Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

[Justin108]

Assuming for argument sake that Mark 16:16 and Revelations 21:8 are both true in suggesting that unbelievers are condemned

If God fails to convince each and every one of us that he exists, this either implies that
a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection)
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)

Is God imperfect? Or simply apathetic in our salvation?

[Justin108]

And I gave you a logical explanation for why and you misrepresented it.

I dealt with your "logical explanation" in this post.

That leaves you open to charges of fabricating straw man arguments.

Is this your new tactic? To call everything your opponent responds with a strawman?

1) This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true. [. . .].

2) This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true. [. . .].

3) This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true. [. . .].
[. . .].

So in short... your conclusion rests on the presupposition that Christianity is true, hence . . .

The truth of Christianity isn’t the question before us.

If the truth of a religion is in question (in this case, Islam) then any opposing religion automatically becomes questioned. You cannot start with the premise that Christianity is true when investigating other religions. This method makes absolutely no sense. This makes as much sense as a Muslim saying "Christianity is wrong because Islam is right". How would you respond to a Muslim making this argument?

I don't know if you ever got to watching this video, but please do. There is no better way than this to demonstrate how terrible your argument is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tc2H6SbJY

The question you asked was why I rejected Islam as being from God/Allah.

Yes, and the reason keeps boiling down to "because it does not agree with Christianity". And no, this is not a strawman before you accuse me of one again. This is literally what it comes down to. Every single one of your premises in the above argument starts with "because Christ said...".

I told you why; furthermore, my reasoning was logical.

Confirmation bias is not logical reasoning. Assuming your own religion is automatically correct by default is not logical reasoning. Assuming any other view is automatically wrong simply because they disagree with your religion is not logical reasoning.

[JLB32168]

I dealt with your "logical explanation" in this post.

You addressed an argument I didn’t make. You asked a question that hypothetically presupposed God’s/Allah’s existence. When presented with a logical explanation as to why I didn’t accept that Allah inspired Islam, you misrepresented my logical syllogism. When pressed to address my actual argument, you changed the argument – revoking your previous presuppositions and all to avoid conceding an argument to a theist.

You ask a theist a question. Get a logical response. Then you change the argument to some variation of “Well – all this presupposes your stupid deity even exists, which you can’t prove so your point is nonsense� – to avoid conceding even the 20th part of a one scruple. If the scale were turned the breadth of a hair in a theist’s favor then one gets the impression that atheists or other skeptics would code and need the rescue squad.

It is typical skeptic MO for this board.

[Justin108]

You addressed an argument I didn’t make. You asked a question that hypothetically presupposed God’s/Allah’s existence. When presented with a logical explanation as to why I didn’t accept that Allah inspired Islam, you misrepresented my logical syllogism.

Ok put your version of your argument next to my version of your argument and point out where exactly I misrepresented it

When pressed to address my actual argument, you changed the argument

I see accusation after accusation. Please quote where exactly I do the things you accuse me of?

Then you change the argument to some variation of “Well – all this presupposes your stupid deity even exists, which you can’t prove so your point is nonsense�

So you constantly accuse me of creating strawmen, then you make a strawman.

I never demanded you "prove" he exists, nor did I call him "stupid". See that key word right there demonstrates the clear, juvenile attempt at forcing a strawman.

My actual argument is that you cannot reject Islam solely because it makes a claim contrary to Christianity. Your argument is that "Jesus said X, Islam did not do X". The flaw in this argument is the fact that it relies on the unsupported assumption that Jesus did in fact say X

If the scale were turned the breadth of a hair in a theist’s favor then one gets the impression that atheists or other skeptics would code and need the rescue squad.

Ad hominem

[JLB32168]

Ok put your version of your argument next to my version of your argument and point out where exactly I misrepresented it.

I gave a logical syllogism for why I rejecting the thrust of the message of Islam – that Mohammed is God’s/Allah’s prophet and the Koran/Quran is additional revelation from God.

The mature thing to do would be to say, “Okay – I understand your reasoning and it’s logical. I would add that all of this presupposes that God/Allah exists, but your reasoning is logical.�

Instead, you misrepresented saying, “I disagree with Islam because it doesn’t jibe with Islam� which implies no logical process. Instead, it presupposes an arbitrary conclusion based upon nothing but personal feelings and emotions (making it inherently illogical.)

That is a strawman misrepresentation.

My actual argument is that you cannot reject Islam solely because it makes a claim contrary to Christianity.

Why not – especially since my logical process is . . . well . . . logical. Assuming the Allah exists, the messages he’s sent to Christianity and Islam cannot be compatible; therefore, one of them is false. I have explained why I feel Islam’s claim is false. You have yet to address my conclusion.

