Christians don&#39;t read their Bible

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.09.2020 10:15PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.

Topic's author

#92

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.09.2020 10:55PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.

There are some people who were indoctrinated to believe God is an angry deity who they have to measure up to. Many of these believers left that view when they decided to find out about God by themselves. And just the further study of scripture reveals that God is not the tyrant that even some believers make him out to be.

#93

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.10.2020 12:06AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

It is a great question.

Funny, I wonder how many people say they have read shakespeare? Gee I studied Hamlet at school - spent an entire year in year 12 - ended up getting a High Distinction on it. Then at Uni I studied it again - again with very high marks. But you know what? I could not tell you much about it now - save and except it has some wonderful lines in it - and seemed to be about a man trying to figure out whether he should kill himself or not. I cant tell you anything else about it. But I read it - I studied it several times and knew it at the time enough to obtain a very high score - proving to my teacher and lecturers that I knew it. And I could say this with confidence about most books I read. Have I read them? Surely I have.

Is the bible a book that most Christians have read? I would say yes. Even the ones who probably only got dunked with water as a kid and never have darkened the halls of the church building again. But the better question is - do they study it? And this is probably where things start to diverge.

Most - if not all Christians - and most others who are not Christians including Atheists and believers in other religions - probably read it as I mentioned in the first paragraph - but then there are others who do read - and constantly read and study it - I suspect persons such as Brother D and Steven fall into this category. Yet Christians don't generally study it in order to refute it. Christians study it in order to apply it to their lives. And there is a significant difference here.

What is your purpose for reading the Bible? Now Brother D and others do not actually read the Bible in the same way as I do or most Christians do. They don't have a clue about this type of reading. They are reading - to satisfy their intellectual selves - they want to be able to refute and define and demonstrate that the bible is not infallible or it contradicts itself or that the god within its pages is a monster. That is there intent and so that is what they always find. They are simply feeding their own beast. So when they find verses which prove their case - they throw them at Christians - who are reading it a completely different way and try to bamboozle them. And sometimes it works - although mostly it just pushes the Christian to understand the bible deeper in order to see how it applies to their lives.

The question of slavery and genocide are a couple of these things. I never even think about NOT reading these verses. For me - they are difficult to read and understand and apply when I live in a culture which finds these things reprehensible and evil. Yet, I am not reading the bible to prove it wrong. I am reading the bible to see how God wants me to live and to apply it to my life. I try and understand what the verses mean it its original context - and try and figure out how they were meant to apply it to their lives in that context - and try and understand the basic principles that are being enunciated - and then try and apply those principles to my life - if they are relevant to me.

Obviously it has to be relevant - for instance the 6th commandment - says do not murder. I can apply that to my life. I don't murder people. Yet, I know the bible says a lot about murder - and has explanations of what murder is - and of defenses to it. It describes murder as taking another human life without permission or authority. It describes what life is for us to understand - when it begins and when it ends. The Bible also provides pictures of people who have murdered others - and the punishments they ought to be given. Are there times when killing is necessary? For instance in war, in protecting one's own life or property, or the one's you love? Do governments have authority have authority to kill persons for particular crimes? But what is the essence of murder? Why is it wrong? The Bible seems to indicate that murder is wrong primarily because man has been made in the image of God - and that to strike down a man is essentially an attempt to strike down God. And even this gives us pause for thought - as we try and apply it our lives. It explains for instance what Jesus was on about in Matthew in his sermon on the mount message about murder and linking it to hitting people or even to calling them names. When you kill or hit or assault or call others evil names then you are attacking the very image of God. And God values his reputation and his own honor even if we don't. The substance of the law - or as I call it the principle begins to make sense.

Laws about slavery - in the OT and even in the NT are obviously not so relevant in a world where slavery is apparently outlawed. Yet the principles remain and can be applied to lots of things - employment law, bank mortgages, property laws.

The Christian however does not open the bible and say - this is what happened then - so this is how we live today. Christians tend to use a thing called hermenuitics - a method of understanding the bible. People who think come to the bible to refute it - don't use well known hermenuitics. They just read it however they like - and cherry pick things - often accusing others of doing the same thing. They read it from the lens of their own culture - and then try and reduce the entire history of the world and the bible to a standard that is impossible. Which is one reason why they fail so miserably when trying to convince Christians of their views. They miss the whole entire point.

When people's agendas for reading the bible are at cross -purposes - it stands to reason that one person is going to accuse the other person of not reading the bible. Yet it is mostly untrue - I make a habit of reading the NT twice every year and the OT once. I have been doing this for close on 40 years. Yet I still find things - often actually see things I had not seen before or which have become highlighted for me. what I can say is that - the bible has never disgusted me - it has never turned me off God - and only ever makes me realise how grateful I am that God has saved me.

Topic's author

#94

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.10.2020 12:40AM

-->

@Tradesecret

I agree.

The reason for the thread (and the title thereof) is because it's a fairly common claim nowadays in internet/social media functions like call-in talk shows hosted by atheists, websites, etc.

But it's not really a very clear statement. (I wish an atheist could clear this up).

I would say most Christians who have attempted to live the life of a believer have read the entire bible from cover to cover at least once. And

we Christians read the exact same words that an atheist reads when reading the Bible. So it's unclear whether or not they are suggesting most Christians haven't read the entire bible, or are they implying we don't read it enough, read the entire bible but missed (read but skimmed over) references to genocide and slavery, or just don't understand the scriptures we're reading.

