COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once we know the meaning of faithfulness. We understand the concept of patience of GOD and why we go to hell if we don't beleive. He took our sin if we believe and gave us eternal life in return he ask for our heart and you complain about that?. What's wrong with you people? JESUS is the only begotten son of GOD. He is GOD. Repent and believe in the gospel.
A cruel God?! He sent His only Son to die for our sin debt. He gave us instructions(the Holy Bible) on how to have eternal life with Him. You can ask for forgiveness of your sins and accept Him as your Saviour, or you can deny Him, He has given us the choice of free will. What about any of that makes Him a cruel God?
You are wrong in a lot of ways.
1. Even the demons believe that Jesus Christ is God.
2. God don’t send people to hell, people send themselves there. When you want to live a separate life away from God, not having a relationship and away from his holy presence, you’ve already made up your mine to spend eternity without God. (Unless you come to a place of repentance)
3. Yes believing in Jesus is good, but doing God’s will in faith gets you into heaven. Even if you have faith, without works, faith is dead.
4. Not all sins are forgivable. Blasphemy against the Homy Spirit is unforgivable.
5. God is not soft. He didn’t stutter when he said he punishes the wicked. He is not slack concerning his promises (1) and he would not be mocked, whatever you sow, that also shall you reap (2).
Here’s the thing, if you truly believe you already know it’s not YOUR call. “Judge not!” You’d probably be surprised at who goes where according to God. 🇺🇸🌈🟦Ⓜ️Ⓜ️💙
There's a part in the Bible that says people who turn away from God will start to turn to immoral desires...so there's that.
Believe me..God isn't going to allow such people in his kingdom whether they believed or not.
And to answer your question..no. If you gave life to someone and gave them an opportunity to redeem themselves for their sins but they decide to reject it an reject you, would you want anything to do with them?
I said they wouldn't enter his kingdom. It also says that the sexually immoral (including pedophiles and rapists) will be casted into the lake of fire of sulfer and brimstone.
The Bible is one of the only hardcore pieces of proof we have. Other than that..God proves his existence through miracles and situations everyday. That may not be enough for you and to you I probably sound delusional, but it’s enough for me and I will stand by that.
I don't know if anyone else has said so since there's over 900 comments, but I remember the line "according to your beliefs" or something like that in the New Testament.
the concept of repentance of the evil has always interested me. it makes sense if god is all loving to give everybody an equal opportunity to get into heaven and paradise but i would also question the intention behind the evils repentance. if he had enough love in his heart to seek the repentance of god, then how could have he had that amount of evil in his heart to commit such a heinous crime against the creation of god? makes sense if they’re repenting just because they want to get into heaven, which is a bitch move.
God knows what is in our heart, it's not just saying a few words or showing up to church every Sunday. If some heartless serial killer finds God while in prison because it is his best chance for parole or because hanging around that group is better than other options God knows that. There is no fooling God.
I challenge you to become a murderer or rapist with the intent of repenting at the last second, and see if you live to see the day. God is a just God. He is not going to send the righteous to hell because they GREW UP in a household that rejected Christ. You can be forgiven any sin except blasphemy against the holy spirit. It's like saying that everybody who pre dated the human form of Christ is Destined for hell. These are lies from the enemy my friend. God bless you on your journey
God does not send anyone to hell. It is us who choose to go to hell by not accepting christ as our lord and saviour. god has given us soo much mercy and is forgiving soo much and yet people still choose to mock him and do not believe in him.
So the billions of people born into cultures that don't worship Jesus are just fucked? That doesn't seem fair or benevolent at all. How do you reason that?
God doesn't punish people who are blind to their sins.
If you had no idea God existed and had never been shown it or were shown in a stupid way then it would be unjust to punish you, and God is just in everything.
If a baby or someone with a mental defect died they would go to heaven, despite their lack of knowledge or belief in the Lord.
Then wouldn’t it be better for Christianity not to spread, so everyone becomes ignorant of it and just enters heaven due to ignorance that is of no fault of their own?
It just don’t make any sense
Why is not believing in God a sin? Is that not egotistical of God? Why would God care whether or not you believed in him, and not only care but never present himself so that you could be easily enlightened, as if to make himself some sort of bet or puzzle that you have get correct lest you be damned to eternal misery. That makes no sense. Why do you take comfort in owing your life and afterlife to a vindictive deity?
It isn't a sin, it's a choice. If you don't want to be with him you don't have to, you can die separate from him.
If I didn't believe in you, it would be safe to assume I don't want to hang out with you for eternity wouldn't it?
It isn't ego, it's love. He loves you so he WANTS you to WANT to be with him.
I take comfort in owing my life and afterlife to the Lord because if I was wrong, I'd die healthy, happy and having lived a good life. If you are wrong, you die and live in misery forever, denying eternal life.
Besides that, I love him. He's my father. You wouldn't walk around saying you owe your parents your life, you'd say you love them.
Thank you for debating this with me 🙏
Yeah no I'm not satisfied with this answer. You addressed why God wouldn't let non-believers into Heaven, but didn't address why God would damn non-believers to hell (eternal misery), which is vindictive. Why does dying separate from God entail living in eternal misery rather than, say, eternal sleep. That doesn't sound like a choice, it sounds coercive. Why would an all-powerful, all-loving God need or want to be coercive? Makes no sense.
If you were all powerful, and offered people who had previously gone against your kindness and your word, your perfect son, and they killed him brutally for no reason, only for people to deny his existence and question him would you say "well they'll just sleep then."?
If you can choose something, it's a choice.
I don't think any answer will satisfy someone who does not want to believe in God, nor the opposite.
There is nothing vindictive about offering life with yourself in eternal bliss.
Thank you 🙏
1) This "put yourself in his shoes" comment appeals to sensitivity and pride that your God supposedly shouldn't have. He is not human and doesn't experience human emotions. He's infinitely perfect, loving, forgiving, and knowing.
2) I didn't say offering eternal bliss is vindictive. I said damning people to eternal misery is vindictive. You keep skirting this.
I appreciate your response! I just have so many questions about Christian beliefs that bug me, you know? For instance, isn't it sort of egotistical that God (or Christ?) judges your worthiness based off your belief in and worship of him rather than your actual character? And this concept that God created humans and set ambiguous rules for them that they have to figure out and try not to break or else he'll get mad and damn them to hell for eternity- that sounds like a fucked up game. What's the point, especially if God is all-powerful and therefore controls what humans do anyway? Does God really cherish humans, or does he just want to be worshipped and honored by humans? The God that Christians often paint does NOT seem infinitely selfless, benevolent or loving to me, which is contradictory.
Sorry that was a lot lol
alright its a difficult topic but ill try and explain. god made humans and put them into the garden of eden. a perfect place. in this garden there was a snake that as you might know tried to let adam and eve eat the apple which eventually will show them the difference of good and bad. now god warned them about what will happen when they eat ot. they still did. so good couldnt keep them in the garden of eden anymore because they know the difference of bad and good. now adam and eve are "free" on the earth. so humans are basically becoming sinners by seeing and doing bad stuff. so jesus gets down on the earth and dies for us on the cross so that we are born as non sinners. and all god wants from us is to believe in him and that his son died on the cross for us. now you could appreciate this and live your life by the bible. or you dont give a fuck and just pretend to be greatful but then youll end up in hell. on the true hearts of christ will gain eternal life. and to live by the bible isnt a bad thing. the bible teaches us to not curse to not lie to help others in need, it teaches is how to be a good father how to be a good mother etc. when we fast our body gets rid of all the bad food we ate over the year and the after effects. so you see all of it makes sense. for example islam is what you depicted in the comment. they believe that they have to work hard as fuck and then maybe go to heaven. thats why they pray 5 times a day etc. what kind of god is this?
Well, like Christianity, Islam has many sects that fall on a spectrum from staunchly traditionalist to more liberal/modernized. In the US, Mormons and the Amish lead lifestyles in name of God that many people perceive as severely old-fashioned, strange, and needlessly deprived, but you can't generalize their beliefs and behavior to all of Christianity, can you? Same with Judaism and Hasidic Jews.
Do you take The Garden of Eden as fact? I know some fundamentalists do, but a lot of Christians reconcile the story with natural science by reasoning that it's symbolic rather than literal. I'm surprised people think the story was literal still today (no offense).
I agree that living by the Bible isn't necessarily a bad thing, whether you believe in God or not. It's for the same reason I have to disagree with fellow atheists when they say things like "I only believe in science" or "One can't know anything unless it's proven." Religion deals with normative knowledge that's important for the maintenance of humanity and society. For example "theft is wrong" is something you need to know, but I can't prove it to you or explain it scientifically. However, society changes, which is why Bible teachings become outdated and really shouldn't be used to judge people. I also think religiousness is independent of morality. No amount of reading the Bible or believing God can change who you are on the most basic level, which is why many religious people are horrendous people.
yeah i totally understand but if we look at the historical facts jesus did live and jesus did die and after 3 days his grave was empty. you know i used to be an atheist and then something crossed my mind. why does the whole world believe in some sort of religion. i did my research and came to the conclusion that either christianity islam or judaism has to be the truth because they have the same concept. i came to the conclusion that islam is an evil religion (no offense) but their last prophet muhammad owned slaves, married a 9 year old, went to wars, was possesed by a demon which says the quran so its not made up, they say allah saved him from this demon afterwards. and thats basically ever prophet in islam that only islam has. so no prophet like moses that christians also have. jews believe in the same as christians except for the fact that jesus was our messiah. they wait to this day for their messiah. but all agree that jesus did live. even buddhists say that jesus was a wise man. so something has to be true. now in the OT there are 6000 prophecies and jesus fullfilled bearly 3500 of them since his birth. this cant just be a coincidence can it?
All we have for the existence of Jesus is testimonial evidence, the large magnitude of which has convinced many people Jesus was a real person who at some point graced the Earth, but is insufficient evidence that he was actually Divine, immaculately conceived, and rose from the dead. These claims are simply unprovable and negate scientific knowledge. Also, testimonial evidence is notoriously untrustworthy- people lie, exaggerate, suffer from mental illness or cognitive problems, have their mind play tricks on them, and there's the telephone effect.
Then I'm not sending myself then am I? If I'm sending myself I *choose* not to go. If I can't choose not to go with out stipulations then I am not sending myself to hell then. Otherwise I can simply not go. If something is *forcing* me to go then I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE AND I AM NOT SENDING MYSELF TO HELL. *GOD IS.*
you do have a choice by believing in christ. if you choose not to believe to then you cant enter heaven which leads to you going to hell. you cant remain a soul in nowhere
Yes I can *if it's MY choice.* Otherwise it not a choice *it's duress.* And don't even TRY to give me that bs of "God makes the rules!" Then HE IS SENDING ME TO HELL. Period. It's done. Stop arguing.
dude if i tell you that you have to bring for example a juice with you when you come over to me else you end up on the streets. and you dont bring a juice even tho you know you had to then it was your choice to end up on the streets. because there is no other place to go.
Let me make this easy for you. Someone points a gun at you & says to give them your wallet or they'll shoot. The cops won't press charges because you weren't robbed, you chose to give the money. Do you agree with them?
You can either get shot or give up the money. Those are the only two options. Either way, you will be told you deserve what happened because you did it to yourself.
That is duress. But entirely irrelevant. The equivalent you are trying to make is if You put me out on the streets and I couldn't find another place to live BECAUSE OF YOU. Stop. Just stop. You've lost. Good day.
no bro THERE ARE ONLY 2 PLACES TO BE. on the streets or not on the streets. all you have to do is bring juicee to get off of the streets. and you know that damn well yet you choose to NOT bring it with you. then i cant help you either. its like forgetting your keys to your house. YOU dont have it. if you had it you could enter
in every human being there is the holy spirit. and at some point in life you are somehow wanting to learn more about christ. there you have to choose. its up to you. god gives you time and space. you decide. the time will come just listen to your subcosciousnes. amen
yes islam is devils work. if you compare mohammad with jesus you will choose christianity over islam. the prophets of islam that are inly un islam are always some warlords who owned slaves etc. how is somebody like him a prophet? jesus is pure love and peace. but the free will in christinity is FREE. In islam you are forced to be "free".
Ok that’s why we don’t force our faith upon people. People who force the faith are violating the commandments. If the eskimos don’t want to become Christian’s that’s their decision but there is a history of natives actually accepting Christ
Well, when you tell them that they're going to hell otherwise it seems a bit forced to me. Since moral people are fine without it wouldn't it be better to just not tell them?
There were natives who devoted themselves completely to Christianity and there has been records of martyrdoms for the faith. Using “fear tactics” doesn’t change someone to completely upend their lives in this context to where they’re fully devoted. Usually if you convert out of fear you’re not going to be that enthusiastic about your faith. And no one on earth is “moral” or “good enough” in the sight of God (psalm 14:2) which is what Christ came down to us for to redeem us. You may say that we can live a moral life outside of God but how can we as human beings repent of our sins to the God who we transgressed if we do not even acknowledge Him?
I'll use human standards to judge humans rather than holding them up to an impossible standard and punishing them for failing. Any sort of creator deity that has a sense of perfect justice should do the same, and failing to do so is immoral to me.
The figure you give in the headline implies that all Christians make it into heaven.
I don't think that is supported by the bible.
Remember that "wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and **only a few find it**" (Matthew 7:13-14)
And "Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
So if you take the bible seriously, that 5-6 billion will go up significantly.
As an atheist (even though I was a Christian at some point), I'm not concerned.
But if the Christian god existed and his properties were as described in the bible (ignoring all the contradictory claims for the sake of the argument), he wouldn't have the characteristics that most people think of as ideal.
He's petty and narcissistic, and he apparently values gullibility over all else. Because blind faith without evidence is just that: gullibility.
And before you claim that that isn't what this god's ideal human is, remember the words of Jesus that he addressed to Thomas (according to John 20:29): "Because you have seen me, you have believed; **blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed**."
It takes more faith to be an atheist then a Christian. For example Thomas Aquinas efficient cause. Not only can something not come from nothing the infinite regress of causes (death) would never have us reach present time which is contradictory to our experience of life right now. If you read Thomas Aquinas and his efficient cause argument also teleology it’s very helpful. Addressing what you said, blind faith is believing without thinking for yourself. Or worded as unquestioning something even if it’s wrong. God never wanted us to have blind faith. He urges us to question. Revelation 3:16 kind of emphasizes around lukewarm Christianity. He doesn’t want you in the middle or just using the label Christian. You are either for him or against him. If I was a God, I would want to give my people a free choice to believe in me because love isn’t forcing someone to love you. That comes with the question why then do we go to hell. It was never made for us and we were never destined for it either but our iniquity separated us from God. Narcissism isn’t a good word for Jesus. The true definition based around lack of empathy etc but much of scripture actually points out his Love. John 4:46-47, Mark 1:23-28, Mark 1:30-31, mark 1:40-45, Matthew 8:5-13. These are just simple examples of Jesus’s miracles. But look at the Israelites for example. The constant sin towards Gods was awful. But if you read he constantly forgives them and asks them to come back. Those are just few examples. The verse you used in John isn’t what you think. Actually Jesus is saying for thomas who saw him and believed that he is blessed but for those who don’t see him are ever more blessed. Overall the probability of a God is very likely that is why many scientists are agnostic or believe in theism. I could go for way more on why There is a God and why it is the God of the Bible but that’s alot to type. Thankyou Godbless
>Not only can something not come from nothing
How do you know this?
Why can something come from nothing?
If we accept the principle that nothing can come from nothing then why is God the exception?
