this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
858 points (96.5% liked)
Atheism
1662 readers
2 users here now
- Be respectful to other members Treat others with kindness and courtesy, even if you disagree with their opinions.
- Stay on topic Keep your discussions relevant to the purpose of the forum. Avoid going off-topic or derailing conversations.
- No spamming Avoid posting irrelevant or unnecessary content, advertisements, or links to unrelated websites.
- Use proper language and tone Choose your words carefully when commenting or replying to others. Avoid using profanity or engaging in offensive language and personal attacks.
- Do not share personal information Protect your privacy by refraining from sharing personal details such as addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses on the forum.
- Report any issues If you come across any inappropriate behavior or content, report it to the forum moderators or administrators.
- Have fun and contribute positively Participate actively and add value to the discussions. Engage in meaningful and constructive conversations with fellow members.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You ask good questions, but if you're really interested you can look into Christian apologetics re: free will. There are some interesting answers awaiting you. But the gist of it is that God didn't create flawed beings, he created beings with free will that chose to be flawed.
And Christianity has never said free will is a flawed design, because humans having free will is one of the most important aspects of the religion and is very fundamental to what it means to be a human (a concept that is true both in and outside of Christianity, unless you believe in destiny or something). It is not a flaw to have free will, otherwise God himself would be flawed. In a regular context, it's kind of like you're not flawed for existing, but you're flawed if you do negative things with your existence. I would personally have to be convinced that having free will is a flaw/a negative thing
To quickly answer your first couple questions: death is the punishment for sinning and Jesus is supposed to be perfect and sinless and thus should not die. but instead he died in place of other sinners, kind of like taking the blame for them. And yes, torturing and killing the son of God was indeed a sin, the people who did it were sinful. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. The ones who killed Jesus were not his followers or supporters
death-cultsplainin'
Copium
That, too.
Yes sir whatever you say great discussion
i'm giving you free will now i'm punishing you for making the choice i didn't like
but seriously, i do appreciate your well-written comment - it's just that it all gets very tiresome. i have been listening to/reading the apologetics and arguments, getting invited, prayed and ranted at. i have been nodding my head politely, smiling awkwardly, and dodging questions for a great many years, when really i just want to do my own thing and be left in peace with it (without words like "sinner" and "evil" getting tossed around).
anyway, that's just my experience.
I mean, even in a society you have free will and get punished for not confirming to it? Do you think societies as a whole with laws and rules are tiresome and you don't want words like "criminal" tossed around? Are you going to just leave society and not live in community with others?
You can do your own thing for sure. But everyone, even people who believe and are Christian, are sinners. Literally everyone is a sinner. You can still be at peace with your own thing anyway, even in a religious context. Christians find peace while admitting to being sinners. I'm not saying you need to, you're totally free to do your own thing. I'm just explaining things really
i think i was too subtle in my statement.
let me put it this way - it seemed to me that you were interested in explaining your perspective, as if simply offering information to contribute to a greater understanding. when someone expressed their disinterest in your explanation or indicated they did not find it sufficient, it seemed to me as if you were quickly negative. i was left with the impression that you are fundamentally less interested in dialogue and understanding, and more interested in convincing.
this is very typical of conversation with christians in a my 40+ year experience as a non-christian living in the bible belt. i tire of the efforts to explain christianity, when i have, in fact, heard it so extensively for so long. i tire of the conversations that are not REALLY intended to explain, but to solicit agreement and convert.
in other words - i wish more christians recognized that it may not be that non-christians don't understand your faith, they may simply not agree and not want to hear about it again. and approaching them as if you are interested in dialogue when you really want to convince them feels disingenuous.
these were my thoughts when i read your conversation with the other user above.
I don't know what part of "death-cultsplainin'" and me replying with "copium" makes you think there was a "conversation" going on
Let me explain my thoughts. I have taken time to write up something for someone else and someone- an unrelated party, barges in and pretty rudely replies with no intention to say anything, just to write a snide one word comment as if it's supposed to be anything other than a disrespectful comment.
Does it seem like when I said "thanks for contributing nothing to our discussion" I was trying to convert someone? I don't know where you got that idea. I was expressing that one word replies aren't good conversation at all. It's just annoying. My thoughts here are that it's pretty rude to come into a conversation just to go "haha cultist". I think people who look down on religion need to stop finding every opportunity to disrespect and be condescending to others who are invested in the topic.
