[flagged]
(It currently has 276 replies, and I don't think any of them are about Polymarket or prediction markets, which is what the article is about.)
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44126652 and marked it off topic.
Yeah, I won't rule out that they exist, but I think there are far better ways of "betting on Jesus" according to most denominations. I think price fluctuations in a market like this is more down to people betting on a bigger fool coming along, or otherwise convinced themselves that they can make money off this without actually believing in the outcome.
Word of Faith/Prosperity churches - God is a genie.
You get what you asked for and not what you wanted.
It just may be more distant from what you wanted the worse you are.
Another example of Jesus being very non-consequentialist: why you do a thing matters completely.
Modern Evangelical Christian movements have from the beginning incorporated (classically) liberal political theory, including economic theory, into their theology, not merely their ethics (as almost all faiths must do to some extent). But more recently there has been incorporation of more (classically) illiberal libertarian and conservative ideas in their theology. Someone else pointed out Prosperity Gospel, but the new hotness is the idea that charity and empathy is un-Christian. (Or to steel man it, the idea is that excessive charity and empathy is un-Christian, but that begs alot of questions and arguably invites more self-serving utilitarian line drawing--the movement presupposes that contemporary American political culture is too charitable and empathetic.)
I think you’re on the right track. It’s not the betters but the bookie who you need to look askance at here.
John Goodman also played the patriarch of a Megachurch family in the Righteous Gemstones. Maybe there's a pattern there? He did play a Senator in Alpha House too.
But you are certainly not describing the intellectual muscle and heft of the Catholic tradition. You don’t stand a chance.
Materialists, by contrast, either never realize the incoherence of their naive position, or double down, consigning themselves to ever greater absurdities (yes, I am looking at you, eliminativism).
We didn't get that.
Instead, we got a downvote. So much more intellectual maturity and integrity.
Judging by their creeds it's believing that Easter really happened, and that the highest being is a composition that must be explained in hard to understand greek ontological terms.
The point I wanted to make however was rather that ontology moved on. The creed stayed the same.
Medicine is still complex, but moved on a bit since the good old days of the four humors.
Dogma was a great/funny film.
Looking at the Ophanim link and related pictures reminded me of Contact(1997), not great+boring imo, but your comment reminded me of the wheel thing in the movie, and now I wonder if it was something intended (being a heavenly chariot and all) I could have easily missed it — or if that is just a coincidence
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
There's a theory that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem's city wall that was notoriously hard for camels to squeeze through. But seems the hard evidence for that is limited.
This is a very debunked myth, brought to you by people who are desperate to avoid Christianity's clear proscription on hoarding wealth.
King James has entered the chat.
Henry VIII has entered the chat.
Many don’t pay attention to the fuller context.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Experience confirms this. Look at the aspirations of the poor in our societies. They are often vulgar, base, and materialistic.
So if you're wealthy and poor people exist, you're in a state of sin. Christianity is an apocalyptic religion, you're to assume the world could end tomorrow so your instructions aren't to simply not want the money, it's to get rid of it and donate it all to charity immediately.
> But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [Then follows the camel and the needle.]
The rich man fails the test because he is unable to give up his wealth; his heart is not in the right place. He loves the world and he loves his riches more than he loves God. It is entirely possible to have your heart in the right place and be rich, as demonstrated by several other examples.
Another example is in Acts, where Peter kills a man and his wife because they lie about how much money they're giving - they were perfectly free, and would have been saved, even had they withheld their money from the commons. Paul also says there are not many rich men that are Christians - but there are some.
The attitude that "ahah, you didn't give your money to the poor, so you're not a REAL Christian doing what you're supposed to do" is put into the mouth of a figure in the Bible. That figure is Judas.
> Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
> 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
> 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Jesus, and the other apostles, are not saying that you can't be rich. They're saying you cannot love money more than God, and even trusting in money is ultimately a foolish endeavor because your life and prosperity are in God's hands.
If you are snidely arguing that people aren't Christians or following God simply because they haven't given all their money to the poor, you are falling into the same error as Judas, and the same general category of error as the Pharisees.
It's almost as if the Bible has different authors with different audiences and different aims in their writing, all of whom had no idea or plan for their writing to be codified into a single text by third parties who in turn had their own audience and goals.
Luke and Acts internally claim to be written by the same author, and modern scholarship agrees they were written by the same author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke%E2%80%93Acts
> The view that they were written by the same person is virtually unanimous among scholars.
So no, "well, it's because the Bible was written by different people" doesn't get you out of this one.
It doesn't say pay your taxes as long as there is no waste. Or the government spends the money wisely. It just says pay.
Doesn't say obey kings/rulers/masters if they treat you well. Or you voted for them. Or you agree with their policies. It just says obey.
All of which is very much the opposite of Evangelical Christianity in the modern USA - much of it is completely corrupted by political power and wealth. It usually only makes people angry or dismissive when you point that out.
The message is that spiritual goods are superior to material goods, and that the former should be prioritized over the latter, or that the latter ultimately exist in service of the former. The wealth of the rich man is not the source of his obstacle to spiritual good; it is his attachment to his wealth that stands in the way.