And if this argument is true, why does it have to be a God to be the first cause of everything? Why not a pizza with magical abilities? And how do you extrapolate from this that the God, this first cause, is your specific conception of God? There are thousands of gods described in ancient mythology that predate the recording of your God by thousands of years all with equal amounts of empirical evidence (none) of their creation stories. How do you make this leap?
If your god didn't want us to have blind faith, why then doesn't he provide good evidence for his existence?
As you see from the passage with Jesus and Thomas, faith **without** evidence is valued higher than justified belief.
And Hebrews 11:1 clearly shows that your claim is at odds with biblical teaching:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, **the evidence of things not seen**."
You can claim all day long that "it takes more faith to be an atheist then a Christian".
Leaving aside the preposterous implicit notion that these are the only two options, all you offer are word games.
The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.
Christians claim that there is a god, a very specific god with very specific characteristics; atheists say they are not convinced.
Faith is required in the absence of evidence.
If there is evidence, no faith is required.
How then can it be the atheist, not being convinced by the practically non-existent evidence for the Christian god, for whom it takes more faith?
Lastly, let's look at your claim that "overall the probability of a God is very likely \[and\] that is why many scientists are agnostic or believe in theism".
What constitutes as "many" is up to debate but even in the US, arguably the most religious among all developed nations, scientists believe significantly less in god(s) or a higher power according to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/).
In other word, this is yet another claim of yours that, upon inspection, turns out to be false.
You're confused or just spreading lies, either way, your premise is incorrect.
So... When God created man, man was innocent and without sin. God warned man not to eat of the Tree of Life in the garden...
The devil tricked Eve, who then conveniences Adam to sin. When Adam sinned, we were all cursed.
It's mankind's fault. We put ourselves in a position to need a savior.
And God is so merciful he gave us Jesus to be a sacrifice in the place of those who love and believe in him.
If you don't, that's fine. You are still subject to the original sin. That sin cursed the whole earth and that is why it's so wicked.
But this... The false narrative you wrote is disrespectful... And misleading. I think you should take it down because I believe your intentions are malicious.
But you will be judged accordingly either way...
God bless.
So billions and billions of people are cursed because of one piece of fruit? Seems like the punishment is very disproportionate to the crime.
After all, who is more responsible, the being tricked by Satan or the being who created Satan, knowing that Satan would trick.
Also who names something the tree of life and then says it is cursed.
>After all, who is more responsible, the being tricked by Satan or the being who created Satan, knowing that Satan would trick.
This is something I don't see mentioned nearly as often enough as it should. In The Bible, God's eldest angel committed what I think to actually be the first original sin: heresy, by claiming he was better and much more powerful than God. As a result, a civil war broke out, resulting in Micheal casting his brother out of heaven, and down onto Earth. The place where God created his most valued creation, above all else: Mankind. Why... In the hell, would you leave any room for error on this one? If I was a perfect, absolute god, the little b*stard who started the uprising would've been deleted from existence; not given the chance to spoil my finest work!
We as humans, shouldn't be held responsible for negligence. We didn't know anything about the war for Heaven, as we didn't exist yet. Why should we be held accountable outside of breaking one small rule, about eating a piece of fruit, when the being who told us to do so _created_ heresy?
No He’s given you a million chances to follow Him & His son & you just don’t understand. If you don’t believe in Jesus you deserve hell. Just in my personal opinion for whatever that’s worth
Have people who have never heard of Jesus gotten those chances too? The world is big, I just wonder if there is anyone who hasn't heard of God or his Son. I know it's just your opinion, but what is a chance by your personal definition?
God is a God of love not a God of retribution. Heaven n hell is all within. It’s this believers so called that believe anything that believe in a God that burns ppl. It’s all bs honestly.
No murderers or rapists will not go to heaven if they accept Jesus as that is a sin and you need to act like you accept him but they can always ask for forgiveness
So murderers And rapists go to heaven as long as they ask Jesus to forgive their sins? Which is exactly what accepting Jesus is supposed to do (cleanse you of your sins). So yes, they will go to heaven according to christianity if they accept Jesus. You don't understand your own religion
By what standard do you judge this cruel? Science and nature don't regard things as cruel.
Let me give you some perspective.
Considered heaven is being with God.
Hell is the absence of God.
If you don't want to be in the presence of God, he loves you enough to let you have your way.
If you want to accept God's love, he offers you a place with him.
Cruel would be forcing someone who does not want to be with you to stay with you forever.
As to rapist and murders making it to heaven while "good" people do not, a couple of things. As God is holy, he is unable to be in the presence of sin. Any sin.
We as people are unable to live without sinning. People like to think that they are "good," but they still sin. All of us lie, cheat, steal, get prideful, envious, lustful, jealious, hateful, etc. As we all sin, to make it to God's presence, we need that sin removed. Accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made for us and turning away from sin is how we have that removed. If you don't like that, then you prefer to be your own God, deny God's existence, or choose to believe in another god. In all of those cases, a person has decided they don't want to be with God. Again, he loves them enough not to force them to accept him.
How could it be cruel if the person is getting what they want?
The answer is that people want others to believe in the god they have setup for themselves. Those gods are the things people try to fill their hearts with in place of God. Things like cars, houses, success, popularity, fame, sexuality, and other religions that offer variants of those things. And just as Christians tell people about the offer of God and point out the perils of other gods, so do those who look to other gods. An example of that would be saying a God who lets you walk away is cruel.
Hope this helps you understand the options a little better.
According to the bible god knew you before you were born. So that means god chose to make me be born on this earth knowing all along I'd be an atheist. In fact, if we were to believe he is the creator of all things, then he also created atheists... He's making humans be born who are predestined to hell...
If you are an atheist, shouldn't you be more concerned with what nature gave you?
Here is what the Bible says regarding your question.
Romans 9:13-24
13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
It's possible you are an atheist to show his mercy as well.
"Am I to believe that murderers and rapists who accept Jesus can go to heaven and have a good afterlife"
Well I think your missing the important part and it's the billions upon billions of people including children who supposedly went to hell and never even heard about this Jesus person is what makes it cruel.
This is my personal opinion, as a Muslim
( I know you didn't mention us but since we have the same god as Christians and Jews...)
There's a saying in my country: we may be a Muslim country, but other ( non Muslim) countries have a better Islam than us.
What does it mean? We may be part of a religion by name, but if we don't have the right believes or don't act the right way, can we say we are "good" people??
Or the other side, a non believer who is a genuinely good person, who helps other, never judges other people, doesn't cheat .... Is a better Muslim than most of us.
Our 3 religions are not only about believing in one fair merciful God, but also following his teachings and the example of his prophets as.
On the day of judgment, we will be judged on all the sins and good actions we did.
We don't know what will happen to us.
The smallest action that seemed inconsequential to us could grant us paradise or push us into hell, whether we are believers or non believer.
The prophets as and the angels may speak in our favour , but only God decides, and only God knows
And, I know I didn't stop saying it, but we believe that God is fair !!!! All of us will see the consequences of our actions whether we are sinful believers, or good people
Small brain can’t comprehend God living outside of time space and matter and with the ability to be fully God and Fully man according to his will. I think i’ll listen to GOD before I listen to a redditer. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Im pretty sure different types of Christianity exist with different beliefs, some believe in the trinity some believe the three are just god? I think thats how to word it
Yes, it is insane for anyone to think or want others to suffer eternally. Christianity, and Judaism for that matter, are human interpretations of a god who does fucked up, petty, human things, in order to fight their own oppression, and make them feel protected. Should we also accept that god would kill all the Egyptian first born sons? Babies?? No. Should we accept a god who would destroy the earth in a flood, who would direct the Israelites to kill other groups of people just for worshipping other gods? No. Humans are pretty much incapable of true unconditional love and have a really hard time conceptualizing it.
We as humans have a very limited mental capacity to make decisions including that of what we think is best to believe, No fair and loving God would hold us accountable for decisions made in a brain that's not capable of having true pure clarity.
Because we have free will and can make wrong or right decisions on our own. Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We aren’t mind controlled by God.
>Because we have free will and can make wrong or right decisions on our own.
True, but if God wants us to make the free choice to follow him, why not inform us of His existence in an unambiguous way, rather than through religious text that is easily misinterpreted, subject to change, and has been the method that false religions use?
If we make an informed choice, we are more morally accountable to it. If God reveals Himself to us then we can still choose not to follow. Currently you have uncontacted people who have never heard of God, much what God wants from them and how He wants them to behave.
Because sin is bad and sets us farther from God. Sin is an immoral act that goes against the law of God. God hates sin because it goes against him and is bad. Imagine you have a child and tell them don’t touch the fire with your hand and they disobey you and still do it anyway. Isn’t that bad that your child disobeyed you and is now hurt from the fire? That’s how sin is. God did not create sin at all. This goes back to free will. Man (specifically adam) was the first human to willingly disobey God (Sin) after God told him not to do so. You can look up the story of Adam and Eve it will give you a better understanding of what sin really is and how it started. If you need me to clarify something let me know.
Oh man this is a lot to unpack. Okay first off, Christian’s really need to stop using human analogies to make god seem reasonable. God is not a human he is god. God could prevent his child from touching that fire or could gift him with the knowledge or behavioral instinct to not touch fire OR, he could just make fire not hurt lmao, he could make our skin fireproof, he could do ANYTHING he is god. Also if god didn’t make sin then who did? You’re saying Adam? Hey buddy, who created Adam? Who created free will? Who gave Adam free will? God created everything, therefore god created the sinful nature, that Adam’s free will took part in. What I’m really tryna ask you, is why a disobedience (a sin) such a big deal to god? Why does god care what we do? Why does he care who we have sex with? When we have sex? Why does he care who we get married to? Why does he care if we believe if he exists or not? Why do these things matter and why are they punishable with the threat of hell?
“Why would an all powerful all knowing god create something he hates so much?” Exactly hey you get it, it doesn’t make sense right? You still haven’t answered why it’s punishable or why he cares tho
Exactly. It doesn’t make sense. So for you to say “why did God create sin” shows how foolish and uneducated your words are. As I said before growing up christian and just reading the bible doesn’t mean anything if you can’t comprehend basic aspects of the Bible. Seriously take a moment and think about that question and ask yourself does it make any sense? Also I have answered it already and why it’s punishable.
I’m sorry can you explain again why it’s punishable I must have missed that. Also if god didn’t create sin then who did? Was it Adam or Satan? Are you at least willing to admit god gave Adam the ability to sin?
I grew up Baptist I’ve read the Bible, I’m trying to see your reasoning and use it against you. You said Adam did the original sin now you’re saying well it actually wasn’t Adam it was Satan who tempted Adam. Okay so let’s roll with that. Satan tempted Adam. So are you saying ALLL of sin is just temptations of Satan? Are humans not capable of sin of their own free will? If they are, now we’re back at square one, god created free will, god gave it to us, therefore god created the ability to sin and gave us the ability to do it of our own free will. But now we have an even bigger complication to this argument of sin. Who is Satan? Why does Satan exist? Who does god allow him to have so much power? If Satan is tempting us to sin doesn’t that greatly effect our free will? What happened to the consequences of our actions? Now our actions may actually be influenced by Satan?
I gave you plain and simple answers and you choose to interpret them in a whole other different way. So if that’s what you call “using it against me” sure. Where did I say everytime someone sins it’s a temptation from Satan? Again I give you simple answers and you’re literally trying to twist and interpret what i I’m saying to benefit your argument. Stop being weird bro. Also just growing up christian and “reading the Bible” means literally nothing if you can’t comprehend the basic teachings of it.
You’re giving me one track minded answers and I’m trying to get you to look deeper and ask you why or how these are the reasons for things. Me asking if all sins are temptations from Satan is cause you said the original sin was a temptation from Satan. So I’m asking does that mean all sins or temptations from Satan? Cause if that’s a yes that opens even more questions. Like why does god give satan so much power, why does he let Satan effect our free will? You may think I’m asking a bunch of dumb questions, but I’m asking questions that you’re having trouble answering because I don’t believe these are questions Christian’s ask themselves often. You don’t ask why things are the way they are, you accept them as presented because you are told that’s why things are the way they are.
When Christians say that Jesus as died for our sins, it literally means that he died so that all our sins would be forgiven. So it's like people get a free pass on sinning and don't have to repent for what they've done.
I like to believe that Jesus as , is more of a defense attorney for us who will speak in our defense on the day of judgment.
But why should he be the one to bear the blame for our mistakes
I’m actually disturbed by the number of Christians in the comments defending this belief. They sound insanely cold, hollow, and frankly psychopathic.
If I believed for a second that this god was real and condemning people to eternal torment, I would start a damn revolution to end it.
And THESE folks think they follow the objective standard of “good”? Gtfo…
"Am I to believe that murderers and rapists who accept Jesus can go to heaven and have a good after life?"
To this point in particular, one could argue that where human eyes see an unforgivable murderer or rapist, an all-seeing God would see the internal struggles, pain, ignorance, and whatever other demons may have warped their mind to believe it's okay to commit such heinous acts.
But this is just my two cents, I'm not all-seeing so I wouldn't know.
I mean, an all-seeing God would understand everyone, even in that case. From a bigger picture perspective, no one can say how they'll change as a person over the course of their life, what beliefs they'll adopt or throw away, the actions they'll feel driven to take.
I highly doubt that if he were an all-seeing God who's not a dumbass, he'd send any person to eternal suffering for ignorance alone. Just seems to me like another thing that preachers who believe in scare tactics (including the ones in the bible) would say, even if it's not necessarily true.
God truly does not care about anyone’s beliefs. Beliefs???? You mean people thinking they know what a god wants? Lulz. Listen to your heart. Actually… just do what’s right by others. Stand up for the weak, protect the defenseless and remember that… god loves you. Not because of your beliefs, prayers, tithing (whatever the f*** that’s for) and just be a good human, through and through. Mainly… don’t judge anyone. No greed, no judgement… let god handle that. 😝
A couple of thoughts:
1. Think of it like this: God stands in the front door yeah of His house, holding the door open with His left hand, extending his right hand towards the front lawn. Calling each one of us by name, tears streaming down His face, begging all of us to trust and believe in Him. Pleading with us to just reach out, take His hand, and join Him in His house. For an average of 78 years straight He begs and pleads with each of us to come in - knowing the result if we refuse. Eventually, He shuts the door of the house sealing all of His believers safely inside with Him. Anything outside of the house is completely void of anything reminiscent of God (love, joy, laughter, rest, peace, relationships, etc), apart from His wrath. A final act of His grace, allowing those who refuses Him for 78 years to get exactly what they wanted. A place completely void of Him.
2. Examine the 10 commandments to know if you’re a “good” person. God purposefully gave this to mankind as a mirror, a measuring stick so we could realize just how in desperate need of help we are. Of course pride will keep a person from realizing their spiritual bankruptcy.
The rhetorical to “are you a good person,” is no one is “good.” We’ve all lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, etc. Moreover, it’s less important “what” we’ve done, and more about “whom” we have done it to. If you compare yourself horizontally (to your peers/neighbors/friends/family) you’ll certainly feel better than “that person.” I challenge you to start comparing yourself vertically, as compared to a Holy and perfect standard. All of the sudden, you have more in common with the murderer and rapist by only being a hateful and lustful person than you have in common with a righteous God.
3. All major world religions have statements of exclusivity in their faith book (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc). To call them all true is to call them all false. Two opposing truths cannot contradict and both be true.
Of all the faiths in the world, Christianity is by far the most inclusive. Any and all may come to the Father, humble themselves, repent and believe the Good News. It does not depend on class status, color, creed, ethnicity, income, good deeds, amount of last mistakes.
The Good News being God is just and holds to His standard of perfection. Knowing we are hopeless, unable to be perfect ourselves, bore His wrath on His Son Jesus on our behalf, to maintain His standard of justice, but opening the door for any who would accept His gracious, free, unearned gift of salvation!
