The Question Islam and Christianity Can't Answer

[shunyadragon]

You think they are the same but they aren't

BTW scripture is clear James 2:24 "You can see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone". I'm not sure how much more clear the message could be here. Anyone who reads that and STILL thinks we are saved by faith alone is either ignorant or a heretic.

This represents the consistent conflicts and contradiction within scripture between Christians that lead to such accusations aas "ignorant and heritict" and worse. The conflict with science confounds the issue and devids Christianity commonly with accusations like above..

 

[Ignatius A]

This represents the consistent conflicts and contradiction within scripture between Christians that lead to such accusations aas "ignorant and heritict" and worse. The conflict with science confounds the issue and devids Christianity commonly with accusations like above..

What is unclear to you in the passage

"You can see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".

Just a side note are you spelling words incorrectly on purpose?

 

[Kenny]

The skeptic has no motive to try reconcile the contradictions in scripture. He just notes them.

That’s just like a scientist who says “There is no need for me to investigate - I just know that the earth is flat”.

That's for believers to do. They need for the words to be accurate and coherent, and so they redefine words and invent meanings to reduce any cognitive dissonance. Pick one of two contradicting scriptures and explain the one you don't like in a way that makes it agree with the other scripture, and you can choose either and call it the correct understanding as written.

That runs in the same direction of, “Any reason is a good reason for me to reason it away”

You've seen the discussions among believers regarding salvation by works and by faith alone. Believers pick the one they like and then attempt to explain how the other one supports them if they can, or just try to sanitize the contradiction away.

Yes… we disagree in interpretation but not in what it says.

We reject the rationalizations. A day is a day. By works is not by faith alone. Jesus does not match the description of the OT messiah. OT law is in effect does not mean that OT law no longer applies. Libertarian free will is incompatible with omniscience. God exists outside of time yet he thinks and acts, which require before and after states (change).

I disagree as did the people of his time.

These all represents contradictions in scripture and church doctrine that you but not I must rationalize. And yes, I reject the tortured, ad hoc explanations. The Bible writers made mistakes when they generated this story over generations and centuries. That's an acceptable conclusion for me, but not for you, so, you simply declare that there are no inconsistencies, that one just has to look at it the right way.

That's exactly backward. The skeptic doesn't have a dog in that hunt. He reports what the words he read mean. The believer in Jesus is the one rationalizing (motivated reasoning).

I explicitly made the distinction. Look at the top section in the post you quoted. I agreed with you.

And here's some of that motivated thinking to sanitize the god and restore it to perfect goodness and justice despite the opposite being the case in the eyes of impartial readers. You cannot have a good god that damns souls for not obeying and worshiping it. That's what Trump would do to those he considers disloyal to him if he could, which includes people like me that he's never met and who have no relationship with him, just like that god. But if one assumes by faith that his god is good and just, then he finds a way to rationalize what is clearly injustice (sadism, actually) to people not making that assumption.

Yes, there are problems with the idea that the universe is deterministic and can therefore in principal if not practice be perfectly predicted. My points were that if that COULD be done, it would demonstrate that the world is perfectly deterministic and predictable, and that that would rule out the possibility of libertarian free will. I'm agnostic on the matter. I don't declare either omniscience or libertarian free will impossible, just incompatible. If one is the case, the other isn't.

I stopped here. Unbelief is too rampant for me to address.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is unclear to you in the passage

"You can see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".

Just a side note are you spelling words incorrectly on purpose?

My post did not object to the meaning of your selective use of the above passage, but the fact that there are conflicts and contradictions referred to justify one's interpretation over another, and make accusations of those that believe differently

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV).

 

[Muffled]

That's obvious nonsense.

In the theology, god created hell. God judges people and sends them to hell.

Humans don't "choose" to go to hell any more then they "choose" to go to jail. Instead, they get thrown in.

I believe one may choose eternal life instead.

 

[Muffled]

That's obviously incorrect if Christian doctrine is correct. This god is indifferent to the fates of those he creates who don't show fealty to it.

Nobody knows anything about the subject of hell or gods or afterlives. You can only give your beliefs.

And vice versa. If a man had the power to throw the god that made a torture chamber for him to gratuitously suffer in for eternity, he would be justified in so doing in self-defense.

Then nobody will go there.

You seem to have contradicted yourself if you're offering this scripture as fact.

Knowing what will happen with certitude means that free will is not involved. We can predict what a planet orbiting a star will do only because it has no choice in the matter. If it had free will and the ability to modify its orbit, you couldn't predict its future course.

Only Abrahamists make that claim. Nobody else has trouble seeing that omniscience precludes free will. They have to if their god is to be both omniscient and just. They need to be able to blame man for being human and earning hellfire for it, beginning with the kids in the garden.

Scripture is evidence of nothing apart from the fact that somebody wrote those words down and that they have survived. If one wants to know which words if any in the book are accurate descriptions of the past or present, he must consult the world (collect and properly interpret evidence) in search of supporting or disconfirming evidence.

I believe God does seek out the lost. The ones who know they are lost are usually the easiest to reach.