As you stated, a number of atheists study the bible to find ways to refute it. A student of the Bible who reads it in order to apply the scriptures to their lives will inevitably understand scriptures far more than the atheist activist or anti-theist because the latter has come to the conclusion that there's nothing more to learn. Their biblical knowledge is stunted by concluding that the Bible supports slavery, genocide, infanticide, selfish jealousy, etc. And when they're challenged with any hermeneutical explanation, they go into automatic shutdown. I've been hung up on (but not the least bit surprised of) when attempting to explain servitude in the Bible to an atheist talk show host.

#95

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.10.2020 04:54AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.
There are some people who were indoctrinated to believe God is an angry deity who they have to measure up to. Many of these believers left that view when they decided to find out about God by themselves. And just the further study of scripture reveals that God is not the tyrant that even some believers make him out to be.

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

#96

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.10.2020 07:02AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

->@RoderickSpode
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.
There are some people who were indoctrinated to believe God is an angry deity who they have to measure up to. Many of these believers left that view when they decided to find out about God by themselves. And just the further study of scripture reveals that God is not the tyrant that even some believers make him out to be.
The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

A huge generalisation.

#97

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.10.2020 12:27PM

-->

@Tradesecret

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

A huge generalisation.

An accurate generalization.

#98

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.10.2020 01:34PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

But it's not really a very clear statement. (I wish an atheist could clear this up).

I tried to clear it up and you said I was putting words in your mouth or whatever. I don't know what antagonist you're referring to specifically, but it's plain that Christians who read their bible ignore the unsavory bits they don't like (stoning gays in the streets) in favor of the warm and fuzzy bits that tend to be preached from the pulpit. Whether you like it or not, the god of love and forgiveness commands his followers to commit genocide in the bible. There are indeed instructions for purchasing foreign slaves and bequeathing them to your progeny as if they were furniture. It's not opinion. The words exist in the same text as John 3:16, right? These things are in there, and Christians for the most part do not try to square these notions in any real way with their assertion that god is just love and loving, not jealous and angry, as he is often described in the bibles. Hence, it's not that Christians don't read the bible ever or at all. It's that they ignore as many passages as they acknowledge as fact and true.

#99

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.10.2020 01:46PM

-->

@Tradesecret

When you kill or hit or assault or call others evil names then you are attacking the very image of God.

So what is the answer? According to Jesus, should we ever kill another person? What verse unequivocally supports your position, and why do so many Christians disagree (doesn't matter which side you take, Christians barely agree on anything)?

Laws about slavery - in the OT and even in the NT are obviously not so relevant in a world where slavery is apparently outlawed. Yet the principles remain and can be applied to lots of things - employment law, bank mortgages, property laws.

The book has laws about what clothes to wear and what you should eat and which day of the week you can work (Christians largely ignore the sabbath). Why do you think it needed to use "slavery" as a way to comment on bank mortgages and employment laws? Please connect these dots. "Buy only foreign slaves" means what in the parlance of property title law, do you think? Why communicate this message in a way that makes certain people able to use this holy book to support the most disgusting abridgment to human rights?

#100

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.10.2020 11:30PM

-->

@ludofl3x

When you kill or hit or assault or call others evil names then you are attacking the very image of God.
So what is the answer? According to Jesus, should we ever kill another person? What verse unequivocally supports your position, and why do so many Christians disagree (doesn't matter which side you take, Christians barely agree on anything)?

There seems to be two questions in that jumble? One, can we kill or not kill? Two, why don't Christian agree on barely anything?

Firstly, if you have taken time to read my statement above properly, you would have noticed I distinguished between murder and kill. The difference is whether it is lawful or not. The Bible clearly excuses lawful killing and forbids unlawful killing. I think that is quite clear and not hard to understand. The verse which supports this is in Exodus 20:13 which in Hebrew says - "you shall not put to death a covenant keeper."

Secondly, Christians agree pretty much on 95% of everything. So I reject your generalisation. They differ mainly in relation to cultural issues - such as church government, music etc and incidentals that do not relate to the substance of the gospel. In relation to the 6th commandment - there are differences of opinion. Why do they differ? Probably mostly based on their parental cultural background or their political leanings. Lefties tend to take a very broad understanding of killing. They seem to think euthanasia and abortion are fine - but reject capital punishment of criminals -although generally speaking they allow for police to wear guns to protect themselves- and for the army to use force to defend their country. On the right - they tend to support capital punishment and oppose abortion and euthanasia. Some swing from side to side depending upon their view of whether lawful and moral are weighted equally or not. Is it lawful to abort babies if the state says yes? Or does it come to down to a moral position?

What makes something lawful? Is it because the state says so? Or because it is the right thing to do according to morals? And whose morals are going to determine what is moral collectively or not? Is it the majority, or is it something that is simply right because it is inalienable. My view is that Christians are really a broad sample of what the community values are - there are a plethora of views within society on politics - and similarly there are in the church.

My view is that abortion should be illegal - but that there are times when it is permissible. Primarily when the mother's life is at risk. Not because it is inconvenient or because the child might be born disabled. The question of rape is a problematic one. I understand the pain and trauma that the mother will suffer if the baby is born - and yet one of my closest friends is that baby that resulted from a rape. She is a beautiful person - and her mother does not regret whatsoever having her. They are the best of friends. What is more - is that my friend went and found her father - who was in prison for another rape. And now they have a close relationship. The father became a Christian was released and now his life has reformed. He now spends his time working and donating money and time and energy to helping families of people like the ones he has hurt. Incredible story - but obviously problematic when it comes to me to decide on my specific point here.

