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.
Would a benevolent god create 12,320 diseases that affect humans, and thousands more that affect animals?
Would a benevolent god create violent and cruel people, animals, and insects?
Would a benevolent god create a place like hell where people are tormented for eternity?
Would a benevolent and omniscient god create billions of people that he knows will end up in hell?
Would a benevolent god say it's okay to own slaves and and beat them? (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:7, Deut 20:10-15)
Would a benevolent god say it's okay to beat your children with a rod? (Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 23:13-14)
Would a benevolent god be sexist? (Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Leviticus 24:1-7, Exodus 21:7-11, Genesis 25:1-6, 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Kings 11:1-6, Leviticus 12:1-8)
Would a benevolent god create a system of life that can only survive by killing and eating each other?
Would a benevolent god create a world with natural disasters?
Would a benevolent god create hateful people like Saintsnow/Fromwithin?
The answer to all those questions is NO. So if we assume god does exist, and is the god described by the Bible, then the answer to your question is that he can't be trusted, because he is cruel and extremely malevolent. The other possibility, which I think is far more likely, is that he is a fictional character created by men as a way to control others through fear.
Would a benevolent god create 12,320 diseases that affect humans, and thousands more that affect animals?
He didn't create them. At least not directly. He created the means by which the bacteria, viruses, etc. can become diseases. Even then, the disease causing bacteria is less than a tenth of one percent so its not that big of an issue.
Would a benevolent god create violent and cruel people, animals, and insects?
Similar thing as mentioned before. For the animals and the insects, you do know how functional ecosystems work right? Not everything can be autotrophic or chemotropic. As for the people, they have the freedom to choose whether or not they are violent or cruel. Not all of them have the motivation to not be cruel or violent, but the decision is still there.
Would a benevolent god create a place like hell where people are tormented for eternity?
Hell is for people who consciously choose not to follow God. Romans talks about how God has revealed himself in all of creation so that we are without excuse. This includes those people who never hear the word of God.
Would a benevolent and omniscient god create billions of people that he knows will end up in hell?
See previous response.
Would a benevolent god say it's okay to own slaves and and beat them? (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 21:7, Deut 20:10-15)
When the bible talks about slaves, its not the kind of slavery we normally think of. The kind of slaves they had were called bond servants and the bond servants became such willingly under their own power. Different people did it for different reasons. Some did it to repay a debt while others did it as a source of income. The last set of verses in Deuteronomy are talking about groups of people that God has warned for years and years to turn from their ways, but refused. As a result, they weren't allowed to stay in the land since that was the land God had wanted for the Israelites.
Would a benevolent god say it's okay to beat your children with a rod? (Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 23:13-14)
God isn't talking about literally hitting your kid with a rod. All of these verses are talking about disciplining your child. Not beating them with a rod just for the heck of it.
Would a benevolent god be sexist? (Genesis 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Leviticus 24:1-7, Exodus 21:7-11, Genesis 25:1-6, 2 Samuel 5:13, 1 Kings 11:1-6, Leviticus 12:1-8)
I'm gonna take each of the verses individually for clarity purposes.
Genesis 3:16-she chose to disobey God and this was a punishment for Eve for not obeying God. Adam got punished as well so it wasn't just Eve
1 Timothy 2:12-this is talking about spiritual issues. The only thing that Paul was prohibiting women to do was assume authority over men in things that were spiritual and thats it.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35-here, Paul was saying that if a woman wanted to ask about something she didn't understand during the sermon that was being taught, than she should not say anything during the sermon and wait till she got home with her husband and asked then and not interrupted the sermon.
Leviticus 24:1-7-this has nothing to do with sexism. This command was given to ALL the Israelites, both male and female.
Exodus 21:7-11-this is the same issue of bond servants as mentioned earlier, just guidelines how females were to be treated
Genesis 25:1-6-the only thing this is saying is that Abraham had another wife, concubines, children with each of them, and then gave the all the sons gifts but gave Isaac all he had
2 Samuel 5:13-same as Abraham. All this is saying is that Solomon haves numerous wives and concubines and had children with them. This has nothing to do with sexism
1 Kings 11:1-6-this is a more detailed version of the previous verse. God had said not to marry the women in the surrounding area since they would lead him away from God. Solomon disobeyed and went astray from God.
Leviticus 12:1-8-All this is talking about is when a woman is declared clean after having a baby and that it takes longer to be clean after having a female as opposed to a male baby
Would a benevolent god create a system of life that can only survive by killing and eating each other?
As I mentioned earlier, Not everything can be autotrophic or chemotropic. What you're basically saying is that you don't any complex ecosystems.
Would a benevolent god create a world with natural disasters?
What does a natural disaster have to do with benevolence? Are there not allowed to be floods, wildfires, or earthquakes? Entropy is a part of nature. This inevitably leads to natural disasters.
Would a benevolent god create hateful people like Saintsnow/Fromwithin?
He would and he has. However, everyone is responsible for their own choices. God is not causing them in any way, shape, or form to act the way they are. They are acting that way because they are flawed human beings in need of a savior just like us.
The answer to all those questions is NO.
The better answer is that what you consider to be a benevolent God wouldn't do that because your definition of benevolence is different.
So if we assume god does exist, and is the god described by the Bible, then the answer to your question is that he can't be trusted, because he is cruel and extremely malevolent.
You start off by saying that if we assume God exists and is the God of the bible that you have been talking about, then He can't be trusted. If He doesn't exist, then why are you wasting your time on a religious debate? If you don't think God exists, why does any of the stuff mentioned above bother you?
"He didn't create them. At least not directly. He created the means by which the bacteria, viruses, etc. can become diseases."
First of all, there is no way you could possibly know that. Second, even if he didn't create them directly, if he is omniscient like the Bible claims, then he knew beforehand that they would end up as diseases, so he is still responsible for creating the conditions where those things can exist. Plus if he is omnipotent he could easily eradicate all diseases and save millions of people from suffering every year, but he doesn't.
"Even then, the disease causing bacteria is less than a tenth of one percent so its not that big of an issue."
Not that big of an issue?! Millions of people suffer and die every year because of them. That sounds like a pretty big issue to me.
"For the animals and the insects, you do know how functional ecosystems work right? Not everything can be autotrophic or chemotropic."
You're making the assumption that life had to be created the way it is now. If god is omnipotent, like Christians claim, then he should have no problem creating a system of life that doesn't require suffering.
"As for the people, they have the freedom to choose whether or not they are violent or cruel. Not all of them have the motivation to not be cruel or violent, but the decision is still there."
I understand why some people are violent and cruel, my point is that if god, due to his omniscience, created those people knowing beforehand that they would be that way, then he is malevolent. Benevolent being don't create malevolent ones.
"Hell is for people who consciously choose not to follow God. Romans talks about how God has revealed himself in all of creation so that we are without excuse. This includes those people who never hear the word of God."
I know the Christian theology of what hell is for and who goes there. My point is that creating such a place is not a benevolent act. Subjecting people to eternal torment is as far from benevolent at you could possibly get, regardless of what they have done. Even us humans know that torturing people for crimes is wrong, but according to Christian theology god see nothing wrong with it.
"When the bible talks about slaves, its not the kind of slavery we normally think of. The kind of slaves they had were called bond servants and the bond servants became such willingly under their own power."
I've already responded to that same argument a hundred times, so here are links to my previous arguments.
Note: Sometimes CreateDebate doesn't jump you down to the argument. If it doesn't, just put your mouse cursor at the end of the web address after the pages loads and press Enter.
"God isn't talking about literally hitting your kid with a rod."
Yes he is. It literally says, "Thou shalt beat him with the rod..." I don't see how it could be any clearer.
"All of these verses are talking about disciplining your child. Not beating them with a rod just for the heck of it."
I never said it was referring to beating your kid just for the heck of it. Beating your kid with a rod is never acceptable, even if it is for discipline. All that teaches the kid is that if you're upset with someone you hit them.
"Genesis 3:16-she chose to disobey God and this was a punishment for Eve for not obeying God. Adam got punished as well so it wasn't just Eve"
They both committed the same crime, yet their punishments weren't even remotely the same. Part of Adam's punishment is he gets to rule over his wife?!
"1 Timothy 2:12-this is talking about spiritual issues. The only thing that Paul was prohibiting women to do was assume authority over men in things that were spiritual and thats it."
Yet, he has no problem with men assuming authority over women. That's sexist.
"1 Corinthians 14:34-35-here, Paul was saying that if a woman wanted to ask about something she didn't understand during the sermon that was being taught, than she should not say anything during the sermon and wait till she got home with her husband and asked then and not interrupted the sermon."
If it was just about preventing people from interrupting the sermon it would have been addressed to everyone, not just women.
"Leviticus 24:1-7-this has nothing to do with sexism. This command was given to ALL the Israelites, both male and female."
That verse wasn't correct. I must have wrote it down wrong. I'll see if I can figure out what it should have been.
"Exodus 21:7-11-this is the same issue of bond servants as mentioned earlier, just guidelines how females were to be treated"
First of all, the fact that god even allows a man to sell his daughter is wrong on so many levels. Not only that but women servants are treated like property and are never set free, unlike the male servants which are set free on the year of Jubilee. That passage is about as sexist as you can possibly get.
"Genesis 25:1-6-the only thing this is saying is that Abraham had another wife, concubines, children with each of them, and then gave the all the sons gifts but gave Isaac all he had"
Exactly, men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but if a woman were to have multiple husbands or concubines she would be stoned to death. Women in the Bible are treated as nothing more than servants and sex toys.
"2 Samuel 5:13-same as Abraham. All this is saying is that Solomon haves numerous wives and concubines and had children with them. This has nothing to do with sexism"
Same as above. It is sexism to the extreme.
"Leviticus 12:1-8-All this is talking about is when a woman is declared clean after having a baby and that it takes longer to be clean after having a female as opposed to a male baby"
Exactly. How can you not see that as sexist? Why does having a female baby make you unclean for longer than a male baby. Why does it make you unclean at all. The whole thing is archaic and ridiculous.
"As I mentioned earlier, Not everything can be autotrophic or chemotropic. What you're basically saying is that you don't any complex ecosystems."
Again, your limiting gods omnipotence. If he can't create a system life that doesn't require violence and suffering, then he isn't omnipotent.
"What does a natural disaster have to do with benevolence? Are there not allowed to be floods, wildfires, or earthquakes? Entropy is a part of nature. This inevitably leads to natural disasters."
Same as above.
"He would and he has. However, everyone is responsible for their own choices. God is not causing them in any way, shape, or form to act the way they are. They are acting that way because they are flawed human beings in need of a savior just like us."
You're missing the point. According to Christian theology, God created those people, including their flawed brains. He did it with full knowledge what they would be like before he created them. Yet he chose to create them anyway. Therefore, he is malevolent. Like I said, benevolent being don't create malevolent ones.
"The better answer is that what you consider to be a benevolent God wouldn't do that because your definition of benevolence is different."
Show me a definition of benevolent that includes creating a world with unimaginable violence and suffering that ultimately ends up with billions of people being tormented forever.
"If He doesn't exist, then why are you wasting your time on a religious debate?"
Because religion is a plague upon humanity and has caused immeasurable suffering to millions of people. So, the more people I can convince to see just how archaic and destructive it is, the better the world will be.
"If you don't think God exists, why does any of the stuff mentioned above bother you?"
Because I care about people. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion. If the reason you do good things is for a reward in heaven, that's not morality, it's greed. If the reason you don't do bad things is fear of punishment in hell, that's not morality, it's fear. True morality is doing good regardless of the consequences.
First of all, there is no way you could possibly know that.
Sure there is. Just read Genesis 1 and the beginning of 2.
You're making the assumption that life had to be created the way it is now. If god is omnipotent, like Christians claim, then he should have no problem creating a system of life that doesn't require suffering.
You would have to define suffering. For something to be completely free of suffering, even if its imaginary, would have to not exist at all. God may have no problem creating an ecosystem where animals wouldn't have to kill each other, but that just goes back to the issue of being completely free of suffering.
I understand why some people are violent and cruel, my point is that if god, due to his omniscience, created those people knowing beforehand that they would be that way, then he is malevolent. Benevolent being don't create malevolent ones.
Here's a question, does simply knowing something is going to happen guarantee that the event is going to happen? If God created someone with the ability to choose between right and wrong and they chose wrong, does God knowing what decision they were going to make guarantee that they were going to make that decision? Also, how does creating someone with the ability to choose wrong make the creator malevolent?
I know the Christian theology of what hell is for and who goes there. My point is that creating such a place is not a benevolent act. Subjecting people to eternal torment is as far from benevolent at you could possibly get, regardless of what they have done. Even us humans know that torturing people for crimes is wrong, but according to Christian theology god see nothing wrong with it.
Here's a good analogy that I've heard a few times. If I were in the car or walking next to you on the sidewalk and I slapped you, you would probably get mad at me and beat me up right? Lets say I slapped a cop. He would probably put in jail since its a crime for me to hit a police officer right? Now lets say I were to go slap the queen of England. I would go to prison for life right? If you think about it, its the same action, but different consequences depending on who I do it to. If I sin against temporary beings, I get a temporary punishment. If I sin against an eternal being, God in this case, why wouldn't an eternal punishment be just?
I've already responded to that same argument a hundred times, so here are links to my previous arguments.
I saw you're arguments and it looks like they are legit arguments. However, it also looks like you are leaving out a few things. First is that, some of the reasons why the citizens of whatever nation the verse was talking about were put into slavery was because they were deviating from what God had told them to do. For the Israelites, there were times when they strayed away from God's teaching and didn't want to turn from their ways. So to discipline them, God put them under the rule of kings as slaves. In Judges, this happens numerous times and each time they asked for someone to take them out of the situation. God provided a person that took them out of it, but once that person died, they went back to their old ways and got captured again and forced into slavery. With the non-isrealites, God had told them for ages to turn from their ways but they never did. Due to this, they were forced into slavery. Both sides could have easily avoided the forced slavery had they listened to what God had told them to do.
Yes he is. It literally says, "Thou shalt beat him with the rod..." I don't see how it could be any clearer.
Based off the context, how is that anything close to a literal rod?
I never said it was referring to beating your kid just for the heck of it. Beating your kid with a rod is never acceptable, even if it is for discipline. All that teaches the kid is that if you're upset with someone you hit them.
Fair enough.
They both committed the same crime, yet their punishments weren't even remotely the same. Part of Adam's punishment is he gets to rule over his wife?!
Part of the problem with the sin is that it made submission seem like a problem and made being subject to someone else seem like a punishment. Part of where that problem comes from is that everyone is so worried about making sure that they are in control of their own lives and not subject to anyone. A wife being subject to her husband in and of itself is not the issue. Its trying to usurp her authority on to the husband that is the issue which as I said is because she probably doesn't want to be under his control because she sees it as a punishment. The same thing can be said of men and the work they do. They see work as punishment and try to do as little work as possible so that they don't have to feel punished and have dominion over their own lives. (By the way, I am in no way saying that you or anyone in particular is like this, I'm just making a general statement)
Yet, he has no problem with men assuming authority over women. That's sexist.
The kind of submission that God wants is willful submission. God only prohibited women from being in charge over men in spiritual matters. Nowhere in the bible does it say that women can't have authority in any other aspect of life. Only that one. Also, God made men to be the leaders of the household. Not because He thought women weren't capable of leading, but because thats just how He wanted it. As mentioned earlier, being under the authority of men seems like a punishment so it would be avoided.
If it was just about preventing people from interrupting the sermon it would have been addressed to everyone, not just women.
Except that in the society that Paul was writing to, the men just knew that they weren't supposed to talk during the sermon, but not all women thought of this which is why it had to be addressed.
