I always thought evil came from disobedience to God. That is why Lucifer was cast out of heaven...and Adam and Eve sinned against God.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
That isn't true. The fact that God is all powerful doesn't give you anymore insight into what he should and shouldn't do. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that God should create a world without the capacity for evil. How do you know that a world without suffering and evil would result in more people freely coming to Christ for the salvation of their soul? In fact, why was it God's wisdom to suffer and die in the world's most awful form of execution, crucifixion? There was even a word they invented for the pain of the cross: Excruciating.
Also, it doesn't make sense to say that God invented evil if all the evil that has ever been done has come from Satan and the heart of man. If God creates a creature with the ability to make decisions (which we have) and that creature makes bad decisions, why is God to blame? Can love really ever be experienced if it isn't freely given? You see, God created man out of love and to receive love, since that is how any relationship works. But the possibility for love to be freely given also opens up the possibility of a departure from that and that is where we get sin from. Sin is falling short of the perfection in love God intended and still wants for his children to this day. It doesn't really make any sense to think of God creating evil when you think about it like that.
You could raise another objection which is that God knowing the end from the beginning shouldn't have created in the first place, but God obviously thinks that his children are worth it. In fact, he loves his children so much that he suffered a torturous death at the hands of evil men all the while calling for the father to forgive them. Nobody else would die for their most bitter enemies. How would that demonstration of love be possible without the sacrifice? You need to let it sink in that God chose intense evil and suffering to show the riches of his love at the place of the cross.
Without His death on the cross, there is no redemption for humanity.
Sin came into the world through man...and man is redeemed by the Son of man by His death.
Sin came into the world through man...and man is redeemed by the Son of man by His death.
Why do you presume it is necessary for people to accept God for the salvation of their soul? How do you know soul even exists? And does this mean people who don't come to Christ never achieve salvation?
Because truth is exclusive. This cup of tea I have by my side is not a box of chocolates. Similarly, God is the God of Israel. Not one of one man's many idols which have no power, but the Lord of heaven and earth who is known only through the Son of God. Without Jesus, nobody knows God because no man has seen the father or heard his voice as Jesus himself said. And it is this Son of God who died for the sins of man. Without him there is no reconciliation and you remain estranged from God in your sin.
Jesus asked the question, what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul? The Lord values the eternal soul, not the temporal desire of the flesh. Those who never come to Christ live as slaves to their flesh and don't even want the Lord's salvation. The Lord is a saviour to all (without exception) who come to him. But darkness has no fellowship with light and evil does not choose good.
This is why we preach Christ crucified so that some would be saved. A common response from others is to revile the exclusivity of Christ and to think Christians hate everyone who isn't a Christian like them. But think carefully on this by Charles Spurgeon: “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for.”
The best thing an honest Christian can do is give you the gospel and pray for you. I have personally seen prayer change people's lives, including my own. Heaven rejoices over one sinner who repents. That's the heart of God and people need to know. So we tell them. If you went to your doctor and he knew you had the beginnings of a life-threatening illness and he had the treatment available to heal you but thought you'd dislike him for diagnosing your illness and offering to treat you, so instead he told you you were fine to maintain your opinion of him, he wouldn't be a good doctor, would he? That's not love and so it is not love to refrain from offering people Christ because somebody fears man's response. Jesus came to heal the sick and just like the doctor in the above analogy, he knows you're sick when you don't and he can save you. Nobody else can.
Maybe it's just me, but religion seems to be made up of pure arrogance. We were created by a God, we're the most important thing on the planet, we have souls, we can feel love, we can go to heaven, we can burn in hell for eternity ect.
It also suggests that there's no other intelligent species aside from us in the entire universe, which is highly unlikely. Religion just holds everything back.
It also suggests that there's no other intelligent species aside from us in the entire universe, which is highly unlikely. Religion just holds everything back.
Last edited:
As a matter of probabilities, life should not have been conceived on any planet anywhere in the known Universe. Molecular biologists know there is a minimum number of base pairs in its genetic coding the most basic single cellular organism must have (it numbers in the hundreds), and they also know you must have a certain number of molecular machines (comprised of complementary proteins) to operate the DNA molecule. Did you know, for example, you must have a ribosome for synthesis? Look up what a ribosome is. You also need a cell membrane that is selectively permeable so that certain substances can move in and out of the cell. On and on it goes. When I studied molecular biology for myself, I started to laugh at what contemporary neo-Darwinians were asking me to believe.
