Questions for "Our Role(s) as Christians on Atheist Forums"

[WinterHold]

What is your view in Muslims? What do you think about them as Christians?

What do you want to know specifically? I have Muslim friends that I work with on my job. We all get along pretty well. We laugh and joke around together. We work together. No problems between us. Is that what you wanted to know, or did you have something else in mind?

No; I wanted to know in terms of faith.
As a Muslim, there are direct Quranic verses that teach that Christians who believe in the Trinity are considered "disbelievers" on terms of faith. Do Christians see Muslims as the same ? i.e disbelievers on terms of faith?

I wasn't asking about the "relationship with a Christian/ Non-believer"; because it's mentioned explicitly in the religion that it's very fine -and even an obligation on Muslims- to be good to those who are good with them; according to this verse from the Quran:

Sura 60, The Quran:
( 8 )   Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Being righteous towards a Christian -or even an atheist individual- who is at peace with me, is an obligation on me as Muslim.

Does the same exist in current day Christianity towards Muslims? That's my question.

[A Theist]

What do you want to know specifically? I have Muslim friends that I work with on my job. We all get along pretty well. We laugh and joke around together. We work together. No problems between us. Is that what you wanted to know, or did you have something else in mind?

No; I wanted to know in terms of faith.
As a Muslim, there are direct Quranic verses that teach that Christians who believe in the Trinity are considered "disbelievers" on terms of faith. Do Christians see Muslims as the same ? i.e disbelievers on terms of faith?

I wasn't asking about the "relationship with a Christian/ Non-believer"; because it's mentioned explicitly in the religion that it's very fine -and even an obligation on Muslims- to be good to those who are good with them; according to this verse from the Quran:

Sura 60, The Quran:
( 8 )   Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

Being righteous towards a Christian -or even an atheist individual- who is at peace with me, is an obligation on me as Muslim.

Does the same exist in current day Christianity towards Muslims? That's my question.

Here is the Christian view of Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God. He is God's regent and He is co equal with God. Jesus is the world's Messiah sent by God. No one comes to God except through Jesus Christ...

Acts 4:10-12, When brought before Annas  the High Priest and questioned by what power a lame man was healed and made to walk, Peter stood before the council and said,.... 

Acts 4:10-12  (KJV)
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

In the Gospel of John 14:6, Jesus Himself said...

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In the Apostle Paul's Epistles, He wrote...

1 Corinthians 3:11
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 
I Timothy 2:5-6

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all,

The Apostle John also wrote in I John 4:14-15

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

 
And in the Gospel of John, John 20:31

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I John 5:

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.....

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

The Gospel of John, John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

So, yes. The Bible has direct verses which show that Jesus is God's Son, sent to be the Saviour and to reconcile all who will to God. In the Christian faith there's no compromise with this. Jesus is the only way to God. All who reject that are disbelievers and will have their reward as disbelievers. Even someone like me, who professes belief in the faith, yet walks contrary to the faith of Christ they believe in, will also be counted among the disbelievers.

To answer your last question, yes. The Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the church in Rome that Christians, as much as possibly lies within them, should live in peace with all...

Romans 12:18-21
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Maybe newcomer CDF47 would be interested in participating in the 'Our Role as Christian' thread. I'd be interested in seeing what other theists think of his or her approach.

Was thinking the same thing. Anything to break up the echo chamber.

---

No one believes children are going to Hell. Let's stop with the straws.

No one here perhaps but some christians do believe it. I know my brother used to at some point after becoming a christian. But regardless it still raises the question of what the christians who don't believe children going to Hell think happens to them instead if they haven't had a chance to become christian.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't think anyone ultimately deserves anything be it good or bad.

But considering God knew that original sin was going to happen he condemned everyone knowingly anyway.

I mean, according to the Bible.

Nope. We condemn ourselves by our actions (free will and all). Apparently it is a greater good to have everyone live, enjoy each other, experiences and God's creation and ultimately some choose well and some choose poorly than no one exists at all.

Giving people the 'free will' to rape, torture and murder was a mistake.

