According to Christianity

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The topic of morals appear rather irrelevant? Rather than debating absolute definitions of 'good' and 'bad', the two primary tenets of Christianity appear to be as follows - which means the rights to enter heaven's gates require:

1) to believe (John 3:16-21) and (Mark 16:15-16)
2) no blasphemy (Mark 3:28-30)

Topic 1) seems to suggest coercion or an ultimatum. Meaning, believe in this specific proposition or otherwise/instead burn forever. (i.e.) paying taxes to the IRS or else (or) being held at gunpoint for your possessions - give the wallet or else. You are presented with an A or B choice. This is not free will, by definition. Making one specific presented choice, or otherwise suffering an unwanted fate, is coercive. Furthermore, belief is not a choice. Otherwise, tell yourself you believe you can fly, then jump off a building without artificial means.

Topic 2) warns to not blaspheme, or suffer an eternal punishment, with no later chance of amends. Meaning, a born again Christian is most likely self-deluding themselves, as they would have most likely blasphemed God's name prior to later Christian conversion - rendering all future earnest acts of following Christ pointless.

In a nutshell, regardless of any works (i.e.) good works, good acts, good character, good intentions, etc., without belief and 100% lack in taking the lord's name in vain (ever), one is banished to hell. On the flip side, one could violate every other defined Biblical sin in the Bible, with possible later forgiveness with repentance or simply believing in the holy trinity and full absence of blasphemy.

This does not appear like a just system. Christianity appears to rely upon 'amoral' attributes, rather than moral or immoral attributes.

Any thoughts? This is one of the many reasons I question Christianity, from a logical perspective.

Thank you in advance for your response(s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Windmillcharge

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2017
2,934
1,823
113
68
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I question Christianity, from a logical perspective.
Then try reasoning correctly.
There is no compulsion in conversion or in believing. Everyone has a choice whether to believe or not and they are aware of the consquences of their choices.
you have the choice to pay tax or not to pay tax, but the government has the legal authority to require you to pay tax. if you are caught not paying tax and after a court trial are convicted and sentenced to go to prison. You cannot complain about compulsion by the government in making people pay tax.

it is the same with God. had you reasoned correctly you would start with God as creator and entitled to your and my worship etc and it follows that if you choice to ignore God, his commands etc then the consequence will be punishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You wont find any logic in God, not as man sees it, you either believe or you dont, human reasoning doesnt have a place in that what God does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA and Helen

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The topic of morals appear rather irrelevant? Rather than debating absolute definitions of 'good' and 'bad', the two primary tenets of Christianity appear to be as follows - which means the rights to enter heaven's gates require:

1) to believe (John 3:16-21) and (Mark 16:15-16)
2) no blasphemy (Mark 3:28-30)

Topic 1) seems to suggest coercion or an ultimatum. Meaning, believe in this specific proposition or otherwise/instead burn forever. (i.e.) paying taxes to the IRS or else (or) being held at gunpoint for your possessions - give the wallet or else. You are presented with an A or B choice. This is not free will, by definition. Making one specific presented choice, or otherwise suffering an unwanted fate, is coercive. Furthermore, belief is not a choice. Otherwise, tell yourself you believe you can fly, then jump off a building without artificial means.

Topic 2) warns to not blaspheme, or suffer an eternal punishment, with no later chance of amends. Meaning, a born again Christian is most likely self-deluding themselves, as they would have most likely blasphemed God's name prior to later Christian conversion - rendering all future earnest acts of following Christ pointless.

In a nutshell, regardless of any works (i.e.) good works, good acts, good character, good intentions, etc., without belief and 100% lack in taking the lord's name in vain (ever), one is banished to hell. On the flip side, one could violate every other defined Biblical sin in the Bible, with possible later forgiveness with repentance or simply believing in the holy trinity and full absence of blasphemy.

This does not appear like a just system. Christianity appears to rely upon 'amoral' attributes, rather than moral or immoral attributes.

