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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
God is hypocritical!
I have been thinking hard about my relgion and this statement is probably likely to convert me. I say he is hypocritical because he always tells us to forgive people even when they don't ask for forgiveness... He doesn't he has to have apology. We are not allowed to judge people but he judges people everyday by sending them to hell.
If god was so "Good" and "Fair" Why would he do these sorts of things and it's starting to make me think he's not even there!
Read Leviticus, now that you're free from the bias of "I'm going to presume this is true before I read it", you can see the mountain of hate and flawed logic in the Bible, which is the foundation for the religion. Read the parts about killing children and homosexuals and then decide if you want to be a part of that. I also recommend researching a sentence such as "Bible flaws" and that should highlight some major inconsistencies which science has unraveled, because whether you like him or not should not affect whether you believe in his existence.
It's funny, right now I could be said to be trying to convert you, with such phrases as "Read this yourself" and "do your own research" and yet when Christians try to convert atheists, they say things like "You will burn in hell unless you start praying really quick" and "You must do this and that and believe it all".
Basically, use your own head and don't let anyone force you in or out of a religion. The thing is, that open-minded perspective almost always results in atheism.
Perhaps God is flawed, like man? But if he was, this would contradict the texts saying he is perfect. But if he is perfect, wouldn't he be totally logical?
There are many contradictions in theology that would lead one to scewed feelings and uncertain conclusions. What keeps people believing is their faith that these contradictions are a coincidence and don't mean anything in the big picture.
Whether they do to you or not is up to you, though.
That's why I've always liked the Greek gods. Individually they might claim to be perfect, but it's clear from the mythology they're basically just humans with super powers, and prone to all the lust, anger, jealousy, envy, and other distasteful human emotions that entails. And we can chalk human suffering and natural disasters as such up to the incompetence, apathy, and spitefulness of the gods instead of having those ideas be logically inconsistent with the "benevolent" god detailed in the Bible.
God has zero flaws at all. God doesn't outcast anyone. Instead he brings you in. He is absolutely logical. We can't imagine it because we are supposed to even try. It's like thinking of a new color. It won't happen. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Then why does he send innocent, good people to hell?
He is absolutely logical.
Evidence?
We can't imagine it because we are supposed to even try.
Do you mean 'because we are not supposed'? Because otherwise, that doesn't make sense.
But then again, either way, it doesn't make sense.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
True. But there is no evidence of existence either. Believing that he doesn't exist and believing that he does exist are both asinine beliefs. Science does not say that God does not exist, it says that Creationism isn't necessarily true. It doesn't focus on trying to prove creationism because there is no evidence to follow that lends credit to the scientific method, allowing us insight into the theory.
The Bible is your evidence and so are you and I. What created all this chiz around us? Obviously it doesn't come from a point that explodes because something had to create that point.
God doesn't send good people to hell because they followed his word. He quoted this himself. And yes i did mean NOT supposed to lol good catch. Clearly I can't prove that i have a baseball unless you see it. But if i said it's at home or it's invisible or a destroyed it then it just becomes hard too believe.( ignore the invisible part thats just for humor) I could say that death is a design or it just randomly happens. Could you prove it? Nope because both sides are pretty weird too even think about......unless you are God or a God.( If you are Zeus then tell me lol jk)
Obviously it doesn't come from a point that explodes because something had to create that point.
You don't know that something had to have created anything. Don't be arrogant.
The Bible is your evidence
No, it's not. The Bible is a book, and books are written by men. Saying the Bible is proof for God is like saying Harry Potter is proof for wizards.
What created all this chiz around us?
We don't know, which is the point of science. I don't know and you don't know.
And if you think you know for sure, you are, again, arrogant.
God doesn't send good people to hell because they followed his word. He quoted this himself.
Buddhists don't follow the word of the Christian God, but they would still be sent to hell for not worshiping him. Supposing your religion is true, this means that there are hundreds of thousands of innocent people in hell, JUST because they didn't happen to worship the Christian God.
And if your reply to that is, 'You are not good if you don't worship God,' then you are a fool and I bid you a good day.
Clearly I can't prove that i have a baseball unless you see it. But if i said it's at home or it's invisible or a destroyed it then it just becomes hard too believe.
I need evidence of it. If it's at your home, then you can go get the baseball and show me. That is evidence. If it's invisible, can I hold it? If I can't hold it or see it as a baseball, then it's not a baseball, and you don't have a baseball. If it's been destroyed, then you don't have a baseball.
But that's the point. There is no evidence for theism. You can say that this and that is evidence, but what you can't prove is why it's evidence. If you can't prove why it's evidence, then it's not real evidence. The scientific method gives us a logical path to learning things without contrivances. Because nothing in science is contrived, as it is postulated via testing and experimentation, it is open to logical change should more knowledge be revealed to us through discovery.
The problem with religious logic is that it has no sensible process. Things are just because they are. There is no rhyme or reason. It's just belief. But because it is simply belief without reason or evidence for it's beliefs, it is not a real talking point.
If you're going to try and prove that your religion is true, you need evidence. Evidence that is real and reasonably sought out and thought up. This is why in conventional logic, if you say you have something (a baseball), you better be prepared to have evidence of the baseball.
Because if you can't show that you have a baseball, then you don't have one.
End of story.
Saying there is a God as fact without proof is like saying you have a baseball, but not having a baseball to show others.
Hmmmm never thought of it like that......hmmmmm well it's not my religion but yeah i see your point it's a book and i never thought about the other religions good point there. I don't know any other good examples of absence of evidence. So then you say logic is the root of our understanding and if anything falls out of that line of logic then it is not real? So are you also saying that there isn't a god or that there is just a science that we haven't yet discovered.
Logic is the root of reasoning, and reasoning is the root of understanding reality. If it's not reasonable, it's not logical, and if it's not logical, it's not reasonable. Without both, you are making up realities that do not necessarily exist, and one big factor in survival and development of civilizations is to confine yourselves to reality. The reason ancient religions existed was to corral people into behaving properly and obediently, which was a good, logical, reasonable reason for the existence of religion. Nowadays, it's different; religion tries to impose upon people the idea that an illogical train of thought is key to our development, when it most definitely is not! We cannot develop technologies and medicines that help people if we resort to organizational means used in the Dark Ages.
I am not saying God isn't necessarily real, but there is no evidence of him. The point of science is to find answers to things so that we can actually SHOW people the 'baseball'. If science were to discover him as being real, then he would be real. But until that day, one cannot be certain.
Another problem is that there isn't really any lead-up evidence to go on that's detailed in theology in the first place. Charles Darwin had leeway to start up his investigation upon evolution and natural selection, which is why it's basically a scientific law after all these years.
But creationism unfortunately does not have that, or anything that can be a foundation for research. Which is why it's far-fetched and likely to not be proven true anytime soon, if at all. Especially the creationism stories detailed in religions, young and old (as we have evidence to disprove many of these stories even happening, such as the Garden of Eden and how man came to be).
God is never there. Religions are created by humans.
If there is such an all-knowing being, who is supposedly never wrong,why would there be contradictions in what the bible claimed was his words? On the other hand, humans are susceptible to create such contradictions.
Why?
It got harder and harder for them to proofread whatever they came up with as the story became longer and longer.
I feel like I have failed at what matters the most to me. I love God, but He is making me mad, and that makes me not like myself. Any theist who says that they have never been angry at God is either lying, in denial, or has not had their turn yet. Theism does not protect your from feeling violated by your god. I guess what matters is staying true to what beliefs are right for you. Real talk from an honest theist.
God forgives us no matter what, but people still need to ask for that forgiveness. Not asking for forgiveness is like not recognizing that you have done something wrong, therefore you'll do it again, and again. And again. By repenting, you recognize that you've sinned. God will still love you even if you don't repent, but even you need to understand that what you've done is wrong.
Also, he judges because the world needs some judgement. We, as silly, craz-ay humans, have no right to judge. Why? We are not perfect. We are far from it actually. God, on the other hand, is perfect or spiritually "higher" than all of us, so He deserves to judge. Besides, without judgement, how do you separate the murderers, thieves, rapists from everyone else? It's not like I want anyone to go to hell, but it unfortunately happens.
If you're doubting God, then you should take some time to think about things. Do you really want to stay Christian? I see no point in believing in God, if you don't even really trust His existence. Makes no sense.
So what your saying is that god loves us but not enough for us to go to heaven and that he see's us below his rule? If god was truly good he would see us as equals even if he is perfect.
-> God forgives us no matter what
Blatently obvious he doesn't if he sends loads of people to hell.
-> Also, he judges because the world needs some judgement. We, as silly, craz-ay humans, have no right to judge.
And that is what gets me... Why should he have the right and we don't that is a major flaw to him being "Perfect in everyway" Like I said if he was good then he would see us as equals and let us do as we please whether if be judgeing people or not. Like I said it's hippocrytical.
-> If you're doubting God, then you should take some time to think about things. Do you really want to stay Christian? I see no point in believing in God, if you don't even really trust His existence. Makes no sense.
If you read the last biit of my desription you would see that I am starting to doubt him and will likly no longer be christian.
He loves us, and wants us to go to heaven. However, you can only go to heaven if you accept Jesus as your Christ and Savior. If God didn't care, He would not bother to tell us this, except for a few selected people. However, He has told us this, and pastors and preachers all over the world repeat this time and time again. God does not want anyone to go to hell, but people do because they refuse to believe in Him or don't have the proper knowledge. You must know that God didn't create Hell for us, but for Satan (or Lucifer) in the first place.
Blatently obvious he doesn't if he sends loads of people to hell.
I meant those who are His children, which is not everyone, but only those who are born again. It doesn't make sense for Him to forgive you if you don't believe in Him, because you don't recognize what you're doing as wrong.... you're living life your way, so why should God intervene?
Like I said if he was good then he would see us as equals and let us do as we please whether if be judgeing people or not. Like I said it's hippocrytical.
As equals? God and us? Ha. Hahaha. No. We are so far below His level, and that is for many reasons. We kill each other in cold blood, we start pointless wars, we abuse children, we stereotype, we judge people according to race and religion... I do not see at all why we should be treated as equals when we act anything but.
Also, as far as letting us do as we please. We pretty much do that anyway, and as you can see, that's why the world is in its current state.
God also created us, so I see no reason why He shouldn't judge us.
If you read the last biit of my desription you would see that I am starting to doubt him and will likly no longer be christian.
