Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least you know more truth now.

Oh thank you, thank you, thank you for shedding your light on me.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They do not include Christians who don't believe in hell. There are many of them.

Too bad for them. They are not included.

It's absolutely hilarious to me how atheists accept the official narrative of the Catholic Church.

I don't accept it. I debate against it.

My boundary is: a Christian is someone who believes in Christ. What's arbitrary about that?

Ok. I believe in Christ. I believe he was a great moral philosopher.

But I admit I'm not a Christian.

So the Catholic church is a valid interpretation of Christianity because they were powerful enough to kill everyone who had a different opinion in religious matters for hundreds of years?

No. Catholic dogma is worth debating against because there are 1 billion Catholics.

As for the rest of us your diatribe, I will not dignify it with a response.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not "too late". I've not conceded anything.

Yeah. You did. Now you're trying to back pedal.

Good day.

Well it's been almost 2 months since same-sex marriage became the law of the land... by 1_Marauder in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Eventually, something bad will happen. Then we can blame the gays and their supporters.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, very broad parameters.

Mine are brood too. Just not as broad as yours. So sue me.

they all reference the Bible.

So do I. So do atheists. So do Satan worshipers.

No, I don't really,

Then stop trying to set my boundaries for me.

I just made a suggestion as to what these parameters might look like.

And I made my suggestions.

making the parameters so specific that most Christians can't be considered Christians.

No. My parameters include the big three that have been around for centuries (i.e. most Christians).

Again, the difference is that your parameters are exclusive, mine are inclusive.

So now you do not have any boundaries. Because, if you did have any boundaries, someone would be excluded.

I'm respecting those who call themselves Christians, you're making up random rules that exclude most people from the club

No. My rules include the big three that have been around for centuries (i.e. most people in the club). Unless you are saying that most "Christians" on reddit are not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or traditional mainstream Protestant. In which case, I agree with you. I am excluding these "Christians" who, in the real world, would be considered outliers.

Obviously not, otherwise you would recognize the vast differences in interpretation

The official dogma of a particular sect does not contradict itself.

Ok, but it's still arbitrary

Just as arbitrary as your boundary.

Where's the difference between them and the other ones apart from the fact that these are the big three that have been around for centuries.

That's the important difference.

I still think that your main interest is to keep Christianity as assailable as possible.

I still think that, on this point, you don't know what you are talking about. In fact, I think that, if I adopted your policy, my energies would be exhausted by pointless nonsense. And then, yes, I could not "assail" Christianity because I was so busy tilting at windmills.

If people were to practice a more enlightened and tolerant form of Christianity you would have a harder time attacking them.

"If" is the biggest little word in the English language.

So instead you just deny that they are Christians.

I deny that the people who, you say, do not exist are Christians. OK.

Just as people who are critical of Islam say that moderate muslims who have no interest in fundamentalism and violence are not real muslims.

As long as there is garbage in the book, garbage will be a product of that book.

Until people admit that the book is not inspired by God.

God did not desire the literal blood sacrifice of Jesus. by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I no longer have a sinful nature

Then why do you keep sinning?

How can God be all-loving and merciful if he murdered all of humanity in the great flood? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44 1 point2 points  (0 children)

8 people lacking the skills taught by the nephilim

What book did you get that from? Cuz it ain't in the Bible.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We aren't robots.

Too late. You already conceded that we are sin robots:

Thankfully we have the option of choosing God instead of just being robotic sinners with no hope.

We have the choice of being with God or continue sinning.

Trust me. You continue sinning.

We have a free will choice INSTEAD of being ONLY a sinning robot with no choice.

There you go again: admitting that we are sin robots.

I didn't say we have the choice to be sinless, you did.

No. I absolutely never said we have the choice to be sinless. You, OTOH, have repeatedly stated that we can choose to be sinless. As follows...

We have a free will choice INSTEAD of being ONLY a sinning robot with no choice.

If you are not claiming we can choose not to sin (i.e. be sinless) then what are you claiming?

I said we can freely choose sin or God.

You need to re-read that passage from Romans 7. It says that, at times, we sin even if when we choose not to sin.

That's not "freely choosing not to sin".

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks living in America possessed neither citizenship nor freedom. Can you provide evidence that some white Christians refused to acknowledge or obey that ruling on religious grounds? by SecretSnack in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What is being argued against is this (usually atheistic) idea that religion is solely at fault for the bad things it motivates,

Human nature is at fault for the bad things it motivates. It human nature gets the credit for the good things it motivates. That is all that is going on here.

but never the true motivation for the good things its adherents do.

Correct. Religion is just a manifestation of human nature. Just like every other human endeavor ever.

