The Gospel of Jesus Christ

[Dre89]

Oh yeah that reminds me, if the Early Church and the Bible are divinely inspired, then why do Protestants need to remove something like 10-12 books from it? That certainly doesn't sound like the way to treat something that is divinely inspired?

 

[Battlecow]

That reasoning fits but with one slight ... issue. The New Testament is where the deviation comes into play between Jews and Catholics.

Protestants are an offshoot of the New Testament teachings.

Also, the New Testament is prefaced with an admission that the Old Testament is legit, and should be studied. It doesn't decry anything outright, it just says that it happened, it's important, and here's the rest of "the greatest story ever told." So basically you have Jews (Old T) Catholics (Old + New) and Protestants (Old + New - whatever they don't like). The most complete picture, therefore, is the Catholic rendition, as you get both Old and New, and nothing removed for convenience sake.

That's not to say that the Catholics did not prune their doctrine, there are records of plenty of Books that never made it into the Bible (that the Vatican still is in possession of), but that's a whole other discussion.

So you can add on "AND THEN ALL THIS OTHER STUFF HAPPENED" but we can't add on "AND THEN THE CHURCH GOT CORRUPTED AND THE PROTESTANTS REVERTED TO A PURER SYSTEM OF BELIEF"?

Nope. You're fighting a losing battle here.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Oh yeah that reminds me, if the Early Church and the Bible are divinely inspired, then why do Protestants need to remove something like 10-12 books from it? That certainly doesn't sound like the way to treat something that is divinely inspired?

Dre, not everyone that claims to be a Christian and divinely inspired actually falls under that heading, so you take it on a book by book basis. The Bible isn't so much an authoritative list of books as a list of authoritative books. For example, a music equivalent would be having a list of great composers: Bach, Mozart, etc. It's not being included in the Bible that made the books trustworthy, it's because the books were trustworthy that they were included in the Bible.

 

[Dre89]

That's just word games.

You're claiming that the Early Church is an authority, because you side with their Scripture over Catholic Tradition, yet then decide some of their books should be removed.

Also, how can one with a Scripture exlcusive interpretation choose which pieces of Scripture to keep or omit? Seems a bit circular doesn't it.

Also, back to the idea of salvation being achieved through faith alone. The Catholic explanation of evil is that it is a consequence of free will. The explanation for fw is that God wanted us to choose to love Him, because making the choice, as opposed to being forced to love Him made it a good deed, and deeds are necessary for salvation.

However, in a faith- exclusive interpretation, why doesn't God just make everyone believe in Him without choice? What's the consequence? You lose the choice? God doesn't require good deeds for salvation, He simply requires faith.

So how do you explain that a good God has not chosen to give everyone salvation by making them all inherently believe in Him, when your own theology dictates that this comes at no consequence?

 

[Sucumbio]

So you can add on "AND THEN ALL THIS OTHER STUFF HAPPENED" but we can't add on "AND THEN THE CHURCH GOT CORRUPTED AND THE PROTESTANTS REVERTED TO A PURER SYSTEM OF BELIEF"?

Well okay, let's back up a step...

There are three big ones from the Protestant Reformation period: Lutherans, Calvinists, and The Church of England.

Luther was the first, really. He discovered that the Pope was fathering children, which was problem one, two he wasn't married to these women, and thirdly he had a big problem with "indulgences" where one could essentially save their soul or the souls of loved ones by paying money. Make no mistake! JESUS would have had a problem with this too!

Calvin had similar problems with Rome, but didn't like the way in which Luther was proposing change, thinking him too conservative, so me made his own church.

Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope refused, and so he made his own church. He was a strong Catholic, in terms of doctrine, but did not agree that the Pope should be so powerful, and so he reformed the Anglo-Saxons under his own Church so as to adopt Catholic traditions, but to be different in several ways. Men of the English Clergy can marry, for instance. Divorce is not grounds for ex-communication. Etc.