Any thoughts? This is one of the many reasons I question Christianity, from a logical perspective.

Thank you in advance for your response(s).
Boy have you ever been fed a lot of "Religious" Hogwash. I wouldn't follow something like that, either.
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
Others have answered the first question.

Regarding blasphemy, Matthew 12:32 is clearer in showing a distinction between blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and other kinds of blasphemy. It isn't something to worry about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then try reasoning correctly.

The basic definition of reasoning is 'the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.' My point is the claimed God of the Bible does not represent 'love', but is really no different then the government, or even a mafia boss. Believe or burn. A direct synonym of compulsion IS coercion. I'm afraid that maybe actual transparency of my logic and reasoning actually exposes the paradox of claimed christian justice :-/ Though this may appear uncomfortable to some, I'm only exploring the unemotional circumstances of this black and white proposition. Free will is basically defined as 'the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.' In being honest, paying taxes is NOT free will, just as deciding not to believe in god, due to lack in evidence, does not fall under free will, but is instead an axiomatic choice. Again, believe or burn forever. I find this proposition the antithesis to 'love'.

There is no compulsion in conversion or in believing. Everyone has a choice whether to believe or not and they are aware of the consquences of their choices.

My point exactly. If one does not believe, they are to accept a dyer consequence. The fact remains is if God claims ominibenevolence, believe or burn does not appear to fit this criteria. "Reasoning' instead tells me this claimed version of God is applying a direct ultimatum. Which is, if you do not get ready to believe I'm real, based on an ancient written book, then prepare to burn. I find this applied proposition antithetical to claimed 'love'. This is my logic. Does this mean God does not exist? No. However, it does become the opposite to claimed omnibenevolence.

you have the choice to pay tax or not to pay tax, but the government has the legal authority to require you to pay tax. if you are caught not paying tax and after a court trial are convicted and sentenced to go to prison. You cannot complain about compulsion by the government in making people pay tax.

I feel you are missing my point. The federal government does not claim perfection, or being all good, or all loving, and all just. God does. This is the paradox. If I choose I do not want to pay American taxes, I can move to another country in which I then decide to abide by. This is better applied to free will, because I have the free will to decide to move to another society, abide by their rules. Under Christianity, it is one specific way, or the highway. Christianity unfortunately does appear to reflect a direct compulsion :-/ My point is this system does not appear just or loving. The fact these attributes appear very transparent seems to expose a direct conflict to the claims of Christianity. This is my reasoning, without personal emotion.

it is the same with God. had you reasoned correctly you would start with God as creator and entitled to your and my worship etc and it follows that if you choice to ignore God, his commands etc then the consequence will be punishment.

If what you are saying is true, then this IS a direct definition of coercion/compulsion - 'the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.' In another words, if I don't believe, I instead burn. If the one true God Yahweh does exist, I am given an A or B choice. This proposition is antithetical to morality. Does it make Christianity false? NO. My point is this scenario is not love, just like may other axiomatic choices do not represent love :-/ But again, the other coercive choices (taxes, robbery, etc) do not claim perfect love, do they?

Thank you!
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If what you are saying is true, then this IS a direct definition of coercion/compulsion - 'the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.' In another words, if I don't believe, I instead burn. If the one true God Yahweh does exist, I am given an A or B choice. This proposition is antithetical to morality. Does it make Christianity false? NO. My point is this scenario is not love, just like may other axiomatic choices do not represent love :-/ But again, the other coercive choices (taxes, robbery, etc) do not claim perfect love, do they?

