What causes people to choose what they choose?

[Brian2]

That is correct.
That is not to say that G-d cannot intervene if He wills, but overall, it is our choices that determine the future.

Yes, we agree on that.

 

[halbhh]

Why do you think that God regretting making humans and wanting to wipe us out shows that God did not know about that. Do you think that God looks impassively on everything without any passion or feelings?



It never entered God's mind that the Jews should burn their children. That does not say anything about God not knowing that they would do that.



Jesus was a man and living as a man trusting in God His Father for everything that He received, including knowledge of who touched Him.



I'm sure you could find more examples that to me do not show what you say they do.
The thing is that God's knowing the future does not mean that God has determined the future, it means that God has seen the future. God has seen what we will freely do. That is what it means.



It can be hard to find scriptures where God's foreknowledge is spoken of and it is not about His foreknowledge of what He is going to do. But those scriptures do exist and some of them show God's foreknowledge about things that we would not expect God to be doing. Eg when Jesus said to Peter that he would deny Him 3 times and when Agabus in Acts told Paul about what would happen to him in Rome etc. etc
Jeremiah 1:5, Romans 8:29, Psalm 139:4, 1Peter 1:1,2, Ephesians 1:4, etc
So even though it might appear to solve some problems for you I think the scriptures show that God does know the future, even those thing that God is not going to do.

If you sincerely want to learn more about what God says about His own plans and bringing them about, read Isaiah chapter 46 (the key passage starts at verse 8 and continues, but it's often best to read a full chapter or book to really hear well), and read without preconceptions (just listen carefully), and notice the verbs that God is using to describe what He will do.

What He will "bring about" and how.

Isaiah 46 NIV

 

[joelr]

Why do you think that our choices are predetermined just because God has foreknowledge of what we will choose? Predetermination and foreknowledge are not the same. According to my beliefs, God's perfect foreknowledge does not determine what will happen, so foreknowledge does not cause the actions of men.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.
Some Answered Questions, p. 138

He's just giving a laymans version of soft theological determinism, already well known at that time. Spinoza, Aquinas, many others.

"

• Weak theological determinism is either compatible or incompatible with metaphysical libertarian free will depending upon one's philosophical interpretation of omniscience - and as such is interpreted as either a form of hard theological determinism (known as theological fatalism), or as soft theological determinism (terminology used for clarity only).
• Soft theological determinism claims that humans (or all organisms as per Jainism, because, otherwise they will never evolve out of their primary existence in the absence of a creator or director of the universe as per an argument similar to free will theorem) have free will to choose their actions, holding that God, whilst knowing their actions before they happen, does not affect the outcome. The belief is that their God's providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Soft theological determinism is known as theological compatibilism (see figure, top right). This view is held by Jainism.

There is a lot of discussion on these points, if you just read one persons interpretation you are going to get a limited amount of information as philosophy is not a big part of his skillset.
https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

 

[halbhh]

He's just giving a laymans version of soft theological determinism, already well known at that time. Spinoza, Aquinas, many others.

"

• Weak theological determinism is either compatible or incompatible with metaphysical libertarian free will depending upon one's philosophical interpretation of omniscience - and as such is interpreted as either a form of hard theological determinism (known as theological fatalism), or as soft theological determinism (terminology used for clarity only).
• Soft theological determinism claims that humans (or all organisms as per Jainism, because, otherwise they will never evolve out of their primary existence in the absence of a creator or director of the universe as per an argument similar to free will theorem) have free will to choose their actions, holding that God, whilst knowing their actions before they happen, does not affect the outcome. The belief is that their God's providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Soft theological determinism is known as theological compatibilism (see figure, top right). This view is held by Jainism.

There is a lot of discussion on these points, if you just read one persons interpretation you are going to get a limited amount of information as philosophy is not a big part of his skillset.
https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

You might have already noticed, but let me point out that those are not the only 2 positions about God's omniscience and our free will, as I've tried to lay out another view above in this thread, one which better fits the common bible, which happens to show God not anticipating some things humans did, quite clearly.

 

[joelr]

You might have already noticed, but let me point out that those are not the only 2 positions about God's omniscience and our free will, as I've tried to lay out another view above in this thread, one which better fits the common bible, which happens to show God not anticipating some things humans did, quite clearly.

Yes I know, God evolved so OT Yahweh isn't going to match up with modern Greek version of God.
Yahweh had a wife and was a warrior, a body, and could be surprised. During the Middle Ages Aquinas and others merged Platonic omni- concepts onto this God and now believers have all the modern theology added on. Still isn't real.

Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

 

[Brian2]

This is what baffles me, I keep getting told God unknowable then the same people start to rattle off a heap of supposed facts about God.

In Christianity God is knowable. .Also in the Bible God tells us things about Himself.
However the reasoning about how God does things is not always right.

