Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bazz99

Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

because of the free-will principle.

Would a loving god interfere with free will? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, I don't see the added value to a stance of it's not expected that I do anything with my life.  All of us fail, Christian or not.  People encouraging others to even start with some decent, non-self work, is a start.  I gather encouraging others that have been through religious trauma has a good place.

 

Edgarcito,

 

I just don't see that what you wrote above has anything much to do with what I wrote to you.  But never mind.  I see that you skipped over one of my posts, so here it is again.  Please answer my questions.  Thank you. Walter.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edgarcito,

 

To follow up on what the RedneckProfessor has been driving at, please consider this.  Is it not your daily aim to be more and more Christ-like?  If so, then surely the things that are important to him are the things that should be important to you.  And that passage from Matthew 25 that I've quoted twice now clearly spells out that... the least of these brothers and sisters of mine... are VERY important to him.  

 

You'll notice that Jesus doesn't specifically mention ten year old girls being held in sexual slavery. 

 

So, do you think that because he doesn't speak about this specific instance, her suffering can't be very important to him?

 

Well?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

I just don't see that what you wrote above has anything much to do with what I wrote to you.  But never mind.  I see that you skipped over one of my posts, so here it is again.  Please answer my questions.  Thank you. Walter.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edgarcito,

 

To follow up on what the RedneckProfessor has been driving at, please consider this.  Is it not your daily aim to be more and more Christ-like?  If so, then surely the things that are important to him are the things that should be important to you.  And that passage from Matthew 25 that I've quoted twice now clearly spells out that... the least of these brothers and sisters of mine... are VERY important to him.  

 

You'll notice that Jesus doesn't specifically mention ten year old girls being held in sexual slavery. 

 

So, do you think that because he doesn't speak about this specific instance, her suffering can't be very important to him?

 

Well?

 

 

Walter, sir, it is my opinion that I can't understand the larger picture.....how it all comingles to end where it ends.  Outside of that, He gives us ten commandments and employs that we do the best we can with them....and that Jesus makes up for our shortcomings.  You got that in your 20+ years, right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

We should accept our own part , if any, for evil we cause.  I agree. 

 

The point I think some of us are trying to make though is that God is praised by Christians for loving the children yet reality says that forced labor and human trafficking is a $150 billion dollar per year industry. God's plan to let humanity save the children (somehow via the working of the HS) is not working. 

 

I'm illustrating that God probably doesnt exist, because a real God that did exist and did love the children would not love them by allowing child slavery. 

 

Saying God empowers people to do something by human means is bullshit. Does God empower atheists to do something by human means? Why not just say that "A big nothing" empowers me to do what I'm already empowered to do. Pretty silly, imo.

It's obvious that you're passionate about the human trafficking issue, for which you're to be commended. Technically, however, the argument that we expect a deity to do X and a deity doesn't do X therefore no deity exists is non sequitur. Again, this is trying to impeach the metaphysical existence of a deity with an ethical argument; while there may be moral merit in such a position, it doesn't work logically. You can reasonably argue that a deity who doesn't prevent every evil doesn't exist, but that argument can't be extended to deity in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Would a loving god interfere with free will? 

Remember-----I speculated on the existence of a loving god who couldn't prevent every evil precisely because of being unable to interfere with free will. I put that forward as a theoretical limit on such a god's omnipotence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some bible verses need to be removed then. 

 

I do understand that it is standard operating procedure for Christians to be happy with a God that does not do anything but I challenge that idea.

 

What seems illogical to me is that we should be praising a god who tells people that they need to handle their own problems. 

 

I'm just enjoying the debate really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

Technically, however, the argument that we expect a deity to do X and a deity doesn't do X therefore no deity exists is non sequitur.

