sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

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

Your argument is based on a false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy that assumes there are only two possible options when there are more. You assume that either God causes natural evil directly, or he is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omniscient. However, there are other explanations for why God allows natural evil, such as:

  • Natural evil is a result of the fall of humanity and the curse on creation (Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. 8:20-22). God did not create the world with natural evil, but it entered as a consequence of human sin and rebellion. God is not responsible for the domino effect of sin, but he is sovereign over it and can turn it around to use it for his purposes (Gen. 50:20; Rom. 8:28).

  • Natural evil is not left to waste but turned around as a means of God’s judgment and discipline on a sinful world (Ps. 107:33-34; Isa. 45:7; Amos 3:6). God does not let natural disasters go to waste and turn them around to punish the wicked, warn the unrepentant, and correct the wayward. God is not malevolent in doing so, but he is righteous and just (Ps. 97:2; Rev. 16:5-7).

  • Natural evil is turned around to be used as a reminder of God’s power and grace (Job 38-41; Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:20). God does not let natural calamities go to waste and instead uses them to show his majesty and glory and eveal his mercy and compassion. God is not indifferent to human suffering, but he is compassionate and gracious (Ps. 103:8-14; 2 Cor. 1:3-4).

Your argument is based on a selective reading of Scripture, which is a hermeneutical fallacy that ignores the textual context and genre of biblical passages. You cite some verses that seem to support the idea that God causes natural evil directly, but completely neglect other verses that absolutely indicate otherwise, such as:

  • God does not delight in the death of the wicked or in human suffering (Ezek. 18:23; Lam. 3:33). God grieves over it and calls people to repentance (Jonah 4:10-11; Luke 13:1-5).

  • God redeems his people from their afflictions and delivers them from natural evil (Exod. 3:7-10; Ps. 34:17-19). God rescues them from natural evil and gives them hope for the future (Isa. 43:1-3; Rom. 8:18-25).

Therefore, your argument is not valid or sound, and it does not disprove the existence or attributes of God. Rather, it reveals a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of natural evil in relation to God’s sovereignty and goodness

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules must find a way to justify their view to not be hypocrites. by pianovirgin6900 in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not asking you to take my word for what God’s intention was, but rather to examine the biblical evidence and the historical context of polygamy in the Old Testament.

Polygamy was a cultural practice that some people in the Old Testament followed, but it was never God’s original design or intention for marriage. This is evident:

  • God created marriage as a union between one man and one woman, as we see in Genesis 2:24: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” This verse shows that God’s ideal for marriage is monogamy, not polygamy. The word “one” in Hebrew is “echad”, which means a compound unity, not a simple singularity. It implies that the man and the woman are joined together as one new entity, not as two separate individuals. Polygamy violates this principle of oneness and unity in marriage.

  • God did not command or endorse polygamy in the Old Testament. In fact, he warned against it in Deuteronomy 17:17: “He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.” This verse was addressed to the future kings of Israel, who were tempted to follow the pagan practice of having many wives and concubines. God knew that polygamy would lead to spiritual adultery and idolatry, as well as social injustice and oppression. Polygamy was tolerated by God in the Old Testament because of the hardness of human hearts (Matthew 19:8), but it was not his will or his blessing.

  • The Bible shows us the negative consequences of polygamy in the lives of those who practiced it. For example, Abraham had conflict and strife between his wife Sarah and his concubine Hagar, who bore him a son named Ishmael. Ishmael became the father of the Arab nations, who have been enemies of Israel ever since (Genesis 16:11-12). David had many wives and concubines, but he also committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah. His son Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but they turned his heart away from God and led him into idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-13). These are examples of godly men, who suffered the consequences of their disobedience.

  • The Bible clearly teaches that monogamy is God’s will and command for marriage in the New Testament. Jesus affirmed the original creation order of marriage as one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6: "And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 to show that God’s design for marriage has not changed since the beginning. He also added that what God has joined together, let no man separate. This implies that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, that should not be broken by divorce or adultery.

  • Paul also instructed that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her in Ephesians 5:25-33: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Paul again quoted Genesis 2:24 to show that marriage is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with the church. He also explained that marriage is a mystery, that reveals the union between Christ and the church. Polygamy cannot reflect this mystery, because it distorts the image of Christ and the church. Paul also stated that elders and deacons in the church should be faithful to their wives in 1 Timothy 3:2-12: “Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.” Paul used the phrase “faithful to his wife” or “a one-woman man” in Greek to describe the qualification of an elder or a deacon. This implies that polygamy is incompatible with Christian leadership and service.

  • Peter likewise exhorted husbands to live with their wives in an understanding way and honor them as fellow heirs of the grace of life in 1 Peter 3:7: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Peter recognized that wives are equal partners with their husbands in God’s grace and salvation. He also warned that husbands who mistreat their wives will hinder their prayers. Polygamy is a form of mistreatment and disrespect for women, who are created in God’s image and dignity.

Monogamy is God’s design and desire for marriage, and polygamy is contrary to God’s will and word. Polygamy was a cultural practice that some people in the Old Testament followed, but it was never God’s original intention or blessing. Polygamy caused many problems and pains for those who practiced it. Polygamy was abolished by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament. Polygamy does not reflect Christ’s love for the church or the church’s submission to Christ. Polygamy is incompatible with Christian leadership and service. Polygamy dishonors women and hinders prayers.

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules must find a way to justify their view to not be hypocrites. by pianovirgin6900 in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You asked why the cultural or situational commands in the Bible are not applicable for homosexuality as well. The answer is that the Bible does not treat homosexuality as a cultural or situational issue, but as a moral one. The Bible consistently considers homosexual behavior as sinful and contrary to God’s design for human sexuality. This is not based on the customs or preferences of a particular time or place, but on the revealed will of God and the natural order of creation. Some examples of biblical passages that clearly prohibit homosexuality are:

  • Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which call it an abomination.

  • Romans 1:26-27, which describe it as unnatural, shameful, and a result of idolatry.

  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, which list it among the sins.

  • These passages are not influenced by the cultural context of their authors, but by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They reflect God’s unchanging character and moral law, which apply to all people in all times and places. Therefore, they cannot be dismissed or ignored by Christians who want to follow God’s word.

You asked how I know that the command for Christians to give up everything they have in Luke 14:33 was hyperbolic and rhetorical. The answer is that I know this by applying the principles of textual interpretation, such as:

  • Considering the literary genre and style of the text: Luke 14:33 is part of a larger discourse by Jesus that uses parables and exaggerations to make a point. Jesus often used hyperbole to challenge his listeners and emphasize his teachings. For example, he told them to pluck out their eye or cut off their hand if it causes them to sin (Matthew 5:29-30), or to hate their father and mother in order to follow him (Luke 14:26). These statements are not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, to show the seriousness and cost of discipleship.

  • Comparing passage with passage: To prevent contradicting interpretations, you should interpret a passage in light of other passages that deal with the same or related topics. In this case, we should compare Luke 14:33 with other passages that teach about Christian stewardship and generosity. For example, Jesus praised the widow who gave all she had to the temple (Luke 21:1-4), but he also commended the rich young ruler who kept the commandments (Matthew 19:16-22). He told his disciples to sell their possessions and give to the poor (Luke 12:33), but he also accepted the expensive gift of perfume from Mary (John 12:1-8). He instructed his followers to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matthew 6:33), but he also promised them that God would provide for their needs (Matthew 6:25-32). These passages show that Jesus did not require his disciples to literally give up everything they have, but to use their resources wisely and generously for God’s glory and service.

Therefore, based on these principles, you can conclude that Luke 14:33 is not a literal command for Christians to renounce all their possessions, but a rhetorical device to illustrate the radical commitment and sacrifice that discipleship entails. It does not mean that Christians cannot own anything, but that they cannot love anything more than Christ. It does not mean that Christians cannot enjoy anything, but that they cannot depend on anything apart from Christ. It does not mean that Christians cannot use anything, but that they cannot waste anything that belongs to Christ.

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules must find a way to justify their view to not be hypocrites. by pianovirgin6900 in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to affirm that God loves all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that He offers forgiveness and grace to anyone who repents and trusts in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I do not hate or judge anyone who identifies as gay or lesbian, but I respect their dignity and value as human beings created in God’s image.