SO here we are 700 years later. A person is new to Christianity and wants to learn all they can. What do they do? Do they go to an Episcopal Church? A Lutheran Church? Maybe a Baptist church (they're main separation from the pack is that you should have reached the age of reason before being baptized, not as an infant). Whichever you choose, you're bound to learn all the key bible bed-time stories, but what if you're like me and want more? It is in my humble opinion that by learning from the Catholics, not only will you learn the basics, but you're more apt to learn the full breadth of traditions (which mostly hold over into Protestant sects, but not as many as the Catholics hold) and without the omissions/changes.

Not to mention crazies like the Mormons, who basically owe their existence to some dude who just happened to "find" a "new book" and went with it. No tradition, no scripture, no council, no independent verification, just... his good word.

So to summarize, it's not about what's more pure. It's about total knowledge. No matter how you do your math or judge the teachers, the Catholics have the longest and most accurate tradition and interpretations of scripture, and of Christian history. The Protestants are late-comers to the game, in comparison, and their religions, though good in their own ways, are for lack of a better word, incomplete versions. So again if I'm to learn everything I can, I'm going to the source... and yes, the source includes the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

...how can one with a Scripture exlcusive interpretation choose which pieces of Scripture to keep or omit? Seems a bit circular doesn't it.

In general books of the bible were omitted due to their inability to be verified as real, accurate, or otherwise important to the "total picture." The canonical gospels, matthew mark luke and john, are of course the most important accounts. But Acts is important because it clearly cites names/places/events that took place soon after Christ's death, including the early church.

As to why Protestants exclude things, well they don't really. What Protestants often due is use an addendum text during service, which has quotes from important parts of the Bible, both Testaments and at the front half, and Hymns at the latter half. The difficulty isn't exactly in the re-wording or omission of Biblical verses. It's in the changing of traditions, such that one Protestant faith's service may seem completely foreign to the member of another, and yet again to a Catholic. CoE (Church of England) and Catholic masses are almost identical. But whereas the Catholics believe in transubstantiation, the CoE does not. The CoE does not pray the Hail Mary. The CoE allows its clergy to marry. The CoE allows for marriage annulment and divorce. These are stark differences. However, both baptize at infancy, whereas the Baptists tend to wait until early adulthood. The list is frightfully long, as there are so many off-shoot religions. This is why I continue to support the idea that Catholic tradition and teaching is the best place -to start- in order to gain as much knowledge and experience in Christianity, Christian teaching, and actual practice.

Also, back to the idea of salvation being achieved through faith alone. The Catholic explanation of evil is that it is a consequence of free will. The explanation for fw is that God wanted us to choose to love Him, because making the choice, as opposed to being forced to love Him made it a good deed, and deeds are necessary for salvation.

Not quite. Evil is the temptation, and Free Will is what allows humans to make the wrong choice. Also, it's not that us choosing to love God is a good deed on our part. God made us able to choose, because his first sentient creation - angels - did not have this built-in. Angels were created to serve, and automatically love him, and God decided that this was a hollow creation. He wanted a creation that would choose to love him, because then it would actually mean something (I've used the analogy before, but it's like having to remind someone to wish you a Happy Birthday, it means so little versus if someone remembers without you having to remind them). And this how one arrives at we choose God (get saved), and live by The Word (good deeds/acts), and it's all good in the hood, and you can rest in Heaven.

 

[Dre89]

But the point is in Protestant theology there is no need for free will, because God doesn't care why you believe, or how you act, just that you believe. In Cath theology the reason why God saves believers is because it is a good deed, that's why contemporary Caths believe that anyone who does good deeds will be saved.

In Protestant theology, there is no consequence to God forcing us all to believe in Him. And if you're going to say it needed to be a choice, then that's because it's a good deed, and then it makes no sense to say God cares about no other good deeds.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I find it interesting how many people are arguing logically about something meant to be taken on faith, not logic or reasoning... Just sayin'. I'm under the impression that the logic train left the station about when you start taking either testament of the bible seriously.

