#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is being sent too hell because you're not Christian harsh?
I want your honest opinions, do you think it would be harsh for someone to be sent to hell for not being a Christian. Hypothetically let's say that hell does exist (only so I don't get any one saying "how can it when hell doesn't exist")
Yes because...
Side Score: 87
|
 |
No because...
Side Score: 49
|
|
4
points
3
points
1
point
1
point
Really? What reasons are there for believing in an all powerful all benevolent God? Disease? Natural Disasters? What do you think revealing yourself means? Looking exactly like random chance? A God(s) 1. (Exists as just 1 God) (Monotheism) 2. (Exists as multiple God (Polytheism) 3. (Doesn't Exist) The fine-tuning of the Cosmological Constant makes 1. (A Multi-verse True) 2. (A Creator True) 3. (We live in a computer simulation) 1. (A multi verse is not testable and therefore not falsifiable and therefore unable to be scientific) 2. (A creator is testable and therefore falsifiable and therefore able to be scientific) 3. (Living in a simulation is untestable and therefore unscientific) Therefore 1. (A God(S) has came and/or interacted with humanity (Theism)) 2. (A God(S) has not came and/or interacted with humanity (Deism)) 1. (Therefore a God to be testable would have to have proof of his existence or deism would be true) so.... 1. (A God has left proof of his existence in the universe, on the earth, and etc.(Theism)) 2. (Or a God hasn't left proof of there existence in the universe, on the earth, and etc. (Deism)) 1. (So therefore we will have to find out if any of the world's religions have identified to right Creator of the universe with evidence) Do you agree what with I have put above? Side: No because...
No. The fine-tuning of the Cosmological Constant makes No evidence of fine tuning. 2. (A God(S) has not came and/or interacted with humanity (Deism)) I can't verify that this is a belief of Deism. But, 1. (So therefore we will have to find out if any of the world's religions have identified to right Creator of the universe with evidence) does sound ok. Side: Yes because...
2
points
The point of punishment is to discourage certain behaviors and actions. I don't see how burning someone for all eternity accomplishes anything... It won't right the wrongs they have made, and it won't prevent them from doing further harm... because they are already dead. Yeah it prevents them because it takes away the opportunity, I would think an all powerful being could do that without eternal pain for eternity. Usually the "eye for an eye" idea, is just a way of deciding degree of punishment, cause the higher the degree the more successful the punishment will be, but even an "eye for an eye" policy isn't perfect, as they say "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", punishment should only be to the degree necessary to discourage immorality, and punishment to fit the crime, sounds like a good place to start with deciding punishment, however isn't perfect. The reason why is, at the end of the day, it won't matter how you chose your punishment to discourage immorality, but whether or not that punishment as a threat maintains order, surely nobody needs to suffer infinite pain for eternity to learn not to do this or that, in fact if anything, it completely nullifies the point of punishment, by never giving the "sinner" the chance to learn from his/her's mistakes, at this point it's just pointless suffering. As well is the issue of the questioning of the immorality of non-belief... Who is my non-belief hurting? Is it hurting god? Is it hurting people? What is immoral about it, what are the negatives of it? It baffles me even more, that ones perception of reality has moral implications? What I think is true or false, fact and myth, within the universe, I can't see how that could possibly have anything to do with morality, unless it is explicitly tied into morality or is about morality, or effects ones moral decisions. For example their is nothing morally wrong with thinking the sky is red (as ridiculous as that might be), we never judge someone morally by what they think is fact and non-fact, because that isn't what morality is about. Morality is about what you do, not what you think is correct (in an purely objective sense like 2 + 2 = 4). Side: Yes because...
0
points
That assumption is not necessarily true. Often "punishment" is the natural consequence of an action, not necessarily an outside force. That too is the view of Hell traditionally in Christianity and Judaism. A natural separation from the holy that is the result of sin. Side: No because...