Laws about slavery - in the OT and even in the NT are obviously not so relevant in a world where slavery is apparently outlawed. Yet the principles remain and can be applied to lots of things - employment law, bank mortgages, property laws.
The book has laws about what clothes to wear and what you should eat and which day of the week you can work (Christians largely ignore the sabbath). Why do you think it needed to use "slavery" as a way to comment on bank mortgages and employment laws? Please connect these dots. "Buy only foreign slaves" means what in the parlance of property title law, do you think? Why communicate this message in a way that makes certain people able to use this holy book to support the most disgusting abridgment to human rights?

Yes, this is why I mentioned hermeneutic. Understanding how the principles apply in one unique culture helps us to determine how they might apply in our culture. What I do think needs to be understood before I discuss this further is that Christians are not bound to the OT law. This is a matter of hermenuetic - but also a matter of doctrine. Christians are not saved by the law - they are saved by grace. Hence why I know some Christians who are homosexual - and whom I expect to see in heaven. Even though I think it is clear that homosexuality is sinful and goes against the laws of God.

I will come back to you on the rest of the paragraph. Unfortunately I have run out of time - and have to go to work - but I will be back.

#101

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.11.2020 06:23PM

-->

@Tradesecret

That's a lot of dissembling, let's see if we can get a finer point put on some of these.

Probably mostly based on their parental cultural background or their political leanings. Lefties tend to take a very broad understanding of killing. They seem to think euthanasia and abortion are fine - but reject capital punishment of criminals -although generally speaking they allow for police to wear guns to protect themselves- and for the army to use force to defend their country. On the right - they tend to support capital punishment and oppose abortion and euthanasia.

The 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." That's all it says, right? And which one is biblically correct: the one who opposes abortion, or the one who supports capital punishment? Which one of these people is the commandment excepting, and how? You'll get no argument from me that here are plenty of good reasons to kill people, but I'm not supporting my position using a book of myths from thousands of years ago.

Is it lawful to abort babies if the state says yes?

Do you mean if the state has statute making the act legal? Then yes, it is lawful. That one's pretty simple, right? Legal and moral are not bound at the hip. It can be legal and immoral (laws that act as Jim Crow laws, for example), or moral and illegal (stealing food to feed your family when you have no more options and none of your prayers result in manna from heaven).

I know some Christians who are homosexual - and whom I expect to see in heaven. Even though I think it is clear that homosexuality is sinful and goes against the laws of God.

This sounds to me like a Christian who recognizes the actual words in the book (not the retrofit hemenautics, a semantic game invented well after the book was published in order to make the bible fit with the changing morals of society a little better) can be pretty uncomfortable, right? Good for you, I say, I'm glad you recognize it. But where in the bible is it found that you can get into heaven after living an entire life, unrepentant, as a homosexual, engaging unabashedly in homosexual acts even after church on Sunday? I hope you're right if there's a heaven, but the book says no. You can't get into heaven if you don't repent your sins. Why would your friends be an exception? Are you preaching to them about the error of their ways, praying for them to reform until your eyes cry blood? Why not?

Why do we include the OT in the bible if Christians don't care about it? And why do Christians, albeit a small portion of them, go around telling gay people they're going to burn in hell when they die and hold signs like god hates fags? They DO have a bible verse to back them up, you know. Do you? Something specific as the one about men laying with other men, stone them in the street. Did I miss the verse where Jesus said "Whoops, God got that one wrong and I'm here to tell you gays are just regular people too."

#102

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.11.2020 11:29PM

That's a lot of dissembling, let's see if we can get a finer point put on some of these.

Probably mostly based on their parental cultural background or their political leanings. Lefties tend to take a very broad understanding of killing. They seem to think euthanasia and abortion are fine - but reject capital punishment of criminals -although generally speaking they allow for police to wear guns to protect themselves- and for the army to use force to defend their country. On the right - they tend to support capital punishment and oppose abortion and euthanasia.
The 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." That's all it says, right? And which one is biblically correct: the one who opposes abortion, or the one who supports capital punishment? Which one of these people is the commandment excepting, and how? You'll get no argument from me that here are plenty of good reasons to kill people, but I'm not supporting my position using a book of myths from thousands of years ago.

Is it lawful to abort babies if the state says yes?
Do you mean if the state has statute making the act legal? Then yes, it is lawful. That one's pretty simple, right? Legal and moral are not bound at the hip. It can be legal and immoral (laws that act as Jim Crow laws, for example), or moral and illegal (stealing food to feed your family when you have no more options and none of your prayers result in manna from heaven).

I know some Christians who are homosexual - and whom I expect to see in heaven. Even though I think it is clear that homosexuality is sinful and goes against the laws of God.
This sounds to me like a Christian who recognizes the actual words in the book (not the retrofit hemenautics, a semantic game invented well after the book was published in order to make the bible fit with the changing morals of society a little better) can be pretty uncomfortable, right? Good for you, I say, I'm glad you recognize it. But where in the bible is it found that you can get into heaven after living an entire life, unrepentant, as a homosexual, engaging unabashedly in homosexual acts even after church on Sunday? I hope you're right if there's a heaven, but the book says no. You can't get into heaven if you don't repent your sins. Why would your friends be an exception? Are you preaching to them about the error of their ways, praying for them to reform until your eyes cry blood? Why not?

Why do we include the OT in the bible if Christians don't care about it? And why do Christians, albeit a small portion of them, go around telling gay people they're going to burn in hell when they die and hold signs like god hates fags? They DO have a bible verse to back them up, you know. Do you? Something specific as the one about men laying with other men, stone them in the street. Did I miss the verse where Jesus said "Whoops, God got that one wrong and I'm here to tell you gays are just regular people too."