First of all, the fact that god even allows a man to sell his daughter is wrong on so many levels. Not only that but women servants are treated like property and are never set free, unlike the male servants which are set free on the year of Jubilee. That passage is about as sexist as you can possibly get.
This was actually talking about men buying their wives who were practically slaves. The price was how much money it would take for her to live should the man divorce her.
Exactly, men are allowed to have multiple wives and concubines, but if a woman were to have multiple husbands or concubines she would be stoned to death. Women in the Bible are treated as nothing more than servants and sex toys.
The bible saying that Abraham did this doesn't condone it. It's just saying that this is what he did. Saying that the women were seen as sex toys and slaves in this situation is an assumption.
Same as above. It is sexism to the extreme.
Same as above.
Exactly. How can you not see that as sexist? Why does having a female baby make you unclean for longer than a male baby. Why does it make you unclean at all. The whole thing is archaic and ridiculous.
The better question is, why does it matter that women were declared unclean longer if they have a daughter than if they had a son? This is a trivial example of what you consider sexist.
Again, your limiting gods omnipotence. If he can't create a system life that doesn't require violence and suffering, then he isn't omnipotent.
As I mentioned earlier, you would have to define suffering. Even imagined suffering is taken into account. I'm not limiting Gods omnipotence. The question is, how far do to go before you have absolutely zero suffering, real or imagined?
Same as above.
I say the same thing to you about natural disasters.
You're missing the point. According to Christian theology, God created those people, including their flawed brains. He did it with full knowledge what they would be like before he created them. Yet he chose to create them anyway. Therefore, he is malevolent. Like I said, benevolent being don't create malevolent ones.
How is God in anyway responsible for the choices we make? The option to do or not do something wrong is always there. God doesn't make the choices for you.
Show me a definition of benevolent that includes creating a world with unimaginable violence and suffering that ultimately ends up with billions of people being tormented forever.
The benevolence is in allowing someone to make their own decisions without forcing your own way onto them. Each and every person on the planet has to make their own decision about whether or not they are going to do something. It's the dictators and corrupt leaders of the world that CHOOSE to be violent and let the people under them suffer.
Because religion is a plague upon humanity and has caused immeasurable suffering to millions of people. So, the more people I can convince to see just how archaic and destructive it is, the better the world will be.
Is that your religion?
Because I care about people. You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion. If the reason you do good things is for a reward in heaven, that's not morality, it's greed. If the reason you don't do bad things is fear of punishment in hell, that's not morality, it's fear. True morality is doing good regardless of the consequences.
While it may be true that someone who's not religious doesn't need to be religious to be moral, you can't justify morality outside of it. The reward/consequence thing is spot on though
"Sure there is. Just read Genesis 1 and the beginning of 2."
I've read it. It says nothing about the source of disease. However, there are many verses where god causes plagues.
"You would have to define suffering."
Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.
"For something to be completely free of suffering, even if its imaginary, would have to not exist at all."
Inanimate objects don't suffer, yet they exist. The only things that suffer are the things with brains, so if creating things with brains leads to suffering it makes no sense for a benevolent being to create them.
Revelation 21:4 says, "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
No death, no sorrow, no pain. That sounds an awful lot to me like no suffering. So, if the Bible is in fact true, God is capable of creating a place with no suffering.
"God may have no problem creating an ecosystem where animals wouldn't have to kill each other, but that just goes back to the issue of being completely free of suffering."
But that suffering is completely unnecessary. There is no reason to create animals that have to kill each other to survive. Making them not have to eat at all would be a simple solution that an omnipotent being should have no problem doing.
"Here's a question, does simply knowing something is going to happen guarantee that the event is going to happen?"
Yes, because if it doesn't happen, then you didn't really know it was going to happen.
"If God created someone with the ability to choose between right and wrong and they chose wrong, does God knowing what decision they were going to make guarantee that they were going to make that decision?"
Absolutely. If I were to create a robot, and while reviewing the code that determines it's decision making I see that it will end up going on a killing spree, if I then go ahead the power up the robot I am responsible for it's actions, because I created it and knew the code would cause it to kill people.
"Also, how does creating someone with the ability to choose wrong make the creator malevolent?"
Because it causes harm, which is synonymous with malevolence.
"Here's a good analogy that I've heard a few times. If I were in the car or walking next to you on the sidewalk and I slapped you, you would probably get mad at me and beat me up right? Lets say I slapped a cop. He would probably put in jail since its a crime for me to hit a police officer right? Now lets say I were to go slap the queen of England. I would go to prison for life right? If you think about it, its the same action, but different consequences depending on who I do it to. If I sin against temporary beings, I get a temporary punishment. If I sin against an eternal being, God in this case, why wouldn't an eternal punishment be just?"
I've heard the analogy, and I think it's unjust. The punishment for slapping someone should be exactly the same regardless of who they are. The purpose of punishment is to discourage people from repeating the same bad behavior. It's a corrective measure. Hell on the other hand is not a corrective measure, because you never get out. It's just cruel vengeance.
"...some of the reasons why the citizens of whatever nation the verse was talking about were put into slavery was because they were deviating from what God had told them to do... So to discipline them, God put them under the rule of kings as slaves."
Based on that logic, it should still be okay for Christians to enslave non-Christians.
"Based off the context, how is that anything close to a literal rod?"
Based off the context, how is that anything other than a literal rod? It says, "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." If god didn't want people beating their kids as a method of discipline, then there would be no reason to mention a rod at all. He would have just said, discipline your children, not beat them with a rod. Unless god is a complete idiot he would know that those words would result in people thinking it's okay to beat their kids.
"God only prohibited women from being in charge over men in spiritual matters. Nowhere in the bible does it say that women can't have authority in any other aspect of life. Only that one."
It doesn't matter if it's only 1 aspect or 100. It's still treating women as inferiors.
"Also, God made men to be the leaders of the household. Not because He thought women weren't capable of leading, but because thats just how He wanted it."
First, how do you know that? Second, even if it were true, his decision to make it that way has led to millions of women all over the world being treated like inferiors.
"Except that in the society that Paul was writing to, the men just knew that they weren't supposed to talk during the sermon, but not all women thought of this which is why it had to be addressed."
Sorry, I don't buy that. Do you have something to back that claim up?
"This was actually talking about men buying their wives who were practically slaves."
Exactly, how can you not see that as sexist? It even says at the beginning of chapter 20, "And God spake all these words..." How can a benevolent god say it's okay to sell your daughters as slaves/wives?
"The bible saying that Abraham did this doesn't condone it. It's just saying that this is what he did. "
Abraham wasn't the only one. Many of gods chosen people had multiple wives and concubines, like Moses, Jacob, David, Samuel, and Gideon, yet for some reason god doesn't have a problem with this and never tells them it's not okay. In fact, 2 Samuel 12:7-8 says, "And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." Some apologists say it just means he was given Saul's wives to look after, not to be his wives, but that doesn't make sense given the context. God is telling him how he has rewarded him. Giving him a bunch of people to look after isn't a reward, it's a chore. However, having multiple wives and concubines was a sign of prestige, and would therefore be considered a reward to him.
Plus in Exodus 21:10, which was the passage about selling your daughter as a slave/wife, god says "If he take him another wife..." If god has a problem with polygamy, why doesn't he ever say anything about it being wrong?
"Saying that the women were seen as sex toys and slaves in this situation is an assumption."
The part about slaves and sex toys wasn't specifically referring to that verse, it was a general statement of the overall picture that the Bible gives about women. I could list many examples, but this debate is already getting way to long, so I don't want to go off on any more tangents.
"The better question is, why does it matter that women were declared unclean longer if they have a daughter than if they had a son? This is a trivial example of what you consider sexist."
It matters because it is one of many examples where the Biblical god views women as being inferior to men. Even if it's trivial, it's still a valid example of god being sexist.
"I say the same thing to you about natural disasters."
Natural disasters cause unnecessary suffering. There is no good reason for a benevolent god to create a world where natural disasters exist when he should have no problem creating one where they don't exist.
"How is God in anyway responsible for the choices we make? The option to do or not do something wrong is always there. God doesn't make the choices for you."
He created our brains. Our brains are what we use to make choices. If our brain causes us to make bad choices, that means there is a flaw in the design or our brain. Besides, that wasn't my point. My point is that if you create something that you know is going to harm people, you are malevolent. God created people knowing beforehand that they would harm each other, therefore doing so was a malevolent action, just like the robot scenario I described earlier.
The benevolence is in allowing someone to make their own decisions without forcing your own way onto them.
A more benevolent thing would be to not create people in the first place.
Option 1: Create people. Billions of them will suffer and eventually be sent to hell.
Option 2: Don't create people. No one suffers.
I don't see how anyone could think that option 1 would be a good choice.
"Each and every person on the planet has to make their own decision about whether or not they are going to do something. It's the dictators and corrupt leaders of the world that CHOOSE to be violent and let the people under them suffer."
Your forgetting that not all of the suffering in the world is because of humans. That's not the case, as I explain here.
"Is that your religion?"
It depends on which definition of religion you're using.
1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3. an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
1 and 2 definitely don't apply to me because I'm an atheist. 3 would apply to some extent, because one of my interests is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, and I believe that helping people to see the harm that religion causes will do that.
"While it may be true that someone who's not religious doesn't need to be religious to be moral, you can't justify morality outside of it."
You can't justify morality within religion either. Because "God said so" isn't any more convincing than "Bob said so," because unless a person believes that they should care what god says, it has no effect. I find the Christian god's idea of morality appalling, and even if he did exist I wouldn't consider him moral. The whole argument of morality being subjective or objective is a whole other topic, and I don't want to go off on any more tangents. This reply already took way too long to write.
BTW, thanks for keeping the debate civil. Most of the debates on this site just devolve into name calling and insults, which is why I rarely participate any more.
I've read it. It says nothing about the source of disease. However, there are many verses where god causes plagues.
I know those verses you're talking about. Those verses are talking about how pharaoh refused to let the jews out of Egypt which took 10 plagues to change his mind.
The only things that suffer are the things with brains, so if creating things with brains leads to suffering it makes no sense for a benevolent being to create them.
Except thats assuming that things with brains were created to suffer. What would be bad for one would probably be good for another. Here's an example. I have a friend who works a desk job and doesn't like it because they don't talk to a whole lot of people and they like talking to people. Assuming I had the same level of education as my friend, I wouldn't mind having his job at all because I don't have that same desire to talk to people as much. My point is that it just depends on how the situation is perceived.
Revelation 21:4 says, "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
No death, no sorrow, no pain. That sounds an awful lot to me like no suffering. So, if the Bible is in fact true, God is capable of creating a place with no suffering.
The thing is though, capable isn't the same as obligated. I completely agree that God is completely capable of creating a place where there is no sorrow and the verse you gave is a perfect example of that. However, our own personal choice to deviate from God's law is proof that we aren't deserving of the place described in the verse you gave. God is in no way, shape, or form obligated to give us this place. It seems like one of the main assumptions you are making is that if we were given this place with no suffering that there would continue to be no suffering and that we will continue to have the freedom of choice. The freedom of choice to choose wrong is not a reflection of God not being capable. It's a reflection of our undeserving nature as sinful people of a place like that because as long as people not only have the choice to do wrong, but are also willing to choose wrong, there will be suffering.
But that suffering is completely unnecessary. There is no reason to create animals that have to kill each other to survive. Making them not have to eat at all would be a simple solution that an omnipotent being should have no problem doing.
Then the question becomes why would you consider that suffering? Isn't it, for lack of a better term, just a natural part of life? It's normal to have animals kill each other for food. But does that mean that the animal on the receiving end of that attack is truly suffering? It seems like, and I'm just throwing out a conjecture, that you are a pacifist. If the is the case, why is it necessary that "violence" not be a part of nature? It seems like what you're saying but the definition you gave earlier that literally anything could suffer because anything could undergo pain, distress, or hardship from something else. So your premise that suffering is unnecessary would require nothing to exist.
Yes, because if it doesn't happen, then you didn't really know it was going to happen.
Actually what happens is that you know one possible outcome. Here's an example. In the movie The Time Machine, the main character sees the woman he loves die. He then goes back in time to prevent it but she still ends up dying but in a different way she had before. Another way of showing this is with different paradoxes. A bootstrap paradox is a good example of this. All this is saying is that you were part of events that caused you to go back in time to be part of the event. If he decided that he didn't want to be a part of the event, even though he knew what the outcome would be, he would create a different set of events. His knowing the outcome of history does not guarantee the means. He could very well choose a different means of travel and get to a very different out outcome.
Absolutely. If I were to create a robot, and while reviewing the code that determines it's decision making I see that it will end up going on a killing spree, if I then go ahead the power up the robot I am responsible for it's actions, because I created it and knew the code would cause it to kill people.
You gave it the ability to choose that direction. Unless you convinced it to, how are you responsible for its decision to go kill people? What it sounds like is that you want God to constantly interrupt us when we are making a decision and put us on the right path instead of making that decision for ourselves. You either have the ability to choose wrong or you don't have the ability to think for yourself. God gave each of us the ability to think for ourselves which comes with the ability to choose which comes with the ability to choose wrong.
Because it causes harm, which is synonymous with malevolence.
How so? Thats like saying that if I went and exterminated a race of people just like hitler tried to, my parents are responsible for that and because of that, they are malevolent. Thats not even close to what happens. I would be the one responsible and I would be considered malevolent for doing such a horrendous thing.
I've heard the analogy, and I think it's unjust. The punishment for slapping someone should be exactly the same regardless of who they are. The purpose of punishment is to discourage people from repeating the same bad behavior. It's a corrective measure. Hell on the other hand is not a corrective measure, because you never get out. It's just cruel vengeance.
The problem with saying this though is that it takes away peoples authority and makes everybody subject to relativism. Here's what I mean. If everyone had exactly the same punishment regardless of whether or not they slapped the Queen of England or some random guy on the street, the punishment would be unjust mainly because of the level of importance we attribute to that one person. As humans, everyone has the same level of importance. As the Queen of England, she would be considered as having more authoritative importance as she is the one running an entire country as opposed to someone one the street.
Based on that logic, it should still be okay for Christians to enslave non-Christians.
This would actually also include Christians who were deviating, not just non-Christians.
If god didn't want people beating their kids as a method of discipline, then there would be no reason to mention a rod at all. He would have just said, discipline your children, not beat them with a rod. Unless god is a complete idiot he would know that those words would result in people thinking it's okay to beat their kids.
This is an example of either taking something too literally or just reading something into the bible. The people this was originally written to knew that it wasn't a literal rod. God doesn't have to make sure he carefully words the right way because he knows that its not supposed to be taken literally.
It doesn't matter if it's only 1 aspect or 100. It's still treating women as inferiors.
How so? If I were to tell you that you couldn't have authority over someone else in a particular situation, how would that in anyway make you inferior? All it means is that you don't have authority on the subject.
First, how do you know that? Second, even if it were true, his decision to make it that way has led to millions of women all over the world being treated like inferiors.
I know because of Genesis 2. This passage talks about how Adam was responsible for keeping the garden. Eve was made as a helper which had roles and responsibilities that were equally as important as Adam's, but different. Just because she has different roles and responsibilities, that doesn't make her inferior in any way. The second point just goes back to people being responsible for their own decisions.
Sorry, I don't buy that. Do you have something to back that claim up?
We can just look at the societies of today. For example, in different European societies, premarital sex is not seen as an issue, However, in our society, a larger percentage of people do see it as an issue. This is mainly because people were raised up not to whether it be due to having Christian values that say not to or simply don't wanting to. This can then be taken back to Pauls time and thought of the same way. Now premarital sex is now where near talking during a sermon. I was just using the example of premarital sex to show how societies can differ on different things. If you want to check out the website I used, this is the one:
Exactly, how can you not see that as sexist? It even says at the beginning of chapter 20, "And God spake all these words..." How can a benevolent god say it's okay to sell your daughters as slaves/wives?
