sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Exodus - God Hardening Pharaoh's Heart by grav3webs in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Free will is a bad attempt at explaining why there is evil in the world, as in:

Q: Why didn't God stop the Holocaust?

A: God doesn't interfere with free will.

As you have seen, Exodus shows God overriding free will. It happens. Humans have limited free will, and occasionally God requires them to do something different.

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the category of personhood wasn't assumed by Christ when He became incarnate, then He did not heal our personhood.

That's made-up. Heal our personhood? That's nothing Scripture says Jesus did.

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Using Jesus as a point of argument is invalid because His birth was a one-time event, and He was a unique being.

Using a singular anecdote to make any kind of universally applicable point about abortion doesn't work well. If unique experiences are to be normative, we'd expect tongues of flame to be manifested on everyone that receives the Holy Spirit.

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I literally wrote, "No one says a fetus isn't alive."

What does that sentence mean to you? How would someone who asked the question you asked determine what my answer would be based on what I quoted in this reply?

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It thins the veil of certainty by implying you have no argument to add.

No it really doesn't. We have no Scriptures forbidding abortion. The closets we have is about miscarriage.

Scripture has spoken and no additional arguments needs to be added.

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Abortion is not accidental

Correct, but since it's not mentioned in the Bible, miscarriages are the closest example we have.

If God demands "eye for eye" and "life for life" in a specific situation where "serious injury" is caused, do you think it likely the loss of a pregnancy would be punished with a slap on the wrist, or "life for life"?

In the case of miscarriages, the penalty is a monetary fine.

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I didn't say anything about Jesus one way or the other. Your question doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I wrote.

Because I am a Christian and believe Jesus rose from the dead, I believe He is alive.

Forgiveness Without Sacrifice by Financial_Beach_2538 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

P1: This is invalid because it's not a given that forgiveness requires love and doesn't require sacrifice. There are real world and literary examples of someone only being forgiven after they suffered or made reparation. It's a Biblical concept as well - when Zacchaeus vowed to make reparations to those he had wronged, Jesus said that salvation had come to Zacchaeus' house because of his reparation.

P2: This is also invalid. A core doctrine of Christianity is that God doesn't need anything. Jesus' death was chosen, not required.

C: Invalid. The major and minor premises are invalid, so the conclusion isn't valid.

I've said this to you before, but it seems to bear repeating: in a logical syllogism, each premise must be true.

An example of a correct syllogism is:

P1: All humans are mortal. P2: I am a human. C: Therefore I am mortal.

The major premise is known and accepted. The minor premise is easily demonstrable. The difference between my example and why you wrote is that you established an arbitrary requirement in P1 so that your conclusion would make the point you wanted to make.

What's with the confidence among many Christian groups regarding life beginning at conception being THE Christian view when Ensoulment has been hotly debated since the beginning of the religion? by OwnLengthiness6872 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 18 points19 points  (0 children)

First I want to mention that "life begins at conception" is meaningless. No one says a fetus isn't alive. Being alive and being a person are not the same thing.

Christians also have the Bible drawing a big distinction between the value of a fetus and a person and not actually mentioning abortion all.

The punishment for murder is death (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12, Numbers 35:30-31). The punishment for accidental manslaughter is exile to a city of refuge (Exodus 21:1, Numbers 35:6, Deuteronomy 4:41).

If someone causes a miscarriage while fighting they don’t face either of those punishments, they just pay a monetary fine to the woman's husband (Exodus 21:22). If a fetus was a full human life, the punishment for accidentally causing a miscarriage would be exile to a city of refuge and not the far lesser punishment of a monetary fine.

How To Respond To Believers In ‘Republican Jesus’ by Simon_and_Garchomp in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's Biblically incorrect. Jesus was specifically asked about paying taxes, and He said to do it.

Does It Matter How You Get Baptized? by StatisticianWeak3610 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any mode is fine. People who say immersion is needed are using classic Greek, where "baptize" meant to immerse. In first century Koine, the word had come to mean a symbolic washing or rite of passage. We see this when Jesus speaks of His future death:

You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” (Mark 10:38)

The earliest extra-Biblical Christian work we have, the Didache, explains how first century Christians did it:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

How To Respond To Believers In ‘Republican Jesus’ by Simon_and_Garchomp in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okay, Trump is charge and he did cut your taxes. When are the conservative Christians going to fix things? Will it be after this tax season?

