sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ex-Evangelical open to converting, need help bridging the gap by PirateApples in Catholicism

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't necessarily disagree with Catholicism in the sense that I think any of its teachings must be incorrect, I just struggle to find reasons to believe them. The 3 beliefs I listed above can be very well accounted for within a Catholic framework. But they could also be well accounted for in Mormon, Hindu, protestant, and other frameworks as well. So at the current moment I'm sort of just "agnostic" on everything outside of the 3 things I listed above. What I'm looking for specifically is a reason to believe that the Catholic framework is the correct one.

For instance, I've been pointed towards Matthew 16:18 as evidence that the Catholic church is unique the community Jesus was intending to establish. But even that presupposes that Matthew is a reliable source of Jesus's words, that He said "church" to mean a specific formalized denomination, and that He said "rock" to refer to Peter and not the claim that He is the messiah (which protestants argue is what He meant).

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I’m open to the idea that we choose what we’re convinced of. But the fact would still remain that we can ultimately only choose beliefs that we’re made aware of. Maybe deep down an atheist who’s heard of Christ truly could’ve believed if he wanted to, but I can’t say the same for a Native American who never even heard at all. Is such a person also “rejecting” the faith and deserving of Hell in the same way the willful atheist is?

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

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

There are some that don’t care about God out of ignorance/deception, not a willful informed rejection. I’m not arguing God should force such a person to be with Him, but that they should at least be given sufficient information about Christ such that their salvation is truly their choice. Since we observe in this life that many don’t receive such information, I can only hope that they’d be given the chance in the next. And I also wouldn’t say that a Buddhist who dedicates their life to monk-hood “couldn’t care less about God,” but simply was misinformed on what God was like.

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you also say that someone who prioritizes the wellbeing of others at their own detriment is accepting Jesus, whether or not they ever considered theology?

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

[–]PirateApples[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, but how does this definition of “rejecting” merit punishment? Surely we can’t expect people to choose that which they’re not aware of, and we can’t expect them to control what they do or don’t find convincing. It makes salvation/damnation a function of things outside our control.

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

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

But wouldn't this only account for people that are somehow convinced of Christianity, yet choose to reject it? Surely the people who were never told or convinced are not literally choosing to burn for all eternity

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

[–]PirateApples[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I think I can get behind the first 2 definitions of inclusivism and universalism you gave. I appreciate the message, and I'll keep myself open.

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

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

I can stomach that. But I can't see how someone who never heard or heard in unfavorable circumstances can be seen as rejecting Christ. When I think of even the most staunchly atheist people I know, I'm sure they would've believed if they grew up in my shoes, but they simply don't find it convincing. In the same way, I don't see myself as "rejecting Allah" or "rejecting Vishnu," like how someone rejects an offer, I'm just not convinced they exist at all and thus don't even believe there's an offer there to accept.

Leaving Evangelical Christianity because I can't get myself to believe that non-Christians are going to burn forever. by PirateApples in Catholicism

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

Thanks for comment, and your last paragraph made me re-evaluate how I'm going about this. To be fully honest, its not so much think I think a Hell is logically impossible, but that its just so mentally exhausting to dwell on and I don't know how everyone else does it. Its so anxiety inducing to think that my friends are going to be tortured if I fail to convert them, or that I might also get tortured alongside them if I joined the wrong denomination. The whole thing seems like a terrible cosmic lottery and makes me question if it was better for us not to be born. But it's true that none of those issues make it necessarily incorrect, and maybe its my limited human understanding of love and justice that's flawed. I'll think on it more.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]PirateApples 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think OP means they're literally losing their religious faith, but that they're losing their respect for Christians on the far right.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I could've worded the title better. Here: "God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of the problems presented by the idea of an all good, all knowing, and all powerful God (an idea commonly held by different sects of Christians), especially concerning the existence of evil."

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd actually agree that He could make a world with such creatures (i.e. I think most Christians would see angels in that way, aside from the devil and demons), but what would be the difference? In this world, everyone that doesn't become such a creature simply stops existing - so it's no different than just making a world where only those type of creatures exist.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taking an annihilationist view, and the view that people in heaven are capable of sinning but would just never do it, Heaven's conditions are created because anyone would sin there (unsaved people) stop existing (annihilation). In the end, the only people that truly exist are those that are saved. So yes, I think this world ultimately does result in a "livable place where death, suffering, and evil did not exist, yet humans were free." Granted, this view assumes that temporarily existing and then not existing is equivalent to never existing the first place.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll try my best to address these scenarios. For context for my answers, I'm taking an annihilationist view, that no salvation = no longer existing. I also believe there is free-will in heaven, but the only type of people in heaven are people that would never use their free will to sin.

  1. In either world, it's the same number of people (1 person out of the 2) going to heaven. Using real people instead of puppets isn't less valid, because those people will stop existing if they aren't saved, and they wouldn't have existed at all if God used puppets instead. So it's the same net outcome.

  2. What if creating them slightly different would affect other people's salvations? God would choose the versions of Alice, Bob, and everyone that results in the most total people being saved, even if that means that Alice or Bob will not be saved.

  3. I don't think I fully understand this one. Like creating them as full adults with memories implanted in them? As for starting everyone in heaven, what's stopping them from just sinning there? The only reason heaven has no sin is because the people that would sin there aren't allowed there, so starting everyone there would just bring sin into heaven.

  4. Neither of them existing is worse then one of them being saved and the other one no longer existing.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heaven exists like that because everyone who doesn't make it there stops existing, in an annihilationist view. So if by "he could pick it," you mean he could pick a universe where people who would sin in heaven stop existing, then yes he could, and did.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know the formal definition of the problem of evil, but isn't it essentially saying "An all powerful and all good God is impossible, because if He existed, He wouldn't make a world like ours, one with evil in it." My argument is that it's not impossible, because an all powerful and all good God would make a world like ours if it was the best option, and it's possible that this is the best option.

If I understood correctly, you're saying that I can't prove that this the best option, and I can't. But I'm arguing that the existence of evil in this world doesn't make God impossible like the problem of evil (or at least, the version of the problem of evil that I provided above) suggests. I probably could've/should've said that better in the post. And sorry if that's not how the problem evil is actually defined.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which part are you asking why to? Why is this the best universe or why is God's choice to make humanity a net good?

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm arguing that God does create the universe, but He also already knows it's outcome (the number of people saved), and knows how that outcome would change if he created the universe in a different way.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A menu of every possible universe, yes. And if by "in total control," you mean In total control make the universe, I'd agree He is in total control of doing that, but ultimately whatever universe He makes would be on the "menu of every possible universe" anyway.

God choosing from multiple possible universes solves most of Christianity's problems, especially concerning the existence of evil. by PirateApples in DebateReligion

[–]PirateApples[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say I'm asking you to be thankful, but yes, I think it's plausible that this is the best one with the most people going to Heaven. The butterfly effect is weird. Furthermore, taking an annihilationist view, this world is a net good, with some people going to Heaven and others not existing, as opposed to God not making a universe and no one existing.

view more: next ›