Christianity requires fear, guilt, and conformity

[Wrangler]

you do you and I'll do me.

Says the poster who does not like how I defend freedom by name calling communists.

IF you held yourself to your own standard we would not even had these exchanges.

 

[Naomanos]

Says the poster who does not like how I defend freedom by name calling communists.

IF you held yourself to your own standard we would not even had these exchanges.

Now that's laughable. Defending freedom from people who thinks are communists. I laugh each time somebody like you states that they are freedom loving patriots. You wouldn't know what a true patriot was if George Washington was standing in front of you.

That's the current buzzword for people that Republicans disagree with.

I still say that name calling is uncalled for.

 

[Wrangler]

I still say that name calling is uncalled for.

Again, show me the posts were you opposed the use of racist, sexist, Islamophobe, etc? D'at different.

 

[Naomanos]

Again, show me the posts were you opposed the use of racist, sexist, Islamophobe, etc? D'at different.

Why would I do that when I said both sides, twice and said I wasn't singling you out.

If you did the same to me I wouldn't do what you're doing. I would understand that you used my post to call out both sides and leave it at that.

 

[Naomanos]

I already explained twice why you would do that.

You’re like the fascist who denies being a fascist on the grounds that he calls himself anti-fascist (Antifa, for short).

I explained why I shouldn't have to. I'm not going to just because you say I should. Isn't freedom grand?

Also, not a fascist or Antifa, but nice try! I'm just a Christian.

 

[Romanov2488]

Talk about doubling down. I suspect you are a Cultural Marxist and all you can do is oppose those who aren't on board by any means necessary.

If you had an ounce of credibility, you would point me to all the posts you made opposing Cultural Marxism on these boards. Instead you double down. In fact, your commitment to Christianity is so weak that you assert my not giving an inch to communism is causing you to abandon your lord and savior! Good grief.

“Cultural Marxism” is a right wing conspiracy theory. Lay off the Fox News for a bit, they already lost an $800 million lawsuit for more or less lying.

 

[Romanov2488]

I scoffed at evangelists for Chriat before
became a Christian. When you are spiritually blind, you resort to common rational reasoning, your senses, experiences, knowledge, etc.; but even so, "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Rom. 1:19-20

Can you really look at the complexity and beauty of life on earth and the universe, and think it happened by chance and a mindless series of mutations (defects) being put together piece by piece over millionsif years?
Newsflash: Nature has no mind/ intelligence to select and order anything. Life was created finished. Man did not evolve from a primordial slime, nor did any other creature.
But you can hold onto that theory. But can it give you comfort, love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, hope, a sense of meaning and purpose in life? I guess for you all those qualities evolved too.
The atheist wants to be in charge of their own destiny and doesn't want any authority over him. He wants to sit on his own throne. Let's see how that works out for you in the coming years? We are approaching a time in history called the Great Tribulation. When it becomes full blown, you might surprise yourself and respond by getting on your knees and praying to the God you don't believe exists?

Complexity and beauty of life is not direct evidence of a god. Life also has many disgusting aspects to it which no one brings up due to bias.

 

[Wrangler]

“Cultural Marxism” is a right wing conspiracy theory.

From you, it proves, not only that cultural Marxism exists, but that it perfectly defines the WHAT and HOW of your politics.

Like the devil, himself, the first rule is to convince people it does not even exist.

 

[Behold]

Complexity and beauty of life is not direct evidence of a god.

You can't have creation without a Creator.

The earth, and all of creation, could not create themselves from blank nothingness.

They had to be CREATED, into existance.

Thats THE Creator, who did/caused/performed.... that.. act of creation.

"well behold, i believe the big bang started it all"

Ok, but where did the STUFF COME FROM, that "banged".?

= Creator.

 

[Romanov2488]

You can't have creation without a Creator.

The earth, and all of creation, could not create themselves from blank nothingness.

They had to be CREATED, into existance.

Thats THE Creator, who did/caused/performed.... that.. act of creation.

"well behold, i believe the big bang started it all"

Ok, but where did the STUFF COME FROM, that "banged".?

= Creator.

This is based on the premise that the universe is a creation. The universe doesn’t necessarily need a creator just because you want it to make sense to you. We also know that not all ‘creations’ have a creator such as a chemical reaction where molecules turn into something else. It could very well be possible that the universe is a product of something else other than nothingness or God. God or nothingness is a false dichotomy here.

Another thing is that if you said that ‘a creator’ is behind lightning such as God going bowling, you would be dead wrong. It is pure laziness to assume that there is a creator.

Where does stuff come from? We don’t know where it all came from…and we don’t need to have a definite answer for that question. Not knowing is a beautiful thing that the religious are scared of.

 

[Romanov2488]

Says the poster who does not like how I defend freedom by name calling communists.

IF you held yourself to your own standard we would not even had these exchanges.