You said that my statement, “If the scale were turned the breadth of a hair in a theist’s favor then one gets the impression that atheists or other skeptics would code and need the rescue squad,� is ad hominem abusive. I’m not trying to prove my point is true in using that statement so it’s not an ad hominem. It’s just a statement of opinion.

[OnceConvinced]

People who had indoctrinated me to believe in Christianity.

Yeah – those wicked people who taught you to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, house the homeless. I can see why one would be angry with such people.

Nope, not those people. The ones who convinced me to believe fantasies. The ones who convinced me to spend much time and effort on following that fantasy. The ones who gave me no other options of what to believe, influencing me to believe their fantasies.

Note that I was only angry very briefly, until I realised that they were just doing what they believed was right.

What conclusion would you come to if God didn’t throw you a line when you most needed it?

I’ve already said what I thought – God always throws lines. Did you investigate other interpretations of Christian to see if you were rejecting God based upon bad theology? I bet the answer is “No.�

You would be completely wrong about that.

I was in and out of various different churches and denominations for 40 years of my life. I heard all sorts of different interpretations. I have continued to hear different interpretations ever since. It’s very hard to avoid different interpretations as no two Christians can agree on anything.

But this is all irrelevant. The point is I cried out and got no response.

Were you expecting an audible or visual response. Orthodoxy teaches that God doesn’t reveal Himself to anyone. If one deems himself worthy to receive such revelation then the Orthodox teach that this is prelest – spiritual pride.

I was just expecting a response. Any type of response. I’m sure, if God was real, he’d give me the perfect response, wouldn’t you? Remember it’s you claiming that if you ask God for help he will give it.

I’m going to speculate that you thought that the Father was a wrathful deity that demanded Christ’s death to satisfy His infinite offense against his justice.

Nope. That’s the way I see it now, but it’s not the way I saw it as a Christian. I believed that the father was a loving deity who was willing that none should perish. He gave his son out of love for us.

[*]I’m going to speculate that you thought that death was a punishment that originated in God.

Nope. I always believed that death was a natural part of being human. However accepting Christ as my personal saviour was a way to conquer death and gaining eternal life in Heaven.

[*]I’m going to speculate that you thought that God sent all people, such as pagans w/o any hope of ever hearing the Gospel, to Hell and that Hell was a place of burning created fire.

Nope, I believed that it was better to err on the side of mercy. That God was forgiving and that he would examine the hearts of people. He would certainly not send children to Hell and he would not send those to Hell who had never heard the gospel.

[*]I’m going to speculate that you thought that salvation didn’t involve doing good works.

I believed that one was saved by faith, but that faith without works was worthless. They therefore go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

[*]I’m also going to speculate that you had little deference for the Mother of God and the saints and didn’t believe that they love us and pray for your salvation.

Once again wrong. I had a huge amount of respect for Mary and the saints.

[*]I’m going to speculate that you thought that prayers did little to help the dead “unsaved� since they were in Hell w/o hope of any help from the living.

I never prayed for the dead. Is It somehow crucial that I did?

[*]I’m going to speculate that you held to a literal creation (in spite of the fact that even the ancient Greek Fathers did not and they thought this long before science confirmed it.)

I never had any strong opinion on the creation story one way of the other. Whether it was literal, a metaphor or even fictional had no bearing on my belief in Jesus.

[*]I’m going to speculate that you thought God was not impassible but was bipolar – extremely wrathful and ready to punish as well as reward.[/list]Which of those are right or wrong?

Not at all. Why would any Christian believe that?

You are completely way off with all your speculations. Completely and hopeless way off. You need to be careful not to judge my Christianity by what I believe now. What I believe now is a far cry from what I believed as a Christian.

So once again I ask… what false theology did I follow? And who says its false? You? And if there is even one bit of false theology I followed why would it matter? Do you believe that a bit of false theology here or there is enough to make you a false Christian? Is God going to flag us away if we get one or two things wrong?

[OnceConvinced]

Please consider the way the Scripture deals with this problem:

Matt 13:22 The seed falling among the thorns [7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.] refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.

Doesn’t apply to me. I was not one of those. I was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When the thorns and weeds grew I stood strong. I survived bullying as a child, remained strong in Christ even when my marriage fell apart. I remained strong through all the difficulties I faced. So no, worries did not come into it. Trials did not come into it.

That Jesus spoke in parables to hide the truth from the world so He could teach His people secretly is well known Matt 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Parables were not a problem for me. I had no problem understanding them.

2.

