Please help me understand Christianity

[Compassionist]

The Biblical God allegedly made all the angels and all the biological organisms including the first pair of humans. Why didn't God make everything he made equally all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? That would have prevented all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. All-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings harm no one through malevolence or ignorance or incompetence. Also, no one and nothing can harm them. That would have been the best outcome for everyone. Instead of doing this, despite being allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, the Biblical God allegedly made Adam and Eve ignorant about Good and Evil and allegedly told them not to eat the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. How can eating fruits make one knowledgeable about good and evil? When Adam and Eve allegedly ate the forbidden fruits, God punished them and all the other biological organisms by kicking them out of Eden. He also punished all of their descendants by not letting them live in Eden. Why punish all the other organisms for Adam and Eve's mistake? Why punish their descendants? He also punished Eve and all her daughters with painful childbirth. How is any of these actions fair and morally correct? I consider all of these actions by the Biblical God to be totally evil. Also, the whole idea of Jesus dying for only three days in order to save us from an eternity in hell is absurd. Why didn't God just forgive Adam and Eve? How can the death of one individual be the redemption of all Christians? What about all the non-humans and non-Christians? Jesus was dead for only three days. He didn't spend an eternity in hell. How can being dead for only three days be the substitution for people being in hell for an eternity? Do non-human organisms also go to hell for not accepting Jesus as their Saviour? What about those who died before Jesus allegedly died on the cross? What happens to people who never heard of Jesus or have heard of Jesus but believe that he is not the Saviour (e.g. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.) How can it be ethical to punish people with eternity in hell for not accepting Jesus as Saviour? Christianity does not make any sense at all. Please help me understand Christianity. Thank you very much.

[The Tanager]

That's fine and all. And I will create a thread. My point however, as that I doubt virtually anyone BECOMES a Christian because of any of these arguments. You have also proven so. We do not need to understand these arguments because they are not why you are a Christian. The arguments given are mostly apologetics arguments to reinforce the beliefs they already had. You were already a Chrisitan before these arguments.

First, some (I've recently heard Alistair McGrath say it) do claim to become a Christian mainly through the arguments. Second, we absoutely need to understand these arguments in this thread because we are talking about what we should believe about reality and truth. We are talking about reasons why X is true, not why me or anyone else believes X is true or false. If you think (or even if not, just to make sure if anyone else is thinking this) we've shown something about the falseness of a worldview's claims because the one who holds the worldview first came to belief some other way. That would be a textbook genetic fallacy.

[POI]

That's fine and all. And I will create a thread. My point however, as that I doubt virtually anyone BECOMES a Christian because of any of these arguments. You have also proven so. We do not need to understand these arguments because they are not why you are a Christian. The arguments given are mostly apologetics arguments to reinforce the beliefs they already had. You were already a Chrisitan before these arguments.

First, some (I've recently heard Alistair McGrath say it) do claim to become a Christian mainly through the arguments. Second, we absoutely need to understand these arguments in this thread because we are talking about what we should believe about reality and truth. We are talking about reasons why X is true, not why me or anyone else believes X is true or false. If you think (or even if not, just to make sure if anyone else is thinking this) we've shown something about the falseness of a worldview's claims because the one who holds the worldview first came to belief some other way. That would be a textbook genetic fallacy.

I have to ask.... <IF> you had not become a Christian instead by personal experience, do you still feel these given arguments would really be as compelling for Christianity? The reason I ask, is maybe the OP-er has not had such experiences, and therefore does not find your given arguments as such.?.?.?.?

[EDIT] New topic, as requested http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41289

[The Tanager]

I have to ask.... <IF> you had not become a Christian instead by personal experience, do you still feel these given arguments would really be as compelling for Christianity? The reason I ask, is maybe the OP-er has not had such experiences, and therefore does not find your given arguments as such.?.?.?.?

[EDIT] New topic, as requested http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41289

I’m not sure how we could know the answer there. Why people accept/reject certain arguments and views can be for a variety of reasons: they don’t understand the argument correctly, they don’t want it to be true, they think they have better reasons for their worldview that outweigh this argument and if this argument even has a 1% chance of being wrong, they figure it must be since they have so much evidence for the rest of their view, etc. Everybody, theist or atheist, Christian or non-Christian, Buddhist or non-Buddhist, etc. could be rejecting arguments for non-rational reasons.

[POI]

I have to ask.... <IF> you had not become a Christian instead by personal experience, do you still feel these given arguments would really be as compelling for Christianity? The reason I ask, is maybe the OP-er has not had such experiences, and therefore does not find your given arguments as such.?.?.?.?

[EDIT] New topic, as requested http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41289

I’m not sure how we could know the answer there. Why people accept/reject certain arguments and views can be for a variety of reasons: they don’t understand the argument correctly, they don’t want it to be true, they think they have better reasons for their worldview that outweigh this argument and if this argument even has a 1% chance of being wrong, they figure it must be since they have so much evidence for the rest of their view, etc. Everybody, theist or atheist, Christian or non-Christian, Buddhist or non-Buddhist, etc. could be rejecting arguments for non-rational reasons.

Though I agree with your response, the question in red was also directed to the OP-er.

[Compassionist]

Let’s work with that definition. If we feel we need to adjust as we go along, we can do that as well. I see 3 logical options:

(1) A will is completely free from any determinant/constraint
(2) A will is determined/constrained in some areas but not others
(3) A will is completely determined/constrained in every area

Do you agree? If not, why not?

I have no demands and no expectations of you or anyone else. I agree with the logical options you have listed.

Okay, so when I say ‘limited free will’ I’m talking about option (2). You have seemed to act like it can only be (1) or (3). Help my confusion there.