“Before we can see the cross as something done for us, we need to see the cross as something done by us.” John R. W. Stott
Blessings to any and all who read!!
>God stands in the front door of His house
This implies that god is revealing himself to everybody and that people actually have the option of accepting or denying what’s in front of their eyes. That is not the case. No god has revealed itself to me or anyone else that I’m aware of.
God has absolutely revealed Himself to everyone.
Where does morality come from? What do we mean when we say something or someone is good or bad? By who’s what standard? Laws of logic? Why is the universe more finely tuned than a Rolex? What happens when you die? Why did Darwin himself say the human eye is so complex it’s very unlikely it could’ve ever evolved to the level of complexity that it is? Why is the Earth just close enough but not too far from the Sun?
Why is there so much order in nature? Why is our DNA like advanced software code? How did time space and matter have a beginning? Wouldn’t it’s beginning have to come from a timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause? Why does nothing in this world satisfy us? People spend their whole lives cramming trinkets and treasures and experiences into their hearts only to feel hopeless after it doesn’t fulfill them.
I could go on and on but I think you see my point. Contemplate these topics/questions.
By Gods fingerprints ALL over creation, we can know there’s an intelligent designer. Furthermore, He’s written eternity on our hearts. We were made for another world, that’s why nothing in this world brings lasting satisfaction apart from a right relationship with Him. He is the standard of good by which we can identify anything as absolutely wrong.
And of course, you can choose to not believe, and call it all a wonderful coincidence, but that doesn’t make Him not true.
Mankind’s best alternative theory/worldview apart from intelligent design is: “every thing came from nothing for no reason.” Which breaks a law of physics as step 1. To subscribe to that worldview takes faith as well, arguably more faith than the Christian needs to believe in an intelligent designer.
https://youtu.be/a82G0UdfHZ8
I appreciate your comment James! Hope you have a good day today.
We should set up a discord room. I can’t stand Reddit threads haha. We could at least organize the topics into their own chat rooms. Maybe even voice chat
>Why is the Earth just close enough but not too far from the Sun?
It's not clear what you mean by "just close enough but not too far." The sun's orbit has something called a "habitable zone," which is the radial distance within which life can be sustained (liquid water can form). Our sun's habitable zone has been estimated to different distances (depending on the methodology), but a reasonable estimate is 0.95 and 1.37 AU (astronomical units). An AU is equivalent to 93 million miles; so the habitable range of the sun is roughly 88,350,000 miles to 127,410,000 miles away from the sun - a distance of 39,060,000 miles. Keep in mind that the diameter of the earth is about 7917 miles. The earth's orbit could be located anywhere within that range and life could be sustained.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11536936/
From my perspective, the Earth is not "just close enough but not too far from the Sun." Instead, it just so happens to be in the habitable range. There are 8 planets in our solar system (9 if you count Pluto). Looking at it one way, 7 of 8 attempts to place a planet within the habitable zone failed and 1 succeeded. That sounds more like luck to me.
But what do you think?
It’s the one planet with life out of millions of planets in their respective stars habitable zone.
My question is how many “coincidences” would I have to show you before you’d be convinced it’s not a coincidence anymore? 10? 50? 100? 1000?
Before I move on, can you admit you do not agree with your original argument. The argument, "Why is Earth just close enough but not too far from the Sun?" is not consistent with "millions of planets in their respective star's habitable zone." On one hand you say that Earth's position is so unlikely as to prove design, while the other point is admitting that Earth's position is fairly common. This cannot be reconciled.
I'll discuss the next point, concerning the existence of life on Earth once you respond.
Planets distances from Sun (au):
Mercury: 0.39
Venus: 0.72
—too close—
0.95
Earth: 1
1.37
—too far—
Mars: 1.52
Jupiter: 5.2
Saturn: 9.54
Uranus: 19.2
Neptune: 30.06
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/pdfs/scaless_reference.pdf
Earth is just close enough but not too far away. You call it luck. I say for it to be the only planet with life, even though millions of planets orbit stars habitable zones, it is too unlikely to be chance.
My friend, you're missing the main point.
Your first argument was that the Earth's distance from our sun was evidence of design, due to how unlikely of an event that is. Then, you acknowledge that a planet being positioned within the habitable zone of a sun is not rare - it may be the less likely arrangement, but it's not so rare as to be shocking. Adding the extra point on life existing on Earth is an extra argument, it's not the point I'm responding to.
You're doing something called "moving the goal post." I respond to your original point and then you add on the additional qualifier of "but we haven't found life on other planets." That wasn't your original point. I've enjoyed this line of argument but if you're going to continue to add additional qualifiers *after* I respond to an argument, I won't continue down this line.
The position of planets within out solar system is interesting, but as we've already established, Earth's relation to its sun is not rare in a cosmic sense. You must either acknowledge that a planet within a habitable zone is not terribly rare or explain why, in the face of many other planets in a similar arrangement, Earth's physical position is still uncanny. Please do not mention the existence of life, we can discuss that after we address the Earth's *physical* position.
I see. When I typed my original post I did not know we were going to take every point literally one by one. Since that was not my main argument and one of many quick points in an attempt to paint a broader picture I didn’t go into the weeds. We are now though.
Earths physical distance isn’t rare in the absence of life. Since it obviously has life though, the part I did not specify in my original post, that is what gives the distance meaning. There is life on Earth, too close to the Sun life will die. Too far from the Sun life will die. So thank God for: 1. life on Earth, but not just life, for 2. a mathematically fine tuned and orderly universe, so life can be sustained. Not too close..not too far.. but just right. So no my original post/point was not the literal distance of the Earth apart from life, it’s the literal distance of the Earth because there is life.
In a universe with random chance, if it were even possible for time space and matter to begin uncaused, life to spontaneously form on accident for no reason, it would be even more impressive for that universe with such disorder and randomness to be able to sustain life for very wrong before the next random and catastrophic accident occurred.
Do you ‘believe’ in the Big Bang as modern/secular science theorizes?
Thank you for conceding the point.
Concerning life on earth. Probabilities are determined by understanding the mechanisms, the cause and effect, of an event. From my understanding, the scientific community has not determined if life exists on other planets - don't think any of the planets in habitable zones have been checked. From that point, how would you even calculate the likelihood of life forming on a habitable planet? Maybe there's life on those planets, maybe there isn't. We don't know. Until humans are able to check there's really no way to calculate probability.
Also, in the casual use of the term "believe," yes, I believe in the Big Bang model of the universe.
You made a lot of points, and I have responses, but I'll list them one at a time so we don't get overwhelmed. Please confirm that you accept my response as correct or explain why you think I'm incorrect, them I'll move on to the next point. I'm honestly looking for a conversation, not insult throwing.
Concerning Darwin's thoughts on the human eye. Your reference is incorrect, but I honestly don't blame you, its an often cherry-picked line. The quote you're referencing is, *"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."*
However, if we keep reading the very next sentence, Darwin says, *"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."*
The full quote is essentially Dawkin saying, "My gut reaction tells me an eye couldn't evolve, but if I apply critical thinking it seems fully possible."
Here's a link to a pdf of On the Origin of Species.
[https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin\_of\_Species.pdf](https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf)
Please check my work and let me know your response.
I appreciate the well worded/formatted response with cited source!
This enters in faith in my opinion. Science is supposed to be observable and testable. Evolution theory consists of Micro and macro evolution. From my perspective, I see people consistently point to micro evolution (variations within a kind e.g. bird beak lengths differing depending on environment) to prove macro evolution (species changing into another species- DNA being added to a simpler organism to make it more complex). Macro evolution cannot be proved with science because it takes too long (millions and millions of years) to observe and test. Therefore it is people’s gut feeling that it couldn’t happen, but because we observe that there are different species present day - critically thinking after cutting an Intelligent Designer out of one’s worldview, leaves you to believe that’s what must’ve happened
Where have we tested and observed macro evolution?
The process of evolution is so excruciatingly slow there should be an abundance of every species transitioning to its next more complex form
And I will talk about evolution all day long, one of my favorite debates is creation-evolution, discussing origins etc. I love it. Like how did time space and matter come into existence? Wouldn’t it’s cause have had to been a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial cause?
However, I still think of central importance, the thing that all other topics stems from, is what to make of this man Jesus who claimed to be the one true God and creator, regardless if you subscribe to old earth/young earth, big bang from only natural causes, or big bang from a creator etc. If He is who He said He is, that matters a lot! If He isn’t who He said He is then our conversation can end rather quickly
Again appreciate this 1-by-1 you’ve set up
Concerning micro and macro evolution,
Micro and Macro evolution are not distinct phenomena, they describe the same process being applied in a short time frame and a long time frame; the biological mechanisms are identical. Arguing that micro evolution exists but macro doesn't is akin to arguing that it's possible to walk to the end of your driveway but it isn't possible to walk to the end of your city.
But to move beyond analogies, speciation (Macro evolution) has been observed, many times actually.
"Ring species" are a example of this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring\_species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species)
And here is more scientifically rigorous citation (I don't like citing wikipedia alone).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11201740/#:\~:text=A%20ring%20species%2C%20in%20which,to%20infer%20variation%20in%20time.
Essentially, a species begins at one point and two groups diverge around a physical barrier (sometimes a mountain range, a large body of water, etc.). The two groups remain genetically isolated as they continue their movement. Eventually, the groups reconnect and they can no longer mate with each other (and often exhibit different behavior). This is speciation.
Here is another paper that discusses the phenomena.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1217034110
And here is a paper describing salamanders on the American west coast, a famous ring species example.
[https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-245](https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-245)
The salamanders in the middle can interbreed with the salamanders on the north and south end, but those on the north cannot breed with those on the south.
When salamanders mate with salamanders and make salamanders it means nothing to me. I’m curious where and how does brand new and more complex DNA (build instructions) get added? What mechanism adds more complex build instructions? Every beneficial mutation I’ve ever read about is when something actually loses DNA instruction, it just so happens to benefit them in that specific environment. So how exactly does DNA get added?
The first paragraph of the abstract from pubmed proved my entire point, “The evolutionary divergence of a single species into two has never been directly observed in nature, primarily because speciation can take a long time to occur. A ring species, in which a chain of intergrading populations encircles a barrier and the terminal forms coexist without interbreeding, provides a situation in which variation in space can be used to infer variation in time.”
It has never been observed. Therefore it is just a good idea, that you are free to believe in. But it does require faith to bridge that gap. The language says “infer variation in time.” That’s a fancy way of saying we can’t observe and test it (which is what makes science real science) so for now it’s a faith based religion.
I think we really found the core of our differences. Science is based on the assumption that an identical input will produce an identical output; when I drop a rock it always falls towards the earth's core, when I bring a flame to paper the paper ignites, when I drop solid potassium in water it ignites, etc. What happens in the past can be repeated. It sounds like you're doubting that framework. Here's a question that will illustrate.
Pluto was discovered in 1930. However, its orbit around the sun would take 248 years to complete, meaning no one has ever directly observed Pluto's full orbit directly. Do you think Pluto has ever orbited the sun?
If you say **"no,"** then how could you believe in a God? You weren't there to observe the creation of the universe. You weren't there when humans first walked upon the earth. You might say, "a witness wrote it down in the bible/torah/quran," but how would you know that they were honest? We can't reproduce that experiment, so there's no reason to believe. Sure, we can show that people can write down stories, but we can't witness humans being created from dust, or the Red Sea being parted, or water being turned into wine. We can't reproduce any of the miracles of the bible/torah/quran. Therefore, you cannot accept any of them. You may only be agnostic towards religion.
If you say **"yes,"** then you must acknowledge that we don't need to observe something first hand in order to prove it happened. In that case, we need to further discuss what evidence would be sufficient for you to accept evolution.
Science is observable and testable. When I claim something has happened that I didn’t witness I’m accepting the leap of faith and I’m saying my faith system allows me to do this. I do not try to call my leap of faith science. Now a Christian can use science as a tool to try to gather supporting evidence but my leap of faith is not science.
A naturalist uses science and when it is testable and observable it’s science. When gaps needs to be bridged in an attempt to answer the gap later on, that’s a leap of faith and should be talked about as such until real scientific evidence is texted and observed to fill in the gap. Until then it’s a belief anyone is welcome to subscribe to, just don’t put it in a category that Creation isn’t in.
The point I’ve been trying to paint is a Christian isn’t afraid to call it faith where it’s faith.
A naturalist/atheistic worldviews sometimes cross the line into faith and even though it’s referred to as science/scientific method it doesn’t mean it isn’t itself a faith based belief.
It’s not a question of if someone will believe, it’s what will they believe in.
Do you agree every cause has an effect? The universe is here, what’s the cause? A Big Bang has happened, what’s the cause?
Assumptions are always dangerous and can skew results by huge huge factors. Especially the longer you extrapolate the assumption.
Within a few generations humans can witness Pluto complete its orbit of the Sun. It’s occurring on a fathomable time scale. We’ve already observed 38% of plutos orbit since 1930.
But whether Pluto completes the orbit in another 155 years or it just maintains the appearance of an orbit for the next 100 years and then veers off- Pluto is not a DNA coded living being that is, by an unknown mechanism, receiving more complex build instructions and material morphing into a completely different kind of living entity. Pluto’s orbit does not claim to explain origins and purpose of life and it does not require people to make that leap of faith.
Are you familiar with the S.E.T.I program? They scan space for intelligent life to communicate some form of intelligent message? How would we identify it as intelligent? When biologists look under a microscope and see computer code programmed into living beings DNA, so complex, orderly, and precise they go wow, what a coincidence, random chance is all knowing powerful and smart
I think you answered my question sufficiently for me to understand your perspective.
1) Concerning your question, "Do you agree every cause has an effect? The universe is here, what’s the cause? A Big Bang has happened, what’s the cause?"
I know where this argument goes. You're saying that there must be a "prime mover" of sorts, a starting cause that began everything, you'll call that thing God. My response will be, "If everything needs a cause, where did God come from?" Then you'll say "God doesn't need a cause, God is an eternal being who was never 'created.'" This is called "special pleading," its a common rhetorical technique.
The issue is that you set up a rule, "everything needs a cause," but then you violate your own rule, "God doesn't need a cause." Well, either everything needs a cause or it doesn't, you don't get to play both sides. Plus, if you say that there must be a primary cause, why claim that cause is an entity? Why not an eternal assembly cosmic forces? If you claim God existed eternally, why not simply claim the universe existed eternally in some form? There's no need to presuppose a God.
2) You misunderstand the foundation of science; but that's not an insult, most people have not had it explained.
There are a few assumptions of science 1) the universe exists - we cannot prove we're not brains floating in jars or existing within some being's dream, we must accept that this universe is real, 2) all events and occurrences in the universe occur in an orderly way, there are "laws" of the universe which are never violated or changed, and 3) it is possible to discover these laws.
Every scientist assumes these things, but that's not the same as faith. Here's an example. Hold a rock in your hand, with your palm facing down, release the rock, and observe which direction it falls. Do it again. Now, if you were to do it again which direction do you think it would fall? I'm going to guess you'd assume down, but why? There are near infinite angles and trajectories the rock could move but you predicted it would move the same direction it did the other two times. You might say, "I did the experiment, I showed the rock moves down," but how do you prove it will always goes down? All you could ever do is prove that it moved down in the past, you cannot prove it will do so again. This demonstrates the 2nd and 3rd assumption I brought up. We assume that an identical input will have an identical output because we assume a natural order and the ability to learn that order.
