Kylie's Evidence Challenge

[-57]

That implies that there is more than one way, so name the other ways.



Jars aren't sentient, we are. Just because you believe the deity made our species doesn't make it moral to treat us however it wants, because we have feelings, hopes, aspirations, the capacity for pain, etc. Like how a building crew doesn't have the right to destroy a structure they built whenever they want on the grounds that they built it.



It's a personal perspective that, if someone doesn't deserve something, then it is best that they not get it. Just simple logic, that. Therefore, to give it to them anyway is to forgo the best course of action in favor of a worse course of action. That's willfully making a bad decision knowing that it is a bad decision.



There's no consensus on much of what the bible says, so you have no grounds to even claim that what you think it says is entirely accurate. Maybe you are the one portraying the religious text inaccurately. Chances are, neither of us are entirely right. We can quote what the bible says all day long, but there won't be much consistency in interpretation across the board.



Hahaha, what? I am a seeker and I would much rather be a theist. I am no Christian slayer, nor have I ever worked towards such a thing. I don't even inherently disagree with your interpretation of scripture, or agree with it, it's just different from what I am used to hearing. Christian slayer, hahahahahahaha.




You, sir, are not the person that gets to decide how all of the many denominations of Christianity should interpret the bible. I listened to what you had to say, even though you are no more of an authority on the matter than anyone else on this site. My words didn't represent what Christianity was to you personally, no more, no less.

Thee isn't much more I can say to you. It's not my job to convince God is real...and Jesus saves.
I can only throw it out there and if God allows you to hear it and get saved, so be it. If not, then once again so be it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thee isn't much more I can say to you. It's not my job to convince God is real...and Jesus saves.
I can only throw it out there and if God allows you to hear it and get saved, so be it. If not, then once again so be it.

Well you can't do that on this subforum anyway.

 

[-57]

Well you can't do that on this subforum anyway.

You're right. If God doesn't allow you to see Christ..you won't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're right. If God doesn't allow you to see Christ..you won't.

No, I'm just saying that you aren't allowed to do that on this subforum. Apologetics is only allowed on the Apologetics forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I'm just saying that you aren't allowed to do that on this subforum. Apologetics is only allowed on the Apologetics forum.

Wow.

An appeal to follow the rules.

Do you cruise through stop signs?

 

[-57]

No, I'm just saying that you aren't allowed to do that on this subforum. Apologetics is only allowed on the Apologetics forum.

I'm not being apologetic...I'm simply quoting the bible on a christian forum.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not being apologetic...I'm simply quoting the bible on a christian forum.

In an attempt to defend your faith against another user. Which is against this subforum's Statement of Purpose.

 

[-57]

In an attempt to defend your faith against another user. Which is against this subforum's Statement of Purpose.

Yawn.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yawn.

Sorry but those are the rules. Don't like? Then you can leave.

 

[-57]

Sorry but those are the rules. Don't like? Then you can leave.

Big YAWN.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry but those are the rules. Don't like? Then you can leave.

I'm not so sure Christians like following rules.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thee isn't much more I can say to you. It's not my job to convince God is real...and Jesus saves.
I can only throw it out there and if God allows you to hear it and get saved, so be it. If not, then once again so be it.

-_- the bible does heavily encourage believers to convert nonbelievers as much as possible. However, you have failed to refute a word of what I have said, and have essentially thrown in the towel.

 

[-57]

-_- the bible does heavily encourage believers to convert nonbelievers as much as possible. However, you have failed to refute a word of what I have said, and have essentially thrown in the towel.

Of course you threw in the towel. That's what you do when you lose.

 

[bhsmte]

Thee isn't much more I can say to you. It's not my job to convince God is real...and Jesus saves.
I can only throw it out there and if God allows you to hear it and get saved, so be it. If not, then once again so be it.

People throw a lot out there on this site. From my observations, most of it is because they really need to convince themselves of want they want to be true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course you threw in the towel. That's what you do when you lose.

-_- I said that YOU were the one that threw in the towel, not me. How'd you even make that mistake?

 

[expos4ever]

Jars aren't sentient, we are. Just because you believe the deity made our species doesn't make it moral to treat us however it wants, because we have feelings, hopes, aspirations, the capacity for pain, etc. Like how a building crew doesn't have the right to destroy a structure they built whenever they want on the grounds that they built it.

Greetings. I agree with your reasoning, but I think there is something you should know about Romans 9 and the famous potter metaphor. While I do not have the time to make the argument, I believe that Romans 9 has been seriously misunderstood by most people. Despite the common view, the context really has nothing to do with the eternal destiny of human beings, but is rather Paul's attempt to explain why the nation of Israel has, in the main, rejected Jesus. Paul basically argues that God has the right to take a nation that has already freely (i.e. without divine intervention) rejected the "good path", and further harden that nation.

So, yes, Paul has God in the role of a "manipulator", but I think your objection should at least be softened by two considerations:

1. Israel has already freely walked down the path of disobedience. So while God is indeed "tinkering", he is doing so to a people who have substantially already freely taken the wrong road.

2. A theological case can be made that, in the interests of the broader interests of humanity as a whole, God had no choice but to harden Israel. I realize this flies in the face of the Sunday School image of God as omnipotent. However, I suggest the Sunday School image parroted by many Christians is, in fact, a distortion. Surprising though it may seem, I believe the Old and New Testament portrays a God who is not actually fully omnipotent, at least in the sense that most people believe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Greetings. I agree with your reasoning, but I think there is something you should know about Romans 9 and the famous potter metaphor. While I do not have the time to make the argument, I believe that Romans 9 has been seriously misunderstood by most people. Despite the common view, the context really has nothing to do with the eternal destiny of human beings, but is rather Paul's attempt to explain why the nation of Israel has, in the main, rejected Jesus. Paul basically argues that God has the right to take a nation that has already freely (i.e. without divine intervention) rejected the "good path", and further harden that nation.

