|
Post by Qwerty on May 31, 2011 21:07:15 GMT
Okay, so you follow Christianity because it resolves your sins for you instead of making you solve them yourselves. Now for the next: Why is Christianity more true that other, older, more popular religions? Why is Jesus a prophet but Mohammad not? Or that one guy in South America whose name escapes me?
|
|
|
Post by izacque on May 31, 2011 21:20:53 GMT
I'm just gonna have to point back to everything that's just been said.
Furthur, I ask how does one "solve [sins] yourselves"? How in the world do you think a human can solve his/her sin?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 31, 2011 22:05:57 GMT
Allow me to quote you here.
So, having to actually do something good to avoid rotting in hell is a bad thing? How is that fair?
Fairness aside, this question is about truth, not preference. Why is Jesus right but Mohammad wrong?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on May 31, 2011 22:37:42 GMT
It's more like community service. And my question still stands about how Jesus 'paying our debt' for us is truly just.
|
|
|
Post by Rock on Jun 1, 2011 2:18:28 GMT
Would you like be crucified and then re-ask that question, GGoodie? His death on the cross symbolized the death of our sins, so we were all forgiven for the sins of our ancestors, but if they sinned again, they would have to ask for forgiveness. It's why people don't go around sacrificing farm animals anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 1, 2011 3:05:03 GMT
That's great and everything, but all you've (plural form) acknowledged so far is why Christianity is fair, or pleasing, or whatever. You haven't answered the simple question of why that makes it true.
What, exactly, does Jesus Christ have that Rex Farrye does not?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 1, 2011 3:18:42 GMT
Would you like be crucified and then re-ask that question, GGoodie? His death on the cross symbolized the death of our sins, so we were all forgiven for the sins of our ancestors, but if they sinned again, they would have to ask for forgiveness. It's why people don't go around sacrificing farm animals anymore. That doesn't make it just. All you said was his sacrifice did what he wanted. And I don't see why you have to involve me personally...
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 1, 2011 14:38:05 GMT
oh, poo. This isn't a formal debate in that we must say, "the gentleman who asked the question regarding..." I think we're mature enough to not take offense just because our name is in a post directed at us.
Well qwerty, There's not way to prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt if there is a God that Christianity is the religion he endorses. However, Christianity is both unique and fair. That seems to me to be the fingerprint of a God-endorsed religion.
Finally, in yet another explanation of why the Christian model is fair: Remember, the thing being forgiven is sin against God. not sin against man. Sin against man can be punished. God's all for that. Sin against God is death. no way around it. And not just physical death. All manner of ain and separations and loneliness, hell in short. Well, God gave his son to take that punishment for us. so, if we accept it, then our account with god is settled, justice is served. However, that's not a free ride on earth. You get the fairness yet?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 2, 2011 4:36:17 GMT
Sure, it's the fingerprint of a Christian-God-endorsed religion. Naturally. The old testament, however, would beg to differ.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 2, 2011 15:00:34 GMT
Then perhaps we should be debating the true nature of God, or better yet, whether or not he exists?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 2, 2011 20:37:14 GMT
Sacrificing someone else so that you won't be punished for your actions isn't justice, its cowardice. A god who offers free will but places restrictions consequencing in eternal torture on it isn't fair, he's malicious. A religion that centers around the Abrahamic God isn't unique, it's one of many.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 3, 2011 23:43:53 GMT
is oil a meaniepants because it refuses to mix with water? nope. God can't mix with sin. that's just how it works. Where's the one place sin isn't? Hell. But God doesn't like that. He likes his people. He wants his people near him. Maybe it's not fair. Maybe he loves us so much that he's willing to bend the rules of justice just to be with us. But he won't force us. That's not his style at all. So he made it mega-easy to be with him.
With that said, Are their other religions which have gods so loving that they kill their own son just to chill with us? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 4, 2011 0:36:30 GMT
It wasn't his own son, it was himself, and he was never actually threatened with any harm, he's immortal. A sacrifice is meaningless if there are no consequences for the person doing the sacrificing.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 4, 2011 23:09:54 GMT
Also, how is hell "the one place where sin isn't"? Isn't it where the sinners go, where the sin goes?
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 5, 2011 5:46:59 GMT
GG, that is a good point. I can't answer it without defaulting to the cliche "mysterious ways" shit. All I know is God said it counts. And if I only look at Christianity, then I'll call pascal's wager.
Qwerty, that was a really huge mistake. I meant to say God wasn't in hell. "But God is everywhere" "Everywhere physically. Hell doesn't count."
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 5, 2011 6:59:22 GMT
Pascal's Wager is a waste of time and everyone knows it. A fallacy that is only treated as true cause someone famous said it. I refuse to believe something on the basis that if it's true I'll be punished otherwise. Besides, it also applies to Birchian Mythology. Never heard of it? That's cause I just made it up. It's an exact clone of Christianity except God is spelled Gof and Jesus was a woman. If you don't believe in it and it is true, you lose everything (only pizza huts in Birchian hell), but if you do believe in it and it isn't, you lose nothing.
It's why I like Greek mythology. It didn't need to threaten eternal suffering just to convince people to believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 5, 2011 15:22:28 GMT
Greek mythology was nice in that normal people were neither punished nor rewarded and good people could make it to the good place (can't remember the name) and even the isles of the blest without believing. However, the gods were douches and the whole thing is just completely debunked.
