I see a lot of Christian haters on this forum.

Post Reply New Topic

So because some do, every christian does? I have as little in common with every other christian as a black person does with every other black person, so you might as well be a racist as well.

Those that don't want to understand will never understand.

My physics professor used to say that a lot.

And it is always true...

Given that TF has basically made a claim on reasonable coherence rather than a strict logical disproof, his point still stands. No reasonable person could look at that evidence and infer that the behavior is highly moral. TF's counter-point is valid, particularly given that the free will defense isn't even part of the Bible.

91, you're relying on the very nitpicky distinction between a logical contradiction and a more general disproof. Something can be disproven by the sheer absurdity we are forced to in maintaining a belief. It isn't a 100% disproof, but it is basically a disproof.

In any case, it has to be recognized that the author of that blog has shifted away from the theism debate because he's regarded the theistic side as so stupid that there is no real reason to even continue a focus on this, and has since then moved to studying AI.

Pretty much, the idea only works if you think libertarian free will is plausible and it is grossly implausible, and very grossly implausible for the cause of a lot of evils.

TF, one thing you have to realize though is that 91 is really an apologetic hack. He's one of those people so dogmatic that even if you show that he is wrong to the point of showing his statement as contradicting textbooks, he'll argue that you're invocation of a textbook definition is an appeal to authority. He's a hack.

And you have to realize that he's never actually committed to the idea that God's non-existence is 100% shown as true. Instead, you've pigeon-holed him into that because there is something defective in how your brain handles opposing ideas. TF is actually basically saying "Libertarian free will is false". And if libertarian free will is false, then the free will defense gets us nowhere, as "free will" doesn't actually change anything in the equation any more.


Yeah.... that makes perfect sense, including all of the messed up aspects of the world BEFORE the Fall, right? I mean, the fact that the workings of the earth were the same before the Fall really is just kind of irrelevant, right? It's just God changed the past or something like that. Even further, the non-existence of the traditional Adam because the genetic bottleneck never fell down to one person... that's just... irrelevant, right? Adam was still head of all of these unrelated people for no apparent reason, and so his choice entailed their suffering because God just is... like that.

91, the confabulations you put up are absurd. They're plainly flatly absurd, and no reasonable person would even persist at that point of confabulating ridiculous ideas.


You're still pigeon-holing TF. Even further, given that there are a bajillion flaws in the world and that Christian theism isn't even the most plausible explanation for them in any reasonable sense, there is really no reason to go further on this. You're deluded 91. In fact, all Christians are deluding themselves if they really can persist to claim that the flaws we can clearly trace back to natural laws, and evolution all REALLY go back to the God of Deuteronomy, and that despite all of the clearly mythological and humanly constructed elements of the Bible, it is still divine, then... I don't know what more to say. If a person claims that their hand-puppet is a divine emissary of God, I clearly cannot think of a logical disproof. The sheer idiocy of this and the degree of confabulation and arbitrary skepticism I would need to support this should be enough evidence against the idea, but the persistence of dogmatic theists almost seems a disproof of the presumption that the fellows I talk to are sane.

There is a source to all things, anyone can see that. Religion (that includes Christianity) uses the idea of faith to validate self-imposed ignorance of the difference between proof versus postulate. To borrow from a well known christian concept; human beings are imperfect. To expand on this I cite another commonly accepted concept in Christianity: People will fail you because human beings are inherently unreliable because they lack the perfection of God.

Therefore if a perfect being is the only one that can be trusted not to betray our trust, why then should someone feel safe putting their trust/faith in something that has been recorded by men? The Bible's texts are in fact fairly inconsistent in their depictions of God. To point out the most glaring example in Christianity: the stark contrast between the wrathful, unforgiving, vengeful, jealous, racist and at times spiteful portrayal of God and the peaceful, all forgiving, proactive, unprejudiced, selfless, patient and meek portrayal of Christianity's Messiah. Before his death by being staked to a crucifix, he is said to have pleaded with God to show mercy upon humanity "For they know not what they do." So which portrayal of God is the legitimate one? God as portrayed in the various accounts of his wrathful, merciless and destructive punishment of Man's imperfection? Or God as portrayed by the accounts of the Messiah who condemned no man or woman to death and who's only described instance of indignation was at the disrespect a group of merchants had shown to a place of worship? Even all that show of indignation prompted was a mere upending of their stalls, admonishment of the disrespectful act and a proverbial 'slap on the wrist'; not the death and damnation of the merchants themselves.

