An Open Letter to All Young Christians - Please Convince Me.

Im gonna slam dunk you into the trash

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 20, 2016 ---

Well its not just dust and comet water. That would be absolutely ridiculous, how could anyone ever believe that. If anyone does they need to stop making so many threads, I tell you what.
Anyway, the common theory is that hydrogen and carbon dioxide, commonly found in parts of space when left by dead stars, eventually collected around early earth, which was a conglomerate of 2 or 3 asteroids that collided at some point and had enough of a gravitational pull to attract smaller asteroids or meteors. Eventually the buildup of all of these space rocks reached a critical mass and a stable atmosphere, which kept any more satellites off of the planet and kept it from growing any larger, and allowing the surface to remain relatively calm aside from the large chaotic storms covering the surface. During this period, in unknown circumstances, simple microbial life developed that consisted of only a bubble of lipids and a simple nucleus formed, converting the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere to oxygen, leaving us with what we have today. And the water from comets was in no way fit to drink, it has been filtered by aquifers and digestive systems for millions of years. Hell, our water isn't drinkable without purification in the modern day unless its deep spring water. Im not sure where you got the magnetic field thing from though, so i cant really think of any response since that is completely new to me.

 

IT WAS THE ONLY PEEKABOO TF2 PHOTO I COULD FIND
DON'T KILL ME PLEASE

 

I cannot find 'TheDebatheist' ingame, do you still go on meepcraft?

 

Whaaaa? I'll look into it. I'm probably missing something. It might be an alt-account, though I wouldn't have thought so. I'll PM you when I find out what's gone wrong.

 

My apologies for the delayed response, I have been very busy with family health issues. Now, on to the actual discussion.

Firstly, I only pointed out that carbon dating is rather unreliable when dealing with objects.

Sorry for the lack of explanation of species. It would seem I used the wrong word, resulting in confusion. I must first state that I firmly believe in natural selection to a degree. I do not believe gradual species change resulted in a change of Class, Phylum, or Kingdom to which the organism would belong to. Finches, robins, eagles, etc. all, most likely, had a common ancestor. The idea of the immutability of species is absurd, as we do see this micro evolution today. It is the changes in Class and/or Kingdom that is so debated, if done by educated individuals, anyways. Thus, I concur the species development chart from your first reply to my arguements.

In addition, I see the misinterpretation of mentioning Ribonuclease. The Theory of Evolution requires there to be some kind of abiogenesis, though, making it relevant to this discussion. After all, we can compare data of the evolutionary process for hours on end, but it is where life starts that our beliefs differ the most. Thus, I would like to hear your opinion on how life began, because there are so many theories and hypotheses about such a topic.

In a reply to another member's post, you bring up a certain moral point. I can perfectly see the case. However, if you are truly alone, and there is nothing after death, what is the point of anything? If this were the case, life's only purpose would be pleasure, which certainly does not last for long. In the words of General George S. Patton Jr., "It is better to live for something, rather than die for nothing."

While we may discuss errors in both the Bible and On the Origin of Species later, I feel we should first explain our points about the Theory of Evolution before tackling such a broad subject.

I look forward to our continued discussion in such a civil manner. One would most likely assume by the title this is another flame war. We still have so much to discuss!

 

Open letter? Sounds like crash course.

 

Now that I've taken some time to cool-off, let's address this kafuffle.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. Invoking an anti-PC mindset. Let's tackle that first.

There is nothing that I've said that demands you guys change your tone. I am a major 'Freedom of Speech' advocate. About as extreme as they come when allowing others the right to speak their mind. However, I want these conversations to be as "good" as possible. To be maximally productive for all parties involved. I won't stop you from speaking your mind, but I will encourage you to say one thing over another depending on the goals of our discussion.
If our goal is to exchange opinions+facts, while converging on good ideas together? Then we need to prioritize an open and civil dialogue, to facilitate this. Insults do precisely the opposite, which is why I've tried to step in.