 

[Sucumbio]

But the point is in Protestant theology there is no need for free will, because God doesn't care why you believe, or how you act, just that you believe. In Cath theology the reason why God saves believers is because it is a good deed, that's why contemporary Caths believe that anyone who does good deeds will be saved.

In Protestant theology, there is no consequence to God forcing us all to believe in Him. And if you're going to say it needed to be a choice, then that's because it's a good deed, and then it makes no sense to say God cares about no other good deeds.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at these conclusions? I was raised Protestant and never once was I taught that "God doesn't care why you believe, or how you act, just that you believe." Can you clarify for me how you've gotten this, or at least which Protestant religion you are thinking of when you say this?

Of course you'll get confused if you believe this... it -doesn't- make any sense to you, lol. But if you were wrong (which I'm not saying you necessarily are, just that I've never heard of it) then perhaps the reason for Free Will would make sense to you.

Oh, and to clarify another point, Catholics often struggle with the idea of Acts vs Faith, but it is widely accepted that you need both to be a good Christian, and there is evidence for this in scripture. I do not know how you've arrived at the conclusion that Catholics believe their part ends with good deeds, because it's not true. You can't even call yourself Catholic officially without believing in the Holy Trinity, so... ? Again I would ask that you clarify for me how you've arrived at this conclusion, or what Catholic source told you this/that you read.

I find it interesting how many people are arguing logically about something meant to be taken on faith, not logic or reasoning... Just sayin'. I'm under the impression that the logic train left the station about when you start taking either testament of the bible seriously.

Well only some parts of Christianity are faith-based. And if you were to deconstruct any number of theological debates you'd find that as with -any- debate, logic is still in play. And taking the Bible seriously isn't a departure from logic necessarily, but it is an admission of one's self that you have decided to adopt the teachings of 2000 year-old fisherman. Good choice? Eh, not for everyone.

 

[Battlecow]

I find it interesting how many people are arguing logically about something meant to be taken on faith, not logic or reasoning... Just sayin'. I'm under the impression that the logic train left the station about when you start taking either testament of the bible seriously.

No, I agree, but it's ridiculous to say that Catholicism > Protestantism from an atheist perspective. I'm fine with Sucumbio now that I know he's a Catholic because he's supposed to ignore all logic, but Dre is pissing me off.

 

[Dre89]

I find it interesting how many people are arguing logically about something meant to be taken on faith, not logic or reasoning... Just sayin'. I'm under the impression that the logic train left the station about when you start taking either testament of the bible seriously.

It's not meant to be taken on blind, epistemically unjustified and irrational faith, it's just that uneducated religous people do that, and uneducated atheists think that's the only way people believe in religion.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's not meant to be taken on blind, epistemically unjustified and irrational faith, it's just that uneducated religous people do that, and uneducated atheists think that's the only way people believe in religion.

Funny thing, I actually saw this video just this morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DETWZ8aKKI0

Oh look, not only many, many christians, including some of the most influential members and apologists, but also THE BIBLE, believe that it is to be taken on blind, epistemically unjustified and irrational faith.

 

[Crimson King]

SO here we are 700 years later. A person is new to Christianity and wants to learn all they can. What do they do? Do they go to an Episcopal Church? A Lutheran Church? Maybe a Baptist church (they're main separation from the pack is that you should have reached the age of reason before being baptized, not as an infant). Whichever you choose, you're bound to learn all the key bible bed-time stories, but what if you're like me and want more? It is in my humble opinion that by learning from the Catholics, not only will you learn the basics, but you're more apt to learn the full breadth of traditions (which mostly hold over into Protestant sects, but not as many as the Catholics hold) and without the omissions/changes.

Not to mention crazies like the Mormons, who basically owe their existence to some dude who just happened to "find" a "new book" and went with it. No tradition, no scripture, no council, no independent verification, just... his good word.

