According to Christianity

[ScottA]

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

I have addressed and answered everything you brought up. If you do not except it, that would be consistent with your original position.

God is who He says He is. I am acting on that, meaning "I am" also. And you too are who you are, and acting accordingly. Thanks for being clear.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

I'm not even going to touch your assertion of 'before time.'

Even if I were to grant every last word you are saying as fact, and follow this course of logic, you then opened another very large can of worms. If I were to act upon the God of the Bible's stated moral compass, I would then condone slavery, misogyny, and also condemn people being attracted to the same gender, by no choice of their own. This does not appear, as you stated, 'very moral indeed'. But what do I know, since I have no absolute standards for morality without theism.

 

[cvanwey]

I have addressed and answered everything you brought up. If you do not except it, that would be consistent with your original position.

Blank assertions, with no evidence, does not answer my observations regarding my original post; which actually refer to how the God of the Bible seems to present coercion, lacks free will, and demonstrates unforgivability for blasphemy (while claiming perfect love), by any logical applied definitions.

God is who He says He is. I am acting on that, meaning "I am" also. And you too are who you are, and acting accordingly. Thanks for being clear.

I can prove I exist. I can prove you exist. Without referring to a book, can you prove your specific God exists? You have demonstrated being circular in logic, by using a book to prove a book. My point is that if this book were actually true, then Christian justice is actually coercive in nature, lacks free will, and is the antithesis of any logical claimed perfect love. This is all. Now you know

 

[cvanwey]

Observing the many topics in which I do not agree with, does not then render the Bible immediately false. What I'm stating, is that using any form of logic, to claim omnibenevolence, while also promoting unforgiveness for blasphemy, and presenting an either/or proposition mandated by uncontrolled belief, furthermore, also demonstrating the opposite of free will; all appears illogical, or antithetical to claims of perfect morality.

I feel no one is actually addressing these observations?

Do I believe in Yahweh? Not sure. This is why I joined this forum. However, I'm noticing direct avoidance to my observations, or lack in understanding to my line of questioning.

I would greatly appreciate honest and insightful answers. I have studied intensely and have only concluded the observations of my initial post. Again, this does not mean Christianity is false. However, it does represent an extreme paradox. What is the actual and correct definition of 'good'. "Whatever God says or commands from the Bible?" If a topic is not directly discussed within the Bible, how is one supposed to use their own logic effectively and assure they have concluded the correct answer to a moral situation?

I must reconcile that Christianity does not represent free will, does present a direct ultimatum, and does not forgive commandment number 3 (once initially committed). This is all clearly illustrated within the Bible. If the Bible is true, like it states in Proverbs 30.5 or 2 Timothy 3:16 or others, then it appears unjust by any source of intellectually honest human logic.

This is what I wrestle with.... Humans are to be robots, if ANY of the above observations are demonstrated.

I would appreciate intellectual honesty, and not indoctrinated emotional responses in it's place.

Thank you again in advance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lforrest]

I can prove I exist. I can prove you exist. Without referring to a book, can you prove your specific God exists? You have demonstrated being circular in logic, by using a book to prove a book. My point is that if this book were actually true, then Christian justice is actually coercive in nature, lacks free will, and is the antithesis of any logical claimed perfect love. This is all. Now you know

If I could prove to your satisfaction that God does exist, you would have heard it already.

But if God provided evidence and the eyes to see it to those who wouldn't want him as Lord, that would be coercion. God gives everyone the opertunity to disbelieve.

You say you believe and you couldn't force yourself to change your mind. Yet can you honestly say everyone in your shoes would respond the same way and also believe as you do?

 

[cvanwey]

If I could prove to your satisfaction that God does exist, you would have heard it already.

Now replace the word "God" with "aliens" and see how this logic is flawed at the fundamental level.

But if God provided evidence and the eyes to see it to those who wouldn't want him as Lord, that would be coercion. God gives everyone the opertunity to disbelieve.

Knowledge of existence, and choosing whether or not to worship this then known entity, are two separate constructs. For starters, we need knowledge of existence. What's my standard of evidence, you may ask? How about the decade of prayers committed by myself, and other faithful Christian believers, in direct accordance with Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23, to regrow my amputated limb. This would be a good start, since this would satisfy two specific criteria. 1) It would demonstrate divinity, as not one verified scientific observation to spontaneous generations of human limbs has been cited. 2) It would proven prayer to my specific God was addressed and answered, as I would not have prayed to another other claimed competing God.