Herman seems like good craic for a fireside chat concerning Christian theology and it's evolution
As I touched on before, no other book can put its reputation on the line with very specific prophecies and not have that reputation ruined by utter failure. The God of the Bible is a God of prophecy. Also, no other religion offers salvation, forgiveness and unmerited love. Every other religion is works based. Christianity is all about the love of Christ and the sufficiency of Christ alone. Just like the man who finds treasure hidden in a field and sells everything he has to purchase that field, so is Christ to those who find him. There is no equivalent and there is no peace and joy like his. Why do you think all born again Christians come across as religious nutters to all who don't believe? Because they actually love God and can't hide that love.
What specific prophecies? Do you mean the prohpecies of the Old Testament fulilled in the New?
What prophecies?
So? Truth is exclusive.
So? Truth is exclusive.
It's more the inibility to disassociate life from fairytales. You dismiss the opinion of scientists, even cherry picking their work to suit your anedotal needs, but are instantly convinced an Iron Age book of campfire stories is telling the complete truth.
Do you believe in the Garden of Eden?
Last edited:
Well, you have to read the Bible and find out. But I did give a couple of examples in a previous post. You have to verify things for yourself. If I didn't have any understanding of evolutionary theory and i said to you, what are the examples of evolution, I wouldn't expect you to say anything other than: go and read about it for your own learning. Biblical prophecy is a pretty massive subject you'd never be able to condense into one post on an internet forum.
I am not really sure what the point of you repeating "truth is exclusive" is. I agree.
Ok, you are genuinely mental.
If I was genuinely mental, why would you find it funny?
@Herman Van Rompuy @Red Dreams and everyone else fighting the good fight:
I wish I had the time to contribute to this thread but university's getting me down. To you guys I'll leave you with:
John 10:25-28 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Keep it up guys, don't let ignorance and hate discourage you, but answer genuine inquiry with confidence and understanding.
I wish I had the time to contribute to this thread but university's getting me down. To you guys I'll leave you with:
John 10:25-28 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Keep it up guys, don't let ignorance and hate discourage you, but answer genuine inquiry with confidence and understanding.
Why doesn't god fight his own fight. Pop on to the caf and convince the unbelievers with a few well-aimed prophecies?
I have read the Bible. I've also read the Qur'an, which I found slightly less batty to be perfectly honest. Though it again uses itself as it's own proof (it's a miracle you see, because it's written so nice) Bible prophesy proven by the Bible isn't an example of proof. If the only way to prove the Bible is by using the Bible to legitimise the Bible, that basically disproves the Bible IMO.
If you were genuinely a scientist, use the scientific method. Which at some point would include coming at it from the side of "this might not be infallible truth"
Because what comforting things it can offer you isn't a basis for it's truth.
Personally I think the idea that this corporeal life is merely a test for another, longer, more important life spent in eternal worship or damnation absolutely horrible. Genuinely disturbing and undesirable. But that isn't a reason I don't believe in Jesus. I find famine and disease unpalatable too, but I accept they're real.
To me, that people would have so little regard for this life and it's meaning that they'd wantonly diminish it's importance in order to imagine another, better one, that THEY will DEFINITELY be party to and rewarded in because of their piety is not just deluded, but ugly. How bad must your view of life be that you need this perfect afterparty reward as a reason to live it well?
Because you're throwing around the idea you studied biologiy like you did some super serious indepth scientific research, and then came to a conclusion contrary to the vast majority of the scientific community. Just on a whim. I find that funny. Of course, you could actually be one of the cleverest scientists in the world. Which, if you so easily and pithily disproved the consensus opinion, is exactly what you're purporting yourself to be.
I agree with you regarding doing your own research though. I think it's fundamental. in fact I give you a fair bit credit for looking into it, if you did. However judging by your after-the-fact rationale in this thread, and opinions like this..
I don't think there's a chance you approached it with any objective countenance whatsoever.
I'm also rather fascinated by how far you take your Biblical literalism. I'm gonna take your consistent silence on my Adam & Eve question as a yes. How old do you think the earth is? Do you believe in Carbon dating? Have you studied evolutionary geology to confirm/deny this?
Last edited:
If I was a religious man, I would personally find that statement offensive. But I am still curious as to why you think truth is exclusive. And what is this truth that you speak of? I am also curious to know what happened to all those people born before Christ, did they go to hell by default?
I clicked on this thread by accident thinking it was the Fantasy reads thread, took me up to PeterStorey's post thinking "why's Peter commenting on the Fantasy Reads" thread to work out I was at the wrong place.
