considered a martyr by biblical standards. The billions of non-believers are, as certain posters in this thread put so cruely, "side-effects."

 

 

 

Again, your outrage and inference that God is selfish is exactly the reaction I am hoping for.

[llamster]

So many people have posted about free-will/predestination that I don't know who to quote, so...

 

 

 

I think there are two possibilities.

 

 

 

1. God, being the omnipotent and omniscient creator, decided what every person's decision will be. This, as has been pointed out many times, leads to the conclusion that God is cruel and we are just puppets whose strings He are pulling.

 

 

 

2. God, being omnipotent, has the power to grant people free will. He still controls most of the things that happen, but occasionally relents His control. Or, He hasa huge list of possible outcomes that might or might not happen, depending on one's decision.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

2. God, being omnipotent, has the power to grant people free will. He still controls most of the things that happen, but occasionally relents His control. Or, He hasa huge list of possible outcomes that might or might not happen, depending on one's decision.

 

It doesn't matter whether God plans the decisions or randomly generates them. It still means that he consciously divides the population into believers and non-believers each time he creates a batch of new people.

[warri0r45]

Hm.. you could interpret it that way:

 

 

 

Believing in god and accepting the teachings of Jesus is a "metaphysical" necessity for the soul to be in a healthy state. As long as you don't the soul will suffer. Like it is a necessity to eat healthy and keep in shape. Otherwise your body will suffer. Nobody complains about this, or think it's unfair in any way. So maybe love and faith is nourishment for the soul and Jesus kindly points out that "fact" (fact in the sense of this interpretation). Different gods might contain too much sugar or fat and aren't healthy. You may eat them, but it will harm you in the long run.

 

 

 

I'm not particular religious and certainly not christian, but imo that is the only way the love vs. going to hell thing would make any sense.

 

 

 

I quote myself here because:

 

 

 

a) I'm an attention seeker and nobody seemed to even read my post and

 

B) i think this is an interesting point

 

 

 

Or, the christian god may contain too much sugar or fat and Buddha is a tuna and cucumber sandwich. Possible? (and no, don't take offence, I'm not making fun of your post)

[warri0r45]

You know if it weren't for faith I'd be dumbfounded as to why people freely suggest god is even all knwoing. To know that, we'd have to know each thing that he knows and thus also be all knowing. So an all knowing being can only be known to be all knowing if the being asserting he's all knowing is all knowing. :?

 

 

 

Anyway I'll take this opportunity to bring back a previous post of mine.

 

Two things: that very statement contradicts itself, and more importantly, making a person and KNOWING all his choices doesn't mean that you make them for him. Besides, the Bible shows choices being available for the PEOPLE to make inside of time. Knowing does not equal causing.

 

 

 

 

Hypothetical.

 

 

 

1) God has a pair of dice and every time he rolls two sixes, a person dies.

 

 

 

2) He knows fully well that the chance of any outcome occuring is independant of his rolling of the dice.

 

 

 

3) He is all knowing and he forsees millions of people dieing.

 

 

 

4) He does nothing to stop this even though he is equally all powerful and could quite easily let the dice roll but go through an eternity of possibilities until he comes up with no double sixes. Ever.

 

 

 

Did god choose this eternity of no double six rolls to roll as they did?

 

 

 

If you say yes, how do you know you have free will? How do you know that god didn't go through all possibilities for all choices, ever, and come up with the one we call reality which is so seemingly free that we assume we are acting independantly of any predestination?

 

 

 

If you say no, how can you call god loving and forgiving?

 

 

 

So god is either manipulative or sadistic. Or, he's not all knowing and all powerful. Take your pick, and feel fre to poke holes in my argument, it's pretty ad hoc.

[Kenshinjapan]

Contrary to what your high school teachers may be telling you, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for information. Research suggests Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopaedia Britannica.[1]

 

 

 

Your joking right?

[llamster]

 

2. God, being omnipotent, has the power to grant people free will. He still controls most of the things that happen, but occasionally relents His control. Or, He hasa huge list of possible outcomes that might or might not happen, depending on one's decision.

 

It doesn't matter whether God plans the decisions or randomly generates them. It still means that he consciously divides the population into believers and non-believers each time he creates a batch of new people.

 

 

 

Part of God's omnipotent capability is the ability to do anything. Surely letting people make their own decisions falls under that category.