 

[Muffled]

How can a person be guilty and destined to hell before they even exist. Future knowledge doesn't make sense.

I believe with reincarnation the person has learned to believe the devil's lies before entering the next life.

 

[shunyadragon]

That’s just like a scientist who says “There is no need for me to investigate - I just know that the earth is flat”.

Scientists do not propose the 'Earth is Flat' the Bible does,and geocentric universe less than 10,000yearsold..

That runs in the same direction of, “Any reason is a good reason for me to reason it away”

Yes… we disagree in interpretation but not in what it says.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV).

and James 2:24 "You can see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone"

I disagree as did the people of his time.

Not the issue of the thread.

I stopped here. Unbelief is too rampant for me to address.

acrid sarcasm only reflects your venimos attitude towards atheists and others that do not believe as you do. No love here.

 

[Ignatius A]

My post did not object to the meaning of your selective use of the above passage, but the fact that there are conflicts and contradictions referred to justify one's interpretation over another, and make accusations of those that believe differently

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV).

There isn't a single passage in Scripture that says faith alone saves anyone. Faith is necessary it's not sufficient.

 

[shunyadragon]

There isn't a single passage in Scripture that says faith alone saves anyone. Faith is necessary it's not sufficient.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV).

 

[Ignatius A]

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV).

That doesn't say ALONE. "You can see, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone". Apparently you can't or won't see that. James is telling you that both works and faith are needed. It doesn't say works alone saves you but both do. People insist on ignoring what's being said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe God does seek out the lost.

Yes, I suspect that most Christians do. And you believe it by faith.

But I have no reason to believe that, or even that that or any other god exists or that one can be saved or unsaved. Faith plays no role in my deciding what is true about reality. A critically thinking empiricist is convinced only by sufficient evidence to justify holding a belief. There is no better evidence of any god seeking anything that the unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims found in scripture.

BTW scripture is clear James 2:24 "You can see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone". I'm not sure how much more clear the message could be here. Anyone who reads that and STILL thinks we are saved by faith alone is either ignorant or a heretic.

Yes, that's quite clear. So is Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."

Unfortunately, they contradict one another. You've chosen to disregard the one you don't like. Other motivated reasoners might have tried to explain why both scriptures actually say the same thing. But the skeptic sees the contradiction and calls it that because he has no reason (motive) not to.

That’s just like a scientist who says “There is no need for me to investigate - I just know that the earth is flat”.

That was in reply to, "The skeptic has no motive to try reconcile the contradictions in scripture. He just notes them."

I don't see the similarity at all.

Actually, you have more in common with the flat earther than I do. He's also a motivated thinker willing to distort evidence to fit his faith-based belief. He sees only what he has chosen to see before he began looking.

I stopped here. Unbelief is too rampant for me to address.

Yes, I know. I wasn't expecting rebuttal, just disagreement without counterargument or evasion. I got both. Your answers before giving up were pretty insubstantial:

That runs in the same direction of, “Any reason is a good reason for me to reason it away”

Yes… we disagree in interpretation but not in what it says.

I disagree as did the people of his time.

 

[PureX]

Why would an omniscient and loving God knowingly create many people he knows he will one day throw into hell after they get done living out their lives?

"He" doesn't throw anyone into hell. We create our own internal spiritual hell and put ourselves into it, by choice. By the choices we made here on Earth, and by who those choices caused us to become when we returned to our original state.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yes, I suspect that most Christians do. And you believe it by faith.

But I have no reason to believe that, or even that that or any other god exists or that one can be saved or unsaved. Faith plays no role in my deciding what is true about reality. A critically thinking empiricist is convinced only by sufficient evidence to justify holding a belief. There is no better evidence of any god seeking anything that the unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims found in scripture.

Yes, that's quite clear. So is Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."

Unfortunately, they contradict one another. You've chosen to disregard the one you don't like. Other motivated reasoners might have tried to explain why both scriptures actually say the same thing. But the skeptic sees the contradiction and calls it that because he has no reason (motive) not to.

That was in reply to, "The skeptic has no motive to try reconcile the contradictions in scripture. He just notes them."

I don't see the similarity at all.

Actually, you have more in common with the flat earther than I do. He's also a motivated thinker willing to distort evidence to fit his faith-based belief. He sees only what he has chosen to see before he began looking.

Yes, I know. I wasn't expecting rebuttal, just disagreement without counterargument or evasion. I got both. Your answers before giving up were pretty insubstantial:

First of all they don't contradict one another. They would only contradict one another if Scripture said somewhere that man was saved by works alone. It doesn't says that anywhere unless you can show it. I'll wait here

 

[Kenny]

Scientists do not propose the 'Earth is Flat' the Bible does,and geocentric universe less than 10,000yearsold..

But the studied to find out that it wasn’t flat.

The Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NKJV).

and James 2:24 "You can see, then, that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone"

One has to do with salvation the other has to do with living (It is quite evident)

Not the issue of the thread.

You did bring up the info… I can respond to it.

acrid sarcasm only reflects your venimos attitude towards atheists and others that do not believe as you do. No love here.

Subjective.

I don’t require that people believe as I do.