1
point
That assumption is not necessarily true. Often "punishment" is the natural consequence of an action, not necessarily an outside force. That too is the view of Hell traditionally in Christianity and Judaism. A natural separation from the holy that is the result of sin. The debate title, says "Is being sent to hell because you're not Christian harsh?", this to me seems to mean intentionally sending people to hell for not being Christian, not about people going to hell as a consequence in cause and effect. My point still stands, condemning people to eternal pain for an eternity is harsh for anything, let alone not being Christian. Besides if the Christian god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then god should be perfectly capable of not having people go to hell for not believing in Christianity, therefore god chose to have people sent to hell for not being christian, and god IS an outside force among that apparently "moral" decision. Thus Hell is a punishment from an outside force, the outside force being god. Side: Yes because...
1
point
First, good response Zephyr. Thanks for replying. I think you have several points that require a response: The debate title, says "Is being sent to hell because you're not Christian harsh?", this to me seems to mean intentionally sending people to hell for not being Christian, not about people going to hell as a consequence in cause and effect. Lets assume for a minute that that is the OP's position. Why exactly is that punishment "too harsh?" What about it objectively argues that it is disproportionally bad given the offense? I understand that it might appear that way to some, and not appear that way to others, but that seems like a bad metric to use. Drawing and quartering didn't seem to harsh for some given the offense of political slander at one point. So what can we use to objectively argue that it is far too excessive given the action? Besides if the Christian god is omnipotent, and omniscient, then god should be perfectly capable of not having people go to hell for not believing in Christianity Being omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything. Rather it means He can do anything that is logically possible. He can't create a married bachelor for example. Given that, I don't see any reason to believe that God could create a system where good is maximized, but where this consequence is absent. I mean to say that your position appeals to the possibility that such a world is possible where we have as much good as we have in our current world and where the consequence of Hell is absent. I don't see any reasoning to support that such a world is possible and the burden of support would seem to be on you given your appeal to it. Side: No because...
1
point
First, good response Zephyr. Thanks for replying. I think you have several points that require a response: Well thanks, your response was definitely worth responding to. Lets assume for a minute that that is the OP's position. Why exactly is that punishment "too harsh?" What about it objectively argues that it is disproportionally bad given the offense? Well I am not sure if I could say it was OBJECTIVELY harsh, but then again the debate didn't ask if it was objectively harsh... Like in my last response, why I perceive it as harsh, is it is ultimately pointless and accomplishes nothing. The one being punished will never learn from his mistakes at least it won't matter anymore. The point of punishment is to discourage something, in this case, what god deems as immoral. I am sure that God could correct humanity without infinite pain for infinite time, and infinite pain for infinite time may change the person, but it won't matter anymore as now what they have learned is useless... In society we have punishments to discourage breaking the law, we do jail people for the rest of their lives or kill people over laws being broken and my argument could apply to that as well, however it does keep others from breaking that law. However in god's case it is different, the reason people don't abide by god, is because people aren't convinced god exists, or believe that they are already abiding by god, what would be a lot more effective would be for god to expose himself, and allow us to understand what our punishment would be, enough to keep us in line. I understand that it might appear that way to some, and not appear that way to others, but that seems like a bad metric to use. Drawing and quartering didn't seem to harsh for some given the offense of political slander at one point. So what can we use to objectively argue that it is far too excessive given the action? Is it more than what is necessary to maintain order? I certainly think so... Being omnipotent does not mean that God can do anything. Rather it means He can do anything that is logically possible. He can't create a married bachelor for example. Actually it does, because being omnipotent is synonymous with all powerful, omni meaning all, and potent meaning powerful. With that, he has power over everything, even logic, if he doesn't have power over logic, then he is not all powerful, just VERY powerful. Given that, I don't see any reason to believe that God could create a system where good is maximized, but where this consequence is absent. I mean to say that your position appeals to the possibility that such a world is possible where we have as much good as we have in our current world and where the consequence of Hell is absent. I don't see any reasoning to support that such a world is possible and the burden of support would seem to be on you given your appeal to it. This still calls into the prior point I just made, but even if that point was to be trumped, I know that the world could be better than what it already is, even if it couldn't be perfect. I have witnessed bad things, that if prevented wouldn't cause anything else bad, and god being omnipotent, or even just power over everything except logic, would be capable of preventing this evil... Side: Yes because...