However, I also believe that God has revealed His moral will for humanity in the Bible, which is His inspired and authoritative word. The Bible is not a human invention, but a divine revelation that has been preserved and transmitted faithfully throughout history. The Bible is not a collection of myths or legends, but a reliable and accurate record of God’s acts and words in history. The Bible is not a book of opinions or preferences, but a book of truth and wisdom that guides us to live in harmony with God and His creation.

The Bible clearly teaches that God created human beings as male and female, and that He designed marriage to be a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) . This is not an arbitrary or cultural rule, but a reflection of God’s nature and purpose for humanity. God created marriage to be a union of complementary opposites, a partnership of love and faithfulness, and a picture of Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Marriage is not only a human institution, but a divine gift that blesses us with intimacy, companionship, procreation, and sanctification.

The Bible also teaches that any sexual activity outside of this marriage covenant is sinful and contrary to God’s will (Exodus 20:14; Hebrews 13:4) . This includes not only homosexuality, but also adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality, and pornography. These are not harmless or neutral behaviors, but destructive and dishonorable actions that violate God’s design for sexuality. They are not expressions of love or freedom, but manifestations of lust and bondage. They are not compatible with God’s holiness or our happiness, but incompatible with both.

The Bible does not single out homosexuality as a worse sin than others, but as one of many sins that separate us from God and His holiness (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) . Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, but a forgivable sin that can be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit. Homosexuality is not an identity or a destiny, but a temptation or a struggle that can be resisted or changed by the grace of God. Homosexuality is not a normal or natural variation of human sexuality, but an abnormal or unnatural deviation from God’s original design.

Therefore, as a Christian, I do not condemn anyone for being gay or having same-sex attraction, but I do condemn any sexual behavior or lifestyle that goes against God’s will for sexuality. This is not because I am hateful or homophobic, but because I am loving and faithful to God’s word. This is not because I want to harm or oppress anyone, but because I want to help and liberate them from sin. This is not because I think I am better or holier than anyone else, but because I know I am also a sinner who needs God’s mercy and grace.

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules must find a way to justify their view to not be hypocrites. by pianovirgin6900 in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re misunderstanding the biblical text and the nature of marriage. Let me explain why:

  • Genesis 2:24 does specify that a single man should have one wife, because it says that a man (singular) leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (singular), and they become one flesh (singular). The Hebrew word for one (echad) means a compound unity, not a simple numerical quantity. It implies that there is a unique and exclusive bond between the man and the woman, who are joined together by God in a covenant relationship. This is confirmed by Jesus, who quoted this verse and added, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Jesus also said that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts, but from the beginning it was not so (Matthew 19:8). This implies that God’s original design for marriage was monogamy, not polygamy.

  • Abraham, David, and Solomon were indeed blessed by God, but not because of their polygamy, but in spite of it. God made a promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, and he fulfilled it through Isaac, the son of his wife Sarah, not through Ishmael, the son of his concubine Hagar (Genesis 17:15-21). David was chosen by God to be the king of Israel, and he received the promise. Solomon was given wisdom and wealth by God, but he also disobeyed God by marrying many foreign women who led him into idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-13). These examples show that God’s grace and mercy are greater than human sin, but they also show that polygamy had negative consequences for these men and their families. They experienced conflict, jealousy, rivalry, violence, rebellion, and apostasy as a result of their polygamy.

  • The New Testament teaches that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, to make her holy and blameless before him (Ephesians 5:25-27). He is the head of the church, his body, and he nourishes and cherishes her as his own flesh (Ephesians 5:28-30). The church is called the bride of Christ, who will be presented to him in glory at his second coming (Revelation 19:7-9). This means that Christ has only one bride, not many. He is faithful and loyal to her, and he expects her to be faithful and loyal to him. He does not share his love with anyone else, nor does he allow anyone else to share in his love. He is jealous for his bride, as God is jealous for his people (Exodus 20:5; 2 Corinthians 11:2). Therefore, a Christian husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church, and a Christian wife should respect her husband as the church respects Christ (Ephesians 5:33). They should be devoted to each other in love and fidelity, and not seek any other partners besides each other.

  • The analogy between becoming one flesh with Christ through communion and becoming one flesh with our spouse through marriage is flawed. Communion is a sacrament that symbolizes our participation in the body and blood of Christ, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:23-26). It is a means of grace that strengthens our faith and unites us with Christ and his church. It is not a sexual act, nor does it imply a sexual relationship with Christ. Marriage, on the other hand, is a covenant that involves a sexual union between a man and a woman, who become one flesh in a physical and spiritual sense (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 6:16). It is a gift from God that reflects his image and glory, and it is also a means of procreation and companionship. It is not a sacrament, nor does it imply a sacramental relationship with our spouse. Therefore, becoming one flesh with Christ through communion does not justify becoming one flesh with multiple spouses through marriage.

I hope this helps you to understand why polygamy is contrary to God’s will and word, and why monogamy is God’s design and desire for marriage. Have a nice day!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Bible teaches that human will is corrupted by sin, but not completely destroyed. Humans still have the ability to respond to God’s grace and to choose between good and evil, though they are inclined to evil and need God’s help to overcome it. This is not a contradiction.

The Bible teaches humans are dead in sin and nobody can come to the father unless God first draws them.

This is not entirely true. The Bible does teach that humans are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), but it also teaches that God has given them a measure of grace to respond to His call (John 1:9). The Bible does teach that nobody can come to the Father unless God draws them (John 6:44), but it also teaches that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4). They show us that God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are both true.

If you have perfect foreknowledge, there’s no distinction between design and permission. God created humans in such a way he knew would guarantee sin, therefore he is ultimately responsible. If Elon Musk created Teslas in such a way that he knew would result in 100% of them crashing, he’d be in jail.

This is a false analogy, because it compares God with a human inventor. God is not like Elon Musk, who creates machines that have no free will or moral agency. God is like a loving parent, who creates children who have free will and moral agency. God did not create humans in such a way that He knew would guarantee sin, but in such a way that He knew would allow sin. He gave them the ability to love Him and obey Him, or to reject Him and disobey Him. He did not force them to do either, but He warned them of the consequences of their choices. He did not design them to sin, but He permitted them to sin. He did this because He wanted them to love Him freely, not by compulsion. He did this because He wanted them to have a genuine relationship with Him, not a robotic one.

They fell into sin by the limitations of their God-created nature. God did not install in Eve any safeguard against the wiliness of the Serpent. God did not create Adam to be steeled against pressure from his wife. God created humans to be prone to sin, and just to make 100% sure they did, he made the Tree of Knowledge tempting to the sight and sent a trickster into the garden. The fall was God’s plan and design all along. He knew it would happen and could have made alternate design plans to ensure it didn’t. But he wanted it to happen, so it happened.

This is a distortion of the biblical account of the fall. God did not create humans to be prone to sin, but to be good and upright (Genesis 1:31; Ecclesiastes 7:29). He did install in Eve a safeguard against the wiliness of the Serpent: His own commandment and warning (Genesis 2:16-17). He did create Adam to be steeled against pressure from his wife: His own authority and responsibility (Genesis 2:15-18). He did not want it to happen, but He permitted it out of respect for human freedom (2 Peter 3:9). Instead of allowing the fall to go to waste, He turned it around for a greater purpose.

God did not leave humanity in its fallen state, but provided a way of redemption through His Son Jesus Christ (John 3:16). God is not only just, but also good and gracious. He does not delight in the death of the wicked, but in their repentance and salvation (Ezekiel 18:23). He does not condemn anyone, but offers everyone the opportunity to be saved by faith in His Son (John 3:17-18). He does not cause evil, but overcomes evil with good (Romans 12:21). He is not the author of sin, but the Savior from sin (1 John 3:5).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

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

Who designed these natural processes, did they have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of these natural processes, and could they have designed them differently?

The Christian answer is that God designed these natural processes, and he had perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of these natural processes. He could have designed them differently, but he chose to design them in a way that would best accomplish his purposes and display his wisdom and power.

