Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Gadarene]

If Christ's sacrifice is the means by which God chooses to extend His mercy, love and forgiveness to humanity that is desperately in need of it, how could said sacrifice be rightly labeled as "pointless"?

Did you not read my post? It is pointless because there is no need for the situation "necessitating" the sacrifice to have arisen in the first place. There is no justice in damning people created imperfect for not being perfect. There is no justice in damning people for making an honest mistake about the supposed divinity of Christ.

Because God created humans with the ability to choose between right and wrong???

Well, actually, he didn't. He created them with the technical ability to choose, but not the knowledge of what actually constituted right and wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

Unless he dies tomorrow.

But I'm assuming the omnipotent God isn't in control of that either?



Well, now we have two Christians claiming two contradictory things. According to Elioenai, we always get what we want. According to you, we don't.

Who to believe?



Again, this fails for the same reason the "drowning man refusing help" analogy fails earlier.

We know cars exist. The same cannot be said for the dilemma God has allegedly placed us in.



Perfection is not a requirement in practice, that doesn't change the fact that it is regularly claimed as the standard by which we fail God and deserve death. It is the reason that we supposedly need to choose Christ.

If that isn't what you're claiming here, then fair enough, but again, who to believe?



And whose fault is it that those are the only two options available?



Quite - which is why many of us would not sacrifice our integrity if it turned out the God of the Bible as described by many of his followers did exist.

You keep mentioning the word "integrity" as if accepting Christ's offer of salvation would be acting without "integrity".

If a man is told he has terminal cancer because he was born into a family of smokers, but by his own free choice without being compelled to, smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years, and then he is told that a special form of chemo therapy will save him from the certain death that is sure to come from going untreated, would you consider this man lacking in integrity if he were to accept the therapy?

 

[Gadarene]

You keep mentioning the word "integrity" as if accepting Christ's offer of salvation would be acting without "integrity".

If a man is told he has terminal cancer because he was born into a family of smokers, but by his own free choice without being compelled to, smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years, and then he is told that a special form of chemo therapy will save him from the certain death that is sure to come from going untreated, would you consider this man lacking in integrity if he were to accept the therapy?

False analogy fail again.

God is not a naturalistic mechanism like cancer, with no agency.

God is a volitional agent who CHOOSES to create people, knowing they will fail him, the majority of them to the point of failing to be saved.

God CHOOSES to only provide so much evidence such that only a fraction of created humans are convinced his offer exists, and is a good one.

God CHOOSES to send people who disagree with him, even honestly, to eternal punishment.

A better analogy would be accepting the unjust punishment dished out by a dictator. It is of course a less than ideal and undesirable situation - but if the alternative is selling out, far better to keep your integrity.

Again, given your behaviour on this board, I do not expect you to understand this point on integrity.

 

[Elioenai26]

Did you not read my post? It is pointless because there is no need for the situation "necessitating" the sacrifice to have arisen in the first place.

Gadarene, that simply does not follow.

Saying that God sending His Son into the world to die for our sins is pointless because God did not have to make it possible for the need for the sacrifice to have arisen simply does not follow.

The two are wholly disconnected. One has nothing to do with the other. You are essentially saying that Christ's sacrifice was a waste because God is the one who created people who were going to need a Savior.

As long as God has at least one reason as to why He would want to create a world of free creatures, then your reasoning fails. Which means you would have to prove that God has no reason why He would create a world of free creatures.

Surely you do not want to shoulder such an insurmountable burden!

The point in fact, is that God demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.

That is the reason. So your accusation that it was pointless has been shown to be wrong. You simply have no way of providing an argument as to why God would not want to create a world of free creatures.

 

[Gadarene]

Gadarene, that simply does not follow.

Saying that God sending His Son into the world to die for our sins is pointless because God did not have to make it possible for the need for the sacrifice to have arisen simply does not follow.

The two are wholly disconnected. One has nothing to do with the other. You are essentially saying that Christ's sacrifice was a waste because God is the one who created people who were going to need a Savior.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The situation is not one that needed to happen in the first place. If God had chosen an alternative in the first place, there would be no need for the sacrifice. You are trying to make out that this sacrifice was just that. It isn't - it's a situation primarily of God's own making as you admit, and you want to guilt me into accepting the "sacrifice" to resolve a need that God created.