Because men were treated in a similar way. They weren't married off, but they were also times when they were sold as slaves. If it was sexist, only women would be sold, not men as well.
Some apologists say it just means he was given Saul's wives to look after, not to be his wives, but that doesn't make sense given the context. God is telling him how he has rewarded him. Giving him a bunch of people to look after isn't a reward, it's a chore. However, having multiple wives and concubines was a sign of prestige, and would therefore be considered a reward to him.
It depends on what you mean by things like chore and reward. Something good can be seen as a chore and you could be rewarded for doing something wrong.
Plus in Exodus 21:10, which was the passage about selling your daughter as a slave/wife, god says "If he take him another wife..." If god has a problem with polygamy, why doesn't he ever say anything about it being wrong?
He does in Genesis 2:24.
I could list many examples, but this debate is already getting way to long, so I don't want to go off on any more tangents.
I apologize. I think that was my bad for causing the argument to go that way
It matters because it is one of many examples where the Biblical god views women as being inferior to men. Even if it's trivial, it's still a valid example of god being sexist.
How is being unclean longer for having a daughter than you would for having a son make the women inferior? I just go back to the question of why does it matter that women are unclean longer for having a daughter than for having a son?
Natural disasters cause unnecessary suffering. There is no good reason for a benevolent god to create a world where natural disasters exist when he should have no problem creating one where they don't exist.
Except to not have natural disasters, you would have to get rid of the laws of physics and entropy. I am in no way saying God can't do this. What I'm saying is that if He didn't the world would be worse off. An example of this is with earthquakes. They help recycle nutrients into ecosystem. Without this, the earths water would dry up. Part of the reason why earthquakes can be seen as bad is because of the proximity of where people live when compared to where the fault lines are which can seen as poor planning.
He created our brains. Our brains are what we use to make choices. If our brain causes us to make bad choices, that means there is a flaw in the design or our brain.
Our brain doesn't cause us to do anything. All our brain does is take in input and then we as people decide what to do with that input.
My point is that if you create something that you know is going to harm people, you are malevolent. God created people knowing beforehand that they would harm each other, therefore doing so was a malevolent action, just like the robot scenario I described earlier.
I think part of the problem is that your line of thinking is making the assumption that someone harming someone else is inevitable. God makes someone know they CAN harm people but can make the decision not to. As I mentioned earlier, this is like the police getting mad at my parents because I decided it would be a good idea to take out a race of people.
A more benevolent thing would be to not create people in the first place.
Option 1: Create people. Billions of them will suffer and eventually be sent to hell.
Option 2: Don't create people. No one suffers.
I don't see how anyone could think that option 1 would be a good choice.
The first option is only a bad choice if you remove the freedom to choose from the equation.
It depends on which definition of religion you're using.
1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3. an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
1 and 2 definitely don't apply to me because I'm an atheist. 3 would apply to some extent, because one of my interests is to reduce the amount of suffering in the world, and I believe that helping people to see the harm that religion causes will do that.
Saying that religion harms people is like saying that if I were to go shoot someone with a gun that the gun is what killed the person. Thats not the case. Everyone knows that I was the one that killed the person, but the gun was just how I got it done. The same concept can be said of religion. The religion itself (depending on which one you look at) may not say it, its just the people themselves that bring harm and use religion as the tool or as an excuse for them to do it.
You can't justify morality within religion either. Because "God said so" isn't any more convincing than "Bob said so," because unless a person believes that they should care what god says, it has no effect. I find the Christian god's idea of morality appalling, and even if he did exist I wouldn't consider him moral.
God may say that something is wrong, but Christians use God as a standard for good. That was what I meant when I said that people who aren't religious can be moral, but can't justify why they are moral outside of it.
The whole argument of morality being subjective or objective is a whole other topic, and I don't want to go off on any more tangents. This reply already took way too long to write.
I think that was my bad. I apologize.
BTW, thanks for keeping the debate civil. Most of the debates on this site just devolve into name calling and insults, which is why I rarely participate any more.
To make this debate more manageable and avoid walls of text that take forever to respond to I would like to put the bulk of our arguments on hold and just address one at a time. Once we’ve come to an agreement, or agreed to disagree, we can move onto the next one.
ARGUMENT 1 SUMMARY
LittleMisfit: Would a benevolent god create 12,320 diseases that affect humans, and thousands more that affect animals?
Luckin: He didn't create them. At least not directly. He created the means by which the bacteria, viruses, etc. can become diseases. Even then, the disease causing bacteria is less than a tenth of one percent so its not that big of an issue.
LittleMisfit: First of all, there is no way you could possibly know that. Second, even if he didn't create them directly, if he is omniscient like the Bible claims, then he knew beforehand that they would end up as diseases, so he is still responsible for creating the conditions where those things can exist. Plus if he is omnipotent he could easily eradicate all diseases and save millions of people from suffering every year, but he doesn't.
Not that big of an issue?! Millions of people suffer and die every year because of them. That sounds like a pretty big issue to me.
Luckin: Sure there is. Just read Genesis 1 and the beginning of 2.
LittleMisfit: I've read it. It says nothing about the source of disease. However, there are many verses where god causes plagues.
Luckin: I know those verses you're talking about. Those verses are talking about how pharaoh refused to let the jews out of Egypt which took 10 plagues to change his mind.
-------------------------
There are many other verses about plagues, but the number of verses isn’t really important. Whether it's 1 or 100 it's an example of god creating a disease. Let’s back up a little. You still haven’t shown me anywhere in the Bible that supports your first statement that that god didn’t create diseases. You said “Genesis 1 and the beginning of 2.” What specific verses in those chapters are you referring to, because I don’t believe there is anything there that supports your claim.
To make this debate more manageable and avoid walls of text that take forever to respond to I would like to put the bulk of our arguments on hold and just address one at a time. Once we’ve come to an agreement, or agreed to disagree, we can move onto the next one.
Thats a pretty good idea. Sounds like a plan.
When I was talking about the disease thing, I was referring to Genesis 1:24 where it mentions the creeping things of the earth. I guess its more implied when you think about it. God created each of the creeping things with DNA capable of mutating and changing over time. Also, bacteria are capable of horizontal gene transfer and can also reproduce rapidly, like every 20 minutes, which would further show that God is not responsible. Viruses can reproduce just as quickly inside a host assuming they can get inside a cell. What I'm getting at is that these microorganisms can easily cause disease on their own without the need for an outside force. Just take viruses. They physically can't live outside of a suitable host. Dead viruses don't reproduce. With bacteria, not all of hem cause diseases, but the ones that do came about through many many generations, mutations, and gene transfers.
I think that's a bit of a stretch to assume that the verse is referring to things like bacteria and viruses, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's plausible. However, it doesn't tell us that god originally created them as harmless. In addition, even if he did create them harmless, he knew in advance that they would become harmful, but chose to create them anyway. Creating something that you know is going to harm people is a malevolent act. He could have either not created them, created them so they don't have the ability to become harmful, or he could simply wipe them out when they become harmful. All three of those options would result in millions of people not suffering.
Think of it as more of a consequence of peoples actions. I'm sure that before Adam and Eve sinned that God would have never let the microorganisms get like that. After they sinned however, they have to deal with bacteria and viruses that have mutated to become harmful. Yes, God could have very well not have made the bacteria and viruses so that they wouldn't be harmful, never made them at all, or just wipe them out entirely. However, there are some problems with these suggestions. Not allowing mutations wouldn't allow us to digest certain foods. Not creating them at all or wiping them out would effect not just our digestive system but our lives entirely since microbes are necessary for life to exist on this planet. Here's an article that goes into some depth on this topic.
I completely agree with you that God could Make it so that these microbes weren't harmful. However, God is seen as a good and just parent. A good and just parent wouldn't let their kids off the hook if they did something wrong. Adam and Eve decided to go their own way instead of following Gods plan and this is one of the results. Microbes that cause harm to others.
"Not allowing mutations wouldn't allow us to digest certain foods. Not creating them at all or wiping them out would effect not just our digestive system but our lives entirely since microbes are necessary for life to exist on this planet. Here's an article that goes into some depth on this topic."
Again, you're assuming that life had to be created the way it is now.
I completely agree with you that God could Make it so that these microbes weren't harmful. However, God is seen as a good and just parent. A good and just parent wouldn't let their kids off the hook if they did something wrong.
A good parent wouldn't punish their kids by creating something that would cause their child to suffer and die, only a psychopath would do that.
Again, you're assuming that life had to be created the way it is now.
At the same time though, for you to say that this way was wrong, you would have to know what the right way is. I know I don't and don't think you do either. If you did, that would mean you knew more than God which no one does.
A good parent wouldn't punish their kids by creating something that would cause their child to suffer and die, only a psychopath would do that.
They would allow them to deal with the consequences of their actions though. These microbes being the way they are is one of those consequences.
"At the same time though, for you to say that this way was wrong, you would have to know what the right way is."
So basically you're using the get out of debate free card by invoking the mysterious ways argument, which can be used for anything. If someone kills their family and says god told them to do it, they can use the exact same argument. God had a reason for it, but it's beyond our understanding. I don't have to be all-knowing to know that an omnipotent being could come up with a better and more humane system of life than the one we have now.
"They would allow them to deal with the consequences of their actions though. These microbes being the way they are is one of those consequences."
1. How do you know that? You're just asserting it with zero evidence.
2. No parent who actually cared about their child would willingly let them be infected with some horrific disease if they had the power to stop it. They especially wouldn't take part in creating the disease.
3. The 6.3 million children under the age of 5 that die every year from disease are not the ones who ate the fruit. If God punished the entire human race because of the actions of 2 people, he is unjust and malevolent. If a child was dying from smallpox, would you tell them, "Sorry Billy, but one of your ancestors from thousands of years ago ate a piece of fruit when god told him not to, so god is going to let you suffer in agony and die because of it, and if you don't believe in him before you die he is going to send you to hell where you will be tormented forever. Oh, and by the way, he loves you."
So basically you're using the get out of debate free card by invoking the mysterious ways argument, which can be used for anything. If someone kills their family and says god told them to do it, they can use the exact same argument. God had a reason for it, but it's beyond our understanding. I don't have to be all-knowing to know that an omnipotent being could come up with a better and more humane system of life than the one we have now.
Except the point you make banks on this "get out of debate free card" and this "beyond our understanding" argument. You would have to know better than God does. You would have to know the right way to do it if this is the wrong way to do it. Just because it seems like an easy way out that doesn't make it any less right.
1. How do you know that? You're just asserting it with zero evidence.
You talking about the children dealing with their own consequences or the microbes being the way they are because of the consequences? The first scenario is answered simply. It's just common sense. Any good parent would let their children deal with the consequences of their actions even if the children were told not to and the children knew why they were told not to. This is the case with Adam and Eve. They knew exactly what it was they weren't supposed to do and what would happen if they did it yet they did it anyway. I think this goes in to the second point that you brought up. The thing is though, as I said earlier, God never created the diseases. God did have the power to stop Adam and Eve from doing what they did and He did until Adam and Eve willingly chose to ignore what God had said and thus plunging the world into what we see today. As for the microbes, its just one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's willful disobedience. Suffering by one of these microbes is one of the consequences of this willful disobedience that Adam and Eve set on the rest of the world.
3. The 6.3 million children under the age of 5 that die every year from disease are not the ones who ate the fruit. If God punished the entire human race because of the actions of 2 people, he is unjust and malevolent.
They aren't, but they are the ones that are born in a world where people have to deal with the choices of others. One of those choices is being that these children die without medical attention from an easily curable disease. That is not the fault of God. Its the fault the people who know the number is this high, but don't do anything about it. Adam and Eve's decision to turn away from God does effect the world since the world came from the people who decided that turning from God would be best. Everyone is responsible for their own decision. I think what I'm not understanding is, why would God be responsible for their choices if we are the ones that make our own choices knowing that their decision was either right or wrong? To me, using omnipotence and omniscience as a way around our freedom to choose wrong are that "get out of debate free card" you mentioned earlier since our freedom to choose wrong is the primary reason our world is in the mess its in now.
"Just because it seems like an easy way out that doesn't make it any less right."
Then I guess were done with that topic, because once the mysterious ways argument comes into play the debate is over.
"You talking about the children dealing with their own consequences or the microbes being the way they are because of the consequences?"
The latter.
"The first scenario is answered simply. It's just common sense. Any good parent would let their children deal with the consequences of their actions even if the children were told not to and the children knew why they were told not to."
If a child reached for a red hot stove, is it common sense to just let them touch it and deal with the consequence of their actions? If your son or daughter was planning on drive while drunk, would you take their keys or would you just let them deal with the consequences of their actions? When you love someone you do everything in your power to protect them, and even more so when the consequences of their actions will also harm other people.
"This is the case with Adam and Eve. They knew exactly what it was they weren't supposed to do and what would happen if they did it yet they did it anyway."
No they didn't. They thought god was lying to them and the serpent was telling the truth, otherwise they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. Not only that but god didn't tell them "if you eat the fruit, billions of people will suffer, die, and be tormented forever in hell." That's kind of an important omission. There are countless other issues with the story of Adam and Eve, but that will just lead to more tangents, so I'll save them for another time.
"God never created the diseases."
You keep saying that but you still haven't provided anything to support that claim.
"God did have the power to stop Adam and Eve from doing what they did and He did until Adam and Eve willingly chose to ignore what God had said and thus plunging the world into what we see today."
Due to his omniscience, God knew before he even created Adam and Eve that they would eat the fruit, but he decided to create them anyway and decided to put the tree there, so it was all part of his plan.
"As for the microbes, its just one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's willful disobedience. Suffering by one of these microbes is one of the consequences of this willful disobedience that Adam and Eve set on the rest of the world."
Here is a scenario. A scientist named Brian is working in the lab. He fails to take the proper safety precautions, resulting in the release of a deadly virus that will kill millions of people if it's not stopped. His boss has the power to stop the virus by quarantining the area. According to your logic, his boss should just let the virus spread because Brian needs to deal with the consequences of his actions.
"One of those choices is being that these children die without medical attention from an easily curable disease. That is not the fault of God. Its the fault the people who know the number is this high, but don't do anything about it."
Millions of children suffer and die from diseases that have no cure.
"Adam and Eve's decision to turn away from God does effect the world since the world came from the people who decided that turning from God would be best. Everyone is responsible for their own decision. I think what I'm not understanding is, why would God be responsible for their choices if we are the ones that make our own choices knowing that their decision was either right or wrong?"
God is ultimately responsible because he is the one that created the mess. He created life with full knowledge that it would result in disaster. If he didn't want the mess to occur, then he could have just not created it. Creating life with the knowledge that it will end up with billions of people suffering is pure malevolence.
Really, I think we can reduce this entire debate down to just that one point, because it really is the heart of it all. So, if you want to skip all of my other points and just focus on that one point I'm okay with that. So, why would a benevolent god create life if it results in billions of people suffering during this life, followed by billions more being tormented for eternity in hell?
Then I guess were done with that topic, because once the mysterious ways argument comes into play the debate is over.
Ok. What do you want to talk about?
If a child reached for a red hot stove, is it common sense to just let them touch it and deal with the consequence of their actions?
You're assuming the children never knew. Even if they didn't, they would still have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Of course, you would do what you could to make sure that didn't happen, but that still doesn't negate them being responsible for their actions. This just goes back to Adam and Eve with them plunging the world into sin for what they did. Everyone in the world, no matter how good they seem, have to deal with their actions, but that doesn't mean that each and every person is not responsible for their own decisions.
If your son or daughter was planning on drive while drunk, would you take their keys or would you just let them deal with the consequences of their actions?
Its the same as the previous statement. Even if they didn't know, they are still responsible, even after you have tried to do something about it. They would still be 100% responsible for their actions. Even in other countries, you would get put in jail for something you did that you didn't even know was wrong.
