Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

No, just you.

 

Stranger

Hmm... I'm bored of you.  Have a good day.

[Stranger]

 

From genesis?  I must have missed that.  Quote it again.

 

Go back and reread.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Hmm... I'm bored of you.  Have a good day.

 

Yourself

 

Stranger

[Astreja]

 

The New Testament is Jewish Scripture also.

 

Not in the eyes of Judaism.  What you have there is nothing more than fan fiction loosely based on Judaism -- with Paul the Antichrist as the author, and Jesus playing the role of Mary Sue.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

That is what I said.  You opted for the wisdom of the world.

 

If that's the way you want to put it. You keep believing in a book that's clearly wrong then. The fantasy gives you comfort. Let us not take that from you.

 

 

Again, that is an assumption.

 

No it's not. If your faith is reliable you would be able to show it. That you can't shows its not reliable. That's demonstrable not an assumption.

 

 

 If I remind you of you, then I would abandon the faith also.  When I do, then you can say I remind you of you.   Until then...I don't.

 

You clearly have comprehension problems. My grandfather reminds me of me, but I don't do EVERYTHING he does. But he still reminds me of me, and you remind me of me WHEN I was a Christian. Saying I don't remind you of me is pointless. You could remind me of a pink daisy, and saying "no you don't" is pointless because you do. Understand? Happy now?

 

 

If you couldn't ignore so called evidence against the Bible, then you never came by faith. 

 

I did ignore evidence... for 32 years. Then I found out that ignoring evidence was ignoring reality and dishonest. I value honesty and integrity so I searched for evidence the bible is true and found none. If faith is ignoring everything to believe in a fantasy then I don't want faith, and you just proved that faith not being a reliable path to truth is not an assumption. Its fact.

 

 

I am aware of bias...yet I still believe.

 

I would have never guessed... I really thought you were coming round and understanding what we are saying.

 

 

What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change. 

 

*Sigh* Stranger, you need to working on reading comprehension. I just told you I don't trust or expect science as final conclusions. You saying that I do trust science as final shows how arrogant and asinine you are.

 

 

 

You assume the Book is imaginary.  

 

*Wall please*  Thank you.

 

Show me where I said the book is imaginary. Your reading comprehension is shocking! We can't even have a simple conversation.

[nutrichuckles93]

*doesn't visit the board for two days*

 

*comes to visit this thread and sees ten new pages*

 

Holy shiiiiiit. This is some of the most ignorant, incomprehensible crap I've ever seen. I agree with Florduh's earlier post. This is freaking depressing if this is your true mindset and way of looking at reason, Stranger.

[florduh]

It gets more depressing daily. The upside is that it is just this kind of demonstration of "faith" that serves to instruct lurkers on what the religion does to people. It rots their brain.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I have no patience with clowns. Stranger said that God feels AND that God did not change His mind, while quoting the KJV that says, “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” 

 

That just means that God changed His mind and wished He hadn't made the earth after all.

 

No one wants some piss-poor Canaanite hill divinity who can't even manage his own creation. If you're going to argue for theism, go metaphysically ultimate or go home. A god that reacts to actions of creatures cannot be the first cause of anything, for whatever reacts to X is posterior to X. 

 

Fail.

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Not in the eyes of Judaism.  What you have there is nothing more than fan fiction loosely based on Judaism -- with Paul the Antichrist as the author, and Jesus playing the role of Mary Sue.

 

And what do you see Judaism is?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

If that's the way you want to put it. You keep believing in a book that's clearly wrong then. The fantasy gives you comfort. Let us not take that from you.

 

 

No it's not. If your faith is reliable you would be able to show it. That you can't shows its not reliable. That's demonstrable not an assumption.

 

 

You clearly have comprehension problems. My grandfather reminds me of me, but I don't do EVERYTHING he does. But he still reminds me of me, and you remind me of me WHEN I was a Christian. Saying I don't remind you of me is pointless. You could remind me of a pink daisy, and saying "no you don't" is pointless because you do. Understand? Happy now?

