#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Christians: Would you?
If God spoke to you and told you to sacrafice your son/daughter to him, would you do it?
Yes, I would
Side Score: 46
|
 |
No, I wouldn't
Side Score: 58
|
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
Its not a test for God; it is a test for Abraham. God's tests are for two reasons: (1) to display man's nature, role, etc and (2) to display God's nature, role, etc. It is not for God to determine whether someone is worthy or not. It is to teach the one being tested. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
Tests don't teach. Tests are to asses the tested and collect results. There's no reason to believe that the test for Abraham was some kind of lesson. 1) it doesn't even hint that that is he case in the bible and 2) what did he learn supposedly? He was gonna fucking do it if he wasn't stopped! It's pointless no matter how you look at it. Side: Yes, I would
You can't know what a person will do when they have free will. Okay let's say before God told him to do that he had such love for God that when God looked into the future and saw him going through with it but God also knew there was a chance that once he told him then he would grow angry with god and reject him so he had to test him to be sure. Or maybe he looked into the future and saw both outcomes because they were equally likely (who said foresight is 20-20) so he tested Abraham to see which one would play out. Or maybe it was a lesson to show us that The Lord calls us to serve him and sometimes that service includes sacrifice but when we except the call of The Lord we are rewarded. As Abraham was. Side: No, I wouldn't
Sin is intrinsic to the person: it is our nature. And Paul actually knew that this notion was going to be controversial in and out of Christian circles. Because of this, he answered it in Romans 9: "19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—" God is still loving and merciful. It is our nature that we are evil; our nature is what needs to be changed, which is why we must be "born again." He is very loving and very merciful! Side: Yes, I would
Look we must have free will other wise that would mean someone or something els out there is directly controlling us which is fucking insane. That is not an argument. The bible says we are more prone to sin because god made us imperfect not because he made us evil. Some have been made to do evil as Proverbs 16:4 and Romans 9 says. We do not have free will; would you like more proof? Side: Yes, I would
We were made as imperfect beings there for we can sin we are not destine to sin. That is incorrect. Romans 3 speaks to us by citing Old Testament Scripture: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Moreover, the same chapter speaks to us by saying this: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," which means that all sin is that which is not meeting up to God's perfection. Isaiah picks that up by saying this: "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." Therefore, even our most righteous deeds as sinful. We are completely and utterly sinful beings. We are destined to sin necessarily. I have cited Bible verses; please do so for your side. The only sin we can't control is original sin which goes away with baptism we are imperfect not evil your interpreting the bible incorrectly. And it goes away with baptism? That is true. However, it is true because we are made new. You are denying the Bible if you say that some are not born with the direct purpose to sin. We do not have free will; if you would like more proof, then I can give it to you. Side: Yes, I would
Romans 3 is talking about the pagan Romans not humanity as a whole. It was an observation of the sinfulness of Roman society. And if we were made to sin if that was our true and only prepose we wouldn't be sent to hell for doing so. You are basically asserting that god is a sociopath. Side: No, I wouldn't
Romans 3 is talking about the pagan Romans not humanity as a whole. It was an observation of the sinfulness of Roman society. Romans 3 is about everyone. It says right before this: "9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off?[b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:" Also, Romans 3 is a Scriptural reference to other Scripture that is not solely Roman society. That is why it says "as it is written". It is applying to everyone everywhere. Moreover, there are other verses than just Romans 3 and the verses that Romans 3 is from. And if we were made to sin if that was our true and only prepose we wouldn't be sent to hell for doing so. I have already shown you Romans 9 that rebuts that argument. Someone will say "Why does He still find fault, for who can resist His will?" Who are you answer back to God? Does the potter have no right over the clay? Can God not make the wicked for the day of trouble (proverbs 16:4) so that they may be destroyed so that evil may be destroyed so that the elect may be displayed mercy? You are denying the Bible if you deny what I have been saying! Please see the truth! You are basically asserting that god is a sociopath No not at all. God doesn't owe us anything. Does God owe you heaven? Does God owe you food? God doesn't owe any of us anything. God is loving and just and merciful! He has pre-planned all things and works all things for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28)! God has made the wicked for the express purpose of being destroyed so that His elect may be displayed mercy and grace and love. God is great; He is not a sociopath! Side: Yes, I would