Before you blast the Mormons as crazy, you should probably note that Catholics believe in some really crazy stuff like that bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of their messiah every single mass. Also, Catholic dogma says that saints are capable of not decaying.

 

[Dre89]

Funny thing, I actually saw this video just this morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DETWZ8aKKI0

Oh look, not only many, many christians, including some of the most influential members and apologists, but also THE BIBLE, believe that it is to be taken on blind, epistemically unjustified and irrational faith.

Many apologists didn't accept it on blind faith either. Besides, the point of an apologist isn't to epistemically justify their own faith, that's impossible once you have a conclusions before your premises. The job of an apologist is to provide rational premises and epistemic justification to others.

As for the Bible, you're taking the modern Protestant view by treating it as the ultimate authority. To me, what you said is only a problem if you're a Scripture exclusive Protestant. It's not an issue for a Catholic, because epistemically, the reason why a Catholic believes the Bible is because the Church, which they believe is divinely inspired, tells them to. So as long as they have epistemic justification for believing that the Holy Spirit is in the Church, they're fine.

CK- Those claims sound absurd out of context. Most of the claims are not irrational, just non-rational, and if you're epistemically justified in believing the theology that makes those claims, it's not that absurd. Epistemic justification for belief in the theology is a different story altogether though.

Also, are you sure they said every saint doesn't decay? I know there's supposed to be an undecayed body of a saint on public display somwhere, so I always thought they may only be referring to specific bodies.

Also, Catholicism is completely different to the Mormon religion. Catholicism actually seeks to epistemically justify its faith, Mormons don't. I know someone who was temporarily involved with them and they rejected his attempts to rationalise and epistemically justify the doctrine. That's why you never see any Mormon apologetics. Plus you have the distinction that the original Church was Catholic (whether it has now deviated or not) , whereas the Mormon interpretation is a product of the advent of scientific thinking.

 

[Battlecow]

The craziness scale: An objective measuring tool researched by battlecow

1. Not crazy

Rastafarians

2. A little crazy

Atheists

3. Not that crazy, but kind of obnoxious

Agnostics

4. Somewhat crazy

Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans

5. Average craziness

Baptists

6. Quite crazy

Non-denominational christians, Muslims

7. Very crazy

Zoroastrians (seriously, **** those guys)

8. Bat**** insane

Catholics

9. The Joker meets Kurtz

Mormons, Heaven's gate cultists

10. There are no words

Scientologists

 

[Dre89]

Dayam... that was a lot of effort to put into a joke that wasn't that funny, or an argument that wasn't that good. But A for effort anyway, you're attempts to retain your image of being an eccentric figure are amusing.



If we're going to be technical (don't worry BC I understand this is a new concept to you) your 'research' is flawed in that you don't acknowledge the distinction between the metaphysical and epistemic credibility of the vary positions. Some who is an atheist simply because a religious kid picked on them at school is crazier than a Protestant who believes they've had multiple religious experiences.


By the way, what's a Rastafarian?

 

[Battlecow]

I put like five minutes of effort into that

The protestant kid would be crazier because having hallucinations counts as crazy.

Google it @ Rastafarians.

 

[Crimson King]

Many apologists didn't accept it on blind faith either. Besides, the point of an apologist isn't to epistemically justify their own faith, that's impossible once you have a conclusions before your premises. The job of an apologist is to provide rational premises and epistemic justification to others.

As for the Bible, you're taking the modern Protestant view by treating it as the ultimate authority. To me, what you said is only a problem if you're a Scripture exclusive Protestant. It's not an issue for a Catholic, because epistemically, the reason why a Catholic believes the Bible is because the Church, which they believe is divinely inspired, tells them to. So as long as they have epistemic justification for believing that the Holy Spirit is in the Church, they're fine.