I'd have thought Arsenal fans would love fantasy reads.
I actually know a very religious geologist. I don't understand how he can be both.
Without wishing to sound patronising, the reason you think the Qur'an is "slightly less batty" is because it doesn't offend you like the gospel and because you lack the Spirit's discernment.
Comforting things aren't true or false because they're comforting, I agree, but the authenticity of the gospel and Christ is a pretty big deal. The gospel does not teach that this life is a test for the afterlife, because that would indicate you could do something to have a right standing with God, which you cannot. No works can save, only Christ. The gospel is that man is wretched and needs a saviour. Only acceptance of the saviour will grant one eternal life. This does not diminish the value of life, it just teaches that God is Holy and man is depraved. Life has no objective meaning if a person comes from dust and returns to dust with no hope of the eternal because the logical conclusion is metaphysical nihilism which just leaves you with a depressing black hole at the end of your worldview. You are drawn to it with no hope of escape and the only way to find meaning in life with a materialistic worldview is to live with the cognitive dissonance of what you know to be true and your heart's yearning for purpose and love when neither exist in the absence of God and couldn't even be demonstrated to be objectively good even if they did. I came to all of these realisations when I was an atheist, not when i was a Christian, in the same way that I came to realise unguided biological evolution (which doesn't ignore natural selection, which is actually more accurately called differential reproduction, but simply means that there is no intelligent agent guiding it) couldn't possibly be true based on contemporary findings in biology. Before I found Christ, my old worldview fell apart. I used to believe that atheism was the only reasonable position regarding religion and that neo-Darwinian evolution was as much as fact as a theory.
I don't claim to be the cleverest person in the world. I know I am not. But I am brutally honest with myself and I don't believe things just because I am told. I study for myself. Somebody who is wise is wise for one's self.
Biblical literalism is a silly term because it suggests that somebody doesn't recognise the Bible is full of many different genres of writing. The 66 books of the Bible of course contain narrative, poetry, prophetic writings, parables etc. It would be silly to read every aspect of the Bible literally. Context is important for deciding which is which. I view Genesis as historically true but not a complete history of creation. It includes what is theologically relevant and is not a scientific manual. Do I believe in a physical Adam and Eve and an idyllic garden? Absolutely, yes. Do I know the process by which God created man, the earth and the heavens? No. As God says to Job in the book of Job: where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? I don't know how old the earth is. And yes, I've studied pretty much everything pertaining to evolutionary theory.
The problem is that you have as much belief in your worldview as I do in mine and you can't see that many lines of evidence are subject to interpretation. What I do know is that life could not exist without an intelligent agent to create it. The science does not allow for the trial and error scenarios neo-Darwinians hypothesise.
Herman, was something major going on in your life before you became religious?
Which is different from picking and chosing to suit your ends because....?
I could make an identical statement regarding your study of the sciences, based on the confirmation bias of your spiritual need for meaning in place of "spritual discernment."
This is basically just telling me you're religious precisely because you found your old world view nihilistic and uncomforting. None of this is proof of anything but the fact that you feel more comfortable believing in Christ, a comfort you turned to when your worldview fell apart. This is preceisely the point you were trying to refute, no?
I agree. Good for you. How did you honestly, and empirically come to the proof of the Bible, that wasn't simply found in another part of the Bible then? What outside sources, cross references, critical thought, historical, geological, astronomical knoweldge and evidence did you use to ascertain that this was complete truth? And literal truth at that.
Why? What other methods beyond "what the Bible says" have you used to discern this?
Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is) why does this lead to Christ? And not simply a more practical Deism or Pantheism?
Try and answer that without using the Bible as your source for the Bible.
Not particularly, no. Finding Christ was like waking up after a long dream.
Mockney, I do not believe in Christ because I simply couldn't believe in my old worldview anymore. There are numerous reasons why I believe in Christ.
The belief in the garden and Adam and Eve follows a belief in Christ. If Christ is trusted as the Son of God, then the scriptures he approved must also be true. Everything in Christianity rests on Christ. Not on my knowledge of the earth's history, in which case I'd know next to nothing, just like you.
Fair enough. Where does your belief in Christ come from then? What are these numerous reasons? Outside of the Bible.
Does this mean you deliberately disregard any evidence, scientific, historical or otherwise, that contradicts the Bible? Essentially, no other proof matters because this one singularity MUST be true?
It's like me asking where your belief in science comes from outside of science. Silly way of going about things.