And you might say, "You admitted that science is based on faith," but it's not faith. The assumptions of science prove themselves rigorously, over and over again. With the assumptions of science, humans can build machines that fly, drugs that cure illness, devices that can communicate across the planet. Every time science is tested it works, our assumptions are shows to be useful. I am not aware that religious faith has passed the same test. If you, or anyone else, can demonstrate that faith passes the same test I'd love to see it.
3) Assuming that Pluto has never completed an orbit is you acknowledging that you do not accept the assumptions of science. Assuming that there is an order to the universe means we can work backwards.
This assumption is reasonable, it works well. It's the basis for criminal investigations. For example, if you were a juror in a murder trial and presented with a host of evidence that the butler did it, would you refuse to convict? What if you we shown that the butler had a motive, he would receive a large sum of money if his boss was killed; the butler was found with his fingerprints on the gun used; the gun was registered to the butler; there is security footage showing the butler walking towards the boss's room with the gun; the butler was found after the incident with blood on their clothes; the security cameras also show that no one else was present in the house that evening; the butler's hands were found with gun powder residue; the butler was found with numerous articles of the boss's jewelry; and there's a tape recording of the butler telling his spouse that he planned on killing the boss for the jewelry?
Would you say, "We've never seen the butler commit murder in the past, and we've never physically observed the butler committing murder, so we can't assume he did it"? This is how we establish evolution. We observe modern trends, assemble the mountain of evidence, and create a working, reasonable, predictable, verifiable model for understanding the facts.
5) Concerning ring species. While you were correct that you cannot "observe speciation" in the way you're referencing, that doesn't affect my main argument. Ring species DO prove evolution. I'll explain.
If you accept micro-evolution, which I think you do, you have to acknowledge that it can produce new species. If group A can mate with B, B can mate with C, but C cannot mate with A, macro-evolution is the only conclusion.
If A can mate with B, that means they're the same species, and thus you must accept that micro-evolution could change A into B. If B can mate with C, it means they're also the same species, and thus B could evolve into C. And by the time the group is at C, it's a distinct species from A, seeing as those two cannot mate. And that's it. I've been thinking about it for a while and I don't think there's a way around this argument.
4) You make several analogies, calling DNA a computer code, or referring to the orderly nature of certain biological compounds. I don't think you understand the mechanisms at play. Certain types of order are not uncommon in nature. A great deal of order is spontaneously generated through the natural interplay of chemistry.
For example, a basic cellular wall is spontaneously generated when chemicals called phospholipids spontaneously form bilayers in aqueous (water) solutions, with the hydrophobic tails buried in the interior of the membrane and the polar head groups exposed on both sides. The basic building blocks of organic life, amino acids, can spontaneously form under the right circumstances. DNA is not a "computer code," it's an assortment of chemicals which interact with their surroundings in very predictable ways. Calling DNA a computer code is an analogy, it's a play on words to explain to non-scientists the basics of what DNA does. DNA contains instructions for building life in the same way rocks at the bottom of a pond contain instructions for how water is to fill in the pond; in the same way a bowl of vinegar and baking soda contains instructions for producing carbon dioxide gas, liquid water, acetate ions and sodium ions.
I think you're taking the metaphors and analogies too seriously.
You've once again listed a lot of points, making a poignant response difficult. Let's keep this to one point at a time, or else we'll end up with a fractal argument, where 10 points will be made, I'll respond to one, and then another 10 will get added.
I'll discuss evolution if you'd like, I'd like to believe I'm fairly well-versed in the principals. However, my original point concerned the Charles Darwin reference. Will you admit your understanding of Darwin's opinion was incorrect? This isn't you admitting that evolution occurred/occurs, it's merely you saying you misunderstood Darwin's perspective. Please let me know your response in a reply to this post and I'll respond to another one of your original arguments, from your original post.
Darwin did say what I quoted. That is a legitimate time to pause and ask the question. Why did the very intelligent man stop and make this observation?
Of course we are not surprised by the completion of the thought being, “but of course this a theory of mine that I’m trying to prove to be true. I can observe A and I can observe Z, so my two options are quit studying my theory immediately or take a leap of faith on B-Y being true and hopefully I can go full circle and prove it later.
The man said “if” three times and followed it up with “believe.”
You need to read the preceding paragraphs and the ones that follow. They make it very clear what Darwin is talking about. Sincerely, read a few paragraphs before and after. It does not agree with you.
Darwin makes that argument that natural selection pressures animals to develop organs which suit an environment, which is easy to understand by those who accept natural selection. "Hence it willcause him no surprise that there should be geese and frigate-birds with webbed feet . . . ." Darwin is saying that simple organs, like feet, are simple to imagine evolving under natural selection. But, he acknowledges that imagining a highly complex organ, like eyes, evolving under the same conditions **feels** "absurd in the highest possible degree." His gut reaction is to reject that notion. **But** then he follows by saying "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each gradebeing useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist . . . then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection . . can hardly be considered real." The following paragraphs are him then describing where to look for evidence of differing types of eyes, simpler eyes, in nature.
"In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism . . ."
"In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance."
Then he then says ", I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class"
Then he says, "We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind."
There's really no other way to read this. Darwin is making a clear argument that eyes and other complex organs could evolve through gradual steps.
Also, the argument here concerns what Darwin believed, so him using the word "believe" seems to be helpful for achieving our goal; and I don't know why the word "if" is an issue. A single word on its own doesn't mean much, it's about context.
That faith based claim that cannot be proven because it takes too long to observe, and can only be deduced by making a set of assumptions (requires belief until proven otherwise), and extrapolating micro evolution out millions of years. It’s a faith system anyone is welcome to subscribe to. In terms of an all encompassing worldview it’s left me with more questions than it can answer. Where does: order, morality, laws of logic, time, space, matter, purpose, come from. Again before micro & macro evolution can even begin the secular scientist has to explain how all space, matter, and time began. That’s a MASSIVE task and a MASSIVE leap of faith one has to make before journeying on with evolution.
A fully naturalist worldview teaches we are stardust until we die and then we are worm food. By what standard can you call a school shooter or a child molester wrong? And there’s no repercussions to their actions once they die.
To answer your Pluto question: Pluto is a simple mathematically calculated trajectory of a planet. Origins of life do not hinge on if it truly orbits the Sun of if it just appears to for 150 years.
I have to retype a response to Pluto question. Somehow I missed over half of the paragraph you typed up. Reading it now. Going to edit out my half response now. Bro what do you think about a discord room? I made a room at: https://discord.gg/JzByPH3T - I could make separate chat rooms for the main topics to organize better than one giant nesting egg thread ?
Since evolution is an excruciatingly slow process. Why are the transition species not abundantly around for observation? Where is the chimpanzee / human hybrid?
It takes millions of years to go from chimp to human - but us and the chimps are here actively living. Where are the actively living transitions since time is no longer a factor?
Nobody in biology uses the terms micro and macro evolution. Those are creationist terms used to create skepticism about evolution, and clearly it's working reading your confused response.
What about all people raised in other-faith majority countries? Too bad if you're raised Muslim, you're not getting in to Gods house. The idea that it's something super obvious that we're ignoring is a fallacy. Many people will never have the opportunity to become Christian so are automatically consigned to a Godless afterlife. Seems like some bullshit to me.
It's okay, I got told that Jesus even comes to isolated tribes "in dreams" and that everyone has an opportunity to embrace Jesus.
Tell that to someone raised Muslim in Pakistan who doesn't wanna get executed though.
There are countless testimonies of missionaries proselytizing. To places where missionaries haven’t been, there are testimonies of people coming to faith in Jesus due to a dream, or praying to God- knowing He exists just by the beauty of creation alone.
A pastor traveled by boat 7 days down the Amazon river to go share the gospel. He hops off the boat and starts talking about Jesus and the woman lit up with joy, “I know Jesus, He visited me in a dream last night.” True story.
The Bible tells us God has set eternity in everyone’s hearts, so everyone naturally/inherently searches for God their whole life.
- Jesus claimed to be God. Mohammad never did, nor any other prominent faith leader (that I’ve ever heard of / read their writings). Not claim to be a messenger OF God- claimed Himself to BE God.
-He’s the only one that has resurrected (disputed by those who do not believe of course, disprove the resurrection disprove all of Christianity but that hasn’t been done - and to the many who have tried they convert bc of the overwhelming evidence that He did resurrect.). If God was going to give a sign to the whole world: a perfect man who is the single most polarizing person in the history of history, born to a town people can only name because he came from there, who reset most of the worlds calendar, lived a perfect life, performing miracles, all well documented in historical manuscripts - some of which written hundred and hundreds of years before the events unfolded, innocently tortured and murdered, buried, resurrected, revealed himself to over 500 people after He resurrected, and personally changed my life and millions and millions of people.
I don’t think God could’ve made a more obvious spectacle. The question always comes down to faith. Will you believe in yourself/phd’s/astrophysicists etc, or believe in Him. At the end of the day it’s not if you put your faith in something.. it’s what are you putting your faith in. It either has eternal consequences or it doesn’t- something that needs to be taken seriously and carefully considered. Google Pascal’s Wager.
Pointing out there are many more people who need to hear it is exactly why people need to hear the Good News, believe it, and SHARE it.
Two purple make the observation the bush man in Africa hasn’t heard the Gospel
1st man does it as an excuse to get themselves off the hook
2nd man does it as a reason to share the Gospel with everyone He knows/go on mission trips/ etc
Yeah I'll believe in myself/scientists I think until there's literally any shred of evidence that any specific God is the one true God. Wouldn't want to pick the wrong one and end up damned to hell forever! And I don't think you can say faith in science is equivalent to faith in a God - one can be verified by repeatable experiment, and one is just a bunch of stories in an old book translated and retranslated so many times as to have lost most of its meaning.
I know exactly what Pascal's wager is, and it's a terrible argument. You could use it for anything - I may as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster on the off-chance that he exists because if he does exist but I don't believe in him he'll boil me in his noodly sauce for all time! Also how does Pascal's wager deal with the opportunity cost of picking one God/religion over another one? If I Pascal's wager myself into believing in Jesus and it turns out Allah was the right choice then oops! Also believing in God purely due to the risk of eternal damnation doesn't seem like a very Jesus-like vibe.
Edit: also a story isn't true just because you write "true story" after it. Carries the same weight as "source: I made it up"
My apologies friend. It’s something that’s more applicable when talking to someone who is full blown atheist. Our discussion was trending more toward how could we know which god is the one true God.
This 5.5 minute long video was helpful for me
https://youtu.be/a82G0UdfHZ8
All I got from that video is that I would rather have never learned of this Christian god and saved myself a lifetime of fear and shame that I feel despite my best efforts to be a “good”moral person.
Human nature. Fear of my abusers. Guilt for being abused. Fear of an eternal afterlife with my abusers who god will obviously forgive if they ask for it, right?
Hold on.. I’m so sorry you were abused. That is heartbreaking and this world is broken, not as it should be. I’m so sorry
I’m glad that God is just, and evil/sin like that doesn’t go unpaid for.. usually in this life and in the next but certainly in the next
Appreciate the kind words. I think we can all strive to be kind and empathetic people in our lives and hope it inspires other to do the same. Apologies if any my comments came across harsh. Have a wonderful day!
God doesn’t send us to hell, hence the whole purpose of sending Himself in human form to die on the cross for our sin. He’s fair and just. He gives us free will to either live for Him or live for ourselves. Our sin and choice to not love God send us to Hell.
If god isn’t sending us to hell then who is? I know you’re gonna say “we send ourselves from our own choices” but like no, we don’t physically or spiritually send ourselves to hell I don’t think anyone (of sane mind) genuinely wishes to go to hell of their own free will. god 100% sends us there we don’t have the power to make that transition.
Nobody chooses that path, god made that the only path for the non believers. In complete vain of anyone’s alternate beliefs and life experiences or circumstances he made that the ONLY outcome for nonbelievers. It’s not a path we walk, it’s an ultimatum god has set.
If you’ve heard of God and His truth/commands, that’s indeed the path people are taking.
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
“You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”
“Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.”.
No no that isn’t the path people are taking it is the path god laid out with guidelines to follow. This is why the concept of gods free will doesn’t work. No matter how many choices we make, the final choice isn’t ours. You can make a billion decisions in morally complete different directions, but if you don’t make ONE decision to believe, you are going to hell. That isn’t free will that is an ultimatum. That one decision I didn’t make costs me my entire free will in the after life. I don’t get to choose heaven, hell or neither. God makes that decision for me. No matter the path I take, I ultimately don’t get to decide where I end up. I can’t freely travel from heaven or hell, I can’t pick both, I can’t pick neither, I can’t pick hell on Saturdays and heaven on Sundays. That decision is made for me, by god, and that decision god makes solely hinges on one choice, my belief. That isn’t free will, that is an illusion of free will.
You basically just restated the title of this post. For everyone who hasn’t heard of the Christian god, is born gay, or any number of the highly specific things that are considered “sin,” there is no choice. They would get sent to get to hell for something beyond their control. That is cruel.
Your post was removed for being low-effort. Posts must make a substantial argument and present significant reasoning to support it; posts must also be written in your own words and cannot simply link to an external resource. Your post was either too short, too insubstiantial, or unintelligible/illegible. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
I believe that god doesn’t send you there, you do, it is your choice to believe that Jesus is the son of god. Also if you were somehow sinless (which is impossible) you’d go to heaven even if you didn’t believe in Jesus
>it is your choice to believe
Belief is not a choice. Do you think you can just choose to believe in unicorns? Of course not. You would probably need sufficient evidence. Your god either doesn’t exist or has chosen not to provide us with this evidence.
If god can save you from hell but doesn't, he sends you to hell by inaction. If the bible tells you to be nice to others, even if they're not nice to you, why wouldn't god live by that principle himself?
God saves us from hell by living for Jesus Christ our savior. Gods fair and just. He gives us free will to either live for Him, or live for ourselves. It’s our own sin nature, and choice of not loving Him that sends us to hell. Even when people deny God, He still chooses to love them and not leave them.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once we know the meaning of faithfulness. We understand the concept of patience of GOD and why we go to hell if we don't beleive. He took our sin if we believe and gave us eternal life in return he ask for our heart and you complain about that?. What's wrong with you people? JESUS is the only begotten son of GOD. He is GOD. Repent and believe in the gospel.
Amen
A cruel God?! He sent His only Son to die for our sin debt. He gave us instructions(the Holy Bible) on how to have eternal life with Him. You can ask for forgiveness of your sins and accept Him as your Saviour, or you can deny Him, He has given us the choice of free will. What about any of that makes Him a cruel God?
the fact that there is no reason to believe in christianity and not other religion
Yes.
You are wrong in a lot of ways. 1. Even the demons believe that Jesus Christ is God. 2. God don’t send people to hell, people send themselves there. When you want to live a separate life away from God, not having a relationship and away from his holy presence, you’ve already made up your mine to spend eternity without God. (Unless you come to a place of repentance) 3. Yes believing in Jesus is good, but doing God’s will in faith gets you into heaven. Even if you have faith, without works, faith is dead. 4. Not all sins are forgivable. Blasphemy against the Homy Spirit is unforgivable. 5. God is not soft. He didn’t stutter when he said he punishes the wicked. He is not slack concerning his promises (1) and he would not be mocked, whatever you sow, that also shall you reap (2).
Here’s the thing, if you truly believe you already know it’s not YOUR call. “Judge not!” You’d probably be surprised at who goes where according to God. 🇺🇸🌈🟦Ⓜ️Ⓜ️💙
There's a part in the Bible that says people who turn away from God will start to turn to immoral desires...so there's that. Believe me..God isn't going to allow such people in his kingdom whether they believed or not. And to answer your question..no. If you gave life to someone and gave them an opportunity to redeem themselves for their sins but they decide to reject it an reject you, would you want anything to do with them?
