An intelligent Christian

[MrMan]

Contrarian Expat,

Fry was arguing against a concept of God that is rather popular, one you might even hear in some churches, both liberal side in the spectrum and more conservative but seeker-sensitive type churches. It is the idea that God is 'all nice.' Some theologians present God as a series of 'omnis'-- all this and all that.

God in the Bible ordered the Israelites to wipe out certain people-groups, certain cities. He brought plagues down on Egypt. God is a just God who judges individuals and people-groups, not a God who never harms anyone. He's arguing against a straw man idea that assumes that it is God's role and responsibility to ensure that there is no suffering the world. When God made a covenant with Israel, disobedience would lead to a number of things, some of which involved their children suffering.

Have I figured out why there is bone cancer in children? No. That's an issue to wrestle with? But is it a logical argument against the existence of God? Not in the least? It falls more in the area of an appeal to emotion than an appeal to logic. Now, it might be a logical argument against some of the things he's heard about the nature of God from different clergymen or other individuals. But it isn't a logical argument against the existence of God as presented in the Bible.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Contrarian Expat,

Fry was arguing against a concept of God that is rather popular, one you might even hear in some churches, both liberal side in the spectrum and more conservative but seeker-sensitive type churches. It is the idea that God is 'all nice.' Some theologians present God as a series of 'omnis'-- all this and all that.

God in the Bible ordered the Israelites to wipe out certain people-groups, certain cities. He brought plagues down on Egypt. God is a just God who judges individuals and people-groups, not a God who never harms anyone. He's arguing against a straw man idea that assumes that it is God's role and responsibility to ensure that there is no suffering the world. When God made a covenant with Israel, disobedience would lead to a number of things, some of which involved their children suffering.

Have I figured out why there is bone cancer in children? No. That's an issue to wrestle with? But is it a logical argument against the existence of God? Not in the least? It falls more in the area of an appeal to emotion than an appeal to logic. Now, it might be a logical argument against some of the things he's heard about the nature of God from different clergymen or other individuals. But it isn't a logical argument against the existence of God as presented in the Bible.

This thread, and my contributions to it were criticisms of RELIGION, not an argument against the existence of God. That is an entirely different discussion.

Granted, in one of my posts, I used the arguments of the atheist Fry to buttress my criticism of religion in general. He did a masterful job dismantling the legitimacy the monotheistic god of the Abramic religions. His argument was equally valid against Christian, Islamic, and Jewish gods.

Fry himself left open the possibly that god could indeed exist but that he STILL would not want to partake in worshiping such a god of a vile nature.

So again, this thread is about criticizing RELIGION, and Christianity in particular. As such, using the Bible, the Koran, or any other "holy book" for evidence is like looking for evidence in a collection of fairy tales.

Religious faiths, all under the guise of righteousness, all serve evil and dangerous agendas and ends. Moreover, religion and intellect are mutually exclusive since the rules and beliefs of religion set up "thought restrictions." That was my position before this thread was started, and it is my position now.

Freethought based on rationality, reason, and EVIDENCE is preferable to religious thought borne of dogma and outdated purposes. For example, I eat pork. For that anti-Jewish and anti-Islamic practice, I am a sinner and deserve eternal damnation.

So be it, but I will still have bacon with my omelette this morning and I will be no less "moral" than those who reject pork because their religion says so.

Is there a role for religion? Certainly, for the masses of people unable to govern themselves, religion serves as a means for them to be governed with moral guidance and structure. Not everyone needs that of course and they should discard the influence of religion out of their lives as if it were an infectious disease.

[Adama]

Hardly worth it to argue with someone who hates God. Either a person wants to believe in Christ or they don't. There is no logical explanation that can get through to them. That is not for lack of logic but a lack of willingness to believe on the part of the unbeliever. And you might recognize that many unbelievers are incapable of believing and therefore can't be saved. Slandering God and ascribing to Him evil qualities shows proof that someone hates God and is in deep trouble.

The sins of the parents can be visited upon their children for up to four generations for everyone that hates God.

If C_E wants to remain an unbeliever, that is fine by me. I won't try to force him to believe in Christ. He is too busy rejecting Christ.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Hardly worth it to argue with someone who hates God. Either a person wants to believe in Christ or they don't. There is no logical explanation that can get through to them. That is not for lack of logic but a lack of willingness to believe on the part of the unbeliever. And you might recognize that many unbelievers are incapable of believing and therefore can't be saved. Slandering God and ascribing to Him evil qualities shows proof that someone hates God and is in deep trouble.

The sins of the parents can be visited upon their children for up to four generations for everyone that hates God.

If C_E wants to remain an unbeliever, that is fine by me. I won't try to force him to believe in Christ. He is too busy rejecting Christ.