You don’t defend freedom let alone know what communism actually is…like most fascists. Your kind cannot keep their noses out of other people’s sex lives and what they do with their own bodies. America was founded on liberal and rebellious thinking. The pilgrims were religious refugees, the separation of church and state came about shortly after the American Revolution.

 

[Romanov2488]

From you, it proves, not only that cultural Marxism exists, but that it perfectly defines the WHAT and HOW of your politics.

Like the devil, himself, the first rule is to convince people it does not even exist.

You cannot defend fascism with accusations of cultural Marxism.

 

[Behold]

The universe doesn’t necessarily need a creator

You can't have creation without a Creator.

Denying it, wont change that fact, Romanov2488.

 

[Romanov2488]

You can't have creation without a Creator.

Denying it, wont change that fact, Romanov2488.

If everything has a creator, then you have infinite regress. Your creator must also have a creator, and if it doesn’t you must show why and not simply complain “because it doesn’t need one”. Because if that’s true, then we can say it about the universe as well-that it doesn’t need one.

If everything exists because it needs a creator, then God also needs a creator since God also ‘exists’.

 

[Wrangler]

You don’t defend freedom

Sure I defend freedom, including a sovereign society to set its own rules on how best to provide for the security, freedom and prosperity of its citizens.

Freedom is a great MEANS but a terrible ENDS.

 

[Wrangler]

If everything has a creator, then you have infinite regress. Your creator must also have a creator

You’re in denial. Typical atheist maneuver supposing you can define your way out of God, out of being held accountable by your Creator.

We all know you are smart enough to figure out what @Behold is trying to say. In philosophy, it is called The First Cause - not your deliberately fake ‘infinite regress.’

Regarding the notion that the Creator does not need a creator, it is axiomatic, The First Cause. Like a Black Hole being a quantum singularity, which means the laws of physics - of reality as we know it - breaks down.

By definition, God (the Creator of All Things) is outside the Creation he Caused to Exist. You can figure out how this must be true.

 

[Romanov2488]

You’re in denial. Typical atheist maneuver supposing you can define your way out of God, out of being held accountable by your Creator.

We all know you are smart enough to figure out what @Behold is trying to say. In philosophy, it is called The First Cause - not your deliberately fake ‘infinite regress.’

Regarding the notion that the Creator does not need a creator, it is axiomatic, The First Cause. Like a Black Hole being a quantum singularity, which means the laws of physics - of reality as we know it - breaks down.

By definition, God (the Creator of All Things) is outside the Creation he Caused to Exist. You can figure out how this must be true.

The ‘First Cause’ commits the fallacy of special pleading. The ‘solution’ to the problem of the universe’s existence posited in this argument is that a god exists, which both exists and has no cause. God is created as a special exception to that universal rule. This is a logical fallacy known as ‘special pleading’. In this case, at least, it basically means that the conclusion of the argument is inconsistent with its premises. Even if there were a first cause that cause doesn't have to be a being. Even if that cause were a being it doesn't have to be a god. Even if that cause were a god it doesn't have to be the Christian god. Anyone arguing for that sort of argument would need to overcome all of these problems.

“Having a beginning" also isn't the same as "having a creator." Things begin all the time without any agency at work. Sometimes events simply coalesce, such as when plants sprout from the ground or when stars ignite in stellar nurseries. When conditions are right change begins. It's up to those who assert a creator/prime mover to demonstrate how their claim is correct, not simply saying "we don't know, therefore god."

 

[Wrangler]

The ‘First Cause’ commits the fallacy of special pleading. The ‘solution’ to the problem of the universe’s existence posited in this argument is that a god exists, which both exists and has no cause.

It is not a fallacy as I already explained how it is true that God is indeed special. But what is your solution and explanation for the universe, my fine friend?

An objective mind will observe the belief in God is far more reasonable than any alternative world view. I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. So, I look forward to your explanation for existence.

 

[Romanov2488]

It is not a fallacy as I already explained how it is true that God is indeed special. But what is your solution and explanation for the universe, my fine friend?

An objective mind will observe the belief in God is far more reasonable than any alternative world view. I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. So, I look forward to your explanation for existence.

Saying God is special unlike everything else is special pleading, it’s a fallacy. It’s like saying, “Yes, I do think that all drunk drivers should go to prison, but your honor, he is my son! He is a good boy who just made a mistake!” You also would have to prove that the first cause is even a being, and that the first cause is a god, and that the first cause is also the Christian god.

An objective mind observes that the belief in God is only reasonable as far as people lack access to information and cultural origin at best. Of course it was reasonable for our Bronze Age ancestors to believe in a god given the state of humanity back then. Of course it’s reasonable to believe in a god when you are born in a society that also believes in god (especially if your parents are deeply religious). It’s no coincidence that being born in Pakistan means you will likely be Muslim or that being born in India means you will likely be Hindu, for example.