It seems like, 'Trying to prevent others from decreasing the productivity of discussions' is mistaken for "white-knighting" as soon as the basic principle of, 'Let's strive for the best' is applied to 'having tough conversations'. I.e. How do we have maximally productive discourse, where we learn the most? Allowing as many people to change their mind as we can? *This* is what I care about, and I submit that you guys should as well. We need everyone to keep an open-mind, never to be afraid of sharing controversial opinions, and to have an enjoyable experience so they keep coming back for more.

The real problem in society is that people don't like to be disagreed with. They often see it as antagonistic, or as an attack on them personally, rather than on the ideas they hold. No wonder as to why, honestly. One look at the way this conversation has progressed, is enough to understand why the general public have this mentality. People don't like being called (directly or indirectly) idiots or morons (the same goes for their ideas). If this is the sort of response they get when airing their views, they're just not likely to air them again in the future. It's simple psychology. [Stimulus --> Negative Reinforcement --> Decline in observed behaviour]. If we are to stop others from stubbornly sticking their heads in the sand, we need to ensure that people can disagree amicably. Stopping people from insulting one another isn't done so primarily because we should 'play nice'. It's done so because it's the best way to get the most out of conversations.

It was also eluded to that I'm a hypocrite, because I said: "Cool, you're offended. So what?".

This is a fair point. Someone was offended at what I'd said, and I didn't see (at the time) how this was a problem.

Thank goodness I've changed my mind since then. I was wrong to say that. I retract my statements. I should have been more considerate. But not for the reasons that are being attributed to me.

No, it's not because I want to live in a world where no-one gets offended. Where it's constantly pink-fluffy-happy-fun-times. I actually want to live in a world where we find out who's wrong, who's right, as quickly as possible. The minute I start insulting or offending my opponent? The less likely they are to change their mind, listen+engage with what I have to say. We should be considerate, as to foster the best conversations possible. Heck, if it means that there's an increase in good-will towards one another? That's a cool side-effect too.

Lastly, I'd like to suggest a lil' thought experiment. Which do you think is more likely to change the mind of people that disagree with the position that I've just described and defended? The kind of post that I've just submitted? Or one more like...

"lol are you guys stupid? Do you not understand the importance of maintaining a civil dialogue? Have you not even bothered to google basic fundamental psychology? Ever heard of Free-Will, why we don't have it, and why you should know better as to act so childish towards people you disagree with? Srsly, what's your IQ? What you guys are doing? It's not welcome here. Maybe you'd not say things that are so demonstrably false if you took the time to research your claims."?

 

That has nothing to do with how valid his opinions are.

 

Naturally, I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread before posting, so if I make an argument that has already been addressed, my apologies.

I don't disagree with parts of it. I quite agree with your argument. (I'm only bringing this one up so that I don't appear to be dodging the question)

This is because I believe that science, because it is conducted by fallible humans, is fallible. However, I am also fallible, and so is my perception of the Bible. I do not believe in evolution because I believe it is in contradiction with the Bible. But it is very possible that evolution is a fact, and I am misunderstanding how it fits in to the Bible. There are many Christians who do believe in evolution.

I agree with you %100 percent. I'm not going to get into my specific evidence for God, as there is much of that available (I particularly recommend C.S. Lewis), and because that is not the point of this thread.