No they didn't. They thought god was lying to them and the serpent was telling the truth, otherwise they wouldn't have eaten the fruit.
Now you're starting to contradict yourself. You started off saying they didn't know then started talking about them as if they did. Saying that Adam and Eve trusted the serpent more than God assumes that they were told what not to do and what would happen if they did, they just didn't trust Him. Thats the consequence that they have to deal with for not trusting God and going their own way.
Not only that but god didn't tell them "if you eat the fruit, billions of people will suffer, die, and be tormented forever in hell."
He may not have specifically said that, but thats assuming he had to. He already told them of the consequences and both Adam and Eve knew exactly what He meant.
Due to his omniscience, God knew before he even created Adam and Eve that they would eat the fruit, but he decided to create them anyway and decided to put the tree there, so it was all part of his plan.
Plan for what? All you've been getting at is God either not taking away peoples ability to choose, even if its wrong or not letting people take responsibility for their actions.
Here is a scenario. A scientist named Brian is working in the lab. He fails to take the proper safety precautions, resulting in the release of a deadly virus that will kill millions of people if it's not stopped. His boss has the power to stop the virus by quarantining the area. According to your logic, his boss should just let the virus spread because Brian needs to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Here's what I meant. Before the fall, there was a world where microbes did not evolve and mutate into deadly diseases. Adam and Eve decided they wanted to deviate, despite being told not to, and because of that, they get to deal with the fact that these microbes can evolve and mutate into deadly diseases and kill them. What I'm not saying is that this is a good thing or that its condoned. What I'm also not saying is that nothing can or is being done about it. What I'm saying is that in the fallen world that we live in, suffering is just a result of the willful, conscious decisions of others. In the scenario you gave, Brain could deal with the consequences in a number of ways. He could get fired and end up dead, he could die without getting fired, he could get shunned and end up quitting, he could stay and get shunned anyway. That doesn't mean that the outbreak shouldn't be dealt with. I'm only saying this to prove that there are a number of different ways that people could suffer from the consequences of their actions, intentional or not.
Millions of children suffer and die from diseases that have no cure.
My answer stays the same.
God is ultimately responsible because he is the one that created the mess. He created life with full knowledge that it would result in disaster. If he didn't want the mess to occur, then he could have just not created it. Creating life with the knowledge that it will end up with billions of people suffering is pure malevolence.
It seems like every time you talk about God being ultimately responsible, you completely ignore the freedom to choose which is what I've been saying the whole time. People have the freedom to willfully and consciously choose wrong knowing full well that its wrong and that they shouldn't do it. Why is that an issue?
So, why would a benevolent god create life if it results in billions of people suffering during this life, followed by billions more being tormented for eternity in hell?
The first part of this question can be answered with what I've been saying which is that people willingly choose to do wrong knowing that it is wrong and would probably hurt other people and also sin against God who is an eternal being. The other part of this question can be answered as follows: hell is for the people who willingly choose wrong knowing that its going to end up hurting others and also sin against an eternal God. Sinning against an eternal God should and would result in eternal punishment.
”This just goes back to Adam and Eve with them plunging the world into sin for what they did. Everyone in the world, no matter how good they seem, have to deal with their actions, but that doesn't mean that each and every person is not responsible for their own decisions.”
I never said people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. You seem to be missing my point. Let me give you a different example that might make it clearer. Let’s say you work for the FBI and you’ve discovered a terrorist plot to blow up a school. Which of the following actions would be the right choice?
A. Let the terrorist blow up the school and everyone just has to deal with the consequences.
B. Stop the terrorist from blowing up the school.
I’m arguing that B would be the correct action to take, because it prevents harm. You seem to be arguing for A. Let’s plug the same logic into the Adam and Eve scenario. God knows that Adam and Eve will disobey him and doom millions of people to an eternity in hell. Which of the following actions would be the right choice?
A. Let Adam and Eve eat the fruit and doom billions of people to eternal torment.
B. Stop them from eating the fruit, or don’t create Adam and Eve, or just don’t put the tree there.
It’s really the same scenario, but the consequences of not intervening are billions of times worse. If the FBI agent did nothing, I’m pretty sure you would think he was a terrible person, but when god does something far worse you give him a free pass.
”Now you're starting to contradict yourself. You started off saying they didn't know then started talking about them as if they did.”
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, and after rereading it I see how it could be easily seen that way. When I said, “No they didn’t” I as referring to the second half of your sentence that said, “They knew exactly…what would happen if they did it…." I then clarified that in the next sentence.
”He may not have specifically said that, but thats assuming he had to.”
Billions of people will suffer and die if Adam eats the fruit, and god apparently thought it wasn’t important enough to mention, but it's okay because he wasn't required to mention it. Seriously?!
”He already told them of the consequences and both Adam and Eve knew exactly what He meant.”
How do you know they knew exactly what he meant?
”Here's what I meant. Before the fall, there was a world where microbes did not evolve and mutate into deadly diseases.”
You keep saying that, and I keep asking over and over again, how do you know that, but you never answer me. So I'll ask again, how do you know that?
Even if it were true, it doesn’t get god off the hook. If the microbes didn’t mutate before the fall, that means after the fall god intentionally altered them so that they did mutate into diseases. That’s no different than a parent infecting their child with AIDS for disobeying them. Only a psychopath would do something like that.
”That doesn't mean that the outbreak shouldn't be dealt with.”
But that’s exactly what you’ve been arguing this whole time, that god shouldn’t intervene and stop the outbreak. You believe he just lets it spread and lets people deal with the consequences of Adam & Eve.
”My answer stays the same.”
Your answer was, “Its the fault the people who know the number is this high, but don't do anything about it.” So, you’re basically saying, the person who created the disease isn’t responsible for the suffering it causes, but the people who don’t know how to cure it are responsible.
”It seems like every time you talk about God being ultimately responsible, you completely ignore the freedom to choose which is what I've been saying the whole time. People have the freedom to willfully and consciously choose wrong knowing full well that its wrong and that they shouldn't do it. Why is that an issue?”
Because creating things that you know will cause suffering is a malevolent act. It’s really simple, if you know your creation is going to cause harm, don’t create it. If you do create it, you're a dick.
"The first part of this question can be answered with what I've been saying which is that people willingly choose to do wrong knowing that it is wrong and would probably hurt other people and also sin against God who is an eternal being."
That doesn't answer the question at all. I didn't ask why evil exists. I asked why god would create something that he knew would result in billions of people suffering instead of not creating people at all? You keep saying people should be held accountable for their actions, but when it comes to god you keep giving him a free pass. His action of creating this world resulted in immeasurable amounts of suffering, and he knew it would before he created it, yet he still chose to create it. So why would he do that, and how could such an action be considered benevolent?
”hell is for the people who willingly choose wrong knowing that its going to end up hurting others and also sin against an eternal God. Sinning against an eternal God should and would result in eternal punishment.”
Hell serves no purpose other than petty vengeance, and only a cruel and malevolent god would create such a place.
I never said people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. You seem to be missing my point. Let me give you a different example that might make it clearer. Let’s say you work for the FBI and you’ve discovered a terrorist plot to blow up a school. Which of the following actions would be the right choice?
A. Let the terrorist blow up the school and everyone just has to deal with the consequences.
B. Stop the terrorist from blowing up the school.
I think my mistake was this. Something should be done to prevent people who are going to cause suffering to others, but ultimately, people are responsible for their own decisions. In your scenario, the best choice would be choice B. However, there are other factors that go into it like did the person do everything they could to stop it? If they did and it still happens, that sucks, but what else can you do? Also, did they know before hand that this was going to happen? If thats the case, the question of why didn't you do something earlier gets raised. Even that brings up a whole slew of different questions about circumstances. It ultimately comes down to whether or not someone could have done something about it. They could deal with different situations in different ways and deal with the consequences in different ways.
God knows that Adam and Eve will disobey him and doom millions of people to an eternity in hell. Which of the following actions would be the right choice?
A. Let Adam and Eve eat the fruit and doom billions of people to eternal torment.
B. Stop them from eating the fruit, or don’t create Adam and Eve, or just don’t put the tree there.
It sounds like what you want is for people to not be able to make their own decisions and have God be the one to make them for everyone because the only way for God to be responsible for everyones decisions is for God to be the one to make the decisions for them. God wants real people who give Him real love. Not robots who are just programmed to give Him love when he wants it. So what it basically boils down to is if God is all loving, then part of being all loving is giving people the choice to do what God asks them to or to go their own way and cause destruction and suffering on others. Here's something to think about. If you disobey an authority, is it the authorities fault that you disobeyed them or is it your fault for not doing what it was your were supposed to do? Based off of what you're saying, its Gods fault for Adam and Eve's disobedience that each willingly chose to go along with. How is that a fault of God if each one of us, the two of us included, have the option to disobey?
Billions of people will suffer and die if Adam eats the fruit, and god apparently thought it wasn’t important enough to mention, but it's okay because he wasn't required to mention it.
It seems like what you're leaving out is that Ada and Eve were made perfect in the sense that they were perfect in all of their ways. This implies that they had an intelligence that was many times greater than ours. This doesn't mean that they couldn't make the wrong decision. All it means is that when God said what He did, he didn't have to go into too much detail for them to know what he was talking about.
How do you know they knew exactly what he meant?
When the serpent was trying to get Eve to eat the fruit, he was messing with the meaning of the word die. He was basically making the claim that of semantic ambiguity. Adam and Eve wouldn't have not trusted God if neither of them knew what He meant when God said you shall surely die. They just didn't trust Him when they ate the fruit.
So I'll ask again, how do you know that?
Because if everything was made perfect in the Garden of Eden, that would imply that the microbes wouldn't mutate into harmful and sometimes deadly diseases. Afterward Adam and Eve chose to sin however, these microbes turning into harmful diseases would just be a consequence of Adam and Eve's conscious decision to sin.
Even if it were true, it doesn’t get god off the hook. If the microbes didn’t mutate before the fall, that means after the fall god intentionally altered them so that they did mutate into diseases. That’s no different than a parent infecting their child with AIDS for disobeying them. Only a psychopath would do something like that.
I never said they didn't mutate. What I said was that they didn't mutate into something harmful. But thats also assuming God went in and changed it to make it that way. It would only be psychopathic if God made it so that the only thing they could do was sin. As I have mentioned many times, both Adam and Eve had the conscious ability to disobey God. How is God allowing them to make their own decision wrong?
But that’s exactly what you’ve been arguing this whole time, that god shouldn’t intervene and stop the outbreak. You believe he just lets it spread and lets people deal with the consequences of Adam & Eve.
I go back to what I said about God intervening in peoples decisions.
Your answer was, “Its the fault the people who know the number is this high, but don't do anything about it.” So, you’re basically saying, the person who created the disease isn’t responsible for the suffering it causes, but the people who don’t know how to cure it are responsible.
He will deal with it one way or the other. If people find out who did it, he would probably get punished for what he did. At the same time though, if people know who did it and they did nothing, the people would be responsible. The same thing is true for the disease and whether or not the people knew ahead of time who was going to do it. If the people didn't know, then they aren't responsible for the person who caused it until they find, if they ever do. They are also responsible for taking care of the disease infecting all those people in the sense that they have to do something about it. If they know something has to be done but don't do anything, thats on them.
That doesn't answer the question at all. I didn't ask why evil exists. I asked why god would create something that he knew would result in billions of people suffering instead of not creating people at all? You keep saying people should be held accountable for their actions, but when it comes to god you keep giving him a free pass.
Just go back to my response on people making decisions.
His action of creating this world resulted in immeasurable amounts of suffering, and he knew it would before he created it, yet he still chose to create it. So why would he do that, and how could such an action be considered benevolent?
Part of the issue is that you're ignoring God giving us the ability to willingly obey Him. In this day and age, people don't really have any kind of excuse when they go do something. People know that there are shady people who are out in the world to cause people harm, yet people do stuff anyway. They are responsible for doing something knowing its going to cause them or someone else harm.
Hell serves no purpose other than petty vengeance, and only a cruel and malevolent god would create such a place
You kept talking about how God didn't do anything about the suffering of the world, yet you call his solution bad and that only a cruel and malevolent person could create such a thing out of petty vengeance. Hell is for the people that continue in their willful disobedience of God, know that they are doing wrong. God did do something about it. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it bad or wrong.
I think part of the problem is this. Even people who don't believe in God know that forcing your way onto people is wrong in every situation, even if the result is beneficial. God would have either had to force His way onto Adam and Eve to prevent them from eating the fruit or just not allow them to make the decision at all. What you want is for God to have had done one of those things which make Him malevolent, even by our standards. As I've said before, a loving parent would let their kids deal with the consequences of their actions, even if the kids know what would probably happen ahead of time. And thats where love comes in, from the ability to give it willingly and not have it be forced onto others.
”I think my mistake was this. Something should be done to prevent people who are going to cause suffering to others, but ultimately, people are responsible for their own decisions.”
So if you agree that something should be done to prevent people from causing suffering to others, and that people are responsible for their decisions, why don’t you have a problem with god failing to prevent Adam and Eve from dooming the entire world to suffering, and why shouldn’t god be held accountable for his decision to not stop them, or at the very least not set up the situation in the first place?
”In your scenario, the best choice would be choice B. However, there are other factors that go into it like did the person do everything they could to stop it? If they did and it still happens, that sucks, but what else can you do?”
God clearly didn’t do everything he could to stop it because if he is omnipotent nothing could prevent him from stopping it. There are so many ways he could have prevented disaster. He could have not put the tree there, not created Adam & Eve, created a flaming sword to guard the tree like he did in Genesis 3:24, make them know without a doubt that he was telling the truth, etc.
”Also, did they know before hand that this was going to happen? If thats the case, the question of why didn't you do something earlier gets raised.”
God knew beforehand. Why didn’t he do something earlier?
”It sounds like what you want is for people to not be able to make their own decisions and have God be the one to make them for everyone because the only way for God to be responsible for everyones decisions is for God to be the one to make the decisions for them.”
No, as I’ve said many times before, god should never have created people in the first place. Perfect benevolent beings don’t create imperfect malevolent ones.
”God wants real people who give Him real love. Not robots who are just programmed to give Him love when he wants it. So what it basically boils down to is if God is all loving, then part of being all loving is giving people the choice to do what God asks them to or to go their own way and cause destruction and suffering on others.”
You’re still missing the point. If you had a machine that let you see into the future, and you saw that if you have sex with your wife today she will get pregnant and the child that you have won’t love you, and will grow up to be a serial killer, would you still have the child or would you just skip having sex with your wife that day? If you choose to have the child, would you lock them in the basement and torture them as punishment for not loving you or disobeying you, because that’s exactly what the Christian god is going to do according to the Bible.
”Based off of what you're saying, its Gods fault for Adam and Eve's disobedience that each willingly chose to go along with. How is that a fault of God if each one of us, the two of us included, have the option to disobey?”
No no no. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not saying god is responsible for Adam and Eve’s decisions. I’m saying god is responsible for gods decision to create them with the full knowledge of the huge disaster it would result in. Just like the scenario I described above, if you know having a baby will result in bad things happening, then you shouldn’t have the baby. If you know creating Adam and Eve will result in bad things happening, then you shouldn’t create Adam and Eve.
”It seems like what you're leaving out is that Ada and Eve were made perfect in the sense that they were perfect in all of their ways.”
Is sinning perfect? If not, then they weren’t perfect in all their ways. Perfect being don’t do imperfect things.
”This implies that they had an intelligence that was many times greater than ours. This doesn't mean that they couldn't make the wrong decision. All it means is that when God said what He did, he didn't have to go into too much detail for them to know what he was talking about.”