And I was talking to your statements and not atheist - a moving goal post.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

they don't contradict one another

Yes, they do. Only believers say otherwise. There's a reason for that, and I've already given it to you. Those who assume a priori as axiomatic that there are no contradictions or errors in scripture see none. That's how faith-based confirmation biases work. For the empiricist, seeing is believing, but for the faith-based thinker seeing the world through the eyes of a confirmation, believing is followed by seeing what you want to see.

They would only contradict one another if Scripture said somewhere that man was saved by works alone.

They contradict one another because one of them says faith alone is enough, and the other says that works are necessary. If you weren't committed to the idea that scripture isn't wrong or self-contradictory, you'd have no trouble seeing that it is.

Then the believer claims to have special insight. He has the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he claims, offering no evidence for that. He tells us that he has studied scripture extensively, but he does so with the faith-based assumption that what he is reading is true and that the god described is good. And then he tells us there are no contradictions where contradiction exists. He tells us that we need to search more, by which he means just keep thinking about these ideas until you believe them. He says we need to open our minds and quit requiring evidence, by which he means deactivate critical thought.

Scripture isn't difficult to understand. It's impossible to reconcile with those beliefs I described using critical thought, but easily done with motivated reasoning. You just see what you want to see and ignore the rest. For the unbeliever, where scripture is contradictory, vague, ambiguous, or poetry, it means nothing specific as with the issue we're presently discussing. No study is needed to see that words fit that description when they do.

It's not necessary for you to tell me that you disagree and that you think I'm wrong. I know that, and I know that you will never see the contradiction in those scriptures from James and Ephesians. Hopefully you understand that I will never change my mind about what I read and what it means unless you can convince me that the words don't mean what they say, and you can't do that with hand-waving and insistence. You'll need a sound, evidenced argument to do that, but that simply not the currency of faith, which depends on the absence of critical thought.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yes, they do. Only believers say otherwise. There's a reason for that, and I've already given it to you. Those who assume a priori as axiomatic that there are no contradictions or errors in scripture see none. That's how faith-based confirmation biases work. For the empiricist, seeing is believing, but for the faith-based thinker seeing the world through the eyes of a confirmation, believing is followed by seeing what you want to see.

They contradict one another because one of them says faith alone is enough, and the other says that works are necessary. If you weren't committed to the idea that scripture isn't wrong or self-contradictory, you'd have no trouble seeing that it is.

Then the believer claims to have special insight. He has the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he claims, offering no evidence for that. He tells us that he has studied scripture extensively, but he does so with the faith-based assumption that what he is reading is true and that the god described is good. And then he tells us there are no contradictions where contradiction exists. He tells us that we need to search more, by which he means just keep thinking about these ideas until you believe them. He says we need to open our minds and quit requiring evidence, by which he means deactivate critical thought.

Scripture isn't difficult to understand. It's impossible to reconcile with those beliefs I described using critical thought, but easily done with motivated reasoning. You just see what you want to see and ignore the rest. For the unbeliever, where scripture is contradictory, vague, ambiguous, or poetry, it means nothing specific as with the issue we're presently discussing. No study is needed to see that words fit that description when they do.

It's not necessary for you to tell me that you disagree and that you think I'm wrong. I know that, and I know that you will never see the contradiction in those scriptures from James and Ephesians. Hopefully you understand that I will never change my mind about what I read and what it means unless you can convince me that the words don't mean what they say, and you can't do that with hand-waving and insistence. You'll need a sound, evidenced argument to do that, but that simply not the currency of faith, which depends on the absence of critical thought.

No they don't. Only non believers say so. That was easy

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, they do. Only believers say otherwise. There's a reason for that, and I've already given it to you. Those who assume a priori as axiomatic that there are no contradictions or errors in scripture see none. That's how faith-based confirmation biases work. For the empiricist, seeing is believing, but for the faith-based thinker seeing the world through the eyes of a confirmation, believing is followed by seeing what you want to see ... They contradict one another because one of them says faith alone is enough, and the other says that works are necessary. If you weren't committed to the idea that scripture isn't wrong or self-contradictory, you'd have no trouble seeing that it is.

No they don't. Only non believers say so. That was easy

Yes, it was. And simple, but a nice illustration of the difference between how a critical thinker and a faith-based thinker answer a question or reply to a comment.

 

[danieldemol]

I think that there are questions that need to be answered here...

1) Who is it that creates the babies? Is it God or a man and a woman coming together and sowing baby seeds?

It is humans that make babies

2) If you had a baby that you knew was going to be a drug addict but that his child was going to invent a cure for cancer… would you not have the first baby?

The balance of good and evil would declare that one who is impotent to have one without the other would do so.

Do you declare your God to be such an impotent one?

So I think your questions are lacking a foundation to look at it with understanding.

To be determined.

 

[Kenny]

It is humans that make babies

then we agree

The balance of good and evil would declare that one who is impotent to have one without the other would do so.
Do you declare your God to be such an impotent one?

I really don’t understand what you are attempting to convey here. Can you rephrase?

To be determined.

OK… Understand that we can come to different conclusions.