According to Christianity

[mjrhealth]

If you have no reason to believe, do you believe?

Doubt I would be promoting Christ if I didnt. Quiet a foolish question or was or one to start contention, devil loves it.

 

[Windmillcharge]

If I read the Bible, it clearly states this..... Please see analogy below for clarification...

A) Free will – Ability to choose without the constraint of necessity or fate.
B) Coercion – The act of persuasion by use of threats or force


Yes, many slight tweaks in definitions can be provided. Additional definitions also apply for free will. Again, this is one very large problem with the English language. However, above are the basic elements which describe the two defined words. Now read the following statements below and honestly assess which defined words above closer represents the answer, A) or B).


Give me your wallet, or I will shoot you. A) or B)?
Pay taxes to the IRS, or receive penalty of jail time or a fine. A) or B)?
Your mother tells you to clean your room, or be grounded for a week. A) or B)?
Believe I'm your God, or I will throw you into a pit of fire forever. A) or B)?


In a nutshell, perform the very specific requested act out of necessity, otherwise suffer a very specific unwanted fate.

I hope this is finally clear?????

The act of choice alone is not what constitutes free will. The act of the choice, with a direct and specific unwanted consequence for not fulfilling the specific request, is classified as coercion, duress, force, or is even presenting an ultimatum. The above examples are fairly straight forward and axiomatic. Not much debate may be presented as to the correct answers. They are all clearly forceful, persuaded, or loaded propositions.

What you say is logicaly correct.
But
Just how much ofthe promise of reward or threat of punishment was actually influencing you when you became a Christian?

For many people it is not these things that determine whether they are or are not Christian.
If the reason for a choice is not the threat or promise but something else is there then coercion?

I would say not.

 

[Windmillcharge]

You are getting stuck on the word 'force', as if it only has one usage; as if it applies to a physical 'force' only. Please address it in the correct connotation. I will again provide the adjacent definitions for 'coercion' and 'free will':

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

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

Now see how your above statement directly exemplifies coercion and LACKS free will by definition; as in Mark 16:16 for example... 'What you are talking about is the consquence of belief/unbelief.'

This arguement only applies if the human will is 'free'. All nonchristians are slaves to sin so there will is not free, just as all Christians are legaly slaves to Jesus but struggle with there addiction to sin.

 

[mjrhealth]

All nonchristians are slaves to sin so there will is not free, just as all Christians are legaly slaves to Jesus but struggle with there addiction to sin.

everyone has free will, we all have teh right to choose, christian or not, and just because someone calls themselves christian, certainly does not make them and less a slave to sin as one who doesnt. We just see all those pastors caught in adultry.... priests molesting children and on it goes.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Doubt I would be promoting Christ if I didnt. Quiet a foolish question or was or one to start contention, devil loves it.

I want to know how someone can believe in Jesus without having a reason to believe in him.

 

[Windmillcharge]

everyone has free will, we all have teh right to choose, christian or not, and just because someone calls themselves christian, certainly does not make them and less a slave to sin as one who doesnt. We just see all those pastors caught in adultry.... priests molesting children and on it goes.

Yet Paul could write, 'the good I want to do I don't do and the evil I don't want to do I do.'

 

[cvanwey]

What you say is logicaly correct.
But
Just how much ofthe promise of reward or threat of punishment was actually influencing you when you became a Christian?

For many people it is not these things that determine whether they are or are not Christian.
If the reason for a choice is not the threat or promise but something else is there then coercion?

I would say not.

Very true! And I get that... And I also concur with your insightful observation

However, my original post demonstrates that the 2 claimed paths to assure a Christian heaven, is to believe or burn, and never to blaspheme.

I have one more small analogy for you....

The claimed Christian has a chance to enter heaven, regardless of followed moral laws.
The claimed non-believer has no chance to enter heaven, regardless of followed moral laws.

(example)...

My spouse and I had a discussion about this topic. She is a believer. I asserted that morals are arbitrary when it comes to Christianity. She disagreed.


I proceeded to ask her that if I never sinned again, but did not accept Jesus as being real, would I go to heaven? She stated no. And according the the Bible in which she believes, her answer would be demonstrably true, as in John 3:16-18.


I proceeded to then ask her, do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior and gateway for salvation? She stated yes.


I then asked if she will ever commit another sin between now and the time of her death? She stated yes.


By using logic, she had no choice but to conclude that she will continue to sin, and go to heaven anyways, as long as she believes in Jesus wholeheartedly. But even if I somehow did not 'sin', I still would not go to heaven. This demonstrates my position; that morals are irrelevant. The only saving factor is belief, which does not encompass morals by any rational definition.

