Hello, /adv/!
I'm a little sick and have a few hours to spare while waiting for a bus, so I thought that I might come offer some 'alternative' (by 4chan standards) advice with some of that time.
I don't pretend to have all answers, but I promise to answer as best I can!
>>16911540
Why the fuck are you a Christian?
>>16911540
Can you tell me which version of the bible conservatives use? Because it's not the one I have read. You guys seem to think it's best to fuck over the poor, worship the wealthy, kill people in war, and just generally disregard human welfare, none of which agrees with the Gospels. Or perhaps you could explain why you even bother calling yourself a 'Christian' when you clearly care more about conservative politics than anything Jesus had to say
>>16911545
That's a good question! It started mostly because I was raised around it, but my eyes were truly opened to it only when I got to college. I started looking around, exploring the world's religions and their holy texts, but then--on a whim--I revisited the gospel of Matthew. Whether it was because my re-reading it was framed better having had more exposure to the world or otherwise, from that point on I began to realize just h ow much the teachings of Jesus resonate with me as truth.
>>16911549
The version of the Bible people use tends to depend on things like denomination and geographic region. I personally like to study different versions comparatively.
As for the poor, I identify with the poor much more than I do the rich. I was raised poor by (also poor) hard-working conservative Christians. I don't really quantify the worth of a person by how much money he or she has.
As for my designation as 'conservative,' I mean that morally rather than politically, though there is some overlap.
>>16911556
That was an impressive way to say absolutely nothing in a paragraph. Get specific. You just made a statement, it was this:
"I am familiar with many other religions, but I CHOSE Christianity."
As a basis, to give credence to your answer you would need to compare Christianity to Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and maybe a few others and underline what makes Christianity more close to the "universal truth," since there is little else you could mean by the word "truth."
After that, there is always the agnosticism/atheism hurdle, of course.
>>16911556
Dude, you could find the same amount of truth or even more in any other book. Probably even with less contradictions and ambiguities.
>>16911565
Specifically, I took a course on eastern religion in college. As a required part of that course, I had to read various Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, and Hindu texts. I became interested in religious philosophy in general, and I began to explore the writings of the Quran and the Talmud. I eventually came back to considering Christianity after reading about the Eastern Christian concept of theosis, which then spurred me to revisit the gospel of Matthew. Reading the sermon on the mount, I came to personal conclusopns which led me to continue to explore Christianity and accept Jesus as truth.
why does god make people suffer?
>>16911568
I would say that belief is personal. For me, I believe Christianity to be true. I can give account of my reasons, but chances are that the reasons you require to believe would be different than my own.
>>16911573
You still haven't answered a single question, instead trying to build up credibility, which falls flat. Not worth discussing if you are going to avoid the meat of the topic.
>>16911573
How do you know those conclusions are not baseless conjecture?
Can you use the scientific method to prove it? You have the hypothesis, the existence of a deity. Now design an experiment that you can use to prove it. Take note of your results. Get them peer reviewed. And publish that as the only valid proof provided since man created the gods. Otherwise you have just proved that you can be made to believe anything if provided dubious "proof" containing some truths.
>>16911584
>>16911584
Well isn't that just fukin perfect. Im gonna go to hell because your dumbass reasons for believing in god won't convince me. And that's my fault, huh? Grayte.
>>16911574
I believe that God doesn't make people suffer. I believe that God allows suffering.
I don't believe that God allows suffering because He enjoys it, but rather as a consequence of something greater that he created. In Christianity and many other religions, the pinnacle of innate human ability is the ability to love: the ability to choose and care for something above oneself as being important, without any necessary self-benefit. The key word in that is 'choice.' If you were robotically forced to display the effects of love, it's not really love, is it? The complement to this is the human choice to cause suffering: if God steps in every time somebody is about to cause another to suffer, there is no choice to love or not to love. And if love is not a choice, it is not love.
>>16911585
I have answered the question of the specific actions I have taken to become a Christian. If there is something more you'd like to know, you are free to ask.
>>16911596
The issue here is that the deity I would like to prove is personal. Any experiment I could design to designate God as God would be as useful as me attempting to prove that your posts on 4chan prove you to be you. Can you experimentally answer existential questions without implicitly yourself resorting to rhetoric?
I would tell you that my beliefs do indeed have a basis, but by nature are as far from being objectively proven as its negation. There are many things more mundane than the existence of God that men still can't prove or disprove.
>>16911603
An all powerful deity could find a way for his creation to display their free will with considerably less suffering, I.e. removing all of the causes of suffering that are not caused by the free will of others: sickness, natural catastrophes, etc...
