• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion Disenfranchises the Will to Act

Nowhere does the Bible state that the rich are condemned. The whole "camel through the eye of a needle" refers to a man-sized gate in the walls of a city. When a city was attacked, the only way in or out of the city was through this gate. In order for a camel to traverse the gate, it would have to unload it's burden and come through on it's knees. A analogy for setting aside what is held as valuable (not doing away with, but making them less important than entering the city) and then submitting (getting down on it's knees).

Interesting. Why did the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 go to hell while the beggar went to heaven? For all we are told, the rich man simply ignored the beggar but he may have provided income and work and charity for others-we don't know. All we know is that the rich man went to hell. And what did the beggar do to get rewarded? He didn't seem to help anyone either. And that forms the anti-wealth social justice theme that fills public policy to this day. (Ironically from people who decry the integration of church and state)
 
Prove it.

We'll start slow, let me know if you want it to stop.

In fact if you displeased god in any way he would smite you without hesitation. This is especially the case in the Old Testament.

What about Adam and Eve? Did they displease God? Did he smite them without hesitation?
 
One of my main qualms with religion is that it is wishy washy, waiting for divine inspiration or guidance to act, and that it takes credit away from your personal achievments. It goes against the will to act. You can force yourself to do something and achieve something great, but the religious are against this personal propelling. Also, to see meaning and destiny in events disenfranchises you from change. They think everything is the will of God, therefore you have to accept it. I find this futile world-view counter-productive. Do we really need added "meaningfulness" in life?

The main goal of religion seems to be to take away your own responsibility for actions, imagining only evil outside forces taking you from the path of religion. In every case they always blame the media or some institution. If I look up documentaries sympathetic to Mexicans crossing the US border, they will say it is brainwashing, whereas in fact I sought out documentaries that provided me with a foregone conclusion I had already made myself, but which I wanted more information on. My will to action provides me with information I want.

I have seen some pretty twisted-logic arguments, but yours is nothing short of dyslexic
 
We'll start slow, let me know if you want it to stop.

Wonderful condescending attitude there, friend.



What about Adam and Eve? Did they displease God? Did he smite them without hesitation?

In the story of Genesis, specifically in the story of Adam and Eve God
  • Threatened Adam & Eve with death for eating from the Tree of Knowledge
  • Punished women with child birth and be sub-servant to their husbands.
  • Banished Adam & Eve from Eden and had the Tree of Life protected by a sword of fire.
  • Oh and then took away their immortality so they could die.

That sounds pretty smitey to me.
 
Wonderful condescending attitude there, friend.





In the story of Genesis, specifically in the story of Adam and Eve God
  • Threatened Adam & Eve with death for eating from the Tree of Knowledge
  • Punished women with child birth and be sub-servant to their husbands.
  • Banished Adam & Eve from Eden and had the Tree of Life protected by a sword of fire.
  • Oh and then took away their immortality so they could die.

That sounds pretty smitey to me.

That's not what you said, friend. You said if anyone displeased God, he would "smite them on the spot".
 
That's not what you said, friend. You said if anyone displeased God, he would "smite them on the spot".

I didn't say 'on the spot' I said he would smite you. He did this with Adam & Eve. Are you attempting to try and use semantics to defend your weak argument?
 
I didn't say 'on the spot' I said he would smite you. He did this with Adam & Eve. Are you attempting to try and use semantics to defend your weak argument?

God has impinged on that free will several times over in the bible. In fact if you displeased god in any way he would smite you without hesitation. This is especially the case in the Old Testament. Hell God even punished and slaughtered people for their unfaltering faith in God.

Okay, you said "without hesitation". Yeah, big difference. :roll:
 
Okay, you said "without hesitation". Yeah, big difference. :roll:

Quit playing the semantics game, it is getting tiring and it isn't helping your position in the least.
 
Quit playing the semantics game, it is getting tiring and it isn't helping your position in the least.

My position doesn't need help. You are obviously not well versed in Scripture. Why don't you just admit it? Or, you could keep digging.
 
My position doesn't need help. You are obviously not well versed in Scripture. Why don't you just admit it? Or, you could keep digging.

Now you're just being dishonest. I clearly have a very strong understanding of the Bible. Meanwhile it seems like your understanding of the book ends at Genesis. Are you honestly unable to admit that you were wrong about scripture?
 
Who says she wanted to go back to a place that was currently burning from fire and sulfur? Their is nothing in the bible that even remotely indicates Lot's wife wanting to return to Sodom. Other than of course turning around to see her home and everything she knew destroyed before her very eyes because God didn't like how the people of Sodom used the free will he gave us.
Reading comprehension is GOOD thing. I said that she wanted to go back to the life she had in Sodom, not that she wanted to go back to Sodom.

Except he couldn't have because God directly influenced the Pharaoh by hardening his heart. Either admit scripture has dictated that god has directly influenced and control man or continue this line of dishonesty.
Again, you ignore the cultural context of the scripture....