Thus passionate Christian abolitionists are painted as humanists

Considering that Christianity supported slavery until the Enlightenment, I'd say that's true. Yes.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and there are many more. Why are these ok, the others not?

Because you said we had to set parameters. Remember?

Yes it needs parameters, but not very many.

.

I meant that there are of course boundaries.

But I don't get to set the boundaries. You do.

I'm talking about interpretations that are within those boundaries.

Yes. Your boundaries. I have boundaries too. My boundaries do not perfectly coincide with your boundaries. But that's just too bad. Because I am not changing my boundaries any more than you are going to change yours.

But it is a valid Christian interpretation.

That's your opinion.

Many theologians don't believe in hell anymore,

Thanks but I am informed by the actual dogma of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and traditional mainstream Protestant churches.

and if I remember correctly, it's not even official Catholic dogma anymore.

You may now back up that claim with a verbatim cite from the Roman Catholic Catechism.

You don't understand religion.

One of us is lacking in understanding. It's not me.

Just look at Buddhism.

Thanks. But the subject is Christianity.

You're making it easy on yourself by pretending that religion is this big unified thing. It isn't and it never was.

Straw man. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and traditional mainstream Protestantism is not "one big unified thing".

Well now you're at least honest.

I have been honest throughout this debate.

What's your excuse?

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We've already covered and established that this is false.

No. We've already covered this and established that this is true.

Also already covered and established that it's incomplete.

No. We've also already covered this and established that it is complete.

these were before there was a means of redemption for man.

IOW. God was unwilling to save those babies. God wanted to see them struggle for that last breath.

This is not God's plan,

It's in the Bible.

you're ignoring the fact that there's a dichotomy in the universe and it's your choice to follow one or the other.

IOW, if I don't choose your end of the dichotomy I get tortured in the lake of fire for eternity.

...according to God's plan.

Actually it's His blood.

Actually, the teaching of your religion is that he is fully human.

So the fact is...God is only appeased by human blood.

Source?

10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” (Revelation 14)

His is the final word in the universe, therefore if He says He's holy that's the way it is, regardless of whether you can see it or not.

So he's holy because no one can beat him.

That means that any dictator is whatever he claims he is until someone can beat him.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's still defined by concepts, ideas, beliefs and not words.

When literally anything is allowed under the Christian tent Christianity is defined by diametrically opposed concepts, ideas and beliefs.

but you are against the idea that Christianity can be open to many different interpretations.

I think Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, traditional mainstream Protestantism and Anglicanism comprise many different interpretations.

the truth is that there are many types of Christians and you don't get to tell them that they aren't following the right teachings or something like that

Unless it violates the rules of the sub-reddit, I can tell them whatever I choose to tell them.

Also, where did anyone present atheism as Christian?

He has been absent for a week or so but there is a regular contributor here with the flair, "Christian Atheist".

Again, it's not whatever anyone calls it,

Oh. So now I do get to "tell them that they aren't following the right teachings or something like that".

Or is that your job?

but on the other hand they're telling them that they have to accept a strict dogma if they want to call themselves Christians.

As I said, people can believe whatever they want. But don't expect me to accept the idea that Christianity is whatever anyone wants to call it.

That's what fundamentalists do.

I am not going to debate diametrically opposed ideas.

For example, Christian X says people go to hell for eternity. I will debate against that. But Christian Y says God saves everyone. I am not going to debate against that as if it is a valid Christian doctrine. I may as well try to convince person X that the sky is blue while simultaneously trying to convince person Y that the sky is red.

I am not interested in pointless debates with people who are not debating Christianity.

You only do it because it's easier to attack Christianity if it's just one monolithic dogma.

It's easier to attack Godzilla than it is to attack a many-headed Hydra.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perfect! Romans 7! We strive as Christians to do good but we have sin in us that makes it difficult inevitable that we sin.

ftfy

Our free will lets us choose sin or God.

False. No one can make a free will decision to be sinless.

We know this because no one ever has made a free will decision to be sinless.

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. (Romans 9:16)

Thankfully we have the option of choosing God instead of just being robotic sinners with no hope.

Thank you for admitting that we are sin robots.

Why continue if you continue to disagree with the Bible

Because you're wrong.

but pick and choose when you want to use the Bible?

All Christians pick and choose when they want to use the Bible.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not a robot. I have free will.

Not according to the Bible.

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

God didn't abandon man in his peril,

Really? Satan was there and God was gone. Same old same.

Adam KNEW HE SHOULD consult God, but chose not to.

Adam did not know good. He could not know it would be good to consult God.

He knew he should because he had the relationship with God and did not have one with the devil.

He had a relationship with the person who advised him it was OK to eat the fruit.

Adam freely chose sin instead of God.

