120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

Calvin's doctrine of predestination/soteriology and God's foreknowledge collapses, in my opinion, when you realise that election is meaningless if not one single Calvinist can tell you whether or not they are one of the elect. They don't know!

It's like saying God knows who are the elect and who are the damned but He is keeping it a secret because......?

Thats ok Lion , I'm of the same notion as with you. I was curious as to how much influence he had for Christians around him or Christians today for that matter.

Why would that have any effect on Calvinism? I'd think it was a refreshing humility... MOST of the faithful are certain that they're of the elect, no matter how many religious traditions are sure they're wrong. No matter how many schisms there are in the history of their religious tradition, they KNOW that they're on the right side of each and every branching.

How wonderfully convenient.

But in the real world, how many times have you been on the right side of every argument for four arguments in a row? Or ten? Or thirty?

How many times have you been up for advancement or promotion and NOT made the cut?
How many times have you been picked for the team you wanted to be on, vs. left for last?

Of course, that's just me. I would expect the True Religion to relate to reality.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of religion is to assure each follower that we're going to heaven, then Calvinism would fail, for it merely says 'the game is rigged' without knowing if you have the right lottery number or not. No assurances, just license to act like an asshole.

 

[Learner]

Parameters according to the Christians. You say you have an omniscient God and you say you have free will. Then when you are asked to reconcile those two things, the omniscience suddenly becomes significantly less omni or the free will suddenly becomes significantly less free.

Oh, and there can easily be another explanation.

I'm not sure how you mean. I think I may have understood.

 

[Learner]

Why would that have any effect on Calvinism? I'd think it was a refreshing humility... MOST of the faithful are certain that they're of the elect, no matter how many religious traditions are sure they're wrong. No matter how many schisms there are in the history of their religious tradition, they KNOW that they're on the right side of each and every branching.

How wonderfully convenient.

But in the real world, how many times have you been on the right side of every argument for four arguments in a row? Or ten? Or thirty?

How many times have you been up for advancement or promotion and NOT made the cut?
How many times have you been picked for the team you wanted to be on, vs. left for last?

Of course, that's just me. I would expect the True Religion to relate to reality.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of religion is to assure each follower that we're going to heaven, then Calvinism would fail, for it merely says 'the game is rigged' without knowing if you have the right lottery number or not. No assurances, just license to act like an asshole.

Any ideas from a Christian believing contrary to Gods freewill...no freewill...Jesus doesn't save... is an iffy idea for a Christian philosophy or seems a good idea as a philosophy but not as a Christian one. Thats all I'm saying!

 

[Smoker]

 

[Smoker]

It would be very helpful to me if God would just explain clearly which branch of Jesus worship is the correct one, or which branch of Islam is the correct one. The least He could do is get off his throne and come down here to help settle the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants, since they have been killing each other in God's name for hundreds of years.

 

[DBT]

Nope. God Himself has spontaneous free will.

An utterly absurd notion given that Omniscience means that all past, present and future 'decision' and actions are perfectly and absolutely known, consequently there is no possibility of an alternative decision to be made or another action to take. All is fixed and absolute. In fact there can be no decision making because that implies an element of uncertainty, it could go with this option or that option, which cannot exist in a state of absolute certainty, which is Omniscience.

 

[Learner]

View attachment 8719

It would be very helpful to me if God would just explain clearly which branch of Jesus worship is the correct one, or which branch of Islam is the correct one. The least He could do is get off his throne and come down here to help settle the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants, since they have been killing each other in God's name for hundreds of years.

It is very simple. When there are conflicts with the varying versions of Christianity you go to the source. The early Christianity , well demonstrated in your diagram. It is probable that there is the main core amongst a lot of the denominations and that is the teachings of Jesus .

Because ..The teachings of Jesus is "uncorruptable"!!, as it was like for the early Christians because it was so easy to "memorize" amongst a great mass of people and the most easiest in oral traditions especially those that couldn't read.You'd have a seriously hard time to change Jesus's gospel. This is the beauty of Jesus and his teachings! The only way to discredit Jesus is to deny he has ever existed!. I've seen and heard many Christians talk and make videos about it by what they now research "themselves" which is a good thing for their understanding of the faith.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why did jesus teach in parables? Mark 4, Luke 8, Matthew 13, so people would not understand him, have their sins forgiven and be saved. Say what? Does this make sense? No, it doesn't

Matthew 13
¹⁰ And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
¹¹ He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
¹² For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
¹³ Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
¹⁴ And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
¹⁵ For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
¹⁶ But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
¹⁷ For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

---

Incorruptable? This is a morally corrupt teaching.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Any ideas from a Christian believing contrary to Gods freewill...no freewill...Jesus doesn't save... is an iffy idea for a Christian philosophy or seems a good idea as a philosophy but not as a Christian one. Thats all I'm saying!