 

 

I did ignore evidence... for 32 years. Then I found out that ignoring evidence was ignoring reality and dishonest. I value honesty and integrity so I searched for evidence the bible is true and found none. If faith is ignoring everything to believe in a fantasy then I don't want faith, and you just proved that faith not being a reliable path to truth is not an assumption. Its fact.

 

 

I would have never guessed... I really thought you were coming round and understanding what we are saying.

 

 

*Sigh* Stranger, you need to working on reading comprehension. I just told you I don't trust or expect science as final conclusions. You saying that I do trust science as final shows how arrogant and asinine you are.

 

 

 

*Wall please*  Thank you.

 

Show me where I said the book is imaginary. Your reading comprehension is shocking! We can't even have a simple conversation.

 

That is the way the Bible puts it. (1Cor. 2:6)   Don't worry, you will not affect my faith. 

 

My faith works and is reliable because it is from God.   It's reliability does not depend on your approval.  It does not depend on me being able to demonstrate it to you scientifically.  (1Cor. 2:7-12)  

 

If you had the faith I have you wouldn't be where you are today.   Which means there is nothing in me that  should remind you of you.   If you had the faith I have you know the Bible is true.    If you had the faith I have you know it is no fantasy but truth.    Faith is not ignoring evidence.  Faith is evidence.  Just because it is not demonstrable to science doesn't mean it isn't real.  It is not demonstrable to you and science because God wants it that way.   Faith and things of the Spirit of God are unreachable by science.  

 

I understand what you are saying.   I will never come around to what you are saying.

 

You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'.   

 

Stranger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stranger]

 

*doesn't visit the board for two days*

 

*comes to visit this thread and sees ten new pages*

 

Holy shiiiiiit. This is some of the most ignorant, incomprehensible crap I've ever seen. I agree with Florduh's earlier post. This is freaking depressing if this is your true mindset and way of looking at reason, Stranger.

 

Well, both reason and faith are being discussed.

 

Stranger

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

Then present it in a brief forum fashion.   One question or point at a time.  

 

Stranger

 

The point was to show that it's not just one or two little things. There's a plethora of internal problems in the Bible. Just like you, I used to be unaware of the problems. Eventually I was shocked to learn about how problematic the Bible really is.

 

Even though there's a lot to what I posted, it's broken down into a lot of little sections dealing with specific subjects. If you wanted to, you could easily just start with a section at a time and we could go through it. However, you've chosen to just ignore it altogether. The proof that the Bible is not the word of God was staring you in the face, and you didn't even bother to read it.

 

In your time here so far you have demonstrated a complete lack of ability to use reason. When people post solid points, you just deny them without even thinking about the points or ignore them altogether. You have demonstrated that conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

 

 

 

Then you never came by faith.   

 

Stranger

 

Oh, how I wish that was true, but it's not.

 

Have a nice life. Enjoy your delusion.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

You have demonstrated that conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

 

 

 

 

Like, totally.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

That is the way the Bible puts it. (1Cor. 2:6)   Don't worry, you will not affect my faith.

 

No, but hopefully others will read this and realize what an intellectually dishonest position you hold and rethink their own faith.

 

 

My faith works and is reliable because it is from God.   It's reliability does not depend on your approval.  It does not depend on me being able to demonstrate it to you scientifically.  (1Cor. 2:7-12)

 

Its only reliable to you - it means nothing to someone else and you cannot demonstrate the truth of your faith to anyone else. And you have yet to demonstrate God so the first line is an assertion without good reason to believe it.

 

 

If you had the faith I have you wouldn't be where you are today.   Which means there is nothing in me that  should remind you of you.   If you had the faith I have you know the Bible is true.    If you had the faith I have you know it is no fantasy but truth.    Faith is not ignoring evidence.  Faith is evidence.  Just because it is not demonstrable to science doesn't mean it isn't real.  It is not demonstrable to you and science because God wants it that way.   Faith and things of the Spirit of God are unreachable by science.

 

So God is intentionally hiding things from us, and made the world such as it is to be discovered by science, but for that science to be wrong?

 

 

I understand what you are saying.   I will never come around to what you are saying.

 

Which means your mind is closed and you don't care about the truth, whatever that truth may be. Whereas I do care, and my mind is open to what the truth might be. That you cannot demonstrate what you believe is true does not detract from the fact that I am open to what is true. That is the difference between you and I.