Your logic is solid here, but I believe your understanding to be flawed. We do not go to Hell for our crimes, but because we cut ourselves from God. That is why both your average, decent atheist and Pol Pot will both suffer the same punishment. Pol Pot is not in Hell because he murdered millions, he's there because he cut himself from God. This is also why even Hitler could go to heaven. Because heaven is not based on how few sins you committed, but on whether or not you cut yourself from God (This is not to say that I believe Hitler is in heaven, I am merely stating it as a possibility). This is of course incredibly simplified, but it covers the basic argument, and I don't want to write a five page essay on this one issue.
As to your second question: Yes, God is incapable of immorality. Many of the things he does may seem awful from our perspective, but we can often see the truth if we look at the larger perspective. Tell me this, why is it wrong for us to kill people? I would say that it's because we have no authority to take another human life. God does have that authority, as God gave every human life. If God does not have authority to take a human life when he sees fit, then every time someone dies, God has committed a crime. But if God does have authority to take a human life, how is taking the lives of a large group of people in one location different than the roughly 153,000 lives he takes every day?
I admit that my understanding is limited, and this is part of the Bible that is not (to my knowledge) completely laid out for us. Thus, much of this is merely my "best guesses", if you will.

I believe the "power of prayer" is not to change God, but to change us. God's mind has been made up long in advance, but prayer serves to remind of His glory and power, as well as to give us peace.

I believe that God is just, I do not believe that everything that goes on down here is fair and righteous. Remember that if God wanted, he could make all of our problems go away tomorrow. But I then ask you, what would any of this be worth? Without free will, why even bother to exist? Life would be nothing more than watching a movie, or perhaps playing a video game. Besides that, this life is not why we're here. We were created to exist in harmony with God, and we can't very well do that from here, can we? This life is merely to prepare us for the next. As to the question of whether God is merciful, I do believe that He is merciful, for if He were not, we would all be damned. For we have all chosen to cut ourselves from God. (I realize that this goes back somewhat on my answer to question 4, but I really don't want to get into predestination right now. Much of this, as we would expect, is very complicated.) As to how God can be both just and merciful, I would say it's a matter of definition of justice. God is just in sending people to Hell, and he commits no wrong action. But he does not deal with all of us justly, for which I am greatly relieved.

God can show himself to us, but what would it be worth? This life serves in part to test our faith, but it wouldn't be a very good test if we had constant reminding.

I talk to God in prayer all the time. While He has never spoken to me audibly, He speaks to me in other ways. Let me ask you, why would God just speak everything He needed me to know audibly? When you go to a therapist, he doesn't just tell you what your problem is and what you need to do better. He leads you to make the conclusion yourself. Now imagine how much more so God can do that, being of infinite means and creativity. He did speak audibly to Jonah, and we know how well that went. As to your second question, I don't doubt that there are people who have seen God, but it isn't for me to judge which ones have, and which ones have some mental issues happening.

I may well only believe in God because I was raised to, but does that make me wrong? One such as yourself should know that is an Ad Hominem argument.

This is the most incredible part of Christianity! We were damned! He came to save us. We were born sick, but the pain of eternal torture was not our punishment for being sick, it was the symptom! He came to give us the cure, to take our sickness on himself. Hell is not somewhere God send people he doesn't like. It's where we are all going anyway. It's the disease we're all born with. And He CHOSE to save us from it. He wasn't tortured to death merely to send a message, but to save us. If Jesus had never come to earth, God could appear in person and give you the same message Jesus gave, but all you could do would be to weep at your condition. For without Him, we are all damned.


Much of what I have said relies on predestination, which is a Christian doctrine that is difficult to understand for many Christians. Thus, for me to try and explain it to someone who is not already a Christian would be a very tedious and wordy undertaking. That being said, if it becomes necessary during the discussions that will follow this post to write a post explaining predestination, I will do so to the best of my abilities.

 

ok, this is kind off dumb. If god won't punish hitler, because he believed in god, but would punish athiests, who could be great amazing people who help the poor not because of religion, but because of a sense of duty, is incredibly dumb, and as i've stated in other threads, a god who does this isn't a god i wanna be partying with in heaven, thanks.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 6, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 6, 2016 ---

why though? why not be like, "everyone x=bawx hueg partay in heavan!" not "ok, now go to this far off planet, and believe in me, but don't worry, i won't give any proof to you that i exist, and will make people do terrible things in my name, but ya know, beleive in me and no matter how crappy your life is on earth, just think GAWD and everything will be A-ok, then you get my x-bawx hueg partay in heaven, but if you don't believe in me, you're super screwed, (lol cats) because ill put you in hell, a place that will eternally torment you and torture you foreva because you didn't beleive me. HA."