If I put an effort into not being cynical, I would say public funds spent on R&D are the more accurate tax on hope. We are collecting money for Progress and Progress will save us from today’s inescapable facts. We hope it will not replace them with something worse.
In some cases it's because the enjoyment they get is worth losing money (and/or they wrongly believe it will be), in some cases it's because even though buying weekly lottery tickets is extremely unlikely to be worth it, the tiny possibility of winning big on it is the only way they could possibly become a millionaire and they want to fantasise that it might still happen.
And the ones who are gambling in the belief that the odds are in their favour, it's not because of their maths, it's because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their knowledge / opinions on a particular sport are good enough to beat the bookies.
Sure there are also people who think things like "my roulette strategy is bound to work", but it's a tiny proportion.
Depends on which activities you gamble on, I suppose.
There's an old quote: “When as a young and unknown man I started to be successful I was referred to as a gambler. My operations increased in scope. Then I was a speculator. The sphere of my activities continued to expand and presently I was known as a banker. Actually I had been doing the same thing all the time.”
(previous chapter in Matthew, earlier in the same chapter in Mark/Luke)
These words eventually became the foundation of Christian charity in an Ancient world that until then despised and rejected the weak and infirm.
Many of our modern day institutions trace their origin to that Christian charity, to those few enigmatic words.
(Peter Brown's “Through the Eye of a Needle” is a great book to know more about this process.)
If by theology, you mean the possible interpretation of "strip away almost everything", while it is debatable whether this particular parable actually means that, it is always accepted that a rich person can give up what they have. This is literally the words of Jesus (Mark 19:16-22), the context in which the parable is given.
Francis of Assisi is an example of one person who made this decision.
Plus takes into account that in text criticism the more difficult spelling is usually the more correct, then rendered into the more common through lapsus calami/scribe error.
The parable of the talents and the connection between investment skill and being blessed by the master show that being rich or good with money is considered a good thing that can be used poorly or toward evil, not simply evil in itself. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not that money is evil in and of itself. Money is simply a tool fit for a purpose, as Jesus shows with the miracle of the fish with a coin in its mouth which was used to pay their temple taxes, so that Jesus could keep the legalistic Pharisee and Sadducee busybodies off their backs for a little while longer.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Or something like that.
I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points.
If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. One of the gospels (Luke) has additional detail about the "nobleman" who goes off to which suggests this is Herod the Great, (bad guy - see Lk 19:27), so the original meaning is up for debate. Personally I believe that a large part of the point of parables was to spark debate, so we should not assume that the meanings are obvious.
This is quite true. Taking away just the moral teachings is not true belief. Revelations is serious business stuff, the apostles watched Christ ascend from Mount Olive, it’s extremely trippy things. True believers are literally believing in wild shit. In fact, if you are true believer, you almost need to keep it hidden because it’s going to come off as mentally ill.
With that said, I somehow can’t seem to deny it anymore because reality is just not explainable. Reality is the most ridiculous explanation for why the Big Bang happened and we’re all just here in a perfect little globe. This “real” explanation is so batshit that the supernatural explanation is more sound - at least to me.
The closest science has gotten was to actually corroborate that, yes, this was all not infinite and had a starting point (big bang), literally corroborated let there be light. The quantum stuff just gets even more supernatural. Maybe I’m going mentally ill, but I tend to take the supernatural stuff quite seriously now.
Purpose and hope, even if the answer is utterly magical.
I do wish Craig had reframed from the personal shots he takes at various atheist/agnostic writers (which clearly cross into ad hominem at many points) but he is by far the most interesting defender of faith out there (IMHO). In his defense I think he was playing along with the at times very incendiary approach taken by Dawkin's and many other "new atheists" so it's not like he started the brawl :-). I think he's way too confident in Anselm's Ontological argument, but he has clearly studied it a whole lot more than me so I don't hold a strong conviction there.
It’s certainly possible that there is a purpose, but I think it’s more likely that we simply happened to evolve the way we did.
In a vacuum, wars are meaningless. It’s simply humans fighting other humans (and the ones on the front lines might not even want to be there).
That's a huge leap that speaks to your own perspective. It's not some sort of objective fact. That there is no purpose and we are still here is in fact quite beautiful and amazing.
Your entire premise is just completely made up.
You're not even expressing a leap of faith. It's a leap of cynicism that speaks to your world view, not your faith. Faith is not predicated upon a belief that there is no purpose to which otherwise faith supplies. You're just basically playing word salad at this point. And I don't mean that to suggest religious beliefs or faith is word salad. Just what you have offered here in this brief conversation.
There is no objective morality, because morality is a human invention. It's important for that exact reason that we make it very good then.
Love strangers. Eradicate poverty. Encourage personal growth. Build society up. Reduce suffering. Stop bullies. Understand.
I actually find a lot of comfort in the Mark Twain quote after he was asked by a reporter whether he fears death given his lack of belief in God:
> “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” --Mark Twain
The safest assumption to make, if you absolutely have to make an assumption at all, is that this reality is pretty average. With no knowledge whatsoever, it's certainly safer than betting it is somehow exotic.
Pretty much every religious person believes that THEIR understanding is the correct one. You cant objectively say that "this is the correct understanding" from a religous perspective (you can however do it from a for example a historical or textual analysis perspective).