Once this is verified, then I guess we could then tackle the definition of free will again.

Let me ask you an honest question... You also have the opportunity to disbelieve many things, events, entities, people, etc.... The real intellectually honest question remains..., why do you 'disbelieve'? I'll take the liberty in answering... Most likely, because disbelief is the default position!

Thanks for your response!

You say you believe and you couldn't force yourself to change your mind. Yet can you honestly say everyone in your shoes would respond the same way and also believe as you do?

No, everyone requires their own set of criteria. Does this criteria differ from individual to individual? Most certainly... One point is that many may say they believe, because of the only alternative consequence is hell fire. Is this love? Is this a sufficient and justifies reasoning? When removing emotion from the equation, I think you and I could agree, this is not a logical or rational reason. And yet, this seems to be one of the most rooted and epistemological reasons for belief :-( This is most evident when anyone brings up Pascal's Wager (which are many)....

 

[Willie T]

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.


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

Even this verse you chose shows you still do not understand. The verse does NOT say we will be condemned for not believing..... as a 'payback' for disagreement.

It says that we (as I have said and the Bible says in MANY places) are ALREADY condemned because of something that happened 6,000 years ago, and Christ is offering us a way out of that fate our ancestors asked for. Of course, if you deny God created us and that we live, only through His will, then you probably don't believe any of what I just wrote. But please don't play games, and try to say that God is to blame. You claim to quote the Bible as though you believe the words you cite, yet you turn a page or two of that same book, and choose to call THAT part a lie.

You going to ever make up your mind? It sure doesn't sound like it.

 

[cvanwey]

Even this verse you chose shows you still do not understand. The verse does NOT say we will be condemned for not believing..... as a 'payback' for disagreement.

It says that we (as I have said and the Bible says in MANY places) are ALREADY condemned because of something that happened 6,000 years ago, and Christ is offering us a way out of that fate our ancestors asked for.

You are attempting to lecture me about my lack in understanding, and yet publicly attest that the world is 6K years old? This must mean I'm more than fully justified in telling tell you that you do not understand geology, astronomy, biology, archaeology, dendrology, and many many others, all which vastly dispute a claimed earth age of 6K years, in favor of a unamimous conclusion of billions of years.

But getting to your response, you are then gladly admitting a gravely illogical proposition. If your great grandfather was a rapist and murderer, lets go ahead and lock you up, right? But if you instead believe that someone else when to jail for your great grandfather's sins, to atone for these wrongs, you are then safe. But if you do not believe this very specific proposition, hell awaits. Sounds good. But I guess I don't understand, so please explain further.

Of course, if you deny God created us and that we live, only through His will, then you don't believe any of what I just wrote.

You are missing my point again. This is getting frustrating. My point is addressing the obvious logical contradictions presented. You have addressed none of it, and are changing the subject entirely. Believe or burn is coercion, lacks free will, and is a direct ultimatum. Blasphemy, is eternally unforgivable - from a claimed omnibenevolent being. These are contradictions which do not appear to jive with reason and logic. Furthermore, it seems to be completely benign to morality, and instead demonstrates amorality. This has nothing top do with the existence of God, but instead sheds light of the illogic to Christianity specifically. So please address the actual observations, or please do not answer at all.

But please play games, and try to say that God is to blame.

Who else is to blame? God created the play book, created the rules, created the scenery, and created Satan with perfect foreknowledge of his role in humanity ahead of time. No one else did. If they did, this would mean something else could create something from nothing.

You claim to quote the Bible as though you believe the words you cite, yet you turn a page of that same book, and chose to call THAT part a lie.

Again, you are misinterpreting all of my message! I'm not calling it a lie, I'm calling it irrational, illogical, unreasonable. There is a huge difference.

You going to ever make up your mind? It sure doesn't sound like it.

If someone would answer the questions I actually ask, then maybe....

 

[Stranger]

Observing the many topics in which I do not agree with, does not then render the Bible immediately false. What I'm stating, is that using any form of logic, to claim omnibenevolence, while also promoting unforgiveness for blasphemy, and presenting an either/or proposition mandated by uncontrolled belief, furthermore, also demonstrating the opposite of free will; all appears illogical, or antithetical to claims of perfect morality.

I feel no one is actually addressing these observations?

Do I believe in Yahweh? Not sure. This is why I joined this forum. However, I'm noticing direct avoidance to my observations, or lack in understanding to my line of questioning.