I did. I was just saying that don't bother yourself with trying to talk to others on a site or wherever about it. It's only something you can decide for yourself. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can say to make you stay Christian, or make sure you stop being Christian. Sure, you can create a debate about the whole thing, but in the end, don't listen to others, listen to yourself.
He loves us, and wants us to go to heaven. However, you can only go to heaven if you accept Jesus as your Christ and Savior.
So his desire to be acknowledged and worshiped as god outweighs his love for us and his desire to see us go to heaven, if he loves us and wants that for us at all, which I don't see from the god of the Bible.
You must know that God didn't create Hell for us, but for Satan (or Lucifer) in the first place.
Hitler might have initially created concentration camps for Jews, but he ended up sending gypsies there, too. The fact that it wasn't originally intended for gypsies (i don't actually know this, but it's an example for the sake of argument) doesn't make it any less shitty for Hitler to send gypsies there. So I don't see your point in saying hell wasn't made for us.
As equals? God and us? Ha. Hahaha. No. We are so far below His level, and that is for many reasons. We kill each other in cold blood, we start pointless wars, we abuse children, we stereotype, we judge people according to race and religion...
Is god innocent of any of those acts? According to the Bible, God killed in cold blood, both by his hand and his word, he urged his people to start pointless wars and participated in them himself, "abuse" is a fairly light term to describe his treatment of children (and you forgot women), he generalizes, and he is perhaps the most stringent judge when it comes to your religious beliefs. The god of the Bible is not our equal in physical power; in that regard, he far surpasses us. But morally speaking there is hardly a preschooler in the would who doesn't have a more advanced sense of right and wrong than the god of the Bible, so in that sense god is actually our inferior, not the other way around.
God also created us, so I see no reason why He shouldn't judge us.
Fair enough, but if god looks at his creation and doesn't like what he sees, is that his creations fault? Let me give you an example. A carpenter builds a table. When he's done, he looks at the table, judged it, and realizes it's all fucked up. The legs are uneven, the woodwork doesn't meet at right angles, etc. Would it make sense for the carpenter to condemn the table for being a failure, and furthermore to command the table to repair itself or he will chuck it into a fire? No! No, the carpenter made something, and if in his opinion that thing is fucked up then he must take responsibility for it. Indeed, it doesn't logically make sense to shift the blame elsewhere.
There's another way to look at this, of course. Personally I don't see humanity as being comparable to a fucked up table. I don't think there's something inherently wrong with us. We have flaws, sure, but more often than not they're nothing damning, just like any table you buy from any furniture store anywhere will have flaws, but that doesn't mean it won't function as a table or even possibly be a very good table. I think god set his standard to high: perfection. We can be condemned to eternal hellfire for impure thoughts. If that's not a prime example of setting the bar too high, I don't know what is. So god could lower his standards to something realistic (more specifically, something agreeable to the nature he created gave to us) and then we wouldn't be in a never ending loop of falling short of gods impossible expectations, and we wouldn't need to think less of ourselves for our perfectly normal and natural limitations.
So if we are fucked up, god has nobody but himself to blame for that. If we're not fucked up, as I believe, then god needs to get the stick out of his ass and stop condemning people to an eternity of torture for being good to others and true to themselves.
There is nothing I, or anyone else, can say to make you stay Christian, or make sure you stop being Christian.
That's not true, not true at all. You could be a Christian missionary, and dangle food and water over the heads of starving children and say, "Ah ah ah, no food, not until you convert." Or, more locally, you can have children and brainwash them into thinking that god exists and frighten them away from questioning this assertion by threatening them with eternal torture. There are lots of things people can (and do) say to force their faith on others.
So his desire to be acknowledged and worshiped as god outweighs his love for us and his desire to see us go to heaven, if he loves us and wants that for us at all, which I don't see from the god of the Bible.
No. In the Old Testament, or past, or whatever. God made a law that if anyone sinned, they would die. Technically, no one was supposed to ever sin, but then Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple, and so sin became second nature to everyone after them. As you can see, if there is a law that states anyone who sins shall die, it creates a problem because now everybody is sinning. That's why God sent Jesus to die on the cross, for our sins. Now, if we sin we don't die. However, you have to accept Jesus as your Savior because you're no longer born a child of God, because of the whole Adam and Eve sinning thing. It's not about wanting to be worshipped, you could accept Jesus in your heart and not worship God at all afterwards, wouldn't really matter. It's just.... because of everything that happened in the past, it's like we have to start over again, with the whole accepting Jesus and all.
So I don't see your point in saying hell wasn't made for us.
Maybe I answered this above, or didn't. I'll just answer this anyway. Hell was for Lucifer. When Adam and Eve sinned, everyone born after them was no longer born a child of God, as I said before, so they're "of the world". If you're not a child of God, then you can't stay in heaven, because it's not your home. Get it? That's why people go to hell. God didn't one day say, "Okay I'm going to start sending people to hell." If He wanted people to go to hell, he wouldn't have sent His son to die for us, and give us a chance to once again become His children.
But morally speaking there is hardly a preschooler in the would who doesn't have a more advanced sense of right and wrong than the god of the Bible, so in that sense god is actually our inferior, not the other way around.
God has His reasons. Like I said before, He made a law, A and E broke it, consequences are made. Blah blah blah. I haven't studied Theology for the past 10 years of my life or anything, so I can't give you a proper explanation of why certain events happened. However, I can say that God is not inferior to us. It's easy to think that because you don't believe in God, or you don't like Him, and so all His....... "wrongdoings" you magnify, and our wrongdoings you shrink. Truth is, we're worse in every way. Especially because we have to learn morals, and not everyone gets that chance, which just adds to the awfulness that is the human race.
Fair enough, but if god looks at his creation and doesn't like what he sees, is that his creations fault?
Things weren't supposed to be this way, but the eating of the apple changed everything. This is why pastors and preachers and teachers and whoever else try to spread the gospel, and help people become born again. I mean, if you know about all this, and choose not to accept God, then is it His fault? Is it our fault? No, so you can't complain about being judged. Sure, it sucks but you have a choice, right?
We have flaws, sure, but more often than not they're nothing damning, just like any table you buy from any furniture store anywhere will have flaws, but that doesn't mean it won't function as a table or even possibly be a very good table.
Please, be serious. Yes, sometimes our flaws can be overlooked, but more often than not they are damning. We are useless beings. That was harsh, but seriously... I sometimes hate this planet and the people in it. Few times. Often. I don't know, it gets worse by the day.
We can be condemned to eternal hellfire for impure thoughts.
It's not about the thoughts or actions or whatever... it's just about becoming born again or not. Simple. Think all the bad thoughts you want, steal, murder, I don't know... but when you become born again, it's a clean slate. You start again with your life. You're not going to go to hell because you stole a stick of gum, you're going to go to hell because you refuse to believe in God. Not you specifically, I just mean generally.... Don't get me wrong. I wish no one went to hell, but I'm not God.
So god could lower his standards to something realistic (more specifically, something agreeable to the nature he created gave to us) and then we wouldn't be in a never ending loop of falling short of gods impossible expectations, and we wouldn't need to think less of ourselves for our perfectly normal and natural limitations.
The standards are completely achievable, even by a little kid! It's not like you have to fast for 5 months, pray for 24 hours straight afterwards, and then make sure to go to Church every frickin' Sunday for the rest of your life, or you're going to hell. Honestly.. it's just so basic and easy. People just don't believe in God, and that's their choice and their belief, so yay them.
If we're not fucked up, as I believe, then god needs to get the stick out of his ass and stop condemning people to an eternity of torture for being good to others and true to themselves.
What do you mean "true to themselves"?
There are lots of things people can (and do) say to force their faith on others.
I actually laughed at the food part, hehe. I wouldn't do that. That's cruel.
But seriously, I can't force you to change your beliefs. Firstly because that's morally wrong, I think. Also, you believe in what you believe just as strongly as me, so I see no point in convincing someone who refuses to budge. Besides, isn't life about choices?
No. In the Old Testament, or past, or whatever. God made a law that if anyone sinned, they would die. Technically, no one was supposed to ever sin, but then Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple, and so sin became second nature to everyone after them.
I don't see how this addresses my point. God is blackmailing us. Believe in me or I'll send you to hell. Which goes to show that he values being believed in more than he does humans not going to hell.
To address your point, even though I don't see how it relates to my own, it would have been pretty stupid of god to create sinful human beings and then kill them all for being sinful. I mean, I guess he actually did that, with the flooding of the planet and all, but it's still a matter of his judgement of his creation.
However, you have to accept Jesus as your Savior because you're no longer born a child of God, because of the whole Adam and Eve sinning thing.
Lets say your ancestors owned slaves. Does this make you a slaver? Why are we (the entire human race, billions of people across hundreds of years) being held responsible for the actions of a couple of uneducated nudist savages - the first two people, no less? Why don't we each get our own apple/tree/snake scenario? We're not given a choice; we're born sinful because of actions beyond our control that happened thousands of years ago, and then commanded to fix the problem we didn't create.
When Adam and Eve sinned, everyone born after them was no longer born a child of God
Adam and Eve were born sinful, otherwise they wouldn't have sinned. So right from the get-go humans were sinful, and hell is for sinners, so I don't see your point. God knew when he made Hell that he would end up sending humans there; god knew when he made humans that he would end up sending them to hell. So god made hell for us. Even if he didn't, hell is still a horrific concept (infinite torture for finite crimes... justice fails) and sending anyone there is a horrific thing for god to do.
God has His reasons.
That's fine, but it means his reasons are more important to him than human suffering.
Like I said before, He made a law, A and E broke it, consequences are made. Blah blah blah.
Would it be fair of you (if you have/ever have children) to bring a newborn child up to a whiteboard and command them under pain of torture to write and solve advanced physics problems on the board? No, right? Your demand surpasses the reasonable capacity of your child; it's not something he/she is able to do, so your punishment seems excessive. Similarly, god made a law we had no choice but to break. He said no sinning and then made sinful humans. Of course they failed his test; he never made it possible for them to pass.
you don't believe in God, or you don't like Him, and so all His....... "wrongdoings" you magnify, and our wrongdoings you shrink.
No, I don't need to magnify gods wrongdoings; he's more of a tyrannical monster than any human in history. I can compare his atrocities and his body count to literally any evil dictator or homicidal fanatic and god comes out the bigger asshole every time.
Truth is, we're worse in every way.