Anyway, Pascal's Wager fails for many reasons, but here are the main two: 1. Fear of possible consequences have no real weight on what is actually true. Also, God would almost certainly understand that you don't really believe and that you are just trying to save your own skin. 2. Because there are infinitely many possible religions (all that have been thought up in the past and all that may be thought up in the future) all with contradictory beliefs and many that punish actions that others mandate. One religion might tell me to pray to Jehovah while another tells me that doing so is evil. There is also the possibility that we are in a deep sleep and can only awake by realizing it. There is no way to play it safe with all these infinite possibilities. Even with just the religions that are currently widespread you can't appease all of them.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 5, 2011 19:10:24 GMT
I wish to point out that I inserted the clause, "And if I only look at Christianity" meaning that I am ignoring the other infinite possibilities. Also, Pascal's Wager never attempts to find the probability, but rather the sense of choosing one thing over another. Pascal's wager is nothing like, say, the monty hall problem. Pascal's wager by itself is useless, but if you only look at one religion, that's there the sense lies.
I was using it to say that God says what Jesus did is good enough. If God's right, great. If he's wrong, oh well, I'm just in the same boat as atheists. I'm not using pascal's wager to say if there is a God, or if he really said Jesus's sacrifice was valid, or if Jesus ever sacrificed anything. You have to look at what I'm saying and not just focus on buzz words like "Pascal's Wager."
My attempt to use the nature of Christianity to say that it is more valid than other religions has failed. I'm gonna have to approach the question differently next time.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 5, 2011 23:57:50 GMT
The sense of choosing? There is no choice. You don't choose to believe or not believe, you just do. You can fake belief/nonbelief all you want, and transitions are possible, but it isn't exactly a choice. I can't choose to believe in God any more than I can choose to believe in unicorns or Santa.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 6, 2011 1:12:18 GMT
Iza, what I'm saying is that by choosing Christianity you are going to hell if Islam is correct. Therefor you need to have some reason to choose one over the other. Nothing you have said has been able to determine what one is actually more likely to be true.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 22, 2011 20:16:47 GMT
that made no sense...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 23, 2011 2:59:39 GMT
The thing with alltheism is that it's a bit of a cheap way out. Religions are very often completely contradictory. I never heard mention of God when I was reading about the Greek origin of the world, or a few Native American ones.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 24, 2011 19:03:55 GMT
And I'm saying that they can all be partly true, and you're not going to hell for choosing the wrong religion. This is false, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 24, 2011 19:40:24 GMT
Sure, but what if someone doesn't have any religion? If he's the God of the old testament I would never worship him even if I knew he exists, and if he's the God of the new testament I don't see why he would send all atheists to hell even though that's what the bible seems to indicate.
Well, actually, the bible contradicts itself a few times on that point. Says atheists will go to hell, then that they may not, then that they definitely will, then that it has no bearing on the matter, etc. The fact is, atheists lack belief without evidence (aka 'faith'), therefore if that's what matters God has a seriously messed-up set of priorities.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 24, 2011 20:33:00 GMT
I watched a video by TheraminTrees recently and I will repeat one of his points:
There are theoretically infinite possible religions and infinite possible consequences for choosing the wrong one. It truly is a game of sheer chance at choosing the correct one. Therefor, you can think of my atheism as a refusal to play this impossible game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 22:02:11 GMT
Well, humans just happen to be living in a one-in-a-million-or-more miracle...
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 24, 2011 23:46:18 GMT
Sure, but what if someone doesn't have any religion? If he's the God of the old testament I would never worship him even if I knew he exists, and if he's the God of the new testament I don't see why he would send all atheists to hell even though that's what the bible seems to indicate. Well, actually, the bible contradicts itself a few times on that point. Says atheists will go to hell, then that they may not, then that they definitely will, then that it has no bearing on the matter, etc. The fact is, atheists lack belief without evidence (aka 'faith'), therefore if that's what matters God has a seriously messed-up set of priorities. Specific examples, pwease? and as for "messed-up priorities", I have to lol. I can understand you not believing in God, but when you presume that your idea of good priorities is the set that a hypothetical being that exists outside space-time and created a big ol' universe would agree with you... That's just lol. I hope you can see how. I watched a video by TheraminTrees recently and I will repeat one of his points: There are theoretically infinite possible religions and infinite possible consequences for choosing the wrong one. It truly is a game of sheer chance at choosing the correct one. Therefor, you can think of my atheism as a refusal to play this impossible game. See the problem is, you could still lose even if you refuse to play
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 25, 2011 0:22:29 GMT
My idea of good priorities is "People that are good are rewarded" comes before "people that believe without evidence are rewarded". Seems pretty decent to me. Just like The Game? As for examples, see only en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AzureFury/List_Of_Anti-Atheist_Bible_Quotes#Hurt_non-believers (wikipedia, I know, but a good list of references) and Romans 6:23, and although I've lost track of the quote that says that atheists can in fact go to Heaven I do believe Jesus said that at some point... Hang on, need to find the page numbers. Don't say something stupid like "typical atheists, they never find any evidence" either. I know you're going to anyway. EDIT: Sorry about that, lemme get more organized Joh 14:6 is the one saying that one thingy. Matthew 7:21 is another good reference. Unfortunately it seems that when I was told that it means atheists can in fact get into heaven, it was a misquote.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 25, 2011 19:24:18 GMT
One-in-a-million miracle, eh? Good thing there's billions of planets out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2011 1:25:23 GMT
Yep. I love how people always say there's no scientific proof of god existing.
|
|
|