The 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." That's all it says, right? And which one is biblically correct: the one who opposes abortion, or the one who supports capital punishment? Which one of these people is the commandment excepting, and how? You'll get no argument from me that here are plenty of good reasons to kill people, but I'm not supporting my position using a book of myths from thousands of years ago.

I said in the Hebrew - the commandment reads "do not put to death a covenant keeper". That is the correct translation. I would suggest that most of those who oppose abortion also support capital punishment because abortions are in the eyes of Christians- killings by humans of humans out of convenience rather than necessity. Capital punishment is the lawful execution by the state against a covenant breaker. I never said I am supporting my position for either from the bible. Don't assume what you don't know. You do support your views from your own ideas - where do those ideas come from? Not a vacuum.

Do you mean if the state has statute making the act legal? Then yes, it is lawful. That one's pretty simple, right? Legal and moral are not bound at the hip. It can be legal and immoral (laws that act as Jim Crow laws, for example), or moral and illegal (stealing food to feed your family when you have no more options and none of your prayers result in manna from heaven).

If we as a society is going to say - yes it is legal therefore we should do it, well perhaps. But where does that leave civil rights movements which work outside of what is legal? And where does that leave people in the environmental movement who often move away from the law - to what they say is "the right thing"? I would think that many Christians would seek God's kingdom over the political system anyday. So far as the state complies with the bible, good, but if not, then they will do God's work and bear the consequences. And this interestingly enough is what most people do who believe in their causes - and who by the way expect the rest of the society to join them including the state. For example, BLM. I totally disagree. Yet, if the social order gets up - then it may well become law which will then be foisted on me. Similar with the environmental movement's socialist push. Any group in society who has a cause - will do what they think is necessary when the time comes. The church is no different save and except that the church is probably the broadest church in society - with the most varied views. This i think is one of its strengths by the way.

This sounds to me like a Christian who recognizes the actual words in the book (not the retrofit hemenautics, a semantic game invented well after the book was published in order to make the bible fit with the changing morals of society a little better) can be pretty uncomfortable, right? Good for you, I say, I'm glad you recognize it. But where in the bible is it found that you can get into heaven after living an entire life, unrepentant, as a homosexual, engaging unabashedly in homosexual acts even after church on Sunday? I hope you're right if there's a heaven, but the book says no. You can't get into heaven if you don't repent your sins. Why would your friends be an exception? Are you preaching to them about the error of their ways, praying for them to reform until your eyes cry blood? Why not?

Hermeneutics exist because every book requires it. It was not invented after the fact. Yet people who read books realise that to understand a book requires understanding what the author was trying to say - and in what culture he was writing, unless it just a work of fiction that does not require such a course. Yet even a book like Animal Farm requires a certain amount of background. I also reject the idea that hermenuitics was invented to make the bible fit in with current morals. Certainly no such thing is in place for homosexuality or pluralism or democracy, or as such. A generalisation like that is nonsense and unfounded.

My views on homosexuality are clear. The Bible indicates that homosexuality is sin and as such deserves the same punishment as any other sin. I don't resile from this. Since this is the case - and I know the Bible teaches in a whole lot of places that sinners wont get to heaven and often within that list includes homosexuality. Yet, God does not save people because they are heterosexual. God does not save someone because they are not a murderer. People don't go to heaven because they are Christian. God does not discriminate on the basis or wealth, skin color, sexuality, or orientation, intelligence, sex, religion or anything else that divides people on earth. Hence if God does not discriminate on this basis - none of these things are reasons for people not to be in heaven. Yet, the bible teaches that not all people will go to heaven. The question is what basis does God make? And the answer I raised above - treason. In his house he will not take anyone who hate him for who he is and who think that they can do a better job. To demonstrate that you are not treasonous - he says trust my Son. And that is the basis of going to heaven. Christians sometimes call this being born again. And that actually is not a bad way to describe the process - because like Neo who takes a pill and suddenly wakes up to find everything he knew to be wrong - people who are born again - wake up and see the world in a completely different way.

But you see - just because you start seeing the world differently does not mean automatically, that everything you did - you stop or think was wrong. After all, I still ate food. I still drank alcohol. I played sport. Many people who are gay or lesbian become Christians - and then attend churches where they are never told that homosexuality is sin - and infact their churches encourage them that it ok - and that those who say otherwise are wrong. My view is that these people if sincere in believing this is what God says - then given their world really has changed - then that does not become a deciding factor. Yet, if they have changed because the Spirit of God has converted them - his Holiness is going to drive them to keep looking until their eyes are fully opened. Being a Christian is a process of holiness. Any Christian who thinks that they never sin is a liar - any Christian who thinks they have made it - is only fooling themselves. Yet it is a process - whereby people continue to mature in the faith to become more like Jesus.

Repentance is not a condition of getting into heaven. Repentance is an obligation to be forgiven and for reconcilation to take place. Yet, God is not looking for repentance to particular types of sins - he is looking for repentance for treason. Everything else can be dealt with in time.

#103

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.12.2020 11:40AM

People don't go to heaven because they are Christian. God does not discriminate on the basis or wealth, skin color, sexuality, or orientation, intelligence, sex, religion or anything else that divides people on earth. Hence if God does not discriminate on this basis - none of these things are reasons for people not to be in heaven.

Please cite the bible verse that support any of this. I'm sorry bud, but this is not the Christian view. It makes religion completely irrelevant in the proposition, and violates at least one commandment. It's a nice thought but very, very few Christians will agree that Christianity is not a condition to go to Christian heaven.