You cant objectively prove that only mormons or bapists have "understood" the bible correct and everyone else are false believers.
what if jesus already returned? then the true believers would only be those that have recognized his return. there are people who did make that claim. that's who i would investigate.
That's absolutely not true. First of all, there was an enormous crowd of people: 600,000 families--millions of people--who received the revelation on Mt. Sinai. And secondly, G-d offered the Torah to all the peoples of the world. (https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Devarim.343.2?lang=bi)
It's a fundamental principle of Judaism that all righteous people will be in the world to come, unlike Christianity.
All that being said, I will not be wagering that "Jesus" will come again.
It's true that it was very regional, within the reach of a group of people's ability to communicate.
> And secondly, G-d offered the Torah to all the peoples of the world.
Did he? Did all the other cultures of the world about that time simply not answer the door?
You're assuming too much about the motivations. I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
People now know about god, but they wouldn't have 3,000 years ago. And it's only one particular culture that was being communicated with, or did the Chinese and Native Americans just ignore him when tried to message them?
> I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
It's because its messaging seems to have originated from a very small and region specific group of people, instead of, you know, being communicated across the world.
In any case, it was definitely communicated across the world. If you're picking a specific point in time when first contact was established according to a specific tradition, that might raise a question of why first contract there and in that way. But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and scribed history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
What do you mean? Did the non-Judeo-Christian faiths know about him or not? What was their relationship to it?
> But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
Sure, it only took thousands of years and a co-opting of the original message by an apocalyptic Galilean preacher changing the message and constant re-envisioning through history. And if the end game is half people in the world still not believing (if we generously assume that both Christianity and Islam are equal and valid in the eyes of the Hewbrew god), I guess mission accomplished.
> I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and written history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
But in the case of a place like China, writing was definitely in the cards. Ancient Babylon had writing long before that as well, so that's not a good reason.
Right. Why would the omnipotent creator of the universe communicate the same way I do?
Faith is a concept, like so many other concepts. It is a unique creation that has properties, one of them is that it’s not meant to be provable that easily.
> When Michael Jackson does a concert, it’s really only in a few locations. It’s up to the world to spread it.
In this example, what is up to the world to spread for Michael Jackson? Is god a singular entity with a specific location? I'm sure Michael would have happily shown up in every place on earth if he could have sold tickets.
If ever there were a post-hoc rationalization, this is it.
It's funny how the faithful are generally happy to use any evidence that they think supports the faith, but once it gets too difficult then suddenly it's not supposed to have too much evidence for it.
Israel’s creation story gets every step in the right order.
How?
Faith was a gift to help.
In terms of Christ, let me put it this way. Imagine your high school, and one day the President of the US visits. You may not directly see him, but the whole school would know about it, even if he was just there for 5 minutes. It’s a matter of faith, and it’s the little bit you need to help with the gift of free will.
The very first story (well second story) in the main monotheistic books was the Eden Story. That story is all about how vulnerable we are with the choice of free will. Empirically, we have seen the failure of it over and over throughout human history (systemically you can easily see it). So, yes, I fully believe in the fallen nature of man, not because we are evil, but because what a gift and responsibility free will actually is.
I think this hypothesis is flawed.
I think most people in society strive to do right, and therefore most of us are able to live in relative peace and with relative trust in our fellow members of society.
There are some people who do wrong, but we’ve set up our society to strive to detect this and punish those (albeit using imperfect systems and knowledge, leading to false positives and negatives).
Therefore, I think religions are an encoding of human morality, not the other way around.
So how many times would you push it? Such is our character that asking how many times you'd push it is far more interesting than asking if you'd push it. And asking how many times you'd push it also gets rid of the marginal utility argument, and just to the dirty self centered core of humanity.
People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards. There will undoubtedly be a guy who pushes it thousands of times, and then donates a fraction of it to charity, convincing himself that he's actually saved lives on net. That is humanity in a nutshell.
Is that a royal "Our"? I don't think you are speaking for anyone but yourself. People like Trump, MSB and Netanyahu aren't normal. They tend to abuse religion as a justification for their actions rather than spititual inspiration.
In that scenario pushing the button seems like the right thing to do. If you don't, that person might lose their faith later and end up in hell, and it would be your fault. What is the worth of a soul? My understanding is it's infinite. If not infinite, certainly it must be worth more than a measly cool million.
Have you read the Bible? Jesus would disagree with this take very hard. Or do you have any support for this moral argument from any of the apostles?
> Jesus would disagree with this take very hard.
Citation needed for that. This is something hotly debated among all sorts of Christians so I don't claim to have a solid answer, but perseonally I think the Bible is repeatedly pretty clear that you can lose it[1].
I used to be a strong believer, but no longer am. Out of curiosity, do you think I'm going to Hell or am I still all set for (eternal) life because of my past faith?
[1]: https://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/salvation/salvation...
I think that most people with a moral compass would either take this approach, or would not press the button at all.
I think your second paragraph is misguided and reveals an overly pessimistic view of the nature of humanity. (Such is the nature of cynics: they always think everyone else is just as cynical as they are.)