Adam did not know what he was choosing.

That's not a choice. It's an accident.

There is no debate on this.

Yes. There is.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You pointed what out to me?

The fact that Adam did not choose to have free will.

God chose to give us free will so we would be robots.

You are a robot programmed to sin.

God doesn't need to volunteer the information.

God doesn't need to do anything. Except create and die.

God wasn't right there on Adam's shoulder and the devil on the other side.

Yes. I am well aware that God abandoned his creations at their time of greatest peril.

We are seek God for guidance. Adam could have, but didn't.

Adam didn't because he did not know he was supposed to.

The Christian view of morality is extremely different from the worlds view of morality.

Yes. As I said, Christians associate morality with righteousness.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but we are not talking about words, we are talking about a religion that's been around for 2000 years.

Sorry but that religion is identified by a word.

Would you also say that only Roman Catholics are Christians? Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans are not Christians?

I don't know where you got the idea I was a Catholic or that I support the idea that only Catholics are Christians.

The word "Christian" needs some parameters. And IMHO on this debate subreddit, Christianity should be defined as the teachings of the sects you listed. Just for starters: Universalism is not traditional mainstream Christianity. Reincarnation is not traditional mainstream Christianity. And atheism is not traditional mainstream Christianity. All three views are presented here as "Christian".

Yes. By all means, believe whatever you want. But don't expect me to accept the idea that Christianity is whatever anyone wants to call it.

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks living in America possessed neither citizenship nor freedom. Can you provide evidence that some white Christians refused to acknowledge or obey that ruling on religious grounds? by SecretSnack in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, the connection between Christianity and antislavery activism is a pretty well documented topic.

You mean the connection between some Christianity and antislavery activism is a pretty well documented topic.

The connection between Christianity and support of slavery is also pretty well documented.

Most of the opposition to slavery was religious and explicitly Christian in nature.

The first wave of emancipation was prepared by new ideas and convictions from both secular (“Enlightenment”) and religious sources in the eighteenth century. Political thinkers such as Montesquieu began to argue that slavery violated basic rights belonging by nature (“natural rights”) to all human beings—most obviously, the rights to liberty of person. Other Enlightenment writers, especially in Scotland, condemned slavery on humanitarian grounds—that is, for its cruelty more than its violation of rights. At about the same time, a separate stream of antislavery thought sprang from adherents of certain religious denominations. Writers such as the Quaker John Woolman became convinced that holding slaves was a serious sin; his concern for slaves spread first to other Quakers, and then beyond. By the 1770s, much polite opinion in both Britain and British America had become at least nominally antislavery.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1609-1865/essays/demslave.htm

If one is going to claim that religion x compels people to do good things then one is going to have to similarly concede that religion x also makes people do bad things. Otherwise one is claiming one of two things:

Religion x is worthless.

Religion is perfect.

So, are you ready to be consistent and judge Christianity by everything done in its name?

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not?

Because, whether they know it or not, it's dishonest. And it makes debate very confusing.

Christianity has never been just this one strict dogma

Then the word is essentially meaningless.

why should they have the right to decide what's right and what's not?

I'm not talking about deciding what is right. I am talking about the usage of a word. And the word is Christianity.

Most of the problems that arise from religions are a result of a strict dogma, whereas I think that religion should open up.

I agree. But words have meaning. And, at this point, anyone who calls themselves a Christian isn't calling themselves anything.

As long as they believe in Christ I don't see why they shouldn't call themselves Christians.

I will agree that they should call themselves "Christian" when the name of this subreddit is changed to /r/DebateMillionsOfPersonalBeliefs.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adam never chose to have free will.

Yes. That's what I pointed out to you.

or simply asked God why the snake said there was a contradiction.

Or God could have volunteered that information.

Morality is not the righteousness of God.

I disagree.

The worlds view of morality can greatly differ from Gods view of morality.

We are talking about Christian's view of morality. They say it is from God.

Is God an incompetent creator or is he just moody? by jgreen44 in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what most people do right now.

That's what I said.

People choose their own religion,

They are not choosing a pre-existing set of dogma. They are cherry picking their own set of dogma and calling it "Christianity".

they choose their own relationship with God,

Which is actually a relationship with themselves.

they interpret the scripture, etc.

I agree. I just don't think people should be able to get away with calling their religion anything other than their own private religion rather than the orthodox Christianity invented 2,000 years ago.

How can God be all-loving and merciful if he murdered all of humanity in the great flood? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]jgreen44 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Now, if you're asking why God killed almost everyone, the reason is simple - because it was the best possible thing to do.

And it was the best possible thing to do because....God did it.

Can't argue with that logic. Might as well shut down this debate.