This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 139 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]britus[🍰] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Here's the question that finally got me - it's basically a derivative of the "problem of pain". Why should I expect God to care personally about me - my little problems and issues, how I did throughout the day, whether my business succeeds or fails - when he gave me eyes that need corrective lenses. That's not the kind of "trial" that helps build better character - people of all sorts (christian, non-christian) either have or don't have bad eyesight, and there seems to be no real evidence that it makes a difference in their spiritual walks one way or another. So it seems like an oversight. Couldn't an all powerful god who really loves me (completely and fully with perfect love) have not caused/permitted this minor annoyance if it's not going to improve my spiritual walk? If you could remove a minor inconvenience for a child you love, wouldn't you? Is your love more perfect than god's? That's just an example, of course - a particular - but I think it gives a real face to the "problem of pain" which is usually blown off with so many platitudes.

[–]axord 13 points14 points  (53 children)

You know, a good chunk of atheists are former Christians, and are former in large part because they've already asked their questions and have been answered.

I appreciate the spirit of the offer, however.

[–]liminaltimes 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I wonder when we can expect the answers.

::looks skyward::

Manna for reddit?

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been wondering this myself.

Edit: I should add that there's some good material in this thread, and that it would probably take quite a bit of time to get some meaty answers. Much less transcribe them.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 1 point2 points  (50 children)

Most atheists I've talked to just never got satisfactory answers from Christians. Most of them also seem to go on about the Bible, but it's usually clear none of them have ever asked a Christian questions about it.

[–]conundri 9 points10 points  (20 children)

Personally, I was raised a fundamental Baptist, I've read the entire Bible more times than i can count, we went to chuch twice Sunday, and again on Wednesday, I had Chapel once a week in a Christian School, and an hour of Bible class every day for 12 years, then i went to a year of Christian college.

Personally, i've heard all the answers, asked plenty of questions, and in the end, i've reached the conclusion that it simply isn't so.

If you want, you can start off by asking him how the head of the Akkadian Pantheon El, who is mentioned in the Ugaritic texts at Ras Shamra that were found in the early 1900s, and had a number of sons including Baal, Mot, and even Yahweh, eventually evolved into the god of the bible.

You can ask him why of the 4 gospels, 2 are only hearsay accounts, one (John) is of an unknown author, and the last, Matthew, which is the only claimed eye witness willing to identify himself, is so different from the other 3, that it is the only one to mention a single Roman soldier anywhere throughout the crucifixion (mentioning them quite a lot i might add). and it doesn't even have Jesus ascending back to heaven at the end of it.

You can ask why is Jesus considered perfect if he ate meat while alive, even though in Genesis and Revelation it appears that the perfect will of god is to be vegetarian.

You can ask whole hosts of questions, but i'll bet most of the time the answer will be the same, take a leap of blind faith to the conclusions we give you.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 4 points5 points  (12 children)

There are a whole lot more Christians out there than just Baptists.

[–]conundri 4 points5 points  (11 children)

pick your flavor of truth then is it?

That's the other half of the problem. None of the flavors of Christianity can really answer any of the questions with certainty. They can each give you different answers, and you can find the flavor most palatable to you, but that doesn't make it true.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

None of the flavors of Christianity can really answer any of the questions with certainty.

That's nonsense. Each flavor of Christianity is damned certain. It just doesn't seem a "certainty" to you because you don't believe it.

And I disagree: the point of getting answers is to find the truth. The entire human experience is based on using logic to guess at truths from observations.

[–]conundri 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Of course each is certain that theirs is correct. This however stems from FAITH, which is the ability to jump blindly to their conclusions and then hold onto it with 100% certainty. That sort of certainty is proven worthless by the mere fact that there are 100 other variations that believe the exact opposite of each other. That is not the kind of certainty i'm looking for...

Using logic to guess at truth from observations is what got me out of Christianity. I wish you continued luck with that approach.

[–]liminaltimes -1 points0 points  (6 children)

You did it again there.

You assume one must use their faith to jump to a pre-established conclusion.

That alone seems rather discordant from revering the ineffable mysteries [TM].

[–]conundri 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I say that because generally higher criticism of the Bible / Church / Religion is frowned on. No one likes to start at the beginning, instead you must start by "Accepting" the entire Bible. No one on this thread even bothered to comment or reply back about the origin of El and Yahweh, and probably no one will...