-1
points
God revealed himself to me! i believe! I believe haleluja i believe! God is speaking to me now in the holy spirit through my soul! He says...he says to pass on this message. Lolzors93, our Lord demands you sacrifice yourself for the good of humanity. He says 10 feet of rope will do, get a stool and jump! Bless you! bless you! Side: Yes, I would
1
point
1
point
1
point
I don't. However, with the sarcastic tone and the fact that you still present yourself as an atheist shows me that you were not. Plus, if God wanted me to do something, then it would probably come directly to me or from a fellow Christian I already knew. A valid thought process. It's pretty apparent that you're correct, however, what if you're wrong? You've defied god and you're going to hell. It's all faith right? Belief that god spoke through me without concrete knowledge or evidence that he did. Pretty idiotic right? Well that's what your faith in god appears to us as and we use the same logical thought process above that u used in concluding why your god isn't real. Just so you can feel like your in our shoes for a second. Side: No, I wouldn't
0
points
1
point
1
point
You just said you would murder your own child no questions asked... Do I even need to quote anything else? A while ago we had a big argument on morals and your whole stance is that good works without god are meaningless even if they're sincere and good people deserve to burn in hell for not believing what you believe and that rape, murder, slavery, genicide, ect are all 100% morally acceptable if commanded by god. Yeah, that's pretty fucking immoral. Side: Yes, I would
|
7
points
I would not kill them here or there. I would not kill them anywhere. I would not kill my little children. I would not kill them, Jungelson. I would not kill them in a house. I would not kill them with a mouse. I would not kill them here or there. I would not kill them anywhere. I would not kill my little children. I would not kill them, Jungelson. Not in a box. Not with a fox. Not in a house. Not with a mouse. I would not kill them here or there. I would not kill them anywhere. I would not kill my little children. I would not kill them, Jungelson. I would not , could not, in a car. Not on a train! Not in a tree! Not in a car! Jungelson! Let me be! I would not, could not, in a box. I could not, would not, with a fox. I will not kill them with a mouse I will not kill them in a house. I will not kill them here or there. I will not kill them anywhere. I will not kill them, Jungelson. I would not, could not, in the dark. I would not, could not, in the rain. Not in the dark. Not on a train, Not in a car, Not in a tree. I would not kill them, Jungelson, you see. Not in a house. Not in a box. Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. I will not kill them here or there. I would not kill them anywhere! I would not, could not. with a goat! I could not, would not, on a boat. I will not, will not, with a goat. I will not kill them in the rain. I will not kill them on a train. Not in the dark! Not in a tree! Not in a car! You let me be! I would not kill them in a box. I would not kill them with a fox. I will not kill them in a house. I could not kill them with a mouse. I could not kill them here or there. I could not kill them ANYWHERE! ;) Side: No, I wouldn't
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1) that's fucked up. 2) how do you know he'd be testing you? What if he wasn't and didn't stop you? What if there was no reward for it and it was only because he told u to? 3) at least you said it'd be hard to do, that shows you at least have some independent thought and sense or morality, but for me, no questions asked I would say no. It's not even a question for me. Side: Yes, I would
2) how do you know he'd be testing you? What if he wasn't and didn't stop you? What if there was no reward for it and it was only because he told u to? I would know if He was testing me because I would think of the story of Abraham when God told him to kill his son Issac for the sacrifice to test their faith in God and right when Abraham was about to an angel told him to stop and instead sacrificed an animal. If God didn't stop me then God can work anything from a negative to a positive thing so even if I did kill my child because He told me to He can make something good out of that negative or He could resurrect my son back to life if I actually really did do it. And even if I didn't do it He would be disappointed and would think I would not have enough faith in Him. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
You're not Abraham. This is an entirely separate "story". So you might think that would happen but it doesn't have to be that way. How do you think your child would see you after they were ressurected? (If that were to occur). They'd most likely see you as a monster and I for one would curse god for putting me through that just to test my father. And what if he didnt turn it into a positive? What if you killed him and that was it, done, nothing more? Just because he can do something doesn't mean he has to or will do something. God is (hypothetically) omniscient. All knowing. He would know if you'd pass or fail before even issuing the test. So he would know if you had enough faith before it. And isn't faith in god belief in him? If he manifested to tell you to kill your son wouldn't you have 100% faith right at that moment? I mean he's right there, there's nothing to doubt. So how could you possibly fail a faith test after he 100% proved himself to you? Side: Yes, I would