Lets say you knew a crazed fanatical bomber was planning on blowing up a daycare. A daycare full of innocent little children and caring adults. You saw the bombs, you saw the plans, you know it's getting blown up. Say you had the chance to stop the bomber, without any harm to yourself or others, would you do it?
I would. You probably would. Most people would. God wouldn't. In fact, god doesn't. We know that for a fact, because that daycare incident actually happened, and god didn't intervene. This means you and me and most people are nicer than god.
Things weren't supposed to be this way, but the eating of the apple changed everything.
Really? That seems inconsistent with your theology. Isn't everything happening according to gods plan? Or did we take him by surprise when we are the apple? Did he go, "Oh, shit! That wasn't supposed to happen! What are we going to do!? Plan B! Plan B!" No, according to Christian theology, this is all going exactly how god planned it would go.
I mean, if you know about all this, and choose not to accept God, then is it His fault?
Yes, because I "know about all this" in regards to several religions. The god of Christianity has not made himself any more evident to me than the god of Islam, and the claims of both religions are equally valid/invalid. And if god wants me to know him, choosing to exist in a reality where his existence is impossible to prove was a shitty choice on his part. Why cant he just come down an introduce himself?
Yes, sometimes our flaws can be overlooked, but more often than not they are damning. We are useless beings. That was harsh, but seriously... I sometimes hate this planet and the people in it.
Do you really feel any of your flaws are deserving of an eternity of unimaginable agony?
Also this is precicely the kind of poisionous anti-humanist message religion infects the world with. The idea that humans are, as a rule, wretched, worthless, sinful and wrong, which of course we are in comparison to a supposed perfect being like god. I would assert two points on this matter. One, that god is an illusion and it's pointless to compare human nature to the fictional nature of a nonexistent being. Two, the god described by Christian mythology does not meet the requirements of a perfect being as he paradoxically has limits on his powers and has the morality of primitive Jews, not the developed sense of morality we have today, and especially not a morality that surpasses our own.
It's not about the thoughts or actions or whatever... it's just about becoming born again or not. Simple.
You're speaking of how to get into heaven. I was talking about the aspects of our nature that god condemns us to hell for. So it's about both, and my point goes unchallenged.
You're not going to go to hell because you stole a stick of gum, you're going to go to hell because you refuse to believe in God.
Doesn't this in and of itself strike you as terribly immoral? The basis on which god judges who gets to hang out in paradise with him forever and who gets sent to hell to be tortured for eternity is not how you lived your life, but if you choose to acknowledge his power or not. You could be the best guy on the planet and (according to Christianity) be deserving of infinite hellfire because you didn't accept god. You can be the worst guy in the world and (according to Christianity) attain heaven if only you accept Jesus as your lord and savior.
That, and the idea of "putting your sins" onto another is bogus and also immoral.
The standards are completely achievable, even by a little kid!... Honestly.. it's just so basic and easy. People just don't believe in God, and that's their choice and their belief, so yay them.
Again, you are addressing how to get into heaven. I am addressing the things that god damned humanity for in the first place. If we were all perfect and sin-free we would get into heaven regardless, no? So I'm less concerned with the arbitrary hoops god decided we should jump through to please him and more concerned with what caused him to be displeased in the first place. In this case, it was our imperfection, and again if a creators creation is imperfect, it is the fault of the creator not the creation. When you fail a test does the teacher give the test an "F," or does the teacher give you an "F?" Do we hold the piece of paper responsible for the wrong answers you wrote on it? No. So why does god hold us responsible for the flaws and imperfections he created us with?
What do you mean "true to themselves"?
Acting in accordance with ones nature.
But seriously, I can't force you to change your beliefs. Firstly because that's morally wrong, I think. Also, you believe in what you believe just as strongly as me, so I see no point in convincing someone who refuses to budge.
I was really just trying to point out that forced conversion is a prevalent occurrence throughout history and up to the present day. My examples weren't particularly relevant to our discussion. Either way, I don't debate people to convert them to my way of thinking, I debate people because I genuinely think it's fun, I like writing (and it's nice to have people reading and responding to the things I write, and opposed to them remaining hidden away in notebooks and on my hard-drive), and I like to have people challenge my opinions and beliefs because I think it's the best way to refine and develop those opinions and beliefs. So I'm not trying to convert you and I hope you're not trying to convert me, but regardless I'd like to exchange and debate ideas. Thats why I'm here.
To address your point, even though I don't see how it relates to my own, it would have been pretty stupid of god to create sinful human beings and then kill them all for being sinful.
This is what you said: "So his desire to be acknowledged and worshiped as god outweighs his love for us and his desire to see us go to heaven"
I was stating that God wants us to go to heaven, but because of everything that happened, we are no longer born as His children, and thus those of us who remain "of the world" cannot go to heaven. Of course He loves us, which is why He sent His son to die for us, so we can save ourselves from going to hell. I was just trying to explain the backstory...
Also, God did not create sinful human beings. We inherited the spirit of sin after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.
Lets say your ancestors owned slaves. Does this make you a slaver? Why are we (the entire human race, billions of people across hundreds of years) being held responsible for the actions of a couple of uneducated nudist savages - the first two people, no less?
Because after what they did, we are all born with this spirit of sin, and so you can't escape that. We are just born with it, because of what happened, and that's how it is. If Adam and Eve sinned, and they were punished and it did not affect the rest of us (spiritually), then we would be fine, but that's not how it is.
Why don't we each get our own apple/tree/snake scenario? We're not given a choice; we're born sinful because of actions beyond our control that happened thousands of years ago, and then commanded to fix the problem we didn't create.
We do have our own apple/tree/snake scenario. We go through this scenario every day of our lives. It's about choosing to sin, or choosing not to sin, and it's hard to do so if you're just born with it. We do have a choice, keep on living life as it is or accept Jesus. I don't see what huge problem there is, you don't have to "help" anyone else. You can just save yourself, and done, go on with your life. I mean, right now we, the younger generation, have to solve the problems the older guys caused with the environment, natural resources, economy, etc. That's much more work than the whole sinning problem.
Adam and Eve were born sinful, otherwise they wouldn't have sinned.
I think that they were created without sin, but after the devil tempted Eve, and she ate the apple, that's when sin came into the whole picture. If they were born with sin, they would have probably sinned even before the devil/snake came, because they would have already had it in them.
Similarly, god made a law we had no choice but to break. He said no sinning and then made sinful humans.
No, he didn't create sinful humans, as I explained above. If the devil never came into the picture, there would be no sin, and thus the law would have not been broken.
No, I don't need to magnify gods wrongdoings; he's more of a tyrannical monster than any human in history. I can compare his atrocities and his body count to literally any evil dictator or homicidal fanatic and god comes out the bigger asshole every time.
And yet, I don't see Him like that, because I'm looking at it in a different perspective.
I would. You probably would. Most people would. God wouldn't. In fact, god doesn't. We know that for a fact, because that daycare incident actually happened, and god didn't intervene. This means you and me and most people are nicer than god.
There are a lot of awful things that happen in the world besides that incident, and I can't pretend I know why they happen. Maybe it's because God wants to give us free will, I don't know. I'm not going to agree that we're nicer than God, because I repeat, maybe He has His reasons.
No, according to Christian theology, this is all going exactly how god planned it would go.
I don't know, if this is His plan, then we'll know why life is the way it is in the end. I don't think it is, but you know. That's just my opinion.
Why cant he just come down an introduce himself?
Maybe because that would destroy the whole purpose of faith? I don't know. He still does manifest His presence in other ways though.
The idea that humans are, as a rule, wretched, worthless, sinful and wrong, which of course we are in comparison to a supposed perfect being like god.
No, I think we're still wretched, worthless, sinful and wrong, even not compared to God. Most of us at least, not all.
Two, the god described by Christian mythology does not meet the requirements of a perfect being as he paradoxically has limits on his powers and has the morality of primitive Jews, not the developed sense of morality we have today, and especially not a morality that surpasses our own.
I believe He does have a morality that surpasses our own. I honestly do.
You're speaking of how to get into heaven. I was talking about the aspects of our nature that god condemns us to hell for.
Well you can change your aspects, it's not like you're stuck the way you are. That's what I meant.
The basis on which god judges who gets to hang out in paradise with him forever and who gets sent to hell to be tortured for eternity is not how you lived your life, but if you choose to acknowledge his power or not.
It's choosing to acknowledge His presence, the fact that He exists. How you live your life depends on whether you believe in Him or not.
You can be the worst guy in the world and (according to Christianity) attain heaven if only you accept Jesus as your lord and savior.
That's because after accepting Jesus, you start life again with a clean slate. Also, this is only according to my opinion, but if don't believe in God, I find it hard to understand how you can be the best guy in the world. Everyone sins, and that one act of sinning makes you like the rest of us. There's no such thing as being the best or perfect, because we can't be.
In this case, it was our imperfection, and again if a creators creation is imperfect, it is the fault of the creator not the creation.
In this case, it's the fault of the creation. I understand your test analogy, but what if you create your own skateboard and it's sturdy and it works and you ride it all the time. Then your dad accidentally runs over it with his car. Is it your fault? No, the skateboard broke because of the car not you, the creator. We are imperfect because the devil made Eve and Adam sinned, dooming us all, not because God created us as imperfect.
So I'm not trying to convert you and I hope you're not trying to convert me, but regardless I'd like to exchange and debate ideas. Thats why I'm here.
Of course He loves us, which is why He sent His son to die for us, so we can save ourselves from going to hell.
If you loved someone and something was wrong with them, would you endeavor to help and cure them or would you demand that they accept and acknowledge that you are a greater being than they are? I guess my point is if god loves us he should help us fix the things he finds wrong with us instead of blackmailing us into worshiping him.
Also, God did not create sinful human beings. We inherited the spirit of sin after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple.
I've heard this argument made many times before and never once heard it soundly defended. Even by distinguished Christian theologians when they debate atheists. It doesn't make sense. Sin is going against gods will. For example, according to Christian theology, cheating on your wife is immoral because Yahweh says it is so, so if you cheat on your wife that's a sin. So in order for Adam and Eve to be able to break gods command to eat the apple in the first place, they had to be sinful in nature, or at least have the capacity to sin, but given that they did sin, the former seems more likely. After all, they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, not the Tree of Evil or the Tree of Sin. They were sinful before eating the apple; they had to be in order to eat it.
Because after what they did, we are all born with this spirit of sin, and so you can't escape that. We are just born with it, because of what happened, and that's how it is.