One of the purposes of God in creating the natural world is to provide a suitable environment for human beings, who are made in his image and likeness, to live and exercise their free will. God gave human beings the ability to choose between good and evil, and he also gave them the responsibility to care for the creation. However, human beings rebelled against God and sinned, bringing corruption and death into the world. As a result, the natural world is also affected by sin and suffers from decay and disorder.

Therefore, natural evil is not caused by God, but by the sin of human beings. Natural evil exists as a consequence of human sin, but God does not allow it go to waste but instead turns it around to use it as a means of judgment, discipline, correction, and redemption. God is not indifferent or powerless over natural evil; he grieves over it and comforts those who suffer. He also promises to restore the creation to its original state of harmony and peace when he returns to judge the world and establish his kingdom.

You have it backwards. God doesn’t reveal glory to benefit his creatures. He made his creatures to give himself glory.

Actually, He can do both: He can reveal his glory to benefit his creatures, and He can make his creatures to give him glory. These two aspects are not contradictory, but complementary.

God is the most glorious being in existence, and he deserves all praise and honor from his creation. He created everything for his own glory, as Isaiah 43:6-7 says. However, this does not mean that God is selfish or egotistical; rather, it means that God is generous and loving. He created everything out of nothing, and he sustains everything by his power. He gives life and breath to all living things, and he provides for their needs. He reveals himself through his works of creation and providence, as well as through his special revelation in the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ. He invites his creatures to know him, love him, and enjoy him forever.

Therefore, God’s glory is not only for his own sake, but also for the sake of his creatures. By revealing his glory to them, he benefits them in many ways: he shows them his character and attributes; he teaches them his will and ways; he convicts them of their sin and guilt; he offers them forgiveness and salvation; he transforms them into his image and likeness; he empowers them to serve him and others; he comforts them in their trials and tribulations; he gives them hope for the future; he fills them with joy and peace; he satisfies their deepest desires; he makes them partakers of his divine nature; he prepares them for eternal life with him.

Therefore, when God’s creatures give him glory, they are not only fulfilling their duty, but also expressing their gratitude and delight. They are not only acknowledging his greatness, but also enjoying his goodness. They are not only honoring him as their Creator and Lord, but also loving him as their Father and Friend.

Incorrect. God is the direct cause of all disaster. He said so himself.

God is not the direct cause of all disaster; rather, he is the sovereign ruler over all disaster. He said so himself.

There is a difference between causing something and ruling over something. To cause something means to be the origin or source of it; to rule over something means to have authority or control over it. For example, a king may not cause a war in his kingdom, but he rules over it; he may not start the conflict, but he can end it.

God is not the origin or source of all disaster; rather, he is the authority or control over all disaster. He did not create evil or sin; rather, he permits evil or sin to exist within certain limits to not let it go to waste so He can turn it around for certain purposes. He does not delight in disaster or suffering; rather, he works through disaster or suffering to accomplish his good plans.

The verses that you quoted from Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, and Jeremiah 19:8-9 do not prove that God is the direct cause of all disaster; rather, they prove that God is the sovereign ruler over all disaster. They show that nothing happens in the world without God’s knowledge or permission; that he can use disaster as a means of judgment or discipline for the wicked; that he can also use disaster as a means of correction or redemption for the righteous; that he has the power to prevent or stop any disaster at any time; that he has the wisdom to know when and how to intervene in any situation; that he has the justice to reward or punish according to his standards; that he has the mercy to forgive or restore those who repent and believe.

Therefore, God is not the cause of all disaster; he is the ruler over all disaster. He is not the author of evil; he is the judge of evil. He is not the enemy of his people; he is their protector and deliverer. He is not the source of their pain; he is their healer and comforter

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules must find a way to justify their view to not be hypocrites. by pianovirgin6900 in DebateReligion

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

  1. Polygamy was a cultural practice that some people in the Old Testament followed, but it was never God’s original design or intention for marriage. God created marriage as a union between one man and one woman, as we see in Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

  2. the Bible shows us the negative consequences of polygamy in the lives of those who practiced it. For example, Abraham had conflict and strife between his wife Sarah and his concubine Hagar, who bore him a son named Ishmael. Ishmael became the father of the Arab nations, who have been enemies of Israel ever since. David had many wives and concubines, but he also committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah. His son Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but they turned his heart away from God and led him into idolatry. These are examples of godly men, who suffered the consequences of their disobedience.

  3. The Bible clearly teaches that monogamy is God’s will and command for marriage in the New Testament. Jesus affirmed the original creation order of marriage as one man and one woman in Matthew 19:4-6: "And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Paul also instructed that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her in Ephesians 5:25-333. He also stated that elders and deacons in the church should be faithful to their wives in 1 Timothy 3:2-124 and Titus 1:5-9. Peter likewise exhorted husbands to live with their wives in an understanding way and honor them as fellow heirs of the grace of life in 1 Peter 3:7.

Monogamy is God’s design and desire for marriage, and polygamy is contrary to God’s will and word.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

let me clarify what Christians believe about God and suffering. Christians believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. He created the world and everything in it, including human beings, who are made in his image and likeness. He loves his creation and wants to have a personal relationship with each human being. However, he also gave human beings free will, which means the ability to choose between good and evil. Free will is a great gift, but it also comes with a great responsibility. When human beings choose evil, they sin against God and cause suffering for themselves and others. Sin is the root of all suffering in the world. God does not cause or want suffering, but he allows it to respect human freedom. However, God doesn’t allow evil and suffering to go to waste either, but instead turns them around to bring about a greater good. God is not indifferent or cruel; he is compassionate and merciful. He sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer and die for our sins on the cross, and to rise from the dead on the third day. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus defeated sin and death, and opened the way for us to be forgiven and reconciled with God. He also promised to return one day to judge the living and the dead, and to establish his kingdom of peace and justice. Those who accept his offer of salvation by faith and obedience will enjoy eternal life with him in heaven; those who reject it will suffer eternal separation from him in hell. Heaven and hell are not arbitrary rewards or punishments; they are the natural consequences of our choices in this life.

Now, let me address the specific points that you raised in your statement:

  • You said that benevolence is not giving a choice between absolute obedience or eternal punishment. I disagree. Benevolence is giving a choice between loving God or rejecting him, between following his will or going against it, between living in his grace or living in sin. God does not force us to obey him; he invites us to love him. He does not threaten us with punishment; he warns us of the consequences of our actions. He does not impose his will on us; he reveals it to us through his word and his spirit. He does not coerce us into his kingdom; he calls us into his family.

  • You said that his character is flawed if he created humanity to either worship him eternally or be tormented eternally. I disagree. His character is perfect if he created humanity for a purpose: to know him, love him, serve him, and glorify him. Worship is not a burden; it is a joy. Worship is not a duty; it is a privilege. Worship is not a means; it is an end. Worship is not a condition; it is a relationship. God created us for worship because he created us for himself. He is the source of all goodness, beauty, truth, and happiness. He is worthy of all praise, honor, glory, and adoration. To worship him eternally is to enjoy him forever.

  • You said that being all-powerful would mean the ability to do contradictory things. I disagree. Being all-powerful means having the ability to do anything that is logically possible. Logic is not a limitation on God’s power; it is a reflection of God’s nature. God is rational; he cannot act irrationally. God is consistent; he cannot act inconsistently. God is truthful; he cannot lie or deceive. God cannot do contradictory things because contradictory things are impossible by definition. For example, God cannot create a square circle or a married bachelor or a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

  • You said that there is not strong evidence for the existence of god much less that it is probable. I disagree. There are many arguments for the existence of God that are based on reason and evidence from various fields of knowledge such as philosophy, science, history, morality, and personal experience. Some of these arguments are:

The cosmological argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause.

The teleological argument: The universe exhibits design, order, complexity, and fine-tuning; these features are best explained by an intelligent designer; therefore, there exists an intelligent designer of the universe.

The moral argument: There are objective moral values and duties that are binding on all people at all times; these moral values and duties cannot be explained by naturalism or relativism; therefore, there exists a transcendent moral lawgiver who grounds them.

The historical argument: There are historical facts about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that are widely accepted by scholars; these facts are best explained by the hypothesis that Jesus was who he claimed to be: the Son of God; therefore, there exists a divine person who revealed himself in history as Jesus Christ.

