Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Total Power]

If god came back would it be black or white, male or female, woke or unwoke, for or against the wall, for or against masks, for or against genital mutilation?

Depends on which God, the God of OT is s**t arse crazy. Most Christians i know have abandoned the OT for this reason. But ceremonial laws (like circumsation) don't apply to Christian. Moral laws applies to Christians still.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

IF all of us in the world adopted the thought process of WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IN THIS SITUATION, the world would be awesome and peaceful.

What about the 1500 years where people were burned, tortured, hung for not believing? All this who died in religious wars. Did they ever ask the question when committing these atrocities? Or did the devil make them do it?

 

[Evolved1]

If god came back would it be black or white, male or female, woke or unwoke, for or against the wall, for or against masks, for or against genital mutilation?

Black, female, pro-wall, anti-masker, pro genital mutilation, and very unwoke.

I'd let that goddess ride me all night long. I like a bumpy ride.

 

[Roylion]

But He did.

So you assert. But that is merely your opinion.

You can not prove beyond doubt that He did not.

You can't prove beyond doubt that he did. And in the absence of any supporting evidence for your claim.....

 

[Roylion]

Why does God's omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience necessitate His bringing forceful peace to the OT peoples? (And forceful peace is an oxymoron if ever there was one).

The statement that I was replying to was that "His methods to bring people to peace in OT days, failed."

How could 'He' 'fail' if 'He' is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? Whatever method he used, shouldn't it succeed because 'He' is all powerful where anything is possible? If 'He' is all-knowing shouldn't 'He' know that the method was going to choose would fail and therefore choose one that would succeed (which 'He' would also know) because 'He' is all-knowing?

 

[Vdubs]

So you assert. But that is merely your opinion.



You can't prove beyond doubt that he did. And in the absence of any supporting evidence for your claim.....

Don't need to, as has been said ad nauseum. We have faith, for clearly explained reasons, and you drag up documents and history to refute it, but you can NEVER be 100% certain.

 

[Vdubs]

What about the 1500 years where people were burned, tortured, hung for not believing? All this who died in religious wars. Did they ever ask the question when committing these atrocities? Or did the devil make them do it?

free will- people sin if they don't follow His way.

 

[Vdubs]

How would Jesus have voted in the gay marriage plebiscite?

Define marriage.

 

[Evolved1]

Don't need to, as has been said ad nauseum. We have faith, for clearly explained reasons, and you drag up documents and history to refute it, but you can NEVER be 100% certain.

You can NEVER be 100% certain the Easter Bunny isn't real. I have faith in the Easter Bunny despite your silly human made science and logic.

 

[Evolved1]

Define marriage.

How did you vote? I voted yes.

 

[Total Power]

Don't need to, as has been said ad nauseum. We have faith, for clearly explained reasons, and you drag up documents and history to refute it, but you can NEVER be 100% certain.

You seem to be 100% certain that other religions are not the right way. How? or let me rephrase the question... why take a chance? LOL

 

[Roylion]

We have faith, for clearly explained reasons,

You can have faith in anything no matter how improbable. I fail to see why I should accept as true something believed in by faith alone.

but you can NEVER be 100% certain.

I fail to see why I should accept as true something believed in by faith alone.

 

[Evolved1]

If religious marriage was put to a vote, I'd vote no. Pedophilia, bestiality, and religion are immoral.

 

[Vdubs]

You can have faith in anything no matter how improbable. I fail to see why I should accept as true something believed in by faith alone.



I fail to see why I should accept as true something believed in by faith alone.

You don't have to. Nobody is saying you need to. You ask why WE have faith. That is not enough for you and many thinking, intelligent, and not-so intelligent people, and that is fair enough.

 

[Vdubs]

You seem to be 100% certain that other religions are not the right way. How? or let me rephrase the question... why take a chance? LOL

Mortein, mate.

 

[indoistriku]

If the one true god showed up in the Middle East, I'm fairly sure Muslims and Jews would be convinced.

I've watched many zombie movies, and people are generally smart enough to back down when they see one. He could have showed up at US airports on 9/11 and I can pretty much guarantee none of those fake god worshipers would have felt brave enough to fly planes into buildings.

