CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I thought that God only hated gays who acted on their gayness. So, i think if you were gay but you didn't act on it and stayed celibate and never got into a homosexual relationship, then you would be able to go to heaven. I mean that sucks, but God's a bit of a bigot.
Nah. That wouldn't work. You'd still be lusting over men in your head/heart. Lust is a sin and lusting over a man is another sin, so there. The only people who are safe are asexuals and eunuchs, I guess.
It wasn't Louie C.K for sure. It was some other guy, I don't remember his name. But I love that you watch stand-up too, makes me feel less of an outsider ;)
If god hates homosexuals and/or homosexual activity, then why did he/she/it give human beings ways (thoughts, urges, etc..) act upon them? Isn't he all knowing? He/she/it should have known that would have happened and yet he/she/it didn't stop it?
Homosexuality is not a sin; homosexual acts are sinful; a practicing homosexual cannot go to heaven.
God hates the non-elect in a personal sense; however, He loves everyone in a broad sense.
His non-elect are those who will not go to heaven and have not been chosen by God to do so: they have been chosen by God to not believe.
Therefore, some homosexuals are hated by God because they are His non-elect; however, simply because they are homosexual does not mean that they are hated by God in the personal sense.
God hates the non-elect in a personal sense; however, He loves everyone in a broad sense.
Then he Isn't omnibenevolent all loving here I'll post a definition for you.
Adjective[edit]
omnibenevolent
All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This triad is used especially with the Christian god, Yahweh.
The omnibenevolent God, by definition, was unable to withhold forgiveness from his people
Hating someone in any sense means he isn't All-loving or infinitely good.
God can be all-loving by loving certain people maximally. That is not a problem.
Not if he hates people.
He hates people in a personal sense but loves them in an overarching story sense. Put it this way: when watching a movie, people hate the bad guys because they are evil and doing bad things, but they are loved because the are good at being bad. Without the bad guys being loved and taken care of, which God does, then He would not be able to love His elect in a personal sense. Different senses of love and hate need to be taken into consideration.
God can be all-loving by loving certain people maximally. That is not a problem.
That is like saying that God can be all powerful but not have power over everything. Just ultimate power over certain objects.
And if you think that makes sense, imagine the scenario with a human in that sentence instead of God. Pretend a human can have ultimate power over one or two objects of their choosing. Would you consider them for the title of all-powerful or is it just to vague to describe the ultimate power this person has over limited objects?
That is like saying that God can be all powerful but not have power over everything. Just ultimate power over certain objects.
God can choose which objects He wants to have power or love over (Reference book of Job); other objects He can let happen naturally or not love at all. However, everything is sovereignly watched over and loved in the broad sense.
And if you think that makes sense, imagine the scenario with a human in that sentence instead of God. Pretend a human can have ultimate power over one or two objects of their choosing. Would you consider them for the title of all-powerful or is it just to vague to describe the ultimate power this person has over limited objects?
He can love these people; He chooses not to, though.
My question involved a genderless human individual who has ultimate power over one or two objects. My question did not involve a "he" nor "love". Therefore I do not believe your response was actually answering my question.
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
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— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel[c] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,
Let me spell it out for you Y-E-S. Please explain how I am wrong. All you keep doing is showing that I am right. Only a bad person would create someone so that they could torture them forever. Torture is bad.
Torture is not inherently bad. Also, God has done justice: He is punishing the wicked, which is anything that is evil. By definition of God being omnipotent and sin being the falling short of the glory of God, then any being that God creates would have the capacity for evil, in some sense. Therefore, God simply is destroying anything that is not godly, which is everything. There is no injustice on God's part.
Torture is a punishment in this case. Punishment is not bad if the being that has done the sentencing has justly condemned the reprobate. Therefore, torture is not inherently bad.
We'll just have to disagree, just because a being is more powerful than another doesn't allow that being to decided it is moral to torture a weaker being.
Morality is an emerging property of human nature. One person's morals are nothing more than instinct(shaped by environment) with regard to right and wrong. Instinct is evolves as guided by environmental pressures, so we can say that morality is a foundation to understand how humans would best survive in the "wild".
Most people share enough similarities in morality to permit cooperation, which leads to society. We build societies on what we agree on, most people agree that ending the life of a member of your tribe is wrong, that is how that I can then say murder is wrong, and we can agree. It is our nature.
When talking about what is moral, it can be looked at by determining how immoral a person thinks something is, and compare that to how much the society openly fights about that moral issue. The moral issues that are both very low immorality and have a minimal amount of debate are what I would call morals.
So, I would say that a society as a whole decide what is moral.
Also, God has done justice: He is punishing the wicked, which is anything that is evil.
He created the wicked, they only exist because of him.