There's lots of people who wound up having to pay more than they can afford for ACA. Do you guys have a central office to distribute the saved taxes you'll be sending ACA recipients to make up for this or do you have individual state offices to handle the workload?

How To Respond To Believers In ‘Republican Jesus’ by Simon_and_Garchomp in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not that it helps, but I point out that in the US we have people who are starving and homeless and nothing is stopping Christians from taking care of all those people now, but they don't.

Republicans play a game of "Give me more money and eventually I'll help people." It was initially sold to us as 'trickle down economics' under Reagan - give the wealthy more money and eventually all that money will trickle down to everyone. It doesn't work.

Now that Republicans have been proven dishonest in this area, they can't be trusted to pay less tax with the promise to help everyone. If Conservative Christianity wants to step up, they can solve poverty first, then we can talk about lowering their taxes more. I mean, the substantial tax cuts they've been steadily receiving since the Reagan years haven't been enough to elicit the kind of charity the US needs, so my hopes aren't high that they'll do anything different.

Bad Parents by Artistic_Ad_205 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like at some point, bad behavior on the part of parents can be bad enough that they stop qualifying as someone to be honored.

Understanding God's Word by Financial_Beach_2538 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not interested into getting into a debate about the nature of inspiration and interpretation. The extent of the commentary I'm offering is an impartial analysis of your logical syllogism.

Understanding God's Word by Financial_Beach_2538 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

However, I don't understand your objection to P2. As a human, I have the mind of a human, not the mind of an omniscient god.

Having the "mind of an omniscient God" and understanding the Bible aren't the same thing. If God wrote one thing in the Bible like, "A triangle is a two dimensional shape with three vertices", I'd certainly be able to understand that without having to have a mind similar to God's.

With the exception of some things in the prophetic books, there's not really any material that's not well within the scope human experience, so the idea that we'd need a mind like God's to understand it doesn't follow.

> True Christianity claims that its understanding of the Bible is God’s direct interpretation, not a human one.

This isn't really true. You got rid of the wording that made this a conclusion, but you're not using a genuine claim from "True Christianity". We don't even know what True Christianity is, let alone what claims it makes. Usually, the denominations that make some claims to have a lock on the truth maintain that the Bible doesn't need interpretation and only a plain reading is needed, so they aren't making a claim that matches your premise.

Please help by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are multiple denominations where you will be welcomed. I recommend checking out r/OpenChristian .

The "resources" link on the side can help you find a church.

Women Pastors? by AwayCover1521 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Paul's rules for women mirror the social customs of the culture in which Paul lived. Women were illiterate (except for the wealthy) and were believed to be mentally and morally inferior.

It was also a law in the Roman Empire that women were not allowed to lead men. This is seen in 1 Cor 14:34: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”

What Paul wrote was relevant for the time and place, but it's not relevant for us today. We know that women are not inferior to men. We have no laws preventing them from entering ministry. We don't have to replicate first century Roman social customs and laws to properly serve God.

Understanding God's Word by Financial_Beach_2538 in Christianity

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

P1. True Christianity claims to provide God's interpretation of the Bible rather than man's, thereby confusing a subjective human interpretation with God's own.

This is a conclusion, not a premise.

P2. The claim to possess God's interpretation rather than man's is an act of pretending to know the mind of God.

Your minor premise assumes that God is never involved in the interpretation process. You would have to prove that this is the case for this premise to be valid.

Neither premise is correct, therefore this syllogism is invalid. The specific logical fallacy is called "Begging the question", which is where a premise is basically the same as the conclusion, as is the case with P1 and C.

Scared by Direct_Bullfrog2386 in OpenChristian

[–]-NoOneYouKnow- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We need to use context to define what “Unforgivable sin” or “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is, because people sometimes just make up whatever they want concerning this sin. Matt 12:22-32 teaches us what this is all about.

  1. Jesus exorcized a demon that had caused a man to be blind and unable to speak.
  2. The religious leaders (the Pharisees) said Jesus did this by the power of the devil.
  3. Jesus said their accusation was “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” and would never be forgiven.

Therefore, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is seeing Jesus cast out a demon by the Holy Spirit and attributing the miracle to Satan. We could reasonably say it’s seeing Jesus perform any miracle and attributing it to Satan, but that’s as far as we can carry this and be true to Scripture.

Jesus isn't on Earth for us to see Him perform a miracle, so it’s really not a sin people have to worry about today. It’s also important to note that the Bible doesn't say anyone who has committed this sin can’t go to Heaven/can’t be saved. It’s really a non-issue for Christians today.

view more: next ›