Someone asked questions and I was just answering them. And for some reason you think I am in the wrong here when someone is clearly replying to me without an interest in actually talking to me. You know that person could have easily said nothing. If someone "may not want to hear it again" there are numerous solutions to this: close the thread, collapse the comment, reply with "sorry I really don't like this". Snarkily replying with "cultist" is not one of them. It's just rude and disrespectful. Maybe you guys should stop conflating disrespect with actual expression of disinterest, because it's not.
In no circumstance do I find one word snarky replies a sufficient or respectful way to reply to someone engaging in an actual discussion. Like ever. Religious discussion context or not, it's just a terrible reply. Idk why you think me replying with "yes whatever you want" is somehow me trying to convince him into a religion, like what. You are projecting and inserting things into this situation that are not there
look, i don't think you're a bad person or something, and honestly i regret saying anything.
i'm just letting you know that, you may sometimes get snarky one-word replies because people tire of hearing about it. i would bet money the greatest majority of non-christians in the us, who are open about their non-christianity, have heard all this before.
again - it's not that most of us don't understand your faith, it's that many of us are not interested in having it explained again and are unlikely to agree with your beliefs. there are people you simply will not convince of your correctness, no matter how many explanations you provide.
Yes, I know all of this and get it. I get that you're tired of it. But all I see is someone being unnecessarily snarky in someone else's conversation and you defending and justifying it with "we're tired of it". I didn't make a big deal of it at all, if someone's going to disrespect me like that I'm not giving it the time of day, but you're here justifying it so now I have to reply why it's not an ok response and have to justify my own reply because you projected that I am trying to convert this random drive by commenter when I was clearly not
Why don't we just accept that you two are being unnecessarily disrespectful? I do not enter other people's conversations and reply with "I don't want to hear this". That's all there is to it
no, i don't agree that i was being disrespectful - and i think it's interesting that someone trying to explain a non-christian pov to you is received that way.
i think i wasted my time. this is why i typically nod politely when christians talk to me, it's just easier.
So when you say "whatever you say" it's just easier, but when I say it in reply to a one word comment that's just disrespectful it's me trying to convert someone to Christianity... ok. Do you not see your hypocrisy? You are the one who is accusing me of something and when I justify myself and disagree you're just like "I'm wasting my time". I did not come into your conversation to tell you about Christianity, you came into mine to tell me I'm trying to convert someone when i wasn't at all. I was literally just equally replying snarkily
I understand non Christian povs. I'm just saying, Christian discussion or not, "death-cultsplainin'" was never appropriate and is an unwarranted response. That's all there is to it. There's nothing more to explain there. I don't come into a soccer team discussion and say "cultist" to a person who is a fan of one team. Christian or not it's disrespectful and non contributive. You're just trying to justify rude behaviour because you're personally tired of theological discussions.
Do you agree that the original "death-cultsplainin'" comment is unwarranted or do you think their comment was necessary and justified? Like be objective about it. If you think it's the latter, then we can just agree to disagree on how we engage in online discourse. In any context, I prefer not to call people cultists without explanation and think that's inappropriate, and you can prefer to think that's fine, sure. But such comments objectively lead to lower quality conversations and negative vitriol so I choose to say it's not appropriate and adds nothing to these threads aside from raising negative emotions. You don't have to be Christian to understand my sentiment. I understand yours fine. I'm just telling you why its not appropriate.
So... these are excellent questions and I'm afraid I personally can't answer all of them since I'm not that knowledgeable here. But I do believe people smarter than I have come up with better answers than I will give too. I'm afraid I don't understand your question regarding original sin being forgiven. I'll try to answer the rest from my experiences, though
So think of it this way: if God created humans to have free will, this means they can choose to be bad. You may be asking, why would God create a world where bad can exist? Doesn't that seem flawed? But if God were to create a world where bad can't exist, then humans wouldn't have true free will. God didn't create the world with bad things in it, he created the world as good (in Genesis, the first chapter of the bible, he continually says "it is good" after everything he creates.)