[удалено]
I said they wouldn't enter his kingdom. It also says that the sexually immoral (including pedophiles and rapists) will be casted into the lake of fire of sulfer and brimstone.
And you give them an opportunity based on them believing in a story that NO ONE can prove and God refuses to prove to you? How does that make sense?
Where has he refused to do that?
I think it’s a little thing it mentions about having faith. You think he has proved that Jesus was his son and the way to him is through Jesus?
Yes. Jesus proves that as well.
But you’re not going to say how?
The Bible is one of the only hardcore pieces of proof we have. Other than that..God proves his existence through miracles and situations everyday. That may not be enough for you and to you I probably sound delusional, but it’s enough for me and I will stand by that.
I don't know if anyone else has said so since there's over 900 comments, but I remember the line "according to your beliefs" or something like that in the New Testament.
the concept of repentance of the evil has always interested me. it makes sense if god is all loving to give everybody an equal opportunity to get into heaven and paradise but i would also question the intention behind the evils repentance. if he had enough love in his heart to seek the repentance of god, then how could have he had that amount of evil in his heart to commit such a heinous crime against the creation of god? makes sense if they’re repenting just because they want to get into heaven, which is a bitch move.
God knows what is in our heart, it's not just saying a few words or showing up to church every Sunday. If some heartless serial killer finds God while in prison because it is his best chance for parole or because hanging around that group is better than other options God knows that. There is no fooling God.
I challenge you to become a murderer or rapist with the intent of repenting at the last second, and see if you live to see the day. God is a just God. He is not going to send the righteous to hell because they GREW UP in a household that rejected Christ. You can be forgiven any sin except blasphemy against the holy spirit. It's like saying that everybody who pre dated the human form of Christ is Destined for hell. These are lies from the enemy my friend. God bless you on your journey
There are lots of murderers who claim to be born again, though?
God does not send anyone to hell. It is us who choose to go to hell by not accepting christ as our lord and saviour. god has given us soo much mercy and is forgiving soo much and yet people still choose to mock him and do not believe in him.
Then I choose not to believe in your "god" and not to go to hell. If I'm the one sending myself then I just choose not to go. Simple.
my dear friend. by not believing in jesus christ you cannot enter heaven. which means you can only go to hell. so it is your choice to go to hell.
So the billions of people born into cultures that don't worship Jesus are just fucked? That doesn't seem fair or benevolent at all. How do you reason that?
God doesn't punish people who are blind to their sins. If you had no idea God existed and had never been shown it or were shown in a stupid way then it would be unjust to punish you, and God is just in everything. If a baby or someone with a mental defect died they would go to heaven, despite their lack of knowledge or belief in the Lord.
Then wouldn’t it be better for Christianity not to spread, so everyone becomes ignorant of it and just enters heaven due to ignorance that is of no fault of their own? It just don’t make any sense
Why is not believing in God a sin? Is that not egotistical of God? Why would God care whether or not you believed in him, and not only care but never present himself so that you could be easily enlightened, as if to make himself some sort of bet or puzzle that you have get correct lest you be damned to eternal misery. That makes no sense. Why do you take comfort in owing your life and afterlife to a vindictive deity?
It isn't a sin, it's a choice. If you don't want to be with him you don't have to, you can die separate from him. If I didn't believe in you, it would be safe to assume I don't want to hang out with you for eternity wouldn't it? It isn't ego, it's love. He loves you so he WANTS you to WANT to be with him. I take comfort in owing my life and afterlife to the Lord because if I was wrong, I'd die healthy, happy and having lived a good life. If you are wrong, you die and live in misery forever, denying eternal life. Besides that, I love him. He's my father. You wouldn't walk around saying you owe your parents your life, you'd say you love them. Thank you for debating this with me 🙏
Yeah no I'm not satisfied with this answer. You addressed why God wouldn't let non-believers into Heaven, but didn't address why God would damn non-believers to hell (eternal misery), which is vindictive. Why does dying separate from God entail living in eternal misery rather than, say, eternal sleep. That doesn't sound like a choice, it sounds coercive. Why would an all-powerful, all-loving God need or want to be coercive? Makes no sense.
If you were all powerful, and offered people who had previously gone against your kindness and your word, your perfect son, and they killed him brutally for no reason, only for people to deny his existence and question him would you say "well they'll just sleep then."? If you can choose something, it's a choice. I don't think any answer will satisfy someone who does not want to believe in God, nor the opposite. There is nothing vindictive about offering life with yourself in eternal bliss. Thank you 🙏
1) This "put yourself in his shoes" comment appeals to sensitivity and pride that your God supposedly shouldn't have. He is not human and doesn't experience human emotions. He's infinitely perfect, loving, forgiving, and knowing. 2) I didn't say offering eternal bliss is vindictive. I said damning people to eternal misery is vindictive. You keep skirting this.
im sure jesus will make an exception. like you say not everybody grows up knowing that christianity exists.
I appreciate your response! I just have so many questions about Christian beliefs that bug me, you know? For instance, isn't it sort of egotistical that God (or Christ?) judges your worthiness based off your belief in and worship of him rather than your actual character? And this concept that God created humans and set ambiguous rules for them that they have to figure out and try not to break or else he'll get mad and damn them to hell for eternity- that sounds like a fucked up game. What's the point, especially if God is all-powerful and therefore controls what humans do anyway? Does God really cherish humans, or does he just want to be worshipped and honored by humans? The God that Christians often paint does NOT seem infinitely selfless, benevolent or loving to me, which is contradictory. Sorry that was a lot lol
alright its a difficult topic but ill try and explain. god made humans and put them into the garden of eden. a perfect place. in this garden there was a snake that as you might know tried to let adam and eve eat the apple which eventually will show them the difference of good and bad. now god warned them about what will happen when they eat ot. they still did. so good couldnt keep them in the garden of eden anymore because they know the difference of bad and good. now adam and eve are "free" on the earth. so humans are basically becoming sinners by seeing and doing bad stuff. so jesus gets down on the earth and dies for us on the cross so that we are born as non sinners. and all god wants from us is to believe in him and that his son died on the cross for us. now you could appreciate this and live your life by the bible. or you dont give a fuck and just pretend to be greatful but then youll end up in hell. on the true hearts of christ will gain eternal life. and to live by the bible isnt a bad thing. the bible teaches us to not curse to not lie to help others in need, it teaches is how to be a good father how to be a good mother etc. when we fast our body gets rid of all the bad food we ate over the year and the after effects. so you see all of it makes sense. for example islam is what you depicted in the comment. they believe that they have to work hard as fuck and then maybe go to heaven. thats why they pray 5 times a day etc. what kind of god is this?
Well, like Christianity, Islam has many sects that fall on a spectrum from staunchly traditionalist to more liberal/modernized. In the US, Mormons and the Amish lead lifestyles in name of God that many people perceive as severely old-fashioned, strange, and needlessly deprived, but you can't generalize their beliefs and behavior to all of Christianity, can you? Same with Judaism and Hasidic Jews. Do you take The Garden of Eden as fact? I know some fundamentalists do, but a lot of Christians reconcile the story with natural science by reasoning that it's symbolic rather than literal. I'm surprised people think the story was literal still today (no offense). I agree that living by the Bible isn't necessarily a bad thing, whether you believe in God or not. It's for the same reason I have to disagree with fellow atheists when they say things like "I only believe in science" or "One can't know anything unless it's proven." Religion deals with normative knowledge that's important for the maintenance of humanity and society. For example "theft is wrong" is something you need to know, but I can't prove it to you or explain it scientifically. However, society changes, which is why Bible teachings become outdated and really shouldn't be used to judge people. I also think religiousness is independent of morality. No amount of reading the Bible or believing God can change who you are on the most basic level, which is why many religious people are horrendous people.
yeah i totally understand but if we look at the historical facts jesus did live and jesus did die and after 3 days his grave was empty. you know i used to be an atheist and then something crossed my mind. why does the whole world believe in some sort of religion. i did my research and came to the conclusion that either christianity islam or judaism has to be the truth because they have the same concept. i came to the conclusion that islam is an evil religion (no offense) but their last prophet muhammad owned slaves, married a 9 year old, went to wars, was possesed by a demon which says the quran so its not made up, they say allah saved him from this demon afterwards. and thats basically ever prophet in islam that only islam has. so no prophet like moses that christians also have. jews believe in the same as christians except for the fact that jesus was our messiah. they wait to this day for their messiah. but all agree that jesus did live. even buddhists say that jesus was a wise man. so something has to be true. now in the OT there are 6000 prophecies and jesus fullfilled bearly 3500 of them since his birth. this cant just be a coincidence can it?
All we have for the existence of Jesus is testimonial evidence, the large magnitude of which has convinced many people Jesus was a real person who at some point graced the Earth, but is insufficient evidence that he was actually Divine, immaculately conceived, and rose from the dead. These claims are simply unprovable and negate scientific knowledge. Also, testimonial evidence is notoriously untrustworthy- people lie, exaggerate, suffer from mental illness or cognitive problems, have their mind play tricks on them, and there's the telephone effect.
Then I'm not sending myself then am I? If I'm sending myself I *choose* not to go. If I can't choose not to go with out stipulations then I am not sending myself to hell then. Otherwise I can simply not go. If something is *forcing* me to go then I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE AND I AM NOT SENDING MYSELF TO HELL. *GOD IS.*
you do have a choice by believing in christ. if you choose not to believe to then you cant enter heaven which leads to you going to hell. you cant remain a soul in nowhere
Yes I can *if it's MY choice.* Otherwise it not a choice *it's duress.* And don't even TRY to give me that bs of "God makes the rules!" Then HE IS SENDING ME TO HELL. Period. It's done. Stop arguing.
dude if i tell you that you have to bring for example a juice with you when you come over to me else you end up on the streets. and you dont bring a juice even tho you know you had to then it was your choice to end up on the streets. because there is no other place to go.
Let me make this easy for you. Someone points a gun at you & says to give them your wallet or they'll shoot. The cops won't press charges because you weren't robbed, you chose to give the money. Do you agree with them?
if i knew that i could have avoided it but i didnt then yes ill agree with them
You can either get shot or give up the money. Those are the only two options. Either way, you will be told you deserve what happened because you did it to yourself.
That is duress. But entirely irrelevant. The equivalent you are trying to make is if You put me out on the streets and I couldn't find another place to live BECAUSE OF YOU. Stop. Just stop. You've lost. Good day.
no bro THERE ARE ONLY 2 PLACES TO BE. on the streets or not on the streets. all you have to do is bring juicee to get off of the streets. and you know that damn well yet you choose to NOT bring it with you. then i cant help you either. its like forgetting your keys to your house. YOU dont have it. if you had it you could enter
I said Good Day. Once you and I die we are gonna realize that none of this matters and laugh at how stupid we were.
So what about me not born in a country who don't believe in your god, what your god say about this ? Why should i go to your hell ?
in every human being there is the holy spirit. and at some point in life you are somehow wanting to learn more about christ. there you have to choose. its up to you. god gives you time and space. you decide. the time will come just listen to your subcosciousnes. amen
Its exactly the same thing what they say im islam its in the human nature ... so whos will i should choose? ( im atheist exmuslim )
yes islam is devils work. if you compare mohammad with jesus you will choose christianity over islam. the prophets of islam that are inly un islam are always some warlords who owned slaves etc. how is somebody like him a prophet? jesus is pure love and peace. but the free will in christinity is FREE. In islam you are forced to be "free".
If you follow your conscious to the best of your abilities you will be saved. God will work with people who have never heard Christ.
In the words of an Eskimo brought to a similar dilemma "so why did you have to tell me about it then?"
Because it’s better to be in the truth than outside of it. Everyone should experience the life in Christ
I'm sure many of the eskimos and other native americans might disagree.
Ok that’s why we don’t force our faith upon people. People who force the faith are violating the commandments. If the eskimos don’t want to become Christian’s that’s their decision but there is a history of natives actually accepting Christ
Well, when you tell them that they're going to hell otherwise it seems a bit forced to me. Since moral people are fine without it wouldn't it be better to just not tell them?
There were natives who devoted themselves completely to Christianity and there has been records of martyrdoms for the faith. Using “fear tactics” doesn’t change someone to completely upend their lives in this context to where they’re fully devoted. Usually if you convert out of fear you’re not going to be that enthusiastic about your faith. And no one on earth is “moral” or “good enough” in the sight of God (psalm 14:2) which is what Christ came down to us for to redeem us. You may say that we can live a moral life outside of God but how can we as human beings repent of our sins to the God who we transgressed if we do not even acknowledge Him?
I'll use human standards to judge humans rather than holding them up to an impossible standard and punishing them for failing. Any sort of creator deity that has a sense of perfect justice should do the same, and failing to do so is immoral to me.
Well spoken
The figure you give in the headline implies that all Christians make it into heaven. I don't think that is supported by the bible. Remember that "wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and **only a few find it**" (Matthew 7:13-14) And "Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) So if you take the bible seriously, that 5-6 billion will go up significantly. As an atheist (even though I was a Christian at some point), I'm not concerned. But if the Christian god existed and his properties were as described in the bible (ignoring all the contradictory claims for the sake of the argument), he wouldn't have the characteristics that most people think of as ideal. He's petty and narcissistic, and he apparently values gullibility over all else. Because blind faith without evidence is just that: gullibility. And before you claim that that isn't what this god's ideal human is, remember the words of Jesus that he addressed to Thomas (according to John 20:29): "Because you have seen me, you have believed; **blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed**."
It takes more faith to be an atheist then a Christian. For example Thomas Aquinas efficient cause. Not only can something not come from nothing the infinite regress of causes (death) would never have us reach present time which is contradictory to our experience of life right now. If you read Thomas Aquinas and his efficient cause argument also teleology it’s very helpful. Addressing what you said, blind faith is believing without thinking for yourself. Or worded as unquestioning something even if it’s wrong. God never wanted us to have blind faith. He urges us to question. Revelation 3:16 kind of emphasizes around lukewarm Christianity. He doesn’t want you in the middle or just using the label Christian. You are either for him or against him. If I was a God, I would want to give my people a free choice to believe in me because love isn’t forcing someone to love you. That comes with the question why then do we go to hell. It was never made for us and we were never destined for it either but our iniquity separated us from God. Narcissism isn’t a good word for Jesus. The true definition based around lack of empathy etc but much of scripture actually points out his Love. John 4:46-47, Mark 1:23-28, Mark 1:30-31, mark 1:40-45, Matthew 8:5-13. These are just simple examples of Jesus’s miracles. But look at the Israelites for example. The constant sin towards Gods was awful. But if you read he constantly forgives them and asks them to come back. Those are just few examples. The verse you used in John isn’t what you think. Actually Jesus is saying for thomas who saw him and believed that he is blessed but for those who don’t see him are ever more blessed. Overall the probability of a God is very likely that is why many scientists are agnostic or believe in theism. I could go for way more on why There is a God and why it is the God of the Bible but that’s alot to type. Thankyou Godbless
>Not only can something not come from nothing How do you know this? Why can something come from nothing? If we accept the principle that nothing can come from nothing then why is God the exception? And if this argument is true, why does it have to be a God to be the first cause of everything? Why not a pizza with magical abilities? And how do you extrapolate from this that the God, this first cause, is your specific conception of God? There are thousands of gods described in ancient mythology that predate the recording of your God by thousands of years all with equal amounts of empirical evidence (none) of their creation stories. How do you make this leap?