If they really knew what he was talking about, they wouldn’t have ate the fruit, because even a kindergartner has enough intelligence to know that causing billions of people to suffer in hell is a bad idea.
”When the serpent was trying to get Eve to eat the fruit, he was messing with the meaning of the word die. He was basically making the claim that of semantic ambiguity. Adam and Eve wouldn't have not trusted God if neither of them knew what He meant when God said you shall surely die. They just didn't trust Him when they ate the fruit.”
I don’t see the connection. How does what you said prove that Adam and Eve knew that eating the fruit would result in billions of people suffering, dying, and be tormented forever in hell.
”Because if everything was made perfect in the Garden of Eden, that would imply that the microbes wouldn't mutate into harmful and sometimes deadly diseases. Afterward Adam and Eve chose to sin however, these microbes turning into harmful diseases would just be a consequence of Adam and Eve's conscious decision to sin.”
So your argument seem to be perfect things don’t do harmful things, yet you believe Adam and Eve did a harmful thing by eating the fruit, so that contradicts the idea that everything was made perfect.
”I never said they didn't mutate. What I said was that they didn't mutate into something harmful. But thats also assuming God went in and changed it to make it that way. It would only be psychopathic if God made it so that the only thing they could do was sin. As I have mentioned many times, both Adam and Eve had the conscious ability to disobey God. How is God allowing them to make their own decision wrong?”
God allowing them to make their own decisions isn’t the part that I’m saying is wrong there. The part that is wrong is god doing something that is unnecessarily cruel as a punishment. You seem to be claiming that god is not responsible for diseases because he didn’t intentionally make it so that they would mutate into disease, he just made it a possibility that they could mutate into diseases. First, I don’t see how that is any better. Second, you’re forgetting about god’s omniscience. If he knows that by making it possible for them to mutate into disease, that they will in fact mutate into diseases, it’s no different than if he had done it intentionally. For example, if I modify the plans for Honda Civics so that it’s possible that the steering could fail, and I know for a fact that the steering will fail and seriously maim and/or kill many people, that is a malevolent action.
”I go back to what I said about God intervening in peoples decisions.”
So then you must believe that letting the outbreak spread would be the right decision and that we should fire all of our law enforcement officers because they shouldn’t interfere with people’s free will and should just let everyone deal with the consequences. However, god gets a free pass and is not responsible for his actions.
”He will deal with it one way or the other.”
But he’s obviously not dealing with it, otherwise millions of people wouldn’t still be getting diseases every year.
”If people find out who did it, he would probably get punished for what he did. At the same time though, if people know who did it and they did nothing, the people would be responsible. The same thing is true for the disease and whether or not the people knew ahead of time who was going to do it. If the people didn't know, then they aren't responsible for the person who caused it until they find, if they ever do.”
What??? This whole disease discussion has absolutely nothing to do with people intentionally going around infecting people with diseases. It’s about the existence of diseases in general. There are numerous diseases that exist and are not spread by people intentionally trying to infecting others, so you seem to be throwing out a red herring.
”They are also responsible for taking care of the disease infecting all those people in the sense that they have to do something about it. If they know something has to be done but don't do anything, thats on them.”
So we are responsible for taking care of people who have diseases, despite the fact that there is no cure for the disease, but god is not responsible for taking care of them, despite that fact that he can cure them. How do you not see the double standard there?
”Just go back to my response on people making decisions.”
But that doesn’t answer the question. Your response only answers the question, "why do people do bad things?" It doesn't answer the questions "why does god create people if he knows they will do bad things?" This has absolutely nothing to do with people making decisions, because in order for people to make decisions they have to first exist.
”Part of the issue is that you're ignoring God giving us the ability to willingly obey Him. In this day and age, people don't really have any kind of excuse when they go do something. People know that there are shady people who are out in the world to cause people harm, yet people do stuff anyway. They are responsible for doing something knowing its going to cause them or someone else harm.”
Same as above
”You kept talking about how God didn't do anything about the suffering of the world, yet you call his solution bad and that only a cruel and malevolent person could create such a thing out of petty vengeance.”
It is a bad solution for two reasons.
1. Torture is cruel and inhumane. Should we should follow god’s example and start torturing prisoners?
2. God does nothing to prevent the suffering of the world. He just sits back and watches while children a raped, people are murdered, etc. Then after the criminal is dead he punishes them. If we modeled our justice system after gods we would tell our law enforcement officials to just stand by and watch crimes as they happen and just take note of who was committing the crime. Then many year later they will put the offender in jail for eternity and torture them every day, regardless of how minor their crime was. Does that sound like a good justice system to you?
”I think part of the problem is this. Even people who don't believe in God know that forcing your way onto people is wrong in every situation, even if the result is beneficial.”
Is it wrong to try to stop people from crimes? That is forcing our way onto them in a way that is beneficial. The Bible is loaded with stories of God forcing his way onto people.
”God would have either had to force His way onto Adam and Eve to prevent them from eating the fruit or just not allow them to make the decision at all.”
No, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, don’t create people and all of the problems are solved.
“As I've said before, a loving parent would let their kids deal with the consequences of their actions, even if the kids know what would probably happen ahead of time.”
And I pointed out that that is not true. A loving parent wouldn’t let their kid drive drunk. A loving parent wouldn't let their kid eat a piece of fruit if it meant dooming the entire world to suffering.
”And thats where love comes in, from the ability to give it willingly and not have it be forced onto others.”
But god is trying to force it by saying, if you don't love me you'll be tortured for eternity. I’m sure if a parent said that to their child you would think they were a monster.
A rebuttal to a good portion of your arguments can be looked at like this. God in all His power can't do something logically contradictory. Like make a square circle or a one ended stick for example. Making morally free creatures who can only choose to follow Him is logically contradictory. Like the square circle or one ended stick I mentioned. Power and foreknowledge have nothing to do with this. God very well could make a universe where people didn't exist, but He wouldn't have followers who would love Him back, not that He needed it. He would also be taking away something good which is our freedom to choose Him willingly which would be true love. God is responsible for the fact of free will, humans are responsible for their acts of free will. Gods knowing ahead of time what was going to happen doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen. They could still choose to do something else. Also, creating people who are meant to be on the armed forces that get in the way of people doing bad things to others and cause suffering is God doing something about the suffering of the world. The same thing can be said of anyone else in the world. Hell is another solution. That is for people who willingly chose to go against what God says. As I've said earlier, God being an eternal being and since we've sinned against Him, everyone on this planet is deserving of Hell regardless of how good a person we think we are.
I don’t see the connection. How does what you said prove that Adam and Eve knew that eating the fruit would result in billions of people suffering, dying, and be tormented forever in hell.
They knew that their eating of the fruit would cause death and separation from God for them and every generation since then. The serpent deceived them into thinking God wasn't telling them the whole truth and that God was keeping something from them. This distrust lead to them eating of the fruit
If they really knew what he was talking about, they wouldn’t have ate the fruit, because even a kindergartner has enough intelligence to know that causing billions of people to suffer in hell is a bad idea.
You're still leaving out the fact that they didn't trust God which why They chose to eat of the
God allowing them to make their own decisions isn’t the part that I’m saying is wrong there. The part that is wrong is god doing something that is unnecessarily cruel as a punishment. You seem to be claiming that god is not responsible for diseases because he didn’t intentionally make it so that they would mutate into disease, he just made it a possibility that they could mutate into diseases. First, I don’t see how that is any better. Second, you’re forgetting about god’s omniscience. If he knows that by making it possible for them to mutate into disease, that they will in fact mutate into diseases, it’s no different than if he had done it intentionally. For example, if I modify the plans for Honda Civics so that it’s possible that the steering could fail, and I know for a fact that the steering will fail and seriously maim and/or kill many people, that is a malevolent action.
If you were the one that changed the plans, you would be the only one responsible. Unless you weren't the only one that knew in which case multiple people would be responsible. In the first scenario, you would be the only one responsible. That would make everyone else in a sense innocent. However, this is an absolutely horrible analogy for God. A better analogy, although probably still imperfect, would be if you had the false plans, kept them out in the option for people to use, and let them make the decision to use it knowing it's wrong. If they do, it's on them.
What??? This whole disease discussion has absolutely nothing to do with people intentionally going around infecting people with diseases. It’s about the existence of diseases in general. There are numerous diseases that exist and are not spread by people intentionally trying to infecting others, so you seem to be throwing out a red herring.
Then why did you give a scenario specifically about a guy spreading a disease and ask about the consequences he would have to deal with? If you wanted people intentionally spreading diseases to stay out of it, why did you mention them? It seems like the people were the red herring if they weren't the main focus of what you were talking about.
And I pointed out that that is not true. A loving parent wouldn’t let their kid drive drunk. A loving parent wouldn't let their kid eat a piece of fruit if it meant dooming the entire world to suffering.
The problem is that you're banking on parents forcing their way onto their kids which we already established wouldn't be loving. True love would allow others to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences even if intervening didn't work. God could have intervened, but as I said earlier, He would have to take away something good for that to happen and He wouldn't do that.
”A rebuttal to a good portion of your arguments can be looked at like this. God in all His power can't do something logically contradictory. Like make a square circle or a one ended stick for example. Making morally free creatures who can only choose to follow Him is logically contradictory. Like the square circle or one ended stick I mentioned.”
I was hoping to keep my response brief, but since free will keeps coming up I think I need to address it in more detail. Free will is a myth, especially if we were created by an omnipotent and omniscient being. Our brains determine our desires and choices, and according to Christian theology god designed our brains with the full knowledge of the choices each of our brains would make if he designed them that way. It’s no different than a programmer writing the code for a robot. The robot may think it’s freely choosing its actions, but in reality the decisions it makes are predetermined by the code. Similarly, we may think we’re freely choosing our actions, but in reality the decisions we make are predetermined by the structure and chemical makeup of our brains.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a minute that free will does exist. I think free will is having the ability to choose between the things I desire to do. God could have made us with no desire to sin without violating our free will. If you’re thinking that it does violate free will, consider this. Do you have a desire to rape babies or eat poop? My guess would be no. Does the fact that you don’t have a desire to do those things mean you don’t have free will? I think the answer is no. So why would not having the desire to do other harmful things take away your free will?
Another thing worth noting is that free will doesn’t mean you have the ability to choose between every possible action. Our free will is restricted by countless factors. For example, I want to be able to fly like Superman, but my will to do it is limited by the laws of physics. The people in jail want to go free, but we limit their free will to protect people from harm, and I’m pretty sure you don’t have a problem with their free will be violated in that case. So why is it no okay for god to do the same? Why can’t he violate people’s free will to protect people from harm the same way our police do?
God has no problem violating people’s free will. He does it numerous times throughout the Bible, so the free will argument is specious.
Do people have free will in heaven? If so, then how will heaven be any different from Earth? Even Christians aren’t perfect and sin on a regular basis, so all of that sinning will continue in heaven unless god changes them so they don’t have a desire to sin, which you seem to believe is a violation of free will, and therefore wrong.
”Power and foreknowledge have nothing to do with this. God very well could make a universe where people didn't exist, but He wouldn't have followers who would love Him back, not that He needed it.”
Power and foreknowledge have everything to do with it. You’re saying that god created us because he wanted followers to love him, and he did it knowing in advance that doing so would result in billions of people suffering, yet he chose to do it anyway. That’s the most selfish thing I’ve ever heard of.
If a barren couple who wanted kids were told they could adopt a baby that would love them, but if they go through with the adoption a bunch of other kids will be locked in a basement and tortured, wouldn’t you think it was immoral for them to accept that deal? That’s no different than what god did.
”He would also be taking away something good which is our freedom to choose Him willingly which would be true love.”
Telling someone you will send them to hell, where they will be tormented forever, is neither a free choice nor good, it’s coercion and intimidation.
”Gods knowing ahead of time what was going to happen doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen. They could still choose to do something else. “
Like I already said, that’s a contradiction. If they chose to do something different, then god didn’t know ahead of time what was going to happen. Maybe what you’re trying to say is foreknowledge does not necessitate causation. In most cases that is absolutely true, but there is one important difference in the god scenario, god created everything. Therefore, he is the cause. Think of it like a Rube Goldberg machine. God looks at a blueprint for the machine (i.e. looks at our future). He knows before beginning construction on the machine exactly what each part will do. If he goes ahead and creates the machine and starts it up, he is the initial cause. The parts of the machine won't do anything different than what the blueprint said. If god had showed the blueprint to someone else, but that person didn't help construct the machine, then the statement "foreknowledge does not necessitate causation" would definitely apply to that person, but since god built the machine and set it in motion he caused the entire sequence of events to unfold.
”Also, creating people who are meant to be on the armed forces that get in the way of people doing bad things to others and cause suffering is God doing something about the suffering of the world. The same thing can be said of anyone else in the world.”
Whoa, wait a minute, you just contradicted your core argument. How can god create people who are “meant to be on the armed forces” without controlling their desire to be in the armed forces and manipulating countless other people’s actions, thoughts, and life events to ensure that the person ends up in the armed forces? Wouldn’t that be a violation of free will according to you? Also, why does god get credit for creating the good people in the armed forces but not the bad ones? Not only that, but the armed forces only eliminate a small amount of the suffering in the world, and are often too late to stop the bad guys. You would think an omnipotent, benevolent being could come up with a better solution to the problem.
The armed forces interfere with the free will of the criminals. So if god created people who are meant to be on the armed forces, like you said, then isn’t he still interfering with the criminal’s free will? Why is it okay for god to interfere that way, but not okay for him to interfere in other ways that are 100% effective, instead ones that frequently fail?
Going back though our discussion, there seem to be multiple contradictions and double standards in your arguments related to free will.
1. You said, "Something should be done to prevent people who are going to cause suffering to others, but ultimately, people are responsible for their own decisions." Yet when I say god should do something to prevent suffering you say, "part of being all loving is giving people the choice to do what God asks them to or to go their own way and cause destruction and suffering on others." So which is it, should something be done or not?
2. When I say god should be held responsible for his action of creating people, which resulted in incredible amounts of harm, you said he isn't responsible because people have free will. However, you also said people "are responsible for doing something knowing its going to cause them or someone else harm." Why are people responsible for doing something knowing it's going to cause harm, but god isn't?
”Hell is another solution. That is for people who willingly chose to go against what God says.”
Hell does nothing to prevent suffering, it just causes infinitely more suffering, so I don’t see how that’s a solution.
“As I've said earlier, God being an eternal being and since we've sinned against Him, everyone on this planet is deserving of Hell regardless of how good a person we think we are.”
What difference does it make if god is an eternal being or not? I see no logical connection between the length of time someone has existed and the amount a person should be punished. If a 40 year old parent has a son that disobeys him, should the child be punished for 40 years, because that's basically what your argument is.
”They knew that their eating of the fruit would cause death and separation from God for them and every generation since then. “
You’re reading more into it that what is actually written. All it says is, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
That says nothing about separation from god, hell, or severe and incredibly cruel consequences to all of their descendants.
”The serpent deceived them into thinking God wasn't telling them the whole truth and that God was keeping something from them. This distrust lead to them eating of the fruit.”
Since you seem to be a Biblical literalist (correct me if I’m wrong), that means Adam and Eve had only been alive for less than a day. That means they just met god, so I don’t see any reason why they should think he was any more trustworthy than the serpent, whom they also just met. Plus, there’s the important fact that they didn’t even know what good and even were until after they ate the fruit. For god to punish them so severely when they didn’t even know that what they did was wrong is ridiculous. That’s like punishing a child that is too young to understand right from wrong with an unbelievably harsh and cruel punishment, just for eating a cookie when they were told not to, and then punishing all their descendants for it too.
”You're still leaving out the fact that they didn't trust God which why They chose to eat of the “
I assume that sentence was supposed to end with “tree.” If there was supposed to be more after that, let me know.
