JCC If there is a God, then why is there evil and suffering?

But how does it make any sense? How is it laziness to put your faith in religion when the whole point of religion is to put faith in it? They know how it works. For example, in Christianity they put their faith in God and trust that God's plan for them is a good one. There is no 'laziness' involved.

This is wholly different from VLM's faith in science.

 

I think we've seen plenty of examples of that laziness in this very thread or any thread like it. Many people come to religion seeking a certain unthinking security. Once any facet of that security is threatened, they lazily refuse to acknowledge the validity of the threat or they refute it with a lazy, worn argument. That's the laziness I'm talking about, and I think it's prevalent in both sides of the science v faith discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's more a fear of not believing in god in case it's wrong coupled with strong societal expectations of fait rather than a well thought out conviction Prenn?

 

Right. You can usually tell the people who are interested in actually thinking by their posture -- whether or not they're even open to being wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I personally hold it true that if you can't handle someone questioning any conviction or tenet you hold dear, or if you can't emerge with that conviction or tenet in tact after they do question it, then you don't really believe it.

 

Corollary: blasphemy against a healthy religion is impossible, because a religion truly worth devoting one's life to should be one whose vast sweep of inspiration and affirmation of life makes said blasphemy meaningless. By the same token, blasphemy is the first defence line of those who cleave to an unhealthy religion.

 

It is a gift, it is like someone giving you a Christmas present. You either accept or deny it. If you deny it to their face, which is essentially what you are doing to God, that is so rude!

As for the people who never heard it, they still broke God's law. It's like a man who comes from an island to the United States and rapes and murders a woman. He can't say "since I didn't know it was wrong you shouldn't send me to prison." He still did the crime, and he will pay the time.

I know what I believe is true, because God has revealed himself to me. And here is how. When I was saved he transformed my life, I no longer lived in sin, but instead, when I sinned I was grieved, I no longer desire the things of this world, but I desire the things of God, and he is sanctifying me, he is removing the junk and making me cleaner.

I also know this is true because it is different from every other religion. Religion says Do. Jesus says Done. We can do nothing to get to heaven, Jesus is the only one who can save us.

Many people will claim to be Christians, but are actually not, God knows who are his and who aren't. So next time you hear some one saying you need to work to get to heaven, realize that is not the gospel. The gospel is This. We have broken God's perfect law by lying, stealing, blaspheming his name, murdering, committing adultery, putting. God last, and coveting. Since we broke the law, we must pay the fine, which is Hell But God provided a way to dismiss your case, to save you! Jesus came to die for filthy wretches like me. By his blood he paid our fine and we can be forgiven. By his resurrection from the grave he defeated death, so we can live all eternity with him, with his love pointed towards us. If you repent and trust in him, you will be saved from The unquenchable fire, and eternal torment which you deserve, and be made like him, pure, holy, blameless, and go Heaven and eventually a new earth like ours today, except there will be no sin, anger, pain or suffering. So make the right choice, because God has provided a way for you, all you need to do is Repent (flee from sin) and Trust in him! Isn't that so loving? It is a gift!


Ephesians 2:8-9English Standard Version (ESV)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 

"I also know this is true because it is different from every other religion. Religion says Do. Jesus says Done. We can do nothing to get to heaven, Jesus is the only one who can save us."

"If you repent and trust in him, you will be saved from The unquenchable fire"

Which is it? Either God has done everything and we can do nothing, or God has done some stuff and we also need to do some stuff (like repent or trust in him or whatever). Either God is the only one who can save us and we can do nothing to get to heaven, or we have to do something to get to heaven (like repent or trust in him or whatever).

So...which one is it?

 

Sucks to be them I guess. How blessed you are to have been born in a time and place that you were raised in exactly the right brand of Christianity which didn't even appear until last century. You really dodged quite a bullet there.

He died for everyone...but...oops, I guess? Too bad so sad? Do you realize how awful that sounds? All-powerful, omnipotent god loves his creation so much that he died for them, but forgot to tell everyone about it? Not everyone gets a chance to hear this. And the only thing you have to say is "they still broke god' slaw"? What is wrong with you?

Sorry for editing so much. Enderman. You realize that when you say stuff like "I know I'm right it's different than every other religion(even the same religion that's just a little bit different than my version)" you are saying the exact same thing those other religions are saying? Like. How. I don't.

 

Prayer is psychological masturbation.

 

even so, masturbation is fun and serves a purpose.

 

God provides the trust, as well as he gives you a heart of repentance, if he convicts you with the Holy Spirt you will gladly do it.

Well understand no matter what, although it doesn't Give God joy, he would still be glorified by those in hell, because it would show God as just. He punished evil. People like Hitler who killed countless of lives will go to hell, but not just that, but people who only killed one person, those who are liars, thieves, adulterers etc. will bear part in the lake of fire, because a just God must demand Justice. It is actually loving of. God to punish evil, wouldn't you want someone who raped someone close to you to be punished?


