On Non-belief

[Tex]

The proof of my religion...is confirmed through logic.

No it's not. The OP makes a logical conclusion that God should reveal himself. This hasn't been refuted, therefore meaning you in actual fact worship an evil god or a non-existent god. Take your pick.

I have already demonstrated that God does reveal himself by the necessary means. There could hypothetically be more direct means in order to reveal, but they are unnecessary. If you don't want to actually evaluate my response with any other comment than "No idea where you're getting this pseudo-theology or why it should even be considered" (post #74) that's fine, but don't assume you are right in your assertion simply because you don't like my counter-argument.

I'm using infallible to speak of what it teaches. Ya, some numbers are definitely off and multiple variations of stories are sometimes told, but that which is to be derived from the text is "always correct".

But not all of what it teaches, either. I mean, you don't take what your god teaches about slavery to be at all true, nor his urging you to execute people for nonbelief.

Be honest: when you say "derived from the text," what you really mean is "the passages that I like and that aren't too politically incorrect," no?

I don't believe King Saul was 1 year old when he became king and reigned for 2 years. A scribe left out some numbers. I don't have to abstain from eating pork, types of birds, shellfish, animals killed improperly, or other things because I am not under Mosaic law. I will say that everything in Mosaic law is either good or neutral, and this includes the slavery laws, the laws concerning rape, death penalty, and others.

When I say "derived from the text", I mean exegesis rather than "the passages that I like and that aren't too politically incorrect" (which is eisegesis).

I have no problem with slavery. I do have a problem with racism and cruelty, however (which is actually condemned in the same book, fyi).

The proof of my religion begins in history and is confirmed through logic.

It is only confirmed by threads of logic which originate with the unfounded and never-demonstrated assumption that your religion is true and that your God exists.

Also, that is precisely what our Muslims say about the Qu'ran when we ask them.

I'm still not so convinced that you know what logic is, Ryan. I'm also pretty certain you use the word "assumption" way to much. We're assuming God in this thread. Really, we're only debating on salvation theory.

[Ryantology]

I'm still not so convinced that you know what logic is, Ryan. I'm also pretty certain you use the word "assumption" way to much. We're assuming God in this thread. Really, we're only debating on salvation theory.

You believe you can prove the existence of your invisible sky daddy (and, apparently, the rest of your religion's assertions--very ambitious!) through logic (though, not a single person has ever accomplished this without making at least one assertion they cannot demonstrate to be true). I'm not the one who misunderstands what logic is.

And, I'll stop using the word when you ever get around to doing anything except making them. Even if we are assuming God in this thread, you're only piling more assumptions on top of the initial one. State a fact about your religion or god one of these days and I'll alter my vocabulary accordingly. Until then, you get what you purchase.

I have no problem with slavery.

While I applaud you admitting that you're a sick piece of work and a member of an inhumane apocalypse cult, you can't Biblically justify slavery yet have a problem with rape or torture or mass murder, because God commands, permits and/or inflicts all of these things at various points in the Bible. Does God command men to do evil, or are rape and torture and mass murder 'no problem' when God says go do it? Be consistent.

[FallentoReason]

The greater the doubt, the more souls that roast in hell not by their own doing, but by God's shyness to reveal himself.

Nah, the doubt would be due to ourselves. It's not that there isn't proof out there, but we have to work for it.

No, because the less obvious Christianity is, the less amount of people that will believe in it.

Saying "we have to work for it" doesn't cut it for anyone who was unfortunate enough to never come across Christianity and its claims.

Everyone does have an equal chance at eternity. Not every has the same chance to know intricate details. Not everyone gets every opportunity ever, and to have the opportunity is completely unnecessary.

And the ones that never got an opportunity? They're in hell and they wouldn't have the slightest clue why.

The equal knowledge doesn't mean equal chance at eternity. Some people could (hypothetically) turn away if they knew more. Some could (hypothetically) turn toward if they knew more. Some people still wouldn't care. Equal disposition would make equal chance at eternity, and in fact, the large majority of Christians teach this. Original Sin means we were all born with an innate disposition against God. We can never fully undo this ourselves, but we can, with faith, "turn" (more commonly, "repent") during our life, and this is all that is needed.

We're talking knowledge about God's truths here... I fail to see how the more you get to know about it, the more you'll turn away. It's in everyone's interest to go to heaven.

Why should I put faith into a god that didn't bother making it clear it's the real god? That's the entire problem here... it isn't obvious that Christianity is true.

If the only reason they do them is because they have been told to, they aren't exercising their will and aren't participating in the Good (my little phrase). If they're doing the Good because it will bring them praise, they also get no credit. The only way to actually participate in the Good properly is to do it simply because it is Good. It's the same reason why you save a stranger drowning over saving a dog drowning. Both are terrible, but the reason you save the person isn't because they can give you stuff for saving them or they are pretty or something like that, but you save them because they are a person.

And this should be considered because I place it within the salvation theory, the subject of our conversation.

If I simply need to be "good" and not have to believe anything to go to heaven, then why does the Bible exist? Why did Jesus die a pointless death if it isn't necessary for anyone to believe he did it for humanity? You might as well be a Deist.