I would greatly appreciate honest and insightful answers. I have studied intensely and have only concluded the observations of my initial post. Again, this does not mean Christianity is false. However, it does represent an extreme paradox. What is the actual and correct definition of 'good'. "Whatever God says or commands from the Bible?" If a topic is not directly discussed within the Bible, how is one supposed to use their own logic effectively and assure they have concluded the correct answer to a moral situation?

I must reconcile that Christianity does not represent free will, does present a direct ultimatum, and does not forgive commandment number 3 (once initially committed). This is all clearly illustrated within the Bible. If the Bible is true, like it states in Proverbs 30.5 or 2 Timothy 3:16 or others, then it appears unjust by any source of intellectually honest human logic.

This is what I wrestle with.... Humans are to be robots, if ANY of the above observations are demonstrated.

I would appreciate intellectual honesty, and not indoctrinated emotional responses in it's place.

Thank you again in advance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most are addressing your 'observations'. You just don't like their response.

You say you don't know if you believe in the God of the Bible. Well, if you don't know, then you don't believe in Yahweh or Jesus Christ. So, what kind of logic are you displaying there? Or lie?

No paradox. What God does is the 'good'. If He sends one to Heaven or if He sends you to Hell, it is good.

OK, no free will in Christianity. And the problem is...?

Humans are not robots because they have a will. But God has decided where it is they will exercise that will.

And why do you put this in the 'Christian Newby section'? You're not Christian.

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

I'm not even going to touch your assertion of 'before time.'

Even if I were to grant every last word you are saying as fact, and follow this course of logic, you then opened another very large can of worms. If I were to act upon the God of the Bible's stated moral compass, I would then condone slavery, misogyny, and also condemn people being attracted to the same gender, by no choice of their own. This does not appear, as you stated, 'very moral indeed'. But what do I know, since I have no absolute standards for morality without theism.

Nothing of what you have said is anything but hearsay and the common understanding of those not in the know. Maybe this will help:

Imagine you were born into a really big room and no one had ever been or seen outside. Who then in the big room would know anything about what was outside? Would logic minded people who had never been or seen outside know? Would scientists limited to the inside elements and history know? No, of course not - it would be impossible, and it is. So, your position gives you nothing. The only way then for anyone to [actually] know anything about what was outside the big room (the world as we know it), would be if the information came into you from the outside. That - is what the bible is. It is a written record of people who have had personal contact with the outside...and we know what others do not know. Yes, I have included myself. And, it doesn't matter to us if you do not believe it or do not find it logical. In fact, if you are not willing, you are the reason why this whole second chance offer exist...and why a line has been drawn in the sand, eliminating those who double opt-out.

Nonetheless, as I said, what you see in the world is not God doing anything to anyone by His moral standard, but rather them acting upon their own moral standard within the generous offer from God to change their fate from suicide to life everlasting.

 

[cvanwey]

Most are addressing your 'observations'. You just don't like their response.

If the response represents a false analogy, circular reasoning, blank assertions, or other fallacies, the answer is invalid. This is where my frustration lies.

You say you don't know if you believe in the God of the Bible.

Correct. And As I stated prior, the 'observations' I've made have no bearing on whether the God of the Bible exists or not. But instead seems to address amorality, and the logical contradictions required to accept the believe in the Bible.

Well, if you don't know, then you don't believe in Yahweh or Jesus Christ. So, what kind of logic are you displaying there? Or lie?

You too are missing the original post... Please read it again?

No paradox. What God does is the 'good'. If He sends one to Heaven or if He sends you to Hell, it is good.

I have to politely disagree... Paradox reigns quite prevalent. And yet, you make no effort to engage in my 'observations.' Instead, side step the topics...

On this frame of logic, slavery, misogyny, and inequality to people attracted to the same sex, should again all be condoned. Because, from your statement, whatever God does is 'good'.

OK, no free will in Christianity. And the problem is...?

The first honest answer seen from this site so far.... THANK YOU! But in the very next sentence, you state we are not robots?

Humans are not robots because they have a will. But God has decided where it is they will exercise that will.

If you are interested in logic, reason, and evidence, you might want to look up the many qualified definitions of free will, and how it differs from the definitions of coercion and choice.

And why do you put this in the 'Christian Newby section'? You're not Christian.

Then why did you answer? If I'm mistaken, redirect my responses to the appropriate arena. And who says I'm not Christian? Because I find contradictions in a book, which claims perfection? I'm observing flaws, and asking questions. You are the first to sarcastically acknowledge that Christianity is the opposite of free will, by applied definition.