[GordanFreeman]

Wouldn't being all-knowing contradict letting people have free will? Does it work like that? If he really was all-knowing, then how can you say that we have free will? :-k :pray:

[insane]

Bear in mind I am responding to your post from a Christian standpoint, as we are assuming the Christian faith here.

 

 

 

Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent and the credulous. Fairly self-explanatory, but i'm sure we all know that as a child you're likely to believe in non-truths which a lot of people grow up to reject. Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy etc. Telling children that God made the world in 6 days in a particular order is just a such a fairy-tale.

 

 

 

1. Not all Christians believe in 6-day-creation.

 

2. Calling Christianity a fairy tale makes it easy to refute since you're already assuming that it is invalid. This is called circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason children brought up in a Christian environment often carry on accepting it well into their adult-hood is because it's so well imprinted on kids at an early age. If you told a rational 18 year old adult who's well versed in the scientific big-bang model and evolution, the creation story would sound silly, childlike.

 

 

 

1. You're assuming that God and science are mutually exclusive, which they are not. This has been reiterated on so many threads, so many times I'm surprised someone like you would still attempt that this argument.

 

2. You're leaving out those who become Christians later on in life. How does your idea of child imprinting work here?

 

 

 

The same applies to me when I learnt about for example the Hindu or Sikh creation stories. They sound absurd, but in reality why are they any more absurd than the Biblical creation story? What gives either any more validity than the other? The religious creation stories are little more than folk myths passed down the generations, and to present them as fact to children who are too young to know otherwise is unfair and manipulative.

 

 

 

So I guess you won't be telling your children about Santa Claus then? You will always tell your children 100% truth? Why do you get to choose which lies children believe are moral and which aren't? Guess you'd better throw out fairy tales or fiction novels. Or at the very least, tell your children before you read them any story that it didn't actually happen. That would be consistent.

 

 

 

But again, see above. If the Christian God exists, the creation story could totally be 100% true. Or, it could be symbolic. Science and creation aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

There is one example of blood sacrfice which stands out as particularly awful to me. Abraham's wilingness to sacrifice his only son is a story common to all three monotheisms, and for some reason was always held up to me when I was a child as an example of perfect faith in God. If you step back and look at this story objectively, it's actually pretty repulsive.

 

 

 

1. What is this incredibly "objective" view from which you look at this story?

 

2. What does this isolated event have to do with Christian doctrine?

 

 

 

Naturally, Abraham was praised from the clouds above for showing his willingness to murder an innocent child for his own crimes

 

 

 

1. What crimes?

 

2. We're assuming God exists since this is a discussion about Christianity. That makes all creation belong to God. That means God can take life, just as he gives it. From a Christian perspective, no person is innocent, either. We are all sinful and deserving of death. Since Abraham is acting for God, it is not murder.

 

 

 

because a voice in his head told him to.

 

 

 

This is offensive and circular in logic.

 

 

 

Some Christians do indeed still practice ritualised animal slaughter to celebrate Easter.

 

 

 

Some Christians rape children. What does this have to do with Christianity?

 

 

 

The idea of vicarious atonement troubled even C.S. Lewis. Again, in the Christian doctrine we have a father subjecting his own son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress God. He is God, and is trying to impress humans.

 

 

 

Impress humans? Give me a break. This is a joke, right?

 

 

 

Ask yourself, if you were told the following what would you think? 2000 years ago a human sacrifice took place against your wishing and under circumstanes so horrible and vicious that if you had been around at the time and able to, you most likely would have tried to stop it.

 

 

 

The Disciples were Jesus' best friends. They did not try to stop it.

 

 

 

But, ignoring all the contradictions between the tellers of said story,

 

 

 

I know this was an aside to try and insult Christianity one step further, but I honestly think contradictions are proof that the Gospels were not a doctored story.

 

 

 

let's assume it's basically true. It goes on, in order to actually gain the benefit of this generous offer you have to accept that you are in someway responsible for the flogging, torture and crucifixtion in which you had no say and no part.

 

 

 

Funny, I thought the Bible stated that we had to accept the fact that we are sinners and that Christ died for us. But of course, your Bible knowledge is obviously greater than mine.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, if you really think about the original sin of Adam he was created by God with an insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to exercise it. Therefore, your own guilt in the matter is deemed original and inescapable. Of course, God generously gave us free will to allow us to refuse this offer, but should you exercise this choice you face an eternity of torture.

