Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Orange Wizard]

If I am going to argue from a Christian perspective I can't debate with Muhammad. However, from a Christian perspective to say God created much debasedness in animals. All God has created is good according to Genesis.

Ahah, this is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

The Garden was was good prior to the Fall. Not after it.

...

I believe the idea is that Animals cannot do Evil by definition. Only Humans can, because only Humans have Souls which give them knowledge of Good and Evil, and unknowing action cannot be True Evil, only Incidental Evil.

I agree. Unfortunately Icefire is (I think?) trying to argue that homosexuality is justified before God because animals can be gay. Which I find to be bizarre.

[Frumple]

Relatively sure they just meant to argue it wasn't unnatural, unlike the common christian denouement of the acts state, and maybe got swept up by the discussion a bit.

E: Well, and a bit of making the statement that they don't believe god would create people such as what they naturally are inclined towards (at least in regards to non-harmful sexual acts/relationships) is genuinely sinful, just as sex within marriage isn't. Bit of a dovetail. Which is, indeed, non-canonical/un-biblical, but hey, maybe god's changed its mind about what acts are appropriate for mankind again.

[Telgin]

Yeah, that's what I take away from it too.  As is usual, I can provide the anecdote that local Christians here are fond of saying "It's not natural!  Even the animals know better!"  That's literally what a preacher said once, which of course means he didn't research the topic.

[Rolepgeek]

I believe the idea is that Animals cannot do Evil by definition. Only Humans can, because only Humans have Souls which give them knowledge of Good and Evil, and unknowing action cannot be True Evil, only Incidental Evil.

I agree. Unfortunately Icefire is (I think?) trying to argue that homosexuality is justified before God because animals can be gay. Which I find to be bizarre.

Meh. I just go with the argument that a. 'natural' is meaningless anyway, since everything humans do is just part of our secondary phenotype, in the end, relating to our mental capacity, and thus as natural as a beaver building a dam, and b. unnatural=/=bad. natural=/= good. Penicillin is 'unnatural'. The bubonic plague was perfectly natural. Agriculture is unnatural (though there is an argument to be had for it being a bad thing to have invented for quality of life). Hell, religion is unnatural. Bears don't pray. Nor do Sharks, or even the smarter animals. Is that what proves they have no soul? Does that mean I have no soul?

[Rolan7]

Relatively sure they just meant to argue it wasn't unnatural, unlike the common christian denouement of the acts state, and maybe got swept up by the discussion a bit.

Yeah that's the impression I got.  Basically that some of us are created homosexual, and why would God do that if it wasn't okay?
It's different from a person turning evil.  That's... still hard to defend, but at least one can argue that a person has a chance to resist being corrupted by the world.  But base sexuality is nature, not nurture.

well baptism isn't what saves you, it is belief in Jesus as your savior. When did you make that decision?

Pope Francis on Atheists and Heaven

EDIT: I meant to post more than just the link. In short Pope Francis says that Atheists can go to Heaven if they are good people but ultimately it is up to God to judge.

Romans 6:23:
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. not by works, so that no one can boast.

There are many more verses that would disagree with that.

Francis didn't say we would be saved by works.  It's our conscience:

“You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

As I understand him, intentions do matter...  If we regret the wrong things we do, and sincerely try to do good, God will forgive us even after death.  It's a very reasonable stance, biblical or not.

As for the "wages of sin" quote, well, I don't understand the connection.  But Francis was saying that the sin will be forgiven by God's mercy, even if we didn't have the good fortune to be raised in the correct denomination of the correct religion.  So we'll have no sin.

(Also, the wages of sin being "death" is a lot better than Hell...)

[Orange Wizard]

The "wages of sin is death" thing means that sin is paid for with/punished for by hell (i.e. spiritual death).

[origamiscienceguy]

All of your sin will still be forgiven, but you still need to allow Jesus to take those sins off of you.

[Orange Wizard]

Well, yeah. It's still being paid for, just not by you.

[wierd]

Correct, and the price paid was not "eternal damnation", but "Really painful and humiliating death on a big wooden crucifix."

AKA, death.

The whole "hell" thing is not very easy to substantiate within the biblical context. The most you will find are some obscure references in Revelations to the lake of fire.  However, etymological studies of the original greek version of the text gives some clarification; the grammar used in that verse more accurately translates to "Burned without being put out"-- Not "Burning forever."  EG, they are destroyed in the lake of fire, and there they are burned completely, and not spared.

Still death-- just specifying that it is death with prejudice.

[Rolan7]

One of the big mysteries (from my perspective) of Christianity has always been "Why do you have to accept Jesus *before* you die, for his sacrifice to work?"
(Assuming that Christianity is true.  It's obviously of pragmatic value for spreading the faith)

Francis basically solves that issue by saying that, if a person truly regrets being sinful, "go to Him with a sincere and contrite heart", then God'll still forgive you after death.
And...  Does the Bible actually counter that, exactly?

Re: Hell

11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Speaking about Jesus, presumably.  In metaphor but... that's a harsh metaphor.

[wierd]

But again, it is death with prejudice, not "OMG, It BURNS--- FOREVER!"

The fire is unquenchable-- It is never extinguished. That does not mean that the things disposed of inside it likewise persist eternally in a state of combustion.

Most old testament mistranslations are actually of the word "Sheol", which means "the grave"-- Lit, the place and state of being dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol

Note how it became a firey, terrible hellscape ONLY AFTER roman conquest of judea.

The description of it as being divided, with a good side, and a not so good side, is the view directly depicted in eg, the apocryphal book of Enoch.


Be that as it may, the new testament says that this place no longer gets used, because christ triumphed over it when he was raised from the dead.

So, whence do dead people go?  "The wages of sin are death, and the wages of salvation is everlasting life."

So-- Obey Jesus, or die a mortal death and be no more.

Basically.

[origamiscienceguy]

One of the big mysteries (from my perspective) of Christianity has always been "Why do you have to accept Jesus *before* you die, for his sacrifice to work?"
(Assuming that Christianity is true.  It's obviously of pragmatic value for spreading the faith)

Francis basically solves that issue by saying that, if a person truly regrets being sinful, "go to Him with a sincere and contrite heart", then God'll still forgive you after death.
And...  Does the Bible actually counter that, exactly?

Re: Hell

11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Speaking about Jesus, presumably.  In metaphor but... that's a harsh metaphor.

Well, it is hard to accept jesus after death. (by hard i mean impossible since you can't think or talk anymore.)

The biblical counter to what pope said is that being sincere still doesn't save you if you still reject God. You need to "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)

[Rolepgeek]

If you can't talk or think anymore...what is heaven?

[Rolan7]

@origamiscienceguy
You lose sentience after death?
I thought we were supposed to persist as, essentially, ourselves.  Just without "sinful desires of the body" and such.
Therefore we would be able to accept the offer of salvation...  I don't think Francis's statement has been disproved by scripture yet.

[wierd]

Ecclesiastes 9, 4 through 6

…4For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.