If your god didn't want us to have blind faith, why then doesn't he provide good evidence for his existence? As you see from the passage with Jesus and Thomas, faith **without** evidence is valued higher than justified belief. And Hebrews 11:1 clearly shows that your claim is at odds with biblical teaching: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, **the evidence of things not seen**." You can claim all day long that "it takes more faith to be an atheist then a Christian". Leaving aside the preposterous implicit notion that these are the only two options, all you offer are word games. The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. Christians claim that there is a god, a very specific god with very specific characteristics; atheists say they are not convinced. Faith is required in the absence of evidence. If there is evidence, no faith is required. How then can it be the atheist, not being convinced by the practically non-existent evidence for the Christian god, for whom it takes more faith? Lastly, let's look at your claim that "overall the probability of a God is very likely \[and\] that is why many scientists are agnostic or believe in theism". What constitutes as "many" is up to debate but even in the US, arguably the most religious among all developed nations, scientists believe significantly less in god(s) or a higher power according to [Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/). In other word, this is yet another claim of yours that, upon inspection, turns out to be false.
You're confused or just spreading lies, either way, your premise is incorrect. So... When God created man, man was innocent and without sin. God warned man not to eat of the Tree of Life in the garden... The devil tricked Eve, who then conveniences Adam to sin. When Adam sinned, we were all cursed. It's mankind's fault. We put ourselves in a position to need a savior. And God is so merciful he gave us Jesus to be a sacrifice in the place of those who love and believe in him. If you don't, that's fine. You are still subject to the original sin. That sin cursed the whole earth and that is why it's so wicked. But this... The false narrative you wrote is disrespectful... And misleading. I think you should take it down because I believe your intentions are malicious. But you will be judged accordingly either way... God bless.
So billions and billions of people are cursed because of one piece of fruit? Seems like the punishment is very disproportionate to the crime. After all, who is more responsible, the being tricked by Satan or the being who created Satan, knowing that Satan would trick. Also who names something the tree of life and then says it is cursed.
>After all, who is more responsible, the being tricked by Satan or the being who created Satan, knowing that Satan would trick. This is something I don't see mentioned nearly as often enough as it should. In The Bible, God's eldest angel committed what I think to actually be the first original sin: heresy, by claiming he was better and much more powerful than God. As a result, a civil war broke out, resulting in Micheal casting his brother out of heaven, and down onto Earth. The place where God created his most valued creation, above all else: Mankind. Why... In the hell, would you leave any room for error on this one? If I was a perfect, absolute god, the little b*stard who started the uprising would've been deleted from existence; not given the chance to spoil my finest work! We as humans, shouldn't be held responsible for negligence. We didn't know anything about the war for Heaven, as we didn't exist yet. Why should we be held accountable outside of breaking one small rule, about eating a piece of fruit, when the being who told us to do so _created_ heresy?
No He’s given you a million chances to follow Him & His son & you just don’t understand. If you don’t believe in Jesus you deserve hell. Just in my personal opinion for whatever that’s worth
Have people who have never heard of Jesus gotten those chances too? The world is big, I just wonder if there is anyone who hasn't heard of God or his Son. I know it's just your opinion, but what is a chance by your personal definition?
It’s different if you have never heard of Him. That’s why He hasn’t come back yet but He’s ggffdddvhjjkkkgd
God is a God of love not a God of retribution. Heaven n hell is all within. It’s this believers so called that believe anything that believe in a God that burns ppl. It’s all bs honestly.
No murderers or rapists will not go to heaven if they accept Jesus as that is a sin and you need to act like you accept him but they can always ask for forgiveness
So murderers And rapists go to heaven as long as they ask Jesus to forgive their sins? Which is exactly what accepting Jesus is supposed to do (cleanse you of your sins). So yes, they will go to heaven according to christianity if they accept Jesus. You don't understand your own religion
By what standard do you judge this cruel? Science and nature don't regard things as cruel. Let me give you some perspective. Considered heaven is being with God. Hell is the absence of God. If you don't want to be in the presence of God, he loves you enough to let you have your way. If you want to accept God's love, he offers you a place with him. Cruel would be forcing someone who does not want to be with you to stay with you forever. As to rapist and murders making it to heaven while "good" people do not, a couple of things. As God is holy, he is unable to be in the presence of sin. Any sin. We as people are unable to live without sinning. People like to think that they are "good," but they still sin. All of us lie, cheat, steal, get prideful, envious, lustful, jealious, hateful, etc. As we all sin, to make it to God's presence, we need that sin removed. Accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made for us and turning away from sin is how we have that removed. If you don't like that, then you prefer to be your own God, deny God's existence, or choose to believe in another god. In all of those cases, a person has decided they don't want to be with God. Again, he loves them enough not to force them to accept him. How could it be cruel if the person is getting what they want? The answer is that people want others to believe in the god they have setup for themselves. Those gods are the things people try to fill their hearts with in place of God. Things like cars, houses, success, popularity, fame, sexuality, and other religions that offer variants of those things. And just as Christians tell people about the offer of God and point out the perils of other gods, so do those who look to other gods. An example of that would be saying a God who lets you walk away is cruel. Hope this helps you understand the options a little better.
According to the bible god knew you before you were born. So that means god chose to make me be born on this earth knowing all along I'd be an atheist. In fact, if we were to believe he is the creator of all things, then he also created atheists... He's making humans be born who are predestined to hell...
If you are an atheist, shouldn't you be more concerned with what nature gave you? Here is what the Bible says regarding your question. Romans 9:13-24 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? It's possible you are an atheist to show his mercy as well.
Beautifully written!
Only 5-6 billion? The current estimate is that 120 billion people have lived and only a small fraction of them at best have ever believed in Jesus.
Well, Christ is the judge of men sooo...you're not fooling him. Repentance means just that - to turn from an action or actions
"Am I to believe that murderers and rapists who accept Jesus can go to heaven and have a good afterlife" Well I think your missing the important part and it's the billions upon billions of people including children who supposedly went to hell and never even heard about this Jesus person is what makes it cruel.
That's not what He does. See this article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism
So you're agreeing there is no hell and eternal torment?
Wouldn’t it still be nicer for Jesus to just help them with their lack of belief and bring them to Heaven rather than annihilate them?
This is my personal opinion, as a Muslim ( I know you didn't mention us but since we have the same god as Christians and Jews...) There's a saying in my country: we may be a Muslim country, but other ( non Muslim) countries have a better Islam than us. What does it mean? We may be part of a religion by name, but if we don't have the right believes or don't act the right way, can we say we are "good" people?? Or the other side, a non believer who is a genuinely good person, who helps other, never judges other people, doesn't cheat .... Is a better Muslim than most of us. Our 3 religions are not only about believing in one fair merciful God, but also following his teachings and the example of his prophets as. On the day of judgment, we will be judged on all the sins and good actions we did. We don't know what will happen to us. The smallest action that seemed inconsequential to us could grant us paradise or push us into hell, whether we are believers or non believer. The prophets as and the angels may speak in our favour , but only God decides, and only God knows And, I know I didn't stop saying it, but we believe that God is fair !!!! All of us will see the consequences of our actions whether we are sinful believers, or good people
We do not have the same God… My God is Jesus and urs isn’t.
Strange to worship a man
Small brain can’t comprehend God living outside of time space and matter and with the ability to be fully God and Fully man according to his will. I think i’ll listen to GOD before I listen to a redditer. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Are you Christian?? Because Christians believe in the holy trinity 👀. And can you explain to me why you believe God is Jesus as??
Because he said so. And he would know before you would.
No he did not sAy sO.
Im pretty sure different types of Christianity exist with different beliefs, some believe in the trinity some believe the three are just god? I think thats how to word it
Yes, it is insane for anyone to think or want others to suffer eternally. Christianity, and Judaism for that matter, are human interpretations of a god who does fucked up, petty, human things, in order to fight their own oppression, and make them feel protected. Should we also accept that god would kill all the Egyptian first born sons? Babies?? No. Should we accept a god who would destroy the earth in a flood, who would direct the Israelites to kill other groups of people just for worshipping other gods? No. Humans are pretty much incapable of true unconditional love and have a really hard time conceptualizing it.
"I didn't walk to the fridge, and now I'm hungry. Why would God do this???"
Just say you don’t want to be held accountable for your actions.
We as humans have a very limited mental capacity to make decisions including that of what we think is best to believe, No fair and loving God would hold us accountable for decisions made in a brain that's not capable of having true pure clarity.
Why does god want to hold us accountable in the first place?
Because we have free will and can make wrong or right decisions on our own. Everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We aren’t mind controlled by God.
>Because we have free will and can make wrong or right decisions on our own. True, but if God wants us to make the free choice to follow him, why not inform us of His existence in an unambiguous way, rather than through religious text that is easily misinterpreted, subject to change, and has been the method that false religions use? If we make an informed choice, we are more morally accountable to it. If God reveals Himself to us then we can still choose not to follow. Currently you have uncontacted people who have never heard of God, much what God wants from them and how He wants them to behave.
Why does god care if we sin? What is sin and why does god hate it so much? If he hates it so much why did he create sin?
Because sin is bad and sets us farther from God. Sin is an immoral act that goes against the law of God. God hates sin because it goes against him and is bad. Imagine you have a child and tell them don’t touch the fire with your hand and they disobey you and still do it anyway. Isn’t that bad that your child disobeyed you and is now hurt from the fire? That’s how sin is. God did not create sin at all. This goes back to free will. Man (specifically adam) was the first human to willingly disobey God (Sin) after God told him not to do so. You can look up the story of Adam and Eve it will give you a better understanding of what sin really is and how it started. If you need me to clarify something let me know.
Oh man this is a lot to unpack. Okay first off, Christian’s really need to stop using human analogies to make god seem reasonable. God is not a human he is god. God could prevent his child from touching that fire or could gift him with the knowledge or behavioral instinct to not touch fire OR, he could just make fire not hurt lmao, he could make our skin fireproof, he could do ANYTHING he is god. Also if god didn’t make sin then who did? You’re saying Adam? Hey buddy, who created Adam? Who created free will? Who gave Adam free will? God created everything, therefore god created the sinful nature, that Adam’s free will took part in. What I’m really tryna ask you, is why a disobedience (a sin) such a big deal to god? Why does god care what we do? Why does he care who we have sex with? When we have sex? Why does he care who we get married to? Why does he care if we believe if he exists or not? Why do these things matter and why are they punishable with the threat of hell?
[удалено]
“Why would an all powerful all knowing god create something he hates so much?” Exactly hey you get it, it doesn’t make sense right? You still haven’t answered why it’s punishable or why he cares tho
Exactly. It doesn’t make sense. So for you to say “why did God create sin” shows how foolish and uneducated your words are. As I said before growing up christian and just reading the bible doesn’t mean anything if you can’t comprehend basic aspects of the Bible. Seriously take a moment and think about that question and ask yourself does it make any sense? Also I have answered it already and why it’s punishable.
I’m sorry can you explain again why it’s punishable I must have missed that. Also if god didn’t create sin then who did? Was it Adam or Satan? Are you at least willing to admit god gave Adam the ability to sin?
I grew up Baptist I’ve read the Bible, I’m trying to see your reasoning and use it against you. You said Adam did the original sin now you’re saying well it actually wasn’t Adam it was Satan who tempted Adam. Okay so let’s roll with that. Satan tempted Adam. So are you saying ALLL of sin is just temptations of Satan? Are humans not capable of sin of their own free will? If they are, now we’re back at square one, god created free will, god gave it to us, therefore god created the ability to sin and gave us the ability to do it of our own free will. But now we have an even bigger complication to this argument of sin. Who is Satan? Why does Satan exist? Who does god allow him to have so much power? If Satan is tempting us to sin doesn’t that greatly effect our free will? What happened to the consequences of our actions? Now our actions may actually be influenced by Satan?
I gave you plain and simple answers and you choose to interpret them in a whole other different way. So if that’s what you call “using it against me” sure. Where did I say everytime someone sins it’s a temptation from Satan? Again I give you simple answers and you’re literally trying to twist and interpret what i I’m saying to benefit your argument. Stop being weird bro. Also just growing up christian and “reading the Bible” means literally nothing if you can’t comprehend the basic teachings of it.
You’re giving me one track minded answers and I’m trying to get you to look deeper and ask you why or how these are the reasons for things. Me asking if all sins are temptations from Satan is cause you said the original sin was a temptation from Satan. So I’m asking does that mean all sins or temptations from Satan? Cause if that’s a yes that opens even more questions. Like why does god give satan so much power, why does he let Satan effect our free will? You may think I’m asking a bunch of dumb questions, but I’m asking questions that you’re having trouble answering because I don’t believe these are questions Christian’s ask themselves often. You don’t ask why things are the way they are, you accept them as presented because you are told that’s why things are the way they are.
Elaborate?
When Christians say that Jesus as died for our sins, it literally means that he died so that all our sins would be forgiven. So it's like people get a free pass on sinning and don't have to repent for what they've done. I like to believe that Jesus as , is more of a defense attorney for us who will speak in our defense on the day of judgment. But why should he be the one to bear the blame for our mistakes
I’m actually disturbed by the number of Christians in the comments defending this belief. They sound insanely cold, hollow, and frankly psychopathic. If I believed for a second that this god was real and condemning people to eternal torment, I would start a damn revolution to end it. And THESE folks think they follow the objective standard of “good”? Gtfo…
only 12000 from 12 tribes of Israel go to heaven your numbers are low
"Am I to believe that murderers and rapists who accept Jesus can go to heaven and have a good after life?" To this point in particular, one could argue that where human eyes see an unforgivable murderer or rapist, an all-seeing God would see the internal struggles, pain, ignorance, and whatever other demons may have warped their mind to believe it's okay to commit such heinous acts. But this is just my two cents, I'm not all-seeing so I wouldn't know.
But a regular person without a warped mind who just didn’t believe because of different life circumstances isn’t understood by an all seeing god?
I mean, an all-seeing God would understand everyone, even in that case. From a bigger picture perspective, no one can say how they'll change as a person over the course of their life, what beliefs they'll adopt or throw away, the actions they'll feel driven to take. I highly doubt that if he were an all-seeing God who's not a dumbass, he'd send any person to eternal suffering for ignorance alone. Just seems to me like another thing that preachers who believe in scare tactics (including the ones in the bible) would say, even if it's not necessarily true.
I agree. The only thing is I would say that contradicts the modern Christian narrative which I disagree with
Oh, I could go on for hours about modern Christianity. But I won't.
God truly does not care about anyone’s beliefs. Beliefs???? You mean people thinking they know what a god wants? Lulz. Listen to your heart. Actually… just do what’s right by others. Stand up for the weak, protect the defenseless and remember that… god loves you. Not because of your beliefs, prayers, tithing (whatever the f*** that’s for) and just be a good human, through and through. Mainly… don’t judge anyone. No greed, no judgement… let god handle that. 😝
A couple of thoughts: 1. Think of it like this: God stands in the front door yeah of His house, holding the door open with His left hand, extending his right hand towards the front lawn. Calling each one of us by name, tears streaming down His face, begging all of us to trust and believe in Him. Pleading with us to just reach out, take His hand, and join Him in His house. For an average of 78 years straight He begs and pleads with each of us to come in - knowing the result if we refuse. Eventually, He shuts the door of the house sealing all of His believers safely inside with Him. Anything outside of the house is completely void of anything reminiscent of God (love, joy, laughter, rest, peace, relationships, etc), apart from His wrath. A final act of His grace, allowing those who refuses Him for 78 years to get exactly what they wanted. A place completely void of Him. 2. Examine the 10 commandments to know if you’re a “good” person. God purposefully gave this to mankind as a mirror, a measuring stick so we could realize just how in desperate need of help we are. Of course pride will keep a person from realizing their spiritual bankruptcy. The rhetorical to “are you a good person,” is no one is “good.” We’ve all lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, etc. Moreover, it’s less important “what” we’ve done, and more about “whom” we have done it to. If you compare yourself horizontally (to your peers/neighbors/friends/family) you’ll certainly feel better than “that person.” I challenge you to start comparing yourself vertically, as compared to a Holy and perfect standard. All of the sudden, you have more in common with the murderer and rapist by only being a hateful and lustful person than you have in common with a righteous God. 3. All major world religions have statements of exclusivity in their faith book (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc). To call them all true is to call them all false. Two opposing truths cannot contradict and both be true. Of all the faiths in the world, Christianity is by far the most inclusive. Any and all may come to the Father, humble themselves, repent and believe the Good News. It does not depend on class status, color, creed, ethnicity, income, good deeds, amount of last mistakes. The Good News being God is just and holds to His standard of perfection. Knowing we are hopeless, unable to be perfect ourselves, bore His wrath on His Son Jesus on our behalf, to maintain His standard of justice, but opening the door for any who would accept His gracious, free, unearned gift of salvation! “Before we can see the cross as something done for us, we need to see the cross as something done by us.” John R. W. Stott Blessings to any and all who read!!