1
point
Like in my last response, why I perceive it as harsh, is it is ultimately pointless and accomplishes nothing...The point of punishment is to discourage something I think this is an unwarranted conclusion for two reasons. 1) Punishments are not necessarily designed only in a pro-active discouragement mode. Some are designed to be a post-action reparation or removal of benefit from the guilty. Some fines are meant that way, as are virtually all civil punishments. They attempt to either compensate the harmed or to remove benefit achieved from the activity in question. 2) Further, it could well be a deterrent rather than an attempt to stop recidivism. In that sense it could well serve to "discourage" something. Is it more than what is necessary to maintain order? I certainly think so... That would seem to be a subjectivist fallacy. You feel it is unnecessary, they did not. If we are relegating the question to a matter of preference or indeed taste, it would seem that we could also relegate the decision to God as well. Once we make this a matter of subjective argument, your point must be ceded because the question of punishment is subject to the argument of who should get to determine punishment. Given God's status as creator of all things (in this argument), it would seem His determination would trump others. Actually it does, because being omnipotent is synonymous with all powerful, omni meaning all, and potent meaning powerful. With that, he has power over everything, even logic, if he doesn't have power over logic, then he is not all powerful, just VERY powerful. Strawman fallacy, theists do not argue that God is powerful in this manner. The Jewish and Christian Bible do not claim He is capable of this type of action. Even if we were to accept your literalist interpretation of that word (rather than its contextual definition), it still does not argue that God is capable of doing anything at all that he wishes. Only that He has "all" power (omni meaning all as you point out). I can own all copies of a rare baseball card, that doesn't mean that I therefore own an infinite number of them either. I only own those which exist. Likewise God being omnipotent means that He has all power, not "infinite" power, all existent powers. Why does this need to be so? Because otherwise the concept of omnipotent is meaningless as it is self contradictory. God has both the power to make a rock to heavy to move and the power to move it. That understanding of "omnipotence" is incoherent and as such not a valid concept to call into being. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ Rather, as we see in the link here, God has generally been well understood as having all powers that are actualizable, not all powers conceivable. I know that the world could be better than what it already is This is a pretty strong claim to be made here. The world has emergent properties, and as such it is definitionally impossible for you to understand the full ramifications of that action. What you mean is that you don't know of anything bad that would happen as a first order effect. You might be able to puzzle out some of the second order effects, but the third, fourth, fifth and so on are far outside our ability to accurately predict. So while it might seem that it would be better if God stopped some action, it is virtually impossible to say so with any real certainty. It reminds me of any of the Sci-fi tropes about time travel, stepping on the smallest lizard changes the world, kinda thing. Side: No because...
1
point
1) Punishments are not necessarily designed only in a pro-active discouragement mode. Some are designed to be a post-action reparation or removal of benefit from the guilty. Some fines are meant that way, as are virtually all civil punishments. They attempt to either compensate the harmed or to remove benefit achieved from the activity in question. How does infinite pain for infinite time compensate anyone? if I kill someone, it won't bring that person back for me to suffer eternal torture. Eternal torture isn't taking away my benefit either, it's not like I killed someone in order to avoid being tortured forever, my benefit from murdering hypothetically wasn't to NOT be tortured, it not being my benefit, it doesn't make sense that eternal torture was confiscation of any benefit I got from the wrong doing. 2) Further, it could well be a deterrent rather than an attempt to stop recidivism. In that sense it could well serve to "discourage" something. I've went over this, if this were the case, it would be SIGNIFICANTLY more successful in it's goal if god were to rather reveal himself. Hell, he could probably make his punishment significantly less horrid, and reveal himself and manage to discourage every single person from deviating from what he wants from us. That would seem to be a subjectivist fallacy. You feel it is unnecessary, they did not. If we are relegating the question to a matter of preference or indeed taste, it would seem that we could also relegate the decision to God as well. Once we make this a matter of subjective argument, your point must be ceded because the question of punishment is subject to the argument