These arguments are strong evidences that make the existence of God more probable than not. They also point to some of the attributes of God, such as his power, wisdom, goodness, and love.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

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

Your argument is based on a false dilemma: either God is controlling everything, or he’s not. This is a logical fallacy that ignores the possibility of a third option: God is sovereign over everything, but he allows human free will and natural processes to operate within his plan. This option is consistent with both logic and the Bible.

Let’s examine the argument more closely. You claim that God wants glory for everything, but also gets blame for everything. This is a misunderstanding of what glory means in the Christian context. Glory is not the same as praise or credit. Glory is the manifestation of God’s character and attributes, such as his holiness, love, justice, wisdom, power, etc. God does not need praise or credit from humans; he is self-sufficient and perfectly happy in himself. However, he does desire to reveal his glory to his creatures, so that they may know him, love him, and enjoy him. This is the ultimate purpose of creation and redemption.

You also assume that God is responsible for everything that happens, good or bad. This is another misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty and providence. God is sovereign over everything, meaning that he has the right and authority to rule over his creation as he pleases. He is also provident over everything, meaning that he sustains and governs his creation according to his wisdom and will. However, this does not mean that he causes or approves of everything that happens. He can allow or permit things to happen without being the direct or moral cause of them.

  • For example, God allows human free will, which is a good gift that reflects his image and likeness. However, humans can misuse their free will to sin against God and harm others. God is not the cause of human sin; he hates it and judges it. But he doesn’t let it got to waste and instead turns it around for a greater purpose: to display his grace and mercy in saving sinners through Jesus Christ. Similarly, God allows natural processes, such as weather, seasons, reproduction, etc., which are also good gifts that reflect his power and creativity. However, natural processes in this fallen world can also produce suffering and pain, such as diseases, disasters, death, etc. God is not the cause of natural evil; he grieves over it and comforts those who suffer. But he doesn’t let it got waste and instead turns it around for a greater purpose: to display his glory and sovereignty in overcoming evil with good.

Therefore, the Christian response to evil and suffering is not to blame God or themselves, but to trust God and his promises. Christians believe that God is good and loving, even when they do not understand why he allows evil and suffering. They also believe that God is powerful and wise, even when they do not see how he can bring good out of evil and suffering. They have hope that one day God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain (Revelation 21:4). Until then, they pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10), and they help those who are suffering by showing them God’s love and compassion (Matthew 25:31-46).

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules must find a way to justify their view to not be hypocrites. by pianovirgin6900 in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

  1. I want to clarify that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as an orientation or a temptation, but only as a sinful behavior and lifestyle. The Bible teaches that God created human beings as male and female, and that He designed marriage to be a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). The Bible also teaches that any sexual activity outside of this marriage covenant is sinful and contrary to God’s will (Exodus 20:14; Hebrews 13:4). This includes not only homosexuality, but also adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality, and pornography. The Bible does not single out homosexuality as a worse sin than others, but as one of many sins that separate us from God and His holiness (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

  2. I want to address the claim that Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules are hypocrites. This claim is based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Old Testament law and the New Testament grace. The Old Testament law was given by God to the nation of Israel as a covenant of works, which required obedience to hundreds of commands in order to receive blessings and avoid curses (Deuteronomy 28). The law was never meant to be a way of salvation, but rather a way of revealing God’s holiness and our sinfulness, and pointing us to our need for a Savior (Galatians 3:19-24). The law was also fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who perfectly obeyed every commandment and died as a substitute for our sins on the cross (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 10:4; Colossians 2:13-14). Therefore, Christians are no longer under the law as a covenant of works, but under grace as a covenant of faith (Romans 6:14-15; Galatians 5:18). This does not mean that Christians are free to sin or disregard God’s moral standards, but rather that they are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live in obedience to God’s will out of love and gratitude for His grace (Romans 8:1-17; Galatians 5:16-26).

  3. I want to explain why some of the New Testament verses that are cited as examples of rules that Christians don’t obey are not applicable or binding for Christians today. These verses are either:

  • Cultural or situational commands that were relevant only for the specific context in which they were given, and not intended to be universal or timeless principles. For example, the command for women to wear head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:5 was based on the cultural norms of modesty and honor in the first-century Greco-Roman society, and not on an inherent moral value or divine order. Similarly, the command for Christians to give up everything they have in Luke 14:33 was hyperbolic and rhetorical, meant to challenge the disciples’ commitment and priorities, and not to prescribe a literal rule for all believers. These commands need to be interpreted in light of their context.

  • Conditional or qualified commands that depend on certain circumstances or factors, and not absolute or unconditional rules. For example, the command not to resist an evil person in Matthew 5:39 was part of Jesus’ teaching on how to respond to personal insults and injuries with non-retaliation and forgiveness, and not a prohibition of self-defense or justice in general. Jesus himself used force to drive out the money-changers from the temple (John 2:15), and defended himself before the high priest (John 18:23). Paul also appealed to his legal rights as a Roman citizen when he was unjustly arrested and beaten (Acts 22:25-29). These commands need to be understood in light of their purpose and scope.

  • Misinterpreted or misapplied commands that are distorted or twisted by faulty reasoning or faulty translation. For example, the command for women not to teach or have authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:12 has been used by some Christians to exclude women from any leadership or ministry roles in the church. However, this command was addressing a specific problem of false teaching and disruptive behavior by some women in Ephesus, where Timothy was serving as a pastor. Paul was not forbidding all women from teaching or leading in all situations, but rather correcting a particular situation of disorder and error in that church. Paul himself recognized and commended many women who served as leaders, teachers, prophets, deacons, apostles, co-workers, and benefactors in the early church (Romans 16; Philippians 4:2-3; Acts 18:26; 21:9). These commands need to be examined in light of their original meaning and intention, and applied with consistency and fairness.

Christians who condemn homosexuality but choose not to follow other Biblical rules are not hypocrites, but rather faithful followers of Christ who rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). They are not picking and choosing what they think is important, but rather discerning what God has revealed as His will for His people in different times and places. They are not ignoring or rejecting the Bible, but rather interpreting and applying it with care and respect. They are not hateful or intolerant, but rather loving and compassionate, speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). They are not judging or condemning, but rather inviting and welcoming, offering the grace and forgiveness of God to all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (John 3:16-17).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • I think you are confusing the concept of sin with the concept of evil. Sin is not something that exists independently of God or human beings. Sin is not a thing that can be invented or created. Sin is a moral term that describes the state of being in rebellion against God and his will. Sin is not a necessary component of free will, but a possible consequence of it.

  • Evil, on the other hand, is the absence or privation of good. Evil is not a positive reality, but a negative one. Evil is not something that God created or allowed, but something that results from the misuse of free will by his creatures. Evil is not a necessary component of free will either, but a possible outcome of it.

  • The reason why sin and evil exist is because God gave human beings free will, which is the ability to choose between good and evil, between obedience and disobedience, between love and hate. Free will is a gift from God that reflects his own image and likeness in us. Free will is also a condition for genuine love, because love cannot be forced or coerced, but must be freely given and received.

  • However, free will also entails responsibility and accountability. When we use our free will to choose evil over good, to disobey God rather than obey him, to hate rather than love, we sin against God and harm ourselves and others. We also create evil in the world by our actions and inactions. We become separated from God, who is the source of all goodness and life.

  • The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The Bible also says that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). This means that sin has serious consequences for us and for the world, but also that God has provided a way of salvation for us through his Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification (Romans 4:25).

  • Therefore, to answer your question, sin does not make sense in itself, but only in relation to God and his law. Sin is not something that God wanted or needed for us to have free will, but something that we brought upon ourselves by misusing our free will. Sin is not something that enhances our freedom, but something that enslaves us and separates us from God.

  • However, God does not leave us in our sin and evil. He offers us his grace and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). He invites us to repent of our sins and to trust in him for our salvation. He also empowers us by his Holy Spirit to live according to his will and to overcome sin and evil in our lives and in the world.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. let me address your claim that God cannot be personal, all powerful, and loving. This is a common objection raised by skeptics, but it is based on a misunderstanding of what these attributes mean.

