Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There have been millions that have been saved on the words of Christ in nations where the faith was a death sentence. Your speaking about influence not capacity. The Christian faith its self began in a nation hostile to it in an empire intolerant of it. Do not use circumstances as an excuse. The bible and the stakes it makes clear do not justify claiming peer pressure is the arbiter of your will. It was not convenient or not popular will not suffice. It is within your control entirely.
Punishment/reward... Heaven/eternal life or non-existence. Isn't non-existence a punishment or at least a consequence of unbelief?
Well I could, but wouldn't. The fact here is a mountain of evidence for God and none for purple people on the moon makes this whole analogy irrelevant. Are you trying to say you may only believe in what is proven to a certainty? Can you state anything that meets that criteria? Just one? You can't equate a faith so reasoned the greatest and most reasonable among us have held it, compare it to something pathetically ridiculous and call that an argument. That is propaganda not reason.
That is not an argument. Let's get specific. The majority of NT scholars on both sides agree to four among a great many of the bible's claims as historical.
Yes, but it is a very just punishment. Unlike burning forever would be. Life in every category indicates an objective moral realm we are aware of that has no natural explanation. Eternal judgment is reasonably consistent with that.
I can't tell you to believe. That is not my claim. My claim is this. The fact is so many millions of histories most intelligent and rational men have been believers, and since hundreds of millions of claims to experiences of God, and since so much evidence exists that you cannot claim faith is unreasonable. You may not be convinced but you cannot claim my faith is not justified.
At England's lowest point in WW2 Churchill turned to a Christian not a secular person to address the nation. I will let him answer you.
There we have it. You have a personal objection to a concept that will not allow you to accept it. I would have not said so, but having been both an atheist and a Christian I already knew this but since you stated it I can agree.
You are stating what you are willing to do. I am stating what is true.
Pretending is not of any benefit in theology. In fact religions are either a the greatest good if true, or the greatest evils if false.
It is clear you do not like the idea of your being accountable. I am not hear to debate what you prefer, but what is true. I did not choose Christianity because I liked it, I chose it because in spite of my antagonism I was compelled to accept it as true.
That is a reasonable question. I can only give my opinion. When the first primate with a soul (Adam). Told God that we rejected his sovereignty over nature and we would take it from there. We were granted exactly what we asked for. He no longer supervised nature or our environment at least for our optimization. He left it to take i's own course and only rarely intervenes. Things are left to deteriorate and mutate as natural law allows. I find exactly hat I expect given this. Bunny rabbits and great white sharks. Great evil and great good. I have no idea when that occurred or if Genesis is literal or not but almost every culture includes a belief in a historical great period that fell into a riot of random deterioration that can however be restored. I did not mean to suggest God creates every individual life, but he is the ultimate source of all life.
1robin said:
First I'm not saying your faith is unreasonable. In fact I'm saying the opposite. For you having faith is quite reasonable.
No I don't agree there exist an objective moral realm. I have my morals. They may or may not be the same as yours. We may have some agreement in some or many cases. That doesn't make them objective.
Again I'm not saying its not. For you it's justified. However I am not you. There is really no reason to think it has to be justified for me.
All we have is hearsay to determine who/what Jesus was. I don't know the authors of this story. Don't know what kind of person they where. Whether they had any credibility or where liars. I know better then attempt to judge someone's sanity or lack of it based on what is reported by a third party. To request that I do so is IMO unreasonable. I'd be happy to tell Churchill, if he were still around or anyone else that.
Sure, but I didn't chose to have this principle. It just happens to be the way I feel. I could not choose to feel otherwise.
Your are stating what is true for you, I 'm stating what is true for me.
Good and evil is a matter of personal opinion. IMO there is both good and bad in religion. So no reason to take it as an either/or. IMO many religions are created with the greatest sincerity. But we are only human and prone to making many mistakes.
Actually no. I saying I don't like the idea of not being accountable. And I accept that you were compelled to accept it. However you still want to call it a choice. I don't think is was much of a choice for you. You simply accepted what seemed reasonable for you to accept despite what you'd personally prefer to have true. I simply have done the same but perhaps a little more aware it wasn't a matter of choosing what to believe. Whatever experiences, research, evidence available led me to the only choice I could make. To have chosen otherwise I would have to be someone else.
So what? I lied and stole when I was younger and thought myself justified in doing so. I made decisions which seemed reasonable at the time and could not have chosen to do otherwise. Now I choose not to lie or steal not because I am a better person but because I am a different person then I was. If God wants to judge who I was instead of who I am now, that's fine. I couldn't have been anybody else at the time anymore then I could be someone else now.
I don't know, I am not God. I make no claims about what God can and can't do. I admit the truth, I am me. I am guilty of being who I am. You claim to be pardoned because of someone else's work. This is morally fine for you. For me it would be very immoral not to be accountable for who I am. I don't choose to feel that way. It just happens to be the way I feel.
Okay, thanks for the clarification, and I actually agree with you.
That's the thing, where is the point where "good" doctrine becomes bad? Catholics, JW's, Mormons and others believe very different than a Baptist. When they say, "I believe in Jesus," is it the same person that you believe in? Can they remain in those sects and denominations and still be "saved"?
I took a quick look and it sounds like the "Lord" spoke directly to Joshua and in several villages God told him to kill all the inhabitants. If that is what a kind and merciful and loving God does, I glad there isn't an evil god running around out there in the spirit world. If there was, he could disguise himself as the good, real God and probably trick a lot of people into doing a lot of nasty things.