Bear in mind that the deity in question, and in fact all deities, are of by necessity human invention. The mistake that was made when coming up with the OT mean god turned NT nice god was to assign him the qualities of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Added to that were the assumptions that this god was all good and all loving. Clearly, real life would indicate that no such entity exists. Of course this doesn't prove that there isn't a deity in charge that keeps his hands off human affairs and just watches as we self destruct within his world of randomness. And obviously, it is also not incumbent on anyone to disprove any of the myriad god assertions men have made over the millennia. If one proposes a god then let him bring forth evidence for it. I will not and cannot craft arguments against the existence of Jehovah, Zeus, Apollo, Santa or the tooth fairy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

Remember-----I speculated on the existence of a loving god who couldn't prevent every evil precisely because of being unable to interfere with free will. I put that forward as a theoretical limit on such a god's omnipotence.

Remember----I specifically said I am working toward demonstrating whether edgarcito's original premise has merit.  I don't really care about the existence of deity in general; but, rather, the specific deity in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, sir, it is my opinion that I can't understand the larger picture.....how it all comingles to end where it ends.  Outside of that, He gives us ten commandments and employs that we do the best we can with them....and that Jesus makes up for our shortcomings.  You got that in your 20+ years, right??

 

I see that once again you dodged the question, Edgarcito.

 

Then you flipped the focus round to turn the spotlight on me.

 

If you don't understand what Jesus would think about the suffering of that ten year old sex slave, then please just say so. 

 

Well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Remember----I specifically said I am working toward demonstrating whether edgarcito's original premise has merit.  I don't really care about the existence of deity in general; but, rather, the specific deity in question.

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

Fair enough.

Since you broached the subject though, does non-interference in free will favor the evil or the innocent?  What does our present reality demonstrate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Remember----I specifically said I am working toward demonstrating whether edgarcito's original premise has merit.  I don't really care about the existence of deity in general; but, rather, the specific deity in question.

 

Right. The specific one we are interested in has a bible claiming that it loves the children. Reality says different.

 

So what is the conclusion from that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Since you broached the subject though, does non-interference in free will favor the evil or the innocent?  What does our present reality demonstrate?

Non interference favors however free will is exercised. The evil aren't the only ones with free will. Many evils *are* prevented or made right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

Non interference favors however free will is exercised. The evil aren't the only ones with free will. Many evils *are* prevented or made right.

So the "free will" of the ten-year-old sex slave?  Is it exercised?  Or is it violated? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So the "free will" of the ten-year-old sex slave?  Is it exercised?  Or is it violated? 

It's definitely violated. And when the enslaver is caught, the free will of her rescuers is exercised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

It's definitely violated. And if the enslaver is caught, the free will of her rescuers is exercised.

Fixed that for you.

 

This is the problem with non-interference in free will, irrespective of which deity is involved.  Non-interference invariably favors the evil.  The free will of Hitler versus that of 6.5 million Jews,  the free will of a mass murderer versus that of the victims, the free will of a con artist versus that of a mark.  Evil invariably prevails.  god is not exculpated simply because he doesn't interfere.  If anything, he is further inculpated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Fixed that for you.

 

This is the problem with non-interference in free will, irrespective of which deity is involved.  Non-interference invariably favors the evil.  The free will of Hitler versus that of 6.5 million Jews,  the free will of a mass murderer versus that of the victims, the free will of a con artist versus that of a mark.  Evil invariably prevails.  god is not exculpated simply because he doesn't interfere.  If anything, he is further inculpated.

Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:1 - What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:2 - By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:3 - Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:4 - We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:5 - For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:6 - For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[fn] that we should no longer be slaves to sin—

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:7 - because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:8 - Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:9 - For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:10 - The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:11 - In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:12 - Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:13 - Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:14 - For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
 
 

Slaves to Righteousness

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:15 - What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:16 - Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:17 - But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:18 - You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:19 - I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:20 - When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:21 - What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:22 - But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

Unchecked Copy BoxRom 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[fn] Christ Jesus our Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Fixed that for you.