Okay, so if your ancestors owned slaves you are born with this spirit of slavery and are thus a slaver and you can't escape that? How does that seem fair? I think saying "that's how it is" is a cop out as it neither explains how you know that or why that's the way it is, but leaving those two things aside for the moment, how do you feel about this situation? Does it seem fair? Does it seem just? Leaving out that gods actions are all theoretically supposed to be good and holy, if this prejudiced behavior was displayed by anyone else would you not find it ignorant and repugnant?
We do have our own apple/tree/snake scenario. We go through this scenario every day of our lives. It's about choosing to sin, or choosing not to sin, and it's hard to do so if you're just born with it.
Is it possible for me to go through my whole life without sinning?
I don't see what huge problem there is, you don't have to "help" anyone else. You can just save yourself, and done, go on with your life.
1) I have no interest in living as an abject slave.
2) I don't see how making myself an abject slave to a fictional being will vicariously redeem flaws I don't think I even have.
I think that they were created without sin, but after the devil tempted Eve, and she ate the apple, that's when sin came into the whole picture.
But that doesn't make sense. To break gods law in the first place they had to be sinful. Eating the apple didn't make them sinful; they had to be sinful in order to eat in in the first place. Furthermore the fact they chose to break gods law instead of follow it implies they were sinful.
No, he didn't create sinful humans, as I explained above. If the devil never came into the picture, there would be no sin, and thus the law would have not been broken.
I still don't understand how you can comprehend perfect beings that sin, but either way, even if god created Adam and Eve perfect, he still created the tree, the devil, and hell, all knowing how those would play out in the damnation of the human race. So even if god created us perfect in the first place, which he didn't, he still created, planned, designed, and carried out the downfall and condemnation of the humanity. So it's his fault, either way you look at it; he either created imperfect being and irrationally required them to be perfect, or he created perfect beings and then endeavored to and succeeded in making them imperfect.
And yet, I don't see Him like that, because I'm looking at it in a different perspective.
You can look at it however you want, I'm just saying as a matter of theological fact (there's an oxymoron for you) god has killed more people by his hand and word than any other person in history.
I'm not going to agree that we're nicer than God, because I repeat, maybe He has His reasons.
Okay, then "his reasons" are more important to him than the lives of dozens of innocent little children, and the horror and suffering of their families. In which case he is not a god unduly concerned with our wellbeing, at least in comparison to his own "reasons." Which means he's a tyrant we should overthrow. Think about it. If the US government admitted to knowing about a terrorist plot to blow up a daycare, admitted they could have prevented it without any loss of life, but chose not to for "their own reasons," don't you think people would be rioting in the streets and calling for blood? Again, you display a magnificent double standard when it comes to god. You seem to be willing to forgive him on principal of committing acts so terrible you wouldn't put up with them from anyone else.
Maybe because that would destroy the whole purpose of faith?
Why has god set it up so the fate of your eternal soul (getting tortured/living in paradise forever) to rest on belief without and sometimes in spite of logic and evidence? Why is it one can set out seeking god, examine the evidence, and fail to find him? It seems if god actually wants a relationship with me he would try a little harder, is all I'm saving; I've reached out to him, why wont he reach back to me?
No, I think we're still wretched, worthless, sinful and wrong, even not compared to God. Most of us at least, not all.
Oh? What's your basis for moral judgement outside of divine authority? In other words, what are you comparing our worth to when you decide we are worthless? What are we sinning against if not a divine being? Who do we wrong when we do wrong? You can have a basis for morality outside of god and still be a Christian, it's just that most Christians I've talked to don't have a basis for morality apart from the divine, so I'm just curious.
Anyhow, I think the idea you just expressed, the disdain and hate you clearly feel towards most of humanity, is just one of many poisonous ideas Christianity has infected the world with. If saying, "God loves you and I'll love you because god told me so, even though you're a wretched, worthless sinner deserving of hell," isn't a backhanded compliment (or worse) I don't know what is. Personally it sounds more like a slide insult and an affront to human decency, but at best (when you account for the good intentions) it just seems like a contradictory and arrogant attempt at a compliment.
I believe He does have a morality that surpasses our own. I honestly do.
You think that slavery is okay and should be practiced?
You approve of causal genocide, castration, gentile mutilation, and executing children for pretty "crimes?"
You think that anyone caught working on Sunday should be stoned to death?
You think that bashing infants against rocks is a moral action one should feel good and "blessed" about?
You think slaughtering entire towns (except for the young virgins, kept as war booty) is acceptable behavior?
You think women should be worth less than men in society?
I'm just trying to figure you out, because I assume you are (and I think you think you are) a moral person, and consider yourself to have a cultured and decent set of moral values. And you also believe in a creature called "god" who you say displays moral vales that do not merely equal but surpass our own. So I read the Bible, I see the horrible things I listed above carried out by god or else commanded by him or in his name, and I don't consider them to be moral actions. You clearly do. Do you think our society would be better off if we still practiced slavery? Or if we murdered people for working on the wrong day, or children for talking back to their parents? Do you feel women today should be able to voice their opinions and have them regarded as the equal of a mans opinions? I think you do, and I think you rightly hold many of these vales on moral grounds. God doesn't. God supports slavery and killing children and repressing women. So it seems you should either be calling for all the barbaric things I listed above to be instituted and practiced in society (because you clearly think they are good and moral) or you have to amend your position and conclude that god is our moral inferior, because god called for, supported, and practiced the things I listed above.
It's choosing to acknowledge His presence, the fact that He exists. How you live your life depends on whether you believe in Him or not.
You can pay your taxes, give to the poor, love your wife, provide and care for your children, support your neighbors, work hard, never steal or kill or rape, and not believe in god, and according to your views you are deserving of an eternity of torture. You can live a perfectly moral life and not believe in god. You might live your life differently if you belief in god, but I would assert that religious belief does not make someone live their lives more or less morally.
Also, this is only according to my opinion, but if don't believe in God, I find it hard to understand how you can be the best guy in the world. Everyone sins, and that one act of sinning makes you like the rest of us.
Well I suppose it's a matter of opinion. I judge and evaluate other people (when determine if they are "good" people) based on their moral actions and personal character. Accordingly, I value and respect a loving and generous father over a vicious, homicidal serial-rapist. According to Christianity (and you) god judges us on if we accepted him or not. People who accept him are born again believers awaiting heaven, people who don't are wretched sinners deserving of hellfire. But the generous loving father could be in the "hellfire" group and the raping murder in the "born again" group. If you choose to evaluate people like god does (i.e. Christians are good, regardless of their moral character) then we will always be at a disagreement, because I judge other people not on their belief in an invisible celestial thug but on their actions and character. So when I'm determing who the "best guy in the world" is, "does he believe in god?" doesn't even factor into the decision. For you, that's apparently the only factor.
In this case, it's the fault of the creation. I understand your test analogy, but what if you create your own skateboard and it's sturdy and it works and you ride it all the time. Then your dad accidentally runs over it with his car. Is it your fault? No, the skateboard broke because of the car not you, the creator. We are imperfect because the devil made Eve and Adam sinned, dooming us all, not because God created us as imperfect.
That would work, except in your analogy the person/object who/that broke the skateboard is another free agent completely independent and unaffected by either the skateboard or the skateboarder. In the "reality" we are trying to apply your analogy to, god created the world, us, the devil, and, well, everything else, and then set up the situation according to his plan. So you should amend you example to something along the lines of, "imagine you build a skateboard and then one day you put your skateboard down on the driveway, put your dads car in neutral, and let it roll backwards down the driveway and break your skateboard, is it your fault?" It's like you're trying to argue that because the car was the object that physically broke the skateboard, we should blame the car and completely ignore the circumstances that caused the car to run over the skateboard in the first place. God made us, he made the tree, he made the devil, the snake, the world, and he made all of these things knowing exactly how everything would go down and furthermore created them with the behavior and nature required for it all to go down; he set the car rolling down the driveway.
We are imperfect because the devil made Eve and Adam sinned, dooming us all, not because God created us as imperfect.
God created the devil sinful and rebellious the same way he created Adam and Eve like that. Lets back the argument up a step. You say the devil caused Adam and Eve to sin. If the devil was the cause, that's backing up the problem of original sin to the devil. But my argument for Adam and Eve being created sinful applies equally well to the devil; if a "sin" is a crime against god, then the devil must have been sinful to rebel against god in the first place. Everything the devil did after was sinful, yes, but the act of rebelling itself was sinful, the the devils sinful nature had to be present before the rebellion, not after. In other words, god created the devil sinful, and and consequent rebellion against god was enabled, planned, and ordained by god. So I'm trying to say god made Adam and Eve sinful. You say no, no, no, the devil made Adam and Eve sinful. But who made the devil sinful, and set the chain of events in order? The super-devil? No, god. Well, in my mind those are one in the same, but you get my point; if you try to back the problem of original sin and blame it on the devil, the fault still falls on god because he created the devil just like he created us.
I guess my point is if god loves us he should help us fix the things he finds wrong with us instead of blackmailing us into worshiping him.
But He is trying to fix things. If Jesus did not die on the cross, then we would all be dead or doomed. The death of Jesus gave us a chance to change our fate basically. You can't say He's not doing anything, because He has and He is. What else is there to do?
So in order for Adam and Eve to be able to break gods command to eat the apple in the first place, they had to be sinful in nature, or at least have the capacity to sin, but given that they did sin, the former seems more likely.
If they were sinful in nature then they would have sinned in some other way long before eating the apple. Why wait to be tempted by someone else? I mean, when you have the nature of sin in you, no one needs to tell you to sin, you just do.
I think saying "that's how it is" is a cop out as it neither explains how you know that or why that's the way it is, but leaving those two things aside for the moment, how do you feel about this situation? Does it seem fair? Does it seem just?
What I know is that Adam and Eve are essentially our great great great..... grandparents. So, if they acquire the nature of sin, then it has to be passed down. It's like a mother having a deadly disease like HIV/AIDs and passing it down to her daughter/son when they are born. It's unfair, but it's life. This is the same case... Yes, I think it's unfair, but I also understand why it happened and so I've accepted it.
Is it possible for me to go through my whole life without sinning?
Of course not. However, when you become born again you start a "new life". You are cleansed, rejuvenated, however you wanna call it. Even after that you'll still sin from time to time because sin is a part of you that won't leave, but you can ask God for forgiveness, and once again, you are cleansed.
I don't see how making myself an abject slave to a fictional being will vicariously redeem flaws I don't think I even have.