#104

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.12.2020 11:17PM

-->

@ludofl3x

People don't go to heaven because they are Christian. God does not discriminate on the basis or wealth, skin color, sexuality, or orientation, intelligence, sex, religion or anything else that divides people on earth. Hence if God does not discriminate on this basis - none of these things are reasons for people not to be in heaven.
Please cite the bible verse that support any of this. I'm sorry bud, but this is not the Christian view. It makes religion completely irrelevant in the proposition, and violates at least one commandment. It's a nice thought but very, very few Christians will agree that Christianity is not a condition to go to Christian heaven.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

There is no mention of being a Christian here. There is only mention of trusting the Son.

Topic's author

#105

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.13.2020 12:08AM

-->

@ludofl3x

Please cite the bible verse that support any of this. I'm sorry bud, but this is not the Christian view. It makes religion completely irrelevant in the proposition, and violates at least one commandment. It's a nice thought but very, very few Christians will agree that Christianity is not a condition to go to Christian heaven.

The term Christian was originally used for those who followed Jesus Christ. Probably not strictly used to identify who's redeemed and who isn't.

Jesus in his public speeches often addressed Jewish religious leaders proclaiming to be followers of Yahweh, but reject Jesus being the Son of God. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus wasn't referring to Pharisees and Sadducees perse when referring to the goats. He was referring to those who identified themselves as followers of Christ (Christians), but were not. Like Judas Iscariot. At that time, Jesus would experience disciples leaving once they figured it was inconvenient for them.

Topic's author

#106

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.13.2020 12:18AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

Who said anything about fringe?

One of the problems is that a number of the Christians you are talking about (who followed a church doctrine as a child) are the ones who end up converting to Christ.

How can that be if they are supposedly already Christian?

Take any Billy/Franklin Graham Crusade in America, and who do you think are the ones who head down to the stage during the alter call? Do you really think they were all atheists, or people of other religions?

I guarantee you most, to this day, were already cultural Christians who followed, or believed their church's doctrines. The reason that Christians are often the one's who head to the front during an alter call is because there was something vitally missing in their faith. You might be surprised how many church going, doctrine following Christians don't necessarily believe Jesus even exists.

#107

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.13.2020 12:57AM

-->

@Tradesecret

@RoderickSpode

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

There is no mention of being a Christian here. There is only mention of trusting the Son

Then religion is completely irrelevant?

Like Judas Iscariot.

Why is Judas so reviled? Didn't he only do what the plan absolutely needed him to do, get Jesus to the cross? That question always bugged me.

#108

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.13.2020 02:26AM

-->

@ludofl3x

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

There is no mention of being a Christian here. There is only mention of trusting the Son
Then religion is completely irrelevant?

Like Judas Iscariot.
Why is Judas so reviled? Didn't he only do what the plan absolutely needed him to do, get Jesus to the cross? That question always bugged me.

I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well. Surely you have heard or read Christians saying - that Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. Religion - the best I can see for it is as James describes it in James 1:27 as a means of looking after orphans and widows. And in that case I see charity as helpful.

Yes when it comes to God - I think religion often gets in the road. Don't misunderstand me, I do take the view that Christianity is a religion and is organised in that way. I do not pretend otherwise. Yet, really it is only a vehicle that God has chosen to use to call us back to himself.

As for Judas, he is reviled because he betrayed the Christ and never repented of it. I doubt he wanted Jesus dead, I actually think his intent was to force Jesus to take up the role of Messiah in ruling from above mode - by sword and death. I also think that greed was a part of it as well - although his returning of the pieces of silver to the Pharisees demonstrate that his intent was clearly not to see Jesus dead. However, Judas' betrayal was significant. And he never repented of it. He chose to kill himself, not own up to his betrayal. This also is an act of treason. Don't forget that Peter also betrayed Jesus. He denied Jesus three times, once even looking directly into his eyes. Yet this act of treason by Peter did not cause him to kill himself, but to repent of his sin. The two betrayals are significant and provide real insight into the question of salvation and repentance.

Was Judas' act that sent Jesus to the cross part of God's plan? Yes it was. Isaiah predicted it as did the Psalms. Jesus himself predicted it as well. Judas and the Jewish leaders and the Romans were all part of this - gee even Adam and Eve played their part as well. Yet, the same problem existed for both Judas and Adam and Eve and Peter and the Jewish leaders and the Romans - even as it exists for us - will we remain in rebellion against the Son or will trust him instead? Judas demonstrated he could not trust the Son. Peter on the other hand - ended up trusting the Son even till his own death on a roman crucifix. This is why Judas is reviled. If Peter had not repented - he would have been in the boat - reviled as well.

The question of morality also plays a part here as well. God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions. The notion that is sometimes put forward that because God planned it - that it excuses the individual's responsibility is nonsense. Every individual in the history of humanity is totally responsible and accountable to God for their own actions. Trying to blame it on God based on some flimsy philosophical argument is akin to the crooked lawyers always trying to find a loophole for their clients. We detest the lawyers who do this - and we should detest people to who try and excuse themselves from such responsibility on some flimsy loophole that because God planned it - it is his fault entirely. Pure nonsense.

#109

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.13.2020 04:02PM

-->

@PGA2.0

@Tradesecret

@RoderickSpode

I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well.

Do your fellow Christians agree that being a Christian is irrelevant?

I'm glad you and I could find some common ground, Tradesecret. We both see religion as totally irrelevant. The Judas question: why should he repent if he only did what god planned for him to do in order to fulfill his whatever it was?

God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions.

This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them? An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't. Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.

