LloydDobler Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I'm putting this in Science because it relies on math. Math is kind of scientific, right? In my last round of debates I stumbled upon a truth that I think is a nice indirect debunking of christianity. One of the main issues commonly debated is 'the problem of evil' and 'sinful nature' of people. I find it funny that christians claim that sin is part of our nature and yet remove the responsibility from god for giving us that nature. Original sin, man's choice, yadda yadda yadda. Choice. Free will. Those are the words that stick in my brain, and it then occurred to me, what choice do we really have? The bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god. 100% of mankind sins. In fact, they need 100% of mankind to sin, because if it were even possible to live sin free, you wouldn't need Jesus' atoning sacrifice. All have sinned.... This is kind of interesting. I only took one class on statistics in college, but I think I learned that if a sample is highly skewed for one result, you have the ability to predict that result with a high degree of accuracy. If you have a 100% sample, it's as close to a guarantee as mathematically possible. So christians believe that 100% of humans sin. They also believe that sin is a choice and we choose to reject Christ. This is a blatant contradiction. If 100% of all humans have always sinned, it is statistically impossible to not sin. I mean think about it. There are about 6.5 billion people on earth right now. Not even counting dead people. Even if there was ONE person in the world who chose not to sin, you're looking at a one in 6.5 billion probability. But it's not that. It's zero out of 6.5 billion. This projects a 100% probability. But it gets better, the bible declares it to be a 100% probability, past, present and future. We don't even need to rely on the statistics to know that doctrinally this is what christians believe. If the probability is 100% then it's not a choice. What this boils down to is a philosophical logical fallacy. You can't have free will if you don't have a choice. But a just god wouldn't condemn someone for something they can't choose not to do. Therefore they say you can choose. Christian statistical evidence shows that you can't choose to be sinless. Therefore the responsibility for sin lies on the creator, not the created. God makes us sinful so he can save us from himself. Conclusion: There is no room for free will in christianity. Christians cannot claim humans have free will unless they reject the 'all have sinned' doctrine. If not all have sinned, then it's possible to not need Christ, because one could be saved by being sin-free. And to say something is possible but never occurs violates logic and the mathematical rules of probability. In the end it's just another christian contradiction hidden within flowery language and cognitive dissonance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Good point. Not to mention that at least half the things Christians consider "sins" are biological in nature and the person really doesn't have a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Lloyd has written what I consider a very interesting piece here. Most everything he has to say, statement by statement, is correct in my view. One thing that is missing is that humans will not be judged on the basis of their sins. Being saved is strictly a compatibility issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 Lloyd has written what I consider a very interesting piece here. Most everything he has to say, statement by statement, is correct in my view. One thing that is missing is that humans will not be judged on the basis of their sins. Being saved is strictly a compatibility issue. Compatibility with what? Explain please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Compatibility with a blood thirsty monster tribal god of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Damn Lloyd, thats a some good brand of Fruit Loops you've been snorting.. Had never thought of *free will* and *probability* in such a light. Gonna take some cognitatin' and ker-thunkin' for this to sink in deeper.. kL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Natural" humans are body and soul. Regenerate ones are body, soul and spirit. It is the addition (actually restoration) of the spirit component that is the basis for interaction with God. You will rarely see or hear this clarified (which is probably why I have a hell of time finding a church I'm happy with) but the above is really floating-right-on-top doctrine. I can flesh it out, but would rather do so in a more appropriate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Natural" humans are body and soul. Regenerate ones are body, soul and spirit. It is the addition (actually restoration) of the spirit component that is the basis for interaction with God. Could you please define the following 1)Spirit 2)Soul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Natural" humans are body and soul. Regenerate ones are body, soul and spirit. It is the addition (actually restoration) of the spirit component that is the basis for interaction with God.This is pretty much on target. As to the OP, what it seems that has been said is that because you can not be totally perfect, then being totally imperfect is someone else's fault. Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Well done, Lloyd. I have always noted a serious discrepancy in the notion of being condemned for something we in reality cannot avoid. Wonderful post that is sure to be a thorn in the ass of any stubborn Xian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 As to the OP, what it seems that has been said is that because you can not be totally perfect, then being totally imperfect is someone else's fault. Hmm. No, it's not about perfection. It's about condemnation for something unavoidable, as Wolfheart so directly put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laura Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I understand your basic point, Loyd. excellent work. It's just........ aaallllllllll thosssssse nummmmmmbers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts