Thread: 10 Questions for an Intelligent Christian

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I don't have a problem with the idea that our choices are judged. But as I said, they are all objectively determined. That's why I want to know how God can be just or good after knowing this and being the one who started it all. Yes, the choices send us to hell, fine. But how does a good God, being omnipotent, allow this. I'll also repeat this for the sake of its importance - yes we make free choices, but for an objective observer they are just a result of a complex chemical reaction. Even if your idea of reality includes a special relationship between a soul and the universe, you couldn't really deny the mounds of proof which show how brainwashing, brain damage etc. changes ones personality (and in this discussion, the soul, or more importantly the souls "final resting place").

From this paragraph, I have dissected two main questions:

1) If everything is determined, why would people go to hell?
People's lives are only determined by their choices. Since each person's life already dwells in the spirit of God, each person's life is already laid out.

Imagine being in a room surrounded by televisions screens, each playing a motion picture of each and every day of your life. All of it is determined in the sense that it is all playing out at once, but the progress of the film is still due to your own choices! Every day you make choices that affect you, but every day is happening concurrently, as time rests in the mind of God.

I am having difficulty conveying exactly how it makes sense in my mind, but it is a complicated analysis to explain. I do believe everything is determined. But we made it so, through our choices. The lives we live are determined only by the free choices we make.

So it's not determined in the sense that it couldn't have been any other way. Rather, we could have lived differently, creating a new determined path for ourselves. But we've already made all the choices. We've made all our life choices already. How? Because God sees them. They have yet to happen to us, but our choices will unfold exactly how we wish them to. And this is what determines our lives. Our choices.

So it is we that bring ourselves to God or move away from Him. It is we that instill determinism in our lives through freedom of choice.

God remains just and good because He did not "start" it all, as "start" is a temporal word which does not apply to a timeless being. God exists, therefore we exist. It is a truth that has just always been. We exist because he loves us, and we make choices to move toward Him or away.

2) How is God just if brainwashed people go to hell?
I have no idea what happens to people who are brainwashed. To even suggest that they go to hell would be a massive judgment on my part. All I can say is that God is just and merciful. If a robot is programmed to slaughter, who do we blame--the robot or the one who programmed it?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Imagining or saying you believe that you can fly isn't belief. Belief is when you jump of a cliff without hesitation for the sake of flying like superman.

I am a bit confused by this, but I will regress to what you had said before. You told me that we do not have real free choice because I could not choose at this very moment to act against my faith.

Can you choose not to believe that rain comes from clouds? Just because you can't, does that prove freedom of choice does not exist?

No--there are aspects of life that are objective, and it would make no sense to make a choice to act against them. Denying that George Washington was the 1st president of the U.S. does not validate freedom of choice; it emulates ignorance.

And God takes the cake for objectivity.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

If one says that all apples are red, another only has to reveal a green apple to dismantle the generalization.

I have already given you specific examples of good deeds from the church.

My church helped build an orphanage in Chihuahua, Mexico. Housing orphans in a unit with working plumbing and electricity is a pretty fantastic undertaking.

You harp too much on the generalization thing. If we say "all hypocrites are hypocrites", it is not a generalization, it is a simple tautological truth.

All you have given me is nonsense. Building an orphanage does not even help with anything in the country. You cannot heal a wound by trimming the hairs around it.

Also, pardon me for saying this, but I actually speculate the truth of your claims. Can you actually prove that your churches have done any of this? Not that it really matters, but I just seriously doubt that the little money being sent is really being sent. Even if it was, it ought to have been compiled together with other churches to actually make an institution that would be useful. Something propagating an industry or manufacturer.

Your point was that we cannot solve all of the world's problems, and you are right.

The original point was why God allows it. It is not our duty to compensate for Gods crappy hypocrisy.

Hospitals cannot save everybody's lives. But they can save some. Just because others are destined to die does not mean we should stop providing health care.

Of course not. But this still ignores the original point; why are we compensating for Gods allowance of suffering?

Food drives, clothing drives, blood drives. You don't even need a church for an event like this. But they make a difference to somebody.

You are right. Those things are constituents of the Red Cross, not the church.

~

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

God remains just and good because He did not "start" it all, as "start" is a temporal word which does not apply to a timeless being. God exists, therefore we exist. It is a truth that has just always been. We exist because he loves us, and we make choices to move toward Him or away.

This won't get anywhere, because each has his own idea. You say that choices determine the universe, I say the universe determines choices. Where I believe that my idea is more supported through science, I mean if you scientifically study the universe there is no reason to assume anything special about man. Your idea revolves around free will and subjective experience, and therefore can't really be discussed with science, which I think is the only thing we can all agree on.

About the specific quoted section: I don't "like" that response. I see it as an evasion to the question really. If his mere existence equals the definition of just and good, then I can't say anything else to that since it seems a baseless proposition. If he is this timeless being, why label him with just or good with everything else happening in the universe. If it's because according to your religion he is good and loves you, then again, it's something baseless to be taken on faith because the book says so. Although when discussing this world view I have to adopt it to dissect it internally, this is something that, for me, can't really be explained. He loves us and our existence is proof? I'm sorry, this just does not compute. Why is he just and good, those are defined by actions. If actions define him as good, then I'd like to know how he is defined by his other actions. How can my existence be from love if it knowingly ends with eternal torment. Timelessness doesn't explain this, and neither does your idea that the soul chooses hell or heaven, because he is infinitely powerful.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

2) How is God just if brainwashed people go to hell?
I have no idea what happens to people who are brainwashed. To even suggest that they go to hell would be a massive judgment on my part. All I can say is that God is just and merciful. If a robot is programmed to slaughter, who do we blame--the robot or the one who programmed it?

The way I understood your previous response on how the only way this universe is determined is through our free choices, it makes me wonder why you try to explain this. Is everybody in the world not "mentally handicapped" or brainwashed or whatever? We all have a brain, every brain has a certain structure, every structure only results in a certain way of thinking and behaviour. If you acknowledge the brains influence on the soul/consciousness and not the other way around, then how can you keep your previous assertion? Why does god not judge this persons choices, even if they are the way they are because of a certain brain structure - You say he'll do it to me and you, but my brain isn't any less determined than somebody who was brainwashed or has a tumor making his thought different from the way they were before.

Do we blame the robot? Sorry, but unless I'm completely daft then yes, that's what you keep telling me. Personally I blame everything on the programmer - God.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

I am a bit confused by this, but I will regress to what you had said before. You told me that we do not have real free choice because I could not choose at this very moment to act against my faith.

Can you choose not to believe that rain comes from clouds? Just because you can't, does that prove freedom of choice does not exist?

No--there are aspects of life that are objective, and it would make no sense to make a choice to act against them. Denying that George Washington was the 1st president of the U.S. does not validate freedom of choice; it emulates ignorance.

And God takes the cake for objectivity.

All I was saying is that you can't choose belief. Or you could chose to believe that you can fly. You say that would be stupid to do, although using another example - believing that your chair can't hold you up, which only implied that you could've done it. My response with the belief that you can fly was there to offer an alternative, to show you that imagination doesn't equal belief. So saying "I could believe my chair can't hold me up, but it would be stupid" is wrong. Or prove me otherwise by believing something stupid, like that there is no God.

Yes you're right it's stupid to discuss such aspects of life in such a manner. But it does show the nature of belief and it's connected to the programmable nature of the brain and how we can't be responsible for our choices, and can't be sent to heaven or hell for having them. At least not justly.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You harp too much on the generalization thing. If we say "all hypocrites are hypocrites", it is not a generalization, it is a simple tautological truth.

Your claim is that churches do not use their money to help anybody.

Yes, it is a generalization, and I have told you why. If you truly don't see that, I am sorry.

Originally Posted by O'nus

All you have given me is nonsense. Building an orphanage does not even help with anything in the country. You cannot heal a wound by trimming the hairs around it.

Building an orphanage does not help with anything in the country? Tell that to the children who reside there.

Would you neglect to donate a kidney on the basis that there are too many people with bad kidneys?

Your logic seems to be, "We can't solve the world's problems, so it's not worth doing anything."

Originally Posted by O'nus

Also, pardon me for saying this, but I actually speculate the truth of your claims. Can you actually prove that your churches have done any of this? Not that it really matters, but I just seriously doubt that the little money being sent is really being sent. Even if it was, it ought to have been compiled together with other churches to actually make an institution that would be useful. Something propagating an industry or manufacturer.

Yes, I could give you a link that describes these ministries in detail, and in all honesty I would if I thought your intentions were positive in this regard, but your attitude toward churches as a whole is causing me to refrain. I would prefer you direct your accusations at me and leave my church alone.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The original point was why God allows it. It is not our duty to compensate for Gods crappy hypocrisy.

This is exactly the discourse taking place between Bonsay and I right now.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course not. But this still ignores the original point; why are we compensating for Gods allowance of suffering?

See above statement.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are right. Those things are constituents of the Red Cross, not the church.

So just because some people are volunteering at soup kitchens and hurricane shelters, that means that nobody else should?

The Red Cross and churches alike provide services for people, but just because one organization practices such drives does not mean that the other organization should stop.


To be honest, I am going to drop the discourse between you and I. I don't have a problem if you want to go on believing churches do nothing good in the world, but entertaining your claims is proving to be futile.


~[/quote]

Originally Posted by Bonsay

This won't get anywhere, because each has his own idea. You say that choices determine the universe, I say the universe determines choices. Where I believe that my idea is more supported through science, I mean if you scientifically study the universe there is no reason to assume anything special about man. Your idea revolves around free will and subjective experience, and therefore can't really be discussed with science, which I think is the only thing we can all agree on.

I have a hard time submitting to the fact that something as powerful as being in love is wholly due to chemical processes in the brain.

Being in love is an experience that emits from the depths our spirits and we feel it down to the core of our bones. I fully believe that our choices cause the chemical reactions within us, not vice versa.

When a loved one dies, we choose to grieve, thus causing chemical reactions to occur. If it were the other way around, the chemicals in our brains would have to be aware of the death before ourselves, which is rather ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

About the specific quoted section: I don't "like" that response. I see it as an evasion to the question really. If his mere existence equals the definition of just and good, then I can't say anything else to that since it seems a baseless proposition. If he is this timeless being, why label him with just or good with everything else happening in the universe. If it's because according to your religion he is good and loves you, then again, it's something baseless to be taken on faith because the book says so. Although when discussing this world view I have to adopt it to dissect it internally, this is something that, for me, can't really be explained. He loves us and our existence is proof? I'm sorry, this just does not compute. Why is he just and good, those are defined by actions. If actions define him as good, then I'd like to know how he is defined by his other actions. How can my existence be from love if it knowingly ends with eternal torment. Timelessness doesn't explain this, and neither does your idea that the soul chooses hell or heaven, because he is infinitely powerful.

This can open up a completely new topic of debate--if God wasn't good, why would He instill in us an awareness of morals?

The lot of us know that some things are right and others are wrong. We also know that doing the right things is the good thing to do. We feel it deep in our bones.

Sometime ago I worked at a daycare center and a little girl started seizing in the middle of a park. Immediately the teachers took action. We contacted emergency services and I sprinted back to the daycare center to retrieve this girl's emergency card.

Acting in a way that might save this girl from extreme harm was the right thing to do and we knew it deep in our bones. It required no thought whatsoever, just appropriate action. Why did we choose to act? Because we are compassionate beings who recognize that people are worth saving, even worth dying for. And we receive this compassion from our Creator. It is moments like these that bring God's infinite care and compassion to fruition, and it is grounded in emotion.

There are some things even logic fail to explain.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The way I understood your previous response on how the only way this universe is determined is through our free choices, it makes me wonder why you try to explain this. Is everybody in the world not "mentally handicapped" or brainwashed or whatever? We all have a brain, every brain has a certain structure, every structure only results in a certain way of thinking and behaviour. If you acknowledge the brains influence on the soul/consciousness and not the other way around, then how can you keep your previous assertion? Why does god not judge this persons choices, even if they are the way they are because of a certain brain structure - You say he'll do it to me and you, but my brain isn't any less determined than somebody who was brainwashed or has a tumor making his thought different from the way they were before.

I maintain that someone who is truly "brainwashed," whatever the qualifier might be, is absolutely different from you and I in the basic sense of being.

Like I said, I cannot claim to know what happens to people like this, but it's possible that there are shades of gray when it comes to God's judgment on humanity.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Do we blame the robot? Sorry, but unless I'm completely daft then yes, that's what you keep telling me. Personally I blame everything on the programmer - God.

As I stated, there may be some shades of gray. I actually applaud you for making this point, as it is something I have never put much thought into.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

All I was saying is that you can't choose belief. Or you could chose to believe that you can fly. You say that would be stupid to do, although using another example - believing that your chair can't hold you up, which only implied that you could've done it. My response with the belief that you can fly was there to offer an alternative, to show you that imagination doesn't equal belief. So saying "I could believe my chair can't hold me up, but it would be stupid" is wrong. Or prove me otherwise by believing something stupid, like that there is no God.

Yes you're right it's stupid to discuss such aspects of life in such a manner. But it does show the nature of belief and it's connected to the programmable nature of the brain and how we can't be responsible for our choices, and can't be sent to heaven or hell for having them. At least not justly.

So, in a nutshell, you are suggesting there is no freedom of choice because we cannot choose to believe certain things, such as, "there is no United Nations.".....?

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but while I admit there is no freedom of choice in reference to objective reality, I maintain that freedom of choice can be made in other areas of life, such as a choice to have another cup of coffee or not.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Your claim is that churches do not use their money to help anybody.

Yes, it is a generalization, and I have told you why. If you truly don't see that, I am sorry.

My claim is that, the help churches propose, does nothing for the real problems at hand. If you do not understand that, then I am not surprised.

Building an orphanage does not help with anything in the country? Tell that to the children who reside there.

Yeah exactly, you are ignorant to macro-economy I see. Building a hospital may do something, but more importantly is fixing the reason why there are orphaned people in the first place.

Would you neglect to donate a kidney on the basis that there are too many people with bad kidneys?

Your logic seems to be, "We can't solve the world's problems, so it's not worth doing anything."

No it is not, you just obviously do not understand economy.

Yes, I could give you a link that describes these ministries in detail, and in all honesty I would if I thought your intentions were positive in this regard, but your attitude toward churches as a whole is causing me to refrain. I would prefer you direct your accusations at me and leave my church alone.

Your mis-interpretation of my arguments is your own fault. I just want to see proof and real solutions to macro-economy. If you are prejudice towards me, that is your fault, not mine.

This is exactly the discourse taking place between Bonsay and I right now.

If you read my posts, you may notice that I was also contributing to that..

So just because some people are volunteering at soup kitchens and hurricane shelters, that means that nobody else should?

No, I am saying it does nothing for the real problem at hand.

The Red Cross and churches alike provide services for people, but just because one organization practices such drives does not mean that the other organization should stop.

I never said that they should stop but pool their efforts into something meaningful rather than pretentious.

To be honest, I am going to drop the discourse between you and I. I don't have a problem if you want to go on believing churches do nothing good in the world, but entertaining your claims is proving to be futile.

Like I said, if you want to be stubborn and prejudice towards me instead of reading my comments, that is your fault.

~

Question 11: Why do all the atheists in the world insist that everyone who worships a deity stop?

Many perfectly sane people believe in a god, possibly many gods. Does that have any effect on the things they are doing for the world? Churches set up food drives, homeless shelters, educate the impoverished, and more. So what if they're doing it in order to please a "fake" god? Does that make the deeds null and void, because they were performed due to the decency and values that their god instilled in them?

Now, I'm certain all my antagonists will point toward the extremist religion members to support their case. To this, I'll refer to my first sentence; "Many perfectly sane people". Now, in my opinion, these people aren't quite sane. There's a difference between respect for your god and hurting innocent people because you misinterpreted his writings. Is it the fault of their god that they contorted his message of love and hope into something evil and malicious?

To recap; so what if there isn't any God? Let all of us "delusional" folk carry on with our lives, instead of trying to poke holes in what we believe in. The good that religious institutions is invaluable to our world. By collapsing our religions, all you'll accomplish is destabilizing the world and killing off all the powerful religious members' support. Let us go on our merry way, praying to milk jugs and worshipping what we can't see. We'll see who was right in the end.

In my faith, I am either a great sage or a terrible fool. But for now and forever more, God will not lose my fealty.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

When a loved one dies, we choose to grieve, thus causing chemical reactions to occur. If it were the other way around, the chemicals in our brains would have to be aware of the death before ourselves, which is rather ridiculous.

The answer to the question, whether thoughts emerge from the brain or if the brain molds itself around thoughts, will hopefully, finally be cleared up soon... or it might not, until then it's up to speculation, if this is something you want to do. There is no proof for a soul at the moment.


Saying that "chemicals just cause something" is fine, but only if everybody in the discussion has a sufficient view on how things work in organisms.
First you must understand that we have a general outlook on how the brain works. When a loved one dies, the current perception of the events is passed from our senses and is processed in the brain - communication between the neurons in our brain structures. The specific input is computed depending on the brain structure, emerging as a specific subjective experience we view as our thoughts or more objectively as behaviour.

The problem is that you are anthropomorphizing: "...the chemicals in our brains would have to be aware of the death before ourselves, which is rather ridiculous." - The cell in my hair follicle #43 doesn't think, it is a machine. Every thought we have comes from the communication between our neurons. There is no such thing as knowledge, only signals. The only "thing" that knows anything is you and what you know can only exist because of a string of signals passing through your brain.

Yes we "choose to grieve". But what is a choice and what is grieving? Both are thought processes; both exist only when the brain functions. It's not that chemical reactions occur because we choose to grieve. Our grieving and our choices are the result of occurring chemical reactions. This is not ridiculous, this is scientific fact.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

This can open up a completely new topic of debate--if God wasn't good, why would He instill in us an awareness of morals?

So we have something to cry about. What's better then a grieving father after having his family slaughtered, if you are a "God that wasn't" good.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

The lot of us know that some things are right and others are wrong. We also know that doing the right things is the good thing to do. We feel it deep in our bones.

...And we receive this compassion from our Creator. It is moments like these that bring God's infinite care and compassion to fruition, and it is grounded in emotion.

Acting in a way that might save this girl from extreme harm was the right thing to do and we knew it deep in our bones. It required no thought whatsoever, just appropriate action. Why did we choose to act? Because we are compassionate beings who recognize that people are worth saving, even worth dying for.

There are some things even logic fail to explain.

It's so because we, as social animals, evolved a certain set of morals, values, empathy... The good and bad feeling we "feel in our bones" shouldn't be too far away from what a cheetah feels in it's bones when it sees a gazelle sprinting away. I'm sure if you search google or youtube you can find animals saving humans or other animals. This is something logic doesn't fail to explain.

There is no reason to assume something "godly" without a biased approach. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure you'll find some humans who, for some reason, don't have these inclinations to be good. While you might take the easy path and call them inherently evil, it's usually something in their environment, physiology or genetics which made them the way they are.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but while I admit there is no freedom of choice in reference to objective reality, I maintain that freedom of choice can be made in other areas of life, such as a choice to have another cup of coffee or not.

Well as I said. Our world views might be so far apart that it won't make sense in either direction. The ability to chose a belief is in reference to objective reality and is what really matters if you believe people will go to hell for that. (Not that I believe in types of choices, all are determined.)

Live and let live.

no

Originally Posted by Mark75

no