Is God... PG Version

[GwJ]

Theists troll themselves bro.

And I'm not lying, I can upload a picture of the book. It still sucks.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Shh, go and exegete a book of Scripture - then we'll listen to your opinion on theology.

Now where have I seen this before. Hm.

Nicholas, I'm actually Reading a case for faith right now. I picked it up at my parish library.

It sucks.

Theists troll themselves bro.

And I'm not lying, I can upload a picture of the book. It still sucks.

Whether the book sucks or doesn't suck does not change the fact that you are contributing jack to this thread.

 

[GwJ]

There's no way TO contribute. Whatever anyone says won't change a theist's perspective.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Tell me something, GwJumpman. Is there anything I could say that would change your perspective or are you just being hypocritical?

 

[1048576]

Design an experiment with an outcome that would prove God false. If we repeat he experiment 1000 times and it gives evidence for God everytime, then sure that's enough for me. After all, I believe in evolution and gravity.

Of course, you'd have to give God some tangible characteristics first.

 

[GwJ]

Lol i would probably need to see the second coming of christ for me to believe.

 

[ballin4life]

*sigh* A Case for Faith (spiritual sequel to A Case for Christ, except it deals with moral rather than historical objections to God) is recommended reading here. The sticking point is that it is impossible for God to create a man with both the capacity of love, and without the possibility of sin. And here's why.

Sin, at its root, is disobeying God. If we take away the chance of that, then man has no choice BUT to obey God. Free will, and therefore love is no longer in the equation. And what's the point of making that?

Therefore, in order to give us meaningful life, there has to be potential for sin. And sad as it is, Adam and Eve did sin back in the garden.

This is not the case at all. There are things you can do that are not sins, yet also not obeying God. They are neutral. Eating an apple isn't a sin, but it also isn't like I am glorifying God when I do it.

Also, there are often multiple ways you can obey God. So removing the ability to sin is not removing free will.

But anyway, that point is not really what we were talking about. When God initially created Adam and Eve, he knew that they would sin. He could have just killed that snake, or made Adam and Eve less susceptible to temptations, or whatever. What is the point in making humans if you know that the first 2 are going to sin and apparently taint the rest of humankind forever? Why would God make such an imperfect invention?

Regarding benevolence: This mess is entirely our fault. Think of the sin-free relationship between man and God as a priceless antique that we broke, and now have to pay for. God could easily just go (as I imagine many of us would) "This mess is your fault, have fun on the fallen world you've created." However, instead God took it upon himself to fix it, by sending his Son to take the penalty for our sins by living a perfect life, dying on the cross, and descending into Hell. However, since he was sinless, satan couldn't hold Him.

This is some pretty epic racism. I didn't break a damn thing. I don't see why I deserve to be punished for other people's sins.

@Cheap peach
If you're going to call me a liar, you'd better have some good reasoning behind it. (I'm pretty sure the example I gave came from A Case for Fatih, which is a reliable source as far as I'm concerned.) Also, if I gave you 30$, Ballin 70$, but didn't give Ballistic a thing, how is that NOT benevolent? God doesn't owe us anything. He'd be perfectly justified in just telling us to go to Hell as punishment for our crimes. The fact that he sent Christ to die for us proves that he's benevolent.

It's pretty ****ed up if you also say "you need $50 to get into heaven, otherwise you're going to burn in hell forever" and you also have an infinite supply of money.

Again, I didn't commit any crimes. Why I should be punished for other people's sins is beyond me.

Regarding the poor little african that you guys are all so worried about... the Bible teaches that God will take his ignorance into account at the final judgement. I can't find the reference right now (I'm sure it's in the 4 gospels though), but to paraphrase: the servant aware of the wrong he did will be beaten with many stripes, but the servant who unknowingly did wrong will be beaten with few.

Why should he be beaten with any?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

since the last point Ballin made was kind of unclear, I'll reiterate.

God defines what is wrong, yet the servant who did "wrong" was never told of his definition. God had the ability to tell him he was wrong as well as the ability to stop him from doing "wrong." Yet in the afterlife God will punish the servant for doing wrong. Is this just? It must be, because God also defines what is "just."

Honestly the whole debate becomes senseless whe you don't have set definitions.

