641–649 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that subset of the population also very likely to believe that gambling is haram?
Technically, prediction markets aren't gambling, they're soothsaying, which is a form of witchcraft punishable by death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
_shrug_ Pointing out the lack of precision and accidental aspects of custom in discussing morality is typically used as an excuse for immoral behavior, often personal. Today, I don't view moral certainty as a primary or even secondary moral problem. Instead, I view it our primary moral problem as the idea that: "there are no absolute moral principles." This is a self-contradictory statement, as a moments reflection w…
> Pointing out the lack of precision and accidental aspects of custom in discussing morality is typically used as an excuse for immoral behavior. I guess I just don't see it the same way. When I examine the most immoral acts, I see moral certainty being a necessary component. The Spanish Inquisition: "For the good of their souls." Stalinist purges: "To protect the revolution." U.S. manifest destiny: "To civilize the…
you can dance around The Choice with as many words as you like
“We see then that the two cities were created by two kinds of love: the earthly city was created by self-love reaching the point of contempt of God, the Heavenly City by the love of God carried as far contempt of self."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This assumes belief must be absolute. They may have believed it was 90% likely, 51% likely or even just 10% likely (even a 10% risk of mass death is arguably unacceptable and worth crowing about).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As for signs of the end, a number must happen. Many already happened or are happening. That should worry non-believers while friends of Christ are encouraged. I'm not sure why it should or would worry "non-believers" since by definition they don't believe, therefore ... what would they even have to worry about?
They didnt believe before the signs. God offers the signs as a proof. Also, it should be telling that only one religion even has proof it's true. Then, dominant philosophies of the world continue to do what it predicts, fail like it predicts, and more prophecies get fulfilled. At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word.
Funny how the people who claim this sort of thing are often responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history. It's almost as if they don't actually believe (nor have even read) the words of Christ at all... :shrug:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half the planet either explicitly or implicitly believes in the just world hypothesis and America especially valorizes, empathize s with, and seeks to emulate the rich even when they do nothing to earn their wealth and on average do enormous harm. It is therefore hardly shocking that some fail to see the plain meaning of the language and their confusion needn't imply actual credible controversy. It is pretty clear th…
You have not provided any evidence for your claim that there is no connection between the "christian" saying and the prexisting jewish saying. The schoolars disagree with you that there exists only one single historical intepretation of the saying. You are just reading in what you personally want the text to read. Just like all fundamentalists.
They are again different in meaning with one being that attachment wealth is a barrier to being saved and the other being through god all things are possible. If you believe a plain interpretation of the text is in accurate the onus is on you to prove why and you haven't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didnt believe before the signs. God offers the signs as a proof. Also, it should be telling that only one religion even has proof it's true. Then, dominant philosophies of the world continue to do what it predicts, fail like it predicts, and more prophecies get fulfilled. At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word.
> At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word. Funny how the people who claim this sort of thing are often responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history. It's almost as if they don't actually believe (nor have even read) the words of Christ at all... :shrug:
With all that, I dont know why any of you say things like that given the Bible clearly predicts it. If anything, the atrocities of false Christians and atheists confirms the Bible's assessement of humanity. Whereas, people actually obeying God and loving others dont commit atrocities because it violates His law.
However, atheism, evolutionism, feminism, CRT, capitalism... these all allow many forms of atrocious behavior by design. Atheism combined with Darwinism can justify any evil since there's (a) no objective morals and (b) nothing matters in the long run. Communists torturing Christians used to point that out, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair resolution is the single biggest issue with prediction markets. I don't see how a market resolution based on the occurrence of a supernatural event isn't a problem.
This is Polymarket, not Manifold. It's not "anyone can create a market and can resolve it however they want". Polymarket creates the markets and resolves them, so an unfair resolution could undercut their reputation and hurt their business. People know what "Jesus returning" means and if they interpret it some other way people won't just say "oh well I guess that was technically within the criteria". Again, this is i…
3rd party systems resolve them: https://legacy-docs.polymarket.com/polymarket-+-uma
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good faith attempt to provide insight into good faith questions you shouldn't have been punished for asking: "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 app…
> 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…
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".
I can shed some light on this, maybe - In the year before the 2020 election, a market opened on predictit called "Will Hillary run for president? Yes/No" First this was a reasonable market, but quickly it became obvious she wasn't running (because she repeatedly said she wasn't, there was no campaign created at all, absolutely zero indicators she was running because she wasn't). Predictit allowed a comment section wh…
It’s possible I’m being a jerk, but actually maybe betting services could do a social good: allowing people who believe things despite all reason to incur some small cost to themselves and hopefully course-correct? We can even both-sides this; Hillary fans and people who believe Jesus will come back soon are usually on opposing sides, right?