Thank you!
Actually, aren't you just speaking nonsense? I mean, if you don't believe in Christ, how in the world can you say that you are then going to believe in the "Hell" part? This is kind of like the Atheist saying, I don't believe there is a God because He......." Oops!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA and Helen

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I feel you've missed my point (again). I never said this coercive proposition is immediately false, because it exposes an ultimatum or coercion. My point is that Christianity does not appear to represent 'love' or 'justice'. Please read my response, in it's entirety, prior to responding again. I'm observing the entire scenario for stated salvation, based upon reasoning and logic, with no emotional ties. You are trying to insult me, rather that addressing the situation, as demonstrated. You must reconcile the ultimatum presented. Which it clearly does. And once one does this, then must attempt to reconcile how this applies to love?
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
If what you are saying is true, then this IS a direct definition of coercion/compulsion - 'the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint.' In another words, if I don't believe, I instead burn. If the one true God Yahweh does exist, I am given an A or B choice. This proposition is antithetical to morality. Does it make Christianity false? NO. My point is this scenario is not love, just like may other axiomatic choices do not represent love :-/ But again, the other coercive choices (taxes, robbery, etc) do not claim perfect love, do they?

Thank you!

What would be antithetical to love is no choice, and condemnation for all. That is where we would be without Jesus' sacrifice.

There are immutable qualities about God's holiness. This is demonstrated in the parable Matthew 22:11-13
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think you are missing something. Christ never said "If you don't do this or that, then you will pay!" He said, "The Required Payment is already set and in place. I am offering you a way to avoid it."

We can decide for ourselves that we know better... and take our chances, refusing to go along. There is no one saying that is not an option that is entirely wide open to you if you do not accept that the future beyond death looks dim for you. That's where the "believing" part comes in. You don't have to believe a word He says if you don't want to...... (So, how is that 'coercing' you into anything?)
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In other words, take it one step at a time. You say you are being threatened by Christianity with Hell. If you believe such an approach is wrong, then that SHOULD settle the whole matter for you right there. Walk away, and don't let it concern you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjrhealth and Helen

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think you are missing something. Christ never said "If you don't do this or that, then you will pay!" He said, "The Required Payment is already set and in place. I am offering you a way to avoid it."

I kind of beg to differ. Mark 16:16 states 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.' Tell me how this would be any different then a parent telling their child, believe I'm this is that, in instead be thrown into a dungeon of torture for eternity. Then explain how such a scenario appears just and loving?


We can decide for ourselves that we know better... and take our chances, refusing to go along. There is no one saying that is not an option that is entirely wide open to you if you do not accept that the future beyond death looks dim for you. That's where the "believing" part comes in. You don't have to believe a word He says if you don't want to...... (So, how is that 'coercing' you into anything?)

Because....

coercion - 'the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.'

And...

Free will - 'the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.'

Christianity represents coercion and is the antithesis of free will. This is what I'm saying. No one seems to be acknowledging the fact that neither of these two defined words are not symonymous with love or compassion.

I think you are missing something. Christ never said "If you don't do this or that, then you will pay!"

Please read verse Mark 16:16 again :) Believe or be condemned is not my choice, it's God's choice. If I do not believe, which is not really even a choice, then I burn.

He said, "The Required Payment is already set and in place. I am offering you a way to avoid it."

By belief, and belief alone, which is not even a choice.


We can decide for ourselves that we know better... and take our chances, refusing to go along. There is no one saying that is not an option that is entirely wide open to you if you do not accept that the future beyond death looks dim for you. That's where the "believing" part comes in. You don't have to believe a word He says if you don't want to...... (So, how is that 'coercing' you into anything?)

Because of Mark 16:16, that's why :) This is classic coercion.
 

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You wont find any logic in God, not as man sees it, you either believe or you dont, human reasoning doesnt have a place in that what God does.

If God is the creator of all things, this would include human reasoning and logic. If man was made in God's image, and man inherently knows right from wrong (whether or not humans choose to follow right from wrong is an entirely other subject), by what reliable reference point is the human supposed to use to determine if the Bible is logical or not? Faith is proven to not be a reliable pathway to truth, as faith can be used for the many competing religions with just as much claimed validity.
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
Free will - 'the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.'

A poor definition. Free will is synonymous with voluntary.