But you were agreeing with lion that if an individual Calvinist can't know if he's of the elect, then the whole scheme collapses. Now you're saying something else...?

 

[Learner]

Why did jesus teach in parables? Mark 4, Luke 8, Matthew 13, so people would not understand him, have their sins forgiven and be saved. Say what? Does this make sense? No, it doesn't

---

Incorruptable? This is a morally corrupt teaching.

The teachings and how to preach the early Christianity ,
from the "excluded" Didache ;

https://carm.org/didache

Just put one chapter here because there are a number of chapters.:

CHAPTER 2

2:1 But the second commandment of the teaching is this.

2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

2:3 thou shalt not commit perjury; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not speak evil; thou shalt not bear malice;

2:4 thou shalt not be double-minded or double-tongued, for to be double tongued is the snare of death.

2:5 Thy speech shall not be false or empty, but concerned with action.

2:6 Thou shalt not be covetous, or rapacious, or hypocritical, or malicious, or proud; thou shalt not take up an evil design against thy neighbour;

2:7 thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt confute, concerning some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love beyond thine own soul.


(brb)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Parameters according to the Christians. You say you have an omniscient God and you say you have free will. Then when you are asked to reconcile those two things, the omniscience suddenly becomes significantly less omni or the free will suddenly becomes significantly less free.

Oh, and there can easily be another explanation.

I'm not sure how you mean. I think I may have understood.

Well, you asked who set these parameters and I responded that you did. Nobody told Christians that you had an omniscient god and forced you to defend that strawman notion, you guys told other people that you had an omniscient god and we asked you to defend the claim that you made. Nobody told Christians that you have free will and you can make your own choices without any sort of predetermination, you guys told other people that and we asked you to defend that claim. When those defenses come and you're asked to reconcile the incompatibilities in them, this always results in either walking back one of your original claims or not defending them with some "it's a mystery" type of line.

If it's the "other explanation" part that you didn't understand, it's that God is a fictional character from a storybook and the logical incompatibilities in his nature are the result of poor writing.

 

[Learner]

Well, you asked who set these parameters and I responded that you did. Nobody told Christians that you had an omniscient god and forced you to defend that strawman notion, you guys told other people that you had an omniscient god and we asked you to defend the claim that you made. Nobody told Christians that you have free will and you can make your own choices without any sort of predetermination, you guys told other people that and we asked you to defend that claim. When those defenses come and you're asked to reconcile the incompatibilities in them, this always results in either walking back one of your original claims or not defending them with some "it's a mystery" type of line.

If it's the "other explanation" part that you didn't understand, it's that God is a fictional character from a storybook and the logical incompatibilities in his nature are the result of poor writing.

Ok I see ... Well it was said few times that it was impossible for God to give freewill if He was an omnipotent being. We replied in a similar conceptual logic that God was able to give freewill by what we thought was an alternative explanation even though being an area hard to fathom. Christians have NOT claimed we know how he does it to which case we would then use the term "Its a mystery" only to the actuality of the position seen on both sides, seperate from the debated discussion.

We understand the reality just as you do ..meaning .. we are not defending the claim mentioned above ,we are just debating with the proposition that freewill is impossible. You know this when we use the expression;
"How can anyone know the mind of God?"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, you asked who set these parameters and I responded that you did. Nobody told Christians that you had an omniscient god and forced you to defend that strawman notion, you guys told other people that you had an omniscient god and we asked you to defend the claim that you made. Nobody told Christians that you have free will and you can make your own choices without any sort of predetermination, you guys told other people that and we asked you to defend that claim. When those defenses come and you're asked to reconcile the incompatibilities in them, this always results in either walking back one of your original claims or not defending them with some "it's a mystery" type of line.

If it's the "other explanation" part that you didn't understand, it's that God is a fictional character from a storybook and the logical incompatibilities in his nature are the result of poor writing.

Ok I see ... Well it was said few times that it was impossible for God to give freewill if He was an omnipotent being. We replied in a similar conceptual logic that God was able to give freewill by what we thought was an alternative explanation even though being an area hard to fathom. Christians have NOT claimed we know how he does it to which case we would then use the term "Its a mystery" only to the actuality of the position seen on both sides, seperate from the debated discussion.

We understand the reality just as you do ..meaning .. we are not defending the claim mentioned above ,we are just debating with the proposition that freewill is impossible. You know this when we use the expression;
"How can anyone know the mind of God?"

Right, that's what I was saying. Those are all non-answers and just ways of ignoring the logical contradictions instead of dealing with them. If you don't want to resolve the contradictions and just leave it as an "I don't know", that's fine, but my point is that this isn't a substitute for an answer.

 

[Atheos]

Whether or not we can know the mind of god we can follow logical premises to their conclusions. Unless you're arguing that your god is not subject to logic (and some do) the rules of logic apply and a rationally posited chain of inference from a set of premises to the inevitable conclusion to be reached would apply to god as well as anyone or anything else.