As long as God has at least one reason as to why He would want to create a world of free creatures, then your reasoning fails. Which means you would have to prove that God has no reason why He would create a world of free creatures.

Surely you do not want to shoulder such an insurmountable burden!

No, your reasoning fails, because you are insisting that the existence of free creatures means that the only options available to God are the ones he took.

There are plenty of ways of avoiding the situation of sin and retaining the existence of free creatures as typically defined by a Christian apologist, but as mentioned earlier, they involve a great deal more imagination than the average Christian apologist has.

For example - if God knows in advance what his creations will do, choose to not create those who will fail him. If you create them, consider giving them KNOWLEDGE of what is good and evil, rather than arbitrarily make it into an arboreal plot device and declaring that the attainment of it is "sinful".

Consider giving them alternatives to "don't agree with me? Then BURN!"

Consider making more evidence for your life-or-death dilemma available.

If you're just going to define your God as one who for whatever reason of convenience can't do these things, which you seem to be doing in spades, then it would be better for non-Christians to have never been created by that God in the first place.

 

[quatona]

To deliberately create a situation in which "You don´t want to be with me" equals to "You will suffer eternally" doesn´t constitute "love" by any stretch of the term [no matter how many bones ("sacrifices") the person may be thrown] - it is pure execution of power. You may call that "Holy", "Righteous", "Just" or whatever capitalized Christianspeak euphemisms are out there - but you are not going to hijack the term "love" for this creating this setup.

 

[Gadarene]

To deliberately create a situation in which "You don´t want to be with me" equals to "You will suffer eternally" doesn´t constitute "love" by any stretch of the term [no matter how many bones ("sacrifices") the person may be thrown] - it is pure execution of power. You may call that "Holy", "Righteous", "Just" or whatever capitalized Christianspeak euphemisms are out there - but you are not going to hijack the term "love" for this creating this setup.

^ this.

 

[Illuminaughty]

There are plenty of ways of avoiding the situation of sin and retaining the existence of free creatures

If the ability to sin is required for freedom then God as he is understood by millions of Christians must lack freedom. I've been told on numerous occasions that he can't lie, sin, etc... His nature itself is so Good that such things can't happen. I would think defining freedom as having the power to do evil as well as good would throw a big monkey wrench in theology.

 

[Elioenai26]

False analogy fail again.

God is not a naturalistic mechanism like cancer, with no agency.

Cancer was used analogously for sin, not God Gadarene.

God is a volitional agent who CHOOSES to create people, knowing they will fail him, the majority of them to the point of failing to be saved.

Woah woah woah woah....wait a minute...

Who said that the majority of humans are not going to be saved? What is this assumption based upon?

God CHOOSES to only provide so much evidence such that only a fraction of created humans are convinced his offer exists, and is a good one.

According to the Bible, everyone knows that God exists even if this knowledge is tainted by sin, people are still aware that something is responsible for their existence.

Besides, you have no argument to even support your assertion, you just simply state it as if I am going to agree with it. What argument do you have that would demonstrate that only a fraction of humans are convinced He exists?

It seems to me that you are patently wrong. The majority of humanity believes in God, in one form or another. And roughly 32% of the entire world's population is CHRISTIAN Gadarene! That is a far cry from a "fraction"....

Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group,” says a new comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.“There are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84 percent of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion,” the analysis states.


Here’s the breakdown of “The Global Religious Landscape,” based on an analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers:
• 2.2 billion Christians (32 percent of the world’s population).
• 1.6 billion Muslims (23 percent).
• 1 billion Hindus (15 percent.
• 500 million Buddhists (7 percent).
• 400 million people (6 percent) practicing various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, American Indian religions and Australian aboriginal religions.
There are 14 million Jews, and an estimated 58 million people — slightly less than 1 percent of the global population – belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, “to mention just a few,” the study says.
About half of all Christians in the world are Catholic, 37 percent are part of the Protestant tradition, 12 percent are Orthodox Greek or Russian.
The largest population of Christians (243 million) is found, incidentally, in the United States, followed by Brazil, Mexico, Russia, the Philippines , Nigeria and China.
Find the entire massive study here: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Read more: 84 percent of the world population has faith; a third are Christian - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
​

God CHOOSES to send people who disagree with him, even honestly, to eternal punishment.

Way to make it sound trivial Gadarene, as if being at enmity with a righteous God is child's play. As if it is a mere disagreement between two equals that is reconcilable by a handshake and a pat on the back.