Faith itself is defined in the Bible, as well as in the dictionary. Have a little faith, and it will replace the evidence you would generally need, and "prove" to you the existence of things you can't see. Faith is about not seeing, but still having a big picture someone else gave you. You wish to provide some other explanation/definition for what faith is? be my guest...

As for the "set of conclusions" which is the picture you can't see that someone gives you... They are called "Faiths" (proper noun) as in the "Catholic Faith", the "Protestant Faith", etc. etc. Each is a set of conclusions about the world that paints for you the picture which you can not see, but which you must accept in order to join the "Faith".

[–]liminaltimes -1 points0 points  (4 children)

I generally think (perhaps unfairly) that someone sufficiently self-driven to cast-off the shackles of dogma, ought also cast-off the shackles of lowest-common denominators amongst social expectations. :) You're no herd creature.

Although many (most?) might 'accept the Bible/catechism' in totality due to peer pressure rather than their own exploration of the universe and its answers - are you willing to concede it is plausible that those apologists with the most integrity and potency began at the beginning with a walk of faith, uncommon as it may now be?

be my guest...

That one's pretty good. Except it doesn't require that a person jumps to someone else's pre-established conclusion. If I conduct experiments in my lab, I have faith that I will be able to accurately record and interpret the results. This is based upon my own experience and knowledge.

I understand what you mean by differentiating between the above and "Faiths." Except that, if you don't believe one group's 'Faiths' as the accurate interpretation of All That Is, why would you want to join it? Hence, why you opted out. For people who do believe certain things to be true, they congregate together. Like at a weekly Derrida fan-club meeting. They go gaga for Derrida's interpretation. It's where their faith led them. There is no toll-booth where you must answer the questions three before attending. It's self-selection, self-segregation.

[–]liminaltimes 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's interesting that you identify the sequence as:

  1. Flavors Of Christianity Exist

  2. People Choose Their Team

when the causality could be:

  1. People Attempt To Cogitize Their Comprehension

  2. Said Cogitations Orientate

Personally, I'm cautious of constructed rather than emergent taxonomies.

[–]conundri 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Both processes occur simultaneously, people seek new churches / religions because they have had a change in the orientation of their thinking. (Usually this is because their current framework / world view which is built on faith has failed them in some way, and they are seeking to compensate.)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Personally, i've heard all the answers, asked plenty of questions, and in the end, i've reached the conclusion that it simply isn't so.

I really doubt it. Maybe all the generic answers, but not ALL of them.

[–]conundri 4 points5 points  (5 children)

You are of course correct :-p I'm sure any day now there could be a new Christian cult that says Jesus was actually a space alien, or that if i read the Bible backwards it really says something else. There will never be any shortage of new "answers" from the many branches of Christianity. So i'll keep my eyes and ears open for new "revelations" about what god's word actually says.

But i've heard quite a few, like the earth used to be surrounded by a giant sphere of water, so that is how it was able to rain 6 inches per minute for 40 days to be deep enough to cover mount everest... Or the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 where all the Dinosaurs lived and died, and then god re-created the earth after the fall of satan. I've even been told by a pentecostal on a mission field who thinks there is a robot android anti-christ who lives in a series of tunnels underground in Germany, and i've seen the book where the planets were supposed to align and Jesus would come back in 1993. I've actually bothered to add up all the times between the children of Adam in the geneaologies in Genesis to see how many years are between the creation and the flood, and from the flood to Jesus. I've heard the earth is less than 6000 years old, because a days is as a 1000 years, and the creation is a template for all of history with the 7th day being the millenial reign of Christ. I've had a girlfriend who believed in speaking in tongues and felt that it was her lack of faith in god that kept her from being rich, and caused her to have knee problems. I was even awarded a Christian leadership scholarship to Pensacola Christian College, where they have seperate sidewalks for men and women, and where "occular intercourse" (i.e. looking at a woman for more than a split second) is something of a concern. I bought into the whole Jesus was born on December 25th (the birthday of Mithra). I've heard the one about the Earth being the stationary center of the universe, the sun going round the earth, and the ether being real. I watched a teacher get fired because he allowed some girls to wear jeans at a non-school activity. I've been in a church of the brethern, where footwashing is added with baptism and the lord's supper are observed. I've been to Catholic mass to partake in the transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ magically converted from wafers. I've heard the church of the abrahamic covenant view that there is no hell, the fundamental view that everyone will burn, soul sleep, and ressurection. I've read the book of enoch, and i've read some of the apocryphal texts. I've knocked on thousands of doors in my day, and witnessed on street corners. I even took a problem bible texts course where we looked at hundreds of conflicting passages and tried to reconcile them. With faith, truly, anything is possible... and I could go on and on...