And it's hardly free will when God knows what you're going to do... and my point was that God planned for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. God planned the fall. God knows all, right?

[SteveII]

Nope. We condemn ourselves by our actions (free will and all). Apparently it is a greater good to have everyone live, enjoy each other, experiences and God's creation and ultimately some choose well and some choose poorly than no one exists at all.

Giving people the 'free will' to rape, torture and murder was a mistake.

Then you are actually saying giving people free will was a mistake. The fact that you add negative actions we can choose is unnecessary. For example, your statement is logically equivalent to "Giving people 'free will' to love, appreciate each other, and make self-sacrificing decisions for their family was a mistake."

And it's hardly free will when God knows what you're going to do... and my point was that God planned for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. God planned the fall. God knows all, right?

'Knowing' and 'planning' are two very different things.

[Edwardo Piet]

Giving people the 'free will' to rape, torture and murder was a mistake.

Then you are actually saying giving people free will was a mistake. The fact that you add negative actions we can choose is unnecessary. For example, your statement is logically equivalent to "Giving people 'free will' to love, appreciate each other, and make self-sacrificing decisions for their family was a mistake."

It would be but free will makes no sense anyway. Perhaps—even less so with an omniscient being that knows the future.

Well, to be more accurate I think it equally makes no sense either way but even many barely intelligent people can see how an omnisicent being rules out free will... but not many people can see how it's ruled out anyway.

And uh yes duh... no free will to love and self-sacrifice and appreciate is an extremely small price to play if you also rule out rape, torture and murder.

Fuck freedom, freedom is nice and all, but better everyone to be 'forced' to be genuinely happy and healthy than to give some people the 'free will' to rape, torture, murder and enslave others.

That's the thing you see... because incompatabilist free will is incoherent the only kind of 'free will' that matters is allowing people to express themselves freely but not when they harm others.

And God is omnipotent, so who the hell says he could only give free will, of the logically possible compatabilist kind, for every action or no free at all? Is it beyond God's power to allow people to have the freedom to do neutral and helpful acts but no harmful acts (or at least not extremely immoral acts like rape and torture and murder etc).

'Knowing' and 'planning' are two very different things.

Not when it comes to a God that is responsible for all of his creations. He knows what the beings will do and he knows that he instilled them with the nature that made them do the things he knows they will do. He gave them the very nature that guarantees how he know they will betray him. If he didn't want to be betrayed he could have instead knowingly made beings that will definitely not betray him rather than beings that definitely will. He clearly did it all on purpose (or perhaps not because perhaps I am right that incompatabilist free will is so incoherent that even God himself can't have free will?).

[SteveII]

Then you are actually saying giving people free will was a mistake. The fact that you add negative actions we can choose is unnecessary. For example, your statement is logically equivalent to "Giving people 'free will' to love, appreciate each other, and make self-sacrificing decisions for their family was a mistake."

It would be but free will makes no sense anyway. Perhaps—even less so with an omniscient being that knows the future.

Well, to be more accurate I think it equally makes no sense either way but even many barely intelligent people can see how an omnisicent being rules out free will... but not many people can see how it's ruled out anyway.

No, omniscience does not rule out free will. You need to articulate how God comes to know the future. IMO, it is through a concept called "middle knowledge". That means that God can, without error, predict what a person will freely choose in any given circumstance--including counterfactuals. It is not that he has seen the future. There, the concept of free will endures. 

And uh yes duh... no free will to love and self-sacrifice and appreciate is an extremely small price to play if you also rule out rape, torture and murder.

Fuck freedom, freedom is nice and all, but better everyone to be 'forced' to be genuinely happy and healthy than to give some people the 'free will' to rape, torture, murder and enslave others.

You cannot be happy without free will. Happiness is dependent on contentment. Contentment is a choice. 

That's the thing you see... because incompatabilist free will is incoherent the only kind of 'free will' that matters is allowing people to express themselves freely but not when they harm others.