By definition of God being omnipotent and sin being the falling short of the glory of God, then any being that God creates would have the capacity for evil, in some sense.
So, God has pre determined what everyone does. People don't have the free will to act on their evil or not.
Therefore, God simply is destroying anything that is not godly, which is everything. There is no injustice on God's part.
Because He is an asshole to everyone? God is ok to you because he destroys everything. This is what you are saying. He destroys ungodly things, and everything is ungodly. Wow, just wow.
A judge determines that a terrorist is guilty. He is sentenced to torture as the punishment.
He created the wicked, they only exist because of him.
What about it?
So, God has pre determined what everyone does. People don't have the free will to act on their evil or not.
Correct, people do not have free will.
Because He is an asshole to everyone? God is ok to you because he destroys everything. This is what you are saying. He destroys ungodly things, and everything is ungodly. Wow, just wow.
It is a good thing that God destroys that which is ungodly.
A judge determines that a terrorist is guilty. He is sentenced to torture as the punishment.
We don't assign torture as a punishment in this country, sorry. And, punishment is not a good thing to the person being punished.
What about it?
He created the wicked, therefore He is the bad guy. Plus, how do you torture someone for doing what you created them to do. That is like the judge in your previous example punishing the terrorist for acting calmly in court.
Correct, people do not have free will.
So, God is not punishing people for acting on their evil side. He made them act evil.
It is a good thing that God destroys that which is ungodly.
You said everything is ungodly. It is good that God destroys everything? Do you know what the word good and the word destroy mean?
We don't assign torture as a punishment in this country, sorry. And, punishment is not a good thing to the person being punished.
(1) It doesn't matter if it is done in this country or not. Also, you must realize that humans make mistakes, which means that torturing someone who has been determined guilty might actually be innocent: God does not make mistakes.
(2) It is irrelevant that the person who is being punished does not think that that the punishment is a good thing: that is probably why they are being punished in the first place.
He created the wicked, therefore He is the bad guy. Plus, how do you torture someone for doing what you created them to do. That is like the judge in your previous example punishing the terrorist for acting calmly in court.
Creating the wicked does not make Him a bad guy; it makes Him God. And as I references before, Romans 9 clearly states that God has rights over the clay to have mercy one whomever and harden whomever He chooses.
So, God is not punishing people for acting on their evil side. He made them act evil.
They are acting on their evil side; however, them acting on their evil side was determined by God to happen. It is called compatibilism: everything is deterministic but we still perceive to have free will.
You said everything is ungodly. It is good that God destroys everything? Do you know what the word good and the word destroy mean?
Everything that is not God is evil. Everything that God creates without himself within it is evil. It is good that God destroys that which is evil.
(1) It doesn't matter if it is done in this country or not. Also, you must realize that humans make mistakes, which means that torturing someone who has been determined guilty might actually be innocent: God does not make mistakes.
(2) It is irrelevant that the person who is being punished does not think that that the punishment is a good thing: that is probably why they are being punished in the first place.
Look, torture is bad. End of story.
Creating the wicked does not make Him a bad guy; it makes Him God. And as I references before, Romans 9 clearly states that God has rights over the clay to have mercy one whomever and harden whomever He chooses.
You said nothing. Congratulations. How do you torture someone for doing what you created them to do? That is not a good being.
They are acting on their evil side; however, them acting on their evil side was determined by God to happen. It is called compatibilism: everything is deterministic but we still perceive to have free will.
How does God punishing people for doing the stuff He made them do become ok if it is perceived as free will?
Everything that is not God is evil. Everything that God creates without himself within it is evil. It is good that God destroys that which is evil.
Hehe, God doesn't make mistakes, but everything He creates is evil. The greatest thing about this is you have no idea how incredibly dumb you sound. You went from having unique thoughts to absurd in such a short amount of time. This is fun.
You said nothing. Congratulations. How do you torture someone for doing what you created them to do? That is not a good being.
Says who?
How does God punishing people for doing the stuff He made them do become ok if it is perceived as free will?
He created them to do evil so that He could destroy them.
Hehe, God doesn't make mistakes, but everything He creates is evil. The greatest thing about this is you have no idea how incredibly dumb you sound. You went from having unique thoughts to absurd in such a short amount of time. This is fun.
You have a problem with logic so I understand that you have a hard time recognizing certain intellectual ideas.
Well, then if God is the one to determine morality, then would He consider Himself to be evil? So, let me ask you: why do you consider the one who determines morality to be evil? Thats logically incomprehensible.
You want to get into logic then. To you it is logical to say that the being that defines evil must not be evil because it would not label itself like that. But, it is illogical to say that if a being commits evil acts it is evil. Good job.
So, let me ask you: why do you consider the one who determines morality to be evil?