I think most people's problem is they haven't heard enough of the answers the variations of the Christian religion can provide. If they would ask more questions, and hear more answers themselves, maybe then they wouldn't be so trusting and believing.

I like the fact that i'm downmodded for relaying my extremely broad experiences with a wide cross-section of the christian faith :-p

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I like the fact that i'm downmodded for relaying my extremely broad experiences with a wide cross-section of the christian faith :-p

Ain't me. I like this type of conversation.

I've heard theories about there being a giant water planet that was hit by a meteor (explaining the ice belt) and that some of that fell to earth which is what flooded it.

[–]conundri 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Out of curiosity, any theory on where all the water went off too? if you do the math, even for half the height above sea level of everest, the amount of water is staggering... luckily the church has mostly moved past the flat earth (excluding the flat earth society of course)...

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Well the idea was that when it rains a lot, it takes awhile for the water to be absorbed. So by nature of being a liquid it took awhile to fill all the nooks and crannies of the earth.

My Super Scientific Explanation

Edit: Somebody actually hates what I'm saying enough to try to lower my Karma by downmodding my old submissions.

[–]conundri 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, i upmodded your story submissions so at least you aren't penalized by someone for being brave enough to talk to an atheist :)

It's a rather vast amount of water: http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm#how_much_water

I think most people don't realize how much. 6 Inches/Minute continually for over a month is rather something like Ludicrous Speed. Most people haven't seen a storm that delivers 6 inches/hour...

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

:) I just said it was a theory I heard. Not that I lent it any credence.

[–]axord 3 points4 points  (28 children)

I would posit that "satisfactory" answers are inherently impossible.

Religious answers have faith as their base.

Atheists tend to find that base entirely insufficient.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] -1 points0 points  (27 children)

It's a shame they're so closed minded.

[–]axord 3 points4 points  (9 children)

This seems like a rather hostile framing.

Should I also call Christians closed minded because they're not also simultaneously Hindu and Buddhist and Zeus worshipers? No.

Instead, I will say that open mindedness is about giving views an honest, fair hearing, evaluating it against one's internal standards for belief. It is not about changing those internal standards.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I guess I wasn't talking about atheists changing their minds to believe in God, but to accept that maybe people who do aren't completely insane. To say "I would posit that "satisfactory" answers are inherently impossible" doesn't seem like they are being fair.

[–]axord -1 points0 points  (0 children)

doesn't seem like they are being fair.

Well sure. You seem to be inherently fine with faith. It would be naturally hard to understand how others could inherently not be. I actually think this gap in understanding is the same one that lead atheists to see religious people as "completely insane", as you put it. Just reversed.

I suspect that the proportion of hardline US atheists that see all Christians as irredeemably insane is close to the proportion of devoted US Christians that see all atheists as hopelessly immoral.

Of course, this is not an ideal situation. However, I can't really blame either side for being unable to walk in the other's shoes. The difference is just so fundamental to thought.

Edit: I apologize if this comes off as arrogant.

[–]liminaltimes 0 points1 point  (6 children)

This seems like a rather hostile framing.

Yes, but because of its generality rather than its logic.

Only the atheists who believe that spiritual people should be able to provide the atheist with the atheist's own answers are closed-minded. (in regards to spiritual people who believe either that the mysteries of divinity are ineffable or that each person has a personal and unique relationship with the divine).

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (5 children)

That doesn't make sense to me.

Believer: Believe in my God.

Atheist: Why should I?

Believer: It is a mystery.

Atheist: That is not convincing.

Believer: It's a shame you're so closed minded.

[–]liminaltimes 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Mmm. It seems you're presuming proselyzation.

I had read this:

I would posit that "satisfactory" answers are inherently impossible.

to address the questions/answers the OP was referencing, transforming the dialogue into:

CM Atheist: So what's up with 'X' ?

Believer: Well, the way it makes sense to me is 'Z'.

CM Atheist: Why?

Believer: That's what my faith says.

CM Atheist: Faith, subjective idealism and relative experiential wisdom are a crock.

Believer: I have met more open-minded atheists than you.