So wonderful, we both put in work to understand the bible except unlike yourself I'm not questioning your biblical literacy. However I am questioning the fact that if you have read and studied this bible and seemingly dishonestly try and apologize for God's needlessly cruel actions. In short, God has directly intervened with free will and one could even argue he continues on to this day.
Sorry, but you're wrong. He works to influence us, but He never takes away our ability to choose. Often our choice result in bad things happening, don't blame God for our poor choices, all He does is show us the results of those choices and if we choose badly, occasionally sees to it that we see those consequences happen. You want to blame God for the results of bad choices, but the hard truth is that we are responsible for them.

BTW, I don't think that you have put in the work to understand the Bible. Have you ever studied pre-1st century culture?? Have you ever dug into the original language meanings of the scriptures within that cultural context?? You might think that you have put in the work because you've read the Bible, but unless you take these two critical steps, there is NO way you can accurately understand much of what the Bible says.
 
Interesting. Why did the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 go to hell while the beggar went to heaven? For all we are told, the rich man simply ignored the beggar but he may have provided income and work and charity for others-we don't know. All we know is that the rich man went to hell. And what did the beggar do to get rewarded? He didn't seem to help anyone either. And that forms the anti-wealth social justice theme that fills public policy to this day. (Ironically from people who decry the integration of church and state)

For all we know there were forty righteous rich men sitting alongside the beggar in Paradise and forty unrighteous beggars sitting next to the rich man in Sheol. You can't read into the scriptures what isn't there...
Also, Jesus had rich people following Him as disciples and as the people who helping to fund his efforts. Look at Lydia, a trader in purple cloth. That kind of business was HIGHLY lucrative and the people who owned them were rich. Look at Peter and his brothers, they were rich fishermen. Look at Jesus Himself, He was a carpenter and would have been the best carpenter, a job that paid very well (substantial skillset for that time). Every one of these were people who, in that culture, would have been wealthy.
 
Again, you ignore the cultural context of the scripture....

So there's cultural context to god directly influencing the will of man? What kind of cultural context is needed to completely change what is written in that verse? Was it opposite day when God hardened the heart of a man to make him refuse Moses' demands? Quit being ridiculous.


Sorry, but you're wrong. He works to influence us, but He never takes away our ability to choose.

Except God has taken away our ability to choose. He has punished us many times for not doing the things he wanted us to do. Several times. Exodus, and Genesis are ripe with God coming down and stripping humanity of choice and punishing us for doing things he didn't approve of. There's no argument about that. The only thing you're able to respond with is "Your wrong" without providing any evidence to prove it.

Often our choice result in bad things happening, don't blame God for our poor choices, all He does is show us the results of those choices and if we choose badly, occasionally sees to it that we see those consequences happen. You want to blame God for the results of bad choices, but the hard truth is that we are responsible for them.

You know what this sounds like? You're victim blaming humanity for gods actions. God can literally kill of humanity with a flood and you respond with "Well we had it coming. We shouldn't have been sinners." That is downright Stockholm Syndrome at it's finest. You go ahead and be content believing in a god that willingly cursed, plagued, killed, and destroyed humanity. Just don't sit here and lie about how great of a guy he is.

BTW, I don't think that you have put in the work to understand the Bible. Have you ever studied pre-1st century culture?? Have you ever dug into the original language meanings of the scriptures within that cultural context?? You might think that you have put in the work because you've read the Bible, but unless you take these two critical steps, there is NO way you can accurately understand much of what the Bible says.

This is insulting, I know plenty of pre-first century of Knowledge. World history, and art history are my two strongest areas of knowledge. You can continue on rambling with your stupid semantics bull**** but it doesn't change my depth of knowledge on the Scriptures. Your rabble is becoming tiring at this point.
 
For all we know there were forty righteous rich men sitting alongside the beggar in Paradise and forty unrighteous beggars sitting next to the rich man in Sheol. You can't read into the scriptures what isn't there...
Also, Jesus had rich people following Him as disciples and as the people who helping to fund his efforts. Look at Lydia, a trader in purple cloth. That kind of business was HIGHLY lucrative and the people who owned them were rich. Look at Peter and his brothers, they were rich fishermen. Look at Jesus Himself, He was a carpenter and would have been the best carpenter, a job that paid very well (substantial skillset for that time). Every one of these were people who, in that culture, would have been wealthy.

Thank you. There is another story, believe in Luke, in which the fisherman gives 50% of his catch to the poor. Seems like a 50% tax rate analogy. Meanwhile in Islam the belief is in 1/40th to charity. 2.5%. FWIW. It is my contention that no religion is as anti-wealth, pro-compassion, pro-charity, pro-social justice as Christianity. And it is no surprise that Karl Marx came from a line of rabbis until his family converted to Christianity. Marxism seems like Christian morality minus God. The strong social welfare countries seem to be Christian. No other religion or philosophy seems quite as concerned about these issues.
You are probably right that Christianity is not so much anti-wealth as it is opposed to the lack of compassion for the poor but I don't think that many make that connection. Somehow the idea that you need money and skills to be productive is forgotten and what remains is the believe that wealth is evil in itself.
The prodigal son returns after squandering wealth and is given more wealth. This is not a good message.
 
The point of the prodigal son parable is not about wealth; it's about reconciliation and restoration.
 
Back
Top Bottom