 

 

You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'.

 

You demonstrate a poor understanding of science. Some science is so solid that it can be fact, or laws. Take the theory of gravity. While our understanding of it changes, the fact of gravity is not fluid. Anyone who thinks it is can jump off a cliff and see if their 'fluid' science stops for them for a while.

 

Other areas of science, such as those areas at the edge of our understand could be describe as fluid as we learn more about particular subjects.

 

Evidence can be the same. If I take a ball and drop it 100 times, it will fall to the ground 100 times. This is evidence of the theory of gravity. It's not fluid... it's pretty solid. I can apply the same evidence to different objects and get the same result. Other evidence requires more interpretation and sometimes we getting differing interpretations as to how the evidence fits. But over all, after long periods of study, the knowledge of a subject becomes more robust and tentative conclusions reached.

 

Regarding the bible - in some cases its the lack of evidence that speaks most loudly. No sign of a global flood, no signs of a mass exodus from Egypt. On top of that there is evidence of the Israelite arising out of local Canaanite populations. This is some solid evidence against the bible... and I don't think I've brushed the dust off the top of the jumbo bin of evidence against the bible.

 

On the other hand you evidence is faith, which you cannot demonstrate even to a fluid degree. Try this one for size:

 

"I tell all of you with certainty, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."

 

and nothing will be impossible for you."

 

Nothing Stranger, nothing impossible for you.

 

So video yourself moving a mountain and you will have a mountain of evidence I will believe....

.

.

.

 

Wait for the excuse... wait for it....  

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

Well, both reason and faith are being discussed.

 

Stranger

I agree that they are being discussed, but you are completely ignoring anything reasonable because it contradicts your faith. Even though what you place faith in has contradicted itself many times over. Don't talk about reason until you are willing to look at a viewpoint other than what you have been taught to believe.

[Astreja]

 

And what do you see Judaism is?

 

I see Judaism as a much more coherent religion than Christianity, with only 3 major variants.  It's still based on mythology, but it promotes a much more practical worldview and is much more oriented towards works.

 

If for some bizarre reason I had to adopt one of the Abrahamic religions and had to pretend to believe (not capable of actual religious faith, so it would all be make-believe regardless of which one I chose), I would opt for Reform Judaism over any Christian sect.

[Astreja]

 

My faith works and is reliable because it is from God.

 

I'd bet good money -- thousands of dollars, in fact -- on the premise that your faith can't actually do anything tangible in the real world.  Perhaps it makes you feel special, and causes you to fear death less because you think you have a spot in heaven.  I rather doubt that you could bring someone back from the dead, or restore a limb to an amputee.  As such, your idea of faith "working" is weak sauce. 

 

I understand what you are saying.   I will never come around to what you are saying.

 

Nevertheless, you are inexorably fated to lose your faith at the moment of physical death.  As soon as your heart stops and your brain ceases functioning, you will fall into unconsciousness and not even know that you no longer believe anything.  I predict, with 99.999...% certainty, that you will never see heaven no matter how fervently you believe or how much you pray.

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

(1 Cor. 2:13)  You have opted for the wisdom of the world.  

 

It doesn't mean my faith is wrong either. 

 

Please, quit saying I remind you of me.    If that were true I would abandon the faith as you have said you did. 

 

You cannot eliminate bias.  All have it.  Yes the reality we live in is real.  

 

You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning.

 

Stranger

 

*sigh* As opposed to sky wisdom? Is there any other kind of wisdom? You know your book is "of the world" written by "fallen men?" Right?

As for telling you how much you remind us of our old selves, hell no we aren't going to stop saying it. Just because you can't see how similar it is and how we've moved on from it doesn't mean you aren't like us. Even at the very least, if we're wrong and going to hell and you are right and never abandon the faith....you still remind us of how we used to be. We have just become fallen heathens, apparently. 

 

You can't eliminate bias completely, no, but you can face it and attempt to reject it as opposed to using it as an excuse to stay mired in irrational, dense, and uncritical thinking.