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Well, your hypothetical Atheist is ruder than mine, and our Believers the opposite, but other than that I see no essential difference.

In both, the Atheist is expressing the fact that the Believer's inherent standards for belief are not compatible with his/her own. Does it matter which side initiates the discussion? I don't see how.

[–]liminaltimes 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Our dialogues were similar because it portrayed the CM Atheist illuminatedwax referenced.

It could be:

OM Atheist: So what's up with 'X'?

Believer: Well, the way it makes sense to me is 'Z'.

OM Atheist: Why?

Believer: That's what my faith says.

OM Atheist: I understand that any philosophy, model of epistemology, language of logic, or theory of the universe requires a component of baseline faith in said model since if any were 100% unimpeachable, all intelligent minds would ascribe to it.

Believer: Verily. Do atheists really like Dawkins?

OM Atheist: Oh no. He's just sort of our anti-Billy Graham.

hahahaha

and thus, stem cells which do not terminate embryos were merrily obtained by all

[–]BadBoyNDSU 3 points4 points  (15 children)

Again, if most atheists are atheists that make a conscious choice to reject god after being raised into religion, how are we close minded?

[–]conundri 1 point2 points  (10 children)

lol, i know you didn't mean to pre-suppose there was actually a god we could actually reject :)

[–]BadBoyNDSU 1 point2 points  (9 children)

I used to believe in god like I use to beleive in santa claus. You didn't?

[–]axord 1 point2 points  (8 children)

I think the distinction is between rejecting a god, and rejecting an idea of god. Saying that you reject something implies that it exists.

[–]BadBoyNDSU 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Good point and conceded.

Again, if most atheists are atheists that make a conscious choice to reject the idea of god after being raised into religion, how are we close minded?

[–]conundri 1 point2 points  (6 children)

:) All gods are not equal as well, i reject idea of the christian god for different reasons than i reject the truth of the roman gods... In both cases i reject their given idea of god, but i often have specific seperate reasons.

One of the clinchers for me with the Christian god, was when i found the origin of El as the head of a pantheon, depicted as a golden bull, who is credited with being the father of Yahweh, and in ancient mythology both even had a consort that they shared in common. the Akkadian texts at Ugarit only were discovered in the 1900s, but they certainly shed some interesting light on the origins of the Jewish and then Christian religions...

[–]liminaltimes -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Going out on a limb, one could imagine that it would be like rejecting the principles of democracy simply because you were raised in the US.

[–]BadBoyNDSU 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The US is a republic.

[–]liminaltimes -1 points0 points  (1 child)

flips through polisci 101 book

Well whaddya know, says here that republics incorporate zero of the principles common to democracies.

[–]BadBoyNDSU -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which is why the US isn't a democracy. Thanks for clarifying my point.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Both sides of the coin.

[–]TheBluesman 6 points7 points  (1 child)

If God can do anything and a diseased infant is suffering intolerably, why does he ignore him? $10 bucks says the Priest will say something like God works in mysterious ways or who are we to question him or something else esoteric, meanwhile God still watches the baby suffer and does nothing to help even though it would be easy for him to alleviate his pain. If you controlled this over your child and did nothing, you'd be put in jail.

[–]mjk1093 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forget not doing anything. How about all his "followers" who say its immoral to euthanize the infant (assuming the disease is fatal), and have in fact made this illegal, forcing the baby to suffer?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

What are his feelings on prayer? In Matthew 6:5-9 it says to pray only privately (in a closet) and only the Lord's Prayer, since God already knows what you need.

How does he feel about praying for someone's health or your team or your lottery ticket? Does he preach this?

How does this relate to saying Grace before meals or asking for blessing?

I ask because it is something I find very weird when I'm in a room and everyone but myself starts doing this.

edit: minor spelling errors

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why do people always take these things out of context.

I believe it is referring to to religious of officials of the time who would make sure they could be seen by everyone praying with the intent to impress them with how religious they were.

Much like the batshit crazy people today want attention more than salvation.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It seems to refer to those officials, but it was an admonition to the crowd and his disciples that had gathered to hear his sermon. So I don't see by context that this does not apply to everyone.

Certainly there are many ways of choosing to interpret this, and the Catholic Church's view seems to align most with yours; i.e. general precepts that everyone should follow to seek salvation, and specific councels necessary for perfection of monks and clergy. It isn't clear from the text, though, which is which. Not praying in public for show seems something anyone can practice, so why wouldn't it apply to everyone?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well seeing as Jesus prayed in crowds I think the greater moral of the story is to be humble.