CK- Those claims sound absurd out of context. Most of the claims are not irrational, just non-rational, and if you're epistemically justified in believing the theology that makes those claims, it's not that absurd. Epistemic justification for belief in the theology is a different story altogether though.

Also, are you sure they said every saint doesn't decay? I know there's supposed to be an undecayed body of a saint on public display somwhere, so I always thought they may only be referring to specific bodies.

Also, Catholicism is completely different to the Mormon religion. Catholicism actually seeks to epistemically justify its faith, Mormons don't. I know someone who was temporarily involved with them and they rejected his attempts to rationalise and epistemically justify the doctrine. That's why you never see any Mormon apologetics. Plus you have the distinction that the original Church was Catholic (whether it has now deviated or not) , whereas the Mormon interpretation is a product of the advent of scientific thinking.

That's my point. He was looking at their religion out of context. I mean, you can see Catholicism having loads of bad things (look up the popes who had kids), but in the context, it is bad just not as hypocritical. It's simply at time period.

I think they are called incorruptibles. Wiki says there are 99 claimed cases.

 

[Dre89]

The other thing too that people don't seem aware of when they mention Church corruption is that the Church never said it was incorruptible. Even the Pope can sin in his personal life, but he's supposed to be infallbile in the Faith and Morals doctrine, which apparently hasn't changed since the Church's beginning, although to be honest I'm not sure what the Faith and Morals doctrine is.

 

[Sucumbio]

Before you blast the Mormons as crazy, you should probably note that Catholics believe in some really crazy stuff like that bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of their messiah every single mass. Also, Catholic dogma says that saints are capable of not decaying.

Well to be fair, I'll agree that to a 3rd party who believes in neither, they could both be considered insane. But my intention was to point out that Catholicism has a lot more background and fundamental proofs. Mormons are more akin to a cult than a proper religion. At least Protestants can say they originated with Catholicism, but Mormons, well, they originated with this guy who claims an angel told him to go dig up a box from a hill near his house and which contained some golden plates with symbols on them that he transcribed into the Book of Mormon.

Unlike Jesus and crew, there were no witnesses to this event. So basically, he could have made the whole thing up and no one would know. At least even the Jews acknowledge Jesus was real, and was a man of God, just not his Son, or the Messiah.

 

[Battlecow]

Jesus is just as much a historical figure as Joseph Smith. No one with any sense doubts that he existed.

^^I run into a lot of people who are surprised at this.

 

[Dre89]

Jesus is just as much a historical figure as Joseph Smith. No one with any sense doubts that he existed.


^^I run into a lot of people who are surprised at this.

Richard Carrier, a renown Biblical historian, doubts that Jesus existed. His arguments are quite interesting actually, you can see them in his debate with William Lane Craig on Youtube.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, the historicity of Jesus is still very much up in the air.

 

[Dre89]

From what I understand though, he's an outlier. For example Bart Ehrman, who is probably the top contemporary Biblical scholar, went into the profession 25 years ago as a believer and has since become a skeptic, still believes Jesus existed as a historical figure.

 

[Battlecow]

Wikipedia says that "A very small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing, not even the very existence of Jesus, can be determined from them."

So there are 2 or 3 professors at hipster colleges so butthurt at religion in general that they're willing to go there. Unsurprising.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Indeed, I'm pretty sure that there are more biologists that disbelieve in evolution then there are historians that doubt Jesus existed.

Does anyone have an argument against the gospels and the other evidence I've past presented outside of "The disciples and the rest of the early church were lying/insane/didn't exist!"? Because it often seems that in debating the historical backing of the new testament, the opposition basically goes "I don't care, that's still not enough evidence" regardless of what I put forwards.

 

[Dre89]

How about the argument that the theology makes no sense?

God is good and loving but-

Made us imperfect, and now thinks we all deserve Hell because we were made this way.

Is happy to punish an entire race for the mistakes of two people.

Thinks that eternal suffering of an entire race is a fair punishment for two people rejecting him.