 

This is the problem with non-interference in free will, irrespective of which deity is involved.  Non-interference invariably favors the evil.  The free will of Hitler versus that of 6.5 million Jews,  the free will of a mass murderer versus that of the victims, the free will of a con artist versus that of a mark.  Evil invariably prevails.  god is not exculpated simply because he doesn't interfere.  If anything, he is further inculpated.

Hitler was defeated. Mass murderers and con artists are caught. Evil does not invariably prevail. 

 

I sometimes pity atheists. "Evil invariably prevails" seems to be atheism's thesis statement. When a victim of injustice dies, do you have the intellectual rigor to look into the eyes of that victim's loved ones and say the words "evil invariably prevails"?

 

Those who suffer the most are in the most need of hope, and hope is not conveyed in the assurance of evil's invariable triumph. Surrender in the face of evil does those who suffer no service.

 

The belief that there is more to existence than this one life isn't a naiive flight of fancy. It's even more than a metaphysical possibility; it's a refusal to let evil prevail, because the ultimate goal of evil is to steal hope in what's worth hoping for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

Hitler was defeated. Mass murderers and con artists are caught. Evil does not invariably prevail. 

 

I sometimes pity atheists. "Evil invariably prevails" seems to be atheism's thesis statement. When a victim of injustice dies, do you have the intellectual rigor to look into the eyes of that victim's loved ones and say the words "evil invariably prevails"?

 

Those who suffer the most are in the most need of hope, and hope is not conveyed in the assurance of evil's invariable triumph. Surrender in the face of evil does those who suffer no service.

 

The belief that there is more to existence than this one life isn't a naiive flight of fancy. It's even more than a metaphysical possibility; it's a refusal to let evil prevail, because the ultimate goal of evil is to steal hope in what's worth hoping for. 

Excellent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

The belief that there is more to existence than this one life isn't a naiive flight of fancy. It's even more than a metaphysical possibility; it's a refusal to let evil prevail, because the ultimate goal of evil is to steal hope in what's worth hoping for. 

I'm still not sure you're understanding the point I'm trying to make here; but, I can assure you that I agree with this paragraph entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Dead

...

(Snipped)

The bible is incomplete; it even says so in the bible.  Thus the bible is unreliable as evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The bible is incomplete; it even says so in the bible.  Thus the bible is unreliable as evidence.

Except where it's not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As god is all-loving, it loves everything and everyone. It loves the little girl, as much as it loves her tormentors. And hence it doesn't interfere in anything at all. So everything and anything goes. If it was not the case, then we would have seen the tormentors struck down by lightning or something!

 

This could mean that the definition of god needs to be re-done. A god cannot be then called omni-potent or omniscient. The Eastern-religion's idea of god as consciousness/awareness/wokeness/all-is-one makes more sense then. If the tormentors raised their consciousness/awareness, they would realize that their victim shares the same consciousness and is not separate from them. This will deter them from harming the girl.

 

So the bottomline is that everything is within us, I can be one of the tormentors but my conscience wouldn't allow me to do that. So the ability to prevent some bad doings, or to promote the same lies within me. I simply need to raise my awareness and I will know if I am going to do something bad that I will be doing it against myself.

For example, the idea behind nature-worship is the same. If people do not do nature-worship, they will see nature as separate from themselves and will act in ways that will destroy nature/environment which is a life-giving source.

 

This problem can only be solved by re-defining the concept of God. The belief-based god mentioned in the Bible doesn't really cut it to solve real-world problems like that of the little girl. The very premise that - if you do not worship me, you will go to hell - should give one an idea if this really is the case or if it is a tool to control people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Moonobserver said:

 

 

The belief that there is more to existence than this one life isn't a naiive flight of fancy. It's even more than a metaphysical possibility; it's a refusal to let evil prevail, because the ultimate goal of evil is to steal hope in what's worth hoping for. 

 

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Except where it's not...

😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.