Now you are resorting to Straw Man fallacies as an argument. Your ten commandments state that "Thou shalt now lie." Your straw manning just broke that commandment so YOU are "in trouble."

You also are claiming that because religion succeeded in brainwashing you by fear of consequences, all of those who succeeded in resisting the brainwashing are somehow in deep trouble. Really?

I feel deeply sorry for anyone who labors in life under such coercive and untrue premises.

[Adama]

Hardly worth it to argue with someone who hates God. Either a person wants to believe in Christ or they don't. There is no logical explanation that can get through to them. That is not for lack of logic but a lack of willingness to believe on the part of the unbeliever. And you might recognize that many unbelievers are incapable of believing and therefore can't be saved. Slandering God and ascribing to Him evil qualities shows proof that someone hates God and is in deep trouble.

The sins of the parents can be visited upon their children for up to four generations for everyone that hates God.

If C_E wants to remain an unbeliever, that is fine by me. I won't try to force him to believe in Christ. He is too busy rejecting Christ.

Now you are resorting to Straw Man fallacies as an argument. Your ten commandments state that "Thou shalt now lie." Your straw manning just broke that commandment so YOU are "in trouble."

You also are claiming that because religion succeeded in brainwashing you by fear of consequences, all of those who succeeded in resisting the brainwashing are somehow in deep trouble. Really?

I feel deeply sorry for anyone who labors in life under such coercive and untrue premises.

Hi, Contrarian Expatriate. I didn't get saved because I feared hell. For some people that is necessary though. I got saved because I heard the gospel and I believed it. That's all it takes. Salvation doesn't come by the law. So even if I had lied, my sins would still be covered, because salvation is by faith alone.

Anyone who can believe can be saved, whether or not they feared hell.

Now after salvation that's when it is important to keep the commandments. Because the penalty for sin is death. So if the person isn't going to hell, that means this present life may be taken early through premature death, and all kinds of strange diseases can be sent as punishment for breaking the commandments. But the soul will always remain preserved once we believe in Jesus Christ.

For the unsaved who sin the penalty is hell. For the saved who sin the penalty is disease and premature death, but not hell.

The reality of hell never occurred to me until after I believed in Christ. That's when you realize He is true.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Hardly worth it to argue with someone who hates God. Either a person wants to believe in Christ or they don't. There is no logical explanation that can get through to them. That is not for lack of logic but a lack of willingness to believe on the part of the unbeliever. And you might recognize that many unbelievers are incapable of believing and therefore can't be saved. Slandering God and ascribing to Him evil qualities shows proof that someone hates God and is in deep trouble.

The sins of the parents can be visited upon their children for up to four generations for everyone that hates God.

If C_E wants to remain an unbeliever, that is fine by me. I won't try to force him to believe in Christ. He is too busy rejecting Christ.

Now you are resorting to Straw Man fallacies as an argument. Your ten commandments state that "Thou shalt now lie." Your straw manning just broke that commandment so YOU are "in trouble."

You also are claiming that because religion succeeded in brainwashing you by fear of consequences, all of those who succeeded in resisting the brainwashing are somehow in deep trouble. Really?

I feel deeply sorry for anyone who labors in life under such coercive and untrue premises.

Hi, Contrarian Expatriate. I didn't get saved because I feared hell. For some people that is necessary though. I got saved because I heard the gospel and I believed it. That's all it takes. Salvation doesn't come by the law. So even if I had lied, my sins would still be covered, because salvation is by faith alone.

Anyone who can believe can be saved, whether or not they feared hell.

Now after salvation that's when it is important to keep the commandments. Because the penalty for sin is death. So if the person isn't going to hell, that means this present life may be taken early through premature death, and all kinds of strange diseases can be sent as punishment for breaking the commandments. But the soul will always remain preserved once we believe in Jesus Christ.

For the unsaved who sin the penalty is hell. For the saved who sin the penalty is disease and premature death, but not hell.

The reality of hell never occurred to me until after I believed in Christ. That's when you realize He is true.

Given the ridiculousness of such views, I have to say that the Jewish faith, and perhaps even the Islamic faith, is less toxic and detrimental to people's sense of reason than Christianity. What you have indicated above is essentially a rundown of dogmatic programming designed to suspend your free will and scare you into submission. It seems to have worked particularly well in defeating you I must say.

If there was any wonder why more people leave Christianity each year (especially among well-educated populations), your above posts removed it all.

[Adama]

Once a person gets saved, that is once they believe in Christ and realize that salvation is a free gift which can't be lost, that person is sealed with the Holy Ghost until the Day of Redemption. That means that even if they leave Christianity, Christ never leaves them. He indwells them with His Spirit, the Holy Ghost, and that is forever. There is no true leaving Christianity.

