Christianity (In a Nutshell)?

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I'm not sure I would say "it's easy", although I am more optimistic than you are. Some people however can get things easy so its good to encourage them in the event there is "low hanging fruit". But anyway there is a saying called "The Dark Night of the Soul" which describes what you are talking about. Which is something I also have dealt with in my own life etc.

Dark Night of the Soul - Wikipedia

But in the above link, we read the phrase: "God, is unknowable, as in the 14th century, mystical classic The Cloud of Unknowing, which, like St. John's poem, derives from the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the sixth century. Further, the path per se is unknowable"

If God is 'unknowable', then it comes down to Hebrew 11:1, more or less... But what if that is NOT good enough for me? According to other verses in the Bible, I fry, right? I myself do not have the ability to 'will' such a claim any more than I can will my best friend's claim that he speaks to Vishnu. As stated many times elsewhere, and maybe here, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Again, I either believe it, or I don't. I doesn't really matter 'how' I derived at my believing conclusion. Ultimately, God would know whether I do or don't believe. And if I don't, which I cannot really control, seem odd that God might smite me for a cognitive construct, which is out of my control.

Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Again, I either believe it, or I don't. I doesn't really matter 'how' I derived at my believing conclusion. Ultimately, God would know whether I do or don't believe. And if I don't, which I cannot really control, seem odd that God might smite me for a cognitive construct, which is out of my control.

Thoughts?

I suppose you have that in terms of your psychology etc. wanting to make things black or white, but for me I believe in more a continuum. So I'm thinking along the lines of things like

Richard Glasser's Reality therapy.
Reality therapy - Wikipedia


Successive Approximations in learning
Successive Approximations definition | Psychology Glossary | alleydog.com

and so on.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Just for the record, I'M THE ONE WHO provided my friend @Sanoy with the evidence that @cvanwey has been much less than consistent and, perhaps, even lacking in integrity, especially as he's moved in to CF and found what seems to be more or less a permanent ruse......I mean roost.

Just so you know, BigV, I'm also following your patterns as the "guest" that you are, and if you can't more fully engage various evidences or explanations that are given to you, then I guess you'll just find yourself without a discussion partner on these Apologetics forums.

As for myself, I'm placing you and cvanwey on my prayer list and this will be the last you hear from me. I'll probably place @InterestedAtheist stedAtheist on the same list unless he, or you or @cvanwey can comport yourselves more in a way that is at least one like @Moral Orel.

So, I wish you all well in this life and I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, but one of those things won't be the further use of my time.

Peace.

2PhiloVoid

You baffle me sir. Why would you have someone else attempt to do your 'dirty work'? How honest is this? Furthermore, you, of all people, should know context, interpretation, etc. Heck, you speak of it more than anyone else here. Heck, you also use it to avoid obvious constructs as well. If anyone here is compromising integrity, it's you.

It's a wonder I choose to continue engaging with you at all. You continually evade, dodge, avoid, redirect, insult, and ignore points directly related to the thread. Rather than just concede otherwise obvious points, you avoid them. Not much integrity there...

Go ahead and find your 'out'. But unlike you, I still will continue to respond to your posts. But maybe, moving forward, I will wait until you actually address my actual points, verses me chasing your rabbit trails.

'Peace'
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I suppose you have that in terms of your psychology etc. wanting to make things black or white, but for me I believe in more a continuum. So I'm thinking along the lines of things like

Richard Glasser's Reality therapy.
Reality therapy - Wikipedia


Successive Approximations in learning
Successive Approximations definition | Psychology Glossary | alleydog.com

and so on.

I appreciate the continued discussion. Let's just fast forward to the end....

I try every 'trick' I know of, every concept, read books, read the Bible, attend a favorite church, surround myself with Christians, go to Bible study, etc... But at the end of all of it, come out maybe admiring Jesus as a human, but not think He lives to this day. Hence, I'm an unbeliever.

We have the following:

- Belief is not a choice.
- God seems to condemn people whom possess the incorrect belief in Him, which isn't a choice.
- Belief, in and of itself, is an amoral cognitive construct.
- God must then think improper belief of a claim is a 'sin' against Him. Otherwise, He would not state He is going to condemn you for it.

************************

secondly...

- Sin is irrelevant.
- Both believers and non-believers will continue to 'sin', until the point of their death.
- The dividing line is the belief.
- Belief is not a controlled function.
- God punishes those for something they cannot control.