 

Did you read my OP? This is addressed there multiple times.

You assume that people are naturally good, which is false. We are all evil and worthy of Hell. Hitler is worthy of Hell. Ghandi is worthy of Hell. You and I are both worthy of Hell. Not because of what they did, but because they were separate from God. Christianity is not about actions at all, and actions so often serve to confuse us.
This is stepping even further into predestination. I guess I might as well just start writing out my explanation of it in Microsoft Word.

 

An ad hominem is when you use insults to attack a person, if I'm not mistaken, instead of addressing their arguments.

 

I did not want to provide my proof for God's existence because that is not what this thread is about. If you want to give your proof take it to n00bslayer's thread.

You seriously ask "Who is God to judge whether or not we are worthy?" He's God. He created us. All authority is his.

As for Jonah's mental stability, sure, it's possible that he was wonky in the head. But my arguments are already assuming the Bible to be true, which assumes that Jonah did hear the legitimate word of God. Again, we're not here to prove the Bible, but to refute these few arguments given by the Debatheist. But let me put you for a second in Jonah's shoes.
You have been sent to prophesy doom to a people you HATE.
You try to avoid this and thus spend three days in the belly of a fish. If you think it was pleasant in there, you would be mistaken.
You go to prophesy doom to these people you hate, and sit back and watch for their destruction. Which, you have no doubt been looking forward to.
They repent, and are spared.
Now I don't know about you, but I would be more than a little angry at God at this point too. He didn't flip his lid because of the plant, he flipped his lid because of all the frustration he had endured. The plant was the straw that broke the camels back.

Correct.

 

I personally am a Scientific Christan of my faith if that is real, meaning that, yea something big and alive shaped humanity, but the bible is just written by someone who wanted to scare children and teach morals. There is no proof of a god, but there is proof of a something, that helped, and we believed it to be god. Many cases show that these large events actually happened, like Noah's flood. In Aboriginal folklore, a story of a large flood shows at the same time.

I'm not saying that aliens are our gods and that they're real, but saying, there are some things that we couldn't have done, like say the four thousand year old battiries discovered in Babylon (I think) and diagrams of transformers and cables. I personally think the Egyptians had something going, maybe creatures came down and helped humanity, and we just called them out ppt gods because what else could eh be?

The Truth Is Out There.





[Im not a conspiracy nut, but I do enjoy conspiracy documentaries]

 

@kcschmidt -- Firstly, I only pointed out that carbon dating is rather unreliable when dealing with objects.

Not necessarily. We have handfuls of ways to date things, as suggested earlier.

• Amino acid dating
• Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates
• Argon–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
• Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
• Lead Corrosion Dating.
• Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
• Optically stimulated luminescence dating for archaeological applications
• Potassium–argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
• Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials (Maximum 50,000 to 60,000 years old)
• Rehydroxylation dating - for dating ceramic materials
• Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics

Sorry for the lack of explanation of species. It would seem I used the wrong word, resulting in confusion. I must first state that I firmly believe in natural selection to a degree. I do not believe gradual species change resulted in a change of Class, Phylum, or Kingdom to which the organism would belong to. Finches, robins, eagles, etc. all, most likely, had a common ancestor. The idea of the immutability of species is absurd, as we do see this micro evolution today. It is the changes in Class and/or Kingdom that is so debated, if done by educated individuals, anyways. Thus, I concur the species development chart from your first reply to my arguements.

Can you cite this "debate" amongst the scientific community please? I've yet to see anyone debate this [in]side the scientific community.