of who should get to determine punishment. Given God's status as creator of all things (in this argument), it would seem His determination would trump others. No it is not subjective. A certain degree of punishment either will maintain order or it won't, we don't decide if it does. I'd be willing to guess it wouldn't take infinite pain for infinite time as a punishment to maintain order. The only reason Hell hasn't succeeded over everybody is because not everyone believes hell is a real thing. Do you honestly think that it would truly take incomprehensible torture in order to keep people in line? I mean Hell is technically infinitely more horrid then the Holocaust (I'm not saying morally but as far as it's effect on people), and the holocaust had no problem keeping people in line (granted Hitler was eventually taken down, an omnipotent being could create something as horrid as the holocaust without ever being taken down being omnipotent). Honestly, I highly doubt, that it truly takes the degree that Hell goes in order for it to achieve it's goals. Strawman fallacy, theists do not argue that God is powerful in this manner. The Jewish and Christian Bible do not claim He is capable of this type of action. You do when you use the term "omnipotent". When you use the term "all-powerful" or "Omnipotent" you are claiming just that. Even if we were to accept your literalist interpretation of that word (rather than its contextual definition), it still does not argue that God is capable of doing anything at all that he wishes Then he is lacking power in certain scenarios, making him not all powerful. If you say god can't do X, then you are saying god lacks the power to do X, which means god lacks power in a certain conditions, which means god doesn't possess all power. Only that He has "all" power (omni meaning all as you point out). Exactly which means god should have the power to do just about anything. If god doesn't have that power, than god lacks a certain power, and doesn't have all power. I can own all copies of a rare baseball card, that doesn't mean that I therefore own an infinite number of them either. I don't see how your analogy applies? I'm not arguing that all-powerful necessarily means infinite power, but all-powerful means having all the power. The comparison would be more applicable if you said that having ALL the copies of a certain baseball card. If god is all-powerful, then god NEVER lacks power, cause then god wouldn't have all the power, ergo god should be capable of everything. I only own those which exist. Yes, and god being all-powerful owns all the power that does exist, so if god can't do something then something else has power that god doesn't. If god doesn't have power over logic, then god isn't all powerful, since logic would possess a power that god doesn't have. Likewise God being omnipotent means that He has all power, not "infinite" power, all existent powers. That is exactly what I am arguing, I'm glad you agree. Rather, as we see in the link here, God has generally been well understood as having all powers that are actualizable, not all powers conceivable. All your link really did to redefine omnipotence was claim that god can't do the logically impossible, because the logically impossible when stated in the logic that is applicable to our universe now, wouldn't make sense. In other words the reason god can't make a married bachelor is because "married" and "Bachelor" contradict each other, however being omnipotent, meaning to have ALL the power, meaning nothing having power that god doesn't, means god should possess power over logic, and if god could change logic, he could make the term "Married Bachelor" not contradict each other. This is a pretty strong claim to be made here. You are right actually, I think claiming to know was a bit strong. The world has emergent properties, and as such it is definitionally impossible for you to understand the full ramifications of that action. What you mean is that you don't know of anything bad that would happen as a first order effect. You might be able to puzzle out some of the second order effects, but the third, fourth, fifth and so on are far outside our ability to accurately predict. So while it might seem that it would be better if God stopped some action, it is virtually impossible to say so with any real certainty. It reminds me of any of the Sci-fi tropes about time travel, stepping on the smallest lizard changes the world, kinda thing. However to say that this world can't be any better than it is, does imply that you know it is the best it could possibly be. There is evidence suggesting that it could be better, (power over logic or not) we know it isn't perfect, and an "omnipotent" being should be capable of making the world better. If the world was as best as it could possibly be, then that would mean there is nothing we can do to make it any better than it already is. Which I would argue has been done before, people have contributed and made our world a better place, so why can't god? If god made this world as good as possible to the best of gods abilities, then we shouldn't be capable of making it any better. Side: Yes because...