It seems you'd be better off joining the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He doesn't care if you believe in him, unlike other gods. He's not so vain.
>>16911600
I don't necessarily think that you'll go to hell. Nobody knows what the future holds.
I believe that there is a spiritual war going on at all times, even on earth. Hell starts here; heaven starts here. My advice to the disbeliever is to at least consider the commandments which can be described by 'love your neighbor.' If you want to know something about heaven or hell, start there.
>>16911603
Do you think the soul exists?
>>16911603
Why would you argue against obligatory love if it meant nobody suffered ever again? Should it bother me to imagine being forced to feel incredible all the time forever?
Here, God, take back my "free will". It was a mistake.
>>16911640
If we (for the sake of discussion) say that there is an all-powerful deity, would it be safe to say that your presumption is that he would inherently owe something to humanity?
As for disasters and even death itself, I believe that God can use even those to bring good things. After all, only the smallest details following the story of a tragedy can turn it into a comedy.
>>16911624
Yes. You can. We can use the scientific method to prove any known animal exists. We can also use it to infer what the predecessors for a given species looked like and indeed it has been done and fossils have been found confirming those predictions time and time again. Religion doesnt have that predictive quality based on facts.
As to those other things man cannot prove or disprove. Yes you cannot prove or disprove the existence of fairies but it is so improbable that we dismiss that possibility until evidence is provided. We dismiss those ideas, just like you dismiss other deities.
>>16911659
Yes, I do.
>>16911661
By giving up your choice, how can you still be human? Perhaps it's different for you, but I can't imagine a perception of the world in which I can perceive but have no choice.
Let's say God did what you propose, starting tomorrow with you. You wake up, and you are forced to live as the ideal Christian. Either (a) you continue to perceive as you did before, disagreeing, but your hand forced, or (b) your perception changes, your old opinions gone, and you act accordingly. In (a) are you not just prisoner in your own body? In (b), how are you still you?
>>16911679
By existential questions, I meant those like, 'are you you? Are you somebody else?'
Perhaps I am a bit dull, but if you tell me how to objectively prove 'you,' maybe I can translate that to proving God.
As for the mundane things man cannot prove or disprove, I could ask you a simple, relatable question right now which you would almost certainly not be able to answer in a provable way.
>>16911665
We're talking about your deity, the christian god. It is written in the bible that he is all loving and all powerfull and that "God is love". That's not an assumption. It's there in black and white. If he loves us then I don't want his love. It seems like the love of a psychopath. I love my cat and I wouldn't let him starve.
>>16911703
We do believe that God is love and that he loves humanity, but we believe that he does so out of his nature, not his obligation.
For example, I believe that God loves you, despite your lack of belief. You have access to the internet, a lovable cat, and presumably food yourself.
If you won't believe, you won't believe. I don't think there are words I could say to change that--only God can change that. Is your reiteratiom of your lack of belief your way of asking me to convince you?
>>16911699
Ohh. Got it, you mean a background check. They do that before applying for a job. I've not seen anyone applying for the god position except Kim Jong-un. Yahwe is a no-show so you don't have to rpove anything.
I'm sure you can ask such a question just like I did: "do fairies exist?" Again, read my explanation for why is not worth believing.
>>16911686
humanity isn't defined as the ability to choose what one thinks and does. if god reaches down and shuts off the part of my brain that experiences misery in all it's forms then i would completely incapable of suffering. there isn't a more "true self" that would retreat into the depths of my consciousness and continue to think about all the negativity im missing out on. i would be changed. i would be a different person than i am now. why is that bad and not good?
>>16911686
How do you solve the mind-body interaction problem?
inb4 monads
>>16911731
Some would describe the process of becoming a Christian in similar terms. If you were to accept God's promise to remove suffering, beginning with you, you would be changed.
You tell me: why is that bad and not good?
>>16911743
monads
>>16911726
So he picks and chooses who he loves? I'm sure starving children don't feel loved by any god.
No, you can't convince me without factual proof. What I'm trying to find out is how someone can still believe in an indoctrinated belief as an adult without factual proof. I'm sure a muslim or a Zoroastrianist would use your same logic to dismiss christianism. Don't you find it weird that a person's religion is almost always geography dependent?
Why is Ted Cruz such a creep? I don't want to vote Trump, Hillary, or Sanders, but Cruz is even less appealing.
>>16911749
Nobody to be taken seriously would ever describe converting to their religion as an experience anything like what I just said.
