Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[juvenissun]

If they are his people, why would other things besides him attract them?

Because they (we) are human after all. Many of God's people are attracted and never returned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So God deliberately hides the truth. Saying that God does not lie, then, seems to just be a kind of sneaky lawyer trick.

No. David. God gives egregious sinners 'over' to the Power of Lies... In each of these instances, He's not the one doing the lying.

 

[David Colin Gould]

No. David. God gives egregious sinners 'over' to the Power of Lies... In each of these instances, He's not the one doing the lying.

So it's like a contract killer kind of thing: I don't actually do the killing, so my conscience is clear. God doesn't lie; he just leaves you in a room with a liar. Seriously, you honestly think that this is in anyway making your deity out to be good by any definition? Think about it a little more carefully, please.

 

[Hattington]

No. David. God gives egregious sinners 'over' to the Power of Lies... In each of these instances, He's not the one doing the lying.

So God gives up on sinners and lets them continue to spiral down into 'sinnery'?

 

[oi_antz]

And how much of a sacrifice was it since He was only dead for three days and then returned better than ever, eating fish and feeling no pain?

I'd like to offer some more perspective on this. John 12:35 suggests that when He sacrificed His perfect ability to physically speak the truth on earth, and in His place He left faulty men described by Matthew 20:28, that the real sacrifice was to wait going on 2,000 years before the world would be redeemed - knowing that in the meantime the truth would be suppressed and the rule of God's kingdom contended, as He described in Luke 19:14. On the other hand, we can consider that if He had brought forward Armageddon to the day of reckoning (Matthew 26:53), He could have avoided a ton of suffering and devastation. So the real extent of His sacrifice is much greater than we naturally tend imagine at first.

 

[anonymous person]

In Exodus 34:14, it says "Forthou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God".

If God is the one and only God, then to whom is he Jealous of?

The Hebrew word קַנָּא is more accurately translated as "zealous". The idea here is one of intense regard and concern and love that God has for His beloved people. Those who love are jealous of them that receive the love of the one who is the object of their love. Those who love are also jealous for the one loved.

God wanted His people to love Him because in so doing, they would have been doing what was in their best interest and He wanted them to do what was in their best interest because He loved them. In this, it is seen that this communion of love is reciprocal.

Ask any man or woman who is committed and dedicated totally to their spouse out of love whether or not they are jealous for their spouse and zealous to ensure that they are taken care of and loved and honored above all.

 

[Hattington]

I'd like to offer some more perspective on this. John 12:35 suggests that when He sacrificed His perfect ability to physically speak the truth on earth, and in His place He left faulty men described by Matthew 20:28, that the real sacrifice was to wait going on 2,000 years before the world would be redeemed - knowing that in the meantime the truth would be suppressed and the rule of God's kingdom contended, as He described in Luke 19:14. On the other hand, we can consider that if He had brought forward Armageddon to the day of reckoning (Matthew 26:53), He could have avoided a ton of suffering and devastation. So the real extent of His sacrifice is much greater than we naturally tend imagine at first.

Seeing that you know about this: Is there a date or trigger for when Jesus is supposed to do his second coming?

 

[anonymous person]

What was your intended purpose for this thread? IOW, what motivated you to do this?

I started this thread in the hopes of providing an arena wherein I could address, systematically, questions that I knew people wanted to put to me which up until now, I was unable for sundry reasons, to worthily address.

 

[oi_antz]

Seeing that you know about this: Is there a date or trigger for when Jesus is supposed to do his second coming?

It has not been revealed to me.

 

[oi_antz]

I started this thread in the hopes of providing an arena wherein I could address, systematically, questions that I knew people wanted to put to me which up until now, I was unable for sundry reasons, to worthily address.

Thanks. It is nice for you to have done this. Juvenissun said something that spoke to me, which would not have happened otherwise.

 

[anonymous person]

Hypothetically, if your allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing deity observes a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, would you hold it responsible for standing by, allowing it to happen, and saying nothing to anyone about it? Does your morality say that it should have interfered?

Since there are two questions here, I will address the first in an attempt to stay true to what I said I would do in my OP.

The first question contains a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent. The antecedent is comprised of the proposition:

"..if your allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing deity observes a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, would you hold it responsible for standing by, allowing it to happen, and saying nothing to anyone about it?"

It is an impossible antecedent by virtue of the fact that God could not observe the aforementioned and not say nothing to anyone about it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So it's like a contract killer kind of thing: I don't actually do the killing, so my conscience is clear. God doesn't lie; he just leaves you in a room with a liar. Seriously, you honestly think that this is in anyway making your deity out to be good by any definition? Think about it a little more carefully, please.