God is just, we broke God's law, we pay the fine of Hell. But God in his love chose who would be saved, and for those people he died on the cross and rose again, so they they may have a relationship with the eternal God. We pass from the fear of God (knowing we broke his laws and he is holy and just) to the love of God (trusting in God and have good fellowship with him)

You see, Christianity isn't about Theology, but it is about a relationship. If you want a relationship, you will have theology yes, but that is not what Christians are all about. We have a relationship with the one who saved our souls from eternal damnation that we deserved, and gave us the exact opposite, which is a an eternity with him! We Christians can call him Lord, Master, Savior and Friend!

See that is another difference with Christianity compared to all other religions. Christianity is not just a Religion, but also a relationship!

 

"God provides the trust, as well as he gives you a heart of repentance, if he convicts you with the Holy Spirt you will gladly do it."

So it's not a free gift. There is something we have to do to receive it. Glad we cleared that up.

 

You realize what you are saying is as stupid as the following.

Christmas Day:

Dad: johnny! I bought you a gift!
Johnny: thanks dad! Do I need to do anything to get it?
Dad: No, it's free! That is why it's called a gift son.

Johnny takes the present from Dad and unwraps it.

Johnny: Dad you lied! The gift wasn't free!
Dad: Yes it was, you didn't pay for it.
Johnny: No. but I did have to walk over to get is, as well as open it! It's not free! I hate you!


You see, what I am trying to say is God made a way to get to heaven and have a relationship with him. All you must do is accept it. Don't be like Johnny and claim it is work based, it is a decision! So don't be like Johnny and refuse the gift!

 

lol i don't really think it's that stupid. here's why, using your analogy.

for johnny to receive the gift, he has to do something. he has to take the present from his dad and unwrap it. if he doesn't do that, he doesn't get the gift. there are things johnny has to do in order to receive the gift. that doesn't mean it's not a gift. it simply means that in order for johnny to get or to use the gift, he has to do some things. which is fine. it's probably still a really bitchin present. we just need to stop saying Johnny didn't have to do anything to get it. because he did. you used verbs in your analogy. verbs mean action. see? not stupid.

 

No, Enderman, this is what you're saying:

It is Christmas, 2001. Little jenny is raised by her single mother who is Hindu. She doesn't get any presents because her mother doesn't celebrate the holiday. Now it is 2014, and Jenny meets her father for the first time. "Jenny," he says. "Why didn't you accept my Christmas gift I gave you on Christmas, 2001? Oh well, it is too late now, I gave it to your sister who I raised with my wife. Why haven't you been part of our family this whole time? It is your own fault."


Sure is great being a straight white male living in America, isn't it? At least you know heaven won't be too crowded with brown people.

 

This comment is stupid and deliberately misconstrues the reason for offense.

Blasphemy is taken as offensive because, in a huge majority of cases, it is intended as such. The "truth" of the underlying claim has nothing to do with it. For instance, most people respond poorly to insults about their parents. This is not because they fear that, secretly, they were sired by people involved in the sex trade. It is because they know that the person making such a statement was trying to disrespect them by tying them to something unworthy.

We also see numerous examples of the same in the Bible. During Sennacherib's attempted invasion of Judah, his messengers claimed that God was powerless to stop the Assyrian army, since no other nations has been able to stop them either. In doing so, they clearly and doubly blasphemed God--first in suggesting he was weaker than their human army, then in implying he was not different than the gods of neighboring peoples. Their proposition was disproved by the fact that an angel destroyed the greater part of his entire army in one night, forcing an end to the invasion. Yet, in spite of the fact that they were wrong, the Assyrian blasphemy was still specifically mentioned as offensive.

You're right in a broad, very vague sense that people can use strictures about blasphemy to shut down meaningful discussion. But it's not at all the case that asking not to be brazenly disrespected is somehow a sign of "unhealthiness." That's not really a standard you'd apply to anything else. Finally, I don't even know what "affirmation of life" is supposed to be.

 

So, if I say "Jesus *****-****ing Christ", you would actually get offended?

(The first word is slang for breasts)

I cannot envision a scenario where so petty an excuse causes so grievous an outrage.

 

wow jesus is slang for breasts? nice.

 

That's rather irrelevant, Ender. Saintheart tried to claim, without exception, that the only time a person would ever by offended by any sort of blasphemy is because they thought their religion was somehow fragile or weak. I noted that obvious whole in that argument: it does not reflect the actual reason people are offended by blasphemy, and is not a logically valid construction besides.

Your scenario asks about what happens when people don't get offended by potentially offensive material. That's a separate question. We're trying to figure out what drives people's reactions in the cases where they actually do get offended.

 

Oh. Well I agree with him that any religion offended by blasphemy is weak. Sup, Islam?

 

How is it "weak?" What's the logic behind that? Why is it silly to take umbrage at an insult against Muhammad, but not so to be offended at someone's remarks against the Queen of England? Neither one of them has any meaningful connection to the individuals getting upset.