I think we’re using the word “know” differently. You’re using in the sense that they knew what god told them, I’m using it in the sense of actual knowledge of the truth of gods claim. For example, if I say I have a pet dragon that is going to eat you if you don’t do the Hokey Pokey right now, you may “know” that I claim to have a dragon, but you don’t “know” that I actually have a pet dragon.
”A better analogy, although probably still imperfect, would be if you had the false plans, kept them out in the option for people to use, and let them make the decision to use it knowing it's wrong. If they do, it's on them.”
Your analogy doesn’t match at all. Adam and Eve didn’t create or alter the things that cause disease, god did. To blame Adam and Eve, while absolving god of all responsibility for the things he created, is absurd.
Then why did you give a scenario specifically about a guy spreading a disease and ask about the consequences he would have to deal with? If you wanted people intentionally spreading diseases to stay out of it, why did you mention them?
The guy in my scenario wasn’t intentionally releasing the virus, he just made a bad decision to not take all the necessary safety precautions. That’s a big difference; one is intentional malice, the other is just poor decision making.
”The problem is that you're banking on parents forcing their way onto their kids which we already established wouldn't be loving.”
So making your kids go to bed at night is not loving, and preventing them from hurting themselves and/or others is not loving, but letting them hurt themselves and hurt other people is loving. Got it.
Free will is a myth, especially if we were created by an omnipotent and omniscient being. Our brains determine our desires and choices, and according to Christian theology god designed our brains with the full knowledge of the choices each of our brains would make if he designed them that way. It’s no different than a programmer writing the code for a robot. The robot may think it’s freely choosing its actions, but in reality the decisions it makes are predetermined by the code. Similarly, we may think we’re freely choosing our actions, but in reality the decisions we make are predetermined by the structure and chemical makeup of our brains.
The problem is that you're making a truth claim. A truth claim is basically a claim that something is true regardless of what either of us might think or feel to be right. When you say that we are only able to do what we are determined to do, was your belief of determinism determined or your being on this website determined? The thing is, making a truth claim automatically puts you above determinism since you freely chose to have the belief of determinism and freely chose to be on this website and reply to my comment. If you are really are determined, then why teach anyone to take any responsibility for their actions?
For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a minute that free will does exist. I think free will is having the ability to choose between the things I desire to do.
This just goes back to my previous comment.
God could have made us with no desire to sin without violating our free will.
He did create Adam and Eve without the desire to sin. Sin went into their hearts once they ate of the fruit. The ability to choose differently isn't proof of sin. Choosing differently meaning I went with my desire to do something else .
So why is it no okay for god to do the same? Why can’t he violate people’s free will to protect people from harm the same way our police do?
As I've said before, constantly stepping in and making decisions for others is a logical contradiction as making morally free people with the ability to make their own decisions and then constantly overriding it would defeat the purpose, even if the person is meaning to do harm to someone else. He would also be taking away something good, the good thing being our freedom to choose.
God has no problem violating people’s free will. He does it numerous times throughout the Bible, so the free will argument is specious.
Would you be willing to give an example?
Do people have free will in heaven? If so, then how will heaven be any different from Earth? Even Christians aren’t perfect and sin on a regular basis, so all of that sinning will continue in heaven unless god changes them so they don’t have a desire to sin, which you seem to believe is a violation of free will, and therefore wrong.
You are right in saying that people won't have the desire to sin in heaven. The option to do it will be there, but we just won't want to. Having new desires is not a violation of free will. Not giving them the option to do otherwise or constantly intervening would.
Power and foreknowledge have everything to do with it. You’re saying that god created us because he wanted followers to love him, and he did it knowing in advance that doing so would result in billions of people suffering, yet he chose to do it anyway. That’s the most selfish thing I’ve ever heard of.
No amount of power and knowledge will allow anyone to do anything logically contradictory. What would be selfish would be if God didn't allow us to make the free will choice to love him.
If a barren couple who wanted kids were told they could adopt a baby that would love them, but if they go through with the adoption a bunch of other kids will be locked in a basement and tortured, wouldn’t you think it was immoral for them to accept that deal? That’s no different than what god did.
You're still making the assumption one person is responsible for everyone else's choices. In your scenario, it would be immoral for the head adoption person to lock the kids in a basement and torture them. However, the head adoption person would be the only one at fault since they know that its wrong to torture kids just because they can. However, this is also a false comparison to God. God doesn't just put people into Hell just because He's God and He can. He puts people into Hell because people willfully choose to sin and do something wrong knowing that they shouldn't do it and refuse to accept Jesus into their hearts. Thats what gets people into Hell.
Telling someone you will send them to hell, where they will be tormented forever, is neither a free choice nor good, it’s coercion and intimidation.
Going to Hell to be tormented forever is a result of making the free choice to refuse to bend your knee to God.
Like I already said, that’s a contradiction. If they chose to do something different, then god didn’t know ahead of time what was going to happen. Maybe what you’re trying to say is foreknowledge does not necessitate causation.
Ya the last sentence sums it up. Didn't think about like that. Gods knowing ahead of time what you're going to do does not mean that what you do happens necessarily. You are still going to do it however. If you did something else, Gods foreknowledge would have been different
Therefore, he is the cause. Think of it like a Rube Goldberg machine. God looks at a blueprint for the machine (i.e. looks at our future). He knows before beginning construction on the machine exactly what each part will do. If he goes ahead and creates the machine and starts it up, he is the initial cause.
I think there is a flaw in your line of reasoning. It is making the assumption that we are, in a sense, just robots that are programmed to do one thing. We see that this isn't the case based off of things in everyday life. For example, what you'll have for breakfast, when you'll have it, or if you even have it at all. You aren't programmed to have breakfast every morning or have the same food or anything else related to it. You have the free choice to make any one of the decisions just surrounding breakfast. This is part of what I was trying to get at when I was saying that God knowing what you're going to do ahead of time doesn't necessitate that its going to happen.
Whoa, wait a minute, you just contradicted your core argument. How can god create people who are “meant to be on the armed forces” without controlling their desire to be in the armed forces and manipulating countless other people’s actions, thoughts, and life events to ensure that the person ends up in the armed forces? Wouldn’t that be a violation of free will according to you?
There's a passage in the bible that says that God knows the passions of our hearts and seeks to get them fulfilled according to His will. Free will is a hotly debated topic in the Christian community. Man's free will and and Gods sovereignty is not a false dichotomy meaning that either people have free will or God is sovereign over everything. Both are mentioned in the bible. God is sovereign over everything which you've mentioned before; however, that doesn't mean that people can't choose to do anything. Adam and Eve willingly chose to eat of the fruit of the tree even though they were specifically told not to. That doesn't mean God wasn't sovereign over it, all it means is that God allows it. Romans 9:18-24 goes as follows:
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to the molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
24 even us whom he has called not from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
The armed forces interfere with the free will of the criminals. So if god created people who are meant to be on the armed forces, like you said, then isn’t he still interfering with the criminal’s free will? Why is it okay for god to interfere that way, but not okay for him to interfere in other ways that are 100% effective, instead ones that frequently fail?
Go back to the Romans passage that I gave.
1. You said, "Something should be done to prevent people who are going to cause suffering to others, but ultimately, people are responsible for their own decisions." Yet when I say god should do something to prevent suffering you say, "part of being all loving is giving people the choice to do what God asks them to or to go their own way and cause destruction and suffering on others." So which is it, should something be done or not?
Something was done. Its called the armed forces which I mentioned. I also mentioned Hell which is for the people who spend their lives refusing to bend their knee to Gods will.
2. When I say god should be held responsible for his action of creating people, which resulted in incredible amounts of harm, you said he isn't responsible because people have free will. However, you also said people "are responsible for doing something knowing its going to cause them or someone else harm." Why are people responsible for doing something knowing it's going to cause harm, but god isn't?
The act of creating people doesn't cause harm. People who do something harmful knowing its going to cause harm to themselves or others does. This is another example of a false dichotomy. You're assuming only two options when in reality, there's more than two. If God created someone with the option to do harm and they cause harm on someone else knowing its wrong, that is not the fault of God, its the fault of the person. Part of the problem is that your claim makes the assumption that humans are only capable of causing arm to others. The fact that we can choose otherwise disproves that notion entirely. Another assumption you're making is that God enjoys causing harm to others and willingly chooses to cause harm to others. The issue with this is that God, by his very nature, doesn't take pleasure in causing others harm. As I've said before, Hell is for the people who willingly refuse to bend their knee to God. Hell is there, not because God takes delight in the suffering of others but because people willfully reject Him.
Hell does nothing to prevent suffering, it just causes infinitely more suffering, so I don’t see how that’s a solution.
Hell is only a problem to those who willingly refuse to bend their knee to Gods will
What difference does it make if god is an eternal being or not? I see no logical connection between the length of time someone has existed and the amount a person should be punished. If a 40 year old parent has a son that disobeys him, should the child be punished for 40 years, because that's basically what your argument is.
Eternal is a characteristic of God, not just a span of time. Humans, being temporal beings by nature, get temporal punishments if we break the law. If we break Gods law, God, being an eternal being by nature, has the authority to send us to Hell.
You’re reading more into it that what is actually written. All it says is, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Thats true. However, they probably knew the implications of what God had said even though God didn't specifically say that it would cause separation from him.
Since you seem to be a Biblical literalist (correct me if I’m wrong)
Not a literalist. There are parts of the bible that can be taken literally, but I don't think that can be done with the entire bible. I do think that the bible is inerrant though
that means Adam and Eve had only been alive for less than a day. That means they just met god, so I don’t see any reason why they should think he was any more trustworthy than the serpent, whom they also just met.
I do believe that they were alive for longer than a day before they ate of the fruit. I think the idea of just knowing can be used here. Adam and Eve just knew they could trust God. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't choose to not trust God since we hear about them doing that when the serpent talks to Eve.
Plus, there’s the important fact that they didn’t even know what good and even were until after they ate the fruit. For god to punish them so severely when they didn’t even know that what they did was wrong is ridiculous.
The thing is though, they were punished more for their disobedience. God had told them specifically not to eat of the fruit and they did it anyway so they had an idea that it was wrong to do that, they just didn't trust that God was telling them the truth and ate of the fruit anyway. That is where the sin comes in.
I think we’re using the word “know” differently. You’re using in the sense that they knew what god told them, I’m using it in the sense of actual knowledge of the truth of gods claim.
I would go a step further and say that they had faith that what God said was true, but the serpent got them to believe otherwise.
Your analogy doesn’t match at all. Adam and Eve didn’t create or alter the things that cause disease, god did. To blame Adam and Eve, while absolving god of all responsibility for the things he created, is absurd.
Heres what the analogy meant. Just like how the plans in the analogy were left in the open, so was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The people know not to use the plans just as Adam and Eve knew not to eat of the fruit. Someone uses the plans and ultimately gets kicked out just as Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and kicked out of the garden. The persons choice to use the plans tainted the reputation of the company just as Adam and Eves choice to eat of the fruit permanently tainted all of humanity. Now, no one can trust each other or the company, all because someone decided they knew better than someone else who knew better then them.
The guy in my scenario wasn’t intentionally releasing the virus, he just made a bad decision to not take all the necessary safety precautions. That’s a big difference; one is intentional malice, the other is just poor decision making.
Adam and Eve would have fallen into the second category of making a poor decision. They knew head of time on the sense that God told them not to, but made that decision anyway.
So making your kids go to bed at night is not loving, and preventing them from hurting themselves and/or others is not loving, but letting them hurt themselves and hurt other people is loving. Got it.
No, I mean not forcing your way in the sense of doing what you can to make sure they aren't harmed or that they harm others but knowing that ultimately, that they can make their own decisions and that they are the ones responsible for the ones they make. In the case of the child, part of being a good parent is knowing how to teach them to be responsible for their decisions and not just bark at them and be forceful. Maybe you have to be more hard on them, but never forceful. Especially if you're doing it just because you can
”When you say that we are only able to do what we are determined to do, was your belief of determinism determined or your being on this website determined?...”
Yes, all of my beliefs and decisions are determined by the structure and chemical makeup of my brain. Changes in the structure or chemicals can completely alter my beliefs, decisions, and personality. This can be clearly shown by the way drugs, dementia, Alzheimer’s, mental illness, or brain damage can alter someone’s personality and decisions.
“Damage to specific areas of the brain, including the frontal and temporal lobes, amygdala, and hippocampus might leave the survivor vulnerable to agitation, volatile emotions, memory impairment, verbal attacks, physical aggression, and impaired impulse control.” source
”If you are really are determined, then why teach anyone to take any responsibility for their actions?”
Because the stimuli our brain gets determine what it does. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “garbage in, garbage out.”
”He did create Adam and Eve without the desire to sin. Sin went into their hearts once they ate of the fruit.”
Eating the fruit was a sin. If they didn’t have a desire to sin before eating the fruit, then they wouldn’t have a desire to eat the fruit.
”As I've said before, constantly stepping in and making decisions for others is a logical contradiction as making morally free people with the ability to make their own decisions and then constantly overriding it would defeat the purpose, even if the person is meaning to do harm to someone else. He would also be taking away something good, the good thing being our freedom to choose.”
And as I’ve said before, that’s a double standard. If we use your logic and apply it to the real world, then we should fire all of our law enforcement, because according to your logic, stopping people from committing a crime is “taking away something good. The good thing being our freedom to choose.” So if I see someone attempting to kidnap a child, I shouldn’t stop them, because I would be interfering with their freedom to choose.
”Would you be willing to give an example?”
The Bible is jam packed with examples of god violating people’s free will, but to prevent this debate from getting even larger I’ll limit it to just one. If you want more, just say so. In Deuteronomy 20:10-15 god tells his followers to enslave numerous cities, and if they don’t cooperate kill the men but keep the women and children as “booty.” Enslavement and/or murder is a serious violation of free will.
”You are right in saying that people won't have the desire to sin in heaven. The option to do it will be there, but we just won't want to. Having new desires is not a violation of free will. Not giving them the option to do otherwise or constantly intervening would.”
Then, like I said, god could have created us with no desire to sin without violating our free will, but instead he chose to create people who have a desire to rape, murder, and so on. Therefore, he is malevolent.
”No amount of power and knowledge will allow anyone to do anything logically contradictory. What would be selfish would be if God didn't allow us to make the free will choice to love him.”
First, he doesn’t need to do anything logically contradictory to prevent suffering. I’ve already presented multiple options, like not creating people, or creating them with no desire to do evil. Second, you didn’t really address my argument, you side-stepped it by bringing up free will again. This has absolutely nothing to do with free will, because free will is only relevant if people exist in the first place. My argument is that it is selfish for god to create people at all if creating them will result in billions of people suffering. He cares more about having people to grovel at his feet than he does for the billions of people that will suffer if he creates them.
”You're still making the assumption one person is responsible for everyone else's choices. In your scenario, it would be immoral for the head adoption person to lock the kids in a basement and torture them. However, the head adoption person would be the only one at fault since they know that its wrong to torture kids just because they can.”
I didn’t say anything about someone torturing the kids “just because they can.” It’s completely irrelevant who tortures the kids or why they are being tortured, all that matters is that the couple knows bad stuff will happen if they adopt. So, let me rephrase the question. If a barren couple who wanted kids were told they could adopt a baby that would love them, but if they go through with the adoption a bunch of really bad stuff will happen to other people, wouldn’t you think it was selfish and unwise for them to accept that deal?
”However, this is also a false comparison to God. God doesn't just put people into Hell just because He's God and He can. He puts people into Hell because people willfully choose to sin and do something wrong knowing that they shouldn't do it and refuse to accept Jesus into their hearts. Thats what gets people into Hell.”