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So what you are trying to say is that even though I genuinely served Christ for over 30 years. Even though I was a committed Christian and believed whole heartedly I was a disciple of Christ, a chosen one of Christ, I was completely mistaken. God allowed me to go that long without even trying to put me straight. He continued to use me when it came to ministries and leadership, but yet still didn’t consider me one of his chosen. He allowed other Christians to see me as one of them and didn’t even once have one of them say to me, “OC, you’re not chosen. You’re only kidding yourself�.

Yeah… righhhht! LOL That would make your God an extremely dishonest and game playing god.

If "Lord, Lord" and working miracles in His name does not fulfill being in His spirit and one of His people of the kingdom, what does? Is it not obvious that Jesus knew something about these people that they did not know themselves? That they thought they were strong in His spirit but were merely aping what He did without true faith?

They came boasting to Him so they obviously were in deep denial of their own true nature, a natural consequence of being sinful going all the way back to Adam and Eve being naked but not ashamed when being unclothed is no sin.

If I could go for so long, deluded about being a true Christian then that means there are no guarantees for anyone. You yourself could be deluded too. JLB could be deluded. You could both be kidding yourselves thinking that you are true Christians when you’re not. If it can happen to me, someone who was so genuine in his love for Christ, then why would you think you are safe?

Perhaps your time to lose your faith is on the horizon. Then it will be Christians accusing you of never having been a true Christian to begin with.

[Justin108]

Ok put your version of your argument next to my version of your argument and point out where exactly I misrepresented it.

I gave a logical syllogism

Calling your syllogism logical does not make it logical. Please present your argument and contrast it to my supposed misrepresentation of your argument, then identify where exactly I misinterpreted it. Either that, or retract your accusation that I made a strawman of your argument

The mature thing to do would be to say, “Okay – I understand your reasoning and it’s logical.

But it's not logical. How does pointing that fact out make my response immature?

I would add that all of this presupposes that God/Allah exists

Yes, but the Christian version of God is not necessarily correct. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the Bible misrepresented Jesus and that Islam may have it right

Instead, you misrepresented saying, “I disagree with Islam because it doesn’t jibe with Islam� which implies no logical process.

Actually, my version of your argument is "I disagree with Islam because it doesn't jibe with Christianity". Is this not your reasoning? Every single argument you gave here for why you reject Islam starts with "because Christ said...". How is that any different from rejecting Islam because it doesn't jibe with Christianity?

Saying "this is wrong because Christ says so" is the same thing as saying "this is wrong because Christianity says so".

Instead, it presupposes an arbitrary conclusion based upon nothing but personal feelings and emotions (making it inherently illogical.)

Give me a reason not relying on personal feelings and emotions to believe that Jesus did in fact say what you claim he said

Assuming the Allah exists, the messages he’s sent to Christianity and Islam cannot be compatible; therefore, one of them is false. I have explained why I feel Islam’s claim is false. You have yet to address my conclusion.

Your explanation for why you feel Islam's claim is false is because you assume Christianity's claim is true. How is that in any way an explanation?

Let's use an analogy to point out the flaw in your reasoning...

Suppose there were two men found locked in a room with a dead body. One of these two men is the killer. The first man, Jack, says "I didn't do it, Bill did!". The second man, Bill, says "I didn't do it, Jack did!"

You then look at the situation and conclude that "well obviously Bill did it"
"How do you know?" - I ask
Well because Jack said he didn't, so the only logical conclusion is that Bill did.

Do you see the gaping flaw in this reasoning? Your entire conclusion rests on the assumption that Jack is telling the truth while ignoring the possibility that Bill might be telling the truth. Similarly, your entire conclusion regarding Islam rests on the assumption that Christianity is telling the truth while ignoring the possibility that Islam might be telling the truth.

Consider this: what if the Bible misquoted Jesus? What if Islam's claims regarding Jesus is accurate? Do you acknowledge this possibility?

You said that my statement, “If the scale were turned the breadth of a hair in a theist’s favor then one gets the impression that atheists or other skeptics would code and need the rescue squad,� is ad hominem abusive. I’m not trying to prove my point is true in using that statement so it’s not an ad hominem.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

The fact that your statement was directed at me (or atheists in general) and not my argument makes this an ad hominem

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to JLB32168]

“That’s not my reasoning and I’ve explained it to you on multiple occasions.
[p1] Christ said that whoever adds to the Church’s revelation, which reveals the will of the Allah, will in turn have the torments described in the Bible added to him/her since that is adding falsehood.

[p2] The Koran adds to the Church’s revelation, changing some things to contradict at 180 degrees, some things that Christ explicitly said.

[c] The Koran isn’t from God.
You are free to demonstrate how my logical process is illogical. Of course, I don’t think you can and that’s probably why you facilely dismiss it and instead misrepresent my reasoning. That’s called a straw-man argument – creating a weaker misrepresentation of the argument presented, rebutting that weaker fabrication, and then claiming victory as if you’ve rebutted the opponent’s argument. It used more often on this website than it isn’t used.�

Your both wrong and right.