 

[_Keno_]

@Cheap peach
If you're going to call me a liar, you'd better have some good reasoning behind it. (I'm pretty sure the example I gave came from A Case for Fatih, which is a reliable source as far as I'm concerned.) Also, if I gave you 30$, Ballin 70$, but didn't give Ballistic a thing, how is that NOT benevolent? God doesn't owe us anything. He'd be perfectly justified in just telling us to go to Hell as punishment for our crimes. The fact that he sent Christ to die for us proves that he's benevolent..

umm, you just said "I've heard some stories about people becoming Christian by themselves...," not "I know of examples where a person became Christian by himself/herself..." I responded "those are nothing more than stories." I dont see how calling you out on vague references to things that dont actually exist is calling you a liar.
If you can find some examples, sure, show us all. However, if you think there are some in your book or on websites, please remember that people can blatantly lie in both of those (though they very well could be true, I just don't think they would be.)

*sigh* A Case for Faith (spiritual sequel to A Case for Christ, except it deals with moral rather than historical objections to God) is recommended reading here. The sticking point is that it is impossible for God to create a man with both the capacity of love, and without the possibility of sin. And here's why.

Sin, at its root, is disobeying God. If we take away the chance of that, then man has no choice BUT to obey God. Free will, and therefore love is no longer in the equation. And what's the point of making that?

Therefore, in order to give us meaningful life, there has to be potential for sin. And sad as it is, Adam and Eve did sin back in the garden.

Regarding benevolence: This mess is entirely our fault. Think of the sin-free relationship between man and God as a priceless antique that we broke, and now have to pay for. God could easily just go (as I imagine many of us would) "This mess is your fault, have fun on the fallen world you've created." However, instead God took it upon himself to fix it, by sending his Son to take the penalty for our sins by living a perfect life, dying on the cross, and descending into Hell. However, since he was sinless, satan couldn't hold Him.

How is there no free will if there is no sin? If I go to the ice cream store, and they are all out of the flavors that I hate, I can still choose between the good flavors, right? Choice would definitely still exist.

And no, the scenario in Genesis is not our fault at all. God created Adam and Eve knowing that they were too stupid/greedy, and knew that they would sin. He could have easily created us differently.

 

[GwJ]

Maybe god created us from one of those prepackaged deals. Maybe he couldn't really find a good deal and was like "Whatever yo".

 

[Nicholas1024]

This is not the case at all. There are things you can do that are not sins, yet also not obeying God. They are neutral. Eating an apple isn't a sin, but it also isn't like I am glorifying God when I do it.

Also, there are often multiple ways you can obey God. So removing the ability to sin is not removing free will.

It removes the ability for us to choose between living under God, or living apart from God. That is the important distinction in play here.

But anyway, that point is not really what we were talking about. When God initially created Adam and Eve, he knew that they would sin. He could have just killed that snake, or made Adam and Eve less susceptible to temptations, or whatever. What is the point in making humans if you know that the first 2 are going to sin and apparently taint the rest of humankind forever? Why would God make such an imperfect invention?

The reason God doesn't shield us from temptation is that it's a necessary step for us to grow spiritually. You see the same principle at work with the physical body. In order to build strength, you need to test your muscles and strain them via working out. However, you become a little stronger with every workout and temptation conquered.

This is some pretty epic racism. I didn't break a damn thing. I don't see why I deserve to be punished for other people's sins.



It's pretty ****ed up if you also say "you need $50 to get into heaven, otherwise you're going to burn in hell forever" and you also have an infinite supply of money.

Again, I didn't commit any crimes. Why I should be punished for other people's sins is beyond me.

This is where you go wrong. Have you ever told a lie? That would make you a liar. Have you ever stolen something, regardless of how small? Add thievery to the list. Have you ever hated someone, even momentarily wanting them dead? That would make you a murderer at heart. Can you still say "I didn't commit any crimes"?

Why should he be beaten with any?

Suppose you were a jury member judging a murder. All the evidence points to the suspect having beaten the victim to death over some trivial dispute. However, the suspect's defense is that he only just arrived in America, and comes from a remote African tribe where such behavior is not only allowed, but encouraged. Since he had no knowledge of the law here, he claims he should be let off free. How would you judge him?

 

[_Keno_]

It removes the ability for us to choose between living under God, or living apart from God. That is the important distinction in play here.

I dont see why this is remotely important. Even if it was important, why didnt he just create a species that always prefered living with God over living without God? The choice would still always be there, we would just seldom choose it.
And are you saying that sin is necessary? Why couldn't God just create a world of benevolent creatures? Why is it that a person's ability to sin is so good, when sin itself is so bad?

How would you judge him?

All I'll say is that evil actions require evil intentions.

 

[1048576]

Suppose you were a jury member judging a murder. All the evidence points to the suspect having beaten the victim to death over some trivial dispute. However, the suspect's defense is that he only just arrived in America, and comes from a remote African tribe where such behavior is not only allowed, but encouraged. Since he had no knowledge of the law here, he claims he should be let off free. How would you judge him?