Is God not capable of saving all of humanity? Is such a thing outside his power? Why would he suffer the sinners to be born at all if their ultimate fate was to burn for all eternity in some sadistic kind of place of unending punishment for being the weak beings they were created to be? Forgive all who trespass against you? Then should not God forgive all who trespass against him? God was depicted as promising to forestall the destruction of Sodom even if just for the sake of one person; and allow that person to flee. Yet, I have yet to meet a person who I would call purely evil. Everyone has their redeeming qualities; seems like a waste of a "soul" to banish the redeemable aspects along with the allegedly irredeemable. One can burn the impurities from an ore so that all that is left is the desired precious metal. God can't do this with a soul? God would rather burn the gold away along with the impurities?

My argument against Christianity as a religion and religion in general, is that it is based on scripture written by human hands or passed down orally by human mouths. Anyone can claim their inspiration came from a god; because how could you prove a deity didn't inspire them? Things have been done in the name of religion and its god-beings to justify genocide, torture, enslavement, murder, war, oppression, suppression of knowledge, racism, summary executions, bigotry, misogyny, rape, theft, suspension of due process, imposed illiteracy, barbarism, the outlawing of science, vandalism, the outlawing of music and other forms of artistic expression, indentured servitude, child abuse, intolerance, nationalism, terrorism, extortion, assassination, segregation, ritualistic suicide/mutilation/human sacrifice/animal abuse/castration/cannibalism etc., as well as eugenics, sex-specific infanticide, unfair taxes, imprisonment, imposed social castes, and hostile occupation; to name a few.

Does it not bother any of you that the Messiah never recorded his teachings in his own words by his own hand? Who could be trusted more than God (A perfect being) in the flesh? Does it not bother you that for over a thousand years the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church has been hoarding away the oldest of the old in religious documents associated with the so called 'New Testament' and deny those outside the Vatican's inner circle from even seeing them or knowing explicitly what they contain? Why would the truth be something to hide? To use a familiar saying: "That which thrives in darkness but withers in the light of day; does not belong on the vine."

It makes no sense that an all knowing God would deliberately place temptation in front of a being he had specifically made to be susceptible; then condemn that being for succumbing to that weakness. It makes no sense that an almighty God would feel threatened by a unification of mortal men working toward an unattainable goal of reaching the heavens by building a tower. So threatened in fact that he would have to incite disharmony among the unified mortals in order to prevent them from achieving their inconsequential aim. An all powerful immortal God fearing his weak mortal creation? It also makes no sense that an infallible God would present a list of laws to his people that contained an absolute commandment: "Thou shall not kill" and in the same address command them to kill any who disobeyed; thereby demanding that they disobey and in turn break an absolute commandment.

As for the teachings of the Messiah? They can only be called sublime wisdom. Observing those teachings would enable mankind to shed their intensely self serving, judgmental and reactive ways; and adopt a more selfless, forgiving and proactive philosophy that would benefit ALL of mankind. I do not argue with this wisdom. I argue with the religion that contradicts these teachings and encourages those who practice it to divorce themselves from all accountability for their actions and follow religion as a divine institution; as if it carried the authority of God on earth.

I don't hate Christianity. I hate irrational observance of dogmatic religious tenants that insist that a Creator and His will are something that can only be revealed through a middleman. The Bible is in essence dictated but not written by its alleged author; which gives me reason to question the integrity of His clerical assistant.

That the Bible is recorded by men shouldn't really be a problem. The assumption is that if an imperfect being (humans) is, well, imperfect, then nothing is reliable. But however flawed we may be, we still only have our senses to rely on if for no other reason than mere survival. So if we can rely on our senses to get us THIS far, then we can rely on our senses to understand what it is God is saying to us.

And the texts are not inconsistent. Part of the condition of human perception is that it does not often take in a view of the whole. Rather than inconsistent, I'd just say that they are incomplete in and of themselves. Taken as a whole, they are closer to a complete view of God's wishes for His creation.


The nature of God is one of forgiving, proactive, unprejudiced, selfless, patient, meek, etc. But this overlooks the fact that God disciplines those who belong to Him. God also provides justice on behalf of those who belong to Him. Thus those who do evil who would negatively impact His chosen deserve to be severely punished. Even the book of Revelation depicts what will happen to those who do not turn from sin and believe. Nowhere in the gospels did Jesus ever say that everyone wants to be saved or that everyone WILL be. And those who are unfaithful will be cast into the "outer darkness."