 

 

 

I believe I posted about this earlier. Did you miss it?

 

 

 

A central tennent on Christianity, Jesus dying for "our sins" is in fact a shallow charade, Jesus both needed and wished to die and came to Jerusalem at Passover in order to do so, and all who took part in this murder were actually doing God's will. There is also a passage in one of the Gospel's that the Jews who condemned Jesus asked for his blood to be on their heads for future generations. Odd as it seems, this is then what lead the Vatican to maitain their it was the Jews who had killed Christ, not just some or a few, but the Jews. The charge of deicide was only recently dropped by the Vatican. Jesus dying for "our sins" is scapegoating, plain and simple, the offer of offloading our sins onto someone else is supposed to be loving, but in reality it's just not right.

 

 

 

None of this makes any sense at all. Sorry, maybe you can explain it better, but this seems to be some crackpot theory you dreamt up on the spot.

 

 

 

False hope and children terrified of hell. Need I say more? I suppose I will. What else could drive a suicide bomber to blow themselves up except for the absolute conviction that there will be an afterlife with 72 virgins waiting for them.

 

 

 

This isn't Christianity.

 

 

 

What else but the idea of pearly gates could lead people to be so flippant with this life, treating it like a temporary state, a borrowed body?

 

 

 

This isn't Christianity either. We are not told to be flippant with our lives.

 

 

 

 

 

As for eternal punishment, that's fairly self explanatory, and i'll elaborate more on it in the next point.

 

 

 

I've addressed it in a previous post.

 

 

 

 

 

The commandment at Sinai which forbade people to even think about coveting goods is the first clue. There's also a passage in the NT from Jesus saying that a man who even looks at a woman in the wrong way has committed adultery, as well as the Christian (now no longer used) and Muslim prohibition on charging interest on money. All these try and place restraints on basic human initiative and instinct (which God made in the first place). They are in effect, thought crimes.

 

 

 

The Law was established to realize how much we cannot do, and to point us to God - what really saves us is not the Law, but the dependence on God that comes from a failed attempt at observing the Law.

 

 

 

I guess what you're suggesting is that if a Law cannot always be followed it, to just abolish it? I disagree with that notion.

 

 

 

This leads to two possible things, eternal guilt and feelings of sin about 'impure' thoughts. These in turn lead to hysterical confessions, false promises of improvement and loud and often violent denunciations of other 'sinners'.

 

 

 

That train of events is a slippery slope and, just untrue.

 

 

 

The other possibilty is that a large enough donation to the right religious authority and cleanse you of your sins. Or, you can bend the rules, the Dalai Lama tells us that you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays her, Shia Muslims offer a temporary marriage selling men the permission to take a woman as his wife for an hour or two with all the usual vows then divorce her straight afterwards. St. Peter's was financed by a similar arrangement.

 

 

 

This is nothing but a anger-filled hate-fest against all religion. There's nothing to even respond to here. Your post has degraded, and thus I disgress. Maybe I"ll respond to the rest later on.

[Adventurer]

Man, this thread's going so fast now. I won't be able to answer each individual thing now =P.

 

 

 

Oh, and please be careful to be objective and calm everybody. We've gotten too far for flames to kill this. Also, PLEASE hide your long quotes; it's hard to see what YOUR points are with the HUUUGE quotes filling your posts

 

 

 

 

 

The two things I will respond to seem to be the main subjects right now:

 

 

 

[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar & Warri0r (Warri0r, my idea of free will is for you to consider too)]

 

I am arguing for this to be correct assuming the Christian God exists. I personally think that it is despicable, and I hope that the Christians who read this thread will, at the very least, become doubtful of their conceptions of what their God is and does.

 

 

 

 

The non-believer is part of the environment that enhances the believer's belief to a higher level, or what Christians call "true love." God designed these background characters of sin so that his believers would have a catalogue of experiences that would bring them up to God's desired standards.

 

 

 

First of all, *I* am an agnostic, so I will be one of the many riding the first-class train to hell ;)

 

 

 

God sacrificing non-believers is not martyrdom in the Christian sense (everything I write in this thread assumes that the Christian God exists and Christianity is the right religion). Jesus martyred himself as a believer, so he would be considered a martyr by biblical standards. The billions of non-believers are, as certain posters in this thread put so cruely, "side-effects."