And God is omnipotent, so who the hell says he could only give free will, of the logically possible compatabilist kind, for every action or no free at all? Is it beyond God's power to allow people to have the freedom to do neutral and helpful acts but no harmful acts (or at least not extremely immoral acts like rape and torture and murder etc).

It is free will or not. There are no versions of freedom of choice--the concept is incoherent. Omnipotence does not mean can do things that are not logically possible. 

'Knowing' and 'planning' are two very different things.

Not when it comes to a God that is responsible for all of his creations. He knows what the beings will do and he knows that he instilled them with the nature that made them do the things he knows they will do. He gave them the very nature that guarantees how he know they will betray him. If he didn't want to be betrayed he could have instead knowingly made beings that will definitely not betray him rather than beings that definitely will. He clearly did it all on purpose (or perhaps not because perhaps I am right that incompatabilist free will is so incoherent that even God himself can't have free will?).

He gave us a nature that is free to choose. It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. No free will, none of these things.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's a question for the Christian debate thread:: Just as pantheists, according to Christians such as yourselves, are misusing the word "God" my merely mislabelling the natural universe as "God"... is the reverse also possible? i.e. Is it possible to fully know God but mistake him for and mislabel him as something else? In other words: If God is X is it possible to know X but not realize X is God? Thank you for your time.

---

No, omniscience does not rule out free will. You need to articulate how God comes to know the future. IMO, it is through a concept called "middle knowledge". That means that God can, without error, predict what a person will freely choose in any given circumstance--including counterfactuals. It is not that he has seen the future. There, the concept of free will endures. 

You seem to not understand.

If God knows you will do X then that means he knows you cannot not do X. A choice between X and X is not a choice. A choice between X and not X is a choice.

You cannot be happy without free will. Happiness is dependent on contentment. Contentment is a choice. 

I don't see how contentment has to be a free choice at all. The 'choices' we have still exist without free will. Meaning the apparent choices. I can still, behaviorally, 'choose' (or pick) between chocolate or vanilla ice cream but the point is that ultimately I have no mental freedom or way for my self to ultimately choose which flavor I pick...

Contentment may or may not be an apparent choice. But I don't see how it's actually an ultimate choice as it's ultimately determined by causes prior to one's self. (i.e. by God as if God exists then God is the uncaused cause that causes everything else).

It is free will or not. There are no versions of freedom of choice--the concept is incoherent. Omnipotence does not mean can do things that are not logically possible. 

Wait are you agreeing with me that the concept of free will is incoherent?

Exactly, free will is logically impossible therefore God himself cannot have it.

He gave us a nature that is free to choose.

Like our 'choice' to make red and white blood cells?

It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. No free will, none of these things.

That makes no sense to me. All those things still exist without free will. The very fact that God has a nature that he did not determine that determines our natures that we do not determine that determines every so-called 'free' action we take just shows that our actions are not freely determined.

[WinterHold]

No; I wanted to know in terms of faith.
As a Muslim, there are direct Quranic verses that teach that Christians who believe in the Trinity are considered "disbelievers" on terms of faith. Do Christians see Muslims as the same ? i.e disbelievers on terms of faith?

I wasn't asking about the "relationship with a Christian/ Non-believer"; because it's mentioned explicitly in the religion that it's very fine -and even an obligation on Muslims- to be good to those who are good with them; according to this verse from the Quran:


Being righteous towards a Christian -or even an atheist individual- who is at peace with me, is an obligation on me as Muslim.

Does the same exist in current day Christianity towards Muslims? That's my question.

Here is the Christian view of Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God. He is God's regent and He is co equal with God. Jesus is the world's Messiah sent by God. No one comes to God except through Jesus Christ...

Acts 4:10-12, When brought before Annas  the High Priest and questioned by what power a lame man was healed and made to walk, Peter stood before the council and said,.... 

Acts 4:10-12  (KJV)
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

In the Gospel of John 14:6, Jesus Himself said...

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In the Apostle Paul's Epistles, He wrote...

1 Corinthians 3:11
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 
I Timothy 2:5-6

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all,

The Apostle John also wrote in I John 4:14-15

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

 
And in the Gospel of John, John 20:31

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I John 5:

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.....

