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

 

[Roylion]

I see what you're saying, that there's degrees of agnosticism within that middle ground that covers a meandering toward either committment. But that's just it - either side IS a committment. As soon as you lean towards one or the other (belief or non-belief) doesn't that plant your feet in one camp or the other? I consider myself agnostic because I genuinely don't know what might come after this life. Is death a doorway? Who knows. Is death another birthday? Who knows.

I can't rule anything IN. I can't rule anything OUT. Sitting on the fence is fine with me.

To me, someone saying "I'm not sure but I'm gonna believe anyway' is not an agnostic. An athiest who says 'There definitely are no gods... but I'm still not absolutely sure' is surely no athiest either.

I certainly label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or gods or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the originator/creator and ruler of the universe and exists outside time and space definitely doesn't exist. How could I?

What I do argue is that I or anyone else (despite their claims) cannot know the existance of such phenomena, beyond pure faith. With faith anything imagined phenomena can be claimed as true.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the claimed premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than reacting with skepticism when others invoke / claim said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency through proselytizing. There's a few of those on these boards.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I certainly label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or gods or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the originator/creator and ruler of the universe and exists outside time and space definitely doesn't exist. How could I?

What I do argue is that I or anyone else (despite their claims) cannot know the existance of such phenomena, beyond pure faith. With faith anything imagined phenomena can be claimed as true.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the claimed premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than reacting with skepticism when others invoke / claim said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency through proselytizing. There's a few of those on these boards.

So you’re agnostic about pink unicorns? I mean you could say that I believe beyond reasonable doubt that there are unicorns, hence I’m an atheist.

 

[Toump Ass]

Another question for the Christians of the board.

Thank you for clearing up my questions relating to onanism. I'm heartened to find out this will not exclude me from becoming a brother or sister in christ.

My follow up question is this:
Is thinking about sin a sin? Am i allowed to imagine myself with my neighbours donkey?
Follow up question: can God read my mind?

 

[Roylion]

So you’re agnostic about pink unicorns?

Yeah. Why not.

Are pink unicorns considered to exist outside time and space? As such does anyone have anyway of ascertaining the existence of pink unicorns? Either way should I regard with skepticism any claim that pink unicorns do in fact exist.

 

[Cooldude]

My follow up question is this:
Is thinking about sin a sin? Am i allowed to imagine myself with my neighbours donkey?
Follow up question: can God read my mind?

Didn't Jesus say that even thinking about ******* someone is a lustful sin? And if you do, you should gouge your own eyes out?

So yes you have violated that donkey and god

 

[Jibroni]

Another question for the Christians of the board.

Thank you for clearing up my questions relating to onanism. I'm heartened to find out this will not exclude me from becoming a brother or sister in christ.

My follow up question is this:
Is thinking about sin a sin? Am i allowed to imagine myself with my neighbours donkey?
Follow up question: can God read my mind?

Outside of your spouse lusting after anything else is pretty much a sin.

If he good enough to create all this and remain omnipresent then yes.

 

[Evolved1]

I think you will find that the biggest problem with this is the people who are not willing to say ' i don't know'. This goes for any -ism. They have to pick and choose a side, like a footy team.

Theoretically any honest person would admit they don't know with absolute certainty. In practice, there is no objective evidence for the existence of a god and no reason to believe one exists, so I live my life under the logical assumption that there is no god.

Even if there is a god, so what? Why would a god care whether I believe in him? Religion makes no sense and solves none of the major problems we face in the here and now. It offers a promise of future reward, just the same as all other scams.

Faith is nothing more than a placebo effect and a wilful denial of reality.

 

[Total Power]

Even if there is a god, so what? Why would a god care whether I believe in him?

The idea that god grants certain favors to certain people is absurd, consider there is so much poverty and misery in this world, god has better things to do than listen to a bigfooty poster prayer for better health. Also notice how prayers are always selfish and mostly concerned with "i".. My family, my life, my health, my money, my friends etc. Human beings are selfish and they have invented their god in their own image.

I have clearly stated many many times that we should not believe without evidence, yet i am a piece of s**t apparently for saying that.

 

[Evolved1]

The idea that god grants certain favors to certain people is absurd, consider there is so much poverty and misery in this world, god has better things to do than listen to a bigfooty poster prayer for better health. Also notice how prayers are always selfish and mostly concerned with "i".. My family, my life, my health, my money, my friends etc. Human beings are selfish and they have invented their god in their own image.

I have clearly stated many many times that we should not believe without evidence, yet i am a piece of s**t apparently for saying that.

If there is a god, he would view humans much like we view ants. The intellectual gulf would be insurmountable, comparable to humans attempting to communicate with and have a personal relationship with ants.