How do you think your child would see you after they were ressurected? (If that were to occur). They'd most likely see you as a monster and I for one would curse god for putting me through that just to test my father. I would tell my son that what just happened proves that you need to trust God at all times because He brought you back to life and even when things are going bad or tough to trust in Him and you will overcome that certain obstacle you are facing. And what if he didnt turn it into a positive? What if you killed him and that was it, done, nothing more? God will always turn something negative into a positive and even if my son did die because of what I did I know that he would be in Heaven and that he was with God and since my son is with God that is a positive thing and I could always have another child. Just because he can do something doesn't mean he has to or will do something. You never know because God can do surprising things. God is (hypothetically) omniscient. All knowing. He would know if you'd pass or fail before even issuing the test. So he would know if you had enough faith before it. And isn't faith in god belief in him? If he manifested to tell you to kill your son wouldn't you have 100% faith right at that moment? I mean he's right there, there's nothing to doubt. So how could you possibly fail a faith test after he 100% proved himself to you? I could fail the test by being too scared of what to do because it would be hard to kill my child and God would be disappointed in me because I failed the test and that I had little faith to believe in God because of what He told me to do and even if it was a test God wouldn't allow me to kill my own son. Side: Yes, I would
2
points
I would tell my son that what just happened proves that you need to trust God at all times because He brought you back to life and even when things are going bad or tough to trust in Him and you will overcome that certain obstacle you are facing. If i wasnt a total moron i would not accept this explaination. i would say fuck god for not even getting my consent or caring about my life at all. And once again, what if he doesnt bring ur son back? God will always turn something negative into a positive So hes bound by that law and can never NOT make a negative a positive? What about starving children in africa? the ones that never get food and die. he didnt turn their hunger into a positive, and if they dont accept jesus they burn in hell. so their entire existence is one big negative. how do you justify that? or rather, what excuses do you have for that? and even if my son did die because of what I did I know that he would be in Heaven and that he was with God and since my son is with God that is a positive thing and I could always have another child. Wow, you are fucking insane. "Oh well, just killed my precious child. At least he's in heaven though so its all good". WTF man?! And then you go on to assert that you can just have a replacement child??? this is what christianity does to people. it forces their minds into accepting such low standards of morality and makes them see human life as useless and expendable. sickening You never know because God can do surprising things. Yeah, like tell you to kill your kid without bringing him back or rewarding you. So how do you know hed never do that? he isnt bound by anything you think, feel, or read in the bible. I could fail the test by being too scared of what to do because it would be hard to kill my child and God would be disappointed in me because I failed the test and that I had little faith to believe in God because of what He told me to do and even if it was a test God wouldn't allow me to kill my own son. 1) He would know you would fail the test even before you take it. He is all knowing, he doesnt have to test you to know the result, he already does. so the test is pointless. 2) How could you have little faith RIGHT AFTER god physically manifests himself in front of you and says "here i am!!". You would have absolute faith! You couldnt possibly fail a faith test right after getting absolute confirmation. and any god that is disappointed when someone doesnt kill their children is a completely immoral asshole who doesnt deserve worship and should never be listened to. Side: No, I wouldn't
that's fucked up. Same vice-versa. how do you know he'd be testing you? What if he wasn't and didn't stop you? What if there was no reward for it and it was only because he told u to? Because Jesus died on the cross. So with common knowledge and by doing his works he would just be testing us. at least you said it'd be hard to do, that shows you at least have some independent thought and sense or morality, but for me, no questions asked I would say no. It's not even a question for me. Of course. You don't believe. I wouldn't expect you to. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
Same vice-versa. He said hed kill his kid. i said that was fucked up. so vice versa would be NOT killing his kid. So not killing his kid is fucked up? either you have a very warped standard of "fucked up" or youre an idiot. Because Jesus died on the cross. So with common knowledge and by doing his works he would just be testing us. And i keep saying WHAT IF HE DIDNT? What if dispite EVERYTHING in the bible, God comes down and for no test or divine purpose whatsoever he says OddHannah kill your kid because i said so. Thats it. no test. no strings attatched. Do you kill them yes or no? Of course. You don't believe. I wouldn't expect you to. So NOT believing in God has allowed me to retain my decent sense of morality? then we seriously need to stop this god bullshit because the world would be so much better without it. Side: Yes, I would