Morality - 'Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour' – Oxford dictionary

 

[Stranger]

Beg to differ...And please be very careful when making such a grand assertion, regarding 'no contradictions'. Slight or vast contradiction may arise in almost all written text... However, where the Bible appears to shoot itself in the proverbial foot, is by making such claims as 2 Timothy 3:16 and others... Which claims it's all divinely inspired and free from human error. Meaning, it actually does claim inerrancy!

One may then need to exercise severe mental gymnastics and invent interesting Hermeneutic acrobatics to deny contradiction to the following demonstration below - (this is only one of a vast many errors/contradictions I could demonstrate, but will instead not delve into very deeply):

Was the tomb's stone already rolled away when Mary arrived or not? (i.e.) Mark 16:4 vs Matthew 28:2? Very small observation, but they CANNOT BOTH be correct simultaneously.

And in regards to your statement about free will..... You are the first winner in this response thread! You have just acknowledged, that by definition, we actually have very little free will, or at least far less than we think or believe we have. But my entire point is that Christians will use the 'free will' argument all too often. By definition, this proves to not be the case in the main message for Christianity. We do not have free will, by definition, in regards to theism! God creates the rules, then gives us an axiomatic choice. God also tells us if we do not happen to believe, we are instead chucked into a fire pit forever. This does not appear 'loving', 'merciful', 'just'.

I struggle trying to believe in a book, which appears to not align with actual reality in many ways (Genesis account for starters). Members tell me this is where faith is required. I'm sorry, this is not enough for me. I tried praying for decades.... nothing....

All I can conclude is that either the God of the Bible is not actually real, (or), does not care to reveal his presence to me. Either way, there we are....

Again, does this mean Christianity is false now? no. But this does present a direct paradox to claimed omnibenevolence, as stated prior many times now. And this is what I wrestle with; among many other topics in the Bible....

I don't need to be careful about my assertions concerning the Bible having no contradictions. Yes, yes, everyone has a list of contradictions they can point out in the Bible. And when one is explained they go to another. Many of the apparent contradictions I can explain. But some I cannot. But then I am still learning things in the Bible. And I am willing for God to provide an answer in time. You on the other hand don't believe any of the Bible whether it involves contradiction or not. So clearing up any contradiction will not cause you to come to Christ. Will it?

So, tell me the truth. If I supply an answer for you concerning (Mark 16:4) and (Matt. 28:2), what will you do? Answer: You will deny the answer or run and get another apparent contradiction.

Yes, I agree man does not have 'free' will. He does have a will. And concerning the things of God, man will reveal the person he is by exercising that will. God is loving, merciful, and just in His actions towards man. He provided a salvation for those that were lost. He would be just in destroying all of mankind if He had wanted. He provided the method, Christ's sacrifice, to come into that salvation, by faith. Belief on Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour. And many come believing, thus the love and mercy of God is manifested.

Well, I do not struggle with the Bible as the Word of God. I believe every word of it, beginning with and especially Genesis. Thus I conclude that God is real. I come to Christ as Son of God and Saviour. And as a result, I have access to His presence.

You say 'faith is not enough for me'. Well, there is nothing anyone can do for you. Faith is the only key.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Thanks for the Ad Hominem attack....

But just so you know, you actually failed miserably to get the irony of your attempt in calling me 'stupid'... I would try spelling it out for you, yet again, but as the theists often say, when they are trying to explain the nature of God in an analogy, 'it would be like a human trying to explain how something works to an ant.'

Please re-read post #87. If you don't actually get it, read it again. Heck, get someone else to read it.... Eventually, it may finally come to you; or maybe not?

Here's a hint.... If the argument is equally 'effective', by only changing the one word, your argument is invalid to the stated specific claims for Christianity.

game/set/match

Peace

I did re-read it. I believe it to be just as silly and stupid as I said before. It doesn't matter to me that islam wants to say the exact same things though replacing their version. Their version is simply a lie.

Creating a lie does not negate the truth. Your 'logic' is your stumbling block.

Stranger

 

[cvanwey]

This arguement only applies if the human will is 'free'. All nonchristians are slaves to sin so there will is not free, just as all Christians are legaly slaves to Jesus but struggle with there addiction to sin.

This would be assuming that a postmortem Jesus is real, and that 'sin' is clearly defined. To my knowledge, neither have been proven. Otherwise, 5/7's of the globe would not claim their religious practices were still right. And no, this is not attempting to present the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. My point is that philosophers, theologians, Hermeneutic scholars in Orthodox Judaism, Hermeneutic scholars in Christianity, etc..., cannot seem to demonstrate and prove their specific claimed case.