Would you sacrifice your son for an ant colony or punish ants for doing things that ants do? Maybe pull out a magnifying glass and burn them for their ant-like carnal behaviour...it's ludicrous.

 

[Total Power]

If there is a god, he would view humans much like we view ants. The intellectual gulf would be insurmountable, comparable to humans attempting to communicate with and have a personal relationship with ants.

Would you sacrifice your son for an ant colony or punish ants for doing things that ants do? Maybe pull out a magnifying glass and burn them for their ant-like carnal behaviour...it's ludicrous.

The idea of personal god was non existent in the Eastern cultures. The idea of consciousness and meditation was prevalent though you acquire your own knowlege was the thing, the ready made 'takeout' equivalent of knowledge came from the greeks and now everyone claims to know it all after reading a couple of books.

 

[Boston tiger]

Another question for the Christians of the board.

Thank you for clearing up my questions relating to onanism. I'm heartened to find out this will not exclude me from becoming a brother or sister in christ.

My follow up question is this:
Is thinking about sin a sin? Am i allowed to imagine myself with my neighbours donkey?
Follow up question: can God read my mind?

Are you wanking over the neighbours donkeys or are just having wandering thoughts about said donkey?
Being attracted to something/ someone isn’t a sin but cultivating sinful thoughts would be.
All the best

 

[Evolved1]

Are you wanking over the neighbours donkeys or are just having wandering thoughts about said donkey?
Being attracted to something/ someone isn’t a sin but cultivating sinful thoughts would be.
All the best

Who doesn't enjoy a fine ass?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Yeah. Why not.

Are pink unicorns considered to exist outside time and space? As such does anyone have anyway of ascertaining the existence of pink unicorns? Either way should I regard with skepticism any claim that pink unicorns do in fact exist.

I should of used the South Park example of the agnostic couple who tell their children there may be a god or there may also be a giant flying lizard who rules. Lizard actually appears and kills Kenny.

 

[Roylion]

I should of used the South Park example of the agnostic couple who tell their children there may be a god or there may also be a giant flying lizard who rules. Lizard actually appears and kills Kenny.

I look forward to seeing the pink unicorn for myself. Until then...

 

[Gethelred]

God kills us all anyway. You don't need the Carona virus to have a pot at Christianity over death.
Good that your here though in these times of uncertainty.

I have a question for you, then; funnily enough, one of the questions which caused me to renounce my faith when I was younger.

How do you justify God's role in allowing innocents to die? How do you justify evil, when he - God Almighty - has the power not only to stop the action as you are thinking it, but to punish you for doing so in the moment you do?

If he intervenes, he exists clearly and doesn't stand for such behaviour. If he doesn't intervene, there are three possibilities; one, he doesn't exist. Two, he exists but does nothing. Three, he exists but cannot do anything to affect it.

The question for me concerns parts two and three. If he allows evil to exist and does nothing - i.e. he is capable of affecting the situation, but for reasons of his own does not - then he is complicit in every evil that has affected this planet, ever. Why would one worship him after that?

If it is that he cannot affect creation after having created, how is he less complicit than before? If he made you, how did he not make all that came before, and how is he less complicit in all crimes/sins which came before?

My atheism is thus; if there is a God, he does not deserve my worship. Either he is too limited to do more than create, or he is complicit in everything that has ever happened. If one has the power to stop an event occurring, one is complicit if it occurs without their intervention.

I'm not going to ask you how you sleep at night, knowing your God is guilty of every crime in history. I'm going to ask you how you reconcile an omnipresent and omnipotent god with the existence of evil.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I have a question for you, then; funnily enough, one of the questions which caused me to renounce my faith when I was younger.

How do you justify God's role in allowing innocents to die? How do you justify evil, when he - God Almighty - has the power not only to stop the action as you are thinking it, but to punish you for doing so in the moment you do?

If he intervenes, he exists clearly and doesn't stand for such behaviour. If he doesn't intervene, there are three possibilities; one, he doesn't exist. Two, he exists but does nothing. Three, he exists but cannot do anything to affect it.

The question for me concerns parts two and three. If he allows evil to exist and does nothing - i.e. he is capable of affecting the situation, but for reasons of his own does not - then he is complicit in every evil that has affected this planet, ever. Why would one worship him after that

If it is that he cannot affect creation after having created, how is he less complicit than before? If he made you, how did he not make all that came before, and how is he less complicit in all crimes/sins which came before?

My atheism is thus; if there is a God, he does not deserve my worship. Either he is too limited to do more than create, or he is complicit in everything that has ever happened. If one has the power to stop an event occurring, one is complicit if it occurs without their intervention.