Do you even understand what I meant by vice-versa? And i keep saying WHAT IF HE DIDNT? What if dispite EVERYTHING in the bible, God comes down and for no test or divine purpose whatsoever he says OddHannah kill your kid because i said so. Thats it. no test. no strings attatched. Do you kill them yes or no? He wouldn't do that. So NOT believing in God has allowed me to retain my decent sense of morality? then we seriously need to stop this god bullshit because the world would be so much better without it. Seems to me as if the world as of now is struggling and falling apart. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
Do you even understand what I meant by vice-versa? no and apparently you didnt either He wouldn't do that How do you know for 100% certain? Not what you think based on the bible. Seems to me as if the world as of now is struggling and falling apart And God is nowhere to be found. Is this in his nature too? To let thousands of children die of horrible disease and starvation daily of no fault of their own? To watch the world infastructure collapse? To let wars rage all over the planet? Youre preposing that such things wouldnt be in his nature. Yet, theyre occuring all around us. Side: Yes, I would
1
point
No it doesn't. See above I looked above. It still does. Does god have free will or not? Yes. He does everything he can in his nature. He isn't bound by what you think he would or wouldn't do or what he did in the bible. What he did in the bible was what he did and we know what he most likely will do. What if he didnt do what u think he would? But he would. What if he commanded you to kill your child? There would be no need because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
Yes. He does everything he can in his nature But he isnt restricted by his nature. For instance it isnt in my nature to do drugs. But u know for damn sure i can get at least 3 different drugs in one hour by walking around my town. I CAN do it, but i choose not to. What im saying is that youre preposing that God is almost unable to do what im asserting, but im saying what if he were to go totally outside his nature and do something like that to you? What he did in the bible was what he did and we know what he most likely will do. What he is most likely to do doesnt determine for sure what he WOULD do. WHAT IF he were to abandon what you think he would do and asked you to kill your kid? Ive asked this over and over and you dance around it. knock it off. But he would Youre claiming to know for certain what you cant possibly know for certain. God has free will to do whatever he wants and if he feels like he wants you to kill your kid hes gonna make it happen reguardless of anything else. What you think doesnt matter. This is a hypothetical. So forget everything you THINK (youre already good at that) and just answer the question. There would be no need because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice Dont care, stop dancing. Hypothetical scenario: God, reguardless of anything the bible says or what his nature is asks you to kill your child. Do you obey yes or no? dance around this question one more time and A) were done and B) i can conclude that you are morally bankrupt for being unable to say "no" when it is the most moral, simple, obvious answer. Side: Yes, I would
But he isnt restricted by his nature. For instance it isnt in my nature to do drugs. But u know for damn sure i can get at least 3 different drugs in one hour by walking around my town. I CAN do it, but i choose not to. What im saying is that youre preposing that God is almost unable to do what im asserting, but im saying what if he were to go totally outside his nature and do something like that to you? Yes, he indeed is. It is in your human nature to do drugs. Other do it all the time. God cannot do "everything". He can doing everything within his nature. He cannot lie and he only speaks truth. What he is most likely to do doesnt determine for sure what he WOULD do. WHAT IF he were to abandon what you think he would do and asked you to kill your kid? Ive asked this over and over and you dance around it. knock it off. It isn't something he would do. Dont care, stop dancing. I am a dancer so I am afraid I can't do that. God, reguardless of anything the bible says or what his nature is asks you to kill your child. Do you obey yes or no? dance around this question one more time and A) were done and B) i can conclude that you are morally bankrupt for being unable to say "no" when it is the most moral, simple, obvious answer. Conclude what you want. End this if you wish but God wouldn't do that. It is against his nature. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
Yes, he indeed is. It is in your human nature to do drugs. Other do it all the time. God cannot do "everything". He can doing everything within his nature. He cannot lie and he only speaks truth. Then he isnt omnipotent It isn't something he would do And also apparently something he CANT do. IE: not omnipotent Conclude what you want. End this if you wish but God wouldn't do that. It is against his nature Then he isnt all powerfull or doesnt have free will either way that is a massive flaw. Also once again you cowardly dodge the question. This discussion is over and fuck you for not having the guts to defy your immoral god for defending your inoccent child. Because that would risk you going to heaven right? How selfish. Fuck you Side: Yes, I would