Estimates put the number of scientists that accept Evolution over those that reject it at over 200:1. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends

As listed earlier, just because something seems unlikely to you, doesn't mean that it's untrue. -- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

In addition, I see the misinterpretation of mentioning Ribonuclease. The Theory of Evolution requires there to be some kind of abiogenesis, though, making it relevant to this discussion.

I don't think this is the only possibility. Could you please explain/demonstrate why you believe this to be so? What if Aliens deposited single-celled organisms on our planet billions of years ago? Any notions of alternative explanations must be impossible if you are to claim that Abiogenesis *must* precede Evolution.

After all, we can compare data of the evolutionary process for hours on end, but it is where life starts that our beliefs differ the most.

I don't think so. By all means, prove me wrong -- but the word "compare" implies that you have comparable levels of evidence against Evolution. In either quality or quantity. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Thus, I would like to hear your opinion on how life began, because there are so many theories and hypotheses about such a topic.

It's a different issue. There are infinitely many hypotheses as to how life began. The current scientifically accepted one seems to be Abiogenesis. Failing that, I wouldn't know. As a precautionary measure against any focus around this 'point', I'd just like to restate that scientific ignorance isn't an excuse for believing in whatever seems most reasonable. In science, we believe when the evidence is sufficient to justify belief.

In a reply to another member's post, you bring up a certain moral point. I can perfectly see the case. However, if you are truly alone, and there is nothing after death, what is the point of anything? If this were the case, life's only purpose would be pleasure, which certainly does not last for long. In the words of General George S. Patton Jr., "It is better to live for something, rather than die for nothing."

And as I've said in a different post -- The universe owes us nothing. It doesn't owe us a happy ending, a purpose, or a 'point' to life. A 'failure' to have any of these 'nice' things, does nothing to demonstrate that a god proposition is true. Only, that some people would like it to be true. This is why I've been pressing for answers to 2 questions quite hard on multiple occasions. [1] Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true? -- [2] Why do you believe in a god?

 

what? what the hell are you doing? my post is months old i think

Stop.

 

S̶o̶?̶ I'm replying to your post.

By all means, if you don't want me (or others) to reply to old posts, feel free to delete them. If you don't want people to reply, the onus is on you to manage your posts. The minute you put your opinion out there for everyone to see? So long as I meet the T+C's of the site, I have every right to reply and in this instance, will do so.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 7, 2016 ---

@j32400 -- This is because I believe that science, because it is conducted by fallible humans, is fallible. However, I am also fallible, and so is my perception of the Bible. I do not believe in evolution because I believe it is in contradiction with the Bible. But it is very possible that evolution is a fact, and I am misunderstanding how it fits in to the Bible. There are many Christians who do believe in evolution.

Having said this, I assume you believe in an Earth that's 6,000-10,000 years old? I find it disconcerting that you discredit science in this instance, yet you believe it is a credible source for truth in every other aspect of your life. This is what is so frustrating to me. You're picking and choosing the bits of science that you like, based on it's convenience to your worldview. Science isn't supposed to work that way.

Question. The next time you get injured or sick, Will you pray? Or will you take medication? Why/Why not?

I agree with you %100 percent. I'm not going to get into my specific evidence for God, as there is much of that available (I particularly recommend C.S. Lewis), and because that is not the point of this thread.

I'd love to see some (evidence), honestly. Fwiw, C.S. Lewis was an author. He practiced Christian apologetics, but never cited evidence in favour of a god. Merely arguments.