You will never understand Christianity until you begin to understand who God is and what sin is.

A better analogy would be accepting the unjust punishment dished out by a dictator. It is of course a less than ideal and undesirable situation - but if the alternative is selling out, far better to keep your integrity.

Accepting the unjust punishment by a dictator?

Is that how you see God's response to people who murder, steal, cheat, lie, swindle, commit adultery, curse, destroy themselves with drugs, destroy others by selling drugs, selling men women and children into slavery, rape, torture, maiming, engage in incest, beastiality, homosexuality, commit patricide, infanticide, suicide, poison one another, murder one another because the color of their skin, religious beliefs....

What is God to do with the likes of such, who when warned of their behavior and the consequences they merit, continue to act in such unspeakable ways? What is He to do when dying for such people, they spit and spurn His love and grace and mercy?

If He were not God and like you, He might overlook such mess, BUT I THANK GOD HE WILL execute judgment on the wicked and reward the righteous.

Which side will you be on?

The wicked, or the righteous?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Unless he dies tomorrow.

But I'm assuming the omnipotent God isn't in control of that either?

If he dies tomorrow he will already have had a lifetime to change - his. And don't assume God isn't in control. So far your friend has found a degree of favour. Don't bet that it will last forever.

Well, now we have two Christians claiming two contradictory things. According to Elioenai, we always get what we want. According to you, we don't.

Who to believe?

I wouldn't say that a non-believer is searching for eternal torment. But he is gambling that eternal torment doesn't exist. I would argue however that he is choosing to follow the life he wants on the off-chance we're wrong.

Again, this fails for the same reason the "drowning man refusing help" analogy fails earlier.

We know cars exist. The same cannot be said for the dilemma God has allegedly placed us in.

I didn't bring up the car analogy. I work with the tools I'm given.

Perfection is not a requirement in practice, that doesn't change the fact that it is regularly claimed as the standard by which we fail God and deserve death. It is the reason that we supposedly need to choose Christ.

If that isn't what you're claiming here, then fair enough, but again, who to believe?

There's enough evidence around the forum, not to say the facts about Christian belief, which tell any interested party that perfection isn't attainable, and that Christians see themselves as sinners under grace, not saved by good behaviour.

And whose fault is it that those are the only two options available?

Well it can't be God's, because he doesn't exist.

Quite - which is why many of us would not sacrifice our integrity if it turned out the God of the Bible as described by many of his followers did exist.

I don't quite understand you point here.

 

[Skavau]

If he dies tomorrow he will already have had a lifetime to change - his. And don't assume God isn't in control. So far your friend has found a degree of favour. Don't bet that it will last forever.

This God you advocate for sounds worse and worse each time. The sentence above can be interpreted as little more than a veiled threat to me if I continue to not accept his offer.

I wouldn't say that a non-believer is searching for eternal torment. But he is gambling that eternal torment doesn't exist. I would argue however that he is choosing to follow the life he wants on the off-chance we're wrong.

I live my life in complete disregard towards Christianity. What Jesus would do or say or the Christian implications to anything I do are nowhere with me. I put concerns about God or Christianity right at the complete bottom of "things I care about" when living my life. That is to say specifically that concerns about my eternal fate as pertains to Christianity factor precisely nowhere in my motives for my choices.

Also, it is to me and atheists more than an "off-chance" that Christianity is untrue.

 

[Gadarene]

If he dies tomorrow he will already have had a lifetime to change - his. And don't assume God isn't in control. So far your friend has found a degree of favour. Don't bet that it will last forever.

More dictatorial behaviour. Lovely.

I wouldn't say that a non-believer is searching for eternal torment. But he is gambling that eternal torment doesn't exist. I would argue however that he is choosing to follow the life he wants on the off-chance we're wrong.

I would not say it is an "off-chance" that you are wrong. I would say it is an "off-chance" you are right.

I didn't bring up the car analogy. I work with the tools I'm given.

I realise, but the choice to continue using the faulty tool was yours.

There's enough evidence around the forum, not to say the facts about Christian belief, which tell any interested party that perfection isn't attainable, and that Christians see themselves as sinners under grace, not saved by good behaviour.

That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that it is usually claimed that God's standard is perfection. We may not be held to it in practice, but that does not mean God is not holding that standard over us in the first place.

Surely if the standard WASN'T perfection, then there would be no need for Christ.