1
point
First, I still want to point out that we are operating under the assumption that Hell is meant as a punishment rather than a natural consequence. We still have no actual evidence to support that as the intent. How does infinite pain for infinite time compensate anyone? Nor did I make the argument that it was specifically either of those. My main point was to show that your assumption that punishment is only to stop re-occurrence was inaccurate. Hence, we would need to establish all possible justifications for punishment and then remove them in order to establish this as unnecessary. I've seen no justification for the concept of Hell as "infinite pain" here, but sufficed to say it isn't an optimal condition. If we label Hell generally as "not heaven" ie "not reward" we can see a very logical reason for Hell. It is certainly a logical conclusion that someone who chooses to reject the morality issued by the Creator of the universe should receive the benefit for accepting that morality. Even if we consider this on a base transaction level the outcome makes sense. If I offer $100 for someone to write an essay and they don't, what warrant do they have to claim the $100? The fact that that person lives without that reward for eternity is hardly an unjust consequence. I've went over this, if this were the case, it would be SIGNIFICANTLY more successful in it's goal if god were to rather reveal himself. Why? I see no reason to accept this. Drawing and quartering was horrific in punishment, as was crucifixion, neither punishment was fool proof. Both saw people commit crimes in full knowledge of the outcome of that crime. A certain degree of punishment either will maintain order or it won't In this scenario, what constitutes "order?" What precisely would constitute "maintaining order?" Would it be 100% of people believing in God? 0 Sins? What? And how would you account for the violations of law now? No one doubts the law's existence, they still violate it. You do when you use the term "omnipotent". When you use the term "all-powerful" or "Omnipotent" you are claiming just that. Not at all, that is your inference, not the actual philosophic or traditional meaning of that term, as I pointed out in my last response. Then he is lacking power in certain scenarios, making him not all powerful. If you say god can't do X, then you are saying god lacks the power to do X, which means god lacks power in a certain conditions, which means god doesn't possess all power. This is a non sequitor. God cannot be said to not possess a power that doesn't exist. The powers you are referring to are self-contradictary and are therefore impossible to possess. It would be like saying that the universe has to contain a married bachelor because the universe contains all that exists. And nothing in your explanation resolves the problem I stated before. IE if omnipotent means anything, possible or not, then omnipotence is internally inconsistent and therefore an incoherent term. Exactly which means god should have the power to do just about anything. Just about anything, that is the key phrase, not "can do anything." Nothing about omnipotence has ever required that it be able to do the logically impossible. I'm not arguing that all-powerful necessarily means infinite power, but all-powerful means having all the power. And in what sense does the power to make a married bachelor exist so that God can possess it? Or to apply to your logic question, in what sense does God have the ability to change His nature? Rationality is a trait of God, so in the sense of what you are arguing, God would have to be able to be both rational and non-rational. However to say that this world can't be any better than it is, does imply that you know it is the best it could possibly be. There is evidence suggesting that it could be better, Well I should point out that I didn't say it was patently clear that that is the case, only that the objection that the world could be better is an uncertain one to make. I don't see any evidence that it could be better. What specifically could be changed to make it so? Side: No because...
1
point
I've seen no justification for the concept of Hell as "infinite pain" here, but sufficed to say it isn't an optimal condition. If we label Hell generally as "not heaven" ie "not reward" we can see a very logical reason for Hell. I should have figured this is where you were coming from, I am simply arguing against the "infinte pain" concept of hell, I don't have much problems with that alternative, other than the fact that people are getting rewarded for blind faith which I don't consider to be virtue at all. Side: Yes because...
1
point
I should have figured this is where you were coming from, I am simply arguing against the "infinte pain" concept of hell, I don't have much problems with that alternative, other than the fact that people are getting rewarded for blind faith which I don't consider to be virtue at all. Fair enough, I think we would need to understand the mechanism of that "pain" however. I can have pain out of my own negligence, the negligence of others or even malicious intent. The nature of that pain and suffering isn't the latter in the Judeo-Christian theological world though, it is the former. But lets say we were arguing about another religion, Islam, for example, where it does appear to be the latter. Is that inconsistent with Allah being "good?" (Not that I'm arguing Allah is doctrinally good here) I'm not sure it necessarily does. The question still comes down to a matter of appropriateness. One the one side of the scale we have "infinite pain for infinitely long" and on the other side of the scale "rejecting the Creator of all things." To judge the balance of those two we have several possible mechanisms: a) personal subjective: Person A feels they are balanced, person B does not. This mechanism seems unsatisfactory to me as it equates justice to a matter of taste and results in us clearly having no resolution. However, given that, for the sake of this argument, Allah is the supreme deity of the universe, his subjective view of the balance would seem to be more relevant than any of ours. b) Objective measure: We would need to agree to some metric with which to compare. Neither of these mechanisms seems to provide a clear path towards this clearly being "too harsh," rather one of them suggests that Allah views it as just from his provident point of view. Side: No because...