10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

The Gospel of John, John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

So, yes. The Bible has direct verses which show that Jesus is God's Son, sent to be the Saviour and to reconcile all who will to God. In the Christian faith there's no compromise with this. Jesus is the only way to God. All who reject that are disbelievers and will have their reward as disbelievers. Even someone like me, who professes belief in the faith, yet walks contrary to the faith of Christ they believe in, will also be counted among the disbelievers.

I'm familiar with the Christian view of Jesus; I wasn't asking about that.

To answer your last question, yes. The Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the church in Rome that Christians, as much as possibly lies within them, should live in peace with all...

Romans 12:18-21
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

But the Bible has very extreme verses that some quote Jesus himself of saying:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV
Matthew 10:34
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

I wanted an answer on this precise category of Biblical verses.

[SteveII]

Here's a question for the Christian debate thread:: Just as pantheists, according to Christians such as yourselves, are misusing the word "God" my merely mislabelling the natural universe as "God"... is the reverse also possible? i.e. Is it possible to fully know God but mistake him for and mislabel him as something else? In other words: If God is X is it possible to know X but not realize X is God? Thank you for your time.

---

No, omniscience does not rule out free will. You need to articulate how God comes to know the future. IMO, it is through a concept called "middle knowledge". That means that God can, without error, predict what a person will freely choose in any given circumstance--including counterfactuals. It is not that he has seen the future. There, the concept of free will endures. 

You seem to not understand.

If God knows you will do X then that means he knows you cannot not do X. A choice between X and X is not a choice. A choice between X and not X is a choice.

The first sentence is just wrong. It is never the case that "will do" is the same as "cannot not do". You are adding some unnecessary connection to the definition of omniscience or free will (I don't know which). 

Definition of Free Will: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of ourselves. 

Outside knowledge of how a person will choose does not negate the choice. 

You cannot be happy without free will. Happiness is dependent on contentment. Contentment is a choice. 

I don't see how contentment has to be a free choice at all. The 'choices' we have still exist without free will. Meaning the apparent choices. I can still, behaviorally, 'choose' (or pick) between chocolate or vanilla ice cream but the point is that ultimately I have no mental freedom or way for my self to ultimately choose which flavor I pick...

Compatibilist (which you seem to be) redefine free will into a meaningless phrase. 

Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition(s) of free will: incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that something ought not to be called "free will". Incompatibilists might accept the "freedom to act" as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of "free will". The incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires, or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.

Compatibilism is sometimes called soft determinism pejoratively (William James' term).[13] James accused them of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.[13] Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery".[14] Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature—the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists.[15] It is on this basis that Kant argues against a version of compatibilism in which, for instance, the actions of the criminal are comprehended as a blend of determining forces and free choice, which Kant regards as misusing the word "free". Kant proposes that taking the compatibilist view involves denying the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.[14] Ted Honderich explains his view that the mistake of compatibilism is to assert that nothing changes as a consequence of determinism, when clearly we have lost the life-hope of origination.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism#Criticism

 

Contentment may or may not be an apparent choice. But I don't see how it's actually an ultimate choice as it's ultimately determined by causes prior to one's self. (i.e. by God as if God exists then God is the uncaused cause that causes everything else).

It is free will or not. There are no versions of freedom of choice--the concept is incoherent. Omnipotence does not mean can do things that are not logically possible. 

Wait are you agreeing with me that the concept of free will is incoherent? 

Exactly, free will is logically impossible therefore God himself cannot have it.

No, that is not what I said. Either someone is free to choose or one is not. You cannot have a version that only allows a certain set of choices (as you were proposing). That ceases to be free will. 

He gave us a nature that is free to choose.

It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. No free will, none of these things.

That makes no sense to me. All those things still exist without free will. The very fact that God has a nature that he did not determine that determines our natures that we do not determine that determines every so-called 'free' action we take just shows that our actions are not freely determined.

Again, compatibilism relies on a "quagmire of evasion".