 

 

 

Again, your outrage and inference that God is selfish is exactly the reaction I am hoping for.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Your opinion of God relies on your belief that God makes people WITHOUT a real choice, thus, I will address your belief and not this opinion.

 

 

 

For your thingy of "non-Christians" are "side-effects".

 

You are assuming that God made humans without any real choice because he knew fully the consequences of making each human, that each one would do something if he was made, right? I.E. everything is arbitrary.

 

 

 

My response:

 

Alright. I know what you've been saying, so here's what we differ upon. DOES MAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE CHOICE? Yes, or no? Does he retain the capability to choose within time, or no?

 

 

 

I'm arguing that yes, man does choose within the bounds of time. The fact that God knows what he'll do does not affect his unique choices is what I'm saying. It's like you setting a mouse in a maze and knowing what it will do; you predict its actions, but it still makes the choices itself.

 

Knowing one's actions does not amount to making the actions themselves. Do you find this plausable or not? You seem to have been skirting this statement of mine.

 

 

 

(Btw, I never referred to non-Christians as side effects. I think you did actually, using my term which referred to hell, btw. STOP ASSUMING STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Also, please don't provoke people like you seem to be wanting to: "your reaction is exactly what I'm hoping for". Please be polite and objective, or leave, Paper.)

[Rahiendaishar]

[hide=PaperClipsYaaar's argument]

 

 

 

The Islamic judgment of good vs. bad only applies to people who are already Muslims. Christians and people of other faiths (or no faiths) automatically go to hell. This directly parallels and contradicts Christianity.

 

Ok? I just suddenly realized that you're contesting Islam and Christianity in "who's right". Isn't this off-topic a bit? We're discussing what Christianity is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that way

 

Yes, you are wrong. When we discuss what something is, no matter what the thing is, we must include evidence that would contradict, nullify, or cancel certain aspects of it.

 

 

 

About the "burn" or "Jesus" problem you have with Christianity: Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're obsessing over the thing that people go to hell if they refuse to accept God's gift. No. Christianity is about: People fail, God loves them and gave them a choice, and they can go to heaven, but if they ultimately choose to not accept, THEN they go to hell. That's not THE point of Christianity; it is a side-effect of REFUSING Christianity.

 

 

 

Let me make this clearer. People are not meant to go to hell. However, they are marred by sin and cannot help themselves, and need God all the more. Thus [John 3:16], and God sent Jesus to save people from sin through acceptance of him as Lord and Savior. Christianity does NOT say that people are meant for hell.

 

Let me break this down for you and save 2 more pages of text. I'm red and you're blue.

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests at Jesus' trial think that God gave Jesus a choice too. His crucifixion was merely a side-effect of his refusal to accept their God's love. Why does your religion focus on this side-effect while you tell me not to focus on mine?

 

 

 

The Jewish elder priests were misguided. Their concept of God had not been updated to the Christian version, which is the right one. Thus, Jesus, through his crucifixion, was affirming God's love rather than refusing it.

 

 

 

You say that Christianity does not think people are meant for hell, but God made all of us, so that means he was responsible for making me a non-believer.

 

 

 

God gave us free will to decide whether or not we want to accept his love. He didn't make you a non-believer. You made the choice to become one, just like you still have the choice to become a believer.

 

 

 

But God could have just made all of us Christians.

 

 

 

God's aim is to have fellowship with those who truly love him. If we had been made as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, we would not have the capacity for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is true love.

 

 

 

But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed.

 

 

 

Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands. It is necessary for God to make both non-believers and believers, because true love cannot exist without evil. The non-believers are part of the environment for making believers. The majority of the world's population are God's necessary victims for creating the conditions that make a minority of the population into the true believers that he wants.

 

 

 

In other words, God sacrifices most of the world's people so that a certain minority can feel a heightened sense of love for him, because he would rather have a minority of conditioned love (with the majority serving as non-believers that are required for the conditioning) than a majority of automatic love.

 

 

 

There it is. I get to prove that God means for people to be in hell, and you get to explain Creation to its furthest, most truthful extent.

 

 

 

It ends as a tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does.