An argument is sound, just in case in addition to be valid, all its premise are true.

Logic has no special word for the case of valid argument with false premises.

Observation: You haven’t showed your premises to be true. Your argument is valid but not sound.

An example to show this:

The following proof is a valid argument(a valid syllogism), however, the conclusion of the theorem is clearly false. What went wrong?

Theorem 1:

Let 1=0, then all natural numbers are equal to zero.

Proof by induction.

Obviously, 0=0. Now, let k be any natural number ≥1.

By inductive hypothesis we have k−1=0.

Using our assumption we get k−1+1=0+0, that is k=0 which concludes the proof.

A sound argument is one which is both valid and its premises are true. The above is not sound, because the premise 0=1 is not true. Still, the difference is rather subtle.
For example, if the conclusion of the theorem was the whole implication

(0=1)⟹ ∀k∈N. k=0(0=1)⟹ ∀k∈N. k=0

then the only premises are the axioms of logic, natural numbers, etc., and such a theorem would be both valid and sound.

[ttruscott]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.comSo what you are trying to say is that even though I genuinely served Christ for over 30 years. Even though I was a committed Christian and believed whole heartedly I was a disciple of Christ, a chosen one of Christ, I was completely mistaken. God allowed me to go that long without even trying to put me straight. He continued to use me when it came to ministries and leadership, but yet still didn’t consider me one of his chosen. He allowed other Christians to see me as one of them and didn’t even once have one of them say to me, “OC, you’re not chosen. You’re only kidding yourself�.

Yeah… righhhht! LOL That would make your God an extremely dishonest and game playing god.

IF your experience is the truth, ok but the Bible and my own experience say you were PERHAPS not as fully committed as you think so there is hope for you yet...right?

Either HE is malicious or you were mistaken...<shrug> This experience does not to my mind mean that you are not elect but maybe an elect who held back their full repentance and so was dropped into doubt for that. I know this from having done this myself for some 7 years but when I was dropped I died...not my body but me...

[JLB32168]

Nope, not those people. The ones who convinced me to believe fantasies. The ones who convinced me to spend much time and effort on following that fantasy. The ones who gave me no other options of what to believe, influencing me to believe their fantasies.

Okay – so you’re angry at people who told you to follow a fantasy that says that clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and housing the homeless are ways that one shows his/her love for God and that failure to do those things means one’s faith is lip service and lip services gets you jack when you die. I understand completely.

You would be completely wrong about that.

I was in and out of various different churches and denominations for 40 years of my life.[/quote]And I have a feeling that these various different churches were all Protestant Churches. As for the assertion that no two Christians can agree on anything – that’s patently false. I know of no mainstream Christian confession that doesn’t believe in the Nicene Creed. They might reject Creeds as having no basis in the Bible; however, they still believe that one God the Father Almighty exists, in one Lord Jesus Christ – light of light true God of true God, begotten not made . . . conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary . . . yada, yada, yada. The only difference of belief they have are minor secondary beliefs that most would agree don’t make a person’s salvation defective.

I was just expecting a response. Any type of response. I’m sure, if God was real, he’d give me the perfect response, wouldn’t you?

Nope. I don’t make demands of God. As I’ve read, He resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

That’s the way I see it now, but it’s not the way I saw it as a Christian. I believed that the father was a loving deity who was willing that none should perish. He gave his son out of love for us.

And yet, we look at the same texts and get opposite ideas.

I always believed that death was a natural part of being human. However accepting Christ as my personal saviour was a way to conquer death and gaining eternal life in Heaven.

You’ve not answered the question. What was the origin of death? Was it created by anyone? As for accepting Christ as your personal savior – I have no idea what that means.

That God was forgiving and that he would examine the hearts of people. He would certainly not send children to Hell and he would not send those to Hell who had never heard the gospel.

Great – that’s very Orthodox.

I believed that one was saved by faith, but that faith without works was worthless. They therefore go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

That needs clarification. Was one saved and always saved?

Once again wrong. I had a huge amount of respect for Mary and the saints.

Did you believe that they prayed for us? Did you ask them to pray for us? You’ve answered a question I didn’t ask. Please address arguments I actually present.

I never prayed for the dead. Is It somehow crucial that I did?

You’re not answering questions I present. Did you think that prayers did little to help the dead “unsaved� since they were in Hell w/o hope of any help from the living. Did you still feel joined with them in some way?

Do you believe that a bit of false theology here or there is enough to make you a false Christian? Is God going to flag us away if we get one or two things wrong?

Well . . . if one operates under wrong theology then one might reject God based upon that wrong theology.