Okay, that's your opinion and the way you want to live your life. I understand. I wasn't telling you specifically to save yourself, but if an individual does decide to become born again, they don't have to tell others to do the same.
Furthermore the fact they chose to break gods law instead of follow it implies they were sinful.
No. I don't believe that. Like I said, why did Eve bother waiting for the snake to tell her to eat the apple? If she was created sinful, she would have done it without his help, same with Adam. They only chose to break the law because they were influenced by the devil.
even if god created Adam and Eve perfect, he still created the tree, the devil, and hell, all knowing how those would play out in the damnation of the human race.
He didn't create the devil. That's another story.
You can look at it however you want, I'm just saying as a matter of theological fact (there's an oxymoron for you) god has killed more people by his hand and word than any other person in history.
Fine. I don't think I've changed my mind over this matter in any way, just like if I told you all the good things God has done, you wouldn't change your mind.
You seem to be willing to forgive him on principal of committing acts so terrible you wouldn't put up with them from anyone else.
But you can't just blame him. God didn't tell these terrorists to do what they did. They did it because of whatever they were under the influence of. Just because awful and horrific events happen in the world, doesn't mean we should ignore everything and blame God. We caused these events, not Him. Sure, you can say He's omnipotent or omni-whatever, but I still believe that God has let us live our life the way we want to. Just because people are killed does not mean we should only blame God, but maybe blame our society and the way it is developing.
It seems if god actually wants a relationship with me he would try a little harder, is all I'm saving; I've reached out to him, why wont he reach back to me?
God reaches out to people when He heals them, repairs their lives, and generally brings joy to whatever dark situation they are in. Sometimes in order to get the best things in life, you have to try a little harder, or get some help (not mental help, but someone to teach you about God and how to reach him, etc).
In other words, what are you comparing our worth to when you decide we are worthless?
Do you have to have something to compare us to? I honestly don't think so... What's morally wrong is morally wrong. You don't need the presence of a saint to know that a rapist or murderer is "bad". It's obvious.
You can have a basis for morality outside of god and still be a Christian, it's just that most Christians I've talked to don't have a basis for morality apart from the divine, so I'm just curious.
I don't think of God when I state someone's actions as immoral. I just know it is, because it's not right. Like you said, God has killed people so how can I use Him as a means of justifying that killing is wrong? I don't use Him, I just know. Everyone, except psychopaths, know that what's immoral is immoral.
Anyhow, I think the idea you just expressed, the disdain and hate you clearly feel towards most of humanity, is just one of many poisonous ideas Christianity has infected the world with.
Even if I wasn't Christian I'd feel the same way. I mean, how do you watch the news and hear that this many people died after this bomb attack and be okay with how our society is turning out? I'm just being honest, things are getting worse. I don't need to believe in God to dislike most of humanity. Their actions are enough.
So I read the Bible, I see the horrible things I listed above carried out by god or else commanded by him or in his name, and I don't consider them to be moral actions. You clearly do.
Of course I don't, but I don't see how these actions make Him less moral than us. We've done the same things and more.
So it seems you should either be calling for all the barbaric things I listed above to be instituted and practiced in society (because you clearly think they are good and moral) or you have to amend your position and conclude that god is our moral inferior, because god called for, supported, and practiced the things I listed above.
No, I don't. I'm not going to change my opinion of God because he's done x, y and z in the past, especially because we do the same things now. It's like a major politician accused of theft, and then you steal the next day but still label yourself as morally superior, because you're you and the politician is supposed to be a "good person". Is it because God is an all-powerful being who should do everything right? I wish it were like that, but it's not and that doesn't make him our moral inferior. Do you want me to say that we're equal in terms of morality? Is that better?
You can pay your taxes, give to the poor, love your wife, provide and care for your children, support your neighbors, work hard, never steal or kill or rape, and not believe in god, and according to your views you are deserving of an eternity of torture.
I wish everyone would go to heaven, good or bad, but that's not my call. I never said that anyone deserves an eternity of torture, and if I did in anyway, then I'm sorry.
You can live a perfectly moral life and not believe in god.
Sure, I bet there are many people like that. But you'd still sin. Sin is not just stealing and murdering someone. Sin is lying, disobeying you parents, hating someone... it's not just the major acts of crime.
According to Christianity (and you) god judges us on if we accepted him or not.
Yes... because if you haven't accepted him you're a "sinner"... no, I don't like that word. Basically, your nature is sin, completely and God can't look at sin or be with sin.
If you choose to evaluate people like god does (i.e. Christians are good, regardless of their moral character) then we will always be at a disagreement, because I judge other people not on their belief in an invisible celestial thug but on their actions and character.
No. I don't think that Christians are good, regardless of their moral character. In fact, I know certain Christians who aren't the greatest people in the world.
So when I'm determing who the "best guy in the world" is, "does he believe in god?" doesn't even factor into the decision. For you, that's apparently the only factor.
Nooooo... obviously not. If I see a guy petting a puppy, I'll think he's an awesome person, whether or not he believes in God. What I'm saying is that you can't really define 'the best guy in the world', because he doesn't exist. Yes, some people are nice, loving and generally humble people, but they're not perfect. That's what I meant. I do know certain people that I admire and look up to, who aren't Christians, but I don't think they're perfect or The Best.
God made us, he made the tree, he made the devil, the snake, the world, and he made all of these things knowing exactly how everything would go down and furthermore created them with the behavior and nature required for it all to go down
Sure, you can think that, but I still believe that there's a greater purpose to everything. It's just what I believe. But God didn't create the devil/snake. I think I said that before.
In other words, god created the devil sinful, and and consequent rebellion against god was enabled, planned, and ordained by god.
Why would God purposely create the devil sinful, and then banish him when he rebelled? That doesn't make sense. There could be other factors in the whole situation, maybe the devil was a faulty angel and that's why he sinned. Or maybe he ended up developing sin, I don't know.
But He is trying to fix things. If Jesus did not die on the cross, then we would all be dead or doomed.
He doomed us in the first place. That has been the centerpiece of my whole argument. Hes god. He could snap his fingers and undoom us, if he wanted to; he doesn't want to, he orchestrated our damnation and then devised a form of blackmail where you must accept him to save yourself from the treat of hell for the problems he created in the fist place.
If they were sinful in nature then they would have sinned in some other way long before eating the apple. Why wait to be tempted by someone else? I mean, when you have the nature of sin in you, no one needs to tell you to sin, you just do.
They weren't sinners, but that's not the argument you or Christian theologians make; you assert that Adam and Eve were perfect and sin-free because that's how god created them, and the devil should take all the blame for the whole "sin" situation. But a perfect sin-free being cant sin. Perhaps they sinned a whole lot less than we do nowadays (after all, they were isolated, innocent human beings living in the Garden of Eden under gods direct management; there was a lot of potential for a relatively sin-free life... after all, what were they going to do, kill eachother? Steal... what? Covet what other peoples wives and husbands? They were the only people around and living in a garden) but this doesn't mean that they were perfect. So god created imperfect, fallible humans with the potential to sin, and then punished them and all future generations when they inevitably did.
What I know is that Adam and Eve are essentially our great great great..... grandparents. So, if they acquire the nature of sin, then it has to be passed down. It's like a mother having a deadly disease like HIV/AIDs and passing it down to her daughter/son when they are born.
Except it's not a disease, it's a curse bestowed upon us by god for the transgressions of our long, long, long, long, long, longlonglonglonglong dead ancestors. So it's not an incurable disease that regrettably passes from one person to the next, it's a punishment applied afresh by god to each new generation.
It's unfair, but it's life. This is the same case... Yes, I think it's unfair, but I also understand why it happened and so I've accepted it.
Oh. Okay. I was laboring under the false assumption that you thought your god was a fair judge. I've always though the god depicted by the Bible was horribly unfair and unjust, but most Christians have tried to tell me otherwise. Good to know we have some common ground; we both feel god is an unfair judge.
Of course not. However, when you become born again you start a "new life". You are cleansed, rejuvenated, however you wanna call it. Even after that you'll still sin from time to time because sin is a part of you that won't leave, but you can ask God for forgiveness, and once again, you are cleansed.
Well then you contradicted yourself. You said in the part I was disputing before this, that we each get our own apple/tree/snake scenario. But (unless you are okay with agreeing that the scenario was a meticulously designed set-up) Adam and Eve had the ability to choose not to sin or to sin. If they had no choice in the matter - if their nature would eventually drive them to sin - gods test of their perfection was rigger. If they had the ability to never sin it was a slightly more fair test. But you said humans do not have the ability to never sin. We all sin. We always sin. I cannot possibly choose to live my whole life free of sin. I can choose not to sin sometimes, sure, but it is in my nature to sin; it is literally, physically and mentally unavoidable, as you agree.
So basically you either have to agree with me that the original apple tree scenario was rigged by god so that we would fail or you have to amend your original statement, because our sinful state is nothing like that of Adam and Eves if they were perfect and had the ability to not sin and we are imperfect and inevitably sin. You cant compare the Genesis scenario in which the subjects had the ability not to sin to our scenario where the subjects always sin, unless you agree that Adam and Eve were bound to eventually sin.
No. I don't believe that. Like I said, why did Eve bother waiting for the snake to tell her to eat the apple? If she was created sinful, she would have done it without his help, same with Adam. They only chose to break the law because they were influenced by the devil.
That's very weak reasoning. I can think of numerous examples were modern people (unavoidably sinful in nature) would not commit a sin unless prompted with temptation, and I'm sure you can to. If you cant, let me give you one: Lets say you're married, and you, being a sinful human being, have the capacity to commit adultery. But you're a good, decent woman with solid moral values, so you don't go out and seek out another partner to commit adultery with, you stay faithful. But then one evening you're tipsy at a formal dinner party another guest (who you find terribly attractive) successfully seduces you into sleeping with him that night, and you commit adultery. So in the absence of temptation, you were sin free; in the face of temptation, you gave in to sin.
All this besides, we do not have a timetable for the sequence of events in the Garden of Eden. The lines in Genesis 3 describing the incident with the talking snake come immediately after the chapter detailing the creation of Adam and Eve. And that's a specific as it gets. So for all we know they were on the planet together for less that half an hour (or thirty seconds) before they decided to sin, so not sinning in that span of time isn't anything to be impressed by nor is it any indicator of their nature, be it sinful or otherwise.
Between those two counter-arguments I think you ought to drop the whole "they couldn't have been sinful because they didn't sin prior to the talking snake episode" line, because it's not going where you want it to.