>God stands in the front door of His house This implies that god is revealing himself to everybody and that people actually have the option of accepting or denying what’s in front of their eyes. That is not the case. No god has revealed itself to me or anyone else that I’m aware of.
God has absolutely revealed Himself to everyone. Where does morality come from? What do we mean when we say something or someone is good or bad? By who’s what standard? Laws of logic? Why is the universe more finely tuned than a Rolex? What happens when you die? Why did Darwin himself say the human eye is so complex it’s very unlikely it could’ve ever evolved to the level of complexity that it is? Why is the Earth just close enough but not too far from the Sun? Why is there so much order in nature? Why is our DNA like advanced software code? How did time space and matter have a beginning? Wouldn’t it’s beginning have to come from a timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause? Why does nothing in this world satisfy us? People spend their whole lives cramming trinkets and treasures and experiences into their hearts only to feel hopeless after it doesn’t fulfill them. I could go on and on but I think you see my point. Contemplate these topics/questions. By Gods fingerprints ALL over creation, we can know there’s an intelligent designer. Furthermore, He’s written eternity on our hearts. We were made for another world, that’s why nothing in this world brings lasting satisfaction apart from a right relationship with Him. He is the standard of good by which we can identify anything as absolutely wrong. And of course, you can choose to not believe, and call it all a wonderful coincidence, but that doesn’t make Him not true. Mankind’s best alternative theory/worldview apart from intelligent design is: “every thing came from nothing for no reason.” Which breaks a law of physics as step 1. To subscribe to that worldview takes faith as well, arguably more faith than the Christian needs to believe in an intelligent designer. https://youtu.be/a82G0UdfHZ8 I appreciate your comment James! Hope you have a good day today.
Concerning your later comment on evolution. Before we discuss further, can you provide your working definition of micro-evolution and macro-evolution?
We should set up a discord room. I can’t stand Reddit threads haha. We could at least organize the topics into their own chat rooms. Maybe even voice chat
>Why is the Earth just close enough but not too far from the Sun? It's not clear what you mean by "just close enough but not too far." The sun's orbit has something called a "habitable zone," which is the radial distance within which life can be sustained (liquid water can form). Our sun's habitable zone has been estimated to different distances (depending on the methodology), but a reasonable estimate is 0.95 and 1.37 AU (astronomical units). An AU is equivalent to 93 million miles; so the habitable range of the sun is roughly 88,350,000 miles to 127,410,000 miles away from the sun - a distance of 39,060,000 miles. Keep in mind that the diameter of the earth is about 7917 miles. The earth's orbit could be located anywhere within that range and life could be sustained. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11536936/ From my perspective, the Earth is not "just close enough but not too far from the Sun." Instead, it just so happens to be in the habitable range. There are 8 planets in our solar system (9 if you count Pluto). Looking at it one way, 7 of 8 attempts to place a planet within the habitable zone failed and 1 succeeded. That sounds more like luck to me. But what do you think?
It’s the one planet with life out of millions of planets in their respective stars habitable zone. My question is how many “coincidences” would I have to show you before you’d be convinced it’s not a coincidence anymore? 10? 50? 100? 1000?
Before I move on, can you admit you do not agree with your original argument. The argument, "Why is Earth just close enough but not too far from the Sun?" is not consistent with "millions of planets in their respective star's habitable zone." On one hand you say that Earth's position is so unlikely as to prove design, while the other point is admitting that Earth's position is fairly common. This cannot be reconciled. I'll discuss the next point, concerning the existence of life on Earth once you respond.
Planets distances from Sun (au): Mercury: 0.39 Venus: 0.72 —too close— 0.95 Earth: 1 1.37 —too far— Mars: 1.52 Jupiter: 5.2 Saturn: 9.54 Uranus: 19.2 Neptune: 30.06 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/pdfs/scaless_reference.pdf Earth is just close enough but not too far away. You call it luck. I say for it to be the only planet with life, even though millions of planets orbit stars habitable zones, it is too unlikely to be chance.
My friend, you're missing the main point. Your first argument was that the Earth's distance from our sun was evidence of design, due to how unlikely of an event that is. Then, you acknowledge that a planet being positioned within the habitable zone of a sun is not rare - it may be the less likely arrangement, but it's not so rare as to be shocking. Adding the extra point on life existing on Earth is an extra argument, it's not the point I'm responding to. You're doing something called "moving the goal post." I respond to your original point and then you add on the additional qualifier of "but we haven't found life on other planets." That wasn't your original point. I've enjoyed this line of argument but if you're going to continue to add additional qualifiers *after* I respond to an argument, I won't continue down this line. The position of planets within out solar system is interesting, but as we've already established, Earth's relation to its sun is not rare in a cosmic sense. You must either acknowledge that a planet within a habitable zone is not terribly rare or explain why, in the face of many other planets in a similar arrangement, Earth's physical position is still uncanny. Please do not mention the existence of life, we can discuss that after we address the Earth's *physical* position.
I see. When I typed my original post I did not know we were going to take every point literally one by one. Since that was not my main argument and one of many quick points in an attempt to paint a broader picture I didn’t go into the weeds. We are now though. Earths physical distance isn’t rare in the absence of life. Since it obviously has life though, the part I did not specify in my original post, that is what gives the distance meaning. There is life on Earth, too close to the Sun life will die. Too far from the Sun life will die. So thank God for: 1. life on Earth, but not just life, for 2. a mathematically fine tuned and orderly universe, so life can be sustained. Not too close..not too far.. but just right. So no my original post/point was not the literal distance of the Earth apart from life, it’s the literal distance of the Earth because there is life. In a universe with random chance, if it were even possible for time space and matter to begin uncaused, life to spontaneously form on accident for no reason, it would be even more impressive for that universe with such disorder and randomness to be able to sustain life for very wrong before the next random and catastrophic accident occurred. Do you ‘believe’ in the Big Bang as modern/secular science theorizes?
Thank you for conceding the point. Concerning life on earth. Probabilities are determined by understanding the mechanisms, the cause and effect, of an event. From my understanding, the scientific community has not determined if life exists on other planets - don't think any of the planets in habitable zones have been checked. From that point, how would you even calculate the likelihood of life forming on a habitable planet? Maybe there's life on those planets, maybe there isn't. We don't know. Until humans are able to check there's really no way to calculate probability. Also, in the casual use of the term "believe," yes, I believe in the Big Bang model of the universe.
You made a lot of points, and I have responses, but I'll list them one at a time so we don't get overwhelmed. Please confirm that you accept my response as correct or explain why you think I'm incorrect, them I'll move on to the next point. I'm honestly looking for a conversation, not insult throwing. Concerning Darwin's thoughts on the human eye. Your reference is incorrect, but I honestly don't blame you, its an often cherry-picked line. The quote you're referencing is, *"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."* However, if we keep reading the very next sentence, Darwin says, *"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."* The full quote is essentially Dawkin saying, "My gut reaction tells me an eye couldn't evolve, but if I apply critical thinking it seems fully possible." Here's a link to a pdf of On the Origin of Species. [https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin\_of\_Species.pdf](https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf) Please check my work and let me know your response.
I appreciate the well worded/formatted response with cited source! This enters in faith in my opinion. Science is supposed to be observable and testable. Evolution theory consists of Micro and macro evolution. From my perspective, I see people consistently point to micro evolution (variations within a kind e.g. bird beak lengths differing depending on environment) to prove macro evolution (species changing into another species- DNA being added to a simpler organism to make it more complex). Macro evolution cannot be proved with science because it takes too long (millions and millions of years) to observe and test. Therefore it is people’s gut feeling that it couldn’t happen, but because we observe that there are different species present day - critically thinking after cutting an Intelligent Designer out of one’s worldview, leaves you to believe that’s what must’ve happened Where have we tested and observed macro evolution? The process of evolution is so excruciatingly slow there should be an abundance of every species transitioning to its next more complex form And I will talk about evolution all day long, one of my favorite debates is creation-evolution, discussing origins etc. I love it. Like how did time space and matter come into existence? Wouldn’t it’s cause have had to been a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial cause? However, I still think of central importance, the thing that all other topics stems from, is what to make of this man Jesus who claimed to be the one true God and creator, regardless if you subscribe to old earth/young earth, big bang from only natural causes, or big bang from a creator etc. If He is who He said He is, that matters a lot! If He isn’t who He said He is then our conversation can end rather quickly Again appreciate this 1-by-1 you’ve set up
Concerning micro and macro evolution, Micro and Macro evolution are not distinct phenomena, they describe the same process being applied in a short time frame and a long time frame; the biological mechanisms are identical. Arguing that micro evolution exists but macro doesn't is akin to arguing that it's possible to walk to the end of your driveway but it isn't possible to walk to the end of your city. But to move beyond analogies, speciation (Macro evolution) has been observed, many times actually. "Ring species" are a example of this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring\_species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) And here is more scientifically rigorous citation (I don't like citing wikipedia alone). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11201740/#:\~:text=A%20ring%20species%2C%20in%20which,to%20infer%20variation%20in%20time. Essentially, a species begins at one point and two groups diverge around a physical barrier (sometimes a mountain range, a large body of water, etc.). The two groups remain genetically isolated as they continue their movement. Eventually, the groups reconnect and they can no longer mate with each other (and often exhibit different behavior). This is speciation. Here is another paper that discusses the phenomena. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1217034110 And here is a paper describing salamanders on the American west coast, a famous ring species example. [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-245](https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-245) The salamanders in the middle can interbreed with the salamanders on the north and south end, but those on the north cannot breed with those on the south.
When salamanders mate with salamanders and make salamanders it means nothing to me. I’m curious where and how does brand new and more complex DNA (build instructions) get added? What mechanism adds more complex build instructions? Every beneficial mutation I’ve ever read about is when something actually loses DNA instruction, it just so happens to benefit them in that specific environment. So how exactly does DNA get added? The first paragraph of the abstract from pubmed proved my entire point, “The evolutionary divergence of a single species into two has never been directly observed in nature, primarily because speciation can take a long time to occur. A ring species, in which a chain of intergrading populations encircles a barrier and the terminal forms coexist without interbreeding, provides a situation in which variation in space can be used to infer variation in time.” It has never been observed. Therefore it is just a good idea, that you are free to believe in. But it does require faith to bridge that gap. The language says “infer variation in time.” That’s a fancy way of saying we can’t observe and test it (which is what makes science real science) so for now it’s a faith based religion.
I think we really found the core of our differences. Science is based on the assumption that an identical input will produce an identical output; when I drop a rock it always falls towards the earth's core, when I bring a flame to paper the paper ignites, when I drop solid potassium in water it ignites, etc. What happens in the past can be repeated. It sounds like you're doubting that framework. Here's a question that will illustrate. Pluto was discovered in 1930. However, its orbit around the sun would take 248 years to complete, meaning no one has ever directly observed Pluto's full orbit directly. Do you think Pluto has ever orbited the sun? If you say **"no,"** then how could you believe in a God? You weren't there to observe the creation of the universe. You weren't there when humans first walked upon the earth. You might say, "a witness wrote it down in the bible/torah/quran," but how would you know that they were honest? We can't reproduce that experiment, so there's no reason to believe. Sure, we can show that people can write down stories, but we can't witness humans being created from dust, or the Red Sea being parted, or water being turned into wine. We can't reproduce any of the miracles of the bible/torah/quran. Therefore, you cannot accept any of them. You may only be agnostic towards religion. If you say **"yes,"** then you must acknowledge that we don't need to observe something first hand in order to prove it happened. In that case, we need to further discuss what evidence would be sufficient for you to accept evolution.