#110

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.13.2020 05:10PM

-->

@ludofl3x

I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well.
Do your fellow Christians agree that being a Christian is irrelevant?

That thought is absurd. Why would we, as Christians, believe in something or Someone who is irrelevant?

As Christians, we believe that what you believe about God affects how you spend eternity. How can that be irrelevant?

I'm glad you and I could find some common ground, Tradesecret. We both see religion as totally irrelevant. The Judas question: why should he repent if he only did what god planned for him to do in order to fulfill his whatever it was?

Yes, religion is irrelevant. Religious meaning man-made beliefs. As believers, we do not believe Christianity qualifies in this category. The Bible say:

James 1:27

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

That is what religion should be, how we worship God by such actions, not to get merit or put us in good standing, but out of love.

God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions.
This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them?

He PERMITS injustices for a time, for a season, but you should know that what we do will be accountable before God. Those who stand in Christ will be judged under His merit, not our own miserable merit. God is not the one doing the action, each person chooses. They have a will in which they choose.

An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't.

There is a way out, whether the rat finds it or not depends on what way it travels. The Bible makes it plain in a number of ways that there is a way acceptable to God that leads to life, that those who follow that way will not perish. God, as sovereign, chooses what the way is that meets His justice as well as displaying His grace and mercy for those who follow the way.

Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.

How does that depart from His omnipotents and omniscience? God chose through His own sovereign will to give humanity a volition. He chose that humanity would choose in Adam and when Adam chose God provided, by His grace, another way to meet His good, just will. He knows what way you will choose but allows you your choice. Unless He steps in by His grace and through His Son, Word, and Spirit, you will ignore and forsake God. Will you listen to His word? Can you hear it? At present, you choose to be hostile to Him. You choose to resist Him. Thus, you get what you seek unless His grace is heard by you. That is an act of God. Faith comes through hearing the message, but not all hear.

It does not depend on our "decency". The Bible makes it plain that no one will stand just on their own merit since once you have broken a single command of God you no longer meet His perfect standard. God will not compromise His purity for those who will not follow His decree and will since it compromises justice. Thus, you have two choices, answer to God on your own merit or on the merit of Jesus Christ. So, those who stand on their own merit will not be in God's presence in heaven but cast away from that unique and beautiful fellowship.

#111

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.13.2020 05:28PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

One of the problems is that a number of the Christians you are talking about (who followed a church doctrine as a child) are the ones who end up converting to Christ.

How can that be if they are supposedly already Christian?

There is no conversion when a Christian make a public profession of faith. It is their priorities that change not their beliefs.

Speaking from personal experience, I didn't start believing in the God of the Bible when I made a profession of faith in the Baptist church, and it was not 'finding God' or Biblical study that led me to get confirmed in an Episcopalian church. This seems to be the norm and goes to my point: Christian conceptions of god aren't necessarily related to the god described in the Bible.

#112

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.13.2020 05:38PM

-->

@PGA2.0

@Tradesecret

That thought is absurd. Why would we, as Christians, believe in something or Someone who is irrelevant?

As Christians, we believe that what you believe about God affects how you spend eternity. How can that be irrelevant?

This is a question for Tradesecret, as I can't explain why you believe in something that's irrelevant.

Religious meaning man-made beliefs. As believers, we do not believe Christianity qualifies in this category.

Is this what you meant, Tradesecret? Essentially, anyone who ISN'T a Christian is following a phony 'religion' straight to hell? I don't get it, you guys are both Christians, but saying totally different things. Tradesecret seems to say if you don't follow the bible, even if you're a sinner, it doesn't really matter, but YOU, PGA, seem to be saying there's no way to be saved WITHOUT the bible, and following the rules in it, at the very least repenting, but TradeSecret's gay friends are still going to heaven. How weird! And how, pray tell, do you know Christianity isn't man made? What supports that?

God chose through His own sovereign will to give humanity a volition.

So was it just dumb luck Judas turned Jesus over to the Romans?

It does not depend on our "decency". The Bible makes it plain that no one will stand just on their own merit since once you have broken a single command of God you no longer meet His perfect standard. God will not compromise His purity for those who will not follow His decree and will since it compromises justice.

Again directly contradicting Tradescret, a fellow Christian. Which one of you is right, how can I tell? Your version of god sounds like a real dickhead, almost like a pointless bureaucrat: doesn't matter if you're the greatest person who ever lived, charitable, honest, helps out in the community, doesn't discriminate against his fellow man, if you don't tick that "I'm a Christian" block, sorry charlie, you burn forever in a lake of fire. Perfect justice! :-)

#113

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.13.2020 08:57PM

-->

@ludofl3x

That thought is absurd. Why would we, as Christians, believe in something or Someone who is irrelevant?

As Christians, we believe that what you believe about God affects how you spend eternity. How can that be irrelevant?
This is a question for Tradesecret, as I can't explain why you believe in something that's irrelevant.

That is the point, believing in God is not irrelevant.

Religious meaning man-made beliefs. As believers, we do not believe Christianity qualifies in this category.
Is this what you meant, Tradesecret? Essentially, anyone who ISN'T a Christian is following a phony 'religion' straight to hell? I don't get it, you guys are both Christians, but saying totally different things. Tradesecret seems to say if you don't follow the bible, even if you're a sinner, it doesn't really matter, but YOU, PGA, seem to be saying there's no way to be saved WITHOUT the bible, and following the rules in it, at the very least repenting, but TradeSecret's gay friends are still going to heaven. How weird! And how, pray tell, do you know Christianity isn't man made? What supports that?