 

[Brian2]

So having twice misrepresented Einstein on this issue, you now wave away the fact he did not believe in free will. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you're that dishonest?

Does a deterministic universe in respect of causal chains in the physical realm, mean that Einstein did not think that we have free will?

 

[Brian2]

If you sincerely want to learn more about what God says about His own plans and bringing them about, read Isaiah chapter 46 (the key passage starts at verse 8 and continues, but it's often best to read a full chapter or book to really hear well), and read without preconceptions (just listen carefully), and notice the verbs that God is using to describe what He will do.

What He will "bring about" and how.

Isaiah 46 NIV

It is true that God is not an idol that can do nothing. God knows what He will do and can tell us and can do those things. But I have already shown a couple of prophecies where we can reasonable expect that it is not God who is doing those things. God just knows the future whether He will be the one doing it or not.
Our thinking around God's knowledge of the future needs to take that into account. If it does not take that into account then our thinking ends up coming to a wrong conclusion.

 

[halbhh]

No change in the New Testament regarding the general principle that God will fight for righteousness, and destroy evil. E.g.: Rev 19:14

Every story in the Old Testament is also a parable, metaphorical: not about mere physical events essentially, but essentially about spiritual events inside people -- and this highly consistent in that same essential way going into the New Testament.

Yes I know, God evolved so OT Yahweh isn't going to match up with modern Greek version of God.
Yahweh had a wife and was a warrior, a body, and could be surprised. During the Middle Ages Aquinas and others merged Platonic omni- concepts onto this God and now believers have all the modern theology added on. Still isn't real.

Exodus 15:3:

Yahweh is a man of war;

Yahweh is his name.

Isaiah 42:13:

Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;

like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.

Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,

a warrior who gives victory.

Psalm 24:8:

Who is the King of Glory?

Yahweh, strong and mighty;

Yahweh, mighty in battle.

 

[halbhh]

But I have already shown a couple of prophecies where we can reasonable expect that it is not God who is doing those things.

If you'd point out which ones, that would be interesting for anyone that wants to understand it well to look at more closely and with more depth.

 

[Brian2]

If you'd point out which ones, that would be interesting for anyone that wants to understand it well to look at more closely and with more depth.

The ones I have pointed out are when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus 3 times and when the prophet Agabus told Paul what would happen to him in Rome.

 

[halbhh]

The ones I have pointed out are when Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus 3 times and when the prophet Agabus told Paul what would happen to him in Rome.

I'll start with something most all know and agree with, and then get more into the speculating on details side of it:

a) God allows us free will meaning we have genuine freedom of choice (so we are not merely like a train on a track then, but actually able to switch the the tracks at crossroads on our own volitional choice we make, now and then...). Next,

b) this doesn't meant that God cannot see which way we are heading right now. Indeed, He can.
God can foresee where you are heading, and knows where that will take you.

c) So, therefore, from b), it follows that God can accurately predict what you are going to do....

d) unless at a crossroads you take a real new choice into a new direction, which He creates us intrinsically able to do. We are able to do that unpredictable choice, even if we don't.

e) Sometimes, even if rarely, a person will choose to go in a truly new-to-themselves direction. Even though most people usually choose instead to just continue on the same old path they are used to.

f) at times, once in a while, individuals will do what cannot be predicted, not even with total knowledge of all things that is fully complete in all ways, and even with infinite computing power.

But just like for weather forecasting from an very excellent meteorologist, who can see that it will certainly rain today....so also God could see, it was so plain and clear, that very day, soon, Peter would deny Christ to seemingly save himself.

That's not at all the same as foreseeing what Peter might do years later in time, this shorter term accurate vision about what would happen that very day. But this isn't all there is that God can foresee.

God can make a plan, and then carry it out, regardless of what we choose. So, He can totally and absolutely know the future in that way.

That's so key.

So, that when Peter much later in time stumbled into very major sin of rejecting some Christians in a key way -- Galatians chapter 2 -- God could send Paul to correct Peter, and thus accomplish God's plan for Peter, even though Peter did what might not be foreseen years out.

So, we can do the unpredictable, but God can intervene and carry out His plan, regardless.
Nothing can stop Him.

 

[Brian2]

I'll start with something most all know and agree with, and then get more into the speculating on details side of it:

a) God allows us free will meaning we have genuine freedom of choice (so we are not merely like a train on a track then, but actually able to switch the the tracks at crossroads on our own volitional choice we make, now and then...). Next,

b) this doesn't meant that God cannot see which way we are heading right now. Indeed, He can.
God can foresee where you are heading, and knows where that will take you.

c) So, therefore, from b), it follows that God can accurately predict what you are going to do....

d) unless at a crossroads you take a real new choice into a new direction, which He creates us intrinsically able to do. We are able to do that unpredictable choice, even if we don't.

e) Sometimes, even if rarely, a person will choose to go in a truly new-to-themselves direction. Even though most people usually choose instead to just continue on the same old path they are used to.

f) at times, once in a while, individuals will do what cannot be predicted, not even with total knowledge of all things that is fully complete in all ways, and even with infinite computing power.