It is not germane to this discussion whether or not god currently knows what I am going to do tomorrow. What is at issue is whether or not god can know what I am going to do tomorrow. If god can know what I'm going to do tomorrow then I'm simply an actor in a movie etched into a DVD. I have no free will, only the illusion of free will simply because I am not privy to the information about what I'm going to do tomorrow.

"Possible Worlds" scenarios appear to provide a workaround for this problem but in the end they don't work either for a number of reasons. Positing that god knows all possible outcomes and that in some possible world every outcome plays out may give the believer a false sense of hope that the ways of god are just so complex that we are incapable of comprehending them. But it's nothing more than a Jedi Mind Trick. Followed to its inferential conclusion this implies that every one of us have an infinite number of souls, half of which are going to end up in heaven and half of which are going to end up in hell. Which is tantamount to inferring that nobody will be saved and everybody will be saved. And it doesn't eliminate the problem that god can know every outcome for every thread so in each spawning thread the individual's free will is still just an illusion.

If that weren't bad enough it also implies that there are an infinite number of possible worlds in which nobody currently in existence exists - because all of their parents made different decisions about who to procreate with. Absurdities escalate exponentially, including an entire infinitude of worlds in which Jesus never existed (which is still a very possible reality in this one for all we know).

The only solution to this is to make god slightly less than omnipotent so that he cannot know all outcomes. The problem with this is that it puts a chink in the armor of the tri-omni god and implies that this god could be subject to making mistakes, something very uncomfortable for many. Well, actually the real problem with this is that it solves the logical POE by conceding that no tri-omni god exists.

 

[Learner]

Right, that's what I was saying. Those are all non-answers and just ways of ignoring the logical contradictions instead of dealing with them. If you don't want to resolve the contradictions and just leave it as an "I don't know", that's fine, but my point is that this isn't a substitute for an answer.

Ok I understand , fair point.

 

[Learner]

Whether or not we can know the mind of god we can follow logical premises to their conclusions. Unless you're arguing that your god is not subject to logic (and some do) the rules of logic apply and a rationally posited chain of inference from a set of premises to the inevitable conclusion to be reached would apply to god as well as anyone or anything else.

No to; arguing that God is not subject to logic and I agree with you if by examples and premises of both arguments are like some of those within the concepts shown in the following below.

It is not germane to this discussion whether or not god currently knows what I am going to do tomorrow. What is at issue is whether or not god can know what I am going to do tomorrow. If god can know what I'm going to do tomorrow then I'm simply an actor in a movie etched into a DVD. I have no free will, only the illusion of free will simply because I am not privy to the information about what I'm going to do tomorrow.

I understand what you mean with the analogy ,but you have limited the scope to debate against by the technology's limitation. What if you used for an analogy a far more advanced interactive DVD having various outcomes? A lot of work for the actor but each time its watched, the story is not quite the same.

"Possible Worlds" scenarios appear to provide a workaround for this problem but in the end they don't work either for a number of reasons. Positing that god knows all possible outcomes and that in some possible world every outcome plays out may give the believer a false sense of hope that the ways of god are just so complex that we are incapable of comprehending them. But it's nothing more than a Jedi Mind Trick.

Fair enough to your point of view. Possible worlds wouldnt be an acceptable teaching in Christianity no doubt.

Followed to its inferential conclusion this implies that every one of us have an infinite number of souls, half of which are going to end up in heaven and half of which are going to end up in hell. Which is tantamount to inferring that nobody will be saved and everybody will be saved. And it doesn't eliminate the problem that god can know every outcome for every thread so in each spawning thread the individual's free will is still just an illusion.

Well as a believer I only inferred to God as "foreseeing" those outcomes before the actual journeys taking place. By the obvious understanding that there is only one of each of us and having just one soul.

If that weren't bad enough it also implies that there are an infinite number of possible worlds in which nobody currently in existence exists - because all of their parents made different decisions about who to procreate with. Absurdities escalate exponentially, including an entire infinitude of worlds in which Jesus never existed (which is still a very possible reality in this one for all we know).

This is what I mean when we are using the same (atheists) conceptual notion here..regardless of them being true, I would say for arguments sake ;
For all we know , Jesus maybe in all the number of worlds and is the only one that ended up with the same outcome from various worlds not straying the path of righteosness.

The only solution to this is to make god slightly less than omnipotent so that he cannot know all outcomes. The problem with this is that it puts a chink in the armor of the tri-omni god and implies that this god could be subject to making mistakes, something very uncomfortable for many. Well, actually the real problem with this is that it solves the logical POE by conceding that no tri-omni god exists.

I can't fathom it to be honest.

 

[Lion IRC]

...You say you have an omniscient God and you say you have free will. Then when you are asked to reconcile those two things, the omniscience suddenly becomes significantly less omni or the free will suddenly becomes significantly less free.

