Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Winken]

It was the church which had the upper hand, why would it want that? With the separation it lost control and power. You will need unearthed proof to back your statement because history says otherwise.

Been there, done that. Government had no business in supporting or denying or fractionalizing or denominationalizing the Faith of each Christian. It had no business in meddling in church affairs. Sadly, that has been turned on its head by the president, congress, and the courts.

 

[Hattington]

America was like 95% Christian, but okay. I don't know what makes people today think that atheism was a thing in the 1700's. It's in all the literature and currency for crying out loud. Even the Founding Fathers, who people try to revise today as being atheists or deists when they simply just had anti-clerical ideologies.



Oh, how selfish of them for making their church look nice
Churches have their own right to cater to themselves as well. Sitting there and acting like they are wrong for not worshiping in a dilapidated stone chapel is ridiculous.

I can pretty much just put the same argument to the rest of what you've stated, I'm not going to sit here and have to convey the same message ten different ways. Such things are frivolous in the long run. You should get off your high horse.

Well, we are not only talking about the US making the separation. We can't base our proof in only one nation when there are thousands that underwent the separation.
Not selfish, but false advertisement. Not much different from large corporations illegally moving cards behind doors to profit and then going and donating a few million dollars to look nice. Putting a false face seems to be part of the Christian ideology and such is a main factor driving young adults to reject the religion. Following on that, the church operates similarly to a company, in fact it has too much revenue which we can see in its unnecessary spending. It should be taxed.

 

[Hattington]

Been there, done that. Government had no business in supporting or denying or fractionalizing or denominationalizing the Faith of each Christian. It had no business in meddling in church affairs. Sadly, that has been turned on its head by the president, congress, and the courts.

Of course the church was affected. It was affected by the separation.
When the church controls, the army and money of a country it has immunity and will not want to give it up. Once that is taken away, the church and its members now have to watch what they do or they could be put on trial.
If the church were still on power today our society would be less open minded than it is today; it would even be more advanced. Remember the Dark Ages and the burning of books perpetuated by the church? How many years do you think that retroactively moved society? At least a few hundred.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If by virtue of the furthering of the doctrine of the trinity, some greater good is achieved that would not have been possible otherwise, and this furthering itself is brought about by virtue of some particular means of deception, then by virtue of the greater good that is achieved, the specific act of deception is acceptable.

Indeed this principle I think obtains not only to theological commitments, but to any commitment.

Whatever I do, my aim is that it be that which works the greater good.

So you think it is acceptable to deceive if it furthers your case?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I would not say He is like that. I would say He is right to expect sometimes we will not just satisfy our pleasure as the first priority. Wisdom always demands that sort of self control.

So an obese Christian who stuffs cream cakes down their throat is not one of Gods people? So that would be an example of them being attracted away would it? by seeking pleasure and a lack of self control.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because my theological commitments will always lead me to act in such a way as to work towards the greater good.

Me being willing to kill at the command of God does not nullify this.

Is that what you tell yourself?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did you reference sections 4.1 and 4.2?

Yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

That's what apologists always say. He doesn't do his own dirty work. He gets someone else to do it.

 

[oi_antz]

So an obese Christian who stuffs cream cakes down their throat is not one of Gods people? So that would be an example of them being attracted away would it? by seeking pleasure and a lack of self control.

I would think that certainly He would be jealous of something they put ahead of Him, yes. An obedient Christian will be healthy and not gluttonous. Gluttony is a cardinal sin, meaning that it does kill one's spiritual life. This does not mean to say that He would necessarily abandon them completely. He is long suffering and patient, allowing us to return to Him willingly (read the prodigal son story to see that).

 

[oi_antz]

Please change your non-denominational handle to atheist. That will avoid confusion concerning your comments.

I wasn't confused, FWIW.

 

[DaisyDay]

Thank you Daisy Day for joining in the discussion with us. Now to your question.



Before the actualization of this world, and in the eternal purposes of God and in accordance with His sovereign will from eternity past, Christ's death by crucifixion had been predestined to take place. By virtue of this, the question you ask contains within it a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent, in that in this actual world, it is not possible that Christ could have not been crucified.

Well, that's a disappointing answer. But He, like the rest of us, was born to die, being mortal.

So how much of a sacrifice was it, knowing His Son would be restored to Him in three days not only good as new, but better than ever?

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.

I guess I don't understand your answer since the suffering and devastation was other people's and not His, so I don't see how more people suffering makes His sacrifice any different to Him one way or the other.

 

[Davian]

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

You get to make up your own facts now? Cool.

that God could not observe the aforementioned and not say nothing to anyone about it.

Could you try again, without the double negative, Mr. C. Philosopher?

 

[Davian]

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

[apologist]
Easy. Kill 'em all, let God sort them out. This has biblical precedent, in the "global" flood.
[/apologist]

 

[ecco]

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.

Why did you become a christian?

 

[Davian]

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

And this [hypothetical] God punishes people out of vengeance, for something beyond their control. But, if it's God, that must be good. Or something like that.

 

[oi_antz]

the suffering and devastation was other people's and not His, so I don't see how more people suffering makes His sacrifice any different to Him one way or the other.

Genesis 6:5-6 might help you with that. I quite like the NLT translation:

When the Lord God saw the extent of human wickedness, and that the trend and direction of men’s lives were only towards evil, he was sorry he had made them. It broke his heart.

 

[Davian]

Why would anyone resist?

There is the problem of there being no objective evidence for this character outside of a book, and if Jesus even existed, there is another problem.

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

 

[Davian]

I think Christianity will last forever, if by Christianity, you intend to signify "that worldview wherein Jesus of Nazareth is worshiped as God incarnate and messiah."

It will probably last while homo sapiens are recognizable as a species, right down to that core group that will be saying that same old line...

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's what apologists always say. He doesn't do his own dirty work. He gets someone else to do it.

No, Arch, that's what the Prophets and Apostles say. The rest of us Christians who've come afterward just parrot that sentiment.

However, why should you be bothered by the fact that one tenet of the Christian faith is that God hands impenitent people over to the Auspices of Darkness? Do you think for some reason you'll be included in that group? (I ask because I don't assume that you will be, nor do I assume that I won't be; from my vantage point as a limited, mortal Christian, I can only say that it is a potentiality, not a certainty or logical necessity for either of us.)

Now, about that issue where God seems to get someone else to do His dirty work. Sure, he has demons do some of the sweeping. But sometimes, God cleans the toilet all by Himself ... so, we all have something to complain about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is the problem of there being no objective evidence for this character outside of a book, and if Jesus even existed, there is another problem.

He's Dead, Jim

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Davian, Davian, Davian. I feel parsed ...