You’re missing the point. It makes absolutely no difference why people are sent to hell. All that matters is that god knows people will be sent to hell if he creates them. Maybe this scenario will make it more clear. If I have a machine that lets me see the future, and I can see that if I have a kid they will grow up to be a drug addict and a child molester, it would be foolish of me to get my wife pregnant. The same goes for god. If he knows his children (us) will end up being drug addicts and child molesters, then it’s unwise for him to create us.
”Going to Hell to be tormented forever is a result of making the free choice to refuse to bend your knee to God.”
That still doesn’t make it a free choice or good. It’s no different than me putting a gun to your head and saying love me or I’ll blow your brains out. Actually, it is different, shooting someone in the head is far less cruel than eternal torture.
“I think there is a flaw in your line of reasoning. It is making the assumption that we are, in a sense, just robots that are programmed to do one thing. We see that this isn't the case based off of things in everyday life. For example, what you'll have for breakfast, when you'll have it, or if you even have it at all. You aren't programmed to have breakfast every morning or have the same food or anything else related to it…“
Your choices of what to eat breakfast is programmed, but it varies each day because the circumstances vary. Let me see if I can explain via a programming scenario. Many programs take some type of data as input and return a result. The result that it returns varies depending on what it gets for input. Our brains work the same way. For example, if I were to write a very simple program that tells me what to eat for breakfast, it would take several inputs, like my hunger level, body temperature, nutrition, what food is available, etc. Then based on those inputs it will tell me what to eat. Any change in the inputs will change the result. Like if I’m cold, I will want to eat something warm, or if I’m dehydrated I will want something with a high water content. In reality there are probably tens of thousands of different inputs that our brains use to determine what we want to eat, but what we ultimately decide to eat is really just a result of our brain processing the inputs. This is evident because damage to the brain can actually alter our tastes.
”There's a passage in the bible that says that God knows the passions of our hearts and seeks to get them fulfilled according to His will. Free will is a hotly debated topic in the Christian community. Man's free will and Gods sovereignty is not a false dichotomy meaning that either people have free will or God is sovereign over everything. Both are mentioned in the bible. God is sovereign over everything which you've mentioned before; however, that doesn't mean that people can't choose to do anything. Adam and Eve willingly chose to eat of the fruit of the tree even though they were specifically told not to. That doesn't mean God wasn't sovereign over it, all it means is that God allows it.”
I don’t see how anything you just said actually resolves the contradiction. You said god doesn’t stop people from doing bad things because he doesn’t want to interfere with our free will, then you said he creates “people who are meant to be on the armed forces that get in the way of people doing bad things to others and cause suffering is God doing something about the suffering of the world.” Creating people who are “meant to be in the armed forces” not only violates the free will of the person in the armed forces, since god created them specifically for that purpose, but it also violates the free will of the criminal, which you said god doesn’t do.
“Romans 9:18-24 goes as follows…”
That passage actually supports my position that god doesn’t value free will. It says god creates people prepared for destruction just so he can say to the ones he isn’t sending to hell, “See how merciful I am for not torturing you forever like I’m going to do to those other guys.” It’s basically the Calvinist view of god, which is one of the most depraved views of god, but also the most accurate.
”Go back to the Romans passage that I gave.”
That passage doesn’t answer the question. If you disagree, then you’ll need to explain in more detail.
”Something was done. Its called the armed forces which I mentioned. I also mentioned Hell which is for the people who spend their lives refusing to bend their knee to Gods will.”
The armed forces only prevent a tiny fraction of the suffering that happens in this world, so if that is the best he can do he is completely incompetent, and like I said before, hell does nothing to prevent suffering, it only increases it.
”The act of creating people doesn't cause harm. People who do something harmful knowing its going to cause harm to themselves or others does.”
Does god know that creating people is going to cause harm to others? Yes. Now read your second sentence again.
”If God created someone with the option to do harm and they cause harm on someone else knowing its wrong, that is not the fault of God, its the fault of the person. ”
No, it’s both of their fault. If a scientist figures out how to create life, and he knows that it will go on a killing spree, but chooses to create it anyway, do you really think he bears no responsibility at all for people’s deaths?
”Part of the problem is that your claim makes the assumption that humans are only capable of causing arm to others.”
I doesn’t assume that at all. It only assumes that some humans will cause harm to others, which isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.
”Another assumption you're making is that God enjoys causing harm to others and willingly chooses to cause harm to others. The issue with this is that God, by his very nature, doesn't take pleasure in causing others harm.”
His actions show otherwise, and actions speak louder than words.
”Hell is only a problem to those who willingly refuse to bend their knee to Gods will. “
That doesn’t have anything to do with what we were talking about. You said hell was a solution to prevent suffering. I said it doesn’t prevent suffering. So, how does it prevent suffering?
”Eternal is a characteristic of God, not just a span of time. Humans, being temporal beings by nature, get temporal punishments if we break the law. If we break Gods law, God, being an eternal being by nature, has the authority to send us to Hell.”
Eternal:
• having no beginning and no end in time : lasting forever
• existing at all times : always true or valid
• seeming to last forever
Those all have to do with time. So define this eternal characteristic you speak of that somehow makes eternal torture an acceptable punishment for finite sins.
”Thats true. However, they probably knew the implications of what God had said even though God didn't specifically say that it would cause separation from him.”
How do you know that?
”I do believe that they were alive for longer than a day before they ate of the fruit.”
And you believe it based on what?
”I think the idea of just knowing can be used here. Adam and Eve just knew they could trust God. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't choose to not trust God since we hear about them doing that when the serpent talks to Eve.”
Trust: belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective.
If they really did know that they could trust god, they would know he was telling the truth about the consequences, and therefore they wouldn’t have eaten the fruit. The fact that they ate it tells us they didn’t think he was trustworthy.
”The thing is though, they were punished more for their disobedience. God had told them specifically not to eat of the fruit and they did it anyway so they had an idea that it was wrong to do that, they just didn't trust that God was telling them the truth and ate of the fruit anyway. That is where the sin comes in.”
Is disobeying god a sin? Yes
Is not trusting god a sin? Yes
Is sin evil? Yes
Did Adam & Eve know what good and evil/sin were before eating the fruit? No
Therefore, in order to know that disobeying god was a sin, they would have to know good from evil, which they didn’t, so my argument still stands.
”Heres what the analogy meant…“
Your analogy is still flawed because it doesn’t address the person who actually created the diseases. If a parent were to tell their child, “obey me or I’m going to create a disease that will make you and billions of your descendants suffer and die.” according to your logic there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s 100% the kids fault if they disobey, and the parent was just being a good parent by teaching their kid a lesson.
This is a perfect example of why I despise religion so much. It makes otherwise good people do ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify the horrific behavior of their god, and many believers take it a step further and actually follow their god’s examples, resulting in immense suffering and violence throughout the history of this planet.
”Adam and Eve would have fallen into the second category of making a poor decision. They knew head of time on the sense that God told them not to, but made that decision anyway.”
Exactly, and according to you the proper thing to do in the virus scenario would be to contain the virus so that it doesn’t hurt people, yet when I point out that god did the exact opposite you make excuses for him. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, that’s a double standard.
"No, I mean not forcing your way in the sense of doing what you can to make sure they aren't harmed or that they harm others but knowing that ultimately, that they can make their own decisions and that they are the ones responsible for the ones they make."
You can’t have it both ways. Do we do what we can to make sure they aren’t harmed, or do we let them make their own decisions? If there is a line where we switch from one to the other, what is that line?
”In the case of the child, part of being a good parent is knowing how to teach them to be responsible for their decisions and not just bark at them and be forceful.”
But there is a point where you draw the line. That line is when they are going to hurt themselves or others. If a parent finds a home-made pipe bomb in their kids drawer, a good parent would take the bomb so that their kid doesn't hurt themselves or anyone else. A good parent wouldn't just leave the bomb there and say to themselves, "well, my kids needs to learn from their mistakes, even if it means killing themselves or other people," but that’s exactly what god did. He let Adam and Eve set off a bomb so big that it cause the suffering and death of billions of people.
”Maybe you have to be more hard on them, but never forceful.”
God said to beat your kids with a rod to get them to obey. He also said, "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:9) That sounds pretty forceful to me. The Bible is jam packed with god being forceful with people. “Do as I say or I will send plagues upon you.” “Do as I say or I will order my followers to enslave your city and take your wives as plunder.” “Do as I say or I will kill your children.” “Love me or I will torture you forever.” Funny how these days he just sits there twiddling his thumbs as people are raped, children are abducted, people starve to death, etc.
This debate is getting way too long and I don't think were really getting anywhere, and I'm sure you've noticed by how long it takes me to reply that I don't have a lot of free time. So, this will probably be my last detailed reply. You can have the last word if you want. Winning the debate isn't important to me. As long as I made you think about your beliefs more deeply, that's what's important to me. Maybe some day in the future when I have more free time we can take on one of the topics, but I just don't have the time nor desire to jump into another long debate at the moment. Thanks again for keeping it civil.
You may say why doesn't He create some other dynamics. Who's to say another dynamic wouldn't change the result.
He can't change Himself. And if He is pure Light, then no matter what God does Darkness is an impurity to Light, And darkness burns away. Light has to remove darkness.You exist, and are given a life to live according to how you want to live, to form bonds, and memories, and live life as you see fit.
That's a gift, not a curse. The question is do you want to be swallowed up in darkness in the end. As far as eternal torment Saintnow will have me executed a heretic, but I think it ends.
I think there is a resurection to judgement and All will be consumed and there will be tormenting destruction.
And people will mourn the choice, when they see Him, and then will slip into black empiness. I can't really tell you what will happen there. I'm pretty sure what we think we know and what it is are actually not the same thing.
But I don't think you can get saved by fearing Hell.
I think you have to love something about the character of God to want to follow. But the character you painted is far from accurate.
God is preparing the riches of Eternity the gift of Eternal Life to give to a gazillion of His children, who have loved and chosen light over darkness from every generation for 6000 years.
And don't bother with the evolution discussion, a day was not likely
a twenty four hour day. So whatever started it all was still Him, God is the Creator behind whatever, and however He did it. So it really doesn't matter. He is the First and the Last. Whatever it was, He was it!
Starting from Genesis through Revelations, God set up everything from all the main hosts, to all the appointed timelines for everything from beginning to end. Then He let our lives unfold with our free will intact.
For Him to have know your choice ahead of time, you would of had to exist!
And everyone existed, so God doesn't remove people from their life which existed just because He foreknew on their choices would be for darkness, or on account of the choices He knew ahead of you making them. That's absurd. Your life is still a gift. And honestly we don't know what Hell is, if its an eternal burn. Or Eternal death as in burned up and ceasing to exist throughout Eternity.
We just don't know all the answers.
It's so ridiculous, people have these expectations of validity and knowledge that are unreasonable. There is an awful lot of different events to dig for, and many have been confirmed found. But some Muslim countries don't even allow diggers to confirm Biblical facts because of the unrest in those countries.
The dilemmas there in mid east should be proof itself! It's like everyone is skeptical by choice, and that choice is unreasonable, if many indicators exist to confirm things, and many things found, and you still deny the Bible texts because all of it isn't proved, it's as unreasonable as saying we don't believe the Egyptians had a huge work force behind all the pyramids because we can't confirm everything that's hidden in the earth of Egypt. It's foolish and its ignorance of choice!
And He wouldn't and shouldn't decide not to create others because of others choices. Or not give what He prepared as a gift for a gazillion of His children, just because other people make different choices.
Through all the work to its completion, God is rewarding His Work with joy of a full house. He does this huge, elaborate work of over 6000 years of details, planning and orchestrating it all. To do this tranformational feat in us, transferring us from a human nature to a body like when Jesus rose from the dead. Every detail managed and appointed including the Cross and Resurrection. And to have a gazilion Children to to share in all His riches through Eternity.
MATT 14
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.The earth was already dark, void formless, maybe from when Satan fell. So darkness existed as a choice. And darkness overcomes light or light overcomes darkness, but they can't coexist together in the same place. So for now light exists in the darkness, and where light exists, darkness is pushed back.
John 5
16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
You’ve probably faced some sort of trial and in a weary moment wondered that very question. What about that—is God in complete control of everything? If so, and if He’s good, why is there so much heartache in the world? Why wouldn’t He take special care to keep His children from trouble and hurt?
.
In When Bad Things Happen to God’s People, you’ll see eight positive purposes for the suffering you experience.
The understanding of the Christian God has various characteristics:
1)He is omnipotent
2)He is omniscient
3)He is love
Now, assuming that there characteristics are legitimate, then they prove that God is either untrustworthy or unreal. Love does not hate or take enjoy to see evil, harm, pain, etc. How can God be love but watch not just the suffering on Earth, but the eternal suffering he has threatened for all those who simply do not worship Him? Sounds like a vengeful god to me, and vengeance is not love.
The understanding of the Christian God .. God Satan and Angels .. I would refer you to the Revelation about himself he has revealed ... The Bible / the Word of God ..... GOD / SATAN AND ANGELS . . . . Someone has said that the most important thing about you is what comes to your mind when you think about God . . . It’s true .. What you believe about God has serious .. long-term impact on how you live .. every thought .. word .. action .. and attitude is ultimately a reflection of your beliefs .. right or wrong .. about God and His character . . With so much at stake .. there’s really no more important pursuit than sorting out reality from myth and knowing God for who He really is . . . John MacArthur takes you to the Bible for an accurate .. in-depth portrait of God Himself .. as well as the other powerful inhabitants of the supernatural realm .. Satan .. demons .. and God’s invisible army of holy angels ..... enjoy
Maybe God will strike you dead soon so you don't have to complain about the suffering in the world anymore.
If God were to end the evil in the world now, that means you would be in Hell now because you are evil against God....and you are a sodomite, so your place is in the lake of fire....and God is love, you deny He is good, you want reality to be void of His goodness so God is lovingly giving you what you want and the only place you can have reality void of good things from God is in the fire of Hell...and you can talk against God forever and accuse Him of not caring when in reality He's giving you the death you want forever. Idiot.
You are an enemy of God and He is not to blame if you fall in death to Hell and are left there forever. God's vengeance against His enemies is justified, your life is unjustifiable by anything you do or say.......you deserve to die, you cannot justify your existence outside of the fire of Hell. Saying God is evil will only propel you into Hell, fool.
God hates evil. What good would God be if He did not hate evil? What good is your love if you do not hate evil? God hates the fact that you hate Him and are evil in your desire to dethrone Him by your slanders. You insist He is unworthy of being called good, and not to be thanked for anything good, you want reality with no goodness from God and because He is love He is letting you have what you want.......the fire of Hell where there is nothing good. God loves you and is reluctant to give you what you are asking for, so He's giving you time so maybe you will realize that fighting against God is fighting in favor of your own damnation is the fire of Hell. The stink of sodomy has polluted your brain so much that you think you can murder God. Idiot.
I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding of what love is. Or at least what is done out of love. He doesn't like the suffering of the world. In fact, He would want to take it away and have everyone turn to him. The problem is though, He loves us too much to take away our ability to choose, even if it means we choose wrong and turn away from Him. This is mainly because you can't have your cake and eat it too. God can't have people love him if they don't have the freedom to choose it. Its a logical contradiction. The reason He sends people to hell for eternity is because people willingly do whats wrong knowing its wrong. God gave everyone a free way out, but people willingly choose not to take it. You're right when you say vengeance isn't love. But how is He supposed to treat his enemy who hates him? He can't just let it slide, He has to deal with it. Which is why hell exists
You have to remember that God suffers for us, He gave Himself for us when He died in our place on the cross. He was tempted in all points like us, He went through it all for us so He can pull us up and out of it in His resurrection. We can go through it because He went through it for us.
God does not force suffering on us. Suffering in this life and in this world is caused by ourselves. Or from natural disasters. God gave us free will and without it we would be less than human and no more than slaves or robots.