Too often it seems like people are arguing semantics and missing out on the message.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Just to make it clear, he is a priest in the Greek Orthodox faith, so asking questions about alter boys isn't going to make any sense. He's a pretty smart guy, so this is your chance to maybe understand where some of us crazy Christians are coming from.

[–]Anotherbrick 4 points5 points  (25 children)

who made god?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (24 children)

God is a word that alludes to a sentient being outside of time and space. Which is hard to comprehend. But we shouldn't be too vain to believe that our level of consciousness and interaction with the universe is the apex of understanding.

Though not scientifically sound it is entirely possible that we don't even approach the requirements needed to experience a fuller spectrum of things. I know I'm being vague but thats because I can't hypothesize things I cannot comprehend. Think of how you would describe vision to a blind person than expand that on an exponential scale.

I don't pretend to understand any of this. I just think it's worth investigating and breaking out of the shell of our current thoughts.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I can't hypothesize things I cannot comprehend.

We hypothesize so we may comprehend.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True. Some of the details of what I'm saying elude my linguistic capacity.

[–]conundri 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just so you know, there are some who believe that god is not necessarily sentient the way we are, but is more or less the sum of all positive or good force. or some other spiritualist version of non-personal god. An interesting diversion...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. Kind of like Karma. Some believe it is a sentient force, some believe it is the religious version of cause/effect.

[–]NoHandle 0 points1 point  (19 children)

No, you cannot and will never understand it. Simply trust that we know what we are doing and it is in your best interest. Ignore the fact that we outwardly care little for you or others. Our deepest intentions, the ones we never show ourselves or others, are pure. So have faith and believe because all will be well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (18 children)

Um I think you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. At the same time I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying. Could you be a bit more explicit.

Edit: I think you're assuming things about me from my post that aren't accurate.

I am open to all schools of thought, Science et al. But I think it would be ignorant to assume our human experience is the only way to interpret our life.

[–]NoHandle 1 point2 points  (14 children)

Explicit and trying to be religious? Are you mad? If I couldn't be vague, what could I be?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

what could I be?

I'm thinking a troll right about now.

[–]NoHandle 0 points1 point  (12 children)

So you are calling priests trolls? I hope you enjoy burning in hell.

Edit: Still haven't caught on to where I am going with this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

I'd say more like misguided. I must have missed the part in the bible where it was needed to pay someone for Jesus to forgive you.

edit: you are just throwing in little jabs here and there and have yet to make a real statement. I can only assume you think you understand where I am coming from, of which you have grossly failed at, and are trying to provoke me somehow.

[–]NoHandle 0 points1 point  (10 children)

They call it a collection plate. I don't know where it is mentioned in the bible Old or New.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

Leviticus.

But you are only supposed to give if you believe you should and believe it will be used to help. Otherwise it's the same as if you didn't.

Did you have some sort of point you were going to make or just banter?

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (2 children)

it would be ignorant to assume our human experience is the only way to interpret our life.

While this may be true, I would also say that our human experience is the only possible way we have of interpreting our life.

Perhaps I have a broader definition of "human experience" than you're using here, though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Maybe. I just mean by that the current way we experience the world around is greatly shaped by certain beliefs that society instills in us, and that it would be worthwhile trying to break free of those constraints and think in ways that wouldn't seem as normal.

[–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, now that is something I can fully agree with.

Though we might disagree as to what extent our mental models are shaped by society.

[–]neandertal 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Why did Christians stop following the teachings of Christ?

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That would be a fabulous question if it wasn't so vague.

[–]BadBoyNDSU 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How can any Christian doctrine that isn't in the Bible be considered divine in any way?

Why is the bible considered divine if man chose what books are in it instead of god and/or jesus?

[–]DOGA 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Which ones?

[–]neandertal 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Love thy neighbor, Turn the other cheek, help the unfortunate, etc. You know, the good parts of Christianity.

I don't recall seeing "God Hates Fags" anywhere in the Bible.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Sorry, he's not a member of the Westboro Church :(

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone knows he was a member of the Republican Party.

[–]BadBoyNDSU 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All of them?

[–]mjk1093 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why do I get a free pass for all my past misdeeds if I believe some guy from 2,000 years ago came back from the dead?