He didn't create the devil. That's another story.
...
Do tell.
Fine. I don't think I've changed my mind over this matter in any way, just like if I told you all the good things God has done, you wouldn't change your mind.
Hitler did a lot of good things for Germany. I mean, a lot. Pre-WWII Germany was in the midst of a depression so bad it made the US during the Great Depression look like utopia. But he was also an evil shithead murderer. When we remember Hitler, do we remember the good, or the bad? Similarly, terrorist cells will cooperate with charity front organizations that actually do real charity work. Does this mean we should ignore their shitty behavior because they are also doing some good on the side?
Besides, you yourself seem to see more bad than good in a world you think god created; what does that say about god?
Just because people are killed does not mean we should only blame God, but maybe blame our society and the way it is developing.
You misunderstood my point. I wasn't blaming god for killing those people directly. I was saying god is less good than you or I because he could have chose to stop the people killing the children, but he chose not to, where you or I would have saved the innocent children without a second thought. I think people should be held accountable for their actions. When I heard about the terrorists blowing up the daycare I didn't blame god for it, and nothing I wrote indicated that I would have. That argument of yours was a straw-man; not an argument I made.
God reaches out to people when He heals them, repairs their lives, and generally brings joy to whatever dark situation they are in.
In the face of gross abundance of human suffering completely bereft of divine intervention, it's asinine to think that god intervenes in the lives of people here in America by curing arthritis and helping you get a promotion. There are people on this planet who are born, live, and die in fear and agony for trivial reasons, and you claim to believe in an all powerful god who cares about human suffering and who loves us;
those two ideas are not consistent with one another.
What's morally wrong is morally wrong. You don't need the presence of a saint to know that a rapist or murderer is "bad". It's obvious.
It is very good that in spite of your faith you have realized that you are the source of morality, not some celestial dictator in the sky. You would be amazed how many Christians tells me something to the tune of, "I only know __________ is moral/immoral because of God," and that kind of Christian truly, deeply frightens me, because by their own admission the only thing stopping them from raping you, killing you, and taking your wallet off your corpse is the concept of a divine being. If science ever gets around to disproving the existence of god... well... all of those Christians are ticking time-bombs. So thank you for not being one of those Christians.
Even if I wasn't Christian I'd feel the same way. I mean, how do you watch the news and hear that this many people died after this bomb attack and be okay with how our society is turning out? I'm just being honest, things are getting worse.
On every apple tree (I have one right outside my apartment) you get bad apples. You get deformed and misshapen ones; you get undeveloped ones; you get ones riddled with worms; some are disfigured by rodents. Does this mean that all the apples on the tree are bad, or the that tree itself is bad, or that apples in general are bad? My point is if you only focus on the worst parts of humanity and judge the rest of it accordingly, yes, humanity seems pretty shitty. But when you focus only on the bad stuff you miss the good stuff, and you miss the bigger picture, as well. And Christianity doesn't help this, at all.
Of course I don't, but I don't see how these actions make Him less moral than us. We've done the same things and more.
This make him less moral than us because he as an individual accomplishes more evil than any one human could ever hope to do in their lifespan.
And if you admit that god is more or less or moral equal (or somewhere in that vicinity) in that he does all the terrible and immoral things we do, why worship him as god?
It's like a major politician accused of theft, and then you steal the next day but still label yourself as morally superior, because you're you and the politician is supposed to be a "good person".
If you're admitting that god is akin to a thieving politician we don't need to argue this point much further. However, this would mean he's just like us, and not deserving of our worship.
And, according to Christian theology, I do sin because "I'm me." I don't have a choice. I have to sin. God is supposed to be sin free. If anything, the opposite of sin. So if you're willing to agree that god is as sinful as we are, that's fine with me, but it means he's not omnibenevolent.
Sure, I bet there are many people like that. But you'd still sin.
Irrelevant to my argument.
Yes... because if you haven't accepted him you're a "sinner"... no, I don't like that word. Basically, your nature is sin, completely and God can't look at sin or be with sin.
You contradicted yourself... again. You admitted that god does all the horrible sinful stuff we do. You admitted, in moral terms, that god was our equal. So how could he not look at/be with sin when he is himself a sinner and commits sins frequently?
What I'm saying is that you can't really define 'the best guy in the world', because he doesn't exist. Yes, some people are nice, loving and generally humble people, but they're not perfect.
Does something have to be perfect in order to be superior to its peers? If you're looking at cars, and you see a shitty, beat up, rusted frame sitting on cinder blocks as option A, option B is a decent sedan with 120,000 miles on it, and a brand new, half a million dollar Ferrari with a ding in the door is option C. None of these cars are perfect, but if you had to choose which one was the best you could defiantly rank them. Similarly, even though (by gods standards) there are no perfect humans, we can still be better or worse than one another in objective moral terms.
Sure, you can think that, but I still believe that there's a greater purpose to everything. It's just what I believe.
We weren't talking about greater purposes, we were talking about whose fault sins existence is. You didn't refute or address any of the points I brought up on this point, you just backed out of it by reaffirming your belief in what you've said, even though you haven't been able to defend or explain it.
Why would God purposely create the devil sinful, and then banish him when he rebelled? That doesn't make sense.
I think if you look into the Bible and into Christian theology you'll find a lot of things that don't make sense. I've spent a good chunk of time writing things about Christianity that don't make sense here in this debate, as well. Pointing out that an aspect of the Bible is logically incoherent is no sweat off my back; I already think and in fact have been asserting in this debate that the Bible is nonsense. I'm glad to see some of my arguments are starting to sink in.
Hes god. He could snap his fingers and undoom us, if he wanted to
Not really, because God cannot go against His own law.
But a perfect sin-free being cant sin.
I agree that Adam and Eve were not perfect, for if they were, we would not be here right now. However, I disagree that they were created with the potential to sin. I see no reason why they could not have been created without any connection or relation with sin, and then end up tempted to sin. If they're imperfect human beings, it would make sense. I don't think I ever stated that they were perfect, but maybe I accidentally implied it, so sorry bout that.
So it's not an incurable disease that regrettably passes from one person to the next, it's a punishment applied afresh by god to each new generation.
If God had the chance to change things, He would, and we would not have to continuously suffer. That's why I used the HIV anecdote, because it's the same thing. The punishment is not renewed every year, it's just passed down as people reproduce and lengthen their family trees.
Good to know we have some common ground; we both feel god is an unfair judge.
In some cases.
If they had the ability to never sin it was a slightly more fair test. But you said humans do not have the ability to never sin
Humans born after Adam and Eve, yes..
So basically you either have to agree with me that the original apple tree scenario was rigged by god so that we would fail or you have to amend your original statement, because our sinful state is nothing like that of Adam and Eves if they were perfect and had the ability to not sin and we are imperfect and inevitably sin.
This argument sort of lost me, but I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that the apple tree scenario is rigged, because we'll always sin due to our sinful state........ and...... No, could you please rephrase your argument. I'm so very lost.
That's very weak reasoning. I can think of numerous examples were modern people (unavoidably sinful in nature) would not commit a sin unless prompted with temptation, and I'm sure you can to.
I agree. So perhaps Adam and Eve were imperfect and had the ability to be tempted to sin, but could not do so on their own, because they didn't have that actual nature of sin.
So for all we know they were on the planet together for less that half an hour (or thirty seconds) before they decided to sin, so not sinning in that span of time isn't anything to be impressed by nor is it any indicator of their nature, be it sinful or otherwise.
Sure, that's true. But they could have been on the planet for years, so not sinning in that time span would be significant. Who knows.
Do tell.
I thought you knew it, because in your later arguments it seemed that way... oh well. Basically, Satan was Lucifer originally, and he was an angel in heaven. In fact, I believe He was one of God's favorite angels. Then one day, Lucifer decided that He wanted to be the "big boss", so he rebelled against God, and so was banished from heaven, down to hell. My point: God did not create the devil, Lucifer turned evil purposely for his own reasons.
Besides, you yourself seem to see more bad than good in a world you think god created; what does that say about god?
I seem more....... bad? I actually think of myself as a good person, and most Christians I know are good people, except those who keep on screaming, "You will burn in hell!" to everyone. What do you mean "bad"?
You misunderstood my point. I wasn't blaming god for killing those people directly ... That argument of yours was a straw-man; not an argument I made.
You said: "Okay, then "his reasons" are more important to him than the lives of dozens of innocent little children, and the horror and suffering of their families. In which case he is not a god unduly concerned with our wellbeing, at least in comparison to his own "reasons.""
I thought you were blaming Him directly for killing all those people. Sorry. However, the fact that He did not do anything does not necessarily make him less good, because there could have been a reason. I know that sounds... weak, but why point fingers when you don't know the whole story?
There are people on this planet who are born, live, and die in fear and agony for trivial reasons, and you claim to believe in an all powerful god who cares about human suffering and who loves us; those two ideas are not consistent with one another.
I know, but that doesn't erase the fact that there are people out there whose lives have been turned around because of God. Not because He got them a promotion (out of all things), but maybe because He healed them from a major illness, or maybe because He gave them hope when they had none.
My point is if you only focus on the worst parts of humanity and judge the rest of it accordingly, yes, humanity seems pretty shitty. But when you focus only on the bad stuff you miss the good stuff, and you miss the bigger picture, as well. And Christianity doesn't help this, at all.
I guess I came across this way. It's just that the negativity is so much more emphasized and "all up in my face" than the positivity. I agree that there are some great aspects of humanity, and society in general, but I don't know... I just wish things did not have to be so crappy all the time.
This make him less moral than us because he as an individual accomplishes more evil than any one human could ever hope to do in their lifespan.
One human no, a lot of humans, yes.
And if you admit that god is more or less or moral equal (or somewhere in that vicinity) in that he does all the terrible and immoral things we do, why worship him as god?
Because I believe that what He did, He had His reasons. Also, God has done so much for me, and you may not understand that, but He is essentially my life-line. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating. He's an important factor in my life, and I would not worship someone who has not done anything in the world to prove that no matter what, he loves us.
If you're admitting that god is akin to a thieving politician we don't need to argue this point much further. However, this would mean he's just like us, and not deserving of our worship.
It was just an example.
So if you're willing to agree that god is as sinful as we are, that's fine with me, but it means he's not omnibenevolent.