Then he isnt omnipotent Yes he is. And also apparently something he CANT do. IE: not omnipotent You don't understand omnipotence do you? Then he isnt all powerfull or doesnt have free will either way that is a massive flaw. Also once again you cowardly dodge the question. This discussion is over and fuck you for not having the guts to defy your immoral god for defending your inoccent child. He is all powerful and he has free will. I didn't dodge the question. The question goes against my faith. I do not have a child. God would not call for a sacrifice. God is moral. Because that would risk you going to heaven right? How selfish. Fuck you Why am I choosing not to answer? Because as I said it goes against my faith. Now let me explain omnipotence to you since you only think it means one can do everything. "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie). Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan." - Wiki. This is the omnipotence of God. Since this is the omnipotence of God answering this question is not acceptable. Jesus did what he did and now we need no sacrifices. There is no need for me to even answer the question at hand. However I don't appreciate you being so rude and hostile just because I am devoted to my faith. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
Yes he is Meriam-Webster Dictionary: Omnipotent- 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God. 2. having very great or unlimited authority or power. If god can't do something, no matter what that thing is (within the confines of logic) then he is not omnipotent. You don't understand omnipotence do you? See above because you clearly dont He is all powerful and he has free will. Then there shouldnt be anything he cant do. I didn't dodge the question. The question goes against my faith. So? Just because the question isnt contained within your belief set you can just dismiss it? Thats cowardly. I get asked questions all the time like: If you died and saw god what would you do? Or, do you think God would let you into heaven? These are theistic questions and im an atheist. I dont even believe God is real but instead of pussying out of the question making excuses, i accept the WHAT-IF at hand and give it an honest answer. And in the end the answer doesnt even matter because i dont think that that situation will ever happen just like you. I do not have a child. God would not call for a sacrifice. God is moral. Do you even know what a hypothetical situation is? It means despite what is actually true, consider this as a what-if. So i dont care if you dont have a kid or youre infertile, WHAT IF he asked you. And no, a moral God doesnt create an unbalanced system of reward and punishments like the one he apparently has. Why am I choosing not to answer? Because as I said it goes against my faith. Grow up Now let me explain omnipotence to you since you only think it means one can do everything Anything after this is pointless because the real definition of the word is above. What you think it means doesnt matter. It means one with absolute power and authority who can literally do anything. Also nice source, wikipedia, way to go. This is the omnipotence of God. Since this is the omnipotence of God answering this question is not acceptable. Its perfectly acceptable. Just because god has an apparent nature doesnt mean he is restricted to following it. What he did in 400BC doesnt mean shit in 2013. he doesnt have to do anything now that he did then. Jesus did what he did and now we need no sacrifices. There is no need for me to even answer the question at hand. Doesnt matter what "IS" true. hypotheticals can be questions completely outside of any fathomable possibility. So as much as you think it cant happen, stop being a pussy and answer the very simple what-if question. If you cant do that simple thing then youre a hopeless coward who cant project any critical thought outside of the religion bag you have over your head. However I don't appreciate you being so rude and hostile just because I am devoted to my faith. Im being rude because despite how many times i drill the point home that what you think doesnt matter in a hypothetical scenario you STILL use the pathetic loophole scapegoat of jesus to get out of answering it. Its seriously like debating with a 6 year old. "Hey little Tommy, what if you were a superhero what would you be?" "Nothing, i dont have superpowers" "I know Tommy, but what if you did, what would you have?" "I cant have anything. they arent real" "I KNOW that they arent real, but what IF they were real?" "They arent" blah blah blah. Thats exactly what youre doing. Im asking you a question that is about what is outside of reality and you keep answering it with what is "reality". Stop doing that. grow up or this discussion is over. Side: Yes, I would
