Re: "1. Christianity (and its branched cults) is literally one of the only religions that claim that you are granted freedom once you are saved."
Did you change the general term "RELIGION" to the specific term "Christianity"?
Re: "2. That's a strawman fallacy"
I did not imply "free will" was granted by religion or Christianity!
Re: "becoming a slave of God"
Why does one have to be a slave to anything? Morality and sin are constructs, meaning you wouldn't know them unless someone proposed them.
Re: "for this is a different kind of slavery"
How many kinds are there?
Also you are "not a slave" if you are exercising your "free will" to conform to a religion, that is surrender or submission to be ruled over by others! And that is assimilation!
Flick7
RE: "It's a strawman fallacy if you use manipulative words like you just did lmao
You replaced free will with freedom Rather, free will already exists and Christ sets you FREE from sin"
This kind of thing can happen in the Bible.
James, for example, says, "faith without works is dead", to which people are saying, "well, he's saying that we are saved by works." He never said that!
Here's the comparison between your accusation and my defense:
My defence: You're telling ME what I mean,
Your attack: I'm also telling HIM what that other guy means
The fallacious thinking that you've found is not really fallicious.
{You think, you heard, what you thought, I said. But you must realise, what you understood, isn't what I meant!}
[OK, now we are getting somewhere!
Who are you to tell anyone what the expressions are of any character in the Bible let alone a god!
You do not have the same knowledge as any of them may have had!]
Yes, we are inferring what people mean in the Bible when they say this.
Your argument doesn't really have much of a base.
What happened between us is that I made an expression and you then misinterpreted it.
(The reason Christians are against Shariah law is because it calls for things that they cannot agree with, like marrying multiple women at the same time and intense Muslim focus.The Bible calls some things in the Quran ridiculous, so how can a Christian accept Muslim law? The Bible also says that homosexuality is evil, so how can they support that either? They can respect other people who are in sin, but that doesn’t mean they can’t disagree with them too.If I was king, I would strongly discourage homosexuality. I don’t think I would completely illegallize it but I would discourage it.)
(You do realise that the existence of gay people is a product of heterosexual activity. Gay people don't make babies without help from the opposite sex!)
(Yes, I am quite aware of that fact. But what does that got to do with the price of corn in Ohio?)
(If all the corn in Ohio was gay it wouldn't regenerate. So by their nature gay people are a dying demographic, its like the Darwin Awards in slow motion!)
If you didn't misinterpret it, I wouldn't have a problem with you interpreting my expression because you'd be interpreting correctly.
I have a problem because I'm saying this, and you're telling me, "no, you're actually saying this..."
{The price of corn in Ohio is a non sequitur, but in terms of homosexuality corn that can't procreate dies off and the same can be said for humans! So I don't think I misinterpreted anything. If the Bible says homosexuality is evil it can only be so if there is another mitigating issue, of which I have not been made aware of. What makes it evil?}
I hope this clears things up because I'm calling it quits on any further comments on this string.
(reference) {response}
Now that's reasonable reasoning.
However, that's like saying that God is at fault for creating animals that can't reason at all, because they're not perfect like he is.
{No not really, if God exists then God is at fault for creating animals, if they can reason is debatable, but we could argue he wanted them that way.}
Giving humans the ability to reason is not a mistake.
{It may be a mistake, I wouldn't know and I don't know how you would}
I can make a little minifigure of me on purpose. But that little minifigure will never be as good as me.
{Give it time we are only at the cloning stage right now.}
God also (at least according to Christianity) made humans good, and they are good, but then came the fall.
{If God considers himself good then those made in his image he would also consider to be good. I would guess}
For your rebuttal of my ask for proof that God is bound by the metaphysical, I don't think you're understanding the argument.
Originally, you claimed that God could be bound by the metaphysical if it exists.
So I responded claiming that God doesn't necessarily need to be bound by the metaphysical if it exists.
Your response is more of a misinterpretation of my counterclaim (and perhaps my counterclaim may be a misinterpretation of your claim).
{I can't believe the metaphysical and/or God exists, because I have not been introduced to any evidence I consider to be reliable. Therefore I lump them together as dependent on each other. Whether they are or not I have no way of knowing. }
It also ignores the rest of my claim, that the universe must be bound by space and time.
{If you look at how we measure time you will come to realise there is no measurement of time without movement of some sort of object or partical, and therefore time is bound to space (distance) and movement (energy).}