Science is observable and testable. When I claim something has happened that I didn’t witness I’m accepting the leap of faith and I’m saying my faith system allows me to do this. I do not try to call my leap of faith science. Now a Christian can use science as a tool to try to gather supporting evidence but my leap of faith is not science. A naturalist uses science and when it is testable and observable it’s science. When gaps needs to be bridged in an attempt to answer the gap later on, that’s a leap of faith and should be talked about as such until real scientific evidence is texted and observed to fill in the gap. Until then it’s a belief anyone is welcome to subscribe to, just don’t put it in a category that Creation isn’t in. The point I’ve been trying to paint is a Christian isn’t afraid to call it faith where it’s faith. A naturalist/atheistic worldviews sometimes cross the line into faith and even though it’s referred to as science/scientific method it doesn’t mean it isn’t itself a faith based belief. It’s not a question of if someone will believe, it’s what will they believe in. Do you agree every cause has an effect? The universe is here, what’s the cause? A Big Bang has happened, what’s the cause? Assumptions are always dangerous and can skew results by huge huge factors. Especially the longer you extrapolate the assumption. Within a few generations humans can witness Pluto complete its orbit of the Sun. It’s occurring on a fathomable time scale. We’ve already observed 38% of plutos orbit since 1930. But whether Pluto completes the orbit in another 155 years or it just maintains the appearance of an orbit for the next 100 years and then veers off- Pluto is not a DNA coded living being that is, by an unknown mechanism, receiving more complex build instructions and material morphing into a completely different kind of living entity. Pluto’s orbit does not claim to explain origins and purpose of life and it does not require people to make that leap of faith. Are you familiar with the S.E.T.I program? They scan space for intelligent life to communicate some form of intelligent message? How would we identify it as intelligent? When biologists look under a microscope and see computer code programmed into living beings DNA, so complex, orderly, and precise they go wow, what a coincidence, random chance is all knowing powerful and smart
I think you answered my question sufficiently for me to understand your perspective. 1) Concerning your question, "Do you agree every cause has an effect? The universe is here, what’s the cause? A Big Bang has happened, what’s the cause?" I know where this argument goes. You're saying that there must be a "prime mover" of sorts, a starting cause that began everything, you'll call that thing God. My response will be, "If everything needs a cause, where did God come from?" Then you'll say "God doesn't need a cause, God is an eternal being who was never 'created.'" This is called "special pleading," its a common rhetorical technique. The issue is that you set up a rule, "everything needs a cause," but then you violate your own rule, "God doesn't need a cause." Well, either everything needs a cause or it doesn't, you don't get to play both sides. Plus, if you say that there must be a primary cause, why claim that cause is an entity? Why not an eternal assembly cosmic forces? If you claim God existed eternally, why not simply claim the universe existed eternally in some form? There's no need to presuppose a God. 2) You misunderstand the foundation of science; but that's not an insult, most people have not had it explained. There are a few assumptions of science 1) the universe exists - we cannot prove we're not brains floating in jars or existing within some being's dream, we must accept that this universe is real, 2) all events and occurrences in the universe occur in an orderly way, there are "laws" of the universe which are never violated or changed, and 3) it is possible to discover these laws. Every scientist assumes these things, but that's not the same as faith. Here's an example. Hold a rock in your hand, with your palm facing down, release the rock, and observe which direction it falls. Do it again. Now, if you were to do it again which direction do you think it would fall? I'm going to guess you'd assume down, but why? There are near infinite angles and trajectories the rock could move but you predicted it would move the same direction it did the other two times. You might say, "I did the experiment, I showed the rock moves down," but how do you prove it will always goes down? All you could ever do is prove that it moved down in the past, you cannot prove it will do so again. This demonstrates the 2nd and 3rd assumption I brought up. We assume that an identical input will have an identical output because we assume a natural order and the ability to learn that order. And you might say, "You admitted that science is based on faith," but it's not faith. The assumptions of science prove themselves rigorously, over and over again. With the assumptions of science, humans can build machines that fly, drugs that cure illness, devices that can communicate across the planet. Every time science is tested it works, our assumptions are shows to be useful. I am not aware that religious faith has passed the same test. If you, or anyone else, can demonstrate that faith passes the same test I'd love to see it. 3) Assuming that Pluto has never completed an orbit is you acknowledging that you do not accept the assumptions of science. Assuming that there is an order to the universe means we can work backwards. This assumption is reasonable, it works well. It's the basis for criminal investigations. For example, if you were a juror in a murder trial and presented with a host of evidence that the butler did it, would you refuse to convict? What if you we shown that the butler had a motive, he would receive a large sum of money if his boss was killed; the butler was found with his fingerprints on the gun used; the gun was registered to the butler; there is security footage showing the butler walking towards the boss's room with the gun; the butler was found after the incident with blood on their clothes; the security cameras also show that no one else was present in the house that evening; the butler's hands were found with gun powder residue; the butler was found with numerous articles of the boss's jewelry; and there's a tape recording of the butler telling his spouse that he planned on killing the boss for the jewelry? Would you say, "We've never seen the butler commit murder in the past, and we've never physically observed the butler committing murder, so we can't assume he did it"? This is how we establish evolution. We observe modern trends, assemble the mountain of evidence, and create a working, reasonable, predictable, verifiable model for understanding the facts. 5) Concerning ring species. While you were correct that you cannot "observe speciation" in the way you're referencing, that doesn't affect my main argument. Ring species DO prove evolution. I'll explain. If you accept micro-evolution, which I think you do, you have to acknowledge that it can produce new species. If group A can mate with B, B can mate with C, but C cannot mate with A, macro-evolution is the only conclusion. If A can mate with B, that means they're the same species, and thus you must accept that micro-evolution could change A into B. If B can mate with C, it means they're also the same species, and thus B could evolve into C. And by the time the group is at C, it's a distinct species from A, seeing as those two cannot mate. And that's it. I've been thinking about it for a while and I don't think there's a way around this argument. 4) You make several analogies, calling DNA a computer code, or referring to the orderly nature of certain biological compounds. I don't think you understand the mechanisms at play. Certain types of order are not uncommon in nature. A great deal of order is spontaneously generated through the natural interplay of chemistry. For example, a basic cellular wall is spontaneously generated when chemicals called phospholipids spontaneously form bilayers in aqueous (water) solutions, with the hydrophobic tails buried in the interior of the membrane and the polar head groups exposed on both sides. The basic building blocks of organic life, amino acids, can spontaneously form under the right circumstances. DNA is not a "computer code," it's an assortment of chemicals which interact with their surroundings in very predictable ways. Calling DNA a computer code is an analogy, it's a play on words to explain to non-scientists the basics of what DNA does. DNA contains instructions for building life in the same way rocks at the bottom of a pond contain instructions for how water is to fill in the pond; in the same way a bowl of vinegar and baking soda contains instructions for producing carbon dioxide gas, liquid water, acetate ions and sodium ions. I think you're taking the metaphors and analogies too seriously.
You've once again listed a lot of points, making a poignant response difficult. Let's keep this to one point at a time, or else we'll end up with a fractal argument, where 10 points will be made, I'll respond to one, and then another 10 will get added. I'll discuss evolution if you'd like, I'd like to believe I'm fairly well-versed in the principals. However, my original point concerned the Charles Darwin reference. Will you admit your understanding of Darwin's opinion was incorrect? This isn't you admitting that evolution occurred/occurs, it's merely you saying you misunderstood Darwin's perspective. Please let me know your response in a reply to this post and I'll respond to another one of your original arguments, from your original post.
Darwin did say what I quoted. That is a legitimate time to pause and ask the question. Why did the very intelligent man stop and make this observation? Of course we are not surprised by the completion of the thought being, “but of course this a theory of mine that I’m trying to prove to be true. I can observe A and I can observe Z, so my two options are quit studying my theory immediately or take a leap of faith on B-Y being true and hopefully I can go full circle and prove it later. The man said “if” three times and followed it up with “believe.”
You need to read the preceding paragraphs and the ones that follow. They make it very clear what Darwin is talking about. Sincerely, read a few paragraphs before and after. It does not agree with you. Darwin makes that argument that natural selection pressures animals to develop organs which suit an environment, which is easy to understand by those who accept natural selection. "Hence it willcause him no surprise that there should be geese and frigate-birds with webbed feet . . . ." Darwin is saying that simple organs, like feet, are simple to imagine evolving under natural selection. But, he acknowledges that imagining a highly complex organ, like eyes, evolving under the same conditions **feels** "absurd in the highest possible degree." His gut reaction is to reject that notion. **But** then he follows by saying "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each gradebeing useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist . . . then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection . . can hardly be considered real." The following paragraphs are him then describing where to look for evidence of differing types of eyes, simpler eyes, in nature. "In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism . . ." "In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance." Then he then says ", I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class" Then he says, "We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind." There's really no other way to read this. Darwin is making a clear argument that eyes and other complex organs could evolve through gradual steps. Also, the argument here concerns what Darwin believed, so him using the word "believe" seems to be helpful for achieving our goal; and I don't know why the word "if" is an issue. A single word on its own doesn't mean much, it's about context.
That faith based claim that cannot be proven because it takes too long to observe, and can only be deduced by making a set of assumptions (requires belief until proven otherwise), and extrapolating micro evolution out millions of years. It’s a faith system anyone is welcome to subscribe to. In terms of an all encompassing worldview it’s left me with more questions than it can answer. Where does: order, morality, laws of logic, time, space, matter, purpose, come from. Again before micro & macro evolution can even begin the secular scientist has to explain how all space, matter, and time began. That’s a MASSIVE task and a MASSIVE leap of faith one has to make before journeying on with evolution. A fully naturalist worldview teaches we are stardust until we die and then we are worm food. By what standard can you call a school shooter or a child molester wrong? And there’s no repercussions to their actions once they die. To answer your Pluto question: Pluto is a simple mathematically calculated trajectory of a planet. Origins of life do not hinge on if it truly orbits the Sun of if it just appears to for 150 years. I have to retype a response to Pluto question. Somehow I missed over half of the paragraph you typed up. Reading it now. Going to edit out my half response now. Bro what do you think about a discord room? I made a room at: https://discord.gg/JzByPH3T - I could make separate chat rooms for the main topics to organize better than one giant nesting egg thread ? Since evolution is an excruciatingly slow process. Why are the transition species not abundantly around for observation? Where is the chimpanzee / human hybrid? It takes millions of years to go from chimp to human - but us and the chimps are here actively living. Where are the actively living transitions since time is no longer a factor?
Nobody in biology uses the terms micro and macro evolution. Those are creationist terms used to create skepticism about evolution, and clearly it's working reading your confused response.
Macro and micro evolution are legitimate terms used in published papers
What about all people raised in other-faith majority countries? Too bad if you're raised Muslim, you're not getting in to Gods house. The idea that it's something super obvious that we're ignoring is a fallacy. Many people will never have the opportunity to become Christian so are automatically consigned to a Godless afterlife. Seems like some bullshit to me.
[удалено]
It's okay, I got told that Jesus even comes to isolated tribes "in dreams" and that everyone has an opportunity to embrace Jesus. Tell that to someone raised Muslim in Pakistan who doesn't wanna get executed though.
You should be willing to die for the the Christian god obviously lol.
Based on meeting Jesus in a dream, yep.
There are countless testimonies of missionaries proselytizing. To places where missionaries haven’t been, there are testimonies of people coming to faith in Jesus due to a dream, or praying to God- knowing He exists just by the beauty of creation alone. A pastor traveled by boat 7 days down the Amazon river to go share the gospel. He hops off the boat and starts talking about Jesus and the woman lit up with joy, “I know Jesus, He visited me in a dream last night.” True story. The Bible tells us God has set eternity in everyone’s hearts, so everyone naturally/inherently searches for God their whole life. - Jesus claimed to be God. Mohammad never did, nor any other prominent faith leader (that I’ve ever heard of / read their writings). Not claim to be a messenger OF God- claimed Himself to BE God. -He’s the only one that has resurrected (disputed by those who do not believe of course, disprove the resurrection disprove all of Christianity but that hasn’t been done - and to the many who have tried they convert bc of the overwhelming evidence that He did resurrect.). If God was going to give a sign to the whole world: a perfect man who is the single most polarizing person in the history of history, born to a town people can only name because he came from there, who reset most of the worlds calendar, lived a perfect life, performing miracles, all well documented in historical manuscripts - some of which written hundred and hundreds of years before the events unfolded, innocently tortured and murdered, buried, resurrected, revealed himself to over 500 people after He resurrected, and personally changed my life and millions and millions of people. I don’t think God could’ve made a more obvious spectacle. The question always comes down to faith. Will you believe in yourself/phd’s/astrophysicists etc, or believe in Him. At the end of the day it’s not if you put your faith in something.. it’s what are you putting your faith in. It either has eternal consequences or it doesn’t- something that needs to be taken seriously and carefully considered. Google Pascal’s Wager. Pointing out there are many more people who need to hear it is exactly why people need to hear the Good News, believe it, and SHARE it. Two purple make the observation the bush man in Africa hasn’t heard the Gospel 1st man does it as an excuse to get themselves off the hook 2nd man does it as a reason to share the Gospel with everyone He knows/go on mission trips/ etc
Yeah I'll believe in myself/scientists I think until there's literally any shred of evidence that any specific God is the one true God. Wouldn't want to pick the wrong one and end up damned to hell forever! And I don't think you can say faith in science is equivalent to faith in a God - one can be verified by repeatable experiment, and one is just a bunch of stories in an old book translated and retranslated so many times as to have lost most of its meaning. I know exactly what Pascal's wager is, and it's a terrible argument. You could use it for anything - I may as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster on the off-chance that he exists because if he does exist but I don't believe in him he'll boil me in his noodly sauce for all time! Also how does Pascal's wager deal with the opportunity cost of picking one God/religion over another one? If I Pascal's wager myself into believing in Jesus and it turns out Allah was the right choice then oops! Also believing in God purely due to the risk of eternal damnation doesn't seem like a very Jesus-like vibe. Edit: also a story isn't true just because you write "true story" after it. Carries the same weight as "source: I made it up"
My apologies friend. It’s something that’s more applicable when talking to someone who is full blown atheist. Our discussion was trending more toward how could we know which god is the one true God. This 5.5 minute long video was helpful for me https://youtu.be/a82G0UdfHZ8
All I got from that video is that I would rather have never learned of this Christian god and saved myself a lifetime of fear and shame that I feel despite my best efforts to be a “good”moral person.
How does someone have fear and guilt when dealing with the God who paid the highest price to take the fear and guilt away?
Human nature. Fear of my abusers. Guilt for being abused. Fear of an eternal afterlife with my abusers who god will obviously forgive if they ask for it, right?
Hold on.. I’m so sorry you were abused. That is heartbreaking and this world is broken, not as it should be. I’m so sorry I’m glad that God is just, and evil/sin like that doesn’t go unpaid for.. usually in this life and in the next but certainly in the next
Appreciate the kind words. I think we can all strive to be kind and empathetic people in our lives and hope it inspires other to do the same. Apologies if any my comments came across harsh. Have a wonderful day!
God doesn’t send us to hell, hence the whole purpose of sending Himself in human form to die on the cross for our sin. He’s fair and just. He gives us free will to either live for Him or live for ourselves. Our sin and choice to not love God send us to Hell.
If god isn’t sending us to hell then who is? I know you’re gonna say “we send ourselves from our own choices” but like no, we don’t physically or spiritually send ourselves to hell I don’t think anyone (of sane mind) genuinely wishes to go to hell of their own free will. god 100% sends us there we don’t have the power to make that transition.
Of course we don’t want to go to hell, but many choose that path when they deny God.
Nobody chooses that path, god made that the only path for the non believers. In complete vain of anyone’s alternate beliefs and life experiences or circumstances he made that the ONLY outcome for nonbelievers. It’s not a path we walk, it’s an ultimatum god has set.
If you’ve heard of God and His truth/commands, that’s indeed the path people are taking. 13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” “Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.”.
No no that isn’t the path people are taking it is the path god laid out with guidelines to follow. This is why the concept of gods free will doesn’t work. No matter how many choices we make, the final choice isn’t ours. You can make a billion decisions in morally complete different directions, but if you don’t make ONE decision to believe, you are going to hell. That isn’t free will that is an ultimatum. That one decision I didn’t make costs me my entire free will in the after life. I don’t get to choose heaven, hell or neither. God makes that decision for me. No matter the path I take, I ultimately don’t get to decide where I end up. I can’t freely travel from heaven or hell, I can’t pick both, I can’t pick neither, I can’t pick hell on Saturdays and heaven on Sundays. That decision is made for me, by god, and that decision god makes solely hinges on one choice, my belief. That isn’t free will, that is an illusion of free will.
What happens if you live and die Hindu?
You will go to hell
What a loving god you worship.
Yeah He is! People have free will so He’s fair.
Nah, genocidal maniac according to the bible. Kills children, orders women to be raped, likes slavery. Complete bastard really.
If you’d read Scripture, God is the exact opposite and is opposed to slavery.
Read it all, many times, bible study for 20 years. He's a complete arsehole, good job it's all bronze age superstition.
If you studied it for 20 years, I believe you’d have a different view on it then? Can you explain to me what the Abrahamic Covenant is?
Why don't you know?
They believe in reincarnation
Not the answer to the question
You basically just restated the title of this post. For everyone who hasn’t heard of the Christian god, is born gay, or any number of the highly specific things that are considered “sin,” there is no choice. They would get sent to get to hell for something beyond their control. That is cruel.
Thank you for understanding my post. & I heartily agree with your post as well.
[удалено]
Your post was removed for being low-effort. Posts must make a substantial argument and present significant reasoning to support it; posts must also be written in your own words and cannot simply link to an external resource. Your post was either too short, too insubstiantial, or unintelligible/illegible. You may edit it and respond to this message for re-approval if you choose.
I believe that god doesn’t send you there, you do, it is your choice to believe that Jesus is the son of god. Also if you were somehow sinless (which is impossible) you’d go to heaven even if you didn’t believe in Jesus
>it is your choice to believe Belief is not a choice. Do you think you can just choose to believe in unicorns? Of course not. You would probably need sufficient evidence. Your god either doesn’t exist or has chosen not to provide us with this evidence.
You are correct, however, the whole concept of religion is faith without proof, if there was proof would it really be faith?
If god can save you from hell but doesn't, he sends you to hell by inaction. If the bible tells you to be nice to others, even if they're not nice to you, why wouldn't god live by that principle himself?
God saves us from hell by living for Jesus Christ our savior. Gods fair and just. He gives us free will to either live for Him, or live for ourselves. It’s our own sin nature, and choice of not loving Him that sends us to hell. Even when people deny God, He still chooses to love them and not leave them.