I'm not going to ask you how you sleep at night, knowing your God is guilty of every crime in history. I'm going to ask you how you reconcile an omnipresent and omnipotent god with the existence of evil.

You will never get an answer to that

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I certainly label myself agnostic. I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or gods or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

I have no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the originator/creator and ruler of the universe and exists outside time and space definitely doesn't exist. How could I?

What I do argue is that I or anyone else (despite their claims) cannot know the existance of such phenomena, beyond pure faith. With faith anything imagined phenomena can be claimed as true.

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the claimed premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than reacting with skepticism when others invoke / claim said being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency through proselytizing. There's a few of those on these boards.

Yeah. This is my position too. Stated more eloquently though!

 

[Boston tiger]

I have a question for you, then; funnily enough, one of the questions which caused me to renounce my faith when I was younger.

How do you justify God's role in allowing innocents to die? How do you justify evil, when he - God Almighty - has the power not only to stop the action as you are thinking it, but to punish you for doing so in the moment you do?

If he intervenes, he exists clearly and doesn't stand for such behaviour. If he doesn't intervene, there are three possibilities; one, he doesn't exist. Two, he exists but does nothing. Three, he exists but cannot do anything to affect it.

The question for me concerns parts two and three. If he allows evil to exist and does nothing - i.e. he is capable of affecting the situation, but for reasons of his own does not - then he is complicit in every evil that has affected this planet, ever. Why would one worship him after that?

If it is that he cannot affect creation after having created, how is he less complicit than before? If he made you, how did he not make all that came before, and how is he less complicit in all crimes/sins which came before?

My atheism is thus; if there is a God, he does not deserve my worship. Either he is too limited to do more than create, or he is complicit in everything that has ever happened. If one has the power to stop an event occurring, one is complicit if it occurs without their intervention.

I'm not going to ask you how you sleep at night, knowing your God is guilty of every crime in history. I'm going to ask you how you reconcile an omnipresent and omnipotent god with the existence of evil.

It’s easy for me as I haven’t really been affected by evil or had any real tragedies come my way so I’m comfortable with all the answers that 2000 years has thrown up to that age old question.

 

[Boston tiger]

You will never get an answer to that

How many times in the last 2000 years do you rekon that question has come up and been answered?

Anyway here is one for you


If evil exists, then it follows that morality exists. If morality exists, then it follows that God exists.

 

[Gethelred]

It’s easy for me as I haven’t really been affected by evil or had any real tragedies come my way so I’m comfortable with all the answers that 2000 years has thrown up to that age old question.

... like?

I've read the various attempted proofs in my time since. I do not need you to repeat them to me; I want to hear yours. And "I've never suffered from tragedy or evil" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

How many times in the last 2000 years do you rekon that question has come up and been answered?

Anyway here is one for you


If evil exists, then it follows that morality exists. If morality exists, then it follows that God exists.

Quite a few, but none of the answers have really proven themselves able to truly evade the divine culpability for evil and tragedy.

Provided that morality is sourced from the divine, and is not an innate thing that humans possess out of a desire to make life fairer.

I mean, you look at the three big rules from the ten commandments - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie - and you'll find their equivalents worldwide, regardless of religion. Look at law as an extension of morality; the point of law once transgressed is to return both parties to the status quo.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Can a christian tell me why their god is inflicting this virus on them?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

How many times in the last 2000 years do you rekon that question has come up and been answered?

Anyway here is one for you


If evil exists, then it follows that morality exists. If morality exists, then it follows that God exists.

Yet there is still no real answer other than your fantasy that 'morality equals god' and you get all indignant when people laugh at you

 

[Boston tiger]

Yet there is still no real answer other than your fantasy that 'morality equals god' and you get all indignant when people laugh at you

Your are the minority

 

[Gethelred]

Your are the minority

Firstly, it's you.

Secondly, does the majority disagreeing with you mean you are incorrect? I mean, it's not much of a salve when they're burning you at the stake, but it has to be some solace.

 

[Boston tiger]

... like?

I've read the various attempted proofs in my time since. I do not need you to repeat them to me; I want to hear yours. And "I've never suffered from tragedy or evil" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

Quite a few, but none of the answers have really proven themselves able to truly evade the divine culpability for evil and tragedy.

Provided that morality is sourced from the divine, and is not an innate thing that humans possess out of a desire to make life fairer.

I mean, you look at the three big rules from the ten commandments - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie - and you'll find their equivalents worldwide, regardless of religion. Look at law as an extension of morality; the point of law once transgressed is to return both parties to the status quo.

They all make sense to me. You do need a sense of what God is though.

If there is only goodness in the universe .. what is our purpose ? To live on the earth and drink beer and play skittles?