[fr0d0]

"Forget the dogma... if you do bad stuff do you expect justice not to apply to you?"

No. It most definitely applies to me.

Then welcome, fellow christian!

[CleanShavenJesus]

Backing is not required for salvation. But there is backing, and the backing is good to know.

The proof of my religion begins in history and is confirmed through logic.

The Quran is known to be incorrect both through skeptical (if not completely lacking) historicity and logical incoherency.

Well? Don't just claim it. Explain the "backing" and "logic" of your religion to me, and explain how the Quoran is known to be incorrect.

[Mister Agenda]

Premise 1 is a strawman and/or presuppositional fallacy.
"1) If God exists, he desires for us to know x is true, where x is the set of propositions we need to believe in so that we can be saved."

You claim knowledge of God's desires.
You claim the need for salvation.
You claim a set of "required" propositions.

There's a difference between a premise as used in logic and presupposition, which is a whole different can of worms.

So you don't agree with the premise, is what you're saying, in a very nasty way.

---

"Faith" is a relationship, the main component being trust. When a child chooses not to touch the stove, the kid has demonstrated faith in his parents.

Should the child's faith in his parents extend to believing them if they tell him he shouldn't touch the stove because at night it turns into a child-eating lion that will devour sleeping children who have touched it during the day?

Because the child of your example is only showing faith that his parents are truthful and that they are in a position to know if it's safe to touch the stove. I trust my Aunt Matilda, and I wouldn't touch a stove if she warned me against it. If she told me the man across the street is having an affair with an Italian countess, I might ask how she knows the woman is a countess. But if she told me there are four dogs playing poker in a special habitat on Venus, I'd worry about her mental health, because even if it were true, she would have no way of knowing it.

You're not just claiming a stove is hot, you're claiming to know the origin of the universe is a who, and to know what that who likes and wants. Even if it were actually true, I don't believe you're in a position to know it, and all you have to offer in support of your truthfulness is 'trust me'.

[FallentoReason]

No. It most definitely applies to me.

Then welcome, fellow christian!

Umm..

Forget the dogma...

What's a Christian? How do I play that game..?

That's right, you've got yourself a non-sequitur, and a rather simplistic one at that (which should be a little bit embarrasing!). Go back to the drawing board.

[Tex]

Should the child's faith in his parents extend to believing them if they tell him he shouldn't touch the stove because at night it turns into a child-eating lion that will devour sleeping children who have touched it during the day?

Because the child of your example is only showing faith that his parents are truthful and that they are in a position to know if it's safe to touch the stove. I trust my Aunt Matilda, and I wouldn't touch a stove if she warned me against it. If she told me the man across the street is having an affair with an Italian countess, I might ask how she knows the woman is a countess. But if she told me there are four dogs playing poker in a special habitat on Venus, I'd worry about her mental health, because even if it were true, she would have no way of knowing it.

You're not just claiming a stove is hot, you're claiming to know the origin of the universe is a who, and to know what that who likes and wants. Even if it were actually true, I don't believe you're in a position to know it, and all you have to offer in support of your truthfulness is 'trust me'.

Regardless what the parents say, the child can still place faith in them. Now, if the child investigates and realizes that a stove does not turn into a child-eating monster, the rationality wins, and the faith is no longer total. This doesn't make the parents completely untrustable, but a child may think so for a time. After maturing, the child probably understands that the parents were lying, but they really didn't want him to touch the stove. Even further down the line, he will laugh at himself for believing it in the first place. Then he'll probably tell his kids the same story at a similar age.

So, if God said, "don't do X or I'll make the ground swallow you", and then someone does X, and the ground doesn't swallow them, I would no longer trust God like I do. However, if everything God said had happened just as told, I have reason to place faith in him. Faith is not supposed to be unreasonable, and God himself uses his past actions to inspire trust.

Well? Don't just claim it. Explain the "backing" and "logic" of your religion to me, and explain how the Quoran is known to be incorrect.

That would take a book. However, I still have the impression that you like things short, so I'll try to keep it that way.

Backing - history of Jews starting in Egypt and continuing until Roman absorption + Jesus' fulfillment of various prophesies, sacrificial laws, and new covenant + extra biblical accounts verifying major historical events/people (Babylonian captivity, Hittites, Persia, Celsus, Tacitus, etc.)

Logic - starting in pagan Greece, logic continued into Christianity without issues. Hyliomorphic substance of Aristotle, monotheism, etc.. Aristotle later is revisited by Aquinas in the 13th century, only varying slightly from Aristotle's positions (in Aristotle, God is only concerned with his own perfection, no resurrection, etc.)

Quran - Writings start with Mohammed, claims made against Jews and Christians are unverifiable, and those that can be verified are proved wrong (we have Christian texts from before 600 AD that say the opposite of what Mohammed says they say). The book itself was revealed only to Mohammed rather than the entire city (compare with the plagues in Exodus). Logic is DCT morality and lack a trinity (necessary if God is to be perfect). To be honest, this is the ancient form of Mormonism.