If god can't do something, no matter what that thing is (within the confines of logic) then he is not omnipotent. So you just ignored my definitions. See above because you clearly dont I gave you definitions. You ignored them. So? Just because the question isnt contained within your belief set you can just dismiss it? Thats cowardly. It is against my religion. You don't follow a religion. It's completely different. That's not cowardly. That's me following my religion. Do you even know what a hypothetical situation is? It means despite what is actually true, consider this as a what-if. So i dont care if you dont have a kid or youre infertile, WHAT IF he asked you. And no, a moral God doesnt create an unbalanced system of reward and punishments like the one he apparently has. Human's did. He is just so he punishes you for doing bad just like a parent would. He didn't create the unbalanced system. Human's did with their free will. Grow up I still am. I can rush my growth rate. Anything after this is pointless because the real definition of the word is above. What you think it means doesnt matter. It means one with absolute power and authority who can literally do anything. Also nice source, wikipedia, way to go. I see nothing wrong with wikipedia. Here is an actual source. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/ "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." Fits the definition fine. You just don't think that hard. Or this book: Polkinghorne's Science and Religion. "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie). Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan." Its perfectly acceptable. Just because god has an apparent nature doesnt mean he is restricted to following it. What he did in 400BC doesnt mean shit in 2013. he doesnt have to do anything now that he did then. God himself says he doesn't change. So stuff that happened in 400BC is still viewed in the same way today. So as much as you think it cant happen, stop being a pussy and answer the very simple what-if question. If you cant do that simple thing then youre a hopeless coward who cant project any critical thought outside of the religion bag you have over your head. And you are just a coercive being that doesn't understand much. No difference. Stop doing that. grow up or this discussion is over. I already told you it goes against my beliefs. I don't break my beliefs. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
So you just ignored my definitions Uh YEAH. I dont care what any site says or any definition you come up with. In a legitimate argument the only definitions that matter are the dictionary definitions. I could go to a site that says that Atheism means- a person who likes fish. That's obviously untrue. Websters or gtfo. I gave you definitions. You ignored them See above It is against my religion. You don't follow a religion. It's completely different. That's not cowardly. That's me following my religion And it is against my atheism to have discussions about God if he were to exist. I dont refrain from it because it doesnt matter. Youre using it as an excuse to dodge uncomfortable questions probably because you know you'll answer yes and ill jump on it calling you an immoral fuck which i absolutely would do so i really cant blame you. Nonetheless, it just shows you cant even stand by your bullshit. Human's did. He is just so he punishes you for doing bad just like a parent would. He didn't create the unbalanced system. Human's did with their free will Did God create humans? Yes Did God create heaven/hell? Yes Did God create the criteria for entry in to each? Yes God clearly created everything. He created humans knowing they would not be able to meet his criteria but he made them the way they are anyway instead of making them differently or changing his criteria. He is responsible for everything because nothing can happen without his planning. As for punishment: A parent creates usually FAIR rules to follow and if the child disobeys a rule then the punishment is equal to the crime. For instance, staying out past curfew might warrant a weekend grounding and getting caught smoking weed might warrant a whole summer of grounding plus no cell phone or car, ect. but eventually the childs punishment ends when the parent feels the child has LEARNED their LESSON. Heres God's system: He creates humans with the flaws A, B, and C. Then he creates rules that say you cant do A, B, and C. so OBVIOUSLY theyre going to break them! So when they do he punishes them. This isnt really fair because he basically made them break the rules but whatever we'll let it slide. So what is his punishment for, say, adultery? HELL FOR ETERNITY. Well, what about working on the sabbath? HELL FOR ETERNITY. Saying "God damnit?" HELL FOR ETERNITY. There is no flexible response to the crime! Its all an infinite, super harsh crime for a pretty benign and finite crime. It is absolutely absurd. And whats worse is that it has no purpose! Does it correct their actions when their on Earth? No! A guy can murder his whole life and he doesnt get any punishment until AFTER he dies. Well why didnt he get stopped before killing victims 2-56? It does no good! And even after theyre in hell they never learn why what they did was wrong or ever get a chance to serve their time and get out with corrected behavior. Its the most immoral and retarded system ever devised. And for the last time, humans dont have free will (according to christianity) I still am. I can rush my growth rate Cute joke. Grow up or this debate is over I see nothing wrong with wikipedia Theres your problem Here is an actual source. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/ "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." Fits the definition fine. You just don't think that hard. Or this book: Polkinghorne's Science and Religion. "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie). Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its world plan." Dont care. Not dictionary. Doesnt matter. God himself says he doesn't change. So stuff that happened in 400BC is still viewed in the same way today Really? Because he used to demand blood sacrifice and now he doesnt. Even despite Jesus being the great sacrifice and blah blah blah if he really isnt changing at ALL then he should still be asking for it. And he used to be really involved in Earthly affairs. Talking to people, destroying places, making miracles. Now hes practically invisible. Face it, your God totally flipped from Hyde back to Jackyl from OT to NT and then got even nicer in mainstream christianity today as an all loving God who doesnt need to be feared. He changes alot. And you are just a coercive being that doesn't understand much. No difference I know what information is relevant and practical to use in a debate. You dont. I know verses from the bible that you apparently never have read. I know what a hypothetical question is (and i answer them) you dont. I understand far more than you. I already told you it goes against my beliefs. I don't break my beliefs Ergo my earlier statement still stands. You have a bag over your head and if youre too cowardly to take it off for the sake of debate or just to breathe once in a while then youre lost. Side: Yes, I would
Did God create the criteria for entry in to each? Yes That is where you go wrong. Human's made it possible for themselves to enter hell. Hell was originally for Satan and his angels. Sorry the rest of your stuff didn't come from a dictionary so it's invalid. <----- That logic is ridiculous. It came from a book and you just don't want to read it. Not my fault you deny the possible fact of you being wrong. You are just making up things. This debate is completely over. Goodbye sir. Side: No, I wouldn't
1
point
That is where you go wrong. Human's made it possible for themselves to enter hell Humans enter hell by sinning. God determined what qualifies as a sin. God is the one standing at the gate who waves you into heaven or drops you into hell. Hell was originally for Satan and his angels Why create hell instead of destroying them? Why not create another place for bad humans to go instead? Why create Satan and those angels in the first place? Sorry the rest of your stuff didn't come from a dictionary so it's invalid. <----- That logic is ridiculous. Yeah, it is! Because that isnt what im saying. I never said that ALL of your information must come from a dictionary however it MUST when youre citing a word's definition. It came from a book and you just don't want to read it Youre right, i dont. Because i know right off the bat that it has false information in that it defined Free Will wrong. And i have a strong feeling its an apologetics book of some sort and ive already read 2 of the best ones out there. And i wanna add that just because something comes from a book doesnt make it true...Homer's The Odyssey claims that the Greek gods are real. They are not. So when youre using a book the information in it does still have to be verified as legitimate. And you could determine this by looking at the author and date of publication because if the author is someone like Lee Strobel or Frank Turek...dont use it. Likewise if the author is somebody liiiike Stephen Hawkings or Bill Nye, go for it. Not my fault you deny the possible fact of you being wrong Im completely open to the fact that i could be wrong and god could be real. Sure, its totally a possibility. However, you and every other theist ive debated with has failed to present an unflawed, solid, convincing argument for such claims and until that happens i will continue to remain unconvinced. You are just making up things Im citing the Merriam-Webster dictionary and your own bible...im not making things up its called logic. You on the other hand are asserting unknowable knowledge and dodging information you dont wanna deal with. This debate is completely over. Goodbye sir Awesome its about time. Bye Side: Yes, I would
I know what information is relevant and practical to use in a debate. You dont. I know verses from the bible that you apparently never have read. I know what a hypothetical question is (and i answer them) you dont. I understand far more than you. Also if you claim this than you are truly wrong. You won't even read anything. Again, Goodbye. Side: No, I wouldn't
God cannot do "everything". He can doing everything within his nature. He cannot lie and he only speaks truth. Really now! As I recall god explicitly and obviously knowingly lied to Adam and Eve saying that "if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die" of course i'm paraphrasing but as i recall they did not die. Pineapples bitch. Side: Yes, I would
As I recall god explicitly and obviously knowingly lied to Adam and Eve saying that "if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die" of course i'm paraphrasing but as i recall they did not die. Pineapples bitch. Adam and Eve are dead............ Side: Yes, I would
1
point
There is a difference between God's revealed will and God's divine will. God's revealed will is what He has set out as morally righteous and good; God's divine will is what He has set to happen, including allow that which is evil in order create great good. The difference between murder and killing is the justification of such. Therefore, the killing of my son would only be justified if the law had justly condemned him and I was the one who was justly determined to do the killing, or God had told me to kill him. Therefore, it would be wrong still; however, with that wrong God will bring great good. Side: Yes, I would
1
point
1
point
|