 

 

 

I really hope your god doesn't turn out to be the right one.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Forgive me, but I must interject. I shall deal with facts later, but your argument is not valid in structure, form, or logic.

 

 

 

Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous. This is an argument by analogy but the two items you compare are not identical or even similar save that they both have a monotheistic deity and (supposed)Abrahamic origins. They are no more suitable for comparison of specific qualities then a bear and a fox which are both mammals and share a common ancestor. As most comprehensive biology text will point out they are not suitable for use in comparison of most everything biologist and ecologists measure and record.

 

 

 

Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem tu Quoque, appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs), appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking), appeal to ridicule, begging the question, use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles), appeal to ignorance, circumstantial Ad Hominum, fallacy of composition, and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.

[venomai]

Contrary to what your high school teachers may be telling you, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for information. ;) Research suggests Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopaedia Britannica.[1]

 

Your joking right?

 

No. :idea: Wikipedia is a fine source for research. Read the article.

[Adventurer]

[hide=Rahiendaishar]

Forgive me, but I must interject. I shall deal with facts later, but your argument is not valid in structure, form, or logic.

 

 

 

Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous. This is an argument by analogy but the two items you compare are not identical or even similar save that they both have a monotheistic deity and (supposed)Abrahamic origins. They are no more suitable for comparison of specific qualities then a bear and a fox which are both mammals and share a common ancestor. As most comprehensive biology text will point out they are not suitable for use in comparison of most everything biologist and ecologists measure and record.

 

 

 

Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem tu Quoque, appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs), appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking), appeal to ridicule, begging the question, use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles), appeal to ignorance, circumstantial Ad Hominum, fallacy of composition, and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.

[/hide]

 

Ok, but the argument has advanced a bit further. You might want to respond to the current argument, which is on the same subject.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

Your opinion of God relies on your belief that God makes people WITHOUT a real choice, thus, I will address your belief and not this opinion.

 

 

 

For your thingy of "non-Christians" are "side-effects".

 

You are assuming that God made humans without any real choice because he knew fully the consequences of making each human, that each one would do something if he was made, right? I.E. everything is arbitrary.

 

 

 

My response:

 

Alright. I know what you've been saying, so here's what we differ upon. DOES MAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE CHOICE? Yes, or no? Does he retain the capability to choose within time, or no?

 

 

 

I'm arguing that yes, man does choose within the bounds of time. The fact that God knows what he'll do does not affect his unique choices is what I'm saying. It's like you setting a mouse in a maze and knowing what it will do; you predict its actions, but it still makes the choices itself.

 

Knowing one's actions does not amount to making the actions themselves. Do you find this plausable or not?

 

 

 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, [...]" (Eph. 1:3-5, NASB)

 

 

 

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)

 

 

 

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

 

And in Your book were all written

 

The days that were ordained for me,

 

When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa. 139:16, NASB)

 

 

 

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. [verse 17 omitted] So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom. 9:16-18, NASB)

 

 

 

You seem to have been skirting this statement of mine.

 

Please show me the location of the statement that I have been "skirting."

 

 

 

 

(Btw, I never referred to non-Christians as side effects. I think you did actually, using my term which referred to hell, btw. STOP ASSUMING STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Also, please don't provoke people like you seem to be wanting to: "your reaction is exactly what I'm hoping for". Please be polite and objective, or leave, Paper.)

 

I was not provoking him. I said that to show him that I am on the same side as he is. He thought that I was a Christian because I was arguing from the Christian point of view.

[Adventurer]

[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, [...]" (Eph. 1:3-5, NASB)

 

 

 

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)

 

 

 

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;

 

And in Your book were all written

 

The days that were ordained for me,

 

When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa. 139:16, NASB)

 

 

 

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. [verse 17 omitted] So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom. 9:16-18, NASB)

 

 

 

You seem to have been skirting this statement of mine.

 

Please show me the location of the statement that I have been "skirting."

 

 

 

 

(Btw, I never referred to non-Christians as side effects. I think you did actually, using my term which referred to hell, btw. STOP ASSUMING STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR ME. Also, please don't provoke people like you seem to be wanting to: "your reaction is exactly what I'm hoping for". Please be polite and objective, or leave, Paper.)

 

I was not provoking him. I said that to show him that I am on the same side as he is. He thought that I was a Christian because I was arguing from the Christian point of view.