> People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards.
Religious people aren’t immune from that, and conversely, it’s not necessary to be religious to have moral values.
edit: I thought about this some more. I think that the button problem is equivalent to the trolley problem (provided you can save >1 life with $1 million, as above).
This is the heart of where the saying that power corrupts comes from. It's not that power corrupts but that these sort of decisions are ones that will never be available to anybody without power. Yet for those with power it's not that far away from many practical scenarios. In other words, we start corrupt, but our impotence mitigates the relevance of that. Power just reveals our character.
And no, religious people are obviously not immune from this, but with a fixed set of values rationalization becomes far more farcical than without. The Bible's position on homicide, let alone for personal gain, is unambiguous. A person without any set of fixed values, by contrast, will have no problem justifying and rationalizing even the most egregious acts, so long as the reward is seen as desirable enough.
---
To respond to your edit, consider that you're basically doing a version of the trolley problem where you have the choice to redirect the track from killing one person, to killing two, but you get a million bucks for doing so. And you're now arguing that this is the utilitarian choice. It's plainly a false rationalization, but we can so easily convince ourselves that it's reasonable. Our extreme strength at rationalization is humanity's biggest moral and ethical failing. [1]
No, this is definitely not right.
Consider first the non-repeated case. There are two possibilities:
1. You do not press the button. Nothing changes about the world.
2. You press the button and donate $1 million to a humanitarian organization. A random person dies, but the humanitarian organization uses the money to save an average of 5 others.
Option 1 is like not pulling the lever, thereby letting the trolley run over 5 people. Option 2 is like pulling the lever, thereby saving 5 people, but letting the trolley run over another.
(From this, the repeated case trivially follows.)
However, as you allude to, the button problem has a third option: press the button and keep the $1 million. This is so cartoonishly diabolical that only a sociopath would do it. If this was how most people acted, nobody would ever help anybody else, we would all be looking for opportunities to stab each other in the back, and we would most likely not even have developed such a nebulous concept as ‘morality’.
This is what I alluded to with my remark about cynics: the cynic is negative, and therefore, thinks that everyone else is negative too. However, this reveals more about the cynic than it does about humanity (at least, I hope so; I am an optimist who likes to have faith in humanity).
> And no, religious people are obviously not immune from this, but with a fixed set of values rationalization becomes far more farcical than without. The Bible's position on homicide, let alone for personal gain, is unambiguous. A person without any set of fixed values, by contrast, will have no problem justifying and rationalizing even the most egregious acts, so long as the reward is seen as desirable enough.
Many, many wars were and are fought for religious reasons. The Christian Church itself has famously fought multiple religious wars (IIUC, so has the Islamic prophet). Considering this, I really don’t think religion gets to take the high ground when it comes to ‘having fixed values’.
And what you're doing is what humanity naturally does. The people we view as awful in history certainly acknowledged they're doing some awful things in the present, but rationalized it by imagining the utopia that it will bring in. In their minds not only were they behaving ethically, but they were practically a martyr fit for Sainthood, as they are taking the burden, the stain, of such actions upon themselves, only to help an unimaginable number of people in the future. Really it was just charity at unimaginable cost to themselves.
Of course that utopia of the future never comes to pass, but the horrible things they do in the present always do. Such is the nature of humanity that we'll always find a reason to press the button. It's not about 'good' or 'evil' or anything of the sort. Rationalization enables a good person to do the most evil of things, and feel fine about it.
I think the only way to combat this issue is with static values. That can take many forms ranging from religion to a distinct and well defined personal philosophy. But I think anybody lacking such a structured system (from whatever source) will always succumb to rationalization.
Would you steer the trolley to the track with one man on it? If yes, and you believe you could save more than one person with $1 million, then you would also press the button!
> And what you're doing is neither novel nor surprising. This is the exact rationalization most of every person we now view in history as awful also used. They acknowledge they're doing some awful things in the present, but rationalize it by imagining the utopia that it will bring in.
This is also true for the trolley problem! He who pulls the lever does an awful thing (kills one man) in the pursuit of some benefit to society (saving five others).
(The ethics of the trolley problem itself have been discussed at length, so I don’t think we need to repeat those arguments here.)
And again, many religious wars have been and are fought! Religious leaders haven’t theoretically killed people in the pursuit of utopia, they have literally, actually done that!
After all: that’s the subject of our discussion: not whether people are moral, but whether religious people are more moral than the baseline.
Keep in mind that the obvious exceptions like South America = high religiosity + high criminality or Scandiland = low religiosity + low criminality, are group/macro level issues and not individual. Very small numbers of highly sociopathic individuals or groups can have an extreme effect on overall stats. For example the homicide rate for St. Louis is higher than for any country in the world, yet obviously the percent of people of homicidal tendency in St. Louis is negligible. Macro level stats and individual level tendencies are very different things.
[1] - https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41333/chapter/3523552...
also the existence of exceptions doesn't negate that the rest of us have that choice.