>>16911761
Trick questions monads means no free will
>>16911679
I'm not OP, but your arguments are illogical.
>you cannot prove or disprove the existence of fairies but it is so improbable that we dismiss that possibility until evidence is provided. We dismiss those ideas, just like you dismiss other deities.
Firstly, it is only "improbable" under your adopted worldview, so you can't just use that as part of your argument when what you're arguing about is your worldview being correct. Just doesn't make sense.
And secondly, that seems pretty hypocritical, doesn't it? Because what about the idea that you should dismiss ideas that cannot be proven by the scientific method, or the idea that something doesn't exist if it isn't provable by the scientific method, or the idea that the scientific method is the only method that should be used to determine the existence or something? All those ideas, can you prove any of them with the scientific method? NO. Yet you believe them, don't you? So isn't that hypocritical?
You might say, but those are principles, not entities, and therefore they need not be proven by the scientific method. But they're still principles you have to choose to believe in. You have no evidence for them. So why can't someone choose to believe in God despite having no evidence?
Basically, you have decided that nothing should be believed to be true unless it is something provable by the scientific method, and this decision makes it impossible to believe in things that are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. But how do you not see the paradox in this—that decision itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. And so is the decision to believe in God. To you, those who believe in God are irrational for believing something science can't prove, yet you yourself believe things science can't prove, namely that nothing exists (or at least, the possibility of its existence should be dismissed) if science can't prove it. How do you scientifically prove that something science can't prove doesn't exist?
>>16911881
It is improbable because of experience. If you've ever been lied to, you know that its better to have proof for peoples claims before accepting them as facts. That's the basis for the scientific method. It's an adopted world view based on experience. And not just my personal experience, it's peer reviewed, replicable and probable experience.
As for your second point. I might have left out something. I meant dismissed as fact, it can still be a valid idea, but it must be treated as such. Not as fact, like most christians preach and try to shove down other's throats.
I treat my beliefs as just that, beliefs. And I state them such when talking about them by explicitly stating that they are my beliefs or opinions.
>>16911908
That was a good response, that made a lot of sense. If you want to adopt a worldview in which you are skeptical of claims which have no scientific proof, then that's fine. Just keep in mind that not everyone wants a worldview based around beliefs reflective of probable experience. And also that it is possible to have a worldview based around beliefs reflective of probable experience that does not accept the modern scientific paradigm as reflective of Truth but instead accepts principles such as that entities unprovable under the modern scientific paradigm can nevertheless exist.
Also:
>>16911679
>We can use the scientific method to prove any known animal exists.
Well no shit we can scientifically prove that any animal which is known exists. I mean, you're not wrong, but you seemed to misunderstand what OP meant by "existential questions." He meant questions about the nature of existence, not questions about whether a KNOWN animal exists.
>>16911728
>Ohh. Got it, you mean a background check.
Haha, very funny, but no, the fact is, you can't answer existential questions with scientific experiments, and if you actually think you can, then I highly recommend taking some more philosophy classes (or just doing some research) so you understand what is meant by "existential" and what the limitations of scientific inquiry are.
>>16911996
Fair enough. I do acknowledge that there are infinite possibilities. I only take issue when they are taken as fact without proof. It lends itself to allowing the bearer of these ideas to control people if the idea promises a reward for believing and horrible horrors for not believing. It creates division and hate among people.
For context about my beliefs, feel free to read this thread I made yesterday
>>16910153
>>16912039
Yeah, that totally makes sense. I grew up in a very Christian community, but fortunately it was a community where I wasn't taught that belief in God was something that should be accepted on the same level as scientific fact or should be accepted without questioning and doubt but rather that it was a personal decision about something that could NOT be proven by science. Many Christians I've come across in my life, which are mostly people from the same denomination and with similar beliefs as me, would actually encourage skepticism and encourage questioning religious beliefs and coming to your own conclusion on what you believe. So that's where I'm coming from, and even though there are a ton of beliefs that most Christians, even most Christians from the denomination I was raised in, hold that I don't believe anymore (like hell, homosexuality being sinful, or the infallibility of the Bible), I still don't think I'll ever reject all spirituality and religion, because at the end of the day, everyone (or almost everyone) does have certain things that they believe in, certain values they hold, and there's nothing inherently wrong with some of those beliefs and values falling outside the realm of science. And that's something you seem to understand, which is very good.
where can i find a nice moral woman on EARTH2016?
>>16912121
Mods! 2 e-beers, please!