[/hide]

 

1. Hmm, wow. This is convincing but problematic because what you're trying to prove is that God made man's decisions for him, which means that HE, not man, created sin for mankind, which goes against pretty much everything I've ever learned about God being holy, good, etc.

 

I do have a bit of problems with the verses and the word "predestined", but take it as a comment for now and not an argument. I need to get some information for myself before I can give one.

 

• Pslams can be taken as a praise of omnipotence and omnipotence only, as the guy is praising God for having known his life (not dictating it) before he was born.
   
  Romans seems to refer to the first Christians, i.e. the early church. It says that God predestined (ambivalent word?) them for the reason that they might be the firstborn of many brothers. My Bible teacher has taught me about God-man relationships that: God initiates, man responds, God responds back. In this verse, I see predestined could literally mean predestined, or could mean something like "called". Man, if only we could see the Greek, the original version to be sure that it isn't just language difficulty.
   
  Ephesians...same thing as Romans.
   
  Also, I have a problem with your view because (editing...nvm, posted this part on my next post)

 

2. You never actually seemed to respond to my theory of free will, but disregard that for now.

 

 

 

3. Ok. Your comment about his response read like it was almost a gloat, so yeah. If you didn't mean anything, then I'll take your word for it.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

which means that HE, not man, created sin for mankind, which goes against pretty much everything I've ever learned about God being holy, good, etc.

 

This was what my red vs blue debate, and every post that I wrote following that, was about.

 

 

 

 

2. You never actually seemed to respond to my theory of free will, but disregard that for now.

 

The biblical verses that I quoted above addressed that theory. Predestination means to foreordain, not just to predict. It signifies the difference between omnipotence and mere omniprescience.

 

 

 

 

3. Ok. Your comment about his response read like it was almost a gloat

 

I guess I come off sounding like that sometimes :)

[Adventurer]

^

 

The Red vs. Blue debate wasn't a valid argument for the reason that you seemed to be making stuff up, taken from this guy's criticism:

 

[hide]

Forgive me, but I must interject. I shall deal with facts later, but your argument is not valid in structure, form, or logic.

 

 

 

Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous. This is an argument by analogy but the two items you compare are not identical or even similar save that they both have a monotheistic deity and (supposed)Abrahamic origins. They are no more suitable for comparison of specific qualities then a bear and a fox which are both mammals and share a common ancestor. As most comprehensive biology text will point out they are not suitable for use in comparison of most everything biologist and ecologists measure and record.

 

 

 

Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem tu Quoque, appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs), appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking), appeal to ridicule, begging the question, use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles), appeal to ignorance, circumstantial Ad Hominum, fallacy of composition, and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.

[/hide]

 

 

 

2. Hmm...I'm editing my above post because I thought of an issue. Maybe I'll just post it here instead:

 

 

 

[hide=long quote of myself]Hmm, wow. This is convincing but problematic because what you're trying to prove is that God made man's decisions for him, which means that HE, not man, created sin for mankind, which goes against pretty much everything I've ever learned about God being holy, good, etc.

 

I do have a bit of problems with the verses, which I've posted. Also, I'm wondering if "predestined" is an inaccurate translation of the original Greek. I know of at least one significant difference between the two, where it tells parents about disciplining kids (don't remember where).

 

 

 

Pslams can be taken as a praise of omnipotence and omnipotence only, as the guy is praising God for having known his life (not dictating it) before he was born.

 

Romans seems to refer to the first Christians, i.e. the early church. It says that God predestined (ambivalent word?) them for the reason that they might be the firstborn of many brothers. My Bible teacher has taught me about God-man relationships that: God initiates, man responds, God responds back. In this verse, I see predestined could literally mean predestined, or could mean something like planned-in-advance. Man, if only we could see the Greek, the original version to be sure that it isn't just language difficulty.

 

Ephesians...same thing as Romans. [hide][/hide]

 

 

 

By the way, how would divine intervention (aka miracles) fit into your theory?

 

 

 

3. Meh :|

[Mirror]

Ok it looks like the argument of Predestination and Free Will has become the topic now. I am going to state what I have been taught, rather than argue for one side or another.

 

 

 

Adventurer: You are debating for the side of Free Will.

 

 

 

Paper: You are debating for the side of Predestination.

