First, we can all see the way we choose to be hypocritical about the instructions of egbon Paul et al.
Second, I came from a super religious home and since I was 12 or 13, the concept of God choosing whom to save has always baffled me. Sometimes, I joke that God has a program in which he slots us in to separate us randomly 😂. Then, after church I'll ask myself; what if I don't get picked? What then happens?
I think I was 17 that fateful day. I was in the bathroom, thinking about the concept of God's salvation. And, I came to realize that the question was not; "do you want to be saved?", but; "are you ready to hand over your independence, your freedoms?" And right there, I knew that my answer was Nada. I read somewhere recently that there was a gene linked to religiosity. I think I'm deficient in that, lmao 😂
You think of God too anthropologically, which defeats the purpose for there being a God.
You seem to have an illusion of freedom and independence based (simply) on the conviction that you possess thus, which is circular. What brought about the rational freedom and independence you suppose to have?
"What if I don't get picked?" thinks about God's predestination in reverse. It's stated clearly that God predestined man before time. Time is linear, we exist in time, God doesn't.
First of all, you said I think about God too anthropologically. I am human. How else would I be able to conceive an idea of God?
For the "what if I don't get picked", it is a strawman because your argument is basically based on my selection of words. What I meant was "what if I wasn't picked?" Poor choice of words on my end, but that is basically what it is. At the end of the day, if God has predetermined existence, what then is the point trying to follow some script?
Now on the idea that I live under an illusion of freedom and independence, I think we need to define terms. Freedom, for me, doesn’t mean total autonomy or the absence of limits. It means the capacity to choose within those limits — to decide what I value, how I act, what I engage with, and what I reject. Yes, we all operate under constraints — physical, psychological, social, even theological. But within those constraints, choices still matter. That’s the space where meaning is made.
Christianity adds its own set of constraints — some of which I find deeply compelling, and others I’m more skeptical about. That tension is part of my reality. I may not have the perfect language to express all of it, but that doesn’t make the questions any less real.
Thinking about God too anthropologically means you are attributing human limitations to God--not that you're conceiving God from merely a human perspective. Asides from natural theology, there is revealed theology as well, which raises the intellect, but not above certain limitations in this life.
How do you accuse someone of strawmanning you and then immediately admit that you misrepresented your own thoughts? How did I misrepresent you?? Was I supposed to pick your mind and know that your very words do not accurately communicate your thoughts?? Don't commit the fallacy of calling out fallacies where there are none.
By your own admission, if you concede that your reason for "abandoning the script" is predicated on a belief (premise) that God predetermined existence, then you are by that very act contradicting your own premise.
It must logically follow from the first premise (I.e., God's predetermination) that God also predetermined you to abandon His predetermination (the script). This is illogical.
My demonstration proves that you obviously do not believe in the first premise.
Christianity is not deterministic. Unless you were raised in a certain faction of Calvinism, which teaches a form of deterministic heresy, then you should know that free will is biblical (Sirach 15:14), and not simply an illusion.
I urge you to revisit your assertions and question the logic behind them.
You're completely out of your depth, Elewa. You're not a theologian, and that's fine, but you're also not even familiar with the basic concepts and it shows.
With due respect, only someone who is completely ignorant to Christian teaching (on grace and justification, sin, etc), but familiar with the elements used in these popular caricatures, would find this stack anything other than absurd.
You're criticising a belief system using standards you have crafted in a vacuum. Your mind has gone off what you consider clever, at the expense of investigating for any internal coherency from liable sources.
This work is particularly bad. It doesn't engage with Christianity, but simply misrepresents it. I enjoy your stacks on socio-political issues, but this? Way out of your depth.
You wrote a lot of words without making an opposing argument. What am I supposed to do with this? Accept that you’re right… because you wrote a lot of words? If I’m wrong, show the inconsistencies, if not there’s no point commenting. Thanks for reading!
I just talked about these nuisance Christianity concept this morning.
You structured this argument in a very good way better than I could have mustered. And evoke more cascade thinking process to more philosophical anomalies of the Christianity concept.
See as Chelsea fans catch stray 😂😂
First, we can all see the way we choose to be hypocritical about the instructions of egbon Paul et al.
Second, I came from a super religious home and since I was 12 or 13, the concept of God choosing whom to save has always baffled me. Sometimes, I joke that God has a program in which he slots us in to separate us randomly 😂. Then, after church I'll ask myself; what if I don't get picked? What then happens?