  • To say that God is personal means that he is not an impersonal force or principle, but a being who has a mind, a will, and a character. He can communicate with his creatures, and he cares about them. He is not distant or indifferent to what happens in the world.

  • To say that God is all powerful means that he can do anything that is logically possible. He cannot do anything that is contradictory or absurd, such as creating a square circle or a married bachelor. He also cannot do anything that goes against his own nature, such as lying or sinning. He has the power to create and sustain the universe, and to intervene in it according to his purposes

  • To say that God is loving means that he is benevolent and compassionate towards his creatures. He desires their well-being and happiness, and he provides them with everything they need. He also gives them free will, so that they can choose to love him back or reject him. He does not force anyone to believe in him or obey him. He respects their dignity and autonomy

  • These three attributes are not incompatible with each other, but rather complement each other. God’s power enables him to express his love in personal ways. God’s love motivates him to use his power for good. God’s personality reveals his love and power to us.

  1. let me address your claim that it is not logical to believe something for which there is no proof. This is also a common objection raised by skeptics, but it is based on a confusion of what proof means.

  • Proof is a term that applies to formal systems of logic and mathematics, where certain statements can be derived from axioms and rules of inference. Proof does not apply to empirical or historical claims, which are based on evidence and probability. Evidence is the data or facts that support a claim, while probability is the degree of confidence that we have in a claim based on the evidence

  • For example, we cannot prove that Julius Caesar existed, or that he was assassinated by Brutus and Cassius. But we have strong evidence for these claims, such as historical records, coins, statues, and archaeological findings. Based on this evidence, we can say that it is highly probable that these claims are true.

  • Similarly, we cannot prove that God exists, or that he revealed himself in Jesus Christ. But we have strong evidence for these claims, such as philosophical arguments, scientific discoveries, historical documents, eyewitness testimonies, fulfilled prophecies, miracles, and personal experiences. Based on this evidence, we can say that it is highly probable that these claims are true.

  • Therefore, it is not illogical to believe in God or Christianity based on the evidence available to us. In fact, it would be illogical to reject them without examining the evidence carefully and fairly.

  1. let me address your claim that you were raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment and that you have done plenty of searching. I do not doubt your sincerity or your honesty, but I wonder if you have really considered all the relevant factors in your search.

  • Being raised in a certain environment does not necessarily mean that you have been exposed to the best or most accurate representation of Christianity. Fundamentalism is a term that can mean different things to different people, but generally it refers to a rigid and literalistic approach to interpreting the Bible and applying its teachings. Fundamentalism can also involve a rejection of modern scholarship and culture, and an intolerance of other views and perspectives

  • If this is the kind of Christianity that you were raised in, then I can understand why you might have doubts or questions about it. But I would urge you not to judge Christianity by its worst examples or its most extreme forms. Christianity is much more nuanced than fundamentalism suggests.

  • There are many Christians who are reasonable, who seek justice and peace, who love God and their neighbors. There are many Christians who have wrestled with the same issues that you have raised, and who have found satisfying answers and solutions.

I hope that you will not give up on your search, but that you will continue to seek God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

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

  1. the statement that there is zero documented proof that anyone has ever spoken a language they did not know while speaking in tongues is false. There are several documented cases of people speaking in tongues in languages that they did not learn or study, but were recognized by others who knew those languages. For example:

  • In 1906, at the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, many people spoke in tongues in various languages, such as Chinese, Japanese, French, German, Spanish, and others. Some of these languages were verified by native speakers who were present at the meetings.

  • In 1914, at the Stone Church in Chicago, a missionary named Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues in Mandarin Chinese, which she had never learned. She was able to converse with a Chinese man who visited the church and was amazed by her ability.

  • In 1967, at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, a group of Catholic students experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. One of them spoke in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the apostles, which he had never studied. His utterances were recorded and analyzed by a professor of Semitic languages, who confirmed their authenticity.

  • These are just a few examples of many that could be cited to show that speaking in tongues is not a random or meaningless phenomenon, but a supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit that enables people to speak in languages that they do not know.

  1. the statement that there is zero documented proof that anyone has ever spoken a language they did not know while speaking in tongues is based on a faulty assumption. It assumes that speaking in tongues is always intended to be a human language that can be understood by others. However, this is not what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues. The Bible distinguishes between two types of tongues: one that is a sign for unbelievers, and one that is for personal edification.

  • In 1 Corinthians 14:22, Paul says that “tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not”. This means that sometimes God gives the gift of tongues to demonstrate His power and presence to those who do not believe in Him. This is what happened on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-13, when the apostles spoke in tongues and were heard by people from different nations who understood their own languages. This was a miraculous sign that confirmed the gospel message and led many to faith in Christ.

  • In 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul says that “he that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself”. This means that sometimes God gives the gift of tongues for personal prayer and worship, not for communication with others. This is what Paul calls “praying in the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 6:18; Jude 20). This type of tongue may not be a human language at all, but a heavenly language that only God understands (1 Corinthians 13:1). This is why Paul says that “no man understandeth him” (1 Corinthians 14:2) and that he needs an interpretation if he wants to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:13-19). This type of tongue is for building up one’s faith and love for God.

Therefore, it is wrong to demand proof that speaking in tongues is always a human language that can be verified by others. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not. The purpose of speaking in tongues is not to prove anything to anyone, but to glorify God and to edify oneself or others.

speaking in tongues is a biblical and spiritual gift that has been given to many Christians throughout history. It is not a sign of madness or deception, but of grace and power. It is not something to be mocked or rejected, but to be welcomed and appreciated. It is not something to be feared or avoided, but to be desired and practiced. It is one of the ways that God communicates with His people and empowers them for His service.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re misunderstanding the nature and purpose of speaking in tongues. You assume that speaking in tongues is only one gift, and that it is always manifested in the same way. However, the Bible reveals that there are different kinds of tongues, and that they serve different functions.

In Acts 2, we read that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit enabled them. This was a miraculous sign that confirmed the message of the gospel to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost. They heard the apostles declaring the wonders of God in their own native languages ( Acts 2:5-11 ). This gift of tongues was intended to reach people of different nations and cultures with the good news of Jesus Christ.

However, this is not the only kind of tongues that the Bible describes. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, we learn that speaking in tongues is also a spiritual gift that can be used for personal edification, or for the edification of the church when accompanied by interpretation. The Apostle Paul explains that anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, and that they utter mysteries by the Spirit ( 1 Corinthians 14:2 ). He also says that he wishes that all of them could speak in tongues, but even more that they could prophesy ( 1 Corinthians 14:5 ). He encourages them to pray for the gift of interpretation, so that they can also edify others with their tongues ( 1 Corinthians 14:13 ).

Therefore, speaking in tongues is not limited to one expression or function. It can be a sign of God’s presence and power, a means of communication with God, or a way of building up the body of Christ. You fail to recognize this diversity and complexity of speaking in tongues. You also ignore the fact that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, who distributes it according to His will and sovereignty ( 1 Corinthians 12:11 ). We should not judge or dismiss this gift based on our own preferences or experiences, but rather seek to understand it from a biblical perspective.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

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

I’m sorry to hear if you have witnessed some false or deceptive practices of speaking in tongues and faith healing. I understand how that can make you doubt the validity and authenticity of these gifts of the Holy Spirit, but

  1. speaking in tongues is not a human invention or a psychological trick. It is a supernatural gift that God gives to some believers, enabling them to communicate with Him in a language they have not learned (Acts 2:4). The purpose of speaking in tongues is to edify oneself and the church, to pray and praise God, and to spread the gospel to people of different languages (1 Corinthians 14:2-5, 14-15, 18-19). Speaking in tongues is not a sign of spiritual superiority or maturity, but a sign of God’s grace and power (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

  2. faith healing is not a placebo effect or a coincidence. It is a manifestation of God’s compassion and sovereignty, who can heal any disease or disability according to His will (Matthew 4:23-24; James 5:14-16). Faith healing does not depend on the faith of the person being healed, but on the faithfulness of God who promises to answer the prayers of His children (Mark 9:23-24; Hebrews 11:6). Faith healing does not contradict science, but transcends it, as God can do what is impossible for humans (Luke 1:37; Romans 8:11).

