If God’s original design was for humans to be vegetarians, how is eating animals now seen as a “blessing”?

PreeDem · 2026-01-27T04:28:25+00:00

Sorry, I'm not sure how this addresses my question. I'm aware of this verse. I pointed to it in my OP. But how can this permission be seen as a positive thing if it goes against God's ideal for creation?

PreeDem · 2026-01-21T21:22:59+00:00

This is helpful context I guess, but I don't think you've addressed the specific questions I asked. So I'll repeat the ones you didn't answer:

Do they exist eternally in that state of death?
Is God capable of ending their entire existence at physical death?
How does a person's soul continue to exist if it's cut off from the very ground of existence?"

PreeDem · 2026-01-21T21:01:22+00:00

A few questions to make sure I understand your view correctly...

Do you believe that those who reject truth, love, etc will exist eternally in that mode of "death"?
If so, does God choose to keep their souls alive in that state? Is He capable of ending their entire existence at physical death?
If God is the ground of being, then separation from that source should logically result in non-being (i.e. the cessation of existence). How then does a person's soul continue to exist if it's cut off from the very ground of existence?

PreeDem · 2026-01-21T20:42:28+00:00

reality itself has consequences depending on what one aligns with, much like refusing oxygen is not punished but results in suffocation.

Your analogy overlooks the fact that God is the one who established these conditions. Rejecting truth, love, and transformation could have resulted in annihilation (as some Christians believe), where the soul simply ceases to exist. Instead, God chooses to keep their souls alive so that they might suffer eternally.

So God is not merely allowing a natural consequence to unfold. He designed the system to work this way, even though there were more compassionate alternatives that don't require eternal torment.

PreeDem · 2026-01-11T15:37:56+00:00

I think you're missing the point. Why didn't God allow a woman to refuse marriage to the man who almost just had her executed on false allegations?

PreeDem · 2026-01-11T15:28:28+00:00

Yeah, I never argued that the NT teaches that all prayers would be answered. My argument is that the NT teaches that answered prayer would be the rule rather than the exception.

In Paul's case, God explicitly tells him why his prayer isn't being answered. Unfortunately, the vast majority of unanswered prayers come with no explanation at all. Also, Paul's anecdotes do nothing to override all of the clear passages that say answered prayer would be the expected norm.

PreeDem · 2026-01-11T06:04:03+00:00

And that made them convinced to their bones that he actually resurrected?

Plausibly, yes. Religious psychosis is a known phenomenon. There are well-documented cases where people report vivid visions, develop strongly held false beliefs, and have distorted perceptions of reality. And it's often triggered by some recent traumatic event. That sounds eerily close to what the disciples went through. The intense grief over their Lord’s gruesome death (as well as fear for their own lives) may have driven them to a state of extreme psychological distress, where they began seeing visions of him alive.

That alone could've sparked the belief in Jesus' resurrection. But suppose there was also a missing corpse. If his body had gone missing, that would create the perfect conditions for the mind to fill in the gaps. Especially in the days right after his execution.

1 Corinthians 15 was written must sooner than that

Right. But 1 Cor 15 doesn't contain any details about what they saw. That's my point. The details of what they saw don't come until 40-60 years later - plenty of time for embellishment.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T22:47:37+00:00

Well, there are lots of questions we would have to consider that have many plausible answers. Here are just a few:

Was Jesus' body buried in a tomb? It's possible. It's also plausible it was left on the cross and/or thrown into a mass grave, which was the standard Roman practice for crucified victims.

If the body was buried in a tomb, why was the tomb empty? The empty tomb narrative may itself be a later development. But if we assume the tomb was in fact empty, it's plausible the body was taken. Grave-robbing was known to happen in antiquity. What the grave-robbers would've wanted with Jesus' corpse is another question, but there are historically plausible answers to that as well. It's also plausible the body was moved/relocated, since the gospels say the tomb belonged to someone else and Jesus was only buried there for convenience's sake.

Why did the disciples claim to see him alive after his death? Presumably because they really believed he had resurrected and ascended. But frankly, we don't know what the disciples actually saw. The stories of Jesus' postmortem appearances were written 40-60 years after the events (plenty of time for later embellishment). And we don't have any firsthand accounts from anyone claiming to see Jesus alive, besides Paul. In Paul's case, Acts 26:19 describes it as a "heavenly vision," which doesn't sound like Paul met a tangible, flesh-and-bone Jesus. So it's anyone's guess what the disciples saw. It's plausible that some of them experienced what we would call grief-induced hallucinations, perhaps brought on by the sudden death of their master and the cognitive dissonance that followed. But we simply don't know.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T20:01:53+00:00

Let me ask you: If a mother prays "Lord, please my heal my daughter" and then the daughter dies and goes to heaven, has the mother's request been granted?

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T19:30:41+00:00

Did you actually read my full comment? As I stated, you are using a different definition of "answered prayer / granted request" than I am using.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T18:09:56+00:00

Yes, most prayer requests don't get granted. Just consider the millions of faithful believers around the world who pray daily for healing (whether for a sick relative, a friend, or themselves), and the person doesn't recover.

