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.
Yes. And sometimes lies are justified and the right thing to do.
stolen,
No.
lusted
Maybe.
or used the Lord's name in vain?
I don't know how to answer this. I don't acknowledge your god as my god, so he's not "Lord" to me. But I do favor "Goddamn it" in my moment of frustration.
If the God of the Bible is real and a just judge
These are contradictory.
Either he is the god of the Bible or he's a just judge. God of the OT is cruel and angry.
God is angry at sinners and hates them because they defile His laws... We are at war with Him! However, through this hate, He has offered a way out! (This is where it gets confusing, haha)
Because God is a God of love and loves His creation and does not wish for anyone to die, He has died on the cross to pay this debt in full. Jesus substitute Himself to be the object of God's hate and wrath; God forsook Jesus!
Because of that, our debts are paid and God does not hate us anymore, if we accept the payment! If we refuse to let Jesus pay our debt, then you will are still required to pay this debt. This debt brings God's hate and wrath!
Anyone willing to accept the gift will receive eternal life! However, no one seeks God and because of that He has to seek out His people. Because He has been the one to show Himself to His people, they have received the Holy Spirit and are "born again" to be holy and righteous just as He who came before us allowing us to seek Him and allowing us to accept the payment!
God is just! God hates all unrighteousness and all who do unrighteousness.
We just have to accept that God has already forsaken Jesus and His hate has been fulfilled!
If someone was going to hurt someone else and wanted me to tell them where that other person is otherwise I will be hurt, you better believe I'm going to lie about where they are. I wouldn't ever ethically doubt it.
God is angry at sinners and hates them because they defile His laws. war with Him! However, through this hate, He has offered a way out! it gets confusing, haha) Because God is a God of love and loves His creation and does not wis to die,
This is contradictory. Either he hates me or he loves me. And if he's a god of love (which most call benevolent) then he can't hate us.
He has died on the cross to pay this debt in full. Jesus substitu be the object of God's hate and wrath; God forsook Jesus! Because of that, our debts are paid and God does not hate us anymo accept the payment! If we refuse to let Jesus pay our debt, then you w required to pay this debt. This debt brings God's hate and wrath! Anyone willing to accept the gift will receive eternal life! However, no and because of that He has to seek out His people. Because He has b show Himself to His people, they have received the Holy Spirit and ar to be holy and righteous just as He who came before us allowing us t and allowing us to accept the payment! God is just! God hates all unrighteousness and all who do unrighteou We just have to accept that God has already forsaken Jesus and His ha fulfilled! Praise the Lord!
You're telling me I should worship a god who only doesn't hate me because he hates his son who went through bloody torture, only to be hated by his father after his death, just so we can pay a debt that belongs to the two original humans God created?
Why is something like that worthy of praise?
Hypothetically: Would you find it ethical for me too punish my great grandchildren (my grandchildren's children) for something MY children did? And to say the only way I won't punish them is to beat the bloody ever loving shit out of a new child of mine so that they could take all the blame and the rest of my grand children live free so long as they praised me?
You don't have to tell someone where they are. Who ever said that?
No, if a God is omnibenevolent then He would hate that which is not good. Hate is not a variable for things that are not benevolent. Likewise, love is not a variable for benevolence.
You have sinned have you not? Through Adam you have been given original sin which is the spiritual inclination to sin. Through Adam sin entered the world. Sin had to be destroyed and that was through Christ! He willingly died on the cross; He was not forced to die but wanted to! No man can take the life of God. He must give His life up to die.
You don't have to tell someone where they are. Who ever said that?
I don't have to, but they'll hurt and/or kill me if I don't. To amp it up, they'll kill someone/people I love which are right there with me if I don't tell them.
Lying about the location gives all victims in this scenario more opportunity to escape unharmed. Whereas not telling them anything ensures my or my loved ones deaths.
No, if a God is omnibenevolent then He would hate that which is not good. Hate is not a variable for things that are not benevolent. Likewise, love is not a variable for benevolence.
Incorrect, if a god was omnibenevolent (being pure benevolence), he'd be it. He would love all. Everything. And could not experience hating us for hate lacks benevolence. And benevolence lacks hate.
You have sinned have you not?
No I have not sinned.
Sin seems to be a term exclusive to Abrahamic based religions.