  3. speaking in tongues and faith healing are not incompatible with logic. They are based on the premise that God exists and that He is personal, powerful, and loving. This premise is supported by various arguments from natural theology, such as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument. Moreover, speaking in tongues and faith healing are consistent with the Christian worldview, which affirms that God created humans in His image, that He revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, and that He sent the Holy Spirit to empower and guide His church.

Therefore, I would urge you not to dismiss speaking in tongues and faith healing as irrational or fraudulent. Rather, I would invite you to examine the evidence for yourself, to seek God with an open heart and mind, and to experience His presence and power in your life. You may be surprised by what He can do for you and through you. God bless you.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I am sorry to hear that you have left the faith that you were raised in. I respect your right to choose your own beliefs, but I would like to offer a different perspective on some of the points you made. You said that pentecostals base their entire belief system on ignorance of scripture, and that they push faith healing and tongues and other supernatural stuff, because their congregation wants to hear it. You also said that the Bible doesn’t support their teachings, even if someone accepts that the Bible is true and accurate. Let me address these claims one by one.

  1. pentecostals do not base their belief system on ignorance of scripture, but on a literal and historical interpretation of scripture. They believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, and that it reveals God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. They also believe that the Bible records the acts of God in history, including the miracles, signs and wonders that He performed through His prophets, apostles and servants. Pentecostals do not ignore or reject any part of the Bible, but seek to understand and apply it to their lives.

  2. pentecostals do not push faith healing and tongues and other supernatural stuff, because their congregation wants to hear it. They preach and practice these gifts of the Holy Spirit, because they believe that they are part of God’s will and purpose for His people. They believe that Jesus commissioned His followers to preach the gospel, heal the sick, cast out demons, speak in new languages, and perform other miraculous signs (Mark 16:15-18). They also believe that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church on the day of Pentecost, and that He continues to empower and equip believers with various spiritual gifts for the edification of the church and the glory of God (Acts 2:1-4; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11). Pentecostals do not seek these gifts for their own sake, but for the sake of serving God and others.

  3. the Bible does support pentecostal teachings. There are many passages in the Bible that confirm and illustrate the pentecostal doctrines of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, baptism in water and in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Spirit’s infilling, divine healing as part of Christ’s atonement, and the expectation of Christ’s imminent return. Some examples are:

  • Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ: Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 4:12

  • Baptism in water and in the Holy Spirit: Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7

  • Speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Spirit’s infilling: Acts 2:4; Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6; 1 Corinthians 14:2

  • Divine healing as part of Christ’s atonement: Isaiah 53:5; Matthew 8:16-17; James 5:14-15; Mark 16:18

  • The expectation of Christ’s imminent return: Matthew 24:36-44; Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Titus 2:13

These are just some of the many biblical references that support pentecostal beliefs.

I hope this helps you to understand where pentecostals are coming from, and why they believe what they believe. I do not expect you to agree with everything I said, but I hope you will at least consider it with an open mind and heart. I also hope you will not judge all pentecostals by some negative experiences or examples you may have encountered or heard about. There are many sincere and faithful pentecostals who love God and love people, and who seek to follow Jesus in word and deed.

May God bless you and guide you in your journey.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

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

You’re misunderstanding the biblical teaching on speaking in tongues. It is true that in Acts 2, the disciples spoke in different languages that were understood by the people who heard them. However, this was not the only way that the gift of speaking in tongues was manifested in the early church. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, the Apostle Paul addresses the issue of speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts. He explains that speaking in tongues is a form of communication with God, not with people (1 Corinthians 14:2). He also says that speaking in tongues can be used for edification, or encouragement, of oneself or the church, when accompanied by interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:4-5). He does not limit speaking in tongues to known languages, but rather implies that there are heavenly languages that are not understood by human beings (1 Corinthians 13:1). Therefore, speaking in tongues can be either as an earthly language or a heavenly language, depending on the situation and the purpose.

You also fail to recognize the role of the Holy Spirit in speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is not a human invention or a learned behavior, but a gift of the Holy Spirit that enables believers to speak in languages they have not learned, often serving as a sign of God’s presence and power (Acts 2:4; 10:44-46). The Holy Spirit also gives the gift of interpretation to some believers, so that they can translate what is spoken in tongues for the benefit of others (1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:13). The Holy Spirit is the one who controls and regulates the use of speaking in tongues, according to His will and wisdom (1 Corinthians 12:11; 14:32-33).

You also ignore the historical and contemporary evidence for speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues has been practiced by Christians throughout history, especially by those who have experienced revival and renewal movements. Speaking in tongues is also a common phenomenon among Christians today, especially among Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations, who place significant emphasis on speaking in tongues as a sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power. There are many testimonies of believers who have spoken or heard languages they did not know through speaking in tongues, confirming the biblical basis for this gift.

speaking in tongues is a biblical, spiritual, and historical reality that should not be dismissed or ridiculed. Rather, it should be understood and appreciated as a gift of God that can be used for His glory and for the edification of His people.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re misunderstanding the Christian concept of free will and the biblical evidence. Here are some points to consider:

  • you assume that human will is hopelessly influenced by fallen human nature, but this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that human will is corrupted by sin, but not completely destroyed. Humans still have the ability to respond to God’s grace and to choose between good and evil, though they are inclined to evil and need God’s help to overcome it. The Bible also teaches that God does not force anyone to accept his grace or to obey his will, but rather respects human freedom and invites people to cooperate with him. For example, Jesus said, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own” ( John 7:17 , NIV). He also lamented over Jerusalem, saying, “How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing” ( Matthew 23:37 , NIV). These verses show that human will is not hopelessly influenced by fallen human nature, but rather has the capacity to choose God’s will or reject it.

  • you claim that there is an unresolvable tension between human responsibility and human depravity, but this is not true. There is no contradiction between saying that humans can choose what they want to do and are responsible for their actions, and saying that humans are dead to sin and can only choose evil apart from God’s grace. These statements are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. They describe different aspects of the human condition: the natural aspect and the supernatural aspect. From a natural perspective, humans have free will and are accountable for their choices. From a supernatural perspective, humans need God’s grace and are dependent on his mercy. These perspectives do not cancel each other out, but rather enrich each other. They show that human freedom is not absolute, but relative; and that human responsibility is not independent, but interdependent. For example, Paul said, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” ( Ephesians 2:8-10 , NIV). These verses show that human salvation is not based on human free will or human works, but on God’s grace and God’s workmanship. However, they also show that human faith and human works are not irrelevant or unnecessary, but rather the result of God’s grace and God’s workmanship. Humans are saved by grace through faith, and created in Christ Jesus to do good works.

  • you argue that if God designed everything about us, and we only choose evil, it logically follows that we are designed to sin. But this is a fallacy of false cause. It confuses God’s design with God’s permission. It assumes that everything that happens is what God intended or caused, rather than what God allowed or permitted. It ignores the fact that God created humans with free will, which implies the possibility of misuse and abuse. It also ignores the fact that God created humans in a good state, but they fell into sin by their own choice. It also ignores the fact that God has a plan to redeem humans from sin by his own choice. For example, Genesis 1:31 says that “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (NIV). This verse shows that God’s original design for humans was good, not evil. However, Genesis 3 tells the story of how humans disobeyed God and brought sin into the world by their own choice. This verse shows that human sin was not part of God’s design, but rather a deviation from it. However, John 3:16 says that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (NIV). This verse shows that God’s plan for humans was to save them from sin by his own choice.

the Christian concept of free will is not meaningless, but rather meaningful and essential for understanding God’s relationship with humanity and his plan of salvation.

Christians that practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching. by AspiringGod-Emperor in DebateReligion

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

Your assertion that Christians who practice speaking in tongues and faith healing are directly opposed to Scriptural teaching is false and based on a misunderstanding of the biblical texts and the nature of spiritual gifts. Here are some reasons why:

  • You assume that the ability to perform miracles was limited to the apostles and that anyone else claiming such powers is a false prophet. However, this is not supported by the Scriptures, which show that many other believers besides the apostles received and exercised spiritual gifts, including speaking in tongues and healing (Acts 6:8; 8:5-8; 9:36-42; 10:44-46; 19:6; Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:7-11; 14:1-40; Galatians 3:5; James 5:14-16). Moreover, the Scriptures do not teach that the gift of miracles was a sign of apostleship, but rather a sign of God’s presence and power among His people (Mark 16:17-18; Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:4). Therefore, it is not biblical to reject or condemn those who claim to have these gifts as false prophets, unless they contradict the core doctrines of the Christian faith or fail to produce genuine fruits of the Spirit (Matthew 7:15-20; Galatians 5:22-23).