Now, there are many Christians who are essentially unbelievers because they don't believe in Christ for salvation but rather trust in themselves and in their own works of repentance for salvation. These do not have the Holy Ghost, and therefore coming and going of these people can't be termed leaving, seeing as they never joined the household of God, neither did they ever become children of God by faith in Christ. They are merely people going through the "practice" of Christianity.

So yes, when an unbelieving Christian who practices Christianity leaves, they may consider it departing from the faith, but really they were never part of it whatsoever. They were just practitioners of the law, and no flesh is justified by the law but by faith alone.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Once a person gets saved, that is once they believe in Christ and realize that salvation is a free gift which can't be lost, that person is sealed with the Holy Ghost until the Day of Redemption. That means that even if they leave Christianity, Christ never leaves them. He indwells them with His Spirit, the Holy Ghost, and that is forever. There is no true leaving Christianity.

Now, there are many Christians who are essentially unbelievers because they don't believe in Christ for salvation but rather trust in themselves and in their own works of repentance for salvation. These do not have the Holy Ghost, and therefore coming and going of these people can't be termed leaving, seeing as they never joined the household of God, neither did they ever become children of God by faith in Christ. They are merely people going through the "practice" of Christianity.

So yes, when an unbelieving Christian who practices Christianity leaves, they may consider it departing from the faith, but really they were never part of it whatsoever. They were just practitioners of the law, and no flesh is justified by the law but by faith alone.

This thread was to discuss an intelligent Christian. Given the dogmatic, mumbo-jumbo programming of the above, I find it hard to believe that intelligence and Christianity are compatible concepts. In fact, after reading your brainwashed "rationalizations" on this thread, I have an even lower view of Christianity than before.

So if readers of this thread feel the need to incorporate religion into their lives, I would discourage them from partaking in any form of Christianity. More cerebral faiths such as Buddhism, Judaism grant greater respect the individual and leave more room for personal growth than this toxic brew that is the Christian "faith."

Better yet, seek your truth via the study of secular philosophy without the interference and life/spiritual insight will come to you even faster.

[Zambales]

Religion is just another of the divide and conquer ploys.

[Adama]

It just has no meaning for you. In Christianity, all the glory for our salvation goes to Christ. In Buddhism, the glory goes to the person (the practitioner), through karma (which is nothing more than keeping of law, but not God's laws).

Give all the glory to Christ for salvation by believing in Him by faith alone, not your own works, and He imputes His righteousness onto us freely. But if a person believes that he can save himself, he will only condemn himself, by giving himself the glory and not Christ. Christ is God and He died for our sins. Therefore He is deserving of all the glory for salvation. He actually did the work completely and is the only one capable of living sinless.

[fschmidt]

This thread reminds me of my neighbors' dogs barking at each other.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

It just has no meaning for you. In Christianity, all the glory for our salvation goes to Christ. In Buddhism, the glory goes to the person (the practitioner), through karma (which is nothing more than keeping of law, but not God's laws).

Give all the glory to Christ for salvation by believing in Him by faith alone, not your own works, and He imputes His righteousness onto us freely. But if a person believes that he can save himself, he will only condemn himself, by giving himself the glory and not Christ. Christ is God and He died for our sins. Therefore He is deserving of all the glory for salvation. He actually did the work completely and is the only one capable of living sinless.

Your every post proves my previous posts ever so nicely

Brainwashed!

[Adama]

Everyone believes in something. Some people believe in spontaneous creation of life through evolution. Others believe in other creation stories. It is just a matter of what a person chooses to believe. I was never brainwashed with anything. I simply accepted the free gift of salvation (entry into heaven) by believing that Jesus died for my sins and paid ALL of the price, making salvation by faith alone. I have accepted the free gift.

You have rejected the free gift from Christ simply for believing in Him.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Everyone believes in something. Some people believe in spontaneous creation of life through evolution. Others believe in other creation stories.

And some people believe in cherubs, angels and unicorns playing amongst us on rainbows in the celestial realm. That does not make it true.

But I am not trying to convince you of anything. If you want to keep believing the fairy tales you've been brainwashed to believe, it is your right to do so. You'd be wrong, but it is absolutely your right......

[Adama]

Everyone believes in something. Some people believe in spontaneous creation of life through evolution. Others believe in other creation stories.

And some people believe in cherubs, angels and unicorns playing amongst us by rainbows in the celestial realm. That does not make it true.

That's quite correct. Everyone believes in something. It is just a matter of where they choose to place their faith. Some place their faith in Christ. Others put their faith in science and evolution or aliens.

But I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Thank you, and likewise.