Your logic is solid here, but I believe your understanding to be flawed. We do not go to Hell for our crimes, but because we cut ourselves from God. That is why both your average, decent atheist and Pol Pot will both suffer the same punishment. Pol Pot is not in Hell because he murdered millions, he's there because he cut himself from God. This is also why even Hitler could go to heaven. Because heaven is not based on how few sins you committed, but on whether or not you cut yourself from God (This is not to say that I believe Hitler is in heaven, I am merely stating it as a possibility). This is of course incredibly simplified, but it covers the basic argument, and I don't want to write a five page essay on this one issue.
As to your second question: Yes, God is incapable of immorality. Many of the things he does may seem awful from our perspective, but we can often see the truth if we look at the larger perspective. Tell me this, why is it wrong for us to kill people? I would say that it's because we have no authority to take another human life. God does have that authority, as God gave every human life. If God does not have authority to take a human life when he sees fit, then every time someone dies, God has committed a crime. But if God does have authority to take a human life, how is taking the lives of a large group of people in one location different than the roughly 153,000 lives he takes every day?
I admit that my understanding is limited, and this is part of the Bible that is not (to my knowledge) completely laid out for us. Thus, much of this is merely my "best guesses", if you will.

Probably the scariest part of your post, in my eyes. Let's take stock and clarify what you've said.

1) You believe that we deserve the most excruciating torture for not praising/'believing in' your creator.

This has rather sinister undertones. Would you torture your children if they didn't believe in you? If they didn't praise you?

2) You believe God sends people to the most excruciating place of torture and misery, for thought-crimes, and that this is perfectly moral.

From your description, he sounds like the most oppressive and totalitarian being that has ever existed.

3) You believe the most philanthropic humans deserve hellfire + Genocidal maniacs deserve eternal bliss. If they think the 'right'/'wrong' things about a god.

One has to worry how you treat your fellow human-beings, if you genuinely believe this. By that logic, you would have more contempt for me, than Hitler (As Hitler seemed to be Christian) or a serial-rapist/murderer that happened to be Christian.

4) There's some rigging here, before the game has even begun. RE: The preconception that God is perfect.

With this, you prevent yourself from being reasoned with as you would be in every other topic of discourse. You absolve yourself from truly evaluating and thinking critically about your religion. Is it right to commit genocide? Infanticide? To own slaves? To oppress women, apostates, and gays? Well, in your opinion, of course it is. God is perfect. God commands X. Therefore X is perfect, right? If anything should cause you concern, it should be *this* mentality. Because radical-Muslims are claiming exactly the same thing. Beheading Christians? Burning apostates alive? Mass genocide of innocent civilians? Well, Allah is perfect. Allah commands these things. Therefore these things are perfect. Your mentality is a slightly watered down version from that of a radical Muslim. This is exactly why I espoused my deep concerns with this section of your post.

5) You seem to believe that it is always wrong to kill other humans (absent divine command), because we lack an authority from a higher power to do so.

If I saw a member of ISIS holding hundreds of people hostage, threatening to cut their heads off? I wouldn't think twice. More specifically, I wouldn't wait for a command from a god. "Right" and "Wrong" come from an assessment of our actions. The consequences they have, is what dictates how we act, what we consider "good" or "bad".

6) Likewise, you seem to believe that if you have orders from your god, they must be moral. With that in mind, they should be carried out. No matter how heinous, barbaric or violent they may seem.

All it would take is for you to hallucinate/dream/imagine that your god wants you to take another human life, and then you'd do it. Or at least, you'll consider it moral to do. This has to be the most consequential and troubling beliefs in Christianity, and it's exactly why I oppose putting any moderate to extreme Christian in the White House. All it would take, is a belief that your god is speaking to you, to carry out the most horrendous and despicable actions. Under your morality, if Hitler had been commanded by god to gas the Jews, then it would be moral. Is that correct? If you believe that he (God) ordered you to kill your family tomorrow, would you do it? Would you obey the 'perfect' word of god?

7) You describe your understanding of the Bible as "limited". Yet you espouse some of the most consequential (and if I do say so, gruesome) beliefs about the world that I've ever seen.

Swap "God" for "Allah" and I think you'd sound just like a radical extremist Muslim.

I believe the "power of prayer" is not to change God, but to change us. God's mind has been made up long in advance, but prayer serves to remind of His glory and power, as well as to give us peace.

The "power of prayer" seems just like "prayer".