If you want to caricature the situation that way, you may... But, I wouldn't say it is accurate, David. (By the way, since you and I are in a conversation that extends from one begun between me and Eudaimonist, I assume you know the reference(s) in Scripture upon which we are focused at the present moment, correct?)

 

[In situ]

Can Christian moral/ethics guide a decision in the trolley problem to a correct choice?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So God gives up on sinners and lets them continue to spiral down into 'sinnery'?

Conditionally, yes. Those sinners who development particularly hard cases of impenitence, God may decide to hand over to the Realm of Folly. Again, sad but true...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can Christian moral/ethics guide a decision in the trolley problem to a correct choice?

Sure, pray for the sanity of those who contemplate its ridiculous hypothetical situation; in the same way that atheists "prey" for those who contemplate Pascal's Wager.

 

[Hattington]

Conditionally, yes. Those sinners who development particularly hard cases of impenitence, God may decide to hand over to the Realm of Folly. Again, sad but true...

Lazy god. Terrible leader. Cannot even convince people to change. Falls back on punishment. Why would anybody chose to adore someone like that?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

It is not a surprise that even men are advocating for women to be protected from these patriarchal views.

If you put down the feminist blind sight, you may be surprised to see that there is not a single shred of patriarchy in society and that if anyone needs protection nowadays it is men from immoral women.

You may also be surprised that feminism is starting to lose popularity and that even liberal women themselves have been stepping up to show the facade that it is.

kids that are brainwashed at church to bigot and hate.

They can be bigoted to atheists or bigoted to theists. Either way, theism and atheism are not distinctive features of who and who is not bigoted.
Believing in traditional marriage is not hate, wanting a border wall to go up is not racism, and speaking against feminism is not sexist. This is what you all teach, however, and it is ridiculous. in fact, it's due in bigotry.

Further, I freely advocate the end of religion because I can see how much hate it fosters in the nation. We are so advanced yet homosexuals are still segregated.

No they aren't.

Churches accumulate millions and do not pay taxes.

It's called Separation of Church and State. You all utilized that to complain about religious icons and portraits in publicly funded places, and you don't get the best of both worlds. Churches pay taxes, we get to put the Commandments back in court buildings and Jesus paintings in schools.

They spend on megachurches and fancy clothes when the children starve.

And atheists spend theirs on institutions to enforce secularism and treat the religious like they are oppressors.
Also, I can pretty much guarantee you there are far more Christians helping the 3rd world then humanists.

 

[David Colin Gould]

If you want to caricature the situation that way, you may... But, I wouldn't say it is accurate, David.

What is inaccurate about the caricature?

(By the way, since you and I are in an conversation that extends from one begun between me and Eudaimonist, I assume you know the reference(s) in Scripture upon which we are focused at the present moment, correct?)

Correct.

 

[anonymous person]

Could he not have been recognized because in addition to the his crucifixion wounds, he retained his disfigurements from the Roman whips, head scares from the thorns, etc.?

Though not recorded in the sacred texts, I've read it plausible Jesus may have sustained other wounds and disfigurements on the path to Golgotha.

Since the scriptures do mention the scar in His side, as well as the holes in His feet and wrists but fail to mention any other scars or disfigurements, it seems to me that the chief reason why them that knew Him did not immediately recognize Him was not because He was so disfigured in His face as to be unrecognizable (for if this were the case, then we would expect to read about this) but rather, because they simply could not fathom Him actually walking among them alive and well after having endured what they saw Him endure. So from what evidence we have, it seems to me more plausible that Christ appeared to them who knew Him in such a way that it was utterly shocking and incredible and it simply took some time for them to wrap their minds around it all. Very shocking I would imagine. It is also interesting to note that on the way to Emmaus, some disciples were walking and Jesus came up beside them and it says that their eyes were kept from recognizing Him, but that later around a table while fellowshipping, their eyes were opened. This seems to indicate that people were able to recognize Jesus only if He made it possible for them to.

 

[anonymous person]

Why are you a christian?


If this has already been asked and answered, my apologies.

When I use the term Christian, I use it to signify "one who follows Christ".

So why do I follow Him?

That is easy. I find Him so wonderful, so smart, so wise, so strong, so loving, so courageous, so powerful, so humble, so meek, so mighty, so adorable, so altogether lovely and so attractive that I dare not do anything else with my time but follow Him and live for Him all the days of my life.

I am in love with Him.