1
point
"...That too is the view of Hell traditionally in Christianity and Judaism..." Actually Hell is not in Judaism, it was never mentioned anywhere other than the New Testament. It was added in as a sort of "Pascals Wager" to scare people in the faith to stay in it. Hell is described in the bible as so: Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth” Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone” Basically anyone who is sent there will be tortured for ETERNITY, pain and suffering with no end. How does anyone deserve that? Even the most evil figures in history I can think of like Hitler and Stalin don't deserve that. Saying that hell is simply seperation from God is the "Billy Graham" sugar coated version that tries to make the bible seem less cruel. If you are a Christian and you truly believe the bible to be the word of God, than why doesnt it simply describe hell as a place where one shall be seperated from God? Why does it instead depict Hell as eternal torment? How come you know more about your holy book than the billions of old age philosophers like Martin Luther who studied and lived by this stuff? Side: Yes because...
0
points
Actually Hell is not in Judaism, it was never mentioned anywhere other than the New Testament. This is quite commonly referenced on the Internet today, however it isn't accurate. The confusion arises from the Torahs' use of Sheol solely to refer to the afterlife. All souls enter Sheol after their death, but that doesn't mean their existence there is equal or similar. Both in the Torah and in the Talmud, Sheol is divided in how people will experience their death. God is described in Psalms as both a comforter to those in Sheol who love Him and as being cut off from the unrighteous. Sheol, in Hebrew, has linguistic variances based upon this usage, indicating the Israelites understood, or at least meant to imply, that there is a difference in state for various souls within Sheol. Hell is described in the bible as so: Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth” Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” This is what happens when you interpret verses out of context. Both verses are part of large parables and their explanations. It doesn't make sense to take words or individual phrases as literal in the midst of a parable. Further, Jesus (in Mark) is quoting Isiah, giving further problems to your first claim above. If you are a Christian and you truly believe the bible to be the word of God, than why doesnt it simply describe hell as a place where one shall be seperated from God? Why does it instead depict Hell as eternal torment? But it does, both in the verses you reference above, and in others. In all those parables there are some common themes. One is that those that reject the teachings are "cast out" or "separated." Jesus refers to judgement as a separation on virtually all occasions, a separation apart from the reward offered by the various parable characters. How come you know more about your holy book than the billions of old age philosophers like Martin Luther who studied and lived by this stuff? Can you support that that was their view? I think it is more likely that you are falling victim to the popular culture notion of their view. You'll notice that both Luther and Aquinas argued that Hell was a separation from God: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/ Side: No because...
1
point
1
point
Well yes if you relate it to people. Here is the thing it is harsh because of these people beliefs. Everyone have the right to believe in their own way. Most people who is not Christian is from how they have been raised. Now don't get me wrong there is some people who was raised up to be a christian and they choose other wise to go their own way. Side: Yes because...
I never said my arguments are spectacular or great or anything on the base of that. You only said two words how could that even explain your reasoning there is no real argument in there. I am tired of people not really taking some thing serious am I saying you can't have fun doing it no not really. There is no real meaning to it and thats why I just don't see the point Side: Yes because...
If I tortured you for an eternity for not believing in the Yeti, would that be harsh? Well, duh! The same applies with Christianity. My argument was simple and my point should have been obvious. Also, you didn't make this debate. Why do you care? Are you just trying to defend a fellow wolf lover? lol Side: Yes because...
Really wolf lover you got to be kidding me. Second of who said that hell was tourcher everyone asumes that. Next thing is that why would it be harsh you never have any reasoning. Every thing is so simple these days to people when it is really isn't, I care for this because its not really a argument so im just put "what argument is that" Side: Yes because...
