Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Yeah, no, I don't spend much time on conspiracy theories.

 

Except that's all scholarly supported there.

What was that about lack of education and knowledge of the Scriptures, again?

 

Right, cuz all the smart people are agnostics.

Lol.

 

True. But it does demand money (tithing/donations), time (prayer and church), effort (spending time understanding one's beliefs) and faith. And for what? A belief for which there is next to no evidence of veracity? Something that we can't show to be right, but which is somehow coupled to things we know are wrong?

The truth? Your time? See, this line of argumentation bugs the crap out of me, because now, I know that you do not care about the truth. You have no interest in knowing whether or not what you believe is true. And that's a scary place for me, honestly.

I guess so, oh well. If you don't care about the truth, then there's no real point in continuing this debate.

 

You're not addressing the argument.

However, most smart people who are religious tend to be a lot more liberal in their interpretation of their scriptures, with most accepting that most of the book is allegory or metaphor as opposed to literal truth. There's also the matter of people who are what we might term "culturally religious", that is, people who do everything associated with the culture of a religion (go to mass/temple/masjid/gudwara/whatever, for instance) while not actually believing in the spiritual aspects.

For instance, there are atheist Jesuit priests. (note: I don't agree with the author of the piece I linked to, I am simply showing the existence of atheist Catholic priests)

Plus, there's evidence that religious belief has a genetic component[/quote] which is not necessarily tied to a person's intelligence.

So, again: why do you believe your Bible is accurate without citing the book itself as saying it is accurate. That's circular reasoning because it's self-referential, and thus is circular reasoning, due to its self-referential nature.

 

which is not necessarily tied to a person's intelligence.

So, again: why do you believe your Bible is accurate without citing the book itself as saying it is accurate. That's circular reasoning because it's self-referential, and thus is circular reasoning, due to its self-referential nature.[/QUOTE]

^^doesn't make sense.

 

which is not necessarily tied to a person's intelligence.

So, again: why do you believe your Bible is accurate without citing the book itself as saying it is accurate. That's circular reasoning because it's self-referential, and thus is circular reasoning, due to its self-referential nature.[/QUOTE]

You mean like this?

 

Wow, Pascal's Wager being seriously argued.

First off, it makes the basal assumption that belief is a concept that can just be flipped on and off at will. I know that I simply cannot force myself to believe that YHWH exists and Jesus is the son of YHWH, anymore than I can force myself to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Secondly, even if the wager (or your version of it) accepts that belief can't be turned on or off, it assumes that YHWH will reward people for acting disingenuously for the hopes of obtaining a reward and to deflect punishment. This makes YHWH either a moron, apathetic, or a being so enamored with ritual that actual intent is irrelevant. So, if YHWH is one of those three options, why does YHWH deserve worship? Simply because YHWH can dispense horrific punishment does not mean YHWH deserves worship anymore than the Imperial Japanese Army deserved respect because they could force a soldier to go on a death march through Southeast Asia.

Secondly, this same logic applies to Islam and Asatru (the worship of Norse deities); why should I deny myself the pleasures of Allah's heaven or face Hell (which is essentially the same as YHWH's Christian heaven; the main argument is similar to whether all the Dune books written by Frank Herbert's son are canon for the Dune universe)? Why should I deny myself access to Valhalla so I can be a valiant warrior when Ragnarok comes about?

Also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

 

Sorry, I screwed up the link tags. Anyway, what part is not making sense to you?

 

Of course God deserves to be worshiped. Think of every wonderful, beautiful thing you can think of, and recognize that it wouldn't exist except that God made it to please you.

As he made you to please him. And it pleases Him to be worshiped. So we do it...it makes him happy, it makes us happy, and there are benefits to be reaped, in this life and the next.

Incidentally, none of us *deserve* forgiveness for our sins. It is a gift given at some great cost, that we just have to take, and it is the embodiment of God's love for us. The problem with most anti-Christians is they just cannot conceive of beings that freely give love and forgiveness...they are not capable of loving unconditionally, so they are not able to accept unconditional love. They are suspicious of it, and reject it....without God they cannot understand it, and therefore cannot understand him. Before comprehension you have to take that leap..and they are woefully unable to take such a leap, even though it costs them nothing.

It's just another piece that proves the veracity of the bible, and shows how lost we are without God.

 

Would this include malaria, river blindness, HIV, flesh-eating bacteria, the excesses of nature (trees grow tall to compete with other plants for sunlight; there's no reason for them to be taller than bushes; such height shows very strong evidence for evolution), or cancer?

That's narcissism and pride, right there. Why does YHWH need some infinitesimally small portion of its creation to worship it?

Uh, YHWH's the one who created the conditions for Original Sin, regardless of the exact theology one takes for that. If I were to create conditions responsible for another person's death, even if they freely chose to do that action but weren't aware of the final consequences (such as me knowingly selling a death-trap of a car), then I'd be criminally negligent and possibly guilty of manslaughter, depending on jurisdiction. As such, YHWH is the one bearing the burden of guilt for Original Sin.

Additionally, YHWH is also guilty of making sin inherited.

There's also the matter that YHWH could punish us for our sins, but a just punishment would not be infinite in length.

Furthermore: if YHWH really loved us as you said, then the only logical method to resolve everything would be the doctrine of Universalism, wherein Hell is empty.