Just want to point out that it's a horrible analogy since everyone knows that different regions have different customs, so it's expected (and required by law) that the guy do his research before he comes here. A better analogy would be how would you punish a baby who accidentally its mom.

Also, unlike murder laws in the US, God isn't exactly trying to make himself known to us. We only have 5 senses. There's literally no evidence. Renaissance > Dark Ages. etc...

 

[ballin4life]

It removes the ability for us to choose between living under God, or living apart from God. That is the important distinction in play here.

I don't understand why this matters at all. You said people lose free will and the ability to love. They wouldn't actually lose free will if God made them so that they wouldn't sin. They would still have the choice to sin, but choose not to.

In fact, half your argument relies on this distinction, because I can just claim that I should go to heaven because God forced me to sin. But you would say "no you had the free will to choose something else".

So why would God make humans that he knew would sin? By your very definition of sin this is a contradiction, since sinning is "going against the will of God". God therefore created something knowing that it would go against the will of God.

The reason God doesn't shield us from temptation is that it's a necessary step for us to grow spiritually. You see the same principle at work with the physical body. In order to build strength, you need to test your muscles and strain them via working out. However, you become a little stronger with every workout and temptation conquered.

This makes sense once humans have already been created. But why would God need to create humans that need to grow spiritually when he could have created perfect humans from the beginning?

This is where you go wrong. Have you ever told a lie? That would make you a liar. Have you ever stolen something, regardless of how small? Add thievery to the list. Have you ever hated someone, even momentarily wanting them dead? That would make you a murderer at heart. Can you still say "I didn't commit any crimes"?

Massive, massive goalpost shift here. You say that everything is "our fault" and that we deserve all our problems. In fact, here is a good quote from your post:

He'd be perfectly justified in just telling us to go to Hell as punishment for our crimes.

Really? You're saying that all humans ("us") should go to hell, regardless of what sins each individual might have committed. Once again, you're saying that I should be punished for other people's sins.

Even if we accept your goalpost shift, do you really think I deserve to go to hell for lying (I don't think lying is morally wrong by itself), stealing something small, or even just hating someone (thoughtcrime much?)?

And yes, I can still say "I didn't commit any crimes" regardless, because I have not ever done something that would really make me deserve to go to hell, or even jail.

Honestly, I can even ask why God gets to judge everyone according to his rules. Just because he has the power to send people to hell, that means that he gets to be the ultimate decision maker on what is right or wrong? That seems like awful logic. That's like saying that Stalin gets to decide what's right and wrong because he has the power to send people to the Gulags.

Suppose you were a jury member judging a murder. All the evidence points to the suspect having beaten the victim to death over some trivial dispute. However, the suspect's defense is that he only just arrived in America, and comes from a remote African tribe where such behavior is not only allowed, but encouraged. Since he had no knowledge of the law here, he claims he should be let off free. How would you judge him?

There's a big difference between killing someone and not going to church or knowing about Christianity. It's a huge huge strech to say "oh but he didn't KNOW that killing was wrong".

In fact, one could say that your murderer at least had the opportunity to not kill the other person, whereas someone who has never heard of Christianity never even has an opportunity to convert.

 

[jaswa]

Good post Ballin, theists have never thought of these things (and don't have a reform of theology agreeing with most of you) and don't have refutes to it either.

Ugh, seriously stop talking about stuff you don't know about.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I don't understand why this matters at all. You said people lose free will and the ability to love. They wouldn't actually lose free will if God made them so that they wouldn't sin. They would still have the choice to sin, but choose not to.

In fact, half your argument relies on this distinction, because I can just claim that I should go to heaven because God forced me to sin. But you would say "no you had the free will to choose something else".

So why would God make humans that he knew would sin? By your very definition of sin this is a contradiction, since sinning is "going against the will of God". God therefore created something knowing that it would go against the will of God.

What do you mean, "made them so they wouldn't sin"? Make it such that they'd never do the thing the temptation does anyway? That would mean they'd never grow spiritually, as the temptation isn't actually... tempting.

That argument isn't valid. God never forced you to sin in any way, shape, or form. The most you could claim is, "If God hadn't created me this way, I never could have sinned!". However, that's like the murderer who said "Judge, if my partner hadn't smuggled in a gun, I never could have killed those 35 people!" You're still guilty.

Because, He had a plan to redeem us, and decided that it was worth it in the end. Christ's cross tells the story there.