But I have "sinned" in terms of what sin means as a concept: I have made mistakes, bad judgments, regretful acts, bad choices/decisions.
Through Adam you have been given original sin which is the spiritual inclination to sin. Through Adam sin entered the world.
God made the rules. Sin did not have to enter the world through the actions of two people. It wads their actions.
If it was truly our responsibility of why we need to accept Christ as our Savior, then the default would be to NOT assume every human has sinned. To have responsibility is to have choice in the matter. If, by existing I as a human have no choice but to sin, then what does that tell you?
Sin had to be destroyed and that was through Christ!
It didn't have to be. God is all powerful. He could have solved this in the most peaceful way all possible where no one would be hurt and the only people responsible would be those who originally disobeyed God.
He willingly died on the cross; He was not forced to die but wanted to! No man can take the life of God. He must give up His life to die.
Bible verses imply he did not want to die, but accepted it as destiny. But just for the sake of argument, if he wanted to die, doesn't that mean Jesus committed suicide? Isn't suicide a sin?
I still see no justification for lying.... I'm sorry but in this case it just seems selfish...
You can think that! But the thing is this.. benevolence does not mean you lack hate. It means that you are good and well meaning. Someone who is all good and well meaning can hate those whom are not well meaning and good.
Sin is the falling short of the glory of God. It is doing bad along with not doing that which is good.
It tells you that you are incapable of doing good and that you need a Savior!
He could have but that would not have fully displayed the love and mercy that God has.
He asked God not to do it but for His will be done. It is rhetorical just like most things in the Bible are. He gave Himself up so that all could be saved!
There is also a fundamental difference between our ways and God's ways. We cannot do that which God can do because His ways are superior to ours.
I still see no justification for lying.... I'm sorry but in this case it just seems selfish...
I'm selfish for not wanting to die AND finding a more beneficial scenario that helps victims escape their possible death?
What if all these victims were strangers and my life wasn't on the line, where I personally would have nothing to gain for myself. I would still lie about their location to give more opportunity to all victims in this scenario to escape. If I don't tell them something, they will kill a group of hostages (strangers to me) and if I do tell them the actual location they will kill the group of strangers they're going after. I'd still lie, though I myself have nothing to gain. It's the only way I see to protect both set of strangers the best way in can in that scenario.
You can think that! But the thing is this.. benevolence does not mean you lack hate.
Omnibenevolence can be argued you do lack hate. You are purely benevolent, that leaves no room for anything contrary to benevolence.
It means that you are good and well meaning. Someone who is all good and well meaning can hate those whom are not well meaning and good.
Not if you add omni. If you add omni, it's MORE than just good and well meaning. It's ALL good, ALL well meaning, ALL kind, ALL nice. Purely good, purely kind, purely merciful. That leaves no room for hate.
Sin is the falling short of the glory of God.
Then Adam and Eve were created WITH sin instead of choosing to bring sin in the world. Unless you're willing to argue Adam and Eve were the equivalent status as God is before sinning.
It is doing bad along with not doing that which is good. It tells you that you are incapable of doing good and that you need a Savior!
If we're incapable of doing good then it's not our fault, thus cannot be held responsible for our actions and God cannot ethically punish us. It would be like punishing an infant for urinating on you.
He could have but that would not have fully displayed the love and mercy that God has. He asked God not to do it but for His will be done. It is rhetorical just like most things in the Bible are. He gave Himself up so that all could be saved!
Saved from the mess God himself created.
There is also a fundamental difference between our ways and God's ways. We cannot do that which God can do because His ways are superior to ours.
It hope we cannot fully do what God can, because otherwise we would be considered gods ourselves. Though if his ways are superior, then why create a faulty system?
I didn't create this debate to "debate" but to simply spread the Gospel.
Then you're on the wrong site, it's calls createdebate.
If you are not willing to open up then there is no use in trying to persuade you. I ask you... are you willing to accept Jesus?
I am fully willing to accept your belief system and who you call Jesus Christ once I've been given a good reason to do so.
I have no issue with changing my position or conceding when I am wrong or persuaded.
But I'm very curious, how is it selfish if I personally have nothing to gain?
Adam and Eve were perfect. They were created in the image of God, however, through them sin entered the world.
If they were perfect how could they do something wrong?
Those who do unrighteousness do not want to quit doing unrighteousness.