So, is YHWH vindictive and evil or is Hell empty?

Except I love my son unconditionally and freely and forgive him for his infractions. However, the difference is, despite any failings of his, I wouldn't punish him for eternity for them, especially if it was over something as stupidly minor as believing or not believing in something I told him about and provided no tangible evidence for.

 

So, is Doubting ol' St. Thomas in Hell for disbelieving that Jesus was there until he could inspect the wounds?

That's all I'm asking for; I don't want some old book that has proven inconsistencies and falsehoods in it. I want Jesus standing before me so I can inspect the nail wounds and the spear wound for myself. If he could provide that for Thomas, why not myself?

Not really. If YHWH can't prove itself without someone already believing, then that's not really good evidence. If YHWH wants converts, especially from people who are genetically predisposed to skepticism (which, assumably, would be YHWH's handiwork), then YHWH needs to provide evidence that isn't an old book that purports to be its own evidence.

 

Sorry i cant say that for you, your mind seems welded shut.

 

maybe not; but all of the fundys are at the left side of the bell curve.

 

Yes, well, you aren't the perfectly righteous creator of the universe. Righteousness and judgement cannot coexist with depravity...and there can be no judgement without punishment. Ultimately, God wants us with him. Unless we don't want to be there. For those who choose to reject his gift, there is hell. it's a choice. We are allowed to make it.

 

You're ignoring the point of that: those things cause extreme amounts of suffering in humanity, and according to your ilk, they were created by YHWH. Why would YHWH create such horrific things?

I actually don't particularly care for being the center of attention. Having the adulation of billions of people doesn't really appeal to me. However, you aren't disagreeing that YHWH is narcissistic and prideful. Odd traits for a supposedly omnipotent deity.

So, YHWH dooms people to infinite torture because it won't provide adequate evidence for its existence? How is that not malevolent?

Again, this is a protection racket being run here. YHWH forces us into this position. That is not benevolence. What you're exhibiting resembles Stockholm Syndrome.

Again: it's a protection racket and it punishes those things it created as it did. YHWH, if it were actually just, would condemn itself to Hell, due to how it has created such vast amounts of sin.

 

I never claimed God was benevolent. The bible doesn't make that claim, either. In fact, God is characterized as terrifying, blinding in his purity, jealous, and at times angry.

But always, always perfectly justified and right.

 

Here's why you find it confusing: they don't. People who, by your view, "choose" to go to hell don't choose to go to hell any more than you choose to get mugged on your way home from work. They didn't know that there was eternal (*)(*)(*)(*)ation waiting for them - they couldn't have, because no-one could. They simply got unlucky. They guessed the wrong way home and ended up with the one with the mugger on it. If it turns out the Muslims are right, would it be fair to say that you "chose" to go to the Muslim version of hell? No! This whole argument, that we "chose" is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

Right, so he's a walking contradiction, then?

 

So,YHWH is an angry tyrant. Why do I want to worship a malevolent dictator?

How can you be sure of that? After all,the book you believe says it can be defeated by iron chariots. (Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.")

That, and the book is chock-full of historical, biological, and other scientific errors. And was compiled and edited by a group of Christians who had an agenda to push (like the aforementioned Gnostics) who also took their major theological ideas from Zoroastrianism.

 

Of course, all of this presupposes the existence of YHWH; I have yet to see proof that would lead me to believe YHWH exists. So, why should I take the Bible at face value when I know that it was assembled by a group that had every need to present it as supporting their power structure? Why should I believe in it when I know the Jews acquired a lot of theological matters from Zoroastrianism? And, again, Pascal's wager is not a good reason and using the Bible to support the Bible is not valid.

 

Not so. But you're committed to that belief; run with it.

 

Because of what you said earlier, I'm assuming you're a "non-denominational" Christian, which implies the sola scriptura and sola fide. So, that means if Hitler was a sincere Christian, then he's in Heaven, while Gandhi, a Hindu, is in Hell. That's not really justice.

The enormity of the punishment is also completely disproportionate; why is anything I do worthy of infinite punishment? Similarly, why would my list of petty vices earn me identical punishment as Chiang-Kai Shek's murder of a million people? Again: not justice.

Furthermore: you cannot continually assert YHWH's righteousness without showing examples of actual righteousness.

No provision of any counter-argument. Shocking.

- - - Updated - - -

Because of what you said earlier, I'm assuming you're a "non-denominational" Christian, which implies the sola scriptura and sola fide. So, that means if Hitler was a sincere Christian, then he's in Heaven, while Gandhi, a Hindu, is in Hell. That's not really justice.

The enormity of the punishment is also completely disproportionate; why is anything I do worthy of infinite punishment? Similarly, why would my list of petty vices earn me identical punishment as Chiang-Kai Shek's murder of a million people? Again: not justice.

Furthermore: you cannot continually assert YHWH's righteousness without showing examples of actual righteousness.

No provision of any counter-argument. Shocking.

 

I have not contradicted myself. One doesn't have to have the mind of a genius to know that it is illogical for something to come from nothing...it is just not possible!

I don't have to prove to you or to anyone else for that matter that God exists, anymore than I expect you to prove to me or to anyone else for that matter that God doesn't exist.

 

Of course it's possible. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it hasn't happened or is an impossibility.