I'm not sure what you just said. I think my brain had to reboot after reading all of those gramatical errors. Aren't you like 14 or something? All you know are "these days"... also, I did give reasoning for my argument but apparently you didn't understand it. Side: Yes because...
1
point
1
point
:D "how can it when hell doesn't exist" - Does heaven exist where God inhabits? - If you don't really care about Bible, Hell shouldn't bother you because in Hell believe religions such as Christianity. Szandro's Satanic religion hasn't mention Hell as the home of the Devil. So no worry. - Is it harsh? Yes it is and even too harsh for someone who is presented as a loving creator. A pile of crap in white shreds to be honest. Side: Yes because...
1
point
|
He has not made his case clear enough, when you consider hundreds of other religions offering a way out and children being born into those religions instead of Christianity- either simply not knowing about Christianity for the rest of their lives, or rejecting Christianity because they were not indoctrinated in a Christian family. ... And also because of the sketchiness of the Bible, when it demands people to stone rape victims by law, which leads to people actually doing that stuff, because apparently they missed the "context" of what that "law" told them to do- despite the fact that God should have been wise enough to consider that people may take his words at face-value and actually stone people to death or make people reject the religion because of how immoral it sounds- which means more people going to hell, because of a minor mistake God forgot to consider before the Bible started to mass produce. Side: Yes because...
Are you being serious? Re-read my argument again. It states that 'Jesus offering a way out' is not enough to save people, because of the untrustworthiness of the bible due to verses like 'stoning rape victims', and because of how people are born into non-Christian families may most likely reject Christianity for them not being indoctrinated in a Christian family- which therefore concludes that it is Very Harsh to send non-Christians to hell, because it isn't even their fault. Now please, dispute that argument properly. It goes more indepth. I'm still wondering why I had to write this. Side: Yes because...
Please say you're trolling. I guess I'll have to explain these points myself, seeing as you lack the capability. I am arguing on the premise that; Being sent to hell because you're not Christian is harsh because: It is not the fault of many non-Christians due to these factors: - They were born into a family that did not follow Christianity; all their life they have been told to trust an other religion, making it unlikely for them to accept Christianity as the One True Way. - There are many religions that claim the same things as Christianity; how do you know you have placed your trust into the correct one, with all this uncertainty? - Some people are born simply out of reach from Christianity; say in the past when Islanders had no idea of the Bible, and instead worshiped their own Idols. - The sketchiness of the Bible; people may take verses such as "you must stone rape victims, for it is Law" repulsive and immoral, and may most likely reject Christianity because of it. (But you cannot blame them, because stoning rape victims is commonly frowned upon.) Not to mention people who may take the words of the Bible literally, and may actually practice stoning rape victims, which must be an act worthy of Hell. Since it is not their fault that these situations have occurred, sending these people to hell is a harsh action. Side: Yes because...
- They were born into a family that did not follow Christianity; all their life they have been told to trust an other religion, making it unlikely for them to accept Christianity as the One True Way. They can still be Christians. - There are many religions that claim the same things as Christianity; how do you know you have placed your trust into the correct one, with all this uncertainty? That is irrelevant. Jesus is still the way out. - Some people are born simply out of reach from Christianity; say in the past when Islanders had no idea of the Bible, and instead worshiped their own Idols. And they don't have a way to Christ, but that doesn't negate them having sinned, meriting them death. - The sketchiness of the Bible; people may take verses such as "you must stone rape victims, for it is Law" repulsive and immoral, and may most likely reject Christianity because of it. (But you cannot blame them, because stoning rape victims is commonly frowned upon.) Not to mention people who may take the words of the Bible literally, and may actually practice stoning rape victims, which must be an act worthy of Hell. No where in the Bible does it state that we should stone rape victims. And even if they think Christianity immoral, that does not reject Jesus being the way out. If anything it means that they are rebelling against God and should have death. Since it is not their fault that these situations have occurred, sending these people to hell is a harsh action. They have sinned. This is what merits death. Side: Yes because...
