#Christianity

Don’t you know… that belief is a doubt? It sounds paradoxical, yet it reminds us that to believe—whether in a deity, a cause, or even the reliability of science—requires an element of uncertainty. We embrace convictions based on evidence, experience, and intuition, but we cannot confirm every dimension of reality with absolute certainty. Even a commitment to not believing in a higher power rests on weighing available evidence and concluding that a deity is unlikely. This subtle admission of “I could be wrong” is what keeps us humble, curious, and open to growth.

Yet, uncertainty need not terrify us; in fact, it can unite us. Whether you define yourself as atheist, agnostic, or a believer, there’s a universal desire to seek the truth, understand our place in the world, and live meaningfully. It is through questioning—acknowledging the gap between what we know and what remains unknown—that we find common ground. Rather than set us apart, doubt can be the starting point for genuine conversations, encouraging cooperation, compassion, and a shared search for insight. In that search, we learn not only facts about the cosmos but also deeper truths about compassion, empathy, and the power of human connection. Faith communities sometimes speak of “faith seeking understanding,” but this concept isn’t exclusive to religion. In every sphere—science, philosophy, or daily life—our convictions emerge from a process of testing ideas, encountering challenges, and refining what we hold to be true. In that sense, the essence of belief, grounded in questioning, is something we all share. May this acknowledgment inspire us to reach across divides, learn from each other’s perspectives, and channel our uncertainties into building a more understanding, compassionate society.

Following from this guidance, I would like to dedicate today's post solely to answering questions. To all comfortable opening up, feel free to ask any questions about the Catholic faith. Though I may not be perfect, I will definitely try to answer your questions genuinely and wholeheartedly.

Today's question is the following: "Do animals have free will? If not, what is free will defined as? If so, can they sin, and did Jesus die for them as well?" Before answering the question, it's important to understand what free will actually entails. Free will is the God-given ability of human beings to choose freely between good and evil, enabling them to act voluntarily according to their reason and conscience.

Animals do not have free will the way humans do; they lack the capacity for moral reasoning, which are necessary for true free will. Just because animals are unable to make moral decisions does not mean they are not intelligent. Some animals are remarkably intelligent, exhibiting problem-solving, communication, and even emotional behaviors. However, their intelligence is fundamentally different from the rationality of humans. Animals operate according to instinct and learned behaviors, which can sometimes appear highly sophisticated. Yet, they do not possess the spiritual, immortal soul that allows humans to engage in moral reasoning or to know and love God in a conscious, voluntary way. Consequently, sin requires moral responsibility, which comes from the exercise of free will and rational intellect. Sin is a deliberate offense against God, requiring knowledge of the act's moral character and the freedom to choose it. Since animals lack rational souls, they are incapable of making such moral judgments or deliberately disobeying God. Their actions, even when they might cause harm, are not morally imputable.

So, we know they are unable to sin, but did Jesus still die for them? Jesus died specifically to redeem humanity from sin and reconcile us with God, as only humans, made in God's image, are capable of sin and moral responsibility. However, His sacrifice also has cosmic significance, as all creation, affected by sin's disorder, awaits renewal. Through Christ's death and resurrection, not only humanity but all creation will one day be restored to its original harmony and freed from corruption. In this sense, animals and the rest of creation are included in the redemptive plan of God—not because they sin or need salvation in the same way humans do, but because they are part of the created order that will one day be restored to its original harmony.

Animals cannot sin, but Jesus still died for them (in a sense). It seems these truths are converging to one essential question: Will we see animals in heaven? Or more specifically, will we see our pets in heaven? This question is not definitively answered by Church teaching, but there are theological reflections that provide hope and insight. Animals, as part of God's creation, reflect His glory and goodness (Genesis 1:25, Psalm 104). While they do not have immortal souls like humans, who are destined for eternal union with God, the renewal of all creation in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1, Romans 8:21) suggests that animals may share in this restored order. This is not because they require salvation but because they are part of the beauty and harmony of God's plan. For those who have beloved pets (including myself), it is reasonable to hope that God's infinite love and the joy of heaven might include a way for that love to be fulfilled. Heaven is the perfect fulfillment of all good desires aligned with God's will, and if our pets are part of what would contribute to that joy in God's perfect design, we can trust in His generosity and providence. While we cannot say with certainty that we will see our pets in heaven, we trust in God's goodness, knowing that all things will be made new and complete in Him.