If a human did any of these things, good or loving is the last thing we'd call them.


Also, it makes no sense that God gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose Him seeing as God basically blackmailed them. Their options were either choose Him, or have their entire race condemmned to eternal suffering. That's coersion. When someone uses coersion, their intention to minimise the probability that the chooser chooses the undesired option. The blackmailer would just force them to pick one option without choice if they could, but they can't, so they try to push them as far as they can towards one decision.

If God truly wanted love and proper choice, the options would have been completely neutral or even in terms of reward and punishment. If I ask a girl to marry me, and threaten to condemn her entire race to eternal suffering if she rejects me, not only is that an incredibly malicious act on my behalf, but if she chooses me, it's most likely not out of love, but because she was basically forced into choosing me to save her race.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

How about the argument that the theology makes no sense?

God is good and loving but-

Made us imperfect, and now thinks we all deserve Hell because we were made this way.

According to the Bible, God made us perfect. We only deserve hell because we are sinful.

Is happy to punish an entire race for the mistakes of two people.

Evidence he is happy doing this?

Thinks that eternal suffering of an entire race is a fair punishment for two people rejecting him.

Because we are sinful, we reject him. The sin is inherited from Adam and Eve to us.

Also, it makes no sense that God gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose Him seeing as God basically blackmailed them. Their options were either choose Him, or have their entire race condemmned to eternal suffering. That's coersion. When someone uses coersion, their intention to minimise the probability that the chooser chooses the undesired option. The blackmailer would just force them to pick one option without choice if they could, but they can't, so they try to push them as far as they can towards one decision.

So he gave humans free will. It was Adam and Eve's decision to eat of the fruit or not. God specifically warned them that if they did, they would surely die. He was not blackmailing them - he was warning them.

And if you think about it, Adam and Eve wanted to be like him, which is why they ate the fruit in the first place. Not following God which result in death, which isn't what Adam and Eve wanted. So how is that coersion? It wasn't against their will.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Also, it makes no sense that God gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose Him seeing as God basically blackmailed them. Their options were either choose Him, or have their entire race condemmned to eternal suffering. That's coersion. When someone uses coersion, their intention to minimise the probability that the chooser chooses the undesired option. The blackmailer would just force them to pick one option without choice if they could, but they can't, so they try to push them as far as they can towards one decision.

You realize that by that logic every parent blackmails their children into obedience? I mean seriously, God basically said "You can do anything EXCEPT this, if you do bad things will happen". That's like a parent telling their child "Go ahead and have fun, just don't do X."

Also, I'm highly amused that nobody's presented a historical argument as to why we should doubt the evidence. (i.e.: Motive for the early church to lie under intense persecution, why on earth the church's enemies didn't blow the whole thing up as they'd have known if Jesus didn't exist, etc.) The only arguments I've really seen on those grounds are supposed "contradictions", which are arguable, and always minor.

On that note, inerrancy is a protective doctrine, not a central one. That is to say, even if I were to concede all the supposed contradictions atheists come up with, that would hardly affect the reliability of the Gospels. Think about it, if four different people saw an event and then wrote down details about it years later, would you really expect them to agree on every single detail? Of course not. (On the other hand, if they'd made it up together, their accounts probably WOULD agree on every single detail.) Arguing that such minor contradictions discredit the gospels is like saying "These two witnesses to that bombing disagree on the time, one said 9:13, the other said 9:15. Obviously they're both lying and made the whole thing up."

 

[Dre89]

The parent analogy actually works in my favour. Parents don't give kids total freedom, they tell them how to act. God wanted them to love Him our of total freedom.

If A and E were perfect how could they sin? When we say God is perfect, we mean He can do no wrong. So now you're using two different definitions.

How do I know He's happy to condemn an entire race to eternal suffering because two people rejected Him? Because he was threatening to do it, and the choice not to, seeing as he's omnipotent.