In conclusion, do you AGREE that belief is not a choice, and that sin is irrelevant in the above applications? If so, then I can conclude my OP in stating that Christianity encompasses measures completely void of 'moral application'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigV
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
We have the following:

- Belief is not a choice.
- God seems to condemn people whom possess the incorrect belief in Him, which isn't a choice.
- Belief, in and of itself, is an amoral cognitive construct.
- God must then think improper belief of a claim is a 'sin' against Him. Otherwise, He would not state He is going to condemn you for it.

In conclusion, do you AGREE that belief is not a choice, and that sin is irrelevant in the above applications?


In terms of determinacy, no. I see this more as pain management. Having things be predictable certainly helps with that. So I see your insistence to make things deterministic as a bit of a defense mechanism to save yourself some future psychology pain, and it probably has helped you. Christians have their own version of that when it comes to things like "God's Providence" etc. Actually I've been enjoying some videos from an atheist who sort of has been touching on some themes like that in some of his works. I especially like what Alain has to say just before the 7 min mark talking about "unfortunates" in the Middle Ages vs. Today.




But back to the topic, in terms of my own life there may be more nods in your direction. I've had some short term pessimism, cynicism etc. overall I thought that was a bad overall strategy for life (more based on dealing with other people and how the latent negativity affects them). Its sort of the playing the short game vs. the long game, I figured it was better to play the extreme long game.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
In terms of determinacy, no. I see this more as pain management..

I watched part of the video, as instructed. However...

I'm going to have to press you a little bit here :) I don't feel you gave my assessment a fair shake, and instead went on to a differing nuanced topic.

You will need to demonstrate why my axioms are not sound. Again:

We have the following:

- Belief is not a choice. <- Yes?

- God seems to condemn people whom possess the incorrect belief in Him, which isn't a choice. (i.e.) John 3:16-18 and John 14:6 <- Yes?
- Belief, in and of itself, is an amoral cognitive construct. <- Yes?
- God must then think improper belief of a claim is a 'sin' against Him. Otherwise, He would not state He is going to condemn you for it. <- Yes?

************************

secondly...

- Sin is irrelevant. (stay tuned)...
- Both believers and non-believers will continue to 'sin', until the point of their death. <- Yes?

- The dividing line is the belief. (i.e.) a difference between a Christian former murder, and a non-Christian former murder, is belief in a resurrection story. <- Yes?
- Belief is not a controlled function. <- Yes?
- God punishes those for something they cannot control. (i.e.) belief ---?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I could also say.. Do not think that I've come to abolish the Law. Clearly if the LAW was used for righteousness, and if Paul is blameless as to the Law, then Paul was sinless.

And Christ clearly ignored the Law.

Mark 7: 17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Was pork clean under the Mosaic Law? So, you have two contradictory things about Christ. He allegedly didn't come to abolish the Law and yet, he ignore it and ultimately abolished it. I mean, you are not following it now, are you?

"then Paul was sinless." == well, no, famously, Paul definitely says he was especially sinful.

Jesus was getting past the mere temporary laws -- example: to sacrifice an animal to atone with God for wrongdoing -- and fulfilling the true real spirit of the Law: the real meaning. As someone that has read through all of the Old Testament, I can provide plenty of example if you need it, such as the famous Isaiah chapter 1: God didn't want sacrifices offered to Him when people didn't even try to do the true spirit and intent of the Law. etc.

When Jesus says Matthew 7:12, He's not just guessing.

You could imagine yourself smarter than Jesus about the law, but you should not.

You should instead guess that He is smarter about the law, having studied it more natively, and closely, then any of us.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You will need to demonstrate why my axioms are not sound. Again:

Oh that is easy. It gets into the whole issue of "the construction of reality". A broad topic.

But the basic idea is we humans do not really see reality purely as it is, but we interpret it and we also construct it (we try to figure it out like amateur scientists). Which kind of is a "no duh statement" for some folks (steeped in epistemology, postmodernism etc.) but not so much for other people. I'm talking about Naive Realists.

(In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.).

Naïve realism (psychology) - Wikipedia


The whole logic thing I'm sure work good for you. There are certain personality types given to that. I am a big fan of the the Myers Briggs Personality Indicator as a general . There are certain personality types very given to making logic thee driver for everything. For simplicity sake we will just say you are an INTP, even though you may be more about "the facts", details etc. (using sensing rather than intuition, being an ISTJ, ISTP etc.)

Introduction | Logician Personality (INTP-A / INTP-T) | 16Personalities


But other folks don't think that way, and to insist that they do, or should start's to get into the territory of naive realism. For example, at least half the world are feelers who base there decisions not on logic but moral values that they believe in some way are intrinsic. Then there are people like me, I'm an INTJ a close relative to the INTP, but I base my reasoning on a kind of internalized Utilitarian philosophy. Rather than thinking in terms of Logic which can be a dead end in many situations one can talk instead on things based on how useful a idea or a model is, does it allow you to account for the data, and serve in other ways.