"They can still be Christians." What do you mean? Can you still be Muslim if it was actually the way out? Consider that. "That is irrelevant. Jesus is still the way out." That is irrational. Be rational and consider the people who have not been indoctrinated in a Christian dominant society as you have. Muhammad is still the way out- it is all the same, with equal credibility. "And they don't have a way to Christ, but that doesn't negate them having sinned, meriting them death." This debate is about Christians and Non-Christians. People out of reach from Christianity are still Non-Christian because they do not fall under the definition of 'the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.' "No where in the Bible does it state that we should stone rape victims. And even if they think Christianity immoral, that does not reject Jesus being the way out. If anything it means that they are rebelling against God and should have death." Read Deuteronomy 22:23-24. You are thinking in a box, instead of considering the psychology of people that exist Outside of that box. I urge you to consider the Psychology of people who exist out side of that box. "And even if they think Christianity immoral, that does not reject Jesus being the way out. If anything it means that they are rebelling against God and should have death." Would you murder someone who thought that stoning a rape victim is immoral? "They have sinned. This is what merits death." Broad statements. Broad statements everywhere. 'My mother deserves to die because she was repulsed when the found out that rape victims should be stoned to death. Her natural act of repulsion was seen as an act of rebellion against God despite her repulsion was greatly justified by all of humanity.' What a lovely existence. Side: Yes because...
What do you mean? Islam, Shinto, Judaism, Neo-Paganism and Rastafarianism is Christianity now? They can convert. That is irrational. Be rational and consider the people who have not been indoctrinated in a Christian dominant society as you have. Muhammad is still the way out- it is all the same, with equal credibility. They can still convert. This debate is about Christians and Non-Christians. People out of reach from Christianity are still Non-Christian because they do not fall under the definition of 'the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices.' What about it? Read Deuteronomy 22:23-24. How is this rape? She was a willing recipient of sexual relations. Rape is not equivalent to sex. Do not confuse the two. You are thinking in a box, instead of considering the psychology of people that exist Outside of that box. I urge you to consider the Psychology of people who exist out side of that box. What people outside of the box? Would you murder someone who thought that stoning a rape victim is immoral? Evil should not be repaid by evil. Broad statements. Broad statements everywhere. What about it? 'My mother deserves to die because she was repulsed when the found out that rape victims should be stoned to death. Her natural act of repulsion was seen as an act of rebellion against God despite her repulsion was greatly justified by all of humanity.' No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death. Side: Yes because...
"They can convert" Can YOU convert? Of course not. How would you expect them to do the same? "What about it?" People out of reach are Non-Christian, therefore they are sent to hell. You have read the name of this debate, right? "How is this rape? She was a willing recipient of sexual relations. Rape is not equivalent to sex. Do not confuse the two." This verse does not consider various factors such as 'what if no one could hear here scream because people were not around to hear her?' you did read the verse properly, right? How am I confusing rape with sex, when the verse is clearly about when a man has sex with a woman without her consent? It says that if she did not scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death- this verse does not consider the possibility that the rape victim could be a mute- and perhaps women WERE stoned to death because of their inability to scream while getting raped. "What people outside of the box?" You keep repeating that Jesus is the way. What if he wasn't the way? There are people out there who consider Muhammad was the way- would you ever consider them and how they think? Need I explain more? "Evil should not be repaid by evil." You just said it merits death. "No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death." I've already gone over this. Btw, how do you use bold writing? Side: Yes because...
Can YOU convert? Of course not. How would you expect them to do the same? People convert all the time. I cannot convert because the Holy Spirit has been sealed upon me, making it such that I cannot escape God's love! People out of reach are Non-Christian, therefore they are sent to hell. You have read the name of this debate, right? What about it? This verse does not consider various factors such as 'what if no one could hear here scream because people were not around to hear her?' you did read the verse properly, right? How am I confusing rape with sex, when the verse is clearly about when a man has sex with a woman without her consent? It says that if she did not scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death- this verse does not consider the possibility that the rape victim could be a mute- and perhaps women WERE stoned to death because of their inability to scream while getting raped. The Bible is not literalistic. Old Testament law, and the Bible for that matter as a whole, was considered, historically and contemporarily, to be paradigmatic, which is to say that they took a general notion and applied it