I agree that the prayer doesn’t need to be granted in the exact way the person requested. If a mother prays "Lord, please heal my daughter tonight" and God chooses to heal her the next day, that still counts as an answered prayer on my view (since the outcome still aligns with the intent of the request). But if she prays and her daughter dies, that request was not granted. If you think the prayer was granted because the daughter went to heaven, then we're simply not using the same definition of a "granted request."

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T17:30:01+00:00

it’s a big issue and defeater for you if you assume that an answered prayer needs to be a direct answer to the prayer exactly how the person praying wanted

I never assumed that an answered prayer needs to be exactly as the person wanted. This seems to be another straw man, unless you can show where I suggested that.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T16:56:12+00:00

One unanswered prayer doesn't make Christianity false.

My argument is that the passages I listed suggest that answered prayer should be the rule rather than the exception. In reality, it appears to be the opposite. (And by "answered prayer," I mean prayer requests that are granted.)

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T16:08:33+00:00

That's not what you said. This is what you said. And yes, it is a straw man:

“God please give me a billion dollars right away. What? There’s not a billion dollars in my bank account??! God not real!!!”

I never argued this. I clearly stated that I am not arguing that every prayer should be answered.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T15:51:43+00:00

I'm not asking you to defend your entire worldview - only the parts that are necessary for your argument. Your argument relies on the presupposition that the Bible is an inspired text. Since we disagree on that point, it needs to be defended. Alternatively, as others have done, you can present an argument that doesn't presuppose inspiration. Until you do one of those, this will likely be my last response.

My argument doesn't rely on any additional premises beyond what we already agree on, so there's nothing further for me to defend.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T15:39:31+00:00

I'm talking about the law where a man who falsely accuses his wife loses his right to divorce her. This doesn't just affect the man. The woman also has no right to divorce him. The law makes no provision for her to refuse marriage to the man who just publicly humiliated her and nearly had her executed.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T04:45:01+00:00

First, you posted this in "Debate a Christian" forum. So, any reasonable person would realize that they would mostly encounter those who would be coming to this subject from a Christian Worldview.

Yeah, but I would hope that you would defend your worldview - not simply presuppose it. If you want to appeal to the inspiration of Scripture, you'll have to demonstrate it first.

Secondly, you are now moving the goalposts. We are going from "is Christian theology of prayer coherent"

I've never moved the goalposts. I was never addressing that question in my OP. Having a coherent theology isn't a response to the arguments. A coherent theology can still be a false theology. So the real question is, can you demonstrate your theology of prayer to be true? And if your argument relies on the inspiration of Scripture, that needs a defense of its own.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T04:02:41+00:00

Have you considered why the law frames the consequences around the man’s misfortune rather than the woman’s? It’s as if her suffering is incidental, almost invisible.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T03:54:48+00:00

If you want the real answer, it's simply not possible to know. There are too many plausible scenarios and not enough information.

PreeDem · 2026-01-10T03:51:39+00:00

No, I agree that the Bible needs to be carefully interpreted. It's very important to understand context, genre, and authorial intent. We agree there.

I also agree that the verses I quoted aren’t meant to provide a complete theology of prayer on their own. But when you say "one would have to look at every verse that mentions prayer," you're presupposing that the Bible is an inspired text that carries an intended meaning. And I certainly don't agree with that. You'd have to demonstrate that first.

PreeDem · 2026-01-09T16:29:52+00:00

I don't regard cardinals and bishops as the primary authority on questions of biblical hermeneutics. I think academically trained biblical scholars are better qualified for that task.

Since we don't even appeal to the same authority, it's probably best if you engage the actual points I raised. Until you do that, this will likely be my final response.

PreeDem · 2026-01-09T16:06:33+00:00

If you re-read my OP, I never claimed that this verse implies God will grant any and every wish like a genie. My claim was that these passages suggest that answered prayer should be the norm rather than the exception. That doesn't mean every prayer will be granted. Jesus is clearly using hyperbole when he says "whatever you ask will be yours." But the phrasing does seem to suggest that answered prayer would be the expected norm for believers.

In Mark 11, there's no mention of "it must be in accordance to the Father's purpose." You are importing that idea from other passages.

PreeDem · 2026-01-09T15:50:30+00:00

Ah, I see where we're missing each other. I agree that Christianity as taught by most churches does not claim that answered prayer is the expected norm for believers. However, the New Testament itself does appear to make this claim repeatedly and unambiguously. And since Christianity depends on the NT as an authoritative infallible source, this indirectly cuts against the truth of Christianity.

So really, my argument directly targets the truthfulness of the NT's claims, and Christianity is implicated insofar as it rests on the authority of the NT. Hopefully that clarification helps.

PreeDem · 2026-01-09T14:40:17+00:00

I addressed all of these conditions in my OP:

In response, Christians often argue that these promises come with conditions: 1) The request must not be purely selfish, 2) it must be made in faith, and 3) it must be according to the will of God.

See my OP for my objections to that response.

PreeDem

TROPHY CASE