But its not just about how we are wired in terms of personality, it gets into our whole past, etc. kind of like the famous work "The Politics of Experience" by Scottish psychiatrist, R. D. Laing (1967). Which a Marxist website kindly has been hosting for the last few years for those that would like to read the opening chapter.

The Politics of Experience



PS - there is a term called fuzzy logic that relates to "if then" statements and the alike. That kind of concept exists because of some of the inherent problems of saying everything must be either A or B.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Oh that is easy. It gets into the whole issue of "the construction of reality". A broad topic.

But the basic idea is we humans do not really see reality purely as it is, but we interpret it and we also construct it (we try to figure it out like amateur scientists). Which kind of is a "no duh statement" for some folks (steeped in epistemology, postmodernism etc.) but not so much for other people. I'm talking about Naive Realists.

(In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.).

Naïve realism (psychology) - Wikipedia


The whole logic thing I'm sure work good for you. There are certain personality types given to that. I am a big fan of the the Myers Briggs Personality Indicator as a general . There are certain personality types very given to making logic thee driver for everything. For simplicity sake we will just say you are an INTP, even though you may be more about "the facts", details etc. (using sensing rather than intuition, being an ISTJ, ISTP etc.)

Introduction | Logician Personality (INTP-A / INTP-T) | 16Personalities


But other folks don't think that way, and to insist that they do, or should start's to get into the territory of naive realism. For example, at least half the world are feelers who base there decisions not on logic but moral values that they believe in some way are intrinsic. Then there are people like me, I'm an INTJ a close relative to the INTP, but I base my reasoning on a kind of internalized Utilitarian philosophy. Rather than thinking in terms of Logic which can be a dead end in many situations one can talk instead on things based on how useful a idea or a model is, does it allow you to account for the data, and serve in other ways.


But its not just about how we are wired in terms of personality, it gets into our whole past, etc. kind of like the famous work "The Politics of Experience" by Scottish psychiatrist, R. D. Laing (1967). Which a Marxist website kindly has been hosting for the last few years for those that would like to read the opening chapter.

The Politics of Experience

You didn't even really address my first axiom, one way or the other.... I.E. Belief is not a choice

One last time. If I don't believe the correct way, Jesus is going to punish me. It states this clearly in the Bible. As demonstrated above in many prior posts.

Again, belief is neither a choice, nor does it encompass 'morality.' If I don't believe your claim, you may even get mad at me, but I'm not 'sinning' against you. I simply don't believe you. You may feel insulted, but I would have my uncontrollable reasons in which I may not believe you. i.e. Maybe you lack evidence, or your claim is extraordinary, or I saw you do the contrary. The point being, my lack in belief to your claim, regardless of whether I'm right or not, isn't 'sin' - Even if my unbelief insults you. Seems as though God may be mad at the ones whom don't believe in Him, after His attempt at provided evidence.

Thoughts?

Thus, Christianity, in a nutshell, is based upon some premises which are completely void of choice and 'morality'.
 
Upvote 0

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus was getting past the mere temporary laws -- example: to sacrifice an animal to atone with God for wrongdoing -- and fulfilling the true real spirit of the Law: the real meaning. As someone that has read through all of the Old Testament, I can provide plenty of example if you need it, such as the famous Isaiah chapter 1: God didn't want sacrifices offered to Him when people didn't even try to do the true spirit and intent of the Law. etc.

Mere temporary laws? I thought he said not one iota, not even a letter will disappear before everything is accomplished. So why did he ignore the bits about dietary laws? Eating pork is fine? Hey, that's a mighty iota or the smallest letter!

If God didn't want sacrifices he shouldn't have required them in the first place.

Btw, in the millennial kingdom the sacrifices will be back! God must love blood. By his fruit ye shall know him. If he had his Son killed, then he truly must love blood and murder.

You could imagine yourself smarter than Jesus about the law, but you should not.

You should instead guess that He is smarter about the law, having studied it more natively, and closely, then any of us.

Naw... There is absolutely nothing the ancients did better than we do today. Medical field, for example, doesn't spend too much time with archeologiests to try to uncover ancients' medical knowledge secrets.

Trivia question. Did you know Jesus was against washing hands? I mean, in their age of no toilet paper and poor hygiene, he told people washing hands doesn't have any benefit!

I am not the smartest tool in the shed, but I know that washing hands is a mighty good idea!