So God creates the world as good and put humans with free will into the world. And because they have true free will, they also have the choice of making the world bad, which is what ended up happening. The pint is, "Bad" as a concept must exist in order for there to be true free will
So if bad can exist, then logically there has to be consequences for bad things. Otherwise it's not bad. If there are no consequences it can't be bad, it just doesn't make any sense. So sinning, which is the bad we've been talking about, has the consequence of death. I hope that kind of answers the question of "why do people have to be punished for sins"
Humans were not intended to be ignorant, and they were already intelligent. They just didn't have specific knowledge. And this is true even to this day. We as humans don't know everything and we never will. But humans had free will even before they had the knowledge from eating the fruit. They willingly disobeyed God's instructions before they even ate the fruit. They were already intelligent. I guess in a sense they were designed to be ignorant if by ignorant you mean "does not have unending knowledge about everything in existence". Then indeed, humans were never designed to have 100% of all the answers. If they did, they would be no different from God. And this is clear even to this day. Not even science can explain everything and we're always discovering/learning new things. An aside: from here you can kind of see that the bible is pretty accurate about the way it describes humans objectively, from having free will to having gaps in complete knowledge of the universe
God didn't take anything out on Jesus, but Jesus sacrificed himself for other humans. I'm not sure of the imagery of hell, note that I could be wrong here , but Hell is separation from God, not necessarily a physical torturing session. And this makes sense, when you sin, you go further away from God since you're disobeying him. And when you disobey someone, that means you don't trust them. And if you don't trust them, you're not getting any closer to them. And hell is just eternal separation from God, which, to a Christian, is the worst thing you can experience if you truly believe God is the greatest gift and biggest form of love you can experience. That's kind of the gist of it
I couldn't answer your questions on humans in hell before crucification since I need to sleep now, but I do have some ideas/potential answers. I do think it is a question worth looking into, for both you and I!
The notion of being guilty by proxy is mind boggling but it would be/is a good tool to control people through fear, which is essentially most creeds business.
The notion is mind boggling because being guilty by proxy is not how it works anyway. If you could find a 100% objectively guiltless man I'd totally concede that guilt by proxy is how it works, but let's face it, literally everyone on this earth is not perfect or blameless. You don't need a proxy to be guilty, everyone already is, its not hard to see when you look at the people in the world
If every man after Adam is guilty by proxy, Jesus would've been guilty as well as soon as he was born. But Christianity clearly posits the opposite of that
Let's not take that route.
The guilty by proxy argument predicates that every human being, at the moment of conception, is already guilty of an act onto which said human had no participation on. That is being guilty by simply existing.
We're are not getting into the argument of nobody being exempt of fault, either by action or lack of it.
The "loop hole" used to exempt JC Sandals of the original son was having him being conceived with no human intervention, therefore, sinless. After all, it is argued he was born of a virgin woman, willed into existence into flesh yet not conceived as any other.
You make a really excellent point, and I think I retract what I have posited. But I think nobody being exempt of fault is quite true, no?
The easiest reply would be "it dependends".
But...
What constitutes a fault? Are we to consider fault only actions or lack thereof taken counciously or any outcome that negatively influences another or anything, even if such outcome arises from an unpredicted(able) steming from an action taken with a good purpose?
I don't have exact answers for this, but if you look at it as if Adam was indicative of all of mankind (which he was), you can see it less like people are condemned when theyre born but more like all people are inherently broken/flawed/sinners. Original sin was just the first example of it. If there were people out in the world who were objectively flawless and sinless I'd take a totally different stance, but mankind being broken and evil is just pretty consistent with history and with the bible
Christianity doesn't exactly say it's a grievous error to be born and that you're condemned for it, it more says that you're inherently broken but you can still be redeemed
The contrast though is that you don't "earn" heaven either. Nothing makes a Christian and a non Christian so inherently different from each other that one fundamentally deserves heaven and the other hell. It's saved by faith, not by works
We can agree to disagree then. You didn't really explain anything either.
We're an inherently selfish species from a biological perspective, people aren't just fundamentally altruistic. If evolution shaped our morals to encourage us to be nice to each other to benefit the whole species, why is it still such a struggle for people to be selfless?
I find it very hard for you to convince me that as a species we are neutral when the very people we put into power and govern over us are narcissists and power hungry people who have little care about every individuals lives that they govern over and are obsessed with self gain.
On an individual level, being altruistic/good natured/selfless is something that has to be fostered and you have to be intentional about. Growing up, we're taught lessons, in school and in media, etc., on how to be good/how to treat others. We're taught to do good things and don't do bad things. Why? Because our nature is to do bad things
If you have to be intentional about being good and not being bad, then that means your default state is being bad. It's easy to be selfish and only do things that you want and only care about yourself, because that's our nature as a species.
I don't agree that we just "are" and that we just "exist", it just sounds like someone that doesn't want to face the truth that mankind is not a perfect species. Vague statements like "we can only be as evil as we are good" doesn't actually mean anything. You just stated a bunch of facts like "death gives life meaning" and "shadow defines light". Sure. I agree. So what? Nothing that you said really clarified why humans aren't inherently bad in your eyes. You just said a bunch of generic statements that not even Christians disagree with as if I'm supposed to understand why your position makes sense now
Seems he could have anticipated the flaw.
Seems you could have read my comment better