I read the first part of your response, and was gearing up for a somewhat serious reply (to my surprise. Evolved engaging the topic seriously?). Then I read the second part. Jesus is not a zombie! Jesus gives life, zombies give death. Zombies eat your flesh, Christ wants you to eat His! He is the anti-zombie. Zombies belong only to Korean movies and in my fanstasies where I get to live in survival mode.

 

[Total Power]

Mortein, mate.

Avoiding the answer? you asked me the question, why take a chance, i am telling you there's been religions much older than Chrisitanity and despite colonial and missionary push, their numbers have gotten bigger only. Why take a chance if you are wrong?

 

[Total Power]

The YEC is back! dinosaurs are a hoax, this is what we are dealing with.

 

[Total Power]

I read the first part of your response, and was gearing up for a somewhat serious reply (to my surprise. Evolved engaging the topic seriously?). Then I read the second part. Jesus is not a zombie! Jesus gives life, zombies give death. Zombies eat your flesh, Christ wants you to eat His! He is the anti-zombie. Zombies belong only to Korean movies and in my fanstasies where I get to live in survival mode.

Jesus lol you are a work of art!

 

[Vdubs]

Avoiding the answer? you asked me the question, why take a chance, i am telling you there's been religions much older than Chrisitanity and despite colonial and missionary push, their numbers have gotten bigger only. Why take a chance if you are wrong?

We have confidence in what we believe, despite your evidence and protests. I am committed to being a Christian for the whole journey, with and without many hardships. No need or desire to examine false gods or alternatives.

 

[Roylion]

You ask why WE have faith.

Actually I'm not. But I'm still not sure why you do.

That is not enough for you

It certainly isn't. To determine whether something is actually true (or even possible) I prefer to have more robust supporting evidence that supports the assertion made. For example why I should I believe in resurrection when a supernatural explanation is the least satisfying, least supported and least logical explanation of all possible explanations, especially when there are other documented cases of alternative explanations.

 

[Total Power]

We have confidence in what we believe, despite your evidence and protests. I am committed to being a Christian for the whole journey, with and without many hardships. No need or desire to examine false gods or alternatives.

So there is your answer to the question 'why take a chance' which you asked me. You are willing to take a chance, so am i, cause i am confident even if a God exists, your deity doesn't. So why ask such stupid questions?

 

[Vdubs]

Actually I'm not. But I'm still not sure why you do.



It certainly isn't. To determine whether something is actually true (or even possible) I prefer to have more robust supporting evidence that supports the assertion made. For example why I should I believe in resurrection when a supernatural explanation is the least satisfying, least supported and least logical explanation of all possible explanations, especially when there are other documented cases of alternative explanations.

yes, as you have said.

 

[Evolved1]

I read the first part of your response, and was gearing up for a somewhat serious reply...

Slow learner?

 

[indoistriku]

"The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy, but the church fathers who developed it believed they were simply exegeting [explaining] divine revelation and not at all speculating or inventing new ideas. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical (universal) councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)" (2002, pp. 1-2).
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/is-the-trinity-biblical (Christian page)

Right -- I take no issue with these words, and I think it will serve us both to carefully consider the words used here. Firstly, I am sorry for my childish reply. Secondly, let me begin by explaining how I (rightfully, I believe) interpret this text (if you'll indulge this "mental midgit!"). The text begin that the "doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy..." (bolding mine). We continue, the church fathers believed themselves to be not inventing a doctrine, but rather exegeting the text of Scripture handed them. Moreover, you wrote, "the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils." (bolding mind, again).

These words I do not dispute. It cannot be denied, I think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, in its articulation, had been a slowly developing thing, and has for the most part now settled. But that its articulation developed, which is what the text you supplied affirms, is not the same thing as the doctrine it self developing, or being manufactured outside of the Biblical texts. Similarly, Christology, another hot-button theological topic throughout Christendom's history, has also developed in its articulation. It has been in the face of heretical whispers that these doctrines have not been created, but articulated and explained more precisely. As a Lutheran, I don't believe that Martin Luther invented a new doctrine on justification. He (and others before and after him) explained it more precisely than it had even been -- but it wasn't a new thing. The doctrine of the Trinity can be found in both Old and New Testament. It isn't added into or read into the text.