As far as your demand for an explanation for existence, I don’t have one because I don’t know. Saying “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” is inaccurate (at least for me) since I’m agnostic atheist because I don’t believe in some different cause for the universe such as the universe coming out of nothing. If you assume that a god exists just because we don’t know, would be an argument from our ignorance of the universe. It is starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to back it up, which is not how science operates.

There have been many instances where people believed God was the cause of something only to find out that they were wrong later on. An example is believing that God is the cause of lightning because God is angry or out bowling or something…which isn’t the case. An objective mind does not have all the answers, it has more questions due to critical thinking.

 

[BarneyFife]

How many people would be Christian if Hell wasn’t a concept in Christianity? Now I know many Christians would argue, “Hell is a consequence, it’s like having consequences in day to day life.” And this is where I disagree: while consequences are real in the world, it is a much different matter when it comes to the spiritual world.

Christians don’t like it when their god or concept of hell gets mocked because they want it to be taken seriously by others. They want others to feel guilty and in need of forgiveness the way they do. They claim that the solution to all of this is that in return one is “saved” once they repent and accept Jesus as their savior. And here is the kicker: EVEN when Christians repent and accept Jesus as their savior, many are STILL afraid of hell because they don’t know if they have been doing the right thing all along. They know that the possibility of merely “thinking” they are saved exists. To arrogantly proclaim that one is “saved”, can also be arrogantly dismissed.

However, Christians may argue that it is possible to know God exists through personal experience. But this starts to delve into mysticism which many Christians say goes against the Biblical authority. Simply experiencing God is not enough, one has to mentally know that God exists through biblical authority…so that gets rid of the personal experience argument.

This need for Christians to preach the gospel, is seen as “spreading the truth” in their eyes. It doesn’t matter to them if others say it’s bigoted or hateful or even if they get persecuted for it. They know that they are living in a time where they are becoming a minority in society since society has widely accepted views that are unbiblical and “demonic” in their eyes. They see it as if society needs people like them to warn them of hell, in hopes of waking society “up”. The problem for them is that the opposite has been happening.

One example I hear from Christians regarding their spreading of the gospel is their gripe with the “love is love” mentality of society. Christians think this has gone too far because “not all forms of love are right since one can love the wrong object”, such as a man loving another man. But how do we know that Christians themselves haven’t gone too far with spreading the gospel? Because here’s the thing: other religions do horrific things disguised as “doing the right thing”. Take the jihadist suicide bombers, for example. To them it’s no more a religious act like it is for a Christian to go out into the street with a picket sign saying that all homosexuals will burn in hell. Some may say this is a false equivalence, but is it? There are consequences for hate speech in society, as well as verbal threats already. They know they’re facing an uphill battle and I don’t see “being in the minority” necessarily as a virtue, either.

Since Christians want to hold that hell is real and everyone should feel guilty enough to repent, then the mockery of their hell should continue going on. Just like Christians believe we need to continue hearing about how we will burn in hell if we don’t repent, maybe they need to continue hearing about how their faith is all about guilt and conformity. Hell will continue being a reality to them, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be a reality for everyone else.

The framework of Christianity boils down to this: anyone who disagrees or rebels against their god or Bible, is satanic.
Those who disagree with us/the Bible=bad guys
Those who agree with us=good guys

In presuming to know what "Christians" like or don't like, you commit the genetic fallacy.

"What Christianity requires" is a misconception of what God offers. Anyone can read a Bible and come away with an assumption of what the text demands of them. But, if a person picks up a Bible, or even looks upon the book of nature with a desire for something beyond that which they can readily grasp with their five senses, they will find something that gives them hope that the thing they seek might be within reach after all.

God will not force those who have no desire to suddenly have it, in spite of themselves. But He will condescend to give hope to those who have none, but who will also concede to consider how it might benefit them or, even, those they love and influence.

Everything depends on the right action of the will. We cannot, of ourselves, give our hearts to God, nor should we expect to be magically inclined to do so. But we can open the door to possibility. We can taste and see that the Lord is good, or is not good.

This world is fought over by 2 diametrically opposed forces. If this is so much as a remotely conceivable hypothesis, and we refuse to see even the possibility that such a thing could be so, then we might just be effectively surrendering ourselves to the side that requires no invitation to marshal our efforts and resources.

Hell (even the kind that only punishes directly commensurate with truly deserving culpability) is no effective incentive to love, and any intellectually sound conception of a supreme being obviously precludes such a notion.

The Bible passages which threaten destruction are far outweighed by those which promise rest and peace. Those who are looking for such evidence will see no shortage. And those who are looking for hooks upon which to hang their doubts will, likewise, find plenty.

Personally, I find little pleasure in being agreed with. It is wildly overrated. I would far rather see someone relieved of a burden, whether it be physical, mental/emotional, or spiritual.

To which I might add, I would respectfully request that no -likes- be given to this post. I find that cheerleading in a situation like this is becoming more and more unpleasant to me these days.