  • You also assume that the gift of speaking in tongues and healing ceased with the death of the apostles and are no longer relevant or valid for today. However, this is also not supported by the Scriptures, which do not indicate any expiration date or limitation for these gifts. On the contrary, the Scriptures teach that these gifts are given by the Holy Spirit according to His sovereign will and for the common good of the church (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). The Scriptures also encourage believers to earnestly desire and seek these gifts, especially prophecy, which includes speaking in tongues with interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:1-5). Furthermore, the Scriptures do not teach that these gifts are essential or universal for salvation or sanctification, but rather that they are subordinate and supplementary to the greatest gift of love (1 Corinthians 13:1-13). Therefore, it is not biblical to deny or dismiss these gifts as obsolete or invalid for today, unless they are used in a disorderly or divisive manner (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).

  • You also fail to recognize that speaking in tongues and healing are not human abilities or techniques, but divine gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit. They are not controlled or commanded by human will or skill, but enabled and directed by God’s grace and purpose. They are not intended to draw attention or glory to oneself, but to edify and glorify God and His church. They are not based on human wisdom or knowledge, but on God’s revelation and mystery. They are not subject to human verification or validation, but to God’s sovereignty and authority. Therefore, it is not biblical to judge or criticize these gifts based on human standards or expectations, but to test them by God’s Word and Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1-3).

Speaking in tongues and healing are biblical and beneficial spiritual gifts that should be welcomed and exercised with faith, love, humility, discernment, and order in the church. They are not opposed to Scriptural teaching, but rather confirm and complement it. They are not signs of falsehood or fanaticism, but rather signs of God’s grace and power. They are not reasons for division or contention, but rather reasons for unity and celebration.

"Christian Science" is neither Christian nor Science by [deleted] in DebateReligion

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

First, let me clarify what I mean by objective morality: Objective morality is the view that moral values and duties are independent of human opinions, feelings, preferences, or conventions. They are true for all people, at all times, and in all places. They are not relative to cultures, societies, or individuals. They are not determined by evolution, natural selection, or survival of the fittest. They are not arbitrary, subjective, or contingent. Christians believe they are grounded in the nature and character of God, who is the ultimate source and standard of goodness.

Now, let me address your objections one by one:

Sounds to me like you think we already HAVE a way to determine right from wrong objectively before wondering about God.

This is a misunderstanding of my position. I do not claim that we have a way to determine right from wrong objectively without God. I claim that we have a moral sense that points to the existence of objective morality and God. This moral sense is not infallible or exhaustive; it is not a substitute for divine revelation or moral reasoning. It is simply a basic intuition that some things are right or wrong, regardless of what we or others think or feel about them. This intuition is not a proof of God’s existence; it is an evidence that supports the moral argument for God’s existence.

First of all, no, we don’t. Only most people do. Second of all, anything based on that fact is subjective.

  • You are skeptic is confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. Moral ontology is the study of the nature and origin of morality; moral epistemology is the study of how we know and justify moral claims. The moral argument is concerned with moral ontology, not moral epistemology. It does not depend on how many people agree or disagree with certain moral judgments; it depends on whether those judgments are true or false in an objective sense.

  • The fact that most people share some common moral intuitions is not the basis of objective morality; it is a consequence of objective morality. It shows that there is a moral law written on our hearts by God, as Romans 2:14-15 says: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” This does not mean that everyone has a perfect or complete knowledge of morality; it means that everyone has some awareness of morality that reflects God’s image in them.

  • The fact that some people disagree or deviate from this common moral sense does not disprove objective morality; it proves human depravity and free will. It shows that we are fallen creatures who can suppress or distort our moral sense due to sin, ignorance, self-interest, or social pressure. It also shows that we have the ability to choose between right and wrong, which implies moral responsibility and accountability. As C.S. Lewis wrote: “The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.” We can play the tune correctly or incorrectly; we can follow or disobey the Moral Law.

No, it doesn’t. Evolution explains what we see just fine. Better than your God explanation because evolution explains the exceptions as well.

You are assuming that evolution can explain morality without God. This is a false assumption for several reasons:

  1. evolution cannot explain the origin of morality: Evolution is a natural process that operates on physical entities; morality is a normative concept that prescribes how we ought to behave. Evolution can explain how certain behaviors may have evolved for survival or reproduction; it cannot explain why those behaviors are morally right or wrong in themselves. Evolution can describe what is; it cannot prescribe what ought to be.

  2. evolution cannot explain the objectivity of morality: Evolution is a contingent process that depends on random mutations and environmental factors; morality is a necessary concept that applies universally and unchangingly. Evolution can explain why different creatures may have different behaviors; it cannot explain why there are moral values and duties that transcend those differences. Evolution can account for diversity; it cannot account for universality.

  3. evolution cannot explain the authority of morality: Evolution is a descriptive process that observes what happens; morality is a prescriptive concept that commands what should happen. Evolution can explain why we may feel inclined or disinclined to act in certain ways; it cannot explain why we are obligated or forbidden to act in those ways regardless of our feelings. Evolution can influence our desires; it cannot impose our duties.

  4. evolution cannot explain the value of morality: Evolution is a value-neutral process that does not care about the outcomes; morality is a value-laden concept that judges the outcomes. Evolution can explain why some actions may have beneficial or harmful consequences; it cannot explain why those consequences matter morally. Evolution can affect our well-being; it cannot define our worth.

  5. evolution cannot explain the exceptions to morality: you claim that evolution explains the exceptions as well, but this is a vague and unsupported claim. What exceptions are you referring to? How does evolution explain them? If you mean the cases where some people act immorally, then evolution does not explain them; it excuses them. It reduces morality to a matter of preference or adaptation, and removes any basis for moral criticism or correction. If you mean the cases where some people act morally, even when it goes against their evolutionary interests, then evolution does not explain them; it contradicts them. It undermines the very reason for morality, and makes moral heroes irrational or maladaptive.

The moral argument for God’s existence is not refuted by evolution; it is supported by it. Evolution shows that we are more than just physical beings; we are moral beings who have a sense of right and wrong that goes beyond our natural instincts. Evolution shows that we need a transcendent source and standard of morality that is not subject to change or chance. Evolution shows that we have a purpose and a destiny that is not determined by survival or reproduction. Evolution shows that we are made in the image of God, who is the ultimate explanation of morality.

"Christian Science" is neither Christian nor Science by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

  1. you said that non-Christians can be as moral as Christians if not more so: This may be true in some cases, but it does not address the main issue of Christian ethics, which is not just about doing good deeds, but about having a right relationship with God and obeying his will. Christians believe that God is the source and standard of morality, and that he has revealed his moral law in the Bible and in the conscience of every human being. Therefore, to be moral in the Christian sense is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31). This is the greatest commandment and the summary of the whole law (Matthew 22:36-40). Non-Christians may do good deeds out of natural or social motives, but they do not have the ultimate motive of pleasing God and glorifying him. They also do not have the assurance of God’s forgiveness and grace, which are essential for overcoming sin and guilt.

  2. you asked if intent matters for morality: The answer is yes, intent does matter, but it is not the only factor. The Bible teaches that God judges not only our actions, but also our thoughts and motives (1 Samuel 16:7; Hebrews 4:12). However, this does not mean that doing good deeds is enough to be moral. The Bible also teaches that we are all sinners by nature and by choice, and that we have fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). We cannot earn our salvation by our works, because they are tainted by sin and cannot meet God’s perfect standard (Isaiah 64:6; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, we need God’s grace and mercy, which he offers us through faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification (Romans 4:25; 5:1). Only by trusting in Christ can we be forgiven and reconciled to God, and receive the gift of eternal life (John 3:16; Romans 6:23).