God does give us the strength and patience to ensure the suffering that we inflict on each other. In this way he is giving us more than we deserve, really. It's through his Grace that we get this. But only the ones who have come to know God and commune with Him, and accept His son are imbued with this Grace. The good news is that all you have to do to get it is ask for it. Sincerely ask for it. And ask for his will to be Done. And His Will is Not for us to suffer.
God does not force suffering on us. Suffering in this life and in this world is caused by ourselves.
But there are a lot of issues with this. For example, a lot of suffering is external in nature, meaning it is caused by other people. People as a whole were created by God, and God knows everything everyone will do before hand (he knew what we would do as he created us according to Christianity). This means that it is still God's creation (and will, essentially) that led to this suffering, even if it is at the hands of humans.
Or from natural disasters.
If God created the Earth and its natural systems, then suffering from natural disasters would be on him as well.
God gave us free will and without it we would be less than human and no more than slaves or robots.
We still essentially are. "Free will" means choose right, or be tortured for all of eternity. That isn't an actual choice. That isn't free will. That is coercion.
God does give us the strength and patience to ensure the suffering that we inflict on each other.
Many people can't endure their suffering. What about them?
In this way he is giving us more than we deserve, really.
This is a very perverse idea. A baby who is newly born does not deserve any punishment, and the concept of "Original Sin" requires the idea that we should all be held responsible for the actions of one person eons ago...that was still according to the will and knowledge of God.
It's through his Grace that we get this. But only the ones who have come to know God and commune with Him, and accept His son are imbued with this Grace.
So you are saying that non-Christians can not endure suffering, while Christians can? Then why is it that so many non-Christians endure suffering (in fact, the majority of all humans who have existed and endured suffering weren't Christian), and so many Christians can't? Mind you that isn't to say that Christians are somehow known for being unable to endure suffering, but from what you are saying, they should all be able to.
The good news is that all you have to do to get it is ask for it. Sincerely ask for it.
But you can't sincerely ask for it unless you already hold theistic beliefs. Otherwise there isn't any way to be sincere about it. So what is your answer for those who are not theistic, and therefore can't sincerely ask?
And His Will is Not for us to suffer.
Then why did he create Satan as he was, knowing what he would do? Why did he create Eve the way she was, knowing what she would do? Why does he create anyone who causes suffering, knowing what they will do?
All suffering is caused by sin. God will purge evil from Creation and confine all of the suffering it causes in Hell one day. If He did it today, you would be burning in Hell now. Accusing Him of not caring about the evil and suffering in the world is asking for Him to put you in Hell and leave you there........and I wonder if you are going to get what you are asking for or if you will quit being a fool before it's too late.
Typical fundamentalist claptrap. The very type of psychjotic TV preacher nonsense that drives so very many people away from religion.
A new baby has not sinned. That original sin idea from The Fall in Genesis is nonsense as well. The problem with your type of literalist who wouldn't know an allegorical tale if it bit you on your wrinkled white ass. That whole story was only meant as an allegory for the dangers to us of trying to become godlike and straying from His Word. And it explains the human condition of being senitent and aware of knowledge of good and evil. Amd now with that comes a loss of innocence. That can be reconciled by God's grace.
How any rational and balanced adult today who knows God does NOT know this, I cannot fathom. You Literalists really do miss the whole point on a good deal of those Bible stories, don't you?
Which is fine but I get angry when you foist your ignorance on newcomers to my Faith.
I'm guessing you have nothing here worth reading so I wont be reading it and you are banned
I quoted the Bible and you said this. You are that blinded by your pride. You think you have a right to treat people the way you do and still go to heaven. You do not. The holy spirit is not within you. You will not let Him in.
God gave us free will and without it we would be less than human and no more than slaves or robots.
We still essentially are. "Free will" means choose right, or be tortured for all of eternity. That isn't an actual choice. That isn't free will. That is coercion.
So don't be coerced. Be strong, defy God, do not let Him coerce you in any way. Go on and see if you can prove you have the right to exist outside of Hell. Defy God. Do it. Idiot.
You're an idiot, trying to prove God is not good, all you are doing is going to get yourself in the fire of Hell with no way out and no way to believe God is good. You are trying to blame God for the evil in the world, including the evil in your own heart, and if you keep pushing it against God He will lose patience with you and leave you forever separated from Him as you are now, dying forever in the fire of Hell with no hope of life. Why in the world people like you think they are smart when it's so obviously stupid to argue against God .........I don't know. Go look in the mirror and tell yourself how great you are because all I see is a pile of wet dust drying up fast.
Liar. The only way you can argue against God is to imply that He is not good. Look at all your stupid arguments, you create a straw man version of God who is not good, and you argue against your own straw man......and that's not circular reasoning? You get banned because you are a closed minded jerk, insults is all you have ....insults against God, insults against the Bible, and insults against people like me....that's all atheism is, insults, and how you think you are being mentally strong believing in nothing and arguing in favor of nothing is a mystery you can only guess at if you look in the mirror and try to debunk your face.
All you are demonstrating is that you use dozen or so irrational straw man arguments like a trained parrot and will not listen to reason. If you want to be a Dawkins puppet, go ahead. He's making a fool out of you. You want evidence of the reality of Hell? Keep saying you need to see evidence and you will.....but the way you are asking for it, you won't like it when you get it. You're being a fool.
Why should I have any respect for atheism? It's nothing but insults. Then you try to turn it around on me when you act like a fool defying God demanding proof that Hell is real, and I'm only telling you the truth so you maybe you will see you need to be saved. I'm your friend, a friend tells you the truth. Dawkins is a hater and could care less if you burn in Hell forever. Keep on trusting in Dawkins and see where you end up. Atheists are the most profane foul mouth fools on the planet, they can put on a show of good manners until they are faced with the truth or a person who firmly believes the truth, then they start foaming at the mouth spitting insults and profanity. Be a hater if you want to, but don't expect me to believe you are innocent when you deny your own evil.
god does not force suffering on people it's just that some people deserve to be dead or sometimes it's just there tern to die. I'm saying that god will never ever put other people in danger what happen to people happens for a reason and it's not cause of god, people have died because of their choices not because of god. the bible say's tho sho not kill, so why would god do that to his own children. in the bible god did not kill Adam and eve when the disobeyed him he sent them of to place and to never come back. so why would god do that to his own creation that does not make since or like the time when the devil tried to take over but did god kill him no he sent him off, and where he went down stairs. so I'm saying god does not bring suffering on people or on his own creation.
If one is capable of having faith in God in the first place, I do not see the difficulty in having faith that he forces suffering on people for some good reason beyond our limited knowledge. The latter leap is no greater than the former, certainly.
You can't trust a God that forces suffering on people!
If you think He forces suffering, then You dont understand God or the Word that describes Him.
Have you ever read the Bible through, or in part?
There is punishment for sin. But sin brings it's own suffering.
Satan is the god of this world. He fell like lightening into
darkness. And the darkness overcame him.
Before God brought light on day 1, the earth was dark, void,
and formless.
God already judged Satan, so deeds which are born from his seed are born in darkness, and already judged.
Sin is just sin, I don't think God arbitrarily "decided" what sin is.
Sin is what it is! it's part of darkness, and darkness CAN'T be a partaker of light, it's actually not possible. Deeds born in Darkness are part of the darkness and there is no changing that.
It's a predicament when we love something that is of the seed of darkness, and when our heart is set on things or on relationships
that are born from darkness. Because if our heart is set on anything in the darkness, then our hearts does not even possess the ability
to stand and remain in the Fullness of the Light.
God is Omnipotent, but we don't need to play the game "can God?"
He's God not Jafar from Disney, He does what He does and honestly He is TO BIG to challenge. HE'S GOD!
So He can't make a darkness that can stand in His Light!
Any appearances that God made He never came to man and showed Himself fully or His face. Stating His reasons, even to
those who were "righteous" He had to be cloaked, and He did
things like came in a cloud, or showed only His back, because
no one can see him and live!
God isn't having a temper tantrum, or being tyrinical.
For those of us who have decided to choose Eternal Life with Him, He has given a detailed instructions manual showing us how to stand and remain, and without following the guide to a T we would NOT be able to stand and remain when we do come face to face, with Him. God knows, what happens to darkness in His presence!
So wouldn't make sense that He show us the difference between light and darkness, and then guide us in Light.
God is Light! There are deeds of light, and there are deeds of darkness. Deeds of darkness grow from seeds of darkness. And deeds of light are fruits of seed that do not have darkness in them.
What God defines as sin are the forms that are born from seeds of darkness, which then take root in us, and when they grow they are formless (not created) and they take form in deeds of sin that are found in the dark void, taking it's own ugly form in the image of the god of a dark world, without light and separated from Light.
When God set the timeline established everything as far back as Genesis:
2 - 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Yet He is still working -
John 5 ... 16 Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.
17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now,
and I Myself am working.”
When God made the world some things "He saw and said they were good" and some things He some things He said, "and it was so"
Gen 1
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered
into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters
He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them” and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day..
God isn't having a temper tantrum, or being tyrinical. He is instructing us, who choose Eternal Life with Him on how to stand and remain, when we come face to face, before Him, knowing, what happens to darkness in His presence!
What God defines as sin are deeds that are formed from seeds of darkness. They take root and grow into their own ugly forms.
God didn't create sin. And I don't think He created darkness either. Darkness just co-exists, and when Satan fell into the darkness his light went out and Darkness overcame him. Sin is the the fruit from his seed born in darkness.
If you find yourself on the wrong side, "of the only definate choice."
It may feel like a stacked deck that was dealt out to you.
But that's unresonable. You have a choice to be on either side.
You just have to be willing to leave darkness behind. And that's
a tuff choice.
It's a matter of counting the cost, and if the cost is to high its because the idols and whatever we love clouds our vision, but you can't blame God because He orchestrated this whole thing to
share all things with you, but He cant share darkness.
Matt 16
24 ... “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds..
First of all you must understand that Christians and our children go to heaven when they die.
You could ask God why he allowed his disciples to suffer and die. These were faithful men doing God's work correct? So obviously the pain and suffering of this world is the results of mankind without God.
What you see as an uncompassionate God allowing tragedy, is totally opposite of what God would see. Is it better to stay in this world where there is pain, or be in Heaven? When a bus load of children die, they go to heaven. There will never be a chance that they grow up and rebel from God. How people look at tragedy is totally opposite of how God looks at it.
God does not control every aspect of people's lives and miraculously prevent harm to everyone. That would be Heaven. We live our lives as we choose and we have failing bodies that get sick, that get old and die.
How can God be compassionate, and yet send people be Hell for eternity?
After all, the most a given person lives on this planet is between 60-100 years, and for actions done in that small period of time, sometimes actions as small as simply not being conviced of Christianity, they are to be tortured for eternity?
You want to believe God is not good. Here, because of good things like rain on a hot day, and sunshine on a cool day, you can believe God is good but you want to believe He is evil and the only place you can have no sign of God being good is in the fire of Hell. That is what you are asking for, and how can God be good if He does not give you what you really want? You want to believe God is not good to you, so He'll give you proof you can keep forever and you can't blame Him for giving it to you. You will be wrong, God is good, but in Hell is will be impossible to believe He is good because He won't get you out or relieve your suffering....and He is justified to leave you there because He died in your place, paid your price, and you reject Him, you don't care what He did for you, you trample His blood under your feet and His blood is on your hands....and you will get what you deserve if you will not believe God loves you and is willing and able to forgive you.
I will waste my time responding to only because others make the same ludicrous statements.
There are no men so perfect that their only sin is not being convinced of Christianity. I've told you before, which of course goes on deaf ears, that most non christians support killing healthy innocent babies that God says he knows in the womb! THAT IS MONSTEROUS and deserving of anything they get.
You live in so much denial of what you support when voting for pro abortion politicians? You might as well use the forcepts yourself when keeping it legal by electing those who support it. That one issue supercedes most any other issues when choosing who to vote for.
Don't bother responding because it is a total waste of time debating people who live in denial.
I am not talking about people who support abortions. Seriously, for the sake of trying to get any kind of legitimate answer out of you, I'll assume that anyone who supports abortions goes to hell.
Let's use the example of someone who is vehemently against abortions but isn't Christian. Why do they deserve to be tortured for ETERNITY?
Again, the emphasis here is on the fact that the torture is never ending. How is the compassionate?
I gave you a legitimate answer. You are too blind to get the inhumantiy of abortion. This is what men become without God.
I have yet to meet this hypothetical non Christian who is adamently against abortion and who would NEVER vore for pro abortion politician.
If one exists, I'm sure he has done many other things in this life deservng of Hell. I don't worry about such things, God will be the judge.
None of us has all the answers to what Hell will be like. The Bible many times uses symbolic words to describe a bad place but no one truly knows what it would actually be like.
I laugh at people on the Left who speak of torture while they support dismembering viable late term babies with their vote. HYPOCRITES!
So I guess all those on the Left lack this same compassion you speak to when talking about God and torture.
No, you didn't. Go ahead and re-read it: I said that we are talking about people who are against abortion but aren't Christian. Do you truly believe they deserve to be punished in any way for eternity, or not?
And why are you so angry at people for holding different opinions?
I am a Pro-Life Non-Christian. I think the religious approach to the subject is an absolute disaster. Those aborted have no religion. To try to convince non-religious people of the evils of abortion, but only on Christian terms, is an absurdity that tantamount to passivity.
I have never voted Democrat. I am not a Liberal. I disagree with the Left. I am very much not a Christian. People don't actually fit into the neat little boxes that you have created for them.
To identify as a Libertarian is almost meaningless as there are so many different ideologies within Libertarianism. Classical Liberal (not to be confused with "Liberal") is probably the best designation for me.
It's about as meaningless or meaningful as any umbrella ideology term, I suppose. Even Classical Liberalism is iffy, as it doesn't specify Classical European or American Liberalism, which did have some distinct differences.
So you are basically (and this is obviously an oversimplification simply for the purposes of getting a vague idea) small government on social issues and laissez faire economic policy?
So you are basically (and this is obviously an oversimplification simply for the purposes of getting a vague idea) small government on social issues and laissez faire economic policy?
If what you say is the truth, you are the VERY FIRST non christian I have spoken with who is actually be pro life. I never said abortion is a Christian issue. It just happens that the vast vast vast majority of people who are truly pro life are christians because they have the humanity and wisdom of God in their souls.
Those with no foundation to base their moral values, drift with the current culture's values and can be easiy swayed to follow political correctness. Did you see how quickly Democrats changed over from pro life to pro aborton when the poll numbers changed? They had no core values to stay true to life.
If it is true you refuse to vote for a pro bortion politician, I have resepct for you no matter if you are a Christian or not.
If you truly believe that this is a serious issue, then it should be your responsibility to try to change people's minds so that they will realize their mistakes.
And yet you never do that. You insult people, you generalize, you demonize, but you never actually try to help solve the problem.
From the time we are children to the time we are adults, there is no need for people to explain to us why killing our neighbor is wrong. It's common sense!
The inhumanity of Abortion on demand for any reason at any stage is COMMON SENSE!
I am giving the facts of abortion and explaining the inhumanity of ending an innocent life no matter it's location. This is common sense to people with an ounce of human compassion. These radical pro abortion people know the fatcs....THEY DON'T CARE!
There is nothing more I can say. It would be like trying to change Hitler's mind that killing Jews is wrong. OF COURSE IT IS WRONG. Hitler could not care less that it's wrong. We have many many selfish inhuman people in this word willing to do evil things no matter how obvious it is.
They are totally self consumed people who are willing to end a life for sake of self. It is a promiscuus culture who wants their cake and eat it too. They want to sleep around with one night hook ups and then when someone gets pregnant, they want no responsibility for their chocies and their actions. Abortions makes it so easy to hide their irresponsibiity.