This makes sense once humans have already been created. But why would God need to create humans that need to grow spiritually when he could have created perfect humans from the beginning?

It's not something that just goes on for X amount of time and then stops. We always have room to grow spiritually, so conquering temptation is still necessary.

Massive, massive goalpost shift here. You say that everything is "our fault" and that we deserve all our problems. In fact, here is a good quote from your post:



Really? You're saying that all humans ("us") should go to hell, regardless of what sins each individual might have committed. Once again, you're saying that I should be punished for other people's sins.

Even if we accept your goalpost shift, do you really think I deserve to go to hell for lying (I don't think lying is morally wrong by itself), stealing something small, or even just hating someone (thoughtcrime much?)?

And yes, I can still say "I didn't commit any crimes" regardless, because I have not ever done something that would really make me deserve to go to hell, or even jail.

No, I'm not. I'm saying each member of humankind individually has committed enough sins to go to Hell. And yes, you deserve to go to Hell for lying, stealing, or just hating someone. That is the standard that God has set, so that is what you'll be judged by. Those acts you have committed might not be crimes here on earth, but that's not going to save you when God judges you.

By the way, how do you give a standard for whether God's actions are "right" or "wrong"? I thought you said (in the "atheism and morality" thread) that all morality was subjective, and that no one type of morality was superior to another.

Honestly, I can even ask why God gets to judge everyone according to his rules. Just because he has the power to send people to hell, that means that he gets to be the ultimate decision maker on what is right or wrong? That seems like awful logic. That's like saying that Stalin gets to decide what's right and wrong because he has the power to send people to the Gulags.

Tell me, when you go over to someone's house/property/website/whatever, do you follow their rules and requests? The vast majority of us would, and the reason would be because it's their stuff we're dealing with, so they get to make the rules about it. Similarly, since God made the universe (not to mention us), heaven and hell, don't you think it's reasonable for him to set the standards of admission?

There's a big difference between killing someone and not going to church or knowing about Christianity. It's a huge huge strech to say "oh but he didn't KNOW that killing was wrong".

In fact, one could say that your murderer at least had the opportunity to not kill the other person, whereas someone who has never heard of Christianity never even has an opportunity to convert.

You dodged the point. My question is, "Is ignorance of the law a valid excuse?" The crimes are different in scale, but the issue is the same.


@jaswa
Please tell me the first sentence of that post was sarcastic. (I have trouble telling over the internet.)

 

[GwJ]

Nicholas, youre dodging one of ballin's questions: why did god make such disobedient, evil humans? Why didnt he just make us right to begin with?

 

[jaswa]

Please tell me the first sentence of that post was sarcastic. (I have trouble telling over the internet.)

Yes I was being sarcastic =]
Hyper-calvinists probably agree with Ballin

Nicholas, youre dodging one of ballin's questions: why did god make such disobedient, evil humans? Why didnt he just make us right to begin with?

He's actually covered this - to you know, give us the free will to reciprocate to his offer of grace.

 

[GwJ]

And weve already gone over why that doesnt make sense as an answer.

 

[jaswa]

And weve already gone over why that doesnt make sense as an answer.

Why, because we can live in a happy world and have free will to choose between good things - like ice cream flavours? Without the option to punch the ice cream man in the face and throw all his ice cream into a pit in front of starving children, our will is bound.

 

[ballin4life]

Good post Ballin, theists have never thought of these things (and don't have a reform of theology agreeing with most of you) and don't have refutes to it either.

Ugh, seriously stop talking about stuff you don't know about.

Yawn, standard argument tactic when you have nothing to say.

Every post you make about evolution could be covered by this. "Oh don't you think scientists have THOUGHT OF THAT?"

I'm bringing up legitimate points by the way besides the whole predestination/free will paradox that you claim to have an answer for. Like the fact that God claims the right to send you to hell at his whims.

What do you mean, "made them so they wouldn't sin"? Make it such that they'd never do the thing the temptation does anyway? That would mean they'd never grow spiritually, as the temptation isn't actually... tempting.

Look, according to you it's possible to have free will even if God knows your every action. In that case, God could have just made it so that human free will would lead them to not sin, while still allowing them to have free will. And again, he could have made humans perfect enough that they don't need to grow spiritually.

That argument isn't valid. God never forced you to sin in any way, shape, or form. The most you could claim is, "If God hadn't created me this way, I never could have sinned!". However, that's like the murderer who said "Judge, if my partner hadn't smuggled in a gun, I never could have killed those 35 people!" You're still guilty.

I didn't mean it as a valid argument. It was a facetious example of what happens when you don't accept the human free will premise (which you obviously do).