So the most fundamental question one must ask....? Which God are we actually talking about? Even in Christianity, we have many differing and conflicting points. Meaning, you might define 'sin' differently than the Christian right next to you. To an Orthodox Jew, new covenant claims are not valid. A Catholic requires the confession to a proxy agent - Catholic priest to absolve 'sin'.

Furthermore, one sect may consider homosexuality an abomination, where the claimed Christian church next door may not. They will both site from the same book to 'prove' their position, which would be the Bible.....

Quite the quandary!

 

[cvanwey]

I did re-read it. I believe it to be just as silly and stupid as I said before. It doesn't matter to me that islam wants to say the exact same things though replacing their version. Their version is simply a lie.

Creating a lie does not negate the truth. Your 'logic' is your stumbling block.

Stranger

Sorry to have to do this, but here we go again....

Your direct quote below:

'It doesn't matter to me that [Christianity] wants to say the exact same things though replacing their version. Their version is simply a lie.'

 

[Stranger]

Sorry to have to do this, but here we go again....

Your direct quote below:

'It doesn't matter to me that [Christianity] wants to say the exact same things though replacing their version. Their version is simply a lie.'

Now you are lying. That is not a direct quote from me.

Which makes your statement a lie.

Stranger

 

[cvanwey]

Now you are lying. That is not a direct quote from me.

Which makes your statement a lie.

Stranger

Nope, I directly cut and pasted your response from post #109. And as indicated, I used the brackets to [change] the one needed word to demonstrate, yet again, your severe lack in strength and severe lack in veracity to your blank assertion.

 

[cvanwey]

Now you are lying. That is not a direct quote from me.

Which makes your statement a lie.

Stranger

Furthermore, your argument/assertion is no better than stating something as ridiculous as, 'the napkin god is the one and only true god, as it states right here on this napkin.'

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

 

[Stranger]

Nope, I directly cut and pasted your response from post #109. And as indicated, I used the brackets to [change] the one needed word to demonstrate, yet again, your severe lack in strength and severe lack in veracity to your blank assertion.

Which made your statement, 'a direct quote' a lie. Next time you want to quote me, do it correctly.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Furthermore, your argument/assertion is no better than stating something as ridiculous as, 'the napkin god is the one and only true god, as it states right here on this napkin.'

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Yes, I have heard all these assertions from the atheists. Napkin god or spaghetti god, etc. etc. If you don't believe the declaration of the Bible, then don't. You have not changed the truthfulness of it at all. Neither your lack of faith or my faith changes the truthfulness of it.

Stranger

 

[cvanwey]

Which made your statement, 'a direct quote' a lie. Next time you want to quote me, do it correctly.

Stranger

I've come to the conclusion that you know my rationale exploits your flaws in fundamental reasoning. You are now grasping at straws, over extremely minor technicalities - which are instead only further exposing a fundamental flaw in your colloquial understanding... If you are not purvey enough to grasp the gist or context, maybe you should subscribe to another forum?

 

[Stranger]

I've come to the conclusion that you know my rationale exploits your flaws in fundamental reasoning. You are now grasping at straws, over extremely minor technicalities - which are instead only further exposing a fundamental flaw in your colloquial understanding... If you are not purvey enough to grasp the gist or context, maybe you should subscribe to another forum?

Your conclusions are pretty warped already. So, it really doesn't bother me. You want to create a lie by changing a word, and then say that negates the truth. Foolish.

Stranger

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, I have heard all these assertions from the atheists. Napkin god or spaghetti god, etc. etc. If you don't believe the declaration of the Bible, then don't. You have not changed the truthfulness of it at all. Neither your lack of faith or my faith changes the truthfulness of it.

Stranger

I never claimed I'm an atheist. Prove I'm an atheist You see how shifting the burden of proof appears nonsensical?

Now you see how you are now attempting to shift your burden of proof? 'Truthfulness' is in the eye of the beholder (Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Christian, other...)

For all intensive purposes, when you state 'If you don't believe the declaration of the Bible, then don't. You have not changed the truthfulness of it at all.' Your are effectively asserting that YOUR belief is proven, and it is up to me to disprove it. When in reality, no God is the default position.

Just like me telling, 'yeah, my specific one true believed alien exists. Your lack in belief does not disprove it.'

 

[cvanwey]

Your conclusions are pretty warped already. So, it really doesn't bother me. You want to create a lie by changing a word, and then say that negates the truth. Foolish.

Stranger

You just don't get.... But I do grant you credit where credit is due... You are quite talented..... When it comes to ad hominem attacks.