Christian doctrine has already comfortably synthesised omnipotence and omniscience.

Case closed.

There is no manifest logical inconsistency which continues to baffle generation after generation of Christian theologians.

Cue New Atheism. And along comes their brute claim that omniscience nullifies free will but which New Atheist has shown an omnipotent God is incapable of (not smart enough or powerful enough) creating a being with free will - ie. in His own likeness?

Note that the 'potence' in the word omnipotence means able. God is able to do anything. And "to know" is a verb. God has the ability to know anything - but He likewise has the ability to ignore. And He surely has the ability (not to mention the will) to create a human named Adam with truly spontaneous free will. What does God have to fear from a human with free will?

Heck - even humans claim to be able to create unpredictable random number generators and AI software programs that imitate spontaneous behaviour.

The New Atheist alleges that since God (if He wants) can predict next week's lottery numbers then the lottery machine must be rigged.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...You say you have an omniscient God and you say you have free will. Then when you are asked to reconcile those two things, the omniscience suddenly becomes significantly less omni or the free will suddenly becomes significantly less free.

Christian doctrine has already comfortably synthesised omnipotence and omniscience.

Case closed.

There is no manifest logical inconsistency which continues to baffle generation after generation of Christian theologians.

Cue New Atheism. And along comes their brute claim that omniscience nullifies free will but which New Atheist has shown an omnipotent God is incapable of (not smart enough or powerful enough) creating a being with free will - ie. in His own likeness?

Ya, fine. As has been said, that doesn't deal with the issue being raised.

Note that the 'potence' in the word omnipotence means able. God is able to do anything. And "to know" is a verb. God has the ability to know anything - but He likewise has the ability to ignore. And He surely has the ability (not to mention the will) to create a human named Adam with truly spontaneous free will. What does God have to fear from a human with free will?

Heck - even humans claim to be able to create unpredictable random number generators and AI software programs that imitate spontaneous behaviour.

The New Atheist alleges that since God (if He wants) can predict next week's lottery numbers then the lottery machine must be rigged.

That's a very good analogy because the random number generators used by computers don't generate random numbers. They're better termed pseudo-random numbers and are generated from algorithms using the computer's clock, processing speed and a bunch of other inputs which generate numbers which, while difficult to guess, are the endpoint of equations. If you know all the inputs going into the algorithm, you know what the output will be. Similarly, if God knows what the inputs to our actions are, he knows what the output will be.

Also, as has been said, someone simply having the ability to know what the result will be means that the result must therefore be fixed, whether or not that person looks at the result. For instance, if God chooses to use his ability to look at the result of a person's actions, can he be wrong? If the answer is no, the result is the endpoint of a fixed series of inputs and there's no free will happening at any of the decision points along the way.

Additionally, lottos have been rigged by people hacking in and taking advantage of the non-randomness of their random number generators

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

 

[Atheos]

Well as a believer I only inferred to God as "foreseeing" those outcomes before the actual journeys taking place. By the obvious understanding that there is only one of each of us and having just one soul.

...

This is what I mean when we are using the same (atheists) conceptual notion here..regardless of them being true, I would say for arguments sake ;
For all we know , Jesus maybe in all the number of worlds and is the only one that ended up with the same outcome from various worlds not straying the path of righteosness.

I took the liberty of snipping down to the content I'd like to respond to. A god who knows which outcome is going to take place (no matter how many permutations it can "foresee") is a god who knows the future, not one who (like me) can imagine a near infinitude of different things that could happen tomorrow.

Arguing that Jesus is the one constant in all of this is certainly a matter of faith. But it involves a lot of magicking things away, things that have already been enunciated in the previous posts. Backing away and saying it's simply something we can't fathom solves nothing. It just means we're believing something with no evidence because we want to believe it even if it doesn't make sense.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

— Galileo Galilei

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On God's omniscience and knowledge of the future.

This has long been a subject of debate on how God can foreknow the future. Some theologians have seriously suggested God is beyond human comprehension, so the answer is, he just does. It's a dogmatic claim that is beyond reason, supported by revelation that assures us he does so. We cannot possibly say how. Others, including Christian and Moslem thinkers have stated from revelation that God determines all that happens, God's predestination and Providence. God has thus created the future. If one thinks of God being outside of all time, then he has created all at once and all exists at once. Others, for example Process theologians deny God knows the future. Unless one understands the history of the debate on God's omniscience and foreknowledge, it's had to make sense of this subject. There is a rich literature on the theories of compatibilitism vs determination.

Pick your cup of poison. A lot of theologians complain about atheist lack of "sophistication" Sometimes they are correct, a lot of theological problems have a long complex history. But that only creates more opportunities for attacks sophisticated enough to avoid complaints of them being strawmen attacks.