It should be independent of any moral judgement. If someone walks off a cliff that is free will, if you push them that isn't free will.

If you're invited to a dinner but refuse to eat, that is your problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What would be antithetical to love is no choice, and condemnation for all. That is where we would be without Jesus' sacrifice.

Beg to differ... My way, or the highway, is not love. Nor is it even a choice. Belief is not a choice. You hold to your own beliefs in something whether you like it or not. Can you 'will' yourself to change a belief without your own justified cause? I doubt it. Threats do not change a belief; evidence, reason, and logic does. If one feels they have insufficient reason to believe, but are then told in a book, 'welp, then prepare to burn because you do not earnestly believe,' does this appear just, compassionate, reasonable, logical, loving?

There are immutable qualities about God's holiness. This is demonstrated in the parable Matthew 22:11-13

Does this also include slavery, misogyny, and less rights for homosexuals. Or, should slavery, women's inequality, and inequality for those whom are attracted to the same sex also still be outlawed, in direct accordance with God's holiness?
 

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A poor definition. Free will is synonymous with voluntary.

Then maybe you should consult or replace the authors for the Oxford Dictionary, so they can update accordingly? Maybe the Webster Dictionary is more up your alley?

Free will - 'the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.'

I'm sure you do not agree with that one either.


It should be independent of any moral judgement. If someone walks off a cliff that is free will, if you push them that isn't free will.

You are committing an 'is versus ought fallacy'. You are inventing your own morality, which would actually appear superior to the one represented from the Bible.

If you're invited to a dinner but refuse to eat, that is your problem.

Yes, but I can eat at home, or elsewhere later, because I had no appetite, or other, at the restaurant. Choosing not to eat at one specific place does not alternatively condemn me to eternal hell fire for one spiteful, misinformed, or hasty choice.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Topic 1) seems to suggest coercion or an ultimatum. Meaning, believe in this specific proposition or otherwise/instead burn forever. (i.e.) paying taxes to the IRS or else (or) being held at gunpoint for your possessions - give the wallet or else. You are presented with an A or B choice. This is not free will, by definition.
You don't understand...

You are not "presented with an A or B choice" but were presented with an A or B choice...and this is you acting on it, which does indeed make it freewill.

You have been studying the scriptures. Therefore, understand that when they refer to things happening "before the foundation of the world" or "as it is written", it means that this is all an enactment of that decision of freewill that occurred before time began.

Now you know.
 
Last edited:

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Topic 2) warns to not blaspheme, or suffer an eternal punishment, with no later chance of amends. Meaning, a born again Christian is most likely self-deluding themselves, as they would have most likely blasphemed God's name prior to later Christian conversion - rendering all future earnest acts of following Christ pointless.
Again...you don't understand...

Time, which is the enactment of your freewill choice (before time began), is your real time second chance. You do have your whole lifetime, but there are no third chances. So, if you confirm your first choice of freewill during your time of enactment - "it is finished."

Now you know.
 

cvanwey

Member
May 10, 2018
87
3
8
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You don't understand...

You are not "presented with an A or B choice" but were presented with an A or B choice...and this is you acting on it, which does indeed make it free will.

You have been studying the scriptures. Therefore, understand that when they refer to things happening "before the foundation of the world" or "as it is written", it means that this is all an enactment of that decision of free will that occurred before time began.

Now you know.
Again...you don't understand...

Time, which is the enactment of your freewill choice (before time began), is your real time second chance. You do have your whole lifetime, but there are no third chances. So, if you confirm your first choice of freewill during your time of enactment - "it is finished."

Now you know.

This addresses really nothing in which I brought to light, but thanks anyways.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christianity appears to rely upon 'amoral' attributes, rather than moral or immoral attributes.
Christianity demonstrates acting in kind with the Creator of all things who is what He is because He says, "I am." In other words, He demands the same moral attribute from us as He does Himself, that we should now act according to our own choice of freewill that we made before time, now that we are here acting upon it. Very moral indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.