I believe that God is just, I do not believe that everything that goes on down here is fair and righteous. Remember that if God wanted, he could make all of our problems go away tomorrow. But I then ask you, what would any of this be worth? Without free will, why even bother to exist? Life would be nothing more than watching a movie, or perhaps playing a video game.

Have you ever watched a movie, or played a video game? Sounds awesome to me. The enjoyment of a holiday exists independent of whether or not it ends. A meal at a restaurant still tastes just as sweet, even if there was only 1 thing on the menu.

Besides that, this life is not why we're here. We were created to exist in harmony with God, and we can't very well do that from here, can we? This life is merely to prepare us for the next.

If the believe in god is all you need to get to Heaven, and this life merely exists to prepare us for the next...

Why do you wear a seatbelt? Why do you look both ways when crossing the road? Why are you a self-preservationalist?

God can show himself to us, but what would it be worth? This life serves in part to test our faith, but it wouldn't be a very good test if we had constant reminding.

Then why did Paul get evidence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Can you also give me an example of something you *cannot* justify by appealing to faith? If faith can be used to justify any position, what does that say about the credibility of faith?

That seems like plenty for now. I believe I have an iron-clad proof against the notion of Free-will, but we can leave that for next time. I look forward to hearing responses.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016 ---

Truly scary. It gets even worse though, as Hitler was a Christian. Hitler to Heaven, Ghandi to Hell. Damn.

I believe this is a good explanation as to why the Abrahamic religions are the most violent and intolerant. Actions typically matter in other religions -- peace is genuinely promoted as a good path to a better afterlife. Whereas, in Christianity for instance, violence in any measure is justified. So long as one believes it complies with God's will.

Problem is, one of these is a much better tool at spreading religion than the other. Historically speaking, the religion that promotes peace will 'lose' to a side that cares not for one's own actions. Resulting in the peaceful tribe being slaughtered by the latter. Hence, why Abrahamic religions are so popular to this day.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 7, 2016 ---

You have evidence of Noah's flood? You'd probably get a Nobel Prize if you were to demonstrate this, you know? Let's see it!

Can you also give me the "proof of something"? Genuinely interested to see what you've got.

I'm not saying that aliens are our gods and that they're real, but saying, there are some things that we couldn't have done, like say the four thousand year old battiries discovered in Babylon (I think) and diagrams of transformers and cables.

Could you link me?

I personally think the Egyptians had something going, maybe creatures came down and helped humanity, and we just called them out ppt gods because what else could eh be?

Without trying to sound brash, this is a minor flaw in thinking. Not to say that you're stupid or even being stupid. Absolutely not. Just that it's not a perfectly rationale trail of thought.

If we don't know something, then the only answer we can give is, "We don't know, let's keep looking for the answer". While it might seem intuitive, believing in the most reasonable explanation can actually lead to some dangerous behaviour.

For example, we used to sacrifice sentient creatures to Thor, to stop him from throwing lightning down at us. That seemed incredibly reasonable at the time, and much life was lost just because we wern't comfortable in our own collective ignorance.

If we don't know, we don't know. We keep looking, and cautiously wait to believe in things until we have sufficient evidence to believe in them. Otherwise, we can end up making some mistakes that could've been easily prevented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

Ignore the lighting up gif
I'll explain the rest after school but here's the battery



And the diagrams

 

I am not saying that all the bits of science that don't appear to be compatible with my worldview are wrong, and all the bits that are compatible are right. I am saying that it may well all be wrong, but I have special reason to believe the bits that conflict with my worldview are wrong.

I would do both. If I only get to chose one, I'll have the medicine. Prayer and medicine serve two completely different purposes. That's like asking someone if they want an encyclopedia or a pencil to write an essay with. I'd really like to have both, but if I only get one I'll take the pencil.