If God can know what humans will do and still give them free will, then God can make humans so that they don't sin but still have free will.

Because, He had a plan to redeem us, and decided that it was worth it in the end. Christ's cross tells the story there.

That's a pretty big stretch. God wanted humans to fall so that he could redeem them later? Isn't it better to just have them not fall?

Also, doesn't this whole thing contradict the fact that God gets pissed off several times in the Bible? How could God be mad at an event that he knew would happen? The simplest answer is that God doesn't have perfect knowledge of the future.

It's not something that just goes on for X amount of time and then stops. We always have room to grow spiritually, so conquering temptation is still necessary.

Did Jesus have room to grow spiritually? According to you he led a perfect life. So it's possible for humans to be perfect and not need to grow spiritually.

No, I'm not. I'm saying each member of humankind individually has committed enough sins to go to Hell. And yes, you deserve to go to Hell for lying, stealing, or just hating someone. That is the standard that God has set, so that is what you'll be judged by. Those acts you have committed might not be crimes here on earth, but that's not going to save you when God judges you.

By the way, how do you give a standard for whether God's actions are "right" or "wrong"? I thought you said (in the "atheism and morality" thread) that all morality was subjective, and that no one type of morality was superior to another.

I do think morality is subjective, which is why it's kind of messed up for God to send me to hell for doing such minor things that he just happens to think are wrong.

I have not done anything that would make me deserve to go to hell in my opinion.

It's also ridiculous to think that there aren't people (like monks or babies) who never have lied, stolen, etc. Yet you still imply they should go to hell.

By the way, God himself seems to have a bit of a problem with Wrath, wouldn't you say?

Tell me, when you go over to someone's house/property/website/whatever, do you follow their rules and requests? The vast majority of us would, and the reason would be because it's their stuff we're dealing with, so they get to make the rules about it. Similarly, since God made the universe (not to mention us), heaven and hell, don't you think it's reasonable for him to set the standards of admission?

To an extent I follow their rules. But if I break a rule (even by accident), that does NOT give them the right to lock me in their basement forever.

Also property rights usually can be said to expire if you abandon your property. For example, if I build a log cabin in the woods, then I own it. But if I abandon that log cabin for 20 years, someone else can come in and claim ownership. To me at least, it seems that God has abandoned the world and given up any claim of ownership.

I'm also opposed to slavery by the way. If you create something that isn't alive, you own it, but if you create something that is alive and intelligent that does not mean you own it (otherwise we would all be slaves to our parents by that logic). So I don't think God owns humans in any sense.

You dodged the point. My question is, "Is ignorance of the law a valid excuse?" The crimes are different in scale, but the issue is the same.

Ignorance of the law is at least a partial excuse in my opinion. You also didn't address my point. The person in Africa who never heard of Christianity never even had an opportunity to follow the law. Same thing with babies. That's a pretty big mitigating factor.

@jaswa
Please tell me the first sentence of that post was sarcastic. (I have trouble telling over the internet.)

Yay for more insults.

Why, because we can live in a happy world and have free will to choose between good things - like ice cream flavours? Without the option to punch the ice cream man in the face and throw all his ice cream into a pit in front of starving children, our will is bound.

No. According to you, we can have that option but simply choose not to do it.

GOD MADE MAN KNOWING THAT HE WOULD DISOBEY GOD. WHAT'S THE POINT OF THAT?

The real truth is that God isn't omniscient about the future. He made man the way that he wanted and is simply seeing how the world unfolds.

 

[jaswa]

Yawn, standard argument tactic when you have nothing to say.

ballin, some theists actually do agree with your points though...

I'm bringing up legitimate points by the way besides the whole predestination/free will paradox that you claim to have an answer for. Like the fact that God claims the right to send you to hell at his whims.

The Bible never speaks of God ordaining our actions, just that he has foreknowledge of them. He works outside of time, we still have free will. Predestination in the Bible is a corporate position of predestining God's 'people', not individuals.

Did Jesus have room to grow spiritually? According to you he led a perfect life. So it's possible for humans to be perfect and not need to grow spiritually.

Luke 2:52 - Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and with man.

I'd say 'growing in favour with God' is spiritual growth. Anyway, this is a ridiculous point...

I do think morality is subjective, which is why it's kind of messed up for God to send me to hell for doing such minor things that he just happens to think are wrong.

I have not done anything that would make me deserve to go to hell in my opinion.

You might not think you've done anything wrong in your opinion, but in God's eyes you have. Everybody who turns their back on God commits the sin of blasphemy.