Mark 7:7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.

To that Jesus responded by telling them that nothing that goes into stomach can defile a person. Maybe not defile, but what about disease? Has Jesus heard of Ebola?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mere temporary laws? I thought he said not one iota, not even a letter will disappear before everything is accomplished. So why did he ignore the bits about dietary laws? Eating pork is fine? Hey, that's a mighty iota or the smallest letter!

If God didn't want sacrifices he shouldn't have required them in the first place.

Btw, in the millennial kingdom the sacrifices will be back! God must love blood. By his fruit ye shall know him. If he had his Son killed, then he truly must love blood and murder.



Naw... There is absolutely nothing the ancients did better than we do today. Medical field, for example, doesn't spend too much time with archeologiests to try to uncover ancients' medical knowledge secrets.

Trivia question. Did you know Jesus was against washing hands? I mean, in their age of no toilet paper and poor hygiene, he told people washing hands doesn't have any benefit!

I am not the smartest tool in the shed, but I know that washing hands is a mighty good idea!

Mark 7:7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.

To that Jesus responded by telling them that nothing that goes into stomach can defile a person. Maybe not defile, but what about disease? Has Jesus heard of Ebola?
It's easy to miss the meaning when one thinks one knows already.

To get the real meaning you have to trust on some level He's got something to teach you.

To learn, you have to want to learn, as you read His words.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Jesus could heal, etc.

To get the real meaning you have to trust on some level He's got something to teach you.

To learn, you have to want to learn, as you read His words.

I think you missed some of his points....

Some of the things He 'taught', turned out actually later now known not to be teaching points.

Furthermore, aside from His claim of being the Messiah, name one thing Jesus taught, which could not also have been learned, completely (outside) His lessons? Meaning, did He offer any concepts which were forward thinking, and/or not already discovered/learned/known prior?

And if you happen to find one, or even a few even, then compare that with the teaching points He shared, which were not already written, or spoken about prior to His arrival onto the scene.

And more importantly, the things He taught, which may actually be down right questionable?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think you missed some of his points....

Some of the things He 'taught', turned out actually later now known not to be teaching points.

Furthermore, aside from His claim of being the Messiah, name one thing Jesus taught, which could not also have been learned, completely (outside) His lessons? Meaning, did He offer any concepts which were forward thinking, and/or not already discovered/learned/known prior?

And if you happen to find one, or even a few even, then compare that with the teaching points He shared, which were not already written, or spoken about prior to His arrival onto the scene.

And more importantly, the thinks He taught, which may actually be down right questionable?

I surely cannot help you in any way if you can't detect or surmise or wonder if Jesus understands more than you do about anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Some commonplace false talking points of atheists:

1. Christ is only repeating ideas from others.

If an idea is true -- the best possible way to live -- it ought to show throughout history in all regions of the world over and over and over.

Why? Because truth about living depends on what humans are -- how we are -- and that doesn't change over time generally. What is 'true' about us endures over time, persists in cultures also, since people recognize the wisdom in it.

Falsehoods fade out. What is true endures.

So, we should expect that the great truths Christ said would have been said in some form, even if a less good form, a less perfect form.

For instance, the 'golden rule' --
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

But, He didn't stumble and give us a lesser form.

Notice that this isn't just the lesser form from many places in the world --
'Don't to do others what you would not want others to do to you.'

Examples:
  • "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[13] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
  • "What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[14] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[15]
  • "Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Isocrates[16] (436–338 BC)

That's a lesser form, only to refrain from harming others.

Instead, Christ said the perfect form:

Both, refrain from harming others and also proactively do for others as you would have others do for you (in similar circumstances).

And so on. It gets tiresome to refute endless talking points over and over.

Avoidance. Not surprised.
It seems to me you are only repeating talking points.

It would not matter if you never learned something in any of these pointless debates you conduct. If you felt so complete in knowledge and so unteachable by any of us.

But it is deadly on the other hand you can't learn from Christ. That's only deadly.

Who's really doing the 'avoidance' that matters, in the end....?

Ask yourself that sometime.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Some commonplace false talking points of atheists:

1. Christ is only repeating ideas from others.

If an idea is true -- the best possible way to live -- it ought to show throughout history in all regions of the world over and over and over.

Why? Because truth about living depends on what humans are -- how we are -- and that doesn't change over time generally. What is 'true' about us endures over time, persists in cultures also, since people recognize the wisdom in it.

Falsehoods fade out. What is true endures.

So, we should expect that the great truths Christ said would have been said in some form, even if a less good form, a less perfect form.