1) It's a bit more complicated then not believing. When we were created, we were made to live in perfect harmony with God. As you know, that didn't happen. We chose to cut ourselves from God. Now, what is Hell? If Heaven is everything good and perfect and the presence of God, Hell is the absence of everything good and perfect; but more importantly the absence of God. Now, when we chose not to be with God, we chose Hell. You say God causes us to go to Hell, but when you watch a ball roll off a table and don't catch it, did you cause it to fall, or merely allow it?

2) See my answer to question 1.

3) Going back to what I said in answer 1, the most moral non-Christian you can think of is still a ball rolling off a table. It has nothing to do with morals, only with God's choice to save us. Hitler, Ghandi, and Stalin all rolled off the table, and God caught Hitler.*

4) When does God command us to own slaves, oppress women, or kill people? I do not think God would ever do such a thing, as that would be immoral. If you are thinking of the slaves so often referred to in the new testament, remember that those slaves chose slavery. Often, they were in such great debt to a person, they sold themselves as slaves to support their families. Often, they just did it because you got free food and housing. It in no way resembled the slavery of Africans practiced in America and many European countries. As to God commanding us to kill people, I expect you will bring up a reference from the old testament when God was leading the Israelites through the promised land. You must keep in mind that God was playing a VERY different role for them than he plays for us. Then, he was acting as a general and king. Now, he is more of a father.

5) You're right, I over-generalized. There are times, such as your example, when the right thing to do is to kill a person. Just as there are times when the right thing to do is steal, or lie, or what ever else you can think of. I would say that it is only right to defy our order not to kill anyone if someone else is defying their's. When I say "order" I don't strictly mean command of God, but anything that would prevent us from killing people. Our conscience, the law, whatever you may have.

6) Correct. If I have orders from my God, they must be moral. Thus, if I receive an order that is not moral (to kill innocent people, for example) I will know that order is not from my God. You may ask, "How will you know if it's an immoral order?" I will know by what the Bible has to say on the issue. If "God" tell me to kill my neighbor, but the Bible tells me not to kill, I will know that it was not God telling me to kill my neighbor, but rather a bit of indigestion.

7) Of course. But am I to not even talk about the most consequential issues because my understanding is not complete? For then no one could ever speak of them. We have to work as best we can with what we've got.

I have watched movies and played video games. I have quite enjoyed it, as well. And if that's how this life is, then I shall enjoy it no less. But from God's perspective - God created us to serve and worship Him. If we are all just robots what is the point of it. We have no ability to chose to worship him, so we might as well not worship him at all.

Because I don't want to die. I have a purpose here to serve. My mother and father need me. My brother needs me. and I don't know what I will do in the future to make the world a better place, but I'm pretty sure I won't do anything if I'm dead.

I don't know why Paul got to see God and we don't.

Yes, I can't justify killing innocent people. I can't justify rape. I can't justify slavery (as was practiced in America and parts of Europe in the 1800's). I cannot justify those things because the Bible tells my they are wrong.

I would love you to post this as a thread, as I have spent much time wrestling with how it could be possible for us to have free will. I look forward to that very much.

* I agree. Damn.

You're right. I over-generalized and thus misspoke. All actions are not justifiable, and God will not deal lightly with those who use his name as an excuse to commit crimes. What I meant to say, was that our SALVATION is not dependent on our actions.

*This is one of, if not the hardest part of the Christian faith for most people. Why would got catch Hitler and let Ghandi fall? I don't know. No one knows, as the Bible doesn't tell us how God decides. I would give anything to know that, and it has cost me many hours of sleep. But at the end of the day, all I can do is be thankful that he caught me, and pray that he'll catch those around me. (Again, I don't pray so that it will change God's mind, but that it will change my frame of mind.)
As you can see, we're getting into predestination here. We don't choose God, God chooses us. We are all blind and unable to save ourselves. We are all just marbles rolling of a table. This is perhaps also the part that turns the most people away. "How can a just God catch Hitler and let Ghandi fall?" I wish I knew.

 

How do you make predestination and free will compatible?