It's also ridiculous to think that there aren't people (like monks or babies) who never have lied, stolen, etc. Yet you still imply they should go to hell.

Monks have sinned too, babies is a different issue.

I'm also opposed to slavery by the way. If you create something that isn't alive, you own it, but if you create something that is alive and intelligent that does not mean you own it (otherwise we would all be slaves to our parents by that logic). So I don't think God owns humans in any sense.

We're not God's slaves, we have free will - if anything you could say our will is bound to our sinful nature.

Ignorance of the law is at least a partial excuse in my opinion. You also didn't address my point. The person in Africa who never heard of Christianity never even had an opportunity to follow the law. Same thing with babies. That's a pretty big mitigating factor.

The person in Africa is dealt with differently, re: babies.

GOD MADE MAN KNOWING THAT HE WOULD DISOBEY GOD. WHAT'S THE POINT OF THAT?

We've gone over this plenty of times, so that we would have the capicity to respond to his offer of salvation.

The real truth is that God isn't omniscient about the future. He made man the way that he wanted and is simply seeing how the world unfolds.

He's not seeing how the world unfolds - Christ redemptive sacrifice was his plan from the beginning.

 

[GwJ]

That logic is partially why I'm atheistic.

Lol

 

[Ganonsburg]

I think it's important to point out that people all come at this topic with different starting points. ie, a Christian will come in with the viewpoint "The Bible is God's Word, and is inerrant." As such, they'll accept that there are things about God that are mysterious to us, because he exists outside the bounds of our universe and we are sinful and ignorant. A Christian will accept God as the source of logic, and as such if we find him illogical that makes us the source of the fallacy; not God.

An atheist will come at it with the perspective, "There is no God," and will thus say logic comes from man, and if God does not follow that logic, he does not exist.

There's no way around this really. Each side will scream, "Illogical!" at the other side because in all truthfulness, to each side's perspective the other side is indeed illogical. The Side 2 bases their "logic" on the opposing principle of Side 1's "logic."

It's all splitting hairs, but it's not just that theists and Christians are immovable on certain topics. Atheists are just as much to blame. So get off your high-horses; stop saying the other side is stupid and stubborn.

I'm not saying both sides are right. Only one can be right (God or no God; there's no in-between with this, although I guess you could have variations like godS). But to argue whether God is illogical depends on where you start.

 

[ballin4life]

My question is:

Why would God make imperfect humans then go through the whole hassle of having Jesus come and redeem humans when he could have just made perfect humans that will follow his will in the first place?

The response given to this question was that this would take away free will. But I showed that it won't, because as you all said before, you can have the free will to sin but choose to not sin (and vice versa). So God could make people that have free will to sin yet still never choose to sin.

Because of this, I contend that God does not have knowledge of the future (particularly human actions). He created humans and then they sinned, but he didn't see this coming.


My other point:

What gives God the right to send people to hell for violating his arbitrary rules?

You say that he gets this right because he created the universe and thus owns the universe. But does this really give him the right to send people to hell? As I said before, just because I am at your house does not mean that you can lock me in your basement forever.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Ganonsburg that was a very good post and I hope you know that it did not go unappreciated.


IMO God rules this universe like a dictator. I'm kind of imagining it like a Big Brother-type thing where there's propaganda everywhere telling God is good and God is kind and to worship God while bombs are bursting around us and people are dying in the streets.

 

[Nicholas1024]

My question is:

Why would God make imperfect humans then go through the whole hassle of having Jesus come and redeem humans when he could have just made perfect humans that will follow his will in the first place?

The response given to this question was that this would take away free will. But I showed that it won't, because as you all said before, you can have the free will to sin but choose to not sin (and vice versa). So God could make people that have free will to sin yet still never choose to sin.

Because of this, I contend that God does not have knowledge of the future (particularly human actions). He created humans and then they sinned, but he didn't see this coming.

I've answered this before. If you aren't satisfied with my answer, then I don't know what else to tell you.

My other point:

What gives God the right to send people to hell for violating his arbitrary rules?

You say that he gets this right because he created the universe and thus owns the universe. But does this really give him the right to send people to hell? As I said before, just because I am at your house does not mean that you can lock me in your basement forever.

The logic is faulty, because I did not create you. Nobody would complain if I locked my car, or TV, or computer in the basement forever, or made whatever arbitrary rules about them. However, I did not create you. God did.


@DH'ers
Ganonsburg made some excellent points there. This guy needs to be considered for the debate hall sometime.

 

[Enzo]

Jesus could easily have been someone suffering a mental disorder, such as superiority complexity which he thinks that he "talked" to God.