The fact he's threatening such an outrageous punishment for rejection shows the motivation in the decision wasn't love.

If someone is trying to push someone that much towards one decision, most of these people would have forced them to pick it without a choice if they had the power. God did though, so it makes no sense.

Nic- Soz but that's completely wrong. Supposing that the Gospels are reliable that only means the message being true is probable not absolute. If someone shows that the religion cannot logically exist, that is absolute, which overrides probability.

Someone who has a motive for a murder, and the same type of weapon as the murderer won't get arrested if video footage of someone else committing the murder surfaces.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

The parent analogy actually works in my favour. Parents don't give kids total freedom, they tell them how to act. God wanted them to love Him our of total freedom.

If A and E were perfect how could they sin? When we say God is perfect, we mean He can do no wrong. So now you're using two different definitions.

We say God is perfect because he has done no wrong.
Adam and Eve were given free will, just like the angels before the fall into sin. Jesus was perfect, too. He could have chosen to sin, but he didn't.

How do I know He's happy to condemn an entire race to eternal suffering because two people rejected Him? Because he was threatening to do it, and the choice not to, seeing as he's omnipotent.

So because he threatened to do it made him happy to do it? No. And I still fail to see how it was a threat in the first place anyways.

The fact he's threatening such an outrageous punishment for rejection shows the motivation in the decision wasn't love.

It wasn't a threat - it was a warning. If someone told you that you would die by falling of the building, they are warning you, not threatening you.

If someone is trying to push someone that much towards one decision, most of these people would have forced them to pick it without a choice if they had the power. God did though, so it makes no sense.

Could you possibly rephrase this?

And congratz typing all this out on your phone, lol.

 

[Orboknown]

We say God is perfect because he has done no wrong.
Adam and Eve were given free will, just like the angels before the fall into sin. Jesus was perfect, too. He could have chosen to sin, but he didn't.

Jesus is also God,via the churches own doctrine. The divine impossibility of his doing wrong would kind of overwhelm the human possibility of sin.

So because he threatened to do it made him happy to do it? No. And I still fail to see how it was a threat in the first place anyways.

You are right that it wasnt a threat. God is omnipotent;He would know itwould be done
before it was done.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Jesus is also God,via the churches own doctrine. The divine impossibility of his doing wrong would kind of overwhelm the human possibility of sin.


You are right that it wasnt a threat. God is omnipotent;He would know itwould be done
before it was done.

Surprised no one else commented on this for a long while. Thank you. I will write an appropriate response later.

 

[Orboknown]

You are quite welcome.(I was tired of no one posting in the PGs lol.)
I await the response.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Christianity... such an easy target, everything I see is a massive target. But being so obvious and typical is no fun, I'll say something a bit new. Here is a small challenge for believers:

If God is outside of time, and even mentions time directly throughout his book on multiple occasions (even mentioning he can stop time by grabbing the Sun and stilling its cycle, which is quite ludicrous) if this is all to be assumed true then there is one thing I must ask...

Prove the existence of time. One, two, three, go!



Also, I find it hard to refrain, God and Jesus are not sinless. There are countless situations in each Testament that show BOTH of them doing immoral things. Would you like a long list of examples? Surely you don't actually think they are perfect? I, Holder of the Heel, exceed both this "God" and Jesus in moral prowess. It is no contest. I wouldn't even affiliate with two humans with parallel moral codes of Jesus and the Christian God.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how the time argument works at all. The idea is that he created time, so he can act in it if he wants, without being governed by it like us, or being a 'tensed' being.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Proving time doesn't prove God, but without time, God does not exist. Then he wouldn't have anything to be outside of, obviously. He also wouldn't have made it, and he wouldn't reference it as anything more than a measurement of movement. You're kind of missing the point, it isn't a puzzle.