I would disagree. Simply because I make mistakes doesn't mean I want to keep making mistakes of I don't have to. I make positive out of my mistakes by learning from them and doing the best to correct it.
If you lie you get set free in the example you gave.
Just because you don't do anything wrong and are "perfect" does not mean that you can be tempted. God is the only one who is immune to being tempted just as in He is the only person who is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. Eve was tempted and Adam partook of the fruit and through that they committed treachery.
You're looking at it narrowly. Sin is anything that does not meet up to God's perfection. Those who do sin are trapped by their sin and do not see it. They rejoice in the sin that they do... whether it be lusting, boasting, stealing, lying, not loving God, etc.
Oh! And just to make it clear about the lying thing...
If you aren't in stress of being killed or tortured for the information that you possess then why tell them anything? You can simply say that you won't tell them. If you are in danger of being killed or tortured for the information then you have freedom to gain by lying and it can be considered selfish to do so.
Oh! And just to make it clear about the lying thing...
If you aren't in stress of being killed or tortured for the information that you possess then why tell them anything? You can simply say that you won't tell them. If you are in danger of being killed or tortured for the information then you have freedom to gain by lying and it can be considered selfish to do so.
If I don't tell them something they will kill the hostages they have there. If I tell them the truth they will kill the group they're originally looking for. Both groups are strangers to me, but I could not choose to save one stranger group just to have them kill another. Personally, I have nothing to gain by my actions. However the hostages and the targets have opportunity to gain if I were to lie, buying both groups time.
If you lie you get set free in the example you gave.
You don't know that. They could still keep me there. Ther is Bo known selfish incentive I could possibly know in my scenario I have set up.
Just because you don't do anything wrong and are "perfect" does not mean that you can be tempted. God is the only one who is immune to being tempted just as in He is the only person who is omniscient, omnipotent, etc.
Jesus was also tempted. Yet he supposedly lived without sin. So what's the difference?
Eve was tempted and Adam partook of the fruit and through that they committed treachery.
and God is punishing us for what our great, great, great (etc) grandparents did.
You're looking at it narrowly. Sin is anything that does not meet up to God's perfection.
Then Jesus sinned. Since God cannot be tempted but Jesus was.
Those who do sin are trapped by their sin and do not see it.
Then explain those who broke addictions and reformed from many of their "sinning" ways. And if we are incapable of knowing them, incapable of doing anything then we are not responsible.
They rejoice in the sin that they do... whether it be lusting, boasting, stealing, lying, not loving God, etc.
Who are any of us to decide when someone is to die or not? Have you heard of the story about the woman in the hospital who was dying but her husband couldn't get enough money to pay for the medicine?... he decided to steal the drugs anyways so that he could help her live! Yes, the end is good but the end never justifies the means.
We are to do what is right in all instances within our life!
Satan tried to tempt Him but it was in vain. For God cannot be tempted by evil. It can try to tempt Him but He is above evil and is incapable of considering it. He is above temptation.
No, He is punishing us for what we have done! We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
There is difference between the physical act of tempting someone and the inner temptation that humans have. Satan can tempt God but He is incapable of considering it (inner temptation). It never appeals to Him nor is able to trick Him into doing evil.
Just because you stop sinning in one way does not mean you stop sinning totally. I am not merely saying that the sin, as in stealing or lying, can be stopped and they are trapped by it. I am saying that the sin, all ways that we fall short of His glory, are what nonbelievers are trapped by and cannot stop. Plus, selfishness is another sin. If one was to stop sinning in one way because he was doing it for himself would be selfish, not to mention taking all the credit for himself. He is to give all glory to God, anything else is selfish and sinful.
When I first read the 10 commandments, I thought it was a check list of things to do while I waited for death. I was marching along, quite happily when I realized, "Oh wait..., this is a list of things I shouldn't be doing. Crap!" So now, I'm an old man trying to get into heaven. I don't think I'm going to make it ;)
You can escape this if you put your faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The debt is paid and now God can legally dismiss your case.
It seems to me that accepting responsibility for ones own wrongdoing is a better example of righteousness than accepting Jesus as a scapegoat for what you've done.
We cannot get to heaven on our own! It is impossible! Stop trying!
Because we have been created in the image of God, we must fulfill the expectations of God by being as good as God. That means all the bad that we do and all the good that we do not do is sinful!