No, because the less obvious Christianity is, the less amount of people that will believe in it.

Saying "we have to work for it" doesn't cut it for anyone who was unfortunate enough to never come across Christianity and its claims.

As I have already made very clear, you don't need to hear about Christianity's claims to be saved by Christ. An embryo can be saved. In fact, you can think Christianity is a lie and still be saved by Christ. Neither of these are "exceptions to the rule" either.

And the ones that never got an opportunity? They're in hell and they wouldn't have the slightest clue why.

Again, all have the opportunity and knowledge is not the opportunity.

We're talking knowledge about God's truths here... I fail to see how the more you get to know about it, the more you'll turn away. It's in everyone's interest to go to heaven.

Why should I put faith into a god that didn't bother making it clear it's the real god? That's the entire problem here... it isn't obvious that Christianity is true.

It's in everyone's interest to go to heaven, yes. However, "I want to go to heaven" does not mean "I love God". Many people follow the law in China. That doesn't mean they support the government. The whole "knowledge can possibly harm" thing actually applies to you. You don't trust Christianity because you must verify all of its claims. However none of those verifications actually save you. In fact, even if every claim by some denomination was sound, that doesn't mean that they are actually right! You can't start by examining the more complex scenarios first, you have to start at the root: is there a god? You've already answered yes, so next is "what is God like?"

If I simply need to be "good" and not have to believe anything to go to heaven, then why does the Bible exist? Why did Jesus die a pointless death if it isn't necessary for anyone to believe he did it for humanity? You might as well be a Deist.

Not "simply need to be 'good'", but need to revere the good. This reverence is the belief. The Bible exists to give us information we would not have otherwise, such as the redemption of sin to make up for our own moral faults or resurrection. Belief only saves because of what Jesus did, otherwise we would all have the same common fate: death.

And, I used to be Deist. It was brief, but I thought, "Why would God concern himself with us?" and then later, "Why would God create us in the first place if we weren't important?"

[FallentoReason]

No, because the less obvious Christianity is, the less amount of people that will believe in it.

Saying "we have to work for it" doesn't cut it for anyone who was unfortunate enough to never come across Christianity and its claims.

As I have already made very clear, you don't need to hear about Christianity's claims to be saved by Christ. An embryo can be saved. In fact, you can think Christianity is a lie and still be saved by Christ. Neither of these are "exceptions to the rule" either.

And why should I believe your version of Christianity over the countless others out there? If you talk to our resident Christian, Drich, he will tell you that at least one thing is necessary for salvation: "the faith of a mustard seed". Faith in what? Well, it's Christianity we're talking about so I can only assume he meant "faith that Jesus is the Son of God". He conceded that somewhere in this thread. Either way, why are you right and him wrong about the conditions (if any) for salvation?

And the ones that never got an opportunity? They're in hell and they wouldn't have the slightest clue why.

Again, all have the opportunity and knowledge is not the opportunity.

This is under the assumption that there are no conditions we have to satisfy to go to heaven, which is an unproven assertion so far.

It's in everyone's interest to go to heaven, yes. However, "I want to go to heaven" does not mean "I love God". Many people follow the law in China. That doesn't mean they support the government. The whole "knowledge can possibly harm" thing actually applies to you. You don't trust Christianity because you must verify all of its claims. However none of those verifications actually save you. In fact, even if every claim by some denomination was sound, that doesn't mean that they are actually right! You can't start by examining the more complex scenarios first, you have to start at the root: is there a god? You've already answered yes, so next is "what is God like?"

You're still committing a strawman... I didn't ever say that the knowledge that Christianity is true itself is what saves.

Why do I need to build up my knowledge from the ground? God has the power to give everyone this knowledge we all seek. He hasn't done it.

If I simply need to be "good" and not have to believe anything to go to heaven, then why does the Bible exist? Why did Jesus die a pointless death if it isn't necessary for anyone to believe he did it for humanity? You might as well be a Deist.

Not "simply need to be 'good'", but need to revere the good. This reverence is the belief. The Bible exists to give us information we would not have otherwise, such as the redemption of sin to make up for our own moral faults or resurrection. Belief only saves because of what Jesus did, otherwise we would all have the same common fate: death.

And how does a dirty sinner come to revere the good without first knowing they are a dirty sinner that is unable to revere the good?

And, I used to be Deist. It was brief, but I thought, "Why would God concern himself with us?" and then later, "Why would God create us in the first place if we weren't important?"

And of course, those two thoughts alone miraculously lead to not Hinduism, not Islam, not Zoroastrianism, but the only logical (and geographically relevant) religion of Christianity. It's kind of interesting how the circumstances are always so convenient that they lead you to the right religion your nation practices.

[Ryantology]

So, if God said, "don't do X or I'll make the ground swallow you", and then someone does X, and the ground doesn't swallow them, I would no longer trust God like I do.

No, what you do is interpret the non-ground swallowing as part of God's greater plan, or perhaps you will decide that when God says "don't do X or I'll make the ground swallow you", he really means that as a totally non-violent and very loving expression of his shame and sadness that you do not accept his love through your actions.