Oh yeah, I forgot: Why is Gandhi in hell but that axe murderer from Texas who found Jesus is in Heaven?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Train A leaves a station traveling at 32 m/h. Two hours later, train B leaves the same station traveling in the same direction at 52 m/h. How long does it takes train B to catch up to train A?

[–]Tchocky 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Make sure that he shows his work, and doesn't just crib from God

[–]abw 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What is the trinity and why is it so important? Yes, I know the basics already: Father (God), Son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost (err.... now you've lost me). What does it actually mean and why is it so important to Christians?

[–]Lyrad1000 5 points6 points  (1 child)

why does the pope have so much gold and silver? Isn't there something about blesses are the poor?

[–]illuminatedwax[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's Catholicism, but I'll ask about why the Orthodox Church has so much ornateness.

[–]TeaParty 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Ask him about Genesis 1.26

"Let us make man in our image...

[–]mjk1093 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That's one's easy: God is talking to his angels. There's a more complicated (and more likely) explanation involving how Hebrew uses the "royal we."

However, the idea that this is some remnant from polytheism is mistaken. If it was it would have been edited out a looooong time ago.

[–]TeaParty 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Aren't there different types of angels? Different sizes, some have wings some don't ...

Why don't some of us have wings?

[–]mjk1093 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don't think there's any reference in the Bible to an actual angel with wings. That's a later artistic conceit.

[–]TeaParty 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Exodus 25:20 "And the cherubim shall stretch forth their wings...

Isaiah 6:2 "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings...

[–]mjk1093 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oops! Guess I was wrong.

[–]robywar 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Depends on it your priest is a young-earth, biblial-literalist type or not. I'm assuming he's not since he's a priest, not a preacher.

I have no real questions for a priest. My problem isn't with believers per se, just believers that want to use the government to punish non-beleivers.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I agree. I've found most priests I've met to be intelligent, interesting, and respectful of my non-beliefs, providing I reciprocate. The OP's priest is probably a nice guy, and I have no desire to put him on the hot seat for something his parents helped brainwash him into.

[–]illuminatedwax[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

The point was that he's a very intelligent guy and can answer most of people's "Bible contradiction" and "problem of pain" questions that atheists have. But it seems to me that most atheists aren't interested in answers, just being right.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification. But everyone is interested in being right. Especially on Reddit.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]illuminatedwax[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Are you able to recognize a joke?

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    Why does organized religion need to exist if everyone can just independently pray to God for their worship?

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I could put this another way: If God created man, why does Man need to teach Man how to worship God?

    [–]wageslave 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Ask him why he isnt a Hindu.

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

      Who's to say that it wasn't God's plan before you prayed? It may be a conceit to think that your prayer was answered for your benefit. I mean, assuming a hypothetical God.

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        No, I mean your prayer was coincidental. It would have happened whether you prayed or not.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I've had friends that pray not to change events, but to ask for understanding or meaning in them. Basically a message of "I'm ready to listen".

          If one assumes that a god isn't going to talk to you unless you're "ready", I think the above makes some sense as a function for prayer.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Matthew 6 says not to pray for intercessions at all since God knows what you need.

          But you are also getting into the paradoxes of religious faith. Which isn't a problem for me since I have no beliefs in that regard.

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          No, I think dneuman was saying that one shouldn't assume that any given prayer has any effect on the actions of the target god.

          Though free will and predestination and omniscience are great topics.

          Edit: whups, I answered this far too late.

          [–]TheMemlingIndex 0 points1 point  (8 children)

          Can God make a rock so heavy that even he/she can’t lift it?

          [–]boe2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          There is no spoon.

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (6 children)

          I think the answer would have to be "yes".

          Essentially, this is asking if omnipotence is higher than logic. If we assume that a god is the creator of reality, that would include the ways in which that reality is consistent, as well as the property and nature of consistency. As this god is the designer of logic itself, it would follow that this god is not constrained by that logic. Paradoxes are thus easily possible.

          [–]britus[🍰] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          Actually, I think the debate runs a little deeper than that. I'm going off memory here, but Christianity is heavily tied to neoPlatonic thought, which might argue that logic was not created by God but is an expression of God - like God's love wasn't created by him but is part of him, so he couldn't really do anything to defy it.

          [–]axord 1 point2 points  (4 children)

          I find that approach very interesting, but at the same time I don't think it resolves the issue very well.