Thank you to everybody who has read this week's Sunday School. I have formulated this post in a rather tired state, so I apologize if anything is unclear or confusing. If this is the case, please address me in the comments. Regardless, I hope it was an interesting read, and I encourouge all readers to continue their persuit of truth!

Today's question is the following: "Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins which only continue to multiply when he could have removed sin once and for all?" This is a brilliant question asked by @Shila. Before addressing it, readers must understand the basic principles of Christianity. For those fairly versed in the faith, feel free to skip to the next section. However, for those who do not know much about Christianity, I encourage you to continue reading here.

God has given humans a "code of conduct" which we are called to follow, a set of rules. For example, He tells us not to murder or steal (Exodus 20:13-15). A sin is deviance from these laws and an offense against God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) defines sin as the following: "Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."" (CCC 1849). Sin is not just breaking a rule—it is a rupture in our relationship with God, who is the source of life itself. This separation from God naturally results in death, both physical and spiritual. As St. Paul says: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23).

As a general rule of thumb, everyone has sinned at one point or another. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ, who is God Himself, chose to take on the punishment  Himself to atone for the sins you and I have commited.

Now that we understand the basic framework of Christianity, we can begin to tackle the question more intimately. To remind all readers, the question posed was "Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins which only continue to multiply when he could have removed sin once and for all?"

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the question above. We must understand the nature of God. God is infinitely just: "The Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he" (Deuteronomy 32:4; cf. Psalm 7:11).  Because God is infinitely just, it is against His nature to simply "remove sin" without just consequences. Furthermore, in order to "remove sin once and for all," God would need to remove what makes us different: our free will. It is our free will that enables us to choose to sin or choose to uphold God's commandments. God gave us free will as a result of love. God created us for love, and love cannot exist without freedom. To love God, we must be free to choose Him rather than being forced. God knew that free will would allow for the possibility of sin because humans could misuse their freedom by choosing against Him. This is what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, the alternative—creating beings incapable of moral choice—would negate the possibility of love and virtue. God deemed it better to create beings with the capacity for both great good and great evil than to create beings without the capacity for choice. St. Augustine addressed this when he wrote: "For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist" (Enchiridion, Chapter 8).

To answer the second part of the question ("Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins?"), we need to understand a crucial concept. The question is framed very ambiguously. Specifically when it states "Why did God send Jesus." I find that this presupposes that Jesus is not God Himself. A better phrasing would be, "Why did God the Father send God the Son to die for our sins?" This delves within the dogma of the Holy Trinity, the teaching that there are three distinct Persons within the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who are all God but not each other. In order to preemtively address confusion, allow me to give an analogy to visualize this concept. The Trinity is like the sun: God the Father is like the sun itself, Jesus is like the light that illuminates the sun and creation, and the Holy Spirit is like the heat from the sun which warms and affects creation. However, this analogy could be interpreted to be heretical (Arianism), as it could be said that the light and heat are bi-products or creations from the sun. In the end, all analogies, metaphors, and illustrations break down. There is no 1:1 comparison with a triune God. All analogies fall short because the Trinity is a divine mystery.

In summary, the question "Why did God send Jesus to die for our sins which only continue to multiply when he could have removed sin once and for all?" is ultimately a question about love. God gave us free will out of love, knowing it would make sin possible but also make true love achievable. In His infinite mercy and justice, God did not abandon us to the consequences of sin but entered into our brokenness through Jesus Christ. The Cross is the ultimate expression of divine love—a love so profound that Jesus bore the penalty of sin to restore our relationship with Him. Though sin still exists, God offers us the grace to overcome it, inviting each of us into a loving, eternal communion with Him. He desperately wants this love to be reciprocated, and I invite all readers to reflect on God's infinite love. Even if you were the only person to have ever sinned, He would still sacrifice Himself in order to free you from the penalty of sin.

This marks this end of the first Sunday School. Thanks to all readers for bearing with me until the end. I would appreciate feedback in the comments to understand what I could imrpove on next week. If there are any questions regarding the explenations, feel free to address me in the comments.

How can one be happy when they know that their loved ones are engulfed in burning agony in hell? If you were to be happy in heaven, you would have to not be you.

Christians like to say that the whole "burning in hell" stuff is all a metaphor, but if everything that gives Christians an issues is a metaphor, then that gives some credibility issues to everything else.

I think everyone knows that Israel is technically commiting genocide on Palestinians. It doesnt matter how evil muslims are, there is no justification for that so I'm not going to discuss it here. 