Stranger

 

[ScottA]

Blank assertions, with no evidence, does not answer my observations regarding my original post; which actually refer to how the God of the Bible seems to present coercion, lacks free will, and demonstrates unforgivability for blasphemy (while claiming perfect love), by any logical applied definitions.

My first comment was the answer, that is: "You don't understand." And then I explained.

But you are completely free not to believe the truth... Good luck with that.

I can prove I exist. I can prove you exist. Without referring to a book, can you prove your specific God exists? You have demonstrated being circular in logic, by using a book to prove a book. My point is that if this book were actually true, then Christian justice is actually coercive in nature, lacks free will, and is the antithesis of any logical claimed perfect love. This is all. Now you know

You can prove nothing. Purposing to use a standard of proof that falls short of the context, doesn't prove anything except that you are operating within limits.

As far as me proving God to you...sorry, it doesn't work that way. That would be like a thief asking a person to show them their money when they have none. You see, the loot is not mine to show. Or it would be like asking a person on a hill to prove what is on the other side to someone who will not go to the top of the hill and look for themselves.

As for circular logic...it is you who are circling within your own self-imposed limits, not us. We have seen outside the circle...and obviously - you have no idea what we are even talking about.

As for coercion and freewill...you are not listening. Your free will happened before you were born, and this is your second chance. And that is a love that we did not deserve.

 

[cvanwey]

Nothing of what you have said is anything but hearsay and the common understanding of those not in the know. Maybe this will help:

Imagine you were born into a really big room and no one had ever been or seen outside. Who then in the big room would know anything about what was outside? Would logic minded people who had never been or seen outside know? Would scientists limited to the inside elements and history know? No, of course not - it would be impossible, and it is. So, your position gives you nothing. The only way then for anyone to [actually] know anything about what was outside the big room (the world as we know it), would be if the information came into you from the outside.

How is any of this any different then explaining the veil or ignorance? If you know anything about this topic, you would then understand that the Bible falls completely short. Study upon on this topic, then attempt to reconcile slavery, misogyny, and the many others which do not need elaboration.

Then please attempt to answer this question appropriately.

That - is what the bible is. It is a written record of people who have had personal contact with the outside...

How does one know the claimed Holy Qur'an is not?

and we know what others do not know. Yes, I have included myself. And, it doesn't matter to us if you do not believe it or do not find it logical. In fact, if you are not willing, you are the reason why this whole second chance offer exist...and why a line has been drawn in the sand, eliminating those who double opt-out.

Again, your argument is just a well suited for the Holy Qur'an, or any other competing text. How do I know which one is right, and which one is wrong? Faith? Would this be honest and reliable?

Nonetheless, as I said, what you see in the world is not God doing anything to anyone by His moral standard, but rather them acting upon their own moral standard within the generous offer from God to change their fate from suicide to life everlasting.

Lack in believe, equaling hell, appears unjust. Sorry.

 

[ScottA]

If the response represents a false analogy, circular reasoning, blank assertions, or other fallacies, the answer is invalid. This is where my frustration lies.

Says who?

You think that just because you woke up in a world you think you have figured out, that you can make all the rules that others must comply with to suit your limited understanding? The subject is WAY bigger than that - don't be so small and limited in your thinking, it's foolish.

 

[ScottA]

Lack in believe, equaling hell, appears unjust. Sorry.

The key word here, is "appears."

Don't be sorry. Be smart. If you cannot see something you are not looking at, is that any reason to deny it? Will you at least open your eyes...and your mind?

 

[cvanwey]

My first comment was the answer, that is: "You don't understand." And then I explained.

Oh, and you, somehow, do? Playing tit for tat gets no one nowhere. You are using the same attempt in human logic I am. Because you fully believe in an authoritative book does not give you more wisdom, insight, or enlightenment to any possible reality. All it demonstrate is ethnocentrism on your part. I acknowledge that I cannot reconcile parts of the Bible. Rather than answer or address these topics, you instead play smug, present blank assertions, and represent a presuppositional conclusion, for which you opening admit no one can prove.

But you are completely free not to believe the truth... Good luck with that.

This is exactly what many Christians seem to resort to, when they are out of answers. Present a threat. Assert something you just willingly admitted may not be true, because people are confined by human logic. So if I possess the same available logic as you, and you admit we are restricted, then on what basis is your logic 'correct' about Christianity, where mine is 'wrong'?