I am not sure why I am answering this question. I have explained it in very easy terms and it still doesn't work, but here you go: He is not just determining morality. He is determining morality, creating subjects that can only go against the morality that He created, then punishing them for not following His morality.
You want to get into logic then. To you it is logical to say that the being that defines evil must not be evil because it would not label itself like that. But, it is illogical to say that if a being commits evil acts it is evil. Good job.
Who are you to say that God, the being who defines what is evil and not evil, does evil? You defeated yourself yet again.
I am not sure why I am answering this question. I have explained it in very easy terms and it still doesn't work, but here you go: He is not just determining morality. He is determining morality, creating subjects that can only go against the morality that He created, then punishing them for not following His morality.
And that is not evil because God defines it as not evil. You are being illogical. Please use logic next time you try.
Do you really not see a problem with the definer of evil is not able to commit evil acts?
Let me break it down for you in simple terms so that you can understand it. God is the definer of what is good and evil. Therefore, whatever anyone, outside of God, thinks is good and evil is irrelevant because what they think is not what determines good and evil to be. Therefore, you making an objective claim that what God does to be evil is illogical, since you are not the being that defines what is good and evil, God is.
Really, which part of the Bible says that God can't do anything evil?
Let me break it down for you in simple terms so that you can understand it. God is the definer of what is good and evil. Therefore, whatever anyone, outside of God, thinks is good and evil is irrelevant because what they think is not what determines good and evil to be. Therefore, you making an objective claim that what God does to be evil is illogical, since you are not the being that defines what is good and evil, God is.
God doesn't commit evil because He says so, hahahaha.
"Dude, you did something wrong"
"Not uh, not uh. What I say goes, not bad"
"You just said that if that guy over there does what you just did it is bad"
"It's not bad when I do it because I say so"
No where else does this fly, you believe in a lie.
So, you reject any logic that goes against God that is logically sound. You don't care about logic, you care about God only. The logic you support is only God logic, not complete logic.
Actually, you have not. I demonstrated to you how your logic broke down by claiming a moral absolute against that which determines moral absolutes. So if anything, it is the other way around.
And if that being determined the moral absolute to be that it's own actions are always justified, then it follows that it is irrelevant to what we think about it. It hasn't changed moral absolutes in any way; for His ways are higher than our ways.
And if that being determined the moral absolute to be that it's own actions are always justified, then it follows that it is irrelevant to what we think about it.
This is the most awesome statement ever. Why would you worship this being? I don't get it.
This is the most awesome statement ever. Why would you worship this being? I don't get it.
This is what theologians call being contradicted against. If we are evil and selfish and deceitful and horrible peoples, then it follows that a completely just and good God would be the exact opposite of what we would desire. That which is good hates that which is evil and that which is evil hates that which is good. Therefore, if we find some sort of theological idea that "contradicts" ourselves, which means to go against our normal or safe or pleasurable ideas, then it follows that this God is actually the true God and is not a being that we have made up to fit our own desires. If one were to create a religion, then it would be a religion in favor of normalcy or safety or desire in order to bring in the most amount of peoples, which is contemporary Arminianism, which is Biblically heretical. Therefore, because few would want to follow the true God, because we are evil and He is good, while evil hates good and good hates evil, then it follows that this God is truth.
Hehe, you are a laugh riot, no wonder lol is in your name. All I hear is you saying that Arminianism is wrong because more people would be able to except it because the God they describe isn't a complete lunatic.
I can assure you now, this is a lost cause. He believe Gods made the evil, to be punished, but still believes God to be benevolent. He believes he made the sinful to go to hell, but does not send there or something along those lines.
Yeah, I know. This is at least the 3rd time I have gotten him to tell me his insane beliefs. But, if I stop, I will never get to see some of the insanely awesome thoughts he has. He just told me that God is good because He destroys all things that are not godly, which is everything. That's just priceless.
You forget about free will. God did not cause the sinners to sin, they chose that path themselves.
I think that if somebody chooses not to believe in a self-contradicting doctrine, it's not a sin, but a right choice. Since God gave us reason, we have a right to use it. I think it's at least disrespectful to think that God can contradict himself, so it's OK not to believe everything that was written (by men), in the Bible.
1 Kings, 18:21. Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing.
Thats a situation that proves that we have free will. It's saying that we have the option to choose our fates and whatever we want. Why does God give us free will? I have no clue dude.
That verse does not actually say that we have free will. It says that we choose but it doesn't explain how we choose. The "how" is the difference between free will and determinism.
This argument can be theoretically solved with the one simple truth that God isn't real. If he was however, I doubt he'd give a monkey's bum hole whether guys were shagging guys or girls or girls were shagging girls or guys. Aren't there worse things for him to worry about like war, famine and that giant meteorite heading for us as we speak?! In all seriousness though, if there was a God, he wouldn't give a damn.