Fifty Questions That Christians Can't Answer

[Darwinian]

What? Holding yourself accountable for your own actions and decisions is a bad thing? Where do you live?

But it's not that simple is it? Let's for the moment assume that Christianity is in fact true.

Now, the only way that we can avoid hell and all it's torment is to accept Christ as our savior and be good Christians. This is a system that God has personally put in place. He could have done anything but he didn't, he chose to employ this.

Now this would be fine if it was obvious that God actually existed and this is what he had in mind for his creation then we could all make an informed decision. But this isn't how it is though is it.

He chose to hide this from everyone, get rid of any evidence that this is what he wanted. If he so loves us and wants us to make the right decision, why create such an absurd method for us to be saved?

I mean this is important stuff, it's the difference between an eternity of paradise and an eternity of torment. And the criteria that God uses to determine this is whether you happen to accept Christ as your savior! What about all those people who are born to families of different religions or those to none? Surely they are at a serious disadvantage? And why, if this is all true, is there absolutely no evidence that Christianity is true or even has an air of verisimilitude about it?

What kind of loving and caring God would create such a strange and unlikely system to determine your ultimate fate?

Holding yourself accountable for your own actions is one thing but when those actions include not adhering to a particular religion that has no basis in fact or supporting evidence and it's rejection is based simply on logic, common sense, parental conditioning and/or personal choice with no malicious motives whatsoever and the rejection of this particular ideology could lead you to an eternity of torture and torment and it's acceptance the opposite then even you must see how nonsensical it is. And incredibly unfair and irrational!

[Watson]

But it's not that simple is it?

Ah, but it is. We follow our feet in this world, that's all. If you want someone to blame other than yourself for your own actions, then blame your feet.

Let's for the moment assume that Christianity is in fact true.

Now, the only way that we can avoid hell and all it's torment is to accept Christ as our savior and be good Christians.

Something tells me you and I have vastly different opinions on what being 'good Christians' means...but go on and explain what you think of as a good Christian. In Christianity, to be a good Christian is to be Christ-like.

This is a system that God has personally put in place. He could have done anything but he didn't, he chose to employ this.

Yes. He did choose to make us personally accountable for our own actions. It's not a matter of believing simply in the Christian God, it's a matter of beliving in yourself.

Now this would be fine if it was obvious that God actually existed and this is what he had in mind for his creation then we could all make an informed decision. But this isn't how it is though is it.

Well, to someone who does believe, it's very simply obvious that He exists. There is evidence everywhere, literally everything is evidence in a simple, comprehendable way to that person. It's something too personal for anyone else to call the shots. Even God.

He chose to hide this from everyone, get rid of any evidence that this is what he wanted. If he so loves us and wants us to make the right decision, why create such an absurd method for us to be saved?

He is not hiding, He merely exists on a plain seperate from our own,in a way seperate from physical or bilogical. As I've said in the past, as He is a part of all things, you only understand Him by taking in everything for what it is. He doesn't just love us, He is love. Understand love, you will understand Him.

I mean this is important stuff, it's the difference between an eternity of paradise and an eternity of torment. And the criteria that God uses to determine this is whether you happen to accept Christ as your savior! What about all those people who are born to families of different religions or those to none? Surely they are at a serious disadvantage? And why, if this is all true, is there absolutely no evidence that Christianity is true or even has an air of verisimilitude about it?

It's not to do whether your accept Christ as your savior or not.

What kind of loving and caring God would create such a strange and unlikely system to determine your ultimate fate?

It's pretty simple, actually. Love is simple, and so is Love's system. You are the only one making your decisions, so you are therefore the only one personally accountable for them. Ever heard the terms 'living Hell' or 'Heaven on Earth'?

Holding yourself accountable for your own actions is one thing but when those actions include not adhering to a particular religion that has no basis in fact or supporting evidence and it's rejection is based simply on logic, common sense, parental conditioning and/or personal choice with no malicious motives whatsoever and the rejection of this particular ideology could lead you to an eternity of torture and torment and it's acceptance the opposite then even you must see how nonsensical it is. And incredibly unfair and irrational!

Again, it has nothing to do with accepting the Christian God as real or Christ as one's savior. It has everything to do with trusting in your own decisions, believing in yourself, believing that there is a connection between you and all of this world, and finding that connection to be God. Notice, I did not say Christian God...God is self-evident.

[Darwinian]

I have a feeling that many Christians would disagree with you.

[Watson]

Haha, their fault, not mine. Don't hold me accountable for anyone's actions or decisions but my own. That's preposterous.

It is human nature to disagree and misinterpret.

[tavarish]

I got that it was a joke, it just wasn't very funny, dude.

Jesus chuckled, so should you.

You can't demonstrate anything to me that I can't refute you for saying without belief. I think George Orwell put it best:
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside yur skull"
Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be proven to be true outside of your own perception of it, unless you believe and trust in it's existence as an external reality.

Oh boy. Do you understand that there is such a thing as a truth statement being objective? Something which is true regardless of subjective perception? Do you also understand that for something to be real, it has to be falsifiable and have evidence for its existence? 1+1=2 isn't just true because I believe it to be, it's built on logical concepts which prove to be themselves true through objectivity. There's is no such thing as subjective truth or "It's true for me". It's either true or it isn't.

