u/Odd_craving

Come on, it must have happened somewhere. I’d love to know if someone ever did this.

It appears that whatever God does becomes instantly moral. I won’t bore anyone with the standard examples. Still, if you’re a Bible-believing Christian you know many situations where God has ordered things that ended lives, caused starvation, and drowned millions. Any one of these would put any of us behind bars for life. And they go against the 10 commandments.

For morality to be objective, there needs to be an objective measure. Morality can’t skip by some and be demanded of others. If God is not held to a moral standard, how can there be an objective morality?

Given the political climate in the US, this crazy idea seems plausible to me. I’d love to know if any SovCit successfully navigated an election and how he/she did with power.

Christianity places God as 100% in control and being 100% perfection.

This means that nothing can occur without God’s knowledge. Satan can’t sneak around God or trick Him, so whatever Satan does God must be allowing it. This would pertain to Satan attempting to trick us and our children.

Even if God simply looks the other way, God is still allowing this.

I’ve never been religious so I’m at a disadvantage in understanding how Creationist Christians argue their position by selectively introducing science. I’m looking for a little guidance.

Obviously, a Creationist will spit venom at science that supports biological evolution or the 4.5 billion year-old earth. But when they think that science supports their worldview, they lead with it. Arguments about the 2nd law of thermo dynamics and fine tuning take up a large part of their pro Christian position.

Many Christians try to get into actual chemistry and genetics when they feel that it strengthens their argument. Did you do this when you were Christian? And if so, what was your justification?

If the supernatural exists and interacts in our lives, where does this force stop being a viable explanation for real life events? The supernatural is daily credited with so many miracles, where would you draw the line?

Example 1) If a relative died and, after weeks of investigation, the police informed you that there was no natural explanation for the death - therefore the police ruled the death to be
supernatural. Would you accept this?

Example 2) Would you accept an arson investigator’s report that your neighbors’ house burned down because of a supernatural event?

Example 3) If your sick spouse was suddenly better, would you accept a hospital’s explanation that your spouse’s recovery was caused by a supernatural event?

The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and modern humans have only existed for about 300,000 years. This means that for 99.99% of the earth’s existence, there were no humans. Do most Christians accept these claims?

If you know a SovCit in your life, PLEASE find a way to pay them in straw man entity contract paper. Design a path where you need to pay them back for some kind of exchange - like pizza or a movie ticket. Anything.

If their commitment to the movement is valid, they should have zero problem with this.

It all falls apart with the first question: “What is your name?” You’d think by now that these legal folk artists would have come up with something (anything) to get past this speed bump, but they still fall apart when asked their name. They have no retort and seem to be caught flatfooted by this question.

The unearned confidence kills me: With few exceptions, SovCits blast their way into their legally incorrect script and display a vulgar entitlement that is based in nothing. It starts at their arraignment where they attempt to claim that their constitutional rights have been trampled, yet nothing has transpired. They loudly try to litigate the case during their first appearance, and this never goes well. They insult the judge, the court staff and demand to represent themselves. However, none of them are prepared to say their name or address.

Don’t they talk to each other?

We’ve heard all of the arguments; “God is like a parent and we are children.” Or “God is reaching out to you. Or “God is testing you.” Or “God is working through you.” These are all relatable and approachable concepts that are designed to make us think that god is a connected deity who takes personal interest (and action) in our lives.

However, if you apply this folksy/worldly kind of god to the real problem areas of life, we’re told that we don’t possess the wisdom or intellect to understand god. This is remarkable case of special pleading that borders on the audacious. I find this strained logic insulting.

We’re not capable of understanding why children get cancer, or why we suffer with things like mental illness or depression. We’re told that we’re not wise enough to understand God’s plan, so let it go. But when it benefits the Christian’s argument, suddenly we’re more than capable of interpreting God’s thoughts and desires.

“God thinks just like me except when I can no longer defend him.”

This “we’re too dumb” rationale bleeds over into questions too. Honest questions that challenge God’s supposed perfection are met with anger and deflection. The questioner is personally attacked instead of just answering the question.

A creator of life and universes should need no protection from questions. Yet Bill on Reddit feels the need to jump to God’s defense and put you in your place for asking questions about biblical slavery or genocide.

Why do we have this odd dichotomy where we’re smart enough to know god when it helps the Christian argument, but too dumb to understand god when it helps the Christian arguments?