 

 

 

Ok so you think that would end there. You two have been doing a fine job defending each side. Now let me interject the last side to this debate that I have heard. Note that this is a gray area in the Bible, meaning that there is almost no splicit answer. These areas can be debated to kingdom come, but I don't think it will be answered until we die and find out for ourselves.

 

 

 

Supposedly, there is a third view of this whole circumstance that is a combination of both views. It is basically a half way stance for either side. God predestined in the sense that he offered a gift to us, the knowledge of all that we have been debating about. Now this is where the Free Will comes in. We have to accept this on our own accord, taking all that is around us and we ourselves make the final descision. I hope this makes sense.

 

 

 

Now you could say, "What about those in the far deep jungles who possibly never had the chance to hear about it? Were they predestined to never know?" It says that they can know God through his marvelous works and all of the nature that is around them. Just take for notice that these civilizations had gods, maybe in sense, images of the one true God, just not with the same name. That my friends is another topic, which I for sure do not want to delve into right now. Just another gray area like shown above.

 

 

 

I am not going to say with which side I believe in, but just leave it open for anyone who wants to discuss it. Have fun with this. :wink:

[Rebdragon]

Pretty sure omniscience/predistination and free will are fairly compatable peeps.

[Adventurer]

Thanks mirror, but I still haven't gotten around to answering Paper's last points.

 

 

 

Reb, how would that work?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

^

 

The Red vs. Blue debate wasn't a valid argument for the reason that you seemed to be making stuff up, taken from this guy's criticism:

 

Here you go:

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous.

 

I never talked about Islam. This thread is about Christianity, and every one of my posts has been about Christianity.

 

 

 

 

Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem,

 

Ad Hominem means "attacking the opponent's personality." I did not criticiz Adventurer's personality in my debate.

 

 

 

Ad Hominem tu Quoque,

 

Ad Hominem tu Quoque means "accusation of hypocrisy." I have never accused Adventurer of been a hypocrite.

 

 

 

appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs),

 

If I were to appeal to belief (in the religious sense, which is what I think you are talking about), I would have to be a religious person.

 

 

 

appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking),

 

Yes, I am appealing you to my belief through reason. That is what debating is about.

 

 

 

Also, "wistful" means sad. I'm not sure what you mean by "sad thinking."

 

 

 

appeal to ridicule,

 

Appeal to ridicule means to "present your opponent's argument in a ridiculous way." I did not do anything to the argument to make it ridiculous. God's cruel use of predestination is ridiculous in itself. I invite you to try to describe his sacrifice of billions of non-believers in a way that doesn't make it seem ridiculous.

 

 

 

begging the question,

 

Begging the question means "taking the proof for granted." I definitely did not take the proof for granted because I posted an entire debate where I argued against myself.

 

 

 

use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles),

 

No.

 

 

 

 

appeal to ignorance,

 

Appeal to ignorance means "believing a premise to be true only because it has not been proven false." I have certainly provided plenty more evidence for predestination other than that it "hasn't been proven false."

 

 

 

circumstantial Ad Hominum,

 

circumstantial Ad Hominem means to "dismiss your opponent's argument because his circumstances predisposes him to make it." An example of this would be, "Of course Tom would say cigarettes are healthy. He works for a tobacco company." I did not use this argument at all.

 

 

 

fallacy of composition,

 

Fallacy of composition means "assuming something is true of the whole because it is true of a part of the whole." An example of this would be, "We cannot see atoms. Humans are made of atoms. Therefore, we cannot see humans." I did not commit this fallacy at all. I do not even see how someone could deal with only a "part" of predestination. It is one whole, indivisible concept.

 

 

 

and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.

 

The Straw Man fallacy means "misrepresenting your opponent's argument in order to easily refute it." An example of this:

 

 

 

Original Position: I think Children shouldn't run in busy streets.

 

Straw Man Manipulation: I think Children should be locked up all day.

 

 

 

In order for me to have used the Straw Man fallacy, Adventurer would have had to have an Original Position. Before the debate I wrote, we had not approached the Predestination concept at all. Therefore, he could not have had a position on Predestination for me to manipulate. If you see any locations within my debate where I used the straw man fallacy, please point it out.

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, back to your post.