What I want to put into discussion, though, is the way Christians approach to this topic. This is what you're going to see all over the Internet, Christians cheering the jews to keep up with this butchery instead of condemning such horrible attacks only because both religions share the same "God" and some beliefs, but when it comes to other religions all of a sudden they start to remember there are human rights. 

I dont know about you but this is called double standard wherever you are. That's why I always say that religion and politics resemble one another, they suck.

I have a few topic ideas I'd like to explore in a new debate and would love to hear your thoughts, as you'll likely be the ones reading it. I wouldn't want people to read a boring debate, so feel free to share your thoughts. Please feel free to comment below if you'd like to participate in any of these topics or if you have any suggestions for new ones.

I'll list the topics in order from "most common/least interesting" to "least common/most interesting," based on how familiar I think people might be with them. By "most common," I mean topics that are often debated and may feel overdone, like an overplayed song. I'd prefer to avoid familiar topics if everyone already knows them well.

What questions would you need answers to if you were to convert to Christianity? 

This questions is mainly for use CatholicApologetics, though it would be great it anyone else wanted to contribute their opinion.

Grated, there is evidence for Christianity and the resurrection, but the Bible also has some pretty sexist things, as well as some messed up stuff about slavery, unbelievable stories about Noah's ark, and about the universe popping into existence, which has no scientific evidence, or how a loving god sends people to eternal suffering for being raised in a Muslim family. Not to mention all of the contradictions.

These are the main things that lead me away from the church.

The question is, how much of the bible do you think is the actual word of god, and how much of it do you think is flawed by the workings of man?

I like to pick somebody's brain on this.

Somebody that's well versed or has a good understanding on the trinity doctrine.

I just have some questions. The way I titled this I put in that order intentionally.

Everybody that knows a thing or two real well about this, participate.

This forum is meant to continue the interruptive discussion left off in the forum "Everything about Buddhism," specifically between me and Mr.BrotherD.Thomas.

I would normally post my positive environment guideline below, but since none of the mods are concerned with enforcing site policies for Mr.BrotherD.Thomas (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913-everything-about-buddhism), I can only ask each person is not the root of negativity.

Starting off with my last comment: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9913/posts/411271

I've been watching a meeting about UFOs held by the NASA a while back and it certainly made me meditate on the implications of the extraterrestrial life confirmation for religions in the near future, specially for christianity which is the dominant religion in the western society.

The NASA didn't confirmed anything yet but they promised to investigate more so to give a convincing explanation for that phenomenon, even though we all know that alien life is almost a reality from every point of view. As a matter of fact, the Vatican has already been ahead of the curve in discussing about the subject, maybe knowing that it would have deep implications on the number of  church $$$ memberships $$$.

As to the way this discovery would impact on christianity, it's well known that there are lot of biblical passages that suggest the participation of extraterrestrial beings in the jewish history in which they are confused with angels and even with God. For example, according to the bible the prophet Elijah was taken to heaven by a "chariot of fire", but who knows if this wasn't a chariot but an alien aircraft or UFO as we know it today and Elijah was in fact abducted?

So, most of the nonsensical stories in the bible could be explained by the intervention of an alien civilization in the fate of the earth. It's also said that aliens are actually more evolved human beings that did put the human seed in this planet and once in a while they come over to see how we're getting on. Being said that, there is no need of religions.

What do you think? Is Christianity in danger?

Firstable, I would like to remark I'm not a believer nor an atheist, but an agnostic, and as such I am open minded to any teaching that really makes sense. You all might understand then why I criticize christianity so fiercely, because it doesnt make sense at all nowadays. So, having that cleared up, let's get down to business.

According to the latest research, Christianity is severely on the decline as it is depicted in the following link.

On the other side, new age movement seems to be gaining more followers around the world thanks to the internet and of course to christian flaws and nonsense found in the bible. By the way, the new age movement is not a religion but a set of beliefs based on eastern religions like budhism or hinduism, which teach stuff like meditation, yoga, karma, reincarnation, and the like. If you check the following link, you'll see these beliefs are embraced by believers as well as non-believers, which is very telling.

As far as I'm concerned, these new age beliefs make more sense than christianity. In fact, I think some of these beliefs do make sense of christianity itself since it has been theorized that Jesus went to the middle east to learn about spirituality. So, what there is in the new testament -and perhaps the OT as well- is very likely a misinterpretation of what Jesus really taught to their disciples.