But just like for weather forecasting from an very excellent meteorologist, who can see that it will certainly rain today....so also God could see, it was so plain and clear, that very day, soon, Peter would deny Christ to seemingly save himself.

That's not at all the same as foreseeing what Peter might do years later in time, this shorter term accurate vision about what would happen that very day. But this isn't all there is that God can foresee.

God can make a plan, and then carry it out, regardless of what we choose. So, He can totally and absolutely know the future in that way.

That's so key.

So, that when Peter much later in time stumbled into very major sin of rejecting some Christians in a key way -- Galatians chapter 2 -- God could send Paul to correct Peter, and thus accomplish God's plan for Peter, even though Peter did what might not be foreseen years out.

So, we can do the unpredictable, but God can intervene and carry out His plan, regardless.
Nothing can stop Him.

God is 100% accurate in His prophecies, there is no computing of the future based on the present but with a possibility that God will be wrong because of some random thing that might happen or that we choose because of our free will.
With that in mind I have to go with the idea that God can just see the future and not calculate what it might or might not be.

 

[joelr]

No change in the New Testament regarding the general principle that God will fight for righteousness, and destroy evil. E.g.: Rev 19:14

Wow, I've seen this apologetic, it's totally false.
In the OT Satan was an agent of God. He did his dirty errands, plague, torture, prosecutor. The big war with God vs Satan was new. The Persian religion had that war with the devil vs God, a firey hell and Revelation. Interestingly they occupied Judea for several centuries and are believed to have influenced Judaism in a significant way.
So God wasn't destroying Satan in the OT? They literally worked together?

Yahweh asks one of them, "the satan", where he has been, to which he replies that he has been roaming around the earth.[20] Yahweh asks, "Have you considered My servant Job?"[20] The satan replies by urging Yahweh to let him torture Job, promising that Job will abandon his faith at the first tribulation.[21] Yahweh consents; the satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn Yahweh
the nation of Judah and its sins,[25] on trial with Yahweh as the judge and the satan standing as the prosecutor.
Yahweh sends the "Angel of Yahweh" to inflict a plague against Israel for three days, killing 70,000 people as punishment for David having taken a census without his approval.[16] 1 Chronicles 21:1 repeats this story,[16] but replaces the "Angel of Yahweh" with an entity referred to as "a satan".[16]

Then:
During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[26][8][27] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][28] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.


Revelation is the most Persian. A war between God/Devil, lots of fire and lava, good followers will not be harmed and will resurrect in a new body and live on a paradise on Earth.
So this is a radical change perfectly demonstrating religious syncretism between 2 cultures who lived together.

"but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).

Every story in the Old Testament is also a parable, metaphorical: not about mere physical events essentially, but essentially about spiritual events inside people -- and this highly consistent in that same essential way going into the New Testament.

I don't think the plague that kills 70,000 people is a metaphor.
But sure, the OT isn't about physical events. Ok. Neither is the NT then. If you can say one thing is metaphor then others can say something else is a metaphor. The resurrection is a metaphor for humans or humanity dying and rising to our highest self who follows ideals in scripture like don't judge and love your enemies.
In fact historian John Dominic Crossan has books about this exact thing. This is what he believes and argues for in his work.

 

[halbhh]

Wow, I've seen this apologetic, it's totally false.
In the OT Satan was an agent of God. He did his dirty errands, plague, torture, prosecutor. The big war with God vs Satan was new. The Persian religion had that war with the devil vs God, a firey hell and Revelation. Interestingly they occupied Judea for several centuries and are believed to have influenced Judaism in a significant way.
So God wasn't destroying Satan in the OT? They literally worked together?

Yahweh asks one of them, "the satan", where he has been, to which he replies that he has been roaming around the earth.[20] Yahweh asks, "Have you considered My servant Job?"[20] The satan replies by urging Yahweh to let him torture Job, promising that Job will abandon his faith at the first tribulation.[21] Yahweh consents; the satan destroys Job's servants and flocks, yet Job refuses to condemn Yahweh
the nation of Judah and its sins,[25] on trial with Yahweh as the judge and the satan standing as the prosecutor.
Yahweh sends the "Angel of Yahweh" to inflict a plague against Israel for three days, killing 70,000 people as punishment for David having taken a census without his approval.[16] 1 Chronicles 21:1 repeats this story,[16] but replaces the "Angel of Yahweh" with an entity referred to as "a satan".[16]

Then:
During the Second Temple Period, when Jews were living in the Achaemenid Empire, Judaism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, the religion of the Achaemenids.[26][8][27] Jewish conceptions of Satan were impacted by Angra Mainyu,[8][28] the Zoroastrian god of evil, darkness, and ignorance.