 

 

 

 

I do have a bit of problems with the verses, which I've posted. Also, I'm wondering if "predestined" is an inaccurate translation of the original Greek. I know of at least one significant difference between the two, where it tells parents about disciplining kids (don't remember where).

 

Predestination is the correct translation. It is the concept that most Christian sects and all Catholics believe in. The only people who disagree with it are the Methodists.

 

 

 

 

Pslams can be taken as a praise of omnipotence and omnipotence only, as the guy is praising God for having known his life (not dictating it) before he was born.

 

Predestination = Dictation. As I said before, it goes further than just merely predicting the future.

 

 

 

My Bible teacher has taught me about God-man relationships that: God initiates, man responds, God responds back.

 

Man responds, but God determined Man's response when he created Man.

 

 

 

In this verse, I see predestined could literally mean predestined, or could mean something like planned-in-advance.

 

Yes, that is what it means.

 

 

 

Man, if only we could see the Greek, the original version to be sure that it isn't just language difficulty.

 

I'm pretty sure that if it had been a mistranslation, the many Catholics and Christian groups who believed (and still believe) in Predestination would have discovered the error within the past couple of centuries.

 

 

 

Romans seems to refer to the first Christians, i.e. the early church. It says that God predestined (ambivalent word?) them for the reason that they might be the firstborn of many brothers.

 

Ephesians...same thing as Romans.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting Romans and Ephesians from. I have never mentioned those people.

 

 

 

 

By the way, how would divine intervention (aka miracles) fit into your theory?

 

Divine intervention would be part of the environment that God uses to condition his believers. Just as he places evil on earth, he would also place its opposite. The existence of both good and evil is what elevates his believers to "true love."

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Pretty sure omniscience/predistination and free will are fairly compatable peeps.

 

omniscience != predestination

 

 

 

predestination is active creation.

 

 

 

Note that this is a gray area in the Bible, meaning that there is almost no splicit answer.

 

"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. [verse 17 omitted] So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom. 9:16-18, NASB)

 

 

 

And many, many other quotes. In contrast, there are no quotes in the bible about free will. Seriously.

 

 

 

Supposedly, there is a third view of this whole circumstance that is a combination of both views. It is basically a half way stance for either side. God predestined in the sense that he offered a gift to us, the knowledge of all that we have been debating about.

 

That is not predestination, and that viewpoint is not a half-way stance. Predestination is not the opportunity, it is the decision

[Adventurer]

Predestination is the correct translation. It is the concept that most Christian sects and all Catholics believe in. The only people who disagree with it are the Methodists.

 

Hmm, ok.

 

 

 

Predestination = Dictation. As I said before, it goes further than just merely predicting the future.

 

I still cannot wrap my mind around the WHY of this. I know that you're saying that God, when making a person knows the full life of that person, but I cannot grasp how this explanation would totally abolish the person's own will. God knows the person's life, but how would the person not make choices inside of time?

 

Besides that, this idea of predetermined lives implies to me that I can go and like...say...cuss at people and it wouldn't be wrong in any sense because God made me do that. "[cabbage] you. God made me say that."

 

It nullifies all right/wrong that there may be, and God would be a hypocrite for making a Bible.

 

 

 

Man responds, but God determined Man's response when he created Man.

 

[same as above]

 

 

 

Yes, that is what it means.

 

Crud, I just confused myself on this. Oh well, at least I know what YOU think.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that if it had been a mistranslation, the many Catholics and Christian groups who believed (and still believe) in Predestination would have discovered the error within the past couple of centuries.

 

Somebody pointed out a site to me with tons of numerical discrepancies. Also, there's one part about raising kids that doesn't really comply with the Greek too well, but I can't even find it with keywords :wall:

 

 

 

Romans seems to refer to the first Christians, i.e. the early church. It says that God predestined (ambivalent word?) them for the reason that they might be the firstborn of many brothers.

 

Ephesians...same thing as Romans.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting Romans and Ephesians from. I have never mentioned those people.

 

They are mentioned in your verses. Those verses were literally letters to the people of those churches in those places.

 

 

 

Divine intervention would be part of the environment that God uses to condition his believers. Just as he places evil on earth, he would also place its opposite. The existence of both good and evil is what elevates his believers to "true love."

 

Again, this kind of seems odd. Wouldn't this make God a hypocrite?

 

 

 

Goodnight unless you can post within 5 minutes or so of this post.