Much like how religion posits a soul, you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we). You yourself suggest that the input of "revealed God" removes human free will to disbelieve. In other words, God can't(or didn't for whatever reason) create a human that can experience God without disbelief. Anyway long and short of it, just because you believe in free will doesn't mean it exists, either in your belief structure or in actuality, and Calvinists reject your hypothesis outright.
as for calvinism, how is that relevant? the existence if some faction believing something that contradicts the belief of others has no bearing on that belief other than that it may raise some questions that are worth investigating. my brief look at that leads me to the conclusion that their view of free will makes no sense to me.
This is not my field at all so don't take my word for any of it, but I highly recommend people interested in this read or watch Robert Sapolsky's work. His books "Behave" and "Determined" are utterly fascinating and get very, very deep into this in a way that is challenging but understandable for a non-Neurologist.
> you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we)
Physics (quantum physics specificly) posits a non-deterministic universe.
However even with a deterministic universe, i don't see how it neccesatates removing free will. Perhaps you (your soul or whatever) can choose whatever you want to, you just always have to make the same choice given the same input. Maybe you dont literally have free will in what you immediately do, but you have free will in defining what type of person you are, which informs what you will do in response to some input.
[Im an atheist if that matters]
So no, try again, because that argument is silly.
i didn't make such a claim. the existence of god has nothing to do with free will. he either exists, or he doesn't. your or my belief in the existence of god however is governed by the freedom to either believe or reject his existence. if god exists then rejecting him does not make him go away, nor does believing in god make him appear if there is no god.
my argument was that free will is the reason why god did not reveal himself in a way that everyone would immediately recognize him without a doubt. it was not an argument about his existence.
well of course, the bible acknowledges that too:
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 ESV
that's the point of freedom. if we didn't have the freedom to deny god then we would all be devout believers.
> the failure of Christendom to reach its prophesized conclusion
which conclusion is that? maybe that prophecy has not yet come to pass?
> You are making an argument that does not exist in any scripture
the bible is full of quotes of god or jesus calling the people to believe while leaving them the choice not to: i did not study the bible, so this is just the result of an online search, and the quotes are without context:
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 ESV
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed Romans 13:2 ESV
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17 ESV
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:6-7 ESV
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, John 1:12 ESV
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Hebrews 11:6 ESV
“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ESV
the quran is more clear, but again, just a search for quotes without context:
“the Truth [has come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”[Sura Al-Kehf, verse 29.]; [This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it. Whoever please, i.e. with his free will, believe and whoever please disbelieve (18:29)
“Verily, We have shown him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will)”[Sura Al-Mursalat, verse 3]. Indeed We have guided him to the way, be he grateful or ungrateful. (76:3)
“Allah does not change the condition of a people until they bring about a change in their inner-selves (anfus: psyche)”[Sura Ar-Rad, verse 11]. Indeed Allah does not change a people's lot, unless they change what is in their souls. (13:11)
“Allah would never change the blessings with which He has graced a people unless they change their inner-selves”[Sura Al-Anfal, verse 53]
from bahai faith, there are a few people talking about free will, but these are the only direct quotes i found:
There is, unfortunately, no way that one can force his own good upon a man. The element of free will is there, and all we believers -- and even the Manifestation of God Himself -- can do is to offer the truth to mankind. If the people of the world persist, as they seem to be doing, in their blind materialism, they must bear the consequences in a prolongation of their present condition, and even a worsening of it. Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 113
Thus doth the Nightingale utter His call unto you from this prison. He hath but to deliver this clear message. Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever desireth let him choose the path to his Lord. Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Ahmad
O SON OF MAN! If thou lovest Me, turn away from thyself; and if thou seekest My pleasure, regard not thine own; that thou mayest die in Me and I may eternally live in thee. Baha'u'llah, Hidden Words, Arabic #7
My question would be: If the Bible was written by an omniscient and all-powerful God, then why does it have so many inaccuracies in it? Easy ones include a global flood that killed every animal on Earth. (Except for the two of each animal on Noah's ark, which would have overheated with so many animals in it, if it hadn't collapsed under its own weight first.)
But there are also internal contradictions between the four gospels of the New Testament. Why would God make his own books inaccurate? To me, that indicates they are not the product of divine inspiration but the written accounts of oral histories.
Your response may be that God introduced these errors into his holy books to test our faith. But at that point, isn't the answer to every contradiction and inaccuracy just, "To test our faith"? Is there literally anything that would change your mind, or is your faith just being tested even harder?
This would be a very good gotcha for a religion that believed the Bible was written by God (or at least dictated verbatim) and that it was intended to be a purely literal factual account, neither of which are majority positions within Christian theology (Fundamentalism, in which close approximations of both are important defining beliefs, being a relatively new movement within Protestantism and not the mainstream of Christianity.)
Fair enough! But if God is all powerful and all knowing, he decided to make the bible incorrect. Why would he do that?
1. Physical reality (e.g. how many years has earth existed)
2. Metaphysical reality (is there a creator? If so is your "soul" or life in any way relevant to them?)
3. Moral reality (Is killing other humans in cold blood justified by scripture? Are there such a thing as "Good" and "Evil"?)
4. Cultural reality (What do the people who raised you and otherwise influence you believe, local traditions and stories, scripture)
5. What feels intuitive for an individual to realize ("As above, so below", the unit of self, comparing Christ with POTUS, "the fall of man")
Assuming your local space-time intepretation gets it all right (and everyone with different understanding got and gets it wrong) and that all of these by necessity align is some next-level hubris...