I think I was 17 that fateful day. I was in the bathroom, thinking about the concept of God's salvation. And, I came to realize that the question was not; "do you want to be saved?", but; "are you ready to hand over your independence, your freedoms?" And right there, I knew that my answer was Nada. I read somewhere recently that there was a gene linked to religiosity. I think I'm deficient in that, lmao 😂
You think of God too anthropologically, which defeats the purpose for there being a God.
You seem to have an illusion of freedom and independence based (simply) on the conviction that you possess thus, which is circular. What brought about the rational freedom and independence you suppose to have?
"What if I don't get picked?" thinks about God's predestination in reverse. It's stated clearly that God predestined man before time. Time is linear, we exist in time, God doesn't.
First of all, you said I think about God too anthropologically. I am human. How else would I be able to conceive an idea of God?
For the "what if I don't get picked", it is a strawman because your argument is basically based on my selection of words. What I meant was "what if I wasn't picked?" Poor choice of words on my end, but that is basically what it is. At the end of the day, if God has predetermined existence, what then is the point trying to follow some script?
Now on the idea that I live under an illusion of freedom and independence, I think we need to define terms. Freedom, for me, doesn’t mean total autonomy or the absence of limits. It means the capacity to choose within those limits — to decide what I value, how I act, what I engage with, and what I reject. Yes, we all operate under constraints — physical, psychological, social, even theological. But within those constraints, choices still matter. That’s the space where meaning is made.
Christianity adds its own set of constraints — some of which I find deeply compelling, and others I’m more skeptical about. That tension is part of my reality. I may not have the perfect language to express all of it, but that doesn’t make the questions any less real.
Thinking about God too anthropologically means you are attributing human limitations to God--not that you're conceiving God from merely a human perspective. Asides from natural theology, there is revealed theology as well, which raises the intellect, but not above certain limitations in this life.
How do you accuse someone of strawmanning you and then immediately admit that you misrepresented your own thoughts? How did I misrepresent you?? Was I supposed to pick your mind and know that your very words do not accurately communicate your thoughts?? Don't commit the fallacy of calling out fallacies where there are none.
By your own admission, if you concede that your reason for "abandoning the script" is predicated on a belief (premise) that God predetermined existence, then you are by that very act contradicting your own premise.
It must logically follow from the first premise (I.e., God's predetermination) that God also predetermined you to abandon His predetermination (the script). This is illogical.
My demonstration proves that you obviously do not believe in the first premise.
Christianity is not deterministic. Unless you were raised in a certain faction of Calvinism, which teaches a form of deterministic heresy, then you should know that free will is biblical (Sirach 15:14), and not simply an illusion.
I urge you to revisit your assertions and question the logic behind them.
I do admit that I misused the strawman label. I will say no more.
profound. a formidable argument. dare i say flawless 'cause it is true. it is pragmatic and it is logical.
the part on the doctrine original sin was so illuminating and purely logical.
and ouch! wetin chelsea fans do you?😂
I was with you till the Chelsea slander. Argument is no longer valid😂
You really are not well-read in this matter of salvation.
You're completely out of your depth, Elewa. You're not a theologian, and that's fine, but you're also not even familiar with the basic concepts and it shows.
With due respect, only someone who is completely ignorant to Christian teaching (on grace and justification, sin, etc), but familiar with the elements used in these popular caricatures, would find this stack anything other than absurd.
You're criticising a belief system using standards you have crafted in a vacuum. Your mind has gone off what you consider clever, at the expense of investigating for any internal coherency from liable sources.
This work is particularly bad. It doesn't engage with Christianity, but simply misrepresents it. I enjoy your stacks on socio-political issues, but this? Way out of your depth.
You wrote a lot of words without making an opposing argument. What am I supposed to do with this? Accept that you’re right… because you wrote a lot of words? If I’m wrong, show the inconsistencies, if not there’s no point commenting. Thanks for reading!
You have misread my comment, confusing my critique of your methods for an attempted refutation of your argument(s).
I'm simply telling you that you're getting the whole thing wrong, since you're "out of your depth."
A comment on substack can not in anyway due to its limitations afford me the medium I'll require to demonstrate how your arguments are built on straw.
I just talked about these nuisance Christianity concept this morning.
You structured this argument in a very good way better than I could have mustered. And evoke more cascade thinking process to more philosophical anomalies of the Christianity concept.