Don't you think it odd as well, that Archaeologists were able to trace back in time and find that Jesus was in fact real, yet they are completely unable to find his "resurrection".

It is also fact that the Bible (and any other holy book) has been man-made.

It doesn't make sense that God (if there is one) chose us humans and made us superior to other, because it is also a fact that we descend from apes.

Personally I just think that "Religion" in general was created in order to strike fear into people and try to keep them under control. (Take into account that in the years the primary religions of the world were founded, there either wasn't a judicial system or the judicial system at the time was pure ****.)

By putting this fear into people they hoped to keep humans in conduct

 

[Nicholas1024]

Jesus could easily have been someone suffering a mental disorder, such as superiority complexity which he thinks that he "talked" to God.

Don't you think it odd as well, that Archaeologists were able to trace back in time and find that Jesus was in fact real, yet they are completely unable to find his "resurrection".

It is also fact that the Bible (and any other holy book) has been man-made.

It doesn't make sense that God (if there is one) chose us humans and made us superior to other, because it is also a fact that we descend from apes.

Personally I just think that "Religion" in general was created in order to strike fear into people and try to keep them under control. (Take into account that in the years the primary religions of the world were founded, there either wasn't a judicial system or the judicial system at the time was pure ****.)

By putting this fear into people they hoped to keep humans in conduct

Answered under the "Evidence behind the new testament thread", because that's more where it belongs.

 

[ballin4life]

I've answered this before. If you aren't satisfied with my answer, then I don't know what else to tell you.

I must have missed it, so would you mind answering again? And specifically address my points about free will please.

The logic is faulty, because I did not create you. Nobody would complain if I locked my car, or TV, or computer in the basement forever, or made whatever arbitrary rules about them. However, I did not create you. God did.

Ok, so you do support slavery? God owns humans and can do whatever he wants with them?

I mean, surely parents don't own their child even though the child was created by the parents.

Would you support Michael Vick killing dogs that he owned?

I think it is way worse to enslave intelligent humans.

I said all of this before by the way.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Ok, so you do support slavery? God owns humans and can do whatever he wants with them?

I mean, surely parents don't own their child even though the child was created by the parents.

Would you support Michael Vick killing dogs that he owned?

I think it is way worse to enslave intelligent humans.

I said all of this before by the way.

I don't see the jump between people doing what they like with their property, and him supporting slavery. Actually, many Christians will argue that we "own" is not ours but God's, and as such needs to be treated properly and appropriately (Source--read commentary as well).

If you want to call it slavery, I guess you could. But then we get back to the free will that God gave us. How many slaves get to choose what they want to do?

 

[GwJ]

If you were nice back in Rome's days, you were treated pretty swell.

:3


Also, stop sourcing your evidence thread Nich. To put it plainly, it sucks.

 

[jaswa]

Umm, I don't get why everyone think Christians support slavery??

Jesus could easily have been someone suffering a mental disorder, such as superiority complexity which he thinks that he "talked" to God.

That's a nice assertion if you want to make it - backed up with evidence...

Don't you think it odd as well, that Archaeologists were able to trace back in time and find that Jesus was in fact real, yet they are completely unable to find his "resurrection".

What do you mean unable to find his resurrection? If he rose from the tomb and ascended to heaven, you expect to find some earthly remains? No clue how that logically follows...
If anything an empty tomb might do something for our side

It is also fact that the Bible (and any other holy book) has been man-made.

Thanks we know. Man-made, but God-inspired under our belief.

It doesn't make sense that God (if there is one) chose us humans and made us superior to other, because it is also a fact that we descend from apes.

We're kinda the most intelligible beings on the planet - I think you ought to give us credit for being superior to animals. The Bible tells us that we're the central focus of creation.
No, apes-to-man is not fact.

Personally I just think that "Religion" in general was created in order to strike fear into people and try to keep them under control. (Take into account that in the years the primary religions of the world were founded, there either wasn't a judicial system or the judicial system at the time was pure ****.)

By putting this fear into people they hoped to keep humans in conduct

And you're free to think what you want and have your own personal opionions, but it doesn't change the wide scheme of things.

Also, stop sourcing your evidence thread Nich. To put it plainly, it sucks

Can you explain what about it sucks?

Also, stop sourcing your macro-evolution theory the-rest-of-this-board. To put it plainly, it sucks

 

[Nicholas1024]

Also, stop sourcing your evidence thread Nich. To put it plainly, it sucks.

@mod
Is this sort of trolling infractable? Because I'm getting tired of it.

 

[1048576]

Haha, Nicholas is appealing to a higher power.