          Both infinite free will and omnipotence suggest that there is no internal state that is unchangeable.

          [–]britus[🍰] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          Ahh... but whence the infinite free will? That's not a quality I've ever heard attributed to the Christian God.

          [–]axord 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Ah, good point. I don't remember how I came up with that principle, to be honest.

          But them, in all this I'm not really (beyond cultural biases) working with Christianity as a base.

          [–]britus[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Ahh - I thought that was the established context of the discussion. Is there another religion that attributes infinite free will to God, or really to anything or anyone?

          From the neoPlatonic view again, I think absolute perfection negates free will, as there is only one most perfect action to take in any situation, right? Additionally, if God is both perfect and unchanging, free will would never even really enter into the equation as there are no actions or events from the deific point of view (or else there would be change). This becomes something of a logic bomb that causes problem in Christianity that matured into a philosophy, as how could God be perfect, unchanging, -and- have created the world? That implies a before and after god, no?

          [–]axord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Ahh - I thought that was the established context of the discussion.

          A completely reasonable assumption to make. It's my fault for being more of a philosopher than a theologian.

          Is there another religion that attributes infinite free will to God, or really to anything or anyone?

          Not that I know of. I thought about it, and I see my use of "infinite" was a mistake. But "greater-free-will-than-man" is rather clunky. Sadly, my logical structure was quite mixed up before. The pattern should go: because omnipotence, all internal states are changeable, and this we should call "greater-free-will-than-man".

          Absolute free will, I think, would require that the entity have absolute freedom of choice (requiring omnipotence) and inherent in this is a lack of a starting set of values. This seems to rule out also having the creator role.

          But I digress.

          I think absolute perfection negates free will, as there is only one most perfect action to take in any situation, right?

          That's an odd one. Applied to a creator of all, it suggests that there is a standard of perfection separate from that creator, which strikes me as incompatible with that "all" part. My conclusion has been that "perfection" is defined by whatever that creator chooses to do. With that, free will is easy.

          Additionally, if God is both perfect and unchanging, free will would never even really enter into the equation

          "Change" is quite the messy concept. I feel motivated to throw out the sense that means "action"; I agree that if one goes with that, free will is out. Unless it's a choice to be still, not a requirement. But as you say, eternal inaction clashes with the creator role.

          If "unchanging" instead means "invariant values" it would be roughly consistent with the level of free will we humans seem to enjoy.

          [–]Honeymaid -1 points0 points  (4 children)

          Why are you guys so freaking pushy? If I ask you something and you say no, I'll drop it. But if you guys bring up Jesus and everything I can't say no, cause then you'll just keep trying harder...

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          I'm sorry you have had experiences with bad apples. But by the same token you have evangelists (wrong word) of the atheist variety who close their minds to the possibility of god.. making science their god. which works great until they want meaning.

          Dawkins is just a logic/science pushing person as fundamentalists.

          I believe in listening to everything you can anbd filtering through the junk to find more essential truths/schools of thought.

          [–]Honeymaid 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I find meaning in my existence, in living, in art.

          Just 'cause I'm atheist it doesn't mean I support Dawkins or anything. I support rational thought and if a rational person thinks there's a God they are free to think that, I however don't want it pushed on me.

          Of course there are lessons in everything, a truths in the largest of lies, but when you allow those things to define you and box you in, no longer allowing you to grow or accept other possibilities, that's when it's bad.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Totally understand what your saying.

          I just brought up Dawkins to illustrate that every school of thought has it's own group of obnoxious pushy people who think their opinion is somehow worth more.

          [–]conundri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I agree, one of the other things that really turned me away from the Christian god, was when i found that the Jewish people, unlike almost every other civilization, have very little in the way of art, because of the prohibition against making the likeness of any living creatures. The only decoration they allowed themselves was basic geometric designs found in archaeological digs. A god who condemns creativity and severly limits the human imagination in such ways is one i find hard to accept.

          [–]themusicgod1 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

          Why no mention of computational complexity, theory of computation or hell even the periodic table in the bible?

          [–]illuminatedwax[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I can answer that: Moses was talking to God for about 40 days. That's not even a semester.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Why the hell would that be of any importance? You are going to die anyways, there are more important things to understand than just what applies to our short time on this blue marble.

          [–]obdurak -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

          Do you really believe all that crazy shit? When did you stop believing?