No, I have not disregarded evidence, I have not been compelled by it to believe in the things many modern scientists believe in.
As I'm sure you know, science is a method for discerning truth, not one homogeneous doctrine. Science is not predicated on the idea that one thing is true and thus others can not be. It changes to adapt to new discoveries and it shows it's workings. Belief in science does come from outside of science, because science is the act of proving things; everything, not a cabal of shifty people in lab coats. Science is simply "Our current understanding of the Universe." To all intents and purposes, The Bible was science as per the 5th century.
If your belief in Jesus compells you to disgregard evidence to the contrary (X cannot be true if it disproves Y) then surely you are disregarding it? If there's nothing that can convince you otherwise, then your mind is forever closed to alternatives, however provable.
If your belief in Jesus compells you to disgregard evidence to the contrary (X cannot be true if it disproves Y) then surely you are disregarding it? If there's nothing that can convince you otherwise, then your mind is forever closed to alternatives, however provable.
Last edited:
I was once told by some Mormons that it was commendable that non-believers such as myself did good deeds (after all, why would we do this after not buying into the bribe of the afterlife?). I asked them whether they only did good things because of the potential reward. Their answer? No.
So why are you wasting your time on a footy message board? Shouldn't you be off ministering to heathens or something? Is it christian to want Man Utd to beat other teams and cause suffering to opposition fans? Is it christian to support a team involved in an industry filled with selfishness, envy and avarice as well as the worship of false idols?
The scientific method is part of science. It has philosophical underpinnings but let's not be pedantic. I never said science was a cabal of shifty people in lab coats. I quite like science but there is a difference between science and somebody's speculation.
Christ is my rock. My foundation. He's the truth so I don't see it the way you do, and that's why I said I don't find that I have to disregard evidence.
Grinner: what makes an internet forum insufficient for giving the gospel to somebody else? I have a very active church life with relationships inside and outside of the church. How do you know what I do and don't do when I am not posting on here? I am not going to list everything I do here. I also don't view it as ministering to heathens any more than I view it as giving the truth, light, hope and love to the lost. On football, so long as the main thing remains the main thing then it isn't a problem to support a football team. My identity is in Christ, not Manchester United. If it got in the way of God's calling for my life, I'd ditch the whole football thing. It's like me saying you don't value your family because you support a football team. I am quite sure you wouldn't prioritise football over your family (even though I am sure many do).
While I live in this world, I will be surrounded by all those things, Grinner. Should I not buy my weekly provision of food because the people who work in and own the supermarket are all those things? It doesn't make me of this world because I have to live in it.
Christ is my rock. My foundation. He's the truth so I don't see it the way you do, and that's why I said I don't find that I have to disregard evidence.
Grinner: what makes an internet forum insufficient for giving the gospel to somebody else? I have a very active church life with relationships inside and outside of the church. How do you know what I do and don't do when I am not posting on here? I am not going to list everything I do here. I also don't view it as ministering to heathens any more than I view it as giving the truth, light, hope and love to the lost. On football, so long as the main thing remains the main thing then it isn't a problem to support a football team. My identity is in Christ, not Manchester United. If it got in the way of God's calling for my life, I'd ditch the whole football thing. It's like me saying you don't value your family because you support a football team. I am quite sure you wouldn't prioritise football over your family (even though I am sure many do).
While I live in this world, I will be surrounded by all those things, Grinner. Should I not buy my weekly provision of food because the people who work in and own the supermarket are all those things? It doesn't make me of this world because I have to live in it.
But in some small way you are contributing to people sinning, aren't you?
I'm sure you're a lovely bloke and probably do more good than most folk so I'm really not trying to belittle you or anything. But if god and christ offer everything that you say they do, why do you need everything else in your life? Aren't they just satisfying the flesh?
I'm sure you're a lovely bloke and probably do more good than most folk so I'm really not trying to belittle you or anything. But if god and christ offer everything that you say they do, why do you need everything else in your life? Aren't they just satisfying the flesh?
Why though? What was your damascus moment? What made you decide the Bible was a trustable source? You claim it's erroneous to want outside confirmation of a text you already believe, but what led you to belive it in the first place? Did you just wake up one morning and think "well that's true"? Why specifically the Christian interpretation of the Abrahamic myth, rather than the more meticulous Jewish or less fantastical Islamic? What's the leap from "I don't think life could've come into existence by chance" to "Pernicious Iron Age obsessed, geographically biased God sent his son to earth to die horriblly just so he could backtrack on an earlier mistake"?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or at the very least extraordinary reasoning. Especially when you believe it so fundamentally you're willing to ignore anything that contradictis it as automatically false.