Because God is so Holy and Righteous, no one can stand before Him; therefore, no one can be in His presence.
The only way to be able to go to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ! When we do so, it is a sign that the Holy Spirit has entered your heart and that you have been "born again." You are born holy and righteous and able to stand in full confidence before the justice of God!
Without Jesus the debt never would have been paid... For someone to pay the debt of eternal punishment, he must be perfect because if he wasn't perfect then he would also deserve the eternal punishment. But who is perfect? The only answer is God.
God died in YOUR place and took all the sin of the world away!
The Lamb is worthy of our praise!
However, if you do not accept the payment then you are still in debt. For if a man does not allow another man to pay his debt for him, then the man is still required to pay...
However, if you do not accept the payment then you are still in debt.
I don't know if you understand how debt words, but if you are in debt you do not accept payment to absolve that debt, you make a payment. In this case, you pay by submitting and then dying.
For someone to pay the debt of eternal punishment, he must be perfect because if he wasn't perfect then he would also deserve the eternal punishment. But who is perfect? The only answer is God.
So in order to get into heaven you must be perfect, god set the standard at perfection. He then creates imperfect, sinful human beings, makes sin a crime, and then condemns humanity for our imperfection, claims that we are in debt for that imperfection that he bestowed upon us, and requires we submit to him to be free of that debt and die to claim our reward. Rejecting the notion that you are an imperfect, wretched human being and that you are born in debt to god will theoretically earn you eternal torment. Sounds like an assholes scam to me.
But I embrace these things as the lesser of two evils when compared to Christianity. I might lie, steal, lust, and use the Lords name in vain, but at least my soul isn't corrupted and my spirit is still intact, which is more than I can say for any devout Christian.
I don't think God cares to be honest, it's intentions that count. Technically, I think if you tell a lie to spare someone's feelings then I find that okay, though honesty always the best policy. Also, if you stole from an illegal arms dealer to stop them dealing and to hand it into the police, then I don't see the harm in that. Lust I have no opinion about and well, I don't really have an opinion about using the Lord's name in vain. As I said, it's the intentions that count.
I dont owe god a damn thing. He is omniscient, right? So he new ahead of time that I would sin, which means he created me with the expectation that I would sin, which I have. Ive already held up my end of the bargain, its God's turn to deliver now.
No, it's not free, it's blackmail. If I dont succumb to the edicts of Christianity, then I burn in hell for all eternity, correct?
I dont agree with the tenants of Christianity, yet God is trying to trap me into an agreement with him using the sins he intended for me to make as leverage -- and he must have intended it because he knew I would commit these sins, yet decided to create me the same way anyway.
This is entrapment. Your god's methods are criminal and cruel. I would sooner sue your God than join his flock.
Have you not sinned? Are not guilty of disobeying the Lord?
What if God, willing to show how much He loves you, wanted to let you fail in order to bring you back up. Have you not heard of Job? Have you not heard of the Psalms?
As it is written in Matthew 5:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God.
10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
Even though God hates unrighteousness, He endures with great patience so that His love and mercy may be displayed!
This is not entrapment of any kind! For without unrighteousness, righteousness would not be seen. For without hate, love would not be seen. For without failing, you cannot be brought up. For without sinning, you cannot be forgiven!
If sinning = disobeying the Lord, then I have not sinned. Everything is in accordance with the Lord's plan, is it not? If this is the case, then my actions cant he sins, since they are part of God's plan. The alternative is that God's plan involves me acting against God's plan, which is tautologically impossible.
Now, maybe God's plan for me involves retribution, but if this is the case then he has no right to punish me for not reaching his goals when I never agreed to.
Then God's plan is, by definition, entrapment. God knows I will perform certain actions during my life ahead of time. He then demonizes said actions as immoral/sinful and threatens me with eternal punishment for said sins unless I subscribe to an ideology that I don't agree with.
I wouldn't need saving if God simply live and let live. Nobody has to burn.
Telling a lie doesn't make you a liar, just as going fishing once doesn't make you a fisherman.
And you ignore the other commandments. Have you ever eaten shelfish? Have you ever worn mixed fabrics? Ever worked on Sunday? Sorry mate, it's eternal damnation for you.
Also, why would God put it in our nature to lie if he hates lying?