Revelation is the most Persian. A war between God/Devil, lots of fire and lava, good followers will not be harmed and will resurrect in a new body and live on a paradise on Earth.
So this is a radical change perfectly demonstrating religious syncretism between 2 cultures who lived together.

"but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).








I don't think the plague that kills 70,000 people is a metaphor.
But sure, the OT isn't about physical events. Ok. Neither is the NT then. If you can say one thing is metaphor then others can say something else is a metaphor. The resurrection is a metaphor for humans or humanity dying and rising to our highest self who follows ideals in scripture like don't judge and love your enemies.
In fact historian John Dominic Crossan has books about this exact thing. This is what he believes and argues for in his work.

Hi, I read the first sentence, and get the drift, having seen it already as you have done this laying out your ideas more than once.

I'd not ever waste time endlessly trying to refute some religion I thought was false. Maybe 20 -40 minutes altogether in life, is about how much time that would be worth...

So, I think on some level you feel the religion is true, else you would not waste much of your limited time on it.

 

[halbhh]

God is 100% accurate in His prophecies, there is no computing of the future based on the present but with a possibility that God will be wrong because of some random thing that might happen or that we choose because of our free will.
With that in mind I have to go with the idea that God can just see the future and not calculate what it might or might not be.

We don't have any basis in scripture or physics to assume that Nature is a clockwork Universe (though there is a highly speculative theory of that kind, 'superdeterminsm', which hasn't any unique supporting evidence). Instead, it looks in physics more likely than not that Nature doesn't have a set future.

This would mean there isn't a fixed future to foresee.

That the future then would not yet exist in any sense of any kind.

God of course has planned some things He intends to do (action verb), and He can state these things ahead of time, and then work to accomplish them and will surely succeed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the future then would not yet exist in any sense of any kind.

No .. you assume that G-d cannot know what will happen, because "it hasn't happened yet".
This means that you believe that G-d is subject to time in the same way as us.

I don't believe that. I think that the future has "already happened", but we don't perceive it.

 

[halbhh]

No .. you assume that G-d cannot know what will happen, because "it hasn't happened yet".
This means that you believe that G-d is subject to time in the same way as us.

I don't believe that. I think that the future has "already happened", but we don't perceive it.

That's a fun and novel point of view. In my case, I rely on both physics and the common bible respectively, for various pieces. Here are some below.

If you get curious, there are many aspects, and I lay out some of them in these posts (links will go to specific posts):

What causes people to choose what they choose?

What causes people to choose what they choose?

What causes people to choose what they choose?

 

[joelr]

Hi, I read the first sentence, and get the drift, having seen it already as you have done this laying out your ideas more than once.

Not my ideas. Many books on this. Even the Wiki layout is the same. If you scroll down past the introduction to
Historical development it's laid out basically the same. Agent of God, with examples, 2nd Temple Period Satan becomes like Persian devil, Revelation and so on.
It is how the myth developed.
Now it was YOU who used the incorrect apologetic - No change in the New Testament regarding the general principle that God will fight for righteousness, and destroy evil. E.g.: Rev 19:14

When in fact there has been changes. God SENT SATAN TO FIGHT EVIL? God killed 70,000 people. Babies, children. In the plague, in the flood. That isn't the same. Some Gnostic sects even said the OT God was not the same as the NT God.

I'd not ever waste time endlessly trying to refute some religion I thought was false. Maybe 20 -40 minutes altogether in life, is about how much time that would be worth...

Yeah thanks. I super don't care what you do with your time. You clearly are not interested in spending it finding out what is true. You have no problem wasting your time on myths that are fiction, but again, don't care.

So, I think on some level you feel the religion is true, else you would not waste much of your limited time on it.

Coming from a clearly limited perspective I can see how you might think that. Yes religions are stories that are mostly fiction with some real places, people and ethics, philosophy (sometimes).
I am not wasting my time on religion. Myths sometimes have good teaching points, that is the purpose? The purpose isn't even to take it literal, that is a late invention.
What is true is rationalism, skepticism and critical thinking and it is worth putting some effort into spreading. We would have less issues like we have seen - voter fraud, Trump is our savior, anti-vax, defund the police (whoops, now after some crime it's fund the police quick!!!), anti evolution and other anti-science beliefs.
Islam is going to be the largest religion in the US by 2050. There is a lot of anti-Christian speech in the text.
People believe all these things because they are not taught to be critical thinkers and they are emotionally tied to false beliefs. That is what I spend time on.

 

[halbhh]

Trump is our savior, anti-vax,

Actually, interestingly, if more of those Trump believers would read through the common bible, they would eventually realize they are directly going against clear instructions given in the texts when they put their hopes and trust and faith in a political leader.