Report post is located in the top right.

I'm interested to know: does the bible contain any predictions about the future? How accurate is it and how impressive is it geven the historical climate in which it was written?

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

There's Revelations.

But it's all metaphorical unless arbitrarily noted otherwise.

 

[Violence]

To anyone who says that Apes-> Man is not factual, can someone please show me a peer-reviewed, scientific journal article from the past decade that argues against it?

I'm kinda getting sick of the assertion that speciation is not well documented or widely accepted in the scientific community, because it is.





Ok, on topic here...

According to the believers here, God is not responsible for the sin of man.

But guys, everyone has sinned. 100% of people who are capable of sinning have sinned.

There is apparently 1 sinless being in the entirety of all sentient beings that have ever existed(or 3, if you want to consider them as a trinity).

And from the sinless being, came sin. God created sin, it couldn't have come from anywhere else. He made the universe, and thus made sin. He made the devil, and gave us the capacity to sin. We're even encouraged to sin by our own natural psychology.



And how is sin completely our choice? If you see an attractive girl, it is sin if you start to feel lust. Do we have some kind of control over that feeling, that thought? Likewise, feeling jealous, or angry, obsessing over someone, or having homicidal/suicidal thoughts... Can you really control these things? Are these really our fault?



Finally, from what I can gather, you're asserting that, first of all, God made humans for the purpose of glorifying himself. Next, he, out of divine love, gave us free will. After a few millenia of punishing people forever for not doing morally correct things, he changed the rules, saying instead that we are still to be morally correct, but it is not the deciding factor of whether or not we get to join him in eternal paradise or suffer in eternal torment.

The deciding factor, above all, is belief in him. This belief alone is what determines infinite pleasure over infinite pain.

Now, doesn't this contradict with moral behavior? If it was a human doing this, is this really moral? Can infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing even BE moral at all?

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see the jump between people doing what they like with their property, and him supporting slavery. Actually, many Christians will argue that we "own" is not ours but God's, and as such needs to be treated properly and appropriately (Source--read commentary as well).

If you want to call it slavery, I guess you could. But then we get back to the free will that God gave us. How many slaves get to choose what they want to do?

Slaves have free will. It's just that if they don't use that free will to do what the master tells them, they get whipped. See the parallel? If we don't use our free will the way God wants, we get sent to hell.

 

[Enzo]

Bold are my responses

Umm, I don't get why everyone think Christians support slavery??



That's a nice assertion if you want to make it - backed up with evidence...
Well for the most part there is little evidence that can be found in any of the current day religions that date back centuries ago.
The main point I was trying to make here is that the possibilities of making The New Testament and Jesus wrong HEAVILY outweighs the possibility of it being true

What do you mean unable to find his resurrection? If he rose from the tomb and ascended to heaven, you expect to find some earthly remains? No clue how that logically follows...
If anything an empty tomb might do something for our side
I guess I have to agree with you on this part due to it being impossible to prove or disprove this

Thanks we know. Man-made, but God-inspired under our belief.
Again for all we know the Bible could possibly be just random book, I personally think it odd that if there was one perfect God that he only spoke to humans one time and never again, yet we're the "chosen" species

We're kinda the most intelligible beings on the planet - I think you ought to give us credit for being superior to animals. The Bible tells us that we're the central focus of creation.
No, apes-to-man is not fact.
But are we really? We have yet to have come close to indentifying all the species on Earth, and for all we know there may even be a species that we have identified that may be more intelligent than us.

And you're free to think what you want and have your own personal opionions, but it doesn't change the wide scheme of things.
Again I guess I agreed with you here

 

[Ganonsburg]

Slaves have free will. It's just that if they don't use that free will to do what the master tells them, they get whipped. See the parallel? If we don't use our free will the way God wants, we get sent to hell.

I see the parallel, but I could make a parallel to a doctor telling a patient to take his/her medication for *insert deadly illness*. Sure, you can ignore the doctor and not take the medicine, but it's in your best interest as well as the doctor's best interest for you to take the medication.

If you want to stick to the slave parallel, it's good to read these verses. God created life, and as such following him leads to life. He didn't create death. Death came as a result of sin (sin being disobedience to God/ wanting to separate from Him). It's not that God sends you to hell, but rather that you cannot be in his presence because of what you have chosen. It's exactly like light and dark. Dark cannot exist in light, just as sin cannot exist with God (both by their very definition).

@BLM: The Bible was written over about 2,000 years, by over 40 people. That's hardly "one time." And then you have ~30 years that Jesus was on earth.