You can prove nothing. Purposing to use a standard of proof that falls short of the context, doesn't prove anything except that you are operating within limits.

And so are you, so who is right, and how might one know? I follow the evidence using logic and reason. What is your mechanism? Faith? Is credulity an acceptable for 'truth'?

As far as me proving God to you...sorry, it doesn't work that way. That would be like a thief asking a person to show them their money when they have none. You see, the loot is not mine to show. Or it would be like asking a person on a hill to prove what is on the other side to someone who will not go to the top of the hill and look for themselves.

And yet, one may have demonstration of a hill, of people, and of known reality. Yahweh does not necessarily fit into any of this.... All the Bible proves thus far, is that humans wrote it. The claims of being inspired from another non human entity is where I raise pause?

As for circular logic...it is you who are circling within your own self-imposed limits, not us. We have seen outside the circle...and obviously - you have no idea what we are even talking about.

I think I have a fairly clean grasp of the situation... The Bible is true, because it says so. And even though there appears to be obvious contradiction, when removing emotion from the equation, I should instead ignore or rationalize all the parts which appear illogical, to instead favor faith. Sorry for the 'strawman' argument just presented. However, if your shoe fits....

As for coercion and freewill...you are not listening. Your free will happened before you were born, and this is your second chance. And that is a love that we did not deserve.

No, it is YOU whom are NOT listening.... You are presenting a blank assertion of vast proportions. How would your attempt in rationale work in China, India, Japan, Norway, and many others, all whom vastly worship an alternate entity, with alternative propositions for the afterlife?

Thnx!!!

 

[cvanwey]

Says who?

You think that just because you woke up in a world you think you have figured out, that you can make all the rules that others must comply with to suit your limited understanding? The subject is WAY bigger than that - don't be so small and limited in your thinking, it's foolish.

So instead, trust a book of contradiction, because it says so, got it...

 

[cvanwey]

The key word here, is "appears."

Don't be sorry. Be smart. If you cannot see something you are not looking at, is that any reason to deny it? Will you at least open your eyes...and your mind?

I'm afraid it is you, whom is close minded. The Quran states, from the Surah 4:82 - 'Then (do) not they ponder (on) the Quran? And if it had (been) from other than Allah, surely they (would have) found in it much contradiction.'

Do you see this? You are looking right at it, starring you square in the face. You must not reject this. It comes from a stated and claimed holy book.

Are you a Muslim yet?

 

[ScottA]

I would appreciate intellectual honesty, and not indoctrinated emotional responses in it's place.

Good. Let's start here.

If you appreciate or expect intellectual honesty, you need to offer the same - which, so far you have not. You should be confessing that the whole thing is a mystery to you and asking questions. But here you are making your own assertions, and imposing a set of rules that is infinitely limited below the context and topic of discussion. You don't get to do that.

Now then, it is completely possible that there are people who know something you do not about this topic. That is reasonable, logical, and you should incline yourself to listen and learn. That you have not done.

Observing the many topics in which I do not agree with, does not then render the Bible immediately false. What I'm stating, is that using any form of logic, to claim omnibenevolence, while also promoting unforgiveness for blasphemy, and presenting an either/or proposition mandated by uncontrolled belief, furthermore, also demonstrating the opposite of free will; all appears illogical, or antithetical to claims of perfect morality.

I feel no one is actually addressing these observations?

That is because you are not listening to anything beyond your level of understanding.

I must reconcile that Christianity does not represent free will, does present a direct ultimatum, and does not forgive commandment number 3 (once initially committed). This is all clearly illustrated within the Bible. If the Bible is true, like it states in Proverbs 30.5 or 2 Timothy 3:16 or others, then it appears unjust by any source of intellectually honest human logic.

If you are to reconcile all truth...you need to be open to all truth, and not limit the discussion to just what you yourself understand.

 

[ScottA]

I'm afraid it is you, whom is close minded. The Quran states, from the Surah 4:82 - 'Then (do) not they ponder (on) the Quran? And if it had (been) from other than Allah, surely they (would have) found in it much contradiction.'

Do you see this? You are looking right at it, starring you square in the face. You must not reject this. It comes from a stated and claimed holy book.

Are you a Muslim yet?

I must have touched a nerve. Are you here to learn or to promote your own religion?

Anyway, I will answer your question: I don't know Allah or the Quran, and no, I am not a Muslim - but I do know God.