You don't need belief to understand something, you require knowledge. When that knowledge is reflected demonstrably in reality, you don't need to believe in anything to apply these concepts.

Shit happens to an atheist= explains it as a series of coincidences.
Shit happens to a believer= a higher power with a goal in mind took a guiding role in that shit that just happened.
It's really very simple, tavarish. You're describing the same reality I am, but as I said, at least I believe in reality. You have to have it proven to you. It must be so easy to only accept what can be handed to you on a silver platter and not believe in anything outside of that platter because it's too 'hard'.

You believe in reality. What exactly does that mean? I'd argue that you don't have a working understanding of what reality is, as you allow many superstitions to operate, then take those concepts and claim them as objective.

Doubt is the most powerful, progressive force mankind has ever possessed. If having a standard of evidence for separating fact from fantasy is a bad thing, then so be it. At least I'm not left wondering if we're making enough blood sacrifices to the sun god so we can have rain this season. The use of the scientific method and peer review allows for anyone to test claims for their validity. The only thing being delivered on a silver platter is your faith. It can't be refuted or disproven and backtracks constantly to somehow include God in mankind's modern discoveries. I'd rather not believe in something that can be refuted with no evidence, not to mention portrays me as a filthy being in need of redemption from birth.

I don't take anything scientific as gospel, as there can be developments in the future that explain certain concepts more fully and accurately (with objective evidence). What I do understand is that science has provided us, and continues to provide us with the best working examples of what reality is.

Where...the universe originated? I don't understand, there's apparently a specific place where the universe originated? Oh, that must be another one of your 'jokes.' What I'm suggesting is that the universe has a goal, and that that goal is accomplished with a God in existence. That's my claim. I'm sure you don't know or comprehend that goal, either. You reject it, afterall.

The goal of the universe is what exactly? Was the universe fine tuned for our existence? I reject the notion that a God exists. Any goal thereafter is also rejected, as there is no evidence for either concept.

No, you're just trying to explain away something which can be proven to the strong of faith and which, if believed in, evidences itself everywhere.

Imagine that these are finger:
I I I I
How many am I holding up, tavarish? I'll give you a hint: The Party says five. Good luck.

I can say the same thing with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. She can be proven to only the strongest believers, and after that point, the evidence for her existence is overwhelming. She is in everything and everyone. She is transcendent and the creator of our universe.

No, the point I was getting across was about what you said pertaining to 'the key I used to close up my mind is old and rusty by now." Remember your own words, tavarish, I'm not going to remember them for you.

And I said that I don't care if you had a sex change, it doesn't make your point any more valid. Being an atheist doesn't make you a free thinker by default, nor does it give you any extra understanding of the world. The fact that you still decided to subscribe to religion and insist that the universe has a goal drives home the point. You have absolutely no independently verifiable evidence for this claim, therein lies my rejection of such a claim. I don't need faith to understand the world around me.

[Alex]

Just by you stating that "Hindusim and Buddhism are "NOT" Neo-Pagan beliefs, you have lost all creditability of anything you comment on, on these forums.....

Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccan, etc. are amongst the "MANY" that are defined as "Neo-Pagan"....For fuck sake, Buddhism and Hinduism are like the poster child for the term...."New" "Pagan"..... Just look it up, call someone, ...lol...

*sigh*

Hinduism and Buddhism are in no way Neo-Pagan. Do you know what "neo" means? Are Hinduism and Buddhism "neo"? An example of Neo-Paganism would be Asatru (the worship of Norse deities), because it is a pagan religion that essentially died and there are some attempts at a revival, hence "neo".

[fr0d0]

I have a feeling that many Christians would disagree with you.

Just to say I find his take to be correct with what I understand mainstream Christianity to be.

[Autumnlicious]

I have a feeling that many Christians would disagree with you.

Just to say I find his take to be correct with what I understand mainstream Christianity to be.

There is about as much of a mainstream of Christianity as there is a coherent, monolithic mainstream interpretation of Islam.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Jesus chuckled, so should you.

Just so.

It has long me appalled that so many Christians seem oblivious of the probability that Jesus had a really spiffo sense of humour. That given his humble upbringing and that most of his disciples were as common as muck,that he almost certainly had a quite vulgar sense of humour----telling and enjoying fart jokes for example.


I base my supposition on the knowledge that Jesus' dad Hughie* has a refined if a little dark, sense of humour. A glance at The Torah soon reveals just how witty the old man can be,and how fond he is of practical jokes. (EG Abraham and Job)

*Yes,his name is Hughie. Jesus' middle name is for his dad. Surely you've heard the expression 'Jesus H Christ?' I learned that fact in the army. Aussie soldiers are on first name terms with the Almighty,and can become quite rude in times of personal inconvenience. (monsoon rain filing one's boots and soaking one's groin, that kind of thing);

[tavarish]

Wrong. Jesus' middle name was Hoobastank. True story.

I have actually convinced people of this.