Yes, Scripture teaches one true belief, the rest man-made. Logically, only one belief in God, if any, is true since the different religions conflict on what they believe about God. As a Christian I claim that belief is Christianity and I can reasonably confirm this with the evidence available. I believe the evidence and reason for Christianity far outdistance any other belief system, including the measely atheistic one.

TradeSecret and I believe the same essentials, but where we do dispute Scripture is our guideline - the word of God.

As for being saved, God instructed His disciples to go into all the world and teach and preach the Good News. That still continues today. There are two ways of offering the truth, IMO. One is through pre-evangelism or showing how belief systems fall apart (except for Christianity) and self-destruct when examining their core tenents or beliefs. The other is through God's word, whether orally transmitted or read. We, as Christians reason through Scripture.

God's Spirit speaks to those who are receptive through the Bible. In the Scriptures, God levels with humanity on its problem and the solution. The Bible does not save. God saves through His Son, His Spirit, His Word, and that could be transmitted by believers. Faith in Jesus Christ, a trust, reliance and dependents on Him and what He has done, is what saves. Believing God and what He has said is what saves.

The question is, do you or will you believe God? He saves. We do not save ourselves. Salvation is not what we do to earn a right standing before God. That right standing has been earned through Jesus Christ.

The Bible is a unique collection of writings. There are many reasonable verifications in it, such as the prophetic message over time. There is also the unity of these writing, all confirming specific things about God and humanity. With unbelievers, I always challenge them to make sense of their own belief systems once they dismiss God. Take a look at your own beliefs and see how you can make sense of them. Go ahead. Make sense of morality for me without God. I challenge you. Show me how you have certainty in anything without such a necessary being. Why should I believe you??? What is so great about what you believe??? Give me reasons why what you believe is true and reasonable. Can you? Try. I do not believe you have a belief system that is capable of doing so. But, please try. I invite you to try.

God chose through His own sovereign will to give humanity a volition.
So was it just dumb luck Judas turned Jesus over to the Romans?

No, but the point is that Judas CHOSE to betray Jesus. God as omniscinet knew Judas would, yet Judas chose.

It does not depend on our "decency". The Bible makes it plain that no one will stand just on their own merit since once you have broken a single command of God you no longer meet His perfect standard. God will not compromise His purity for those who will not follow His decree and will since it compromises justice.
Again directly contradicting Tradescret, a fellow Christian. Which one of you is right, how can I tell?

Right about what, exactly?

Your version of god sounds like a real dickhead, almost like a pointless bureaucrat: doesn't matter if you're the greatest person who ever lived, charitable, honest, helps out in the community, doesn't discriminate against his fellow man, if you don't tick that "I'm a Christian" block, sorry charlie, you burn forever in a lake of fire. Perfect justice! :-)

And your judgment of God sounds like you put yourself in His place. You have taken upon yourself what belongs to God alone.

How good are you? How is good and right measured by you? Are you being hypocritical when you condemn God? Who are you to criticize God?

Romans 9:20-22 NASB

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

For someone who doesn't believe in God why do you care so much that it upsets you? You acknowledge Him even when you deny Him.

#114

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.13.2020 10:32PM

-->

@ludofl3x

I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well.
Do your fellow Christians agree that being a Christian is irrelevant?

I'm glad you and I could find some common ground, Tradesecret. We both see religion as totally irrelevant. The Judas question: why should he repent if he only did what god planned for him to do in order to fulfill his whatever it was?

God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions.
This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them? An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't. Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.

LOL @ ludofli3x, I never said Christianity was irrelevant. I agree with you that religion is totally irrelevant - and I even qualified that with James 1. In that verse it said that religion is relevant for the welfare of orphans and widows - and I agree with this. I think that religions all over the world - in the main with obvious exceptions do care for the vulnerable. It is only in recent times that non-religious organizations have joined in with this notion. Yet perhaps I ought to qualify further my thoughts. I certainly do not hope that you think I have done more than just open a conversation about this topic. I have more to say as you undoubtedly do.

My point about religion was simple. God does not save someone - or to use other words, people do not get to heaven on the basis of their religion. And if I recall my thoughts at the time correctly, I was also stating that religion was just one thing among many that humans divide themselves with respect too - others including sexuality, sex, intelligence, or education, colour, race, wealth, etc etc. On the day we die - and we stand before Jesus and he says to me "Why should I let you in?" The answers that rely upon a particular division wont jell. Calling myself a Christian wont be enough. Saying I am hetrosexual wont be enough. Saying I have money to pay wont be enough. Saying I am black or I am white wont be enough. Saying I have a Ph.D from Oxford wont be enough. Knowing the five points of Calvinism wont be enough. Being the fast runner on the planet wont be enough. Giving the most donations to help the poor wont be enough. The point is - as I have said above is the issue of treason. This is the issue that had Adam and Eve thrown out of the garden, declared dead from God's family and essentially the entire human race judged and sentenced to a world prison living on death row. Treason is the reason why people won't get into heaven - and this is rightly and justly so. Yet, to repent of that treason - and to trusting in God's son - Jesus is the only way to get into heaven. This is the ordinary means by which God as the king of the universe and heaven enables any to enter his home. Yet who knows what God might do without the ordinary pale of things. This is what he has revealed in his word to us.