When we sin, there's usually no greater purpose for it. We sin for the sake of sinning, or because we cannot control ourselves. I've already said this before, but I guess I'll say it again, I believe that God's actions have a reason behind them. What that reason is, I don't know, but that's my strong opinion.
Irrelevant to my argument.
You said: "You can live a perfectly moral life and not believe in god."
Guess I was thrown off by the "perfectly" part. Thought you meant something else... but, yah. Okay, I agree. You could.
So how could he not look at/be with sin when he is himself a sinner and commits sins frequently?
Maybe because in His eyes, they are not acts of sin, but acts of.... something else? I'm not sure. It's what I've been told, and I'm just providing the limited information I have. But it's something I'll ask my dad or whomever, because I guess it's a good question. I'll let you know.
Similarly, even though (by gods standards) there are no perfect humans, we can still be better or worse than one another in objective moral terms.
Sure, but if you were talking about determining "the best guy in the world" (which is what you mentioned before), it signifies a perfect being or man, who does not exist. Yes, we can be better and worse than one another, but there is no one person who can be greater than all. However, it could depend on what you deem perfect...
You didn't refute or address any of the points I brought up on this point, you just backed out of it by reaffirming your belief in what you've said, even though you haven't been able to defend or explain it.
Your words: "God made us, he made the tree, he made the devil, the snake, the world, and he made all of these things knowing exactly how everything would go down and furthermore created them with the behavior and nature required for it all to go down"
I thought you were talking about God knowing how everything would turn out, but still going along with it anyway. That's why I said that I believe everything has a greater purpose.
If you're talking about sin, and who caused it.... I just didn't see that in the argument, sorry. However, I do not think that God created sin, but I'm willing to accept that He created beings that were able to develop sin like Lucifer, but not sin itself.
I already think and in fact have been asserting in this debate that the Bible is nonsense. I'm glad to see some of my arguments are starting to sink in.
And now I shall convert, lol. No, but it's something to think about. If I had the time I would sit down and just think everything through, maybe talk to someone, but not right now. This is why I love debating, it makes you question your opinions and beliefs.
Not really, because God cannot go against His own law.
He isn't bound by the laws he lays down on us (i.e. he kills in spite of telling us not to kill) and he can apparently change his mind (kill your son - wait, never-mind, I changed my mind), so I don't see why he couldn't just choose to love us the way he created us and simply forgive our flaws (y'know, the way everyone else does: with words, not human sacrifices), instead of making his love conditional upon accepting him and damning us to hell for our flaws otherwise.
I agree that Adam and Eve were not perfect... However, I disagree that they were created with the potential to sin.
That doesn't make any sense. The fact that they did sin means they were able to sin, which is what "potential to sin" means in this context.
If God had the chance to change things, He would, and we would not have to continuously suffer.
You're saying god is incapable of accepting and loving us for who we are/creating perfect humans? That's very bold for a Christian, to propose limits on gods power.
In some cases.
If you only steal from some stores, you're still a thief. Similarly, if god is an unfair judge sometimes, that makes him an unfair judge.
No, could you please rephrase your argument. I'm so very lost.
You said previously that we each get our own apple/tree/snake scenario every day. You compared gods test of Adam and Eve to the choices we face every day. But you assert that Adam and Eve did not have the potential to sin, and you acknowledge that humans post-Adam and Eve inevitably and unavoidably sin. So your comparison doesn't work, because you say Adam and Eve had the potential to pass the test, because that was their nature, but we always fail the test, due to our nature.
So perhaps Adam and Eve were imperfect and had the ability to be tempted to sin, but could not do so on their own, because they didn't have that actual nature of sin.
Perhaps. I'll give you that much. But, like I said, sinning (via temptation or not) was the first thing they got around to doing in Genesis, for all we know. So there's no basis to say they couldn't have sinned on their own; on principal, there's no evidence to refute it, either, but if we're allowing that kind of fiction into our debates... well... lets just say I don't see the point.
My point: God did not create the devil, Lucifer turned evil purposely for his own reasons.
That's an entirely different meaning of the word "create." We were discussing creation in the sense that god made us; we didn't exist, and then god brought us into existence. The same can be said for the devil; he didn't exist, and then god brought him into creation. Changing his name doesn't change the fact that god physically (or spiritually, or what have you) created the entity we came to be known as the devil. I mean, if I legally change my name to something other than the one my parents gave me, that doesn't mean my parents didn't create me, does it?
-> meant those who are His children, which is not everyone,
So your saying god has split us all into groups of different people? Thats not very good...
On the point that we are sinners. Sin wouldn't even exist if he hadn't made hell and sent satan there... And above all created a tree that you where forbidden to eat. If you want something to follow what's the point in putting a forbidden tree there? That's just illogical in a way the mere fact that we sin is his fault.
-> There is nothing I, or anyone else, can say to make you stay Christian, or make sure you stop being Christian.
Of course I was jusgt making sure people wheren't confused because I've been christian for a while on this site it would be weird and out of the blue to put a debate like this up and not explain why :P
So your saying god has split us all into groups of different people? Thats not very good...
He did not do it willingly. Read my response to the ChadOnSunday guy.
And above all created a tree that you where forbidden to eat. If you want something to follow what's the point in putting a forbidden tree there? That's just illogical in a way the mere fact that we sin is his fault.
It's called being tested, and we failed. The fact that Adam and Eve could not follow a simple rule of not eating from one stupid tree, proves that in the future, if they had not eaten from that tree, something else would have happened, and life would be the same. We're faulty, we make mistakes, if not today, then the next day.
Of course I was just making sure people wheren't confused because I've been christian for a while on this site it would be weird and out of the blue to put a debate like this up and not explain why :P
Ah, I see. Well, it will be sad to lose you. :P But I wish you all the best!
God does forgive but he is a just god. If you sin there is a punishment. If you don't correct your path of sin then your cast into eternal damnation. Human have no right to judge because most people are unjust and don't judge people for the right reasons. He sends people to hell because they made that conscious decision to disobey him. It's absolute equality. If you want to sin then you pay for sin. If you live by his word then you won't suffer but have everlasting life. I'm no christian but i read the bible for a paper i had to turn in so I know a little bit of stuff.
Also, do you see the logically fallacy in saying we as humans have no right to judge anyone and then forwarding your reason for that as a judgement of people? You have to judge humans to conclude that humans are in no fit state to judge humans, and your basis for saying we should not judging other people is itself a judgement of other people. Concluding that humans are not perfect is your subjective judgement; no more valid than someone else subjective judgement of humanity as perfect. It's all a matter of standards, and of us judging to see if those standards have been met. But in this case your judgement is that we have no right to judge, which means you have no right to make the judgement that we have no right to judge. You've shot yourself in the foot.
But in this case your judgement is that we have no right to judge, which means you have no right to make the judgement that we have no right to judge. You've shot yourself in the foot.
Indeed I have. However, all I was saying is that God deserves to judge. I also believe that we don't, but as you stated, I can't say that but I guess I already did, and I'll probably keep on thinking that forever more. It's a limitation of being human.
If you say so. Just thought I'd point out it's the equivalent of writing, "Everyone, you must listen to what I have to say: you don't have to listen to anything I say." It just sounds dull and hypocritical.
What is wrong with it? Why shouldn't I judge beliefs and ideas and anything I see?
Having good judgement skills and deciding who's a person worth being friends with, such as attributes like, are they kind? Smart? Friendly? Motivated? Interesting? is very useful. If I judge them not to be to my liking, then I can make a decision and avoid a friendship that can lead to ruin and unhappiness. Don't you judge people and ideas too?
Without being able to judge things, I will be very lost in life, and you would too.
The Bible seems to make nearly every natural feeling a sin.
You can judge people as often as you like, but it's not like you deserve to (in certain cases) because you have your own faults, so why judge others. But you still can, because it's your life and whatever.
Also, the judgement I was talking about was not about choosing friends, that's superficial and basic stuff. I was talking about judgement like God's judgement: good versus evil and all that.
Furthermore, although I said you can judge people because it's your choice, and like you said, people judge all the time, there are types of judgement that lead to much more than simply picking a good friend, like bullying or discrimination. I don't think anyone should be judged in that way.
No, he isn't hypocritical. As much as a parent would punish their child to teach a lesson, God cares for the world with a firm but loving embrace.
Oh wait, who the f@#% am I kidding? He damns his children to an eternity of suffering. No loving parent would throw their child into a pit of knifes and flames. It's hard to even think that he made hell in the first place- his mind would of been quite messed up.
In the bible, the supposed word of God, he murders 42 children with 2 bears. The reason he killed these 42 children was because they were calling someone a 'bald head'. Is this what God actually wants? If God was let loose into society, he would be brutally murdering anyone who calls anyone a bald head, because for some reason, he hates it so much to the point of brutally murdering them as punishment. If this immoral nonsense is in the bible, how are we meant to trust it? It definitely doesn't sound moral at all.
2) God is that which no being greater than can be conceived of.
3) God is greater if he is not a hypocrite.
4) God is not a hypocrite.
It's easy to look and say that that doesn't make any sense but it's harder for a liberal brain to point out what exactly is wrong with it. This whole debate is a liberal hoax.
How can you even say that? God is...God! Only he can judge because only he has the right to judge. He knows every one of us through and through and so he knows us well enough to be able to say what we're like.
Also, I expect he just likes knowing that we're worthy of being forgiven and we're sorry. Do we have the guts and/or honesty to know when we went wrong? Think about it like this: he gave himself/his son for us, he gave us the world and, when we die, he promises to give us the perfect home.
Even if I was wrong about my religion, I'd still be glad I was a Christian and followed a loving God, even if it turned out he didn't exist!
well, IF there is a god he is not hypocritical. It is some of his dumb-ass followers, not all of you, but the lame ones who try to get you to choke on a bible, that was a metaphor. but its those god cultists that are hypocritacal. Let me qoute someone here, "Teenagers are turned off to religion because they believe rumors that god hates gays, god does not hate gays he hates the sin of being gay." Now correct me if im wrong, but that statemant contradicted itself...
For the sake of your argument I say No. I say this because you are comparing the conduct of human beings to that of the supreme being which knows the ultimate truths and secrets. He is the embodiment of absolute good and righteousness. It says in the bible, idr the book chapter or verse, that Gods thoughts and ways are not that of humans. God does what he will, because he knows the absolute best. You cannot act at will, because you are not god. You are an imperfect human being. If you take one verse of the bible to heart you must also take the others the same way.