That violates free will. Why make people more stubborn in their views ever? This reduces the potential for redemption and getting back on "the good path". It's like taking a map away from people that got lost from misreading it. Why do that to them for making a mistake?

Furthermore, did you forget the deity straight up kills people too? Heck, Jesus cursed a fig tree, causing it to die, for not having fruit when it wasn't the season for figs. Was killing the tree for being exactly as he made it just fine?

So, yes, Paul has God in the role of a "manipulator", but I think your objection should at least be softened by two considerations:

1. Israel has already freely walked down the path of disobedience. So while God is indeed "tinkering", he is doing so to a people who have substantially already freely taken the wrong road.

Preventing people from changing their minds is practically as bad as forcing them to change their minds. It's preventing the freedom of choice down the road either way. This seems more like an excuse Paul makes to try to explain why Jesus hasn't been accepted as the savior by Yahweh's original chosen people.

2. A theological case can be made that, in the interests of the broader interests of humanity as a whole, God had no choice but to harden Israel. I realize this flies in the face of the Sunday School image of God as omnipotent. However, I suggest the Sunday School image parroted by many Christians is, in fact, a distortion. Surprising though it may seem, I believe the Old and New Testament portrays a God who is not actually fully omnipotent, at least in the sense that most people believe.

What do you mean "had no choice"? You mean that the best choice was to do that? Seems unlikely, given that it would further drive more people into rejecting the savior, and thus sentence them to hell.

Basically, as long as the positive afterlife comes down to belief, any decision that prevents belief (making people that currently don't believe Jesus is the savior more stubborn in that position, for example) will do harm, and any decision that promotes belief will be benign. Thanks to how religion spreads, there is no benefit to reducing the number of potential converts, since that not only sentences those individuals to hell, but likely generations derived from them (since children almost always follow the religion of their parents).

 

[expos4ever]

That violates free will.

Yes, it does.

This reduces the potential for redemption and getting back on "the good path". It's like taking a map away from people that got lost from misreading it. Why do that to them for making a mistake?

I have already touched on this. It is possible that, if God is not really omnipotent, He may indeed have had to do this for the better interests of creation - maybe He has no better option. What I did not say, however, is that Paul's larger argument is that God has "hardened" Israel for the important goal of bringing salvation to the whole world.

You appear to responding to what I will call a "fundamentalist" model of who God is. My larger point is that there are other "models" of who God is and what God can do that make what seems unfair to you to be the best option available.

When the doctor induces suffering through the administration of chemotherapy, we do not question the doctor's moral goodness - we know that he/she is doing it in the interests of the patient.

I don't want to appear as if I am dismissing your "moral" objections; I am just saying they be grounded in an overly simplistic model of God that the fundamentalists have been broadcasting to the world and which you have perhaps absorbed as your point of reference.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, it does.

And then the deity sentences them to hell, despite removing their chance at redemption.

I have already touched on this. It is possible that, if God is not really omnipotent, He may indeed have had to do this for the better interests of creation - maybe He has no better option. What I did not say, however, is that Paul's larger argument is that God has "hardened" Israel for the important goal of bringing salvation to the whole world.

You appear to responding to what I will call a "fundamentalist" model of who God is. My larger point is that there are other "models" of who God is and what God can do that make what seems unfair to you to be the best option available.

Actually, I am saying that there is no logical means by which denying the opportunity for conversion would benefit Yahweh if it wants worship. Reducing the number of people that can convert just makes the spread of the religion slower and less powerful.

In fact, the only people that could possibly hurt the spread of the religion that they hold are those that don't understand their own beliefs, the exceptionally stupid or socially inept trying to convert people, and the insane. I see all of those things happen all of the time, so clearly the deity isn't preventing it. Again, this is Paul making the explanation, not Jesus or Yahweh, so it is fair to conclude that he might be wrong about why so many people reject the notion that Jesus is a deity in mortal flesh. Not saying that the deity is omnipotent or any other such thing, just that Paul can be independently wrong.

When the doctor induces suffering through the administration of chemotherapy, we do not question the doctor's moral goodness - we know that he/she is doing it in the interests of the patient.

Making you suffer to preserve your own life, and sentencing people to eternal damnation by withholding their free will so that other people will be saved are two different things. That's like saying it is ok to steal someone's kidneys, because killing them will save two other people. That's outrageous.

I don't want to appear as if I am dismissing your "moral" objections; I am just saying they be grounded in an overly simplistic model of God that the fundamentalists have been broadcasting to the world and which you have perhaps absorbed as your point of reference.

Meh, I've long since given up on assuming any pattern in the concept of god that people believe in. I work on a case-by-case basis. Of course, when your jumping point into a debate with me is in reference to a debate I was having with a different person, my arguments aren't going to be tailored to your ideal of god, and it will take a little bit for me to completely shift gears.

 

[expos4ever]

And then the deity sentences them to hell, despite removing their chance at redemption.

You just proved my point!

You assumed that I believe that God sends people to hell. I never said I believe this, and I certainly do not believe it.

Do you now agree that you may be responding to one particular flavor of the Christian worldview, to the exclusion of others?