Moreover, God is consistently forgiving and patient in the OT. God hold out for Israel's repentance. And rather than completely destroy them, He allowed the Assyrians to invade and deport them. So death and destruction isn't necessarily the first resort, but rather the last. God kept His promise to David by ensuring a lasting kingdom in Judah. And God even held off punishment because SOME kings chose to do what was right. Vengeance only came when Judah crossed a sort of point of no return, and even when the Chaldeans invaded there were still prophets calling for repentance. And even when the end came, the prophets were still reminding those who were left that God's vengeance would only be temporary and that those who genuinely repented would constitute a faithful remnant that would return and rebuild the nation.

There are no inconsistencies between the OT and the NT. Jesus was teaching those who had only known a misunderstanding of the ancient Judaic religion, a religion centered on a legalistic interpretation of Torah and oral tradition rather than one that called for repentance and sought to bring worshipers in--it was rather about keeping the "unclean" out and not really ministering to the spiritual needs of the community. The focus was on the leadership (among other things) and not God. All Christ wanted to do in terms of "religion" was restore the intended purpose of the ancient Judaic purpose all along. He ended up fulfilling the role of the sacrifice for all sinners who repent and believe in the grace of God to forgive.

If it's a problem with the Son of God dying to save the world from sin, then fine. But only seeing inconsistency is really just missing the bigger picture.


Well, that wasn't Jesus' purpose. The point of the OT all along is that sin brings death, repentance brings life. The religious leaders of Jesus' time focused too much on the sin and not the sinner. Jesus often brings a gentle "now you know; don't do it again." Jesus' indignation here just reflects the sentiment of the Father. The Bible doesn't say this explicitly, but I do wonder if Jesus hadn't done what the Pharisees wanted to do all along but were either afraid to do or were powerless to do it. If we assume they were money-hungry and corrupt, then they were complicit in the act. But not all the Pharisees necessarily agreed on all things, which was just part of their culture of scriptural scholarship. If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that there might have been a few cheering Jesus on.

Also, I think you have to consider who it was in charge. The Jews had limited self-rule, which makes sense, but they ultimately answered to the Romans. Jesus was about winning souls. Usurping political power and costing an unnecessary loss of life would have been counterproductive, and later apostles (Peter and Paul, for example) came to understand that the best way to win souls was by working through the culture, not in direct opposition to it with the exception of issues of morality. Publicly denying Christ would be unacceptable, as would the worship of other gods. So the matter of death-dealing is relegated to political authorities. This isn't even really inconsistent with OT practices because Torah initially gave the priests and judges judicial authority. As long as the people were dedicated to following God's commandments, everything went well. It was only chaotic when the leaders were weak or inconsistently exercised authority in accordance with law. So, yes, while ceremonial law is important to the worship lives of the people, much is also written to keep an orderly society. As to what God Himself does, well, vengeance belongs to the Lord. If people do not correct themselves, if evil is so ingrained into the fabric of their society, there's really nothing left for God to do.

A lot of Christian preachers, at least back in the day, taught all about death and hell. It was kind of scary and depressing. I think over time you hear less about that because people got sick of having the hell scared out of them. I don't think Jesus' teaching really centered on death and hell. You hear about it because it is a consequence of making the wrong choices. But rather life is the focus and it always had been. Even in the tabernacle and the temple, the mercy seat was above the law, indicating that God's mercy is more of a priority than strict execution of law. There's always room for mercy, and Torah is full of merciful ways of dealing with wrongdoing. Sure, there are crimes that are entirely unacceptable and can only be remedied by death. But by far the only consequence for wrongdoing is an act that is equivalent to the transgression. Personal injury lawsuits in the western world are founded on the same idea, though I think we have an ugly tendency in our society to overreach.


Perhaps it would be better for them to never have even been born, but it's an even greater wrong I think to never even allow them a chance. Now, sure, God is capable of saving all of humanity. But the issue is that not all of humanity even WANTS to be saved.


God forgives those who ask for forgiveness. If you don't want to be forgiven, or if you don't see in yourself a reason you need to be forgiven, then you don't have to ask. If you don't want to be with God, He's not going to force you into an eternity in His presence--not to mention it would be unjust to those who actually do what God commanded. And even if God did force you to spend an eternity with Him against your will, what would the difference between heaven and hell really be? I wonder if hell isn't a better place for some than heaven.


OK, but this is a subjective matter of opinion.


Sure, God can do this with a soul--IF it is the desire of the soul that God should do it.