2) I can grant you he might have just been a harmless mentally ill person.
3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.
4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.
5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.
6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.
7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.
8) I’d let the whole true date of physical reality go. We literally reinvented time after he died. I won’t hold the Old Testament to the test of carbon dating, and reconsider that those books told us all the nature of how things began (from a big explosion).
9) And then we find the miraculous Dead Sea Scrolls proving that those books were not altered through the course of time.
10) The books say your soul is quite important. Christ was also one of the first to suggest your morality is from within (the thing atheist often suggest).
11) I’d finally suggest the following about science:
Imagine I take a shit in a toilet. Imagine you are a brilliant scientist that sits around and figures out every measurement of how the shit moves around the toilet, down to the physics, down to the chemical composition of the shit. You would have figured out the physics of the universe of your toilet, but you will never ever know that I took the shit because I ate a lot of Taco Bell.
12) Hubris would be thinking our constant measuring (science) proves anything about our purpose.
13) Given the above hypothetical, it would be humble to accept the fear of god scripture puts into us, since we would have never even come close to figuring out our purpose via science (finding the true nature of God’s Taco Bell order) without these goofy books.
14) Last but not least:
If the Big Bang was the moment of creation, you can believe one of two things:
A) Something caused it
B) Space was a vacuum and something came from nothing.
If you believe A (You believe in God), our very existence is contingent on the sequence, A lead to B, then to C, and so on, so the entire chain of us talking here was deliberate (plus or minus all the free will decisions of humans, mostly a rounding error in the grand scheme).
15) And my personal favorite, everyone one of our births was a miracle given how sexual reproduction works (we all beat a million other possibilities). Faith is not hard when you truly see just how insane the odds are for so many things. Therefore, I’m quite open to the ridiculousness of the Galileans story. Another way to put it is, I am in awe of God.
The same could be said for the "prophets" of any major religion. Muhammadﷻ (SWT) arguably went into a state of psychosis after the premature deaths of both of his sons. Joseph Smith, a local drunk in a small western NY town, said a magical rock in a hat that only he could see told him the garden of Eden was in St. Louis and that the native Americans weren't native Americans, but rather, the real original Israelites.
3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.
Sure.
4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.
Sure. However, some pretty fucked up stuff has been done in the names of God, Jesus, Allah, Muhammadﷻ (SWT), Israel, Buddha, and so on. Doesn't justify anything.
5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.
So was MLK Jr. He got shot.
6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.
Sure. Which is why his message is also a cornerstone of Islam.
7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.
It actually gives me reason to reject religion as a whole. If God made man in his own image, and man treats his fellow man with disdain, hatred, violence, etc, what does that say about God? If God was so perfect, why would he create beings that have free will to destroy the life of another? Paradoxical at best, a fallacy at worst.
That is the ultimate intellectual question. But pay attention to the key word, intellectual. You cannot get spiritual answers from an intellectual question. That's what makes faith rather hard at times and often requires meditation.
It actually gives me reason to reject religion as a whole.
Christ, allegedly, died due to the pride of religion. He was very much on a mission to call out the pride, power and arrogance of organized religion. Again, the answers are simply not available in the intellectual domain and must be sought in the spiritual domain.
I'm not even a member of a Church as I mostly do my reading on my own and do my own reflection. I think one of the main things God tries to hammer home is that we are to all have an eternal life in the after-life (which is mercy, because he could just erase us). If eternity is what is at stake, it is probably in our interest to cleanse our soul of whatever makes us shitty humans, lest we enter eternity tainted and unreformed, for a soul like that will be shitty for all eternity.
Faith. Key word, faith. There is no reason for faith, because you're placing faith and (fleeting) hope that some dude in a desert a few thousand years ago found the ultimate way to interact with (his understanding of) humanity's creator, if we even have one. What makes you so 1000000% sure that this guy's understanding of the supernatural is correct? You're assuming that there actually is some omnipresent being that manifested existence, and that same being actually divinely created humanity on purpose, and not only that, gave humanity free will, and not only that, also simultaneously loves and hates you, and will condemn you to eternal hellfire if you don't worship him enough. Oh yeah, according to some, he's got a son too, born of humanity but with magical powers.
Faith. Come on.
Like any other product, someone invented it first, and others followed/copied. Over thousands of years, religions evolved separately, but you can still find traces of a shared origin running through them all.
It ought to be telling that all the woo woo comes from people who don't know anything.
Georges Lemaître, one of the original articulators of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. He did not appreciate Pope Pius XII characterizing his research as confirming "let there be light." There are many references to criticism he received for publishing a theory that meshed well with "let there be light," however I am not able to find any primary sources for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Views_on...
Light is an electromagnetic field that permeates everything in and through. Without the field first there are no photons, there is no physics, no gravity.
God claimed to be this force. In all. Through all. Nothing could exist without it.
How would a primitive people know this, understand this? They could not. We certainly can.
Even agreeing on what a "True Believer" is would be impossible but, from what I have read of the bible and know from 18+ years in the church I agree. As I child I got in trouble a few times for suggesting we take the concepts in the bible to their logical end. Things like:
- If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?
Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions:
- If there is no age set on the age of accountability (to account for people living in remote areas who never heard the word of god) then isn't being a missionary and going to those places damning some percentage of them to hell if they don't accept jesus as their lord and savior? Aren't you making it worse? Even if you are able to "save" 60% you've damned the other 40% when before you visiting 100% would never have met the "age of accountability" due to never hearing about jesus?
and the much more horrifying question (note: I was 6 or 7 at the time)
- If the the age of accountability is real, and if our time on earth is truly inconsequential compared to eternity in heaven then (AGAIN: I was a child, I want just following logical chains), isn't the best option to kill everyone before that age so they will live for eternity in heaven?
Needless to say none of these questions were appreciated and all of them resulted in anger from the adults I mentioned it to. It taught me from a very young age how to lie or obscure what I thought/believed since voicing it or even asking innocent questions got me in trouble for reasons I could not understand. Perhaps there are logical flaws in my questions that a biblical scholar could point out but all I got was the fury of people too invested in a myth to question it.
[0] Concept that if you are younger than it and you die without being "saved" then you will still go to heaven because, essentially, you didn't know any better. There is no age defined since people reach that state at different ages and, IIRC, it even accounts for people who never hear the word of god and thus don't have an opportunity to be saved.
"If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?"
Every Christian should seek to "become a missionary" in the sense that they should be a positive example and "practice what they preach" while being ready to share honestly about the Christian faith if appropriate/if asked. This is a standard we should hold ourselves to with the help of God.
Early Christians did employ this level of urgency for evangelization, and (according to tradition) the original 12 themselves went as far as Spain and India (without the aid of modern transportation methods, of course). Christian churches spread as far as China, but later suffered persecution and much of the rest of the known world had to wait until the colonial era before Christian missionaries arrived in significant numbers again. Outside of specific uncontacted tribes (and I think a guy just got killed trying to evangelize one of them), I do not know if there are currently populations to which the gospel has not been preached. Translation of Christian writing and good works are the correct method of evangelization at this point, and this work should be supported materially and with prayer.
As for the question of "the fate of the unlearned", there have been a variety of answers (or, more accurately, methods of approaching this question) which have included "they're screwed", "God judges them according to their heart", "God sends them the gospel via miraculous means", "Those who live according to the Logos are Christians but not aware of it", to the more modern "they may receive salvation through Christ through their faith in God as they know him" (other religions). It is important to note that from the perspective of Christian cosmology, (falling in Eden), God would be wholly justified in smiting us down into hell, and has no obligation to have done any of the things he has for us.
"Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions"
You were right to consider the difficulties with this position as it (as expressed in your footnote) is not a historic Christian belief, but a retroactive justification for groups who deny infant baptism.
If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder. On a similar note, suicide is expressly forbidden because it is a rejection of the role on earth you have been called to play, whereas giving up your life for the sake of another, or for the sake of the Gospel, is an ideal because it is in the service of others, which is the fundamental role Christians are ordered to fill.
I hope this helps. May God bless you and reveal his truth in your life.
I have the same question/concern as GP (and have never seen another express that, so that's cool!) and have never gotten a great answer. I (truly) appreciate you engaging on this. It's very difficult because most people get so highly offended at the premise that they aren't able to address it (and I don't blame them as it is quite a horrifying thing to think about, even just as a thought experiment).
Yes I agree that murder is wrong, but wouldn't it be an incredibly selfless act to sacrifice your own salvation so that countless others could be saved? I.e. if I had two kids (or 10 kids, or whatever), I can only go to hell once but I could "guarantee" salvation for all of them if I'm just willing to kill them. Wouldn't the best gift I could give them be eternal life with Christ?
Going even further, Jesus (by most accounts) allowed himself to be killed when he easily had the power to stop it, which seems to me to be only a stone's throw away from suicide. He did it to save all of us from our sins. Isn't that basically the same thing?
A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that it is not permissible to take an "intrinsically evil" action even if it is for a good or selfless purpose. Another is that every attempt to "game the system" (for lack of a better term) is also sinful. If our ultimate goal was to "maximize entrance of other souls to heaven" and we considered ourselves to be equal in ability to God, this might be an avenue of investigation, but if our goal is to "submit to Christ our Lord" it is the slaughter of innocents resulting from our attempt to play God.
We understand religious truth as God has revealed it to us, but because of the disparity in knowledge between humanity and an all knowing being, I have the feeling (but no proof) that we'd not be able to "pull of a heist" like this. I don't know if or by what mechanism God might choose to subvert the attempt. I'm thankful that you're speaking purely hypothetically. It is my estimation that if you have faith you would not do it because it is impermissible and evil, and if you do not have faith you would not do it because you wouldn't believe it to be effective.
I also question if a person legitimately believing they would be endlessly tormented beyond anything they can conceptualize could truly chose this. Even if they could, I would imagine they'd rescind after a second of hell (not that they'd have the option). It's nice to say (as the other response did) that we'd suffer anything for our children, but if I strip away my pride and look at myself in the mirror and am honest with myself and consider the reality of what eternity means, I don't think I could do it, even though I do truly believe I'd give up my life to save their's. It's possible that I'm a coward, or it's possible that I'm able to be more honest with myself about the question. I entrust their eternal well-being to God's mercy (as I understand them to already be a Christian through Baptism) without damning myself.