Edit: What does indeed make this confusing is that there isn't entirely a way to disprove time exists. My personal opinion of course disbelieves in it being anything other than movement in the sense of causation (in the universe there are things that move, and to move you must leave your original position in whatever manner you moved, therefore you used to be at one point and then a next, so there are multiple chronological points, and thus we have "time") and then we have simply created hours, minutes, and so on using our measurements of solar movement. Occam's Razor may be applied if that works, considering that it seems entirely reasonable to me that time as some sort of essence that was created rather than just being movement seems absolutely unnecessary, strange, groundless, among other things. Not to mention there is no scientific proof of time, it really seems to earn that saying that it is simply an illusion (though that sounds too much like idealism for me). Time lacks all proof, isn't needed, and most importantly, lacks method for discovery. It is as difficult as finding God himself, though even harder to justify, for it is incredibly difficult to think that time as some sort of force is necessary, whereas some people think it is actually logical that there must be a God, such as yourself, but that is beside the point.

Basically, my two points are that (1) if something is not needed, impossible to prove, and seemingly denies all knowledge of science altogether does not exist, and if that is too much of a stretch, it is simply incredibly less probable, and (2) that if one believes in the Christian God, one must necessarily believe time exists beyond simple movement unless you intend to be inconsistent.

 

[Orboknown]

Also, I find it hard to refrain, God and Jesus are not sinless. There are countless situations in each Testament that show BOTH of them doing immoral things. Would you like a long list of examples? Surely you don't actually think they are perfect? I, Holder of the Heel, exceed both this "God" and Jesus in moral prowess. It is no contest. I wouldn't even affiliate with two humans with parallel moral codes of Jesus and the Christian God.

The thing is,they do things considered immoral by us,yet they are justifiable because they work as a fulfillment of the divine plan that works around actions by humanity. EX-the Israelites sinned, thus god sent the Assyrians against them.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The thing is,they do things considered immoral by us,yet they are justifiable because they work as a fulfillment of the divine plan that works around actions by humanity. EX-the Israelites sinned, thus god sent the Assyrians against them.

99% of it is superfluous to any coherent plan, and oddly enough an all-powerful God wouldn't need step-by-step sacrifices to fulfill some goal. Sending bears to kill kids, punishing the son of father's who have sinned, "flogging" slaves, lying and using deceit against people (I have read online a list of times where God lied to his followers), and not to mention the countless deaths in the Old Testament. I don't even think the Old Testament had any prophecy fulfilling, that was the New I think, but regardless it has no sense and is not justifiable under any circumstances.

 

[Orboknown]

God has his divine plan, and he being omnipotent knows when and how we F*** that plan up, so he introduces another method by which we are steered back toward tha path.
Most christians if not all believe the old testament is prophetic in that jesus was the fulfillment of many if not all of the prophetic books of the old testament.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

God has his divine plan, and he being omnipotent knows when and how we F*** that plan up, so he introduces another method by which we are steered back toward tha path.
Most christians if not all believe the old testament is prophetic in that jesus was the fulfillment of many if not all of the prophetic books of the old testament.

This is making me think that there shouldn't be a Christian debate in the Proving Grounds, that absolutely makes no sense at all. Him being omnipotent would not have made it happen, could have introduced a better method of fixing it, or could have reversed "time" and tried it again if he was too moronic to prevent it. And oddly enough, 99% held no benefit for anything. It was just offensive, nothing else.

Another thing to bring light upon is what you mean by this "divine plan", like how when Christians see some sort of crisis and attribute some sort of divine purpose to it all (all of it would be offensive to me as it was to others if I didn't know any better) like natural disasters or certain famous people dying. Everything is predestined and towards on ultimate goal and fulfilling it, so here is one thing that confuses me: why do we pray for strength or things to happen then? If something bad happens, it was planned. If you are to be sad from it, that was planned, wouldn't a suspension of that be a suspension of the divine plan? So which is it, is everything purposeful or does God attribute purpose to nothing or few things and allows suspensions for people who pray (according to the Bible, obviously prayer has never done anything for anyone).