There are no reasons why Biblical writings should have even been written down and passed down in the first place. Not if God didn't have a reason for it. If He spoke it and commanded someone to write it, then all one must do is examine the claims themselves and decide whether you want to believe it or not. If you don't believe it, then there's nothing left to argue about, is there? But if one DOES read and understand the claims being made and feels this makes sense, then Christianity and/or Judaism MIGHT actually be legit. There's a longer argument here, of course, but I think that's the basic idea.


Where did Christ command that Christians do these things?


Well, this is contradictory with what you wrote before. People wrote it and other people don't believe it. Ok, fair enough. So if THE person writes it, it should be more believable? No. Think about a court of law. Just because "I said so" doesn't mean that the evidence holds. Evidence is more believable if examined or experienced by multiple witnesses. It's not enough that "Jesus said something," but rather that several people heard and agree that He said it. And not everyone trusted Jesus, anyway. So, if not everyone trusted Him it wouldn't matter if He wrote the entire Bible in one sitting in the company of His disciples. And it wasn't His job, anyway.

The problem with your RC conspiracy theory is that if they're "hoarding" stuff we need to know, how do YOU know about it? You got an insider at the Vatican who can back this up?

Actually, there have been things that recently have been made public. Even back during the time of Christian persecution in the early church, books of the Bible were collected and burned. It would have done no good to burn books if you didn't know which books to burn--those that early Christians actually read. So we have very clear evidence of what was widely distributed, read, and believed early on in the church, and those books correspond to our "modern" Bible. Those "extra" books are inconsistent with known scripture, were later written by leaders NOT associated with the early church, lack apostolic authorship, had authorship outside the Jewish world, and were even flat-out heretical. Even the apocrypha included in Catholic (and other) Bibles is still included in sections clearly denoted as such. So, not even Catholics understand these books to be necessarily inspired but are rather answers to Protestant objections. If I understand correctly, the appearance of apocrypha didn't even happen until the counter-reformation. The Catholic church doesn't really have that much to hide nor any reason to hide, since most of it's history is well known. Also, not all Christians are even Catholic, and I include myself here as a non-Catholic believer.


Who is hiding anything? And if it is hidden, how do you know?


Which is why God didn't do that. He created a being and gave it a will to act on its own apart from God. Adam had the choice of life or death. God gave Adam clear instructions. Sure, Adam was tricked into doing something. But if Adam sensed weakness in himself, or if Adam was confused by hearing conflicting messages, all he had to do was call on God for help and remove himself from the situation. God never allows someone to be tested or tempted beyond what they can reasonably bear.

As an example, take a person who is an alcoholic but wishes to break free from it. If he empties his liquor cabinet and stays away from the liquor store and away from bars, will God decide to test him by supernaturally refilling the stash? Adam had the power to avoid the tree of death. He merely made the wrong choice.


OK, so you call "Take up your cross and follow Me" sublime wisdom? How wise, in present-day terms, is it for someone to knowingly choose a path of life that will end in a premature death? That's what "Take up your cross" means--it is an instrument of death, not merely a burden to deal with. What about eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood? Does that sound like sublime wisdom? Some would object, saying it favors cannibalism and vampirism. There are tons of things in the NT, the very words of Jesus, that resemble insanity and suicidal tendencies. Now, sure, it might ignore the underlying truths and the message. But Christ might have been a gifted prophet in His own day. He might have been kind to the marginalized. But to make the claims Jesus made, any ordinary person making those claims today would have been locked up in a state hospital. So, "just a prophet" or "just a wise man" simply doesn't cut it.


The RC church doesn't seem to me to be His clerical assistant. I'll agree with you in that one DOES have to question authority to be sure what that authority says is true and that authority deserves to be recognized. I'll agree that SOME or CERTAIN Christians have really messed up the faith in their own time. I just don't agree that this has ALWAYS been the case, nor was it the case from the very beginning. And I'm not Catholic. Lot's of Christians aren't Catholic. And "good Catholics" didn't always agree with the "Church." And even Catholics have come to understand where they've gone wrong in the past and seek to correct the mistakes of the past by the witness of their own lives. Maybe the Crusades and the Inquisitions WERE their fault; so what? This has nothing to do with the church, any church, right now and today.