Then, I ask: Do you think christianity is going to be displaced by this movement or this movement is going to reshape christianity so it gets more sensical?

XX

XY

stop. just stop and think, very very hard.

Which is the default you as a creator would generate in chromosomes?

XX same, nothing new needs to be invented, this being can reproduce automatically via its womb or equivalent and needs no additional being to handle its dualistic chromosomal nature.

XY... competes hardcore to get to reproduce with XX, serves to be disposable meatshield during war and at other times puts in the work hunting and gathering. Can't feel orgasm nearly as deep and well as XX can. Organ is blatantly designed for entry to XX's organ but the reverse is not at all the case, it was built around bearing a child and exit strategy.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmm

which was made for which?

try detectives, let's get it going!!!!!

- First of all, anybody I used to know still lurking around here?

- It seems nobody wants to debate me despite my soliciting efforts... I've been away a couple of years, & I've already noticed a huge change of attitudes. Regardless, this is a debate website, so let's get debating. I am Muslim, cultivated in an Islamic Tradition, my primary interest for debate. I realize most here have an aversion towards debating Islam related topics, maybe this post will make it a little bit more compelling. Although I'm interested in debating any Islam related topics (religion, theology, history, law, philosophy...etc), this is an initial list of ideas:

General:

God Is (God, as defined in the Islamic tradition of course)

Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet

The Quran is faithfully preserved

The Quran is a true revelation

Islam is a religion of peace

The Hadith tradition is genuine

Christianity vs. Islam:

Tawhid vs. Trinity

Quran vs. Bible preservation

Quran vs. NT preservation

Truth of Quran vs. Bible

Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories

Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets

Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity

Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity

Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity

Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity

Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity

History of Muslims vs. Christians

Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity

Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests

Secularism vs. Islam:

Islamic state vs. Secular state

Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism

Islamic education vs. Secular education

Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics

Islamic history vs. Secular history

Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism

Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism

Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests

Hard challenges (for me):

The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history

Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history

The Belt & Road project is good

The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state

- I might think of more to add later... Lemme know if you'd like to chip in, I am open to new topics as well. 

Three corners, all-seeing eye in the middle.

This is how and why there were three iterations. It explains every plothole including the problem of evil since the god has three personalities.

RELIGION POLL #1: What is the best argument for/against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and why?

Feel free to discuss below. I have been doing a lot of research into the matter recently. 

When horrific acts are done by people who claimed, carried out traditions and see/saw themselves as members of a religion, often what is done by the politically correct media is to sympathise with the religious group and encourage peace by denouncing those people away from being considered genuine members of the religious group.

This goes for literally any incident or scandal you can think of, I am not just talking about the horrific acts that make the headlines.

The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?

To make it very clear what I am saying and the contradiction happening, I will explain it as an either/or statement.

The evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'

The not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.

The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?

The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct. Even more disturbing is the fact that things like circumcision and animal abuse involved with many Islamic, Satanic and Wiccan sacrificial festivals are actually completely contradictory since we should be disqualifying them as they're justifying mutilation in the name of their religion. We actually did this with Muslims who endorsed (and a select minority still endorse) female circumcision, as well as many other examples such as what Christians used to do to suspected 'witches'. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has recently begun to cave into international pressure to move away from the strictly sexist elements of its Sharia Law, legalising women to drive and compete in the Olympics. Women are made to be pure subjects of men in the Qur'an, although it's true to say that in Islamic history there have been fierce female empresses and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular there have been female politicians who actively have been in charge of taming and handling negotiations with the Taliban.

The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.

Well, that should be incendiary enough to get a discussion going on between Christians.

Basically I want you to put forth one argument as to why you believe the above to be false, and we'll try to flesh it out in an adversarial but fraternal manner.

Suppose that when the Romans started persecuting the Christians, they actually managed to eliminate every single Christian and their ideology. How would history evolve from there? 

A few things off the top of my head.

The schism between East and West Roman Empire would not have occurred, or at least, not for the same reason. 

Europe would be primarily a polytheistic culture adopting new gods to its panteon as it encountered other religions.

It seems there is multiple users here who have a mental illness, who are very vocal Christian's or spiritual in some other respect. 

 

I am not referring to mental illness such as depression, but ones where there are some clear problems with grasping reality. Should religious institutions be required to provide free psychological evaluations to new converts, to see if it was an honest conversion or just the result of some disorder that causes delusions?