For instance, the 'golden rule' --
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

Confucius beat Him to this claim hundreds of years earlier. Got any others?
But, He didn't stumble and give us a lesser form.

Notice that this isn't just the lesser form from many places in the world --
'Don't to do others what you would not want others to do to you.'

Examples:
  • "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[13] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
  • "What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[14] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[15]
  • "Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Isocrates[16] (436–338 BC)

That's a lesser form, only to refrain from harming others.

Instead, Christ said the perfect form:

Both, refrain from harming others and also proactively do for others as you would have others do for you (in similar circumstances).

And so on. It gets tiresome to refute endless talking points over and over.

And yet, you failed to mention the one which actually counts...

Again, Confucius:


"Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

Maybe Confucius is the real deal, huh?

Nothing Jesus says in Matthew 7:12 goes above and beyond what was written prior. Got anything else?


It seems to me you are only repeating talking points.

Not so, but you sure like to repeat Matthew 7:12. Seems to 'work' for you in other categories too. Remember that this 'rule' was already around well before Jesus proposed His version. Nothing new.

It would not matter if you never learned something in any of these pointless debates you conduct. If you felt so complete in knowledge and so unteachable by any of us.

Please see above


But it is deadly on the other hand you can't learn from Christ. That's only deadly.

Well, as stated prior, name one topic Jesus introduced, which was not already in circulation somewhere? And if you can, compare that to the many things He didn't. Thus far, you've mentioned one topic, already addressed. Anything else?

And if You mean 'it's deadly' to not abide by Confucius' golden rule, which Jesus later re-purposed? Maybe so. I'll try my best...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigV
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Thoughts?

Schrodinger's Cat... cvaney..... Schdroginger's cat.

There are certainly plenty of good sounding reasons to say "the cat is dead" aka belief is not a choice, sin irrelevant etc.

But on the side, plenty of reason to say the Cat is alive (belief is a choice etc.). For instance, by coming to this conclusion years ago, and arguing for it, rejecting alternatives etc. you basically are making a kind of defacto or actual decision, so if you end up doing that for the next few decades before you die then you would actually be choosing to reject Christ (you made that determination decades ago and stuck to your guns whenever the opportunity came up to reexamine that belief and determination).

While that decision might seem sensible it is not the only way to handle that kind of mind set. For instance even if you were 95% sure that the Jesus narrative of Christians is a myth, since you are around Christians all the time and this sort of thing is on your mind you could still pray etc. "in the event that you are wrong" the way we try to prevent certain unlikely nut remotely possible events etc. Of course at this point maybe you are at the 100% certainly level, and that would probably explain why you are so adamant that you have no choice etc. You have complete Faith in your lack of Faith! :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Schrodinger's Cat... cvaney..... Schdroginger's cat.

There are certainly plenty of good sounding reasons to say "the cat is dead" aka belief is not a choice, sin irrelevant etc.

But on the side of the Cat is alive (belief is a choice etc.) there is plenty of reason for that. For instance, by coming to this conclusion years ago, and arguing for it, rejecting alternatives etc. you basically are making a kind of defacto decision or literal decision, so if you end up doing that then you would actually be choosing to reject Christ. For instance even if you were 95% sure that the Jesus narrative of Christians is a myth, since you are around Christians all the time and this sort of thing is on your mind you could still pray etc. "in the event that you are wrong" the way we try to prevent certain unlikely nut remotely possible events etc. Of course at this point maybe you are at the 100% certainly level, and that would probably explain why you are so adamant that you have no choice etc. You have complete Faith in your lack of Faith! :)

But at the point of your last breath, or whenever God decides to lay His decision upon your actions, you are either on the 'believing side', or the 'unbelieving side.' There exists some 'line'. Many fall short, for whatever reason.

Hence, I again ask you....

Is falling upon the incorrect line of belief a sin? I would think not. However, Jesus seems to make the decree that if you do not fall on the correct side, you are cast away. And if this is no choice of your own, which I get the impression you may agree with, then how is this a 'sin'?

If we consider 'sin' to be anything that disagrees with God, or some 'transgression', the closest I can gather, is that God is mad that someone does not believe He is for real. The unbelief itself is not sin, but the fact that this angers God, means He unleashes His vengeance upon the unbeliever, and maybe asks.... "I offered you this and that, and you still don't believe me." If the human cannot help it, because they are a hyper-skeptic, is this their fault? And, is it really a 'sin'? Or is God just mad?

Furthermore, ANY other identified 'sin' would not matter. Why? Because the only unforgivable apparent 'sin' seems to be 'unbelief', and maybe some form of 'blasphemy' - (off topic).

Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0