Well it can't be God's, because he doesn't exist.

But in your worldview, God is in control of what outcomes are available.

I don't quite understand you point here.

"All we can say is that when it comes to the question of eternal destiny we hope and believe that the God we worship is just, and that any decision He makes about the final destiny of sincere worshippers reflects His nature."

And a God that sends people to hell over an honest disagreement is not one that merits worship according to many.

 

[Elioenai26]

To deliberately create a situation in which "You don´t want to be with me" equals to "You will suffer eternally" doesn´t constitute "love" by any stretch of the term [no matter how many bones ("sacrifices") the person may be thrown] - it is pure execution of power. You may call that "Holy", "Righteous", "Just" or whatever capitalized Christianspeak euphemisms are out there - but you are not going to hijack the term "love" for this creating this setup.

^ this.

If the ability to sin is required for freedom then God as he is understood by millions of Christians must lack freedom. I've been told on numerous occasions that he can't lie, sin, etc... His nature itself is so Good that such things can't happen. I would think defining freedom as having the power to do evil as well as good would throw a big monkey wrench in theology.

Formulate the above into a syllogism and let us debate on the topic: "Does God exist?" and use this as your argument.

Who will debate me?

 

[Gadarene]

Cancer was used analogously for sin, not God Gadarene.

Ah, then in that case we're back to the feeble drowning man / car accident victim again. The point is a false analogy. Cancer exists. The problem of sin/salvation has not been shown to be in the same way.

Woah woah woah woah....wait a minute...

Who said that the majority of humans are not going to be saved? What is this assumption based upon?

The majority of people on Earth are not Christian.

According to the Bible, everyone knows that God exists even if this knowledge is tainted by sin, people are still aware that something is responsible for their existence.

Which is complete nonsense, but carry on.

Besides, you have no argument to even support your assertion, you just simply state it as if I am going to agree with it. What argument do you have that would demonstrate that only a fraction of humans are convinced He exists?

It seems to me that you are patently wrong. The majority of humanity believes in God, in one form or another. And roughly 32% of the entire world's population is CHRISTIAN Gadarene! That is a far cry from a "fraction"....

Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group,” says a new comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.“There are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84 percent of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion,” the analysis states.


Here’s the breakdown of “The Global Religious Landscape,” based on an analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers:
• 2.2 billion Christians (32 percent of the world’s population).
• 1.6 billion Muslims (23 percent).
• 1 billion Hindus (15 percent.
• 500 million Buddhists (7 percent).
• 400 million people (6 percent) practicing various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, American Indian religions and Australian aboriginal religions.
There are 14 million Jews, and an estimated 58 million people — slightly less than 1 percent of the global population – belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, “to mention just a few,” the study says.
About half of all Christians in the world are Catholic, 37 percent are part of the Protestant tradition, 12 percent are Orthodox Greek or Russian.
The largest population of Christians (243 million) is found, incidentally, in the United States, followed by Brazil, Mexico, Russia, the Philippines , Nigeria and China.
Find the entire massive study here: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Read more: 84 percent of the world population has faith; a third are Christian - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
​

More blather.

You just finished dancing around the points presented to you about Muslims, and how they reject Christ. Now it's suddenly enough for you that people "have a religious view", or "believe in God in some form". Is that going to save them?

I'm starting to agree with quatona more and more here, you are just equivocating like mad, conjuring up whatever god-concept suits whenever convenient.

Does one have to be a Christian to be saved, or don't they?

Way to make it sound trivial Gadarene, as if being at enmity with a righteous God is child's play. As if it is a mere disagreement between two equals that is reconcilable by a handshake and a pat on the back.

You will never understand Christianity until you begin to understand who God is and what sin is.

The disagreement is partially over EXISTENCE. That is not a moral issue, and disagreeing over the existence of God does not merit punishment.

As for the rest, the disagreement is over the very PREMISE - that God is righteous. That needs to be established before the rest follows, something you continually fail to grasp.

Accepting the unjust punishment by a dictator?

Is that how you see God's response to people who murder, steal, cheat, lie, swindle, commit adultery, curse, destroy themselves with drugs, destroy others by selling drugs, selling men women and children into slavery, rape, torture, maiming, engage in incest, beastiality, homosexuality, commit patricide, infanticide, suicide, poison one another, murder one another because the color of their skin, religious beliefs....