If his goodness and perfection were shown evidently in his actions, maybe - but his moral perfection, like many other things in the Bible, is very questionable. If we examine the way god acts and behaves, if we analyze his moral character, we see very clearly that he is not an all-good being. The only people who express gods perfection and benevolence are his peddlers and (if the Bible is true) himself. In other words it's him tooting his own horn, and we have no reason to believe what he says is true. Any one of the ancient Greek deities might have professed themselves to be the epitome of perfection (and their worshipers might have professed this claim, as well) but it's clear from the actions of the gods in Greek mythology they are subject to all the flaws and moral imperfections we are. Indeed, in spite of the extreme pride, vanity, and arrogance displayed by the Greek gods when asserting their supremacy and superiority (much like Yahweh does), it's widely recognized they are heavily flawed characters. Why could this not be the case for the god of the Bible? He might tell you he's perfect - but it's his credibility and perfection we are questioning so we cant take his word alone for it. His followers might tell you he's perfect - of course they will, they're stated goal is to profess god and convert new followers. The Bible might tell you he's perfect, but it's just as questionable as the followers who wrote it. So we have to examine gods actions (as per the Bible) and we have to examine the world that this god supposedly created and the people he created to populate it. From analyzing the world and the Word by any fair measure of human decency we can conclude that it is certainly possible (if not probable) that god (if he exists) is not the perfect, benevolent, omnipotent character detailed in the Bible.
It's just a very, very common theme throughout history for people to claim to be things they are not, and for people to claim things are something they are not. So we can't take things on face value, we have to examine them. If you're going to buy a car online, don't take the guys word for it that the auto is in good shape - go check it out for yourself. Similarly, don't assume god is perfect just because he says he is - look at how he acts.
I'm not sure of the verse, but in the Bible it is said that God's ways are above yours and mine. We cannot attempt to understand or explain God's actions, because we would be applying to it our logic, which is not divine. If you don't believe that that verse exists you can look it up. Also, you say that if we analyze God's actions in the Bible we will come to see that he is not an all-good being. Are people's morals different from place to place and people to people? Yes they are, because the idea of good is not an objective thing. It is relative/ subjective. People's moral codes are based on what will yeild the most positive results for them. This is why there are tribes that believe in eating people, because there is a different culture there that is based on their location. For you and I to dissect the moral behavior of the Christian God and make any judgements about him based on that, then we would have to first claim that our moral codes are flawless and universal, which of course is probably not the case.
You think I need to be morally flawless and understand universal good in order to say that stoning someone to death for working instead of worshiping is a shitty thing to do? I don't think I need to be morally perfect to understand that pillaging entire villages and keeping the young virgins to systematically rape is bad.
If you were to see murder and rape occurring in the streets are you telling me you would abstain from judging the actions of the murderers and rapists as bad because you don't see yourself as being a higher moral authority than an imaginary moral authority? If everyone thought like that society would be damaged. Yes, moral values vary from one culture to the next; this doesn't mean when god murders someone it's "good murder."
I'm not saying that I don't share moral beliefs with you, what I am saying is that morals are subjective and do not represent any sort of truth. So claiming that the Christian God is not good pretty much means that you are in a position to say what good is. For your judgement of God to hold any weight, you would have to be able to prove that his actions are objectively not good, but since morals are subjective this is not possible. You can only prove that God is not good from your moral point of view.
For your judgement of God to hold any weight, you would have to be able to prove that his actions are objectively not good, but since morals are subjective this is not possible
So from your point of view since humanity cant grasp objective moral values it's impossible to objectively judge god.
I don't think I need to. Subjectivity is enough, because when I make my subjective moral judgement of god other people can subjectively evaluate that and agree with me. Or disagree. Point is my argument could still "hold weight" in the sense that it's logical and accepted and understood by other people, even if it's not some sort of objective truth that transcends god.
I would also like to say that if I am (apparently, according to you) unable to make moral judgements like, "god is a shitty entity" based off what I read in the Bible, you are not able to make statements like, " the supreme being which knows the ultimate truths and secrets. He is the embodiment of absolute good and righteousness;" he only knows the truths and secrets from your moral point of view. He's only good and righteous from your moral point of view, not as some kind of objective reality.
So I think if you're only willing to accept irrefutable, objective moral truths when it comes to talking about god you kinda shoot yourself in the foot, because it means you can't really talk about him, and neither can anyone else. If you set the bar for relevant evidence at "not possible," the discussion grinds to a halt, on both sides.
Correction: From my point of view since humanity cant grasp objective moral codes it is impossible for one's moral judgements of God to be objectively true. Faulty morals=faulty judgement. Universally true morals=universally true judgement. Subjectivity is not enough. We are in a debate and you are claiming that God is not good based on his actions in the bible. For your position to win you must prove how your position is more valid than the other's. You do not have an objective moral code and therefore do not know what objective good is. Your opinion is not a truth and is therefore false. I have made your opinion invalid, because no objective truth can be gained with a subjective faculty. Also, God is a theory. I am not a christian and I do not believe in organized religion. The theory of the Christian God is a supreme being, that is omniscient, omnipotent, and universally objective. He knows objective truths and secrets, because theoretically he is objectively omniscient. I cant see why you have assumed that I am a christian?
Correction: From my point of view since humanity cant grasp objective moral codes it is impossible for one's moral judgements of God to be objectively true. Faulty morals=faulty judgement.
Why does that only apply to god? Why not to every moral situation?
We are in a debate and you are claiming that God is not good based on his actions in the bible. For your position to win you must prove how your position is more valid than the other's. You do not have an objective moral code and therefore do not know what objective good is.
And neither does the other side, so my position is at least as valid as theirs is.
I have made your opinion invalid, because no objective truth can be gained with a subjective faculty.
Then all opinions are invalid, including your opinion that my opinion is invalid. So again, kind of shooting yourself in the foot, here.
The theory of the Christian God is a supreme being, that is omniscient, omnipotent, and universally objective.
Based off of the (subjective, opinionated, non-universal) Christian interpretation of his actions in the Bible, yes. So what makes these opinions more valid than mine? The Christian reads a story about Jesus healing the sick and concludes that god is benevolent; I read about him slaughtering innocents and think he's a tyrant. Why is my theory of god invalid and theirs is valid if we're using the same "subjective faculty" to arrive at our conclusions about god?
He knows objective truths and secrets, because theoretically he is objectively omniscient.
Don't we usually test theories to see if they hold water? Take the flat earth theory of geography, for example. Obviously the theory (or the people professing it, rather) claims it to be true. But we can't take their word for it, we have to test it to see if it is in fact true.
Similarly, the theory that god is an omniscient, omnipotent, universally objective, benevolent, all powerful creator is stated and draws support from the Bible; if I want to refute that theory, would pulling verses from the Bible that contradict that concept of god not do the trick?
Dude, your argument is bad. I've beaten you, you just keep twisting every little definition of every word of every concept. You are bad. Dodgy and bad...Poophead
And typically when one user finds themselves unable to respond to the refutations put forward by another user, we consider the former user to be beaten, not the latter. You're giving up; you have not refuted any of my points; you're turning tail and running; how could I possibly be the one who lost this debate? You addressed several very specific disputes of various points by saying "your argument is bad," with some ad hom on the side. If there's any indicator someone has been beaten here, it's that - and thats's not my statement.
Seriously man, learn to finish your debates (even if you're losing) or get the fuck off my site.
Finish this debate? You're a joke and so are half the people on this website. Challenge me to a debate and I will gladly accept it. I don't even give a shit about if "God is hypocritical". Pick a topic of actual worth and defend the side you are more equipped to defend.
Challenge you to a debate? Because you've decided to halt this perfectly good debate for lack of things to say? Fine. Okay. Sure. Here's the topic: can people who refuse to respond to relevant and valid refutations of their opinions and instead choose to degrade the conversation with petty ad hom attacks be considered "good debaters?" I don't think they can, so I'll take that side; you clearly think that's a good way to debate, as that's how you've been debating, so you can take the affirmative.
Lack of things to say? Dude, if this debate actually mattered to me you would get caught in so many contradictions that you would be too humiliated to challenge another person ever again. If you think you can hold your own you should prove it by challenging me. We can really settle who is better..
I just did challenge you and you turned tail and ran.... again.
How about you stop puffing your chest out and back up your words and actually debate some of the things I say instead of making cheap personal attacks and empty boasts?
God gave us all a choice to follow His ways or follow our own. God is simply carrying out our due punishment if we choose our own paths. Follow God's path and it leads to eternal life, Heaven; follow your own path and it leads to eternal death, hell. You can choose today which path you're going to take. Don't blame God when you get what you deserve at the end of the path you chose.
This has no relevance to the question that I'm asking in this debate, you are seriously telling me a person who hates hypocrite that I myself am a hypocrite. You're the one who told me to leave you alone in the first place but you are not giving me the chance because you won't leave me alone I don't like to ignore people much so if you keep talking to me I can't ignore you.
Your immature nature is showing again. Your saying I'm obsessed with you when your the one who is looking through my debates and trying to insult me by twisting the title. (and you keep sending me massages even though I sent you a compromise.)
Isaiah 55:8 ~ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Genesis 50:20 ~ As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.
Matthew 16:21-23 ~ From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Psalm 7:11 ~ God is a righteous judge, / and a God who feels indignation every day.
Romans 5:8 ~ but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
I'm not quite sure what the issue is so I threw out a bunch of Bible verses that could possibly deal with it; if you have questions of what they mean, simply ask. Also, I'm not quite sure you have a firm grasp of the gospel either but I won't go there unless you ask. God Bless!
Fair enough but can you see where I'm coming from? I've already said this in the debate it's self he says we aren't allowed to judge people yet he can I don't mind not judgeing people I don't judge anyone anyway but saying do not judge people and them judging thousands of people each day by sending most to hell? Thats just not right. A good god would not be so hippocritical. Also if you're trying to argument christianity try to avoid using bible verses because most people don't accept them.
I don't see how God is hypocritical at all. If we are so sick that we cannot judge ourselves, then why should we judge anyone else? God is above us in every way and hates wickedness and wishes to dispose of it in His time. A good God is just and that is what God is.
The whole fact that we are below him is the fact he made hell and a forbidden tree smack bang in the middle of the garden of eden. If he never made that tree we wouldn't be sinners and satan wouldn't be able to make us sinners...
Jesus is the ultimate hypocrite. He was singled out, tortured, and killed for having a different religion than his oppressors, and then he theologically rose from the dead to single out and torture members of the human race for having the wrong religion.