Yes, and as for God's plan seeming cruel - I addressed that already. I take the view that is an attempt to find a loophole to avoid owning and being responsible for your own actions. God does have a plan and he does carry that out - but we talk of that plan as one that does not do violence to the human will. Hence we hold two tensions in our heads and we do this fine. I tend to see it more like a book written - a novel. God is the author like Tolkien for instance. He writes his story which obviously is entirely in the hands of the author. Yet, the figures in the book are totally responsible for what they do. No one gets caught and then says - it is not my fault - blame it on the author. No one thinks that Tolkien is cruel - just really clever and a brilliant writer. The difference here is that God is much more creative in his story telling. And the figures he has created in his story have the capacity to know there is an author. Even though with lots of irony - many do not believe there is an author - and still want to blame the author who they don't believe in. It is a cop out of an excuse though. and weak.

If there was no author - then there would be no story - and none of this would matter. At the end of the day - recognizing there is an author is helpful for a whole lot of reasons. I prefer it this way - that God is in total control - but I also recognize the difference between first and second causes and I as I said above have no issue with the tension of God's sovereignty and humanity's full responsibility for their actions.

Your last sentence makes no sense and is inconsistent with my premise. I said religion is irrelevant - I never said treason was not. I tend to think that living a nice life is not enough. Being good in prison - does not mean that you and the governor are on the same page or that he will release you.

#115

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.14.2020 03:50AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.

One of the problems is that a number of the Christians you are talking about (who followed a church doctrine as a child) are the ones who end up converting to Christ.

How can that be if they are supposedly already Christian?

There is no conversion when a Christian make a public profession of faith. It is their priorities that change not their beliefs.

Speaking from personal experience, I didn't start believing in the God of the Bible when I made a profession of faith in the Baptist church, and it was not 'finding God' or Biblical study that led me to get confirmed in an Episcopalian church. This seems to be the norm and goes to my point: Christian conceptions of god aren't necessarily related to the god described in the Bible.

It is not for me to judge, but IMO, you were not steadfast, you turned back before receiving the prize. You speak from personal experience but again, IMO, you turned back to your old way of life before knowing God.

#116

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

08.14.2020 04:11AM

-->

@PGA2.0

It is not for me to judge, but IMO, you were not steadfast, you turned back before receiving the prize.

You're right- its not for you to judge. Also, there was no "turning back". I had only known a world in which I believed God was a part at each of these milestones.

That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.

#117

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

08.14.2020 10:43AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

It is not for me to judge, but IMO, you were not steadfast, you turned back before receiving the prize.
You're right- its not for you to judge. Also, there was no "turning back". I had only known a world in which I believed God was a part at each of these milestones.

I just think of verses that reiterate that thought and suspicion. It is between you and God and I hope for God's mercy upon you. I think of the warnings in love of what someone is in danger of losing or has lost and also I am reminded of the many invititations in Scripture to turn back or hold on to a sure foundation. How sure is the foundation you are currently building upon? When faith is tested and a person holds firm the reward is experienced.

1 Corinthians 15:58

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

Colossians 1:11

strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously

Colossians 1:23

if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

1 Thessalonians 1:3

constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father,

2 Thessalonians 3:5

May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.

Hebrews 6:19

This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,

2 Peter 3:17

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

Matthew 13 (NASB)
Jesus Teaches in Parables
13 That day Jesus went out of the house and was sitting by the sea. 2 And large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.
3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8 And others fell on the good soil and *yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 He who has ears, let him hear.”

20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”

That's the point, I was taught to believe in the Christian god (without question) long before I ever read the Bible...and the Bible spoke of a very different being. Anyone comparing my belief to the Bible would rightly come to the conclusion I hadn't read my Bible...at least not all of it.

For me, I was in a place of desperation when I turned to the Bible, and I read it the first time as though God were speaking to me.

I've read my Bible many times since and I understand God differently from you. I see and understand His love and also His justice. I see the problem of humanity trying to live according to each person's merit instead of by trusting in the merit of Another, greater Person.

Topic's author

#118

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.14.2020 04:10PM

-->

@ludofl3x

This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them? An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't. Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.

But Judas was not made to betray Jesus.

Jesus knew what Judas would do. It's that simple. The plan for Judas was to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Satan's plan was that Judas betray Him.

Sometimes you and I, fallible humans know when someone says they will do "A", they will really do "B". And sometimes you may tell them go ahead and do what I know you're going to do. You might tell them you know even though they claim they will do "A", they will do "B". Has that ever happened to you? It's not revelation/omniscient knowledge, but rather experience knowledge.

What reason do you give to claim anything more than what I just told you?

#119

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.14.2020 04:19PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

But Judas was not made to betray Jesus.

So god didn't know what Judas was going to do when he made Judas?

Satan's plan was that Judas betray Him.

So Satan's plan took precedence over god's plan? Can god see what Satan's plans are?

It's not revelation/omniscient knowledge, but rather experience knowledge.

Yeah, so it's not really the same: Jesus is god, right? I'm not. When I 'know' someone will do something, it's as you say, based on my experience with that person. When a proclaimed all -knowing superbeing knows someone will do something, he's not guessing. He knows. Unless...did Jesus not know Judas would betray him? He knew Peter would, according to the story, right? Why is Judas different?

The rest depends on your answers above. If there's a plan, then Judas was made to do exactly what he did, otherwise god would be surprised (less than omniscient). There's no way around it. In a plan for all time for all things, there simply isn't free will. The illusion of it yes, but not the real thing. If this was SATAN's plan, then it either superceded god's plan (and therefore god isn't omniscient, or omnipotent), or god's plan was to let satan's plan work out, basically making it god's plan. In any case, if there's a truly omniscient god who has a plan for all things for all times and knows all things at all times, Judas can't be held in contempt for doing exactly what this farcical passion drama required him to do from the very beginning.

Topic's author

#120

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044