What is God to do with the likes of such, who when warned of their behavior and the consequences they merit, continue to act in such unspeakable ways? What is He to do when dying for such people, they spit and spurn His love and grace and mercy?

If He were not God and like you, He might overlook such mess, BUT I THANK GOD HE WILL execute judgment on the wicked and reward the righteous.

Which side will you be on?

The wicked, or the righteous?

Another simplistic false dichotomy.

I do want people to be punished. I don't want them to be punished forever.

In addition, you are making another mistake you have been making since you arrived here. People who do all these despicable things aren't punished at all if they make nice with your deity. Following your deity's commands is a method for not see anyone punished at all for their wrongs.

 

[Gadarene]

Formulate the above into a syllogism and let us debate on the topic: "Does God exist?" and use this as your argument.

Who will debate me?

This posturing again?

What do you think we've been doing?

And your incompetence in responding isn't exactly going to have people queueing up to repeat themselves.

For that matter, why would we take THAT point into a debate about God's existence? It is not relevant to God's existence, but to the claims about his nature. Nice try, but you're going to have to try harder if you want to self-aggrandise further.

 

[Elioenai26]

I live my life in complete disregard towards Christianity. What Jesus would do or say or the Christian implications to anything I do are nowhere with me. I put concerns about God or Christianity right at the complete bottom of "things I care about" when living my life. That is to say specifically that concerns about my eternal fate as pertains to Christianity factor precisely nowhere in my motives for my choices.

Also, it is to me and atheists more than an "off-chance" that Christianity is untrue.

If what you say above were true, you would not be here speaking as you do and spending the time that you do so ardently protesting against the evils of Christianity.

Obviously, you do live your life with a regard for Christianity. In fact, I would venture to say one of your main priorities (judging by the time you spend posting here) is trying to show why Christians are complete idiots/wrong/evil/deceived/sadistic etc.etc.

And you do so with such great passion. I dare say you spend more time talking about Christianity than most Christians!!!!!!

And you dare to say something so ridiculous as: "I live my life in complete disregard towards Christianity. What Jesus would do or say or the Christian implications to anything I do are nowhere with me."

 

[Skavau]

If what you say above were true, you would not be here speaking as you do and spending the time that you do so ardently protesting against the evils of Christianity.

"spending the time that I do"?

This is the first time I've been seriously active on this forum in a while. I just like debate. I happen to enjoy debating this topic and yes, of course hold Theism and Christianity in contempt. That does not mean they have any impact in my life.

Obviously, you do live your life with a regard for Christianity. In fact, I would venture to say one of your main priorities (judging by the time you spend posting here)

Wat.

You clearly haven't looked at my sporadic activity.

is trying to show why Christians are complete idiots/wrong/evil/deceived/sadistic etc.etc.

I try to show why theistic morality is deeply flawed, amoral and often immoral.

 

[Elioenai26]

For that matter, why would we take THAT point into a debate about God's existence?

Because this is all I have been hearing lately from people as their main reason for being atheists.

It is not relevant to God's existence, but to the claims about his nature. Nice try, but you're going to have to try harder if you want to self-aggrandise further.

I want you and quatona both to debate me on the subject and use this as your argument. If you do not want to that is fine.

 

[Elioenai26]

"spending the time that I do"?

This is the first time I've been seriously active on this forum in a while. I just like debate. I happen to enjoy debating this topic and yes, of course hold Theism and Christianity in contempt. That does not mean they have any impact in my life.


Wat.

You clearly haven't looked at my sporadic activity.


I try to show why theistic morality is deeply flawed, amoral and often immoral.

Do you think that you could present a good argument for why you think The God of the Bible does not exist based on your view that He is sadistic etc. etc.?

If so, would you like to debate me?

 

[Gadarene]

Because this is all I have been hearing lately from people as their main reason for being atheists.

No, it's not why they are atheists. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.

For the umpteenth time - God's existence is one matter. Whether he merits following is another.

There are stances that aren't atheism that acknowledge the existence of a deity but do not consider him good or worth following. Dystheism, maltheism.

I have not claimed that the apparent lack of love from a supposedly loving god is the reason I am an atheist. Perhaps you are mixing up antitheism with atheism.

I want you and quatona both to debate me on the subject and use this as your argument. If you do not want to that is fine.

No, I don't, for the reason mentioned above - the point has nothing necessarily to do with God's existence. I am not about to fall for such an obvious ploy.