Sorry about my delayed reply. I am struggling with health problems, hence the delay.

I am not aware of any area where my will is not determined and constrained. As far as I can tell, my will is determined and constrained in every area. If you can show me any area where my will is not determined and constrained, please do so. Thank you very much.

[Compassionist]

I have to ask.... <IF> you had not become a Christian instead by personal experience, do you still feel these given arguments would really be as compelling for Christianity? The reason I ask, is maybe the OP-er has not had such experiences, and therefore does not find your given arguments as such.?.?.?.?

[EDIT] New topic, as requested http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41289

I’m not sure how we could know the answer there. Why people accept/reject certain arguments and views can be for a variety of reasons: they don’t understand the argument correctly, they don’t want it to be true, they think they have better reasons for their worldview that outweigh this argument and if this argument even has a 1% chance of being wrong, they figure it must be since they have so much evidence for the rest of their view, etc. Everybody, theist or atheist, Christian or non-Christian, Buddhist or non-Buddhist, etc. could be rejecting arguments for non-rational reasons.

Though I agree with your response, the question in red was also directed to the OP-er.

I have had dreams and visions of God, but that does not prove that God is real. According to the Bible, God gives people dreams and visions:

"In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams." - Acts 2:17, The Bible (New International Version)

I used to believe that the Bible is true. I no longer believe that the Bible is true. There are lots of inaccuracies, contradictions, cruelties, and injustices in the Bible. Please see https://www.evilbible.com and https://skepticsannotatedbible.com Thank you.

I am an agnostic about the existence of all the Gods of all religions.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #55]

Why do you think our wills are determined and constrained in every area? It's not the default position; agnosticism is. For breakfast today, in my house, I have 4 kinds of cereal, eggs, ham, sweet peppers, spinach, other ingredients to make different kinds of smoothies, among various other non-traditional breakfast foods to choose from. Why is my will determined and constrained to choose the one that by the time you read this, I will have eaten?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #55]

Why do you think our wills are determined and constrained in every area? It's not the default position; agnosticism is. For breakfast today, in my house, I have 4 kinds of cereal, eggs, ham, sweet peppers, spinach, other ingredients to make different kinds of smoothies, among various other non-traditional breakfast foods to choose from. Why is my will determined and constrained to choose the one that by the time you read this, I will have eaten?

I agree that agnosticism is the default option. However, I am going by what I have seen evidence of. I have seen evidence that genes, cells, brains, bodies, environments, nutrients, and experiences exist. It's possible that genes, cells, brains, bodies, environments and nutrients are not real but are simulations. However, whether they are real or simulated, they still have determining and constraining effects on reality/simulation. I have examined every choice I have ever made, and all of them were determined and constrained. For example, in 2006 I became a vegan after I met two vegans at an environmental activism meeting. My choice to become a vegan was determined by the fact that veganism is better for farm animals, the environment, and humans. Why didn't I become a vegan sooner? That's because I hadn't even heard of the term "vegan" until I met the two vegans in 2006. I was a vegetarian before I was a vegan. Why do I care about farm animals, the environment, and humans? My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me care. It is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a cheetah, I would not have become a vegan or even a vegetarian. I would have eaten the two vegan humans instead. All organisms are prisoners of causality from beginning to end. No one deserves any blame or praise for anything because our choices are determined and constrained by variables we did not choose. Would I not have behaved like Joseph Stalin if I had his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? Would I not have typed your posts and eaten your breakfast if I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? Would you not have been typing these words when and where I am typing these words if you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? I think the answer to all three questions is yes.

[The Tanager]

I have examined every choice I have ever made, and all of them were determined and constrained. For example, in 2006 I became a vegan after I met two vegans at an environmental activism meeting. My choice to become a vegan was determined by the fact that veganism is better for farm animals, the environment, and humans. Why didn't I become a vegan sooner? That's because I hadn't even heard of the term "vegan" until I met the two vegans in 2006. I was a vegetarian before I was a vegan. Why do I care about farm animals, the environment, and humans? My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me care. It is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a cheetah, I would not have become a vegan or even a vegetarian. I would have eaten the two vegan humans instead. All organisms are prisoners of causality from beginning to end. No one deserves any blame or praise for anything because our choices are determined and constrained by variables we did not choose. Would I not have behaved like Joseph Stalin if I had his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? Would I not have typed your posts if I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? Would you not have been typing these words when and where I am typing these words if you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences?

You could choose right now to eat a piece of meat in spite of all of these factors.

[Compassionist]

I have examined every choice I have ever made, and all of them were determined and constrained. For example, in 2006 I became a vegan after I met two vegans at an environmental activism meeting. My choice to become a vegan was determined by the fact that veganism is better for farm animals, the environment, and humans. Why didn't I become a vegan sooner? That's because I hadn't even heard of the term "vegan" until I met the two vegans in 2006. I was a vegetarian before I was a vegan. Why do I care about farm animals, the environment, and humans? My genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences make me care. It is not a free choice. It is a determined and constrained choice. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of a cheetah, I would not have become a vegan or even a vegetarian. I would have eaten the two vegan humans instead. All organisms are prisoners of causality from beginning to end. No one deserves any blame or praise for anything because our choices are determined and constrained by variables we did not choose. Would I not have behaved like Joseph Stalin if I had his genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? Would I not have typed your posts if I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences? Would you not have been typing these words when and where I am typing these words if you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences?

You could choose right now to eat a piece of meat in spite of all of these factors.

No, I could not choose to eat a piece of meat right now. My nature would not permit such a choice. I would rather be dead than eat meat.