And lots of churches are also starting to recognize that part of the problem is positional authority. Sure, they still have "lead pastors" or "senior pastors"/"associate pastors," but they see their job as more instructive than authoritarian. They prefer to hand over their presumed "power" to those in the church who actually feel a desire to lead and do the work of Christ in their communities. They are rather guides as opposed to a kind of corporate CEO, which is the traditional pastoral role in protestant churches. It really makes a difference in how congregations perceive themselves and their actual role in living out the words of Christ, and these are the churches you see most often experiencing consistent growth. The more authoritarian churches are on the decline, and I think part of the reason this is is because preachers and even lay leaders have their fists clenched around their power and positional authority that they fail to open their hands to accept what God really wants to give them, which blesses the entire community rather than only the leader.

So, to a degree, I understand where you're coming from. I just don't think that it is quite as pervasive as you might have been led to believe that it is.

Hey AG. Thanks for the backup. I don't believe in free will at all - all evidence thus far seems to suggest that humans don't think at all, never mind think independently! Besides, truly free will would require complete independence from the physical universe - but that includes the object on which we're making the decision. It's a logical impossibility.

I also like to try squaring the free will of humanity with the free will of an omnipotent, all-knowing being. God's will necessarily must ALWAYS be done, so this means our free will can only be free when it agrees with God's. We cannot go against God's will, and thus we don't really have free will. The best we can do is the illusion of free will, which means God is lying when he claims to have given it to us. But hey, God lies a lot. Absolute morality clearly doesn't include honesty.



Oh, I don't expect to change anyone's views. I just like poking people's sillier beliefs and seeing how they react. 91 is a wall-builder. Some lash out, some run away, some use the "la la la I'm not listening" response, but wall-builders just keep laying more bricks to keep the evidence out. It's fun to dismantle them as they build and see them get flustered.

Why don't you poke your own silly belief, to wit, that in "free will" "will means something other than "will"?

Just because political sloganry has saddled us with the unprecedented idea that "the right to choose" has to mean "the power to make that choice stick", do we HAVE to rethink "free will" to mean "unrestricted power to act"?

Even it its native context, the "freedom of choice" wording is stupid. Sure, in the right jurisdiction she can knock on the door and be handed an abortion. But if she "chooses" to give birth to a befreckled genius with a winning personality, perfect pitch and resistance to hair loss and cancer, it will not be easy for her "choice" to provide that outcome.

Was the title intended to mean

a. I see a lot of Christians who hate,

or

b. I see a lot of people who hate Christians.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. No-one hates a Christian sect quite like a different sect.
And the more... enthusiastic fringes of Christianity (particularly the loopier Catholic fringes) can even hate themselves, being worthless sinners and all that. I suspect God would be baffled by the insanity that some people believe.

Yeah, I feel the same way on free will. I'm not as sure on "truly free will" but I will agree that when pushed the matter falls into nonsense.


Honestly, there are efforts, but usually they still end up having the issue of basically allowing God to ordain whatever he wants to happen, which doesn't really give people much independent agency.


That's the thing. 91 actually won't be dismantled as he'll come up with some line of BS and pretend it's reasonable and actually accuse you of dishonesty for not buying into his anti-reason. It's.... one of the stranger things I've seen.

Weeell, the main problem is definition. What makes it "free"? Actually, what is "will"? If I decide I want chocolate cake, is that a conscious decision or a reaction to hunger and the memory of how chocolate makes me feel?



Is sloganry a word? Oh well, I like it. I'll keep it.
The right to choose is fairly meaningless. It's not like it's a right that could ever be taken away. I can choose to turn into a duck and bomb Mars with chocolate eggs, but it ain't gonna happen. So referring to "free will" as "the right to choose" is making free will fundamentally pointless. But in any event, that wasn't what I was getting at. My point is that our choices are not free - not in terms of power to act on them, but in terms of what we choose between. I can't choose something that I don't know about. I can't choose something that goes against my nature (for instance, to find women sexually attractive).



Now here's the thing - we don't have that level of free will, but an omnipotent God would. Anything and everything that happens is as God intends. So if something is screwed up, it's because God wants it to be that way. And this is where the problem lies - everything we do is down to God. Our decisions are not free, because we are influenced by everything around up. If we have NO free will, then God is clearly the cause of all evil. We don't have total free will, as we've already covered. So at best we have SOME free will. We are still influenced by our environment, to some positive degree, and research shows that our brains can be influenced by some weird stuff. This means God has an interesting quandary - he has the knowledge and the power to control that influence. He can make us choose through our partially free will to do whatever he wants. And if he chooses not to do that, it is because he wants us not to do what he wants, which is thus what he wants.