Well, the problem there is that somebody has to determine what extraordinary evidence actually is. It's just a way of justifying setting the bar as high as you want it.
I've said before what methods of historical investigation allow you to trust the Bible, but you aren't really interested in that. See, all of your epithets (which are just horrible misrepresentations) demonstrate that your problem is actually a heart one and not an intellectual one. You don't need more truth (you've had plenty of that), you need a love of the truth. The Bible is clear that people don't go to hell because they haven't heard the truth but because they do not love the truth. Given the way you characterise the different faiths demonstrates to me that you have a strong delusion that God has given you over to. In Isaiah 6:9-10 God says this to Isaiah: “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.’ Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed.” God is saying that he's going to sovereignly make sure that you cannot believe the truth because of your hardness of heart. It is for the same reason God spoke in parables, so that they would be light to those who believe, and confounding to those who won't believe.
John 5:38-40 says: “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life” If it is the scriptures that testify about Christ, how will you obtain that testimony if you refuse to entertain scripture in the first place? Again, you've set the bar for what you will and won't consider so that you can hide from the truth and you are evidence of what John 3:19-20 says: “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” This is why you hate Christianity primarily and single it out for ridicule. And because I diagnose what your problem really is and refuse to play along with your game according to your rules, you will no doubt metaphorically gnash your teeth and raise your fist at me.
God's grace is the difference between where I am and where you are and you stumble because of it, not because of your intellect.
My heart is fine thankyou. I'm a loving and emotionally fuliflled person. I slightly resent the implication I need what you need in order to make meaning, or indeed love, out of my life.
No I don't. I'm talking about it because I'm talking to you, who are a Christian. All religons think they're the most persecuted, because they only really see the world through the prism of their religion. And of course since it's true, ridicule of it is worth a thousand times the ridicule of a lesser, faker religion.
I can assure you I'm equally critical of all religions when they make bold and unsubstantiated claims. The threads are here to prove it. You make very bold claims because you're an evangelist. I ridicule in proportion to how ridiculous...Or, as you put it.
..
Your game is rigged. And because I refuse to play along accoring to your rules, rules which you only apply to one thing, and always lead to one conlcusion, you will no doubt comfort yourself in the knowledge that any credible points I may have don't actually apply. And look, here's some more quotes from that book that will always prove itself right.
Last edited:
@Herman Van Rompuy I hope you don't mind me asking you, are you a black person ? I have few black friends and they take this religion business very serious aswell.. Your views/believes reminds me of them, that's why I am asking the question.
And your game is rigged because of your starting assumptions.
Even though you compared Islam and Judaism favourably to Christianity in your previous post and continue to label it as pernicious, among other things, you don't hold a particular resentment for Christianity... Sure.
You won't even consider how those quotes might apply to you because you have a an inbuilt bias against receiving them. It's called a delusion as I pointed out before.
Yes it really is Herman because I don't need any insight into gods thinking. Let me put it this way. Whatever higher purpose god has created all the suffering in the world in order to achieve, being all powerful means he could have achieved exactly the same result without the suffering. So either he chose suffering without the need to, which means he isn't benign or he couldn't achieve his goal without all the suffering which means he isn't all powerful because he must have reached the limit of his power when he failed to manage his goal without the suffering.
It is simple inescapable logic.
Also I am sure that we do know there was no Adam and Eve, that human beings are not descended from just two people. New species are not created that way. In the Stone Age they didn't know that so when they made up all the stories they got a few wrong. That must be a bit disconcerting to people who live by its every word or may be god isn't infallible and gets stuff wrong about the future just like we do?
No, I am as pale as a whiteboard. The church I go to, which would be classified as white, middle class, takes it very seriously too. So at least 200 other white people taking it seriously.
My game applies the same rules to everything. Yours applies it only to one thing, and mine's the one with staring assumptions? You've already admitted you can't accept anything that contradicts Jesus. I, on the other hand, am very willing to accept anything that contradicts what I currently believe providing there's reasonable proof. Same game. Same rules.
Again, with regards to you. The context was that of a question asking why you wouldn't consider the positive comparative merits of the alternatives. There are many things, particularly about Islam, that I find more unconsionable than Christianity.
But your instinctive assumption wasn't paranoid or born of a persecution complex...Sure.
Do you not see the irony of this statement?
I thought we were supposed to be the arrogant ones? Stop doing our thing!