You know I never thought of that one, that's a good point. However, my point still holds, going fishing once doesn't make you a fisherman.
Also, you guys ignore hundreds of commandments about how to live, you even ignore 7 of the ten commandments. What makes one commandment better than the other? Is it immoral to have a tattoo? Is it immoral to not beat your children?
1) Ceremonial - Keeping the Sabbath Day, sacrificing animals, circumcision, etc. We do not have to abide by these since they pointed towards the Christ. Jesus Himself said that we do not have to abide by these any longer.
2) Civil - Wearing mixed fabrics, not shaving your beard, no tattoos, etc. We do not have to abide by these since we are not trying to distinguish ourselves from our neighboring countries as Israel did.
3) Moral - murder, lying, stealing, laws that are universal and eternal, we must abide by these.
It is in our nature to sin in general. This allows for you to have the opportunity to turn to Him and find grace and mercy!
Who decides these? The commandments are not split like this in the bible, they are just listed as they are. Who are you to judge which of the ten commandments are better than the others?
You have made up these categories to help yourself rationalise the cognitive dissonance you encounter when you are busy telling other people how to live their lives.
The early church decided this distinction. Ceremonial laws do not apply because the Christ had already come. And Civil laws were put away as well because they were not trying to distinguish themselves from neighboring countries. Moral laws are the only ones that are left.
But how do you go about deciding which commandments fit into which category? And who decides? Who is the "early church" and how do you know what they said?
There are a number of books and articles written on moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Just type in moral, civil, and ceremonial laws in on Google. Why would I make something up? What profit would I gain for making something up about my own religion?
The ceremonial laws have to do with ceremonies and the looking forward to Christ. That means you do not have to make sacrifices, you do not have to keep the Sabbath Day (to an extent), etc.
Civil laws are laws that separated the Israelites from the other nations by showing "morality" and "order" (laws like speed limits in modern times to keep order). That means tattoos are acceptable, eating shellfish, etc.
Moral are the laws that are universal regardless of where you are and what year it is. These include things like murder and theft, along with homosexuality and sexual immorality.
If a law falls into the category of how the Israelites did something or how their courts processed or how their ceremonies were performed or etc. then we do not have to abide by them. Anything that is universal and continuous we must follow.
Here's a note... if a ceremonial or civil law it is not in the New Testament then we do not have to follow it. If it is, then, we do have to follow it.
This is all just an example of how theologians alter and morph the word of god so that they can leech onto a host society and not be condemned and outcasted as savage barbarians. If Christianity stuck to its guns instead of folding over every time civilization got in the way, I have no doubt Christianity would be considered on par with Nazism.
Since reactionary, conservative beliefs are on indefinite retreat, how long before theologians again adulterate the Bible to make, say, homosexuality acceptable for Christians. If you look at the trends it's only a matter of time before homosexuality is accepted; do you think the Church will hold it's position when the world condemns them for it or do you think they'll change their dogma, yet again?
Here's a note... if a ceremonial or civil law it is not in the New Testament then we do not have to follow it. If it is, then, we do have to follow it.
Well since Jesus said he's not there to abolish the law, and it's in the New Testament, doesn't that cancel out and thus need to follow the Old and New Testament?
No, the "Law" is a part of the Old Testament; they are the first 5 books of the Bible also known as the Pentateuch and the Torah. If you look at the passage it says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). The remainder of the Old Testament were written by prophets.
Here is another example of the "Law and Prophets:"
Matthew 22:34-40
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
As one can see, there is a difference between "law" and "Law." Lower case law are actually laws, while uppercase Law is an actual thing.
Luke 16:16
16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.
Here is a great passage that shows the distinction between Law and law:
Romans 3:19-23
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being[a] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Because Matthew 5:17 is part of the New Testament, that tells you the first five books of the Old Testament is not to be abolished but fulfilled with the help of Jesus.
It doesn't say that you have to keep the laws.... it says that it will not be destroyed, which it hasn't. Jesus came to fulfill the "Law and Prophets" not abolish them, which has nothing to do with keeping the laws of the Old Testament or not.
You have misunderstood that verse! But thats okay, many people misunderstand the Bible! :) haha
To be a theologian is to make shit up. That's the profession. So if he's just making shit up I guess that makes him a certifiable theologian... though it is a little odd for him to refer to himself in that tense.