 

Finally, you assume we "trust" science. I, as an agnostic, find science to be just as unreliable sometimes. Formal logic doesn't really change, it's been the same for a loooong time now. Irrational thinking and logical fallacies are still a thing, bro.

 

 

 

Christ's blood paid the price for those He loved, and those He didn't. 

 

Your example of Moses smiting the rock was at the end of the many frustrations of the Hebrew people.  They constantly rebelled and complained against God and Moses.  If you had read it as you said, you would have seen it.   Thus it wasn't a picture of God being impatient when He smote the rock.   Go back and read again.  

 

(2 Thess. 2:11)  God gives a lie to those who want a lie.  

 

You brought up the verses in Galatians.  Not me. 

 

I am under no requirement of God to keep slaves.   As to rape, where in the New Testament is that said to be right.  

 

I am answering to the best of my ability.  Explain your 2+2=5 or 6.   I believe I have spent a lot of time writing to you and others also.  

 

Stranger

 

 

 

*double sigh* I'll just drop the sacrifice thing, it seems you are never going to come to terms with this. Nothing was sacrificed, nothing paid the price for anything. He doesn't love you and likely doesn't exist.

 

I suppose a 40 year sentence for "many frustrations" makes sense to someone who also sees hell as reasonable. Good luck with that.

 

Then I guess he shouldn't tell us not to lie if he compels it. How does anyone know the truth from a lie if god could make someone lie at will? Free will my ass.

 

Sure I did, if you want to behave immaturely about it. I told you there are way bigger issues I would "argue about" and you did the same shit I called you on earlier. You ignore the main point, that there are WAY HUGER problems in the bible worth arguing over, and you picked an inconsequential point and did the whole "you started it" bit. I told you this. This is likely how you read the bible and further demonstrates how unreliably you exegete the biblical texts. 

 

You're continually missing my whole goddamn point. WHY must I pick a verse out of the NT? Why? What has changed about God from the Old Testament? You are trying to force me to focus on newer gospels that try to explain away the old gospels, but if God commanded it in the OT, what changed? I will not "follow your rule" and only pick from the new testament, because god is unchanging, according to your bible, and would therefore still be pleased by it today. I guess that just depends on you definition of command. 

 

Deuteronomy 20:10-12: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city." The verse goes on to talk about how all the men are to be put to the sword and how the women "may be taken for themselves." How nice of god. I realize you may notice that this chapter has to do with war, but we don't take current civilians as slaves during war, so what gives?

 

The "2+2" reference was me pointing out that, while both verses are ultimately wrong because "2+2=4," you have verses that directly give two different answers that cannot be misinterpreted. So, for one example (of many):

 

2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king...

 

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king....

 

 

 

I have given you that Adam knew enough.   I have showed you.   I personally believe he knew more.   But irregardless, he knew enough.

 

Stranger

 

I am sorry to be an ass, but this is such a pet peeve of mine. "Irregardless" is just not a word. It negates itself since "regardless" means "without paying attention to the present situation," so irregardless would mean exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say. 

[ag_NO_stic]

I am curious how you respond to the holy quran, since you are using blasphemous scripture at us. Allah, may he be praised, has some words for Jesus (peace be upon him) and they disagree with your verses. If your yahweh inspired your verses and my Allah inspired mine, how should I figure out who's telling the truth?

[4:158] And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty"

[Guest]

I didn't intend to wade into this conversation, because I see how futile it is. But I have just one question for @Stranger Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that your presupposition in this whole thread is one which follows dogma, that God must exist, that Jesus must exist, that all the teachings of Christianity must be true, and therefore any other perspectives are secondary and of no consequence. You got halfway there with insulting all of the information Citsonga provided. This is what people have been talking about when they talk about having bias. Btw I'm not only posting this for you Stranger, but for all the lurkers out there who are following this thread. Don't start an intellectual conversation when you refuse to even consider the points of the other side. 

[midniterider]

 

I agree that they are being discussed, but you are completely ignoring anything reasonable because it contradicts your faith. Even though what you place faith in has contradicted itself many times over. Don't talk about reason until you are willing to look at a viewpoint other than what you have been taught to believe.