It's a somewhat similar issue of authority when it comes to the crucifixion. God, being all knowing and having all authority, is able to undertake such a mission. We are able to take similar actions (jumping on a grenade to save our friends, for example), but they are temporal actions with largely temporal results. To attempt to enter the "spiritual realm" and generate "spiritual results" other than in ways which have been provided to us by God, are in obedience to him, and are facilitated (not the best word but I can't find a better one) by the Holy Spirit (also God ofc) functionally amounts to, well, "witchcraft".
As a parent, I would go to hell to keep my children out of it. Therefore the logical thing to do would be to kill my children and ensure their salvation. While I burn in eternal torment, I can hold onto the slight bit of comfort that I will never see my children burning next to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4
The true believers in Christianity have to know, their world view is hinged on knowing that there is a god, that the world was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, among many other questionable religious beliefs. They're wrong about all of it (IMHO as someone who grew up Catholic), but at least in their own minds, they know. And that's good enough for them, they don't have to ask any more questions because a book written by kings told them so.
Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God." I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question (it answers a question about how Jesus and God the Father can both be God yet still be "monotheistic"). When pushed it has always come down to "some things have to be accepted on faith." That is obviously enough for plenty of people, but I personally find it insufficient. Back when I was a believer I had cognitive dissonance over that question that I somewhat learned to live with (obviously not entirely as I am no longer a believer, but it wasn't that question that led me to ultimately lose my faith).
What you will get plenty of depends on personality - outright attack, run away in some form, or usual blanket statements with 0 actual meaning like "its faith", "you have to believe".
As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior. Made up rituals very specific to given sect, on different dates, some ignored, some have other meanings. You shouldn't take it all literally, but they often take it literally to absurd levels.
Yeah, I cant give much respect to believers or faith which cant handle a minute or two of critical thinking, and deeply ignore its own past and rather harsh moral failures. Mistakes not acknowledged and acted upon are mistakes waiting to happen again.
> As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior
this is actually a strongly non-Christian view point: 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' i.e. no morals are clean enough unless it's 100% of God (why should he accept less?). yes, our harsh moral failures, or even successes could never be enough
hence 100% humanity and divinity of Christ -- he alone provides a 100% perfect bridge, paying 100% the cost for us, one that was infinitely beyond our ability to pay
this is 100% grace, joy, freedom and surety. thanks be to him
To "believe" without good morals or works entirely is to put on a false face, essentially. Therefore, some manner of effort is expected of believers. It's a bit of circular reasoning, but not much.
I agree it's unfortunate that these kinds of questions sometimes get answered by inadequate metaphors or simply by dismissals. The whole joy of theology, while still requiring faith, is trying to answer these questions rationally.
Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.
> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for
The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.
> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question
The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.
There are just as many problems or difficulties with viewing Jesus as the only god as with the trinity, but comparatively few professing Christians are all that critical about it.
(For my part, I’m Christadelphian.)
I loved science from when I was really young, read every book in my school library’s J523/Astronomy section, including Cosmos in 3rd grade. But I also went to church every week with my family, read through the entire Bible in middle school, and believed that my faith would crumble and I’d go to hell if I ever gave up the belief that the Bible was 100% true and literal.
I also chose to keep emotional distance from non-Christian friends. They might lead me astray.
I remember an exchange with my mom (who was a teacher, mostly at Lutheran schools) during a car ride when I was maybe 6 or 7. I was excitedly talking about the big bang or something, and she said “yes, but we know from the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, right?” “Yes,” I answered, and in that moment I believed it. I didn’t feel conflicted: the Bible must be true, so someday I’d figure out in what sense the science was true too.
As I got older, I sustained this by basically hand-waving away the less intuitive explanations for an old earth. There are plenty of books out there for helping people do just that. Maybe the speed of life was different in the past. What can we really say with certainty about evolution? That kind of thing.
The beginning of the end was the day I learned about dendrochronology: tree rings. They’re too simple to hand-wave away. Soon after, I lost my faith.
Another huge area of cognitive dissonance: we prayed all the time, we talked about “miracles”, but I never heard any really credible evidence for one. It took some serious introspection, while still a Christian, to discern whether I actually believed in them or not.
It is an incredible book and a crime it is not a standard text in education.
(Many) true believers believe that prayer has the power to heal people. So if you pray for someone with cancer, and they get better, then it shows the power of prayer.
If you pray for someone with cancer, and they don't get better, then it was all part of God's plan.
This may not strictly meet the definition of cognitive dissonance, but it is close enough for me.
There’s also the temptations of Jesus: skipping the pain and taking over (to fix things, as he will eventually) was a temptation to him. He had the power, he had to decide not to use it on himself. Consider also Gethsemane.
[0] not in the sense of being purely fictional - it's likely there was an actual "Jesus," supernatural claims aside - but in the sense of being mythologized and having stories written about oneself which may or may not be true but tend to form some cultural canon.