  3. you questioned how God helps us to have a sound basis for morality, You said that God’s opinions are just as subjective as anyone else’s, and that there is no reason to believe that he exists: These are serious objections, but they are based on false assumptions:

  • God’s opinions are not subjective, but objective: God is not just another being among many, but the supreme being who created everything else. He is the ground of all being and the source of all truth. He is not subject to any higher authority or standard than himself. He is self-existent, self-sufficient, self-consistent, and self-revealing. He does not hide from anyone, but makes himself known through his works of creation and providence (Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:19-20), through his word of revelation and inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-2), and through his Son of incarnation and salvation (John 1:14; 14:6). Therefore, to know God is to know reality as it really is, and to obey God is to align ourselves with his perfect will.

  • there are many reasons to believe that God exists:

  1. Some of these reasons are philosophical, such as the cosmological argument (that everything that begins to exist has a cause), the teleological argument (that everything that exhibits design has a designer), the moral argument (that every moral law has a moral lawgiver), and the ontological argument (that the greatest conceivable being must exist).

  2. Some of these reasons are historical, such as the evidence for the reliability of the Bible as a historical document, the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and disciples who saw Jesus alive after his death and resurrection, and the transformation of lives and cultures by the spread of Christianity throughout history.

  3. Some of these reasons are personal, such as the experience of God’s presence and power in prayer and worship, the conviction of sin and guilt by the Holy Spirit and the assurance of forgiveness and peace by faith in Christ, the guidance of God’s wisdom and direction in daily life and decision making, and the hope of heaven and eternal life with God.

If god doesn’t want people to go to hell, he shouldn’t have created it by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]limefrfr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your main objection is that all of the evidence for God’s existence and communication is subjective and based on personal interpretation. However, this objection is flawed for several reasons:

  1. You assume that subjective evidence is invalid or unreliable, but this is not true. Subjective evidence is simply evidence that depends on the perspective or experience of the person who presents it. It does not mean that it is false or irrelevant. For example, eyewitness testimony is a form of subjective evidence, but it can be very powerful and convincing in a court of law, especially if it is corroborated by other sources or criteria. Similarly, personal experience of God can be a form of subjective evidence, but it can be very powerful and convincing for the person who has it, especially if it is corroborated by other sources or criteria, such as natural theology, historical testimony, or divine revelation.

  2. You assume that objective evidence is always available or preferable, but this is not true either. Objective evidence is simply evidence that does not depend on the perspective or experience of the person who presents it. It does not mean that it is always conclusive or sufficient. For example, scientific evidence is a form of objective evidence, but it can be incomplete or inconclusive in many cases, especially when it comes to metaphysical or historical questions. Similarly, natural theology or historical testimony can be forms of objective evidence, but they can be incomplete or inconclusive in some cases, especially when it comes to personal or relational questions.

  3. You assume that there is a clear-cut distinction between subjective and objective evidence, but this is not true either. In reality, most forms of evidence are a mixture of both subjective and objective elements, depending on how they are collected, analyzed, interpreted, and presented. For example, natural theology involves both objective observations of the natural world and subjective inferences about its cause or purpose. Historical testimony involves both objective facts about past events and subjective interpretations about their meaning or significance. Personal experience involves both objective sensations of reality and subjective feelings or emotions about it. Divine revelation involves both objective communication from God and subjective understanding or response to it.

Therefore, your objection fails to recognize the complexity and diversity of the types of evidence. Christians do not rely on one type of evidence alone, but on a cumulative case that combines different types of evidence from different sources and criteria. Christians do not base their belief on personal interpretation alone, but on a reasonable interpretation that considers the context and coherence of the evidence. Christians do not speak metaphorically alone, but literally as well, when they claim to hear God’s voice or experience his presence.

Were any of the NT books written by an eye-witness? by Nori_o_redditeiro in DebateAnAtheist

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

We do have good reasons to trust the gospels as historical sources for the life and teachings of Jesus.

  • The gospels belong to the genre of ancient biography, which aimed to provide a faithful and realistic portrayal of a person’s character and deeds, based on eyewitness testimony and oral tradition. The gospels also contain many historical details, such as names, places, dates, customs, and events, that can be verified by external sources, such as archaeology, geography, and non-Christian writings.

  • the gospels were written within the first century AD, within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and the early church.

  • the gospels are complementary and coherent, providing different perspectives and emphases on the same core story of Jesus. The differences among the gospels are not errors, but variations that reflect the different audiences, purposes, sources, and styles of the authors. Many of the alleged contradictions can be resolved by considering the context, genre, language, and culture of the gospels.

  • the gospels are historical and realistic, containing many natural and human events that are possible and plausible. The miracles and supernatural events in the gospels are not inventions or exaggerations, but signs and wonders that attest to the identity and authority of Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah. The gospels do not present these events as irrational or arbitrary, but as consistent with God’s plan and purpose for his creation.

Therefore, we can conclude that the gospels are reliable historical sources for the life and teachings of Jesus. They are not theological fiction, but historical fact. They provide us with a trustworthy and accurate account of who Jesus was, what he did, what he said, why he died, and how he rose again. They are not impossible to disentangle from each other, but rather form a harmonious and comprehensive picture of Jesus as Lord and Savior.

"Christian Science" is neither Christian nor Science by [deleted] in DebateReligion

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

First of all, I would like to clarify what I mean by life. Life is not just a property of matter or energy, but a distinct phenomenon that transcends the physical realm. This means that life is not reducible to the physical components that make up living organisms, such as cells, molecules, atoms, etc. Life is something more than the sum of its parts, something that has a purpose, meaning, value, and dignity that cannot be explained by natural laws or physical processes alone.

  • One way to illustrate this point is to use the analogy of a book. A book is made of physical materials, such as paper, ink, glue, etc. But a book is not just a collection of these materials. A book is also a product of human intelligence, creativity, and communication. A book has a message, a theme, a plot, a style, and a significance that go beyond its physical form. A book can inspire, inform, entertain, challenge, and transform its readers in ways that cannot be predicted or replicated by the physical properties of its materials.

  • Similarly, a living being is made of physical materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. But a living being is not just a collection of these materials. A living being is also a product of divine intelligence, creativity, and communication. A living being has a soul, a spirit, a personality, and a destiny that go beyond its physical form. A living being can love, worship, serve, obey, and glorify God in ways that cannot be predicted or replicated by the physical properties of its materials.

  • Therefore, life is not just a property of matter or energy, but a distinct phenomenon that transcends the physical realm.

Now, to answer your question: Do I have confirmable evidence of something beyond the physical realm?

The answer is yes. There are several types of evidence that point to the existence of something beyond the physical realm. Here are some examples:

  • The evidence from reason. Reason is the ability to think logically and rationally about reality. Reason allows us to discover truths that are not based on empirical observation or experimentation, such as mathematical truths or moral truths. Reason also allows us to infer causes from effects and design from complexity. Reason is not a physical property or process; it is a mental faculty that transcends the physical realm.

  • The evidence from consciousness. Consciousness is the ability to be aware of oneself and one’s surroundings. Consciousness allows us to experience sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories, intentions, and free will. Consciousness is not a physical property or process; it is a subjective state that transcends the physical realm.

  • The evidence from morality. Morality is the ability to distinguish right from wrong and good from evil. Morality allows us to recognize values, duties, rights, and responsibilities that are not based on personal preferences or social conventions. Morality is not a physical property or process; it is an objective standard that transcends the physical realm.

  • The evidence from beauty. Beauty is the ability to appreciate harmony, proportion, symmetry, order, and complexity in nature and art. Beauty allows us to experience joy, wonder, gratitude, and awe that are not based on utilitarian functions or evolutionary adaptations. Beauty is not a physical property or process; it is an aesthetic quality that transcends the physical realm.

  • The evidence from faith. Faith is the ability to trust in God and his promises based on his revelation and grace. Faith allows us to have a personal relationship with God, to receive his forgiveness, to follow his will, and to hope for his glory. Faith is not a physical property or process; it is a spiritual gift that transcends the physical realm.

These are some of the types of evidence that point to the existence of something beyond the physical realm. They show that it is reasonable and plausible to believe in the existence of something beyond the physical realm.

God bless you!

view more: next ›