 

I am willing to say, "Stranger could be correct about Jesus, the bible, religion." I mean really, he could be correct. I just choose not to accept his religion because I think it's false, and run by fear. But I am willing to verbalize the possibility that I am wrong.

 

I would actually value Stranger's words if he could at least verbalize that he may be wrong. Someone who is never wrong, be it Stranger or Jesus, is suspicious and I don't put my trust in them. Turn or burn doesn't sell it to me. It's like a used car salesman telling me, "Check out this baby. She runs like a top!" Yeah, right. There's always something 'wrong' with something. We've ALREADY worshiped Jesus and we discovered along the way lots of things that were wrong with Christianity. We've been on both sides. The non-belief side is better.

 

Here's a fun cult link to compare and contrast Stranger's interactions so far, or your own experience with the Christian organization (where you see the words 'group/leader' , replace that with Jesus Christ):

https://www.familiesagainstcultteachings.org/Cult-Education/Cult-Warning-Signs/

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

I am willing to say, "Stranger could be correct about Jesus, the bible, religion." I mean really, he could be correct. I just choose not to accept his religion because I think it's false, and run by fear. But I am willing to verbalize the possibility that I am wrong.

 

I would actually value Stranger's words if he could at least verbalize that he may be wrong. Someone who is never wrong, be it Stranger or Jesus, is suspicious and I don't put my trust in them. Turn or burn doesn't sell it to me. It's like a used car salesman telling me, "Check out this baby. She runs like a top!" Yeah, right. There's always something 'wrong' with something. We've ALREADY worshiped Jesus and we discovered along the way lots of things that were wrong with Christianity. We've been on both sides. The non-belief side is better.

 

Here's a fun cult link to compare and contrast Stranger's interactions so far, or your own experience with the Christian organization (where you see the words 'group/leader' , replace that with Jesus Christ):

https://www.familiesagainstcultteachings.org/Cult-Education/Cult-Warning-Signs/

Very good link. Clearly, my church was very much a cult despite saying otherwise (very suspicious).

 

This is a long thread, so this may have already been done, but I want to pose a question to Stranger:

 

How did you come to learn about Jesus Christ? Do you remember explicitly how you came to know about him, or has it seemed like the knowledge has always been with you because your parents have always believed and it was just always around in your household growing up? If that is so, have you ever considered that maybe your family (or whomever taught you about the bible) was faulty in their teaching? That they did not know what they were telling you? No matter how sincere it may have been?

 

Maybe a futile attempt, but I did not see this avenue explored yet.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

Very good link. Clearly, my church was very much a cult despite saying otherwise (very suspicious).

 

This is a long thread, so this may have already been done, but I want to pose a question to Stranger:

 

How did you come to learn about Jesus Christ? Do you remember explicitly how you came to know about him, or has it seemed like the knowledge has always been with you because your parents have always believed and it was just always around in your household growing up? If that is so, have you ever considered that maybe your family (or whomever taught you about the bible) was faulty in their teaching? That they did not know what they were telling you? No matter how sincere it may have been?

 

Maybe a futile attempt, but I did not see this avenue explored yet.

 

See around post #295. Born 'n raised, this one.

[nutrichuckles93]

 

 

See around post #295. Born 'n raised, this one.

Ah, I see it. It can be hard to remember. This is easily the longest thread I've seen since joining the site.

 

Alas, I thought maybe phrasing it a different way might help get the point (of seeing an alternate view as potentially valid) in his head. Probably not, but thought it worth an attempt.

[bornagainathiest]

"What I said was you err because you trust what science says as final conclusions.  And they are not.  They are conclusions at this time only.   Open for change." 

 

"You err because you trust science to give you final conclusions, which it can't.   It is always still learning."

 

"You don't trust or expect science to offer final conclusions.    Which means your so called 'evidence' is very 'fluid'."  

 

Hello again Stranger.

I've cited you three times because I'm interested to find out more about your take on science.  

Of the sciences, mathematics is considered to be the one that deals in absolutes.

Therefore, if I give you an example, perhaps you could demonstrate for me the fluidity of this evidence?  

Or show me why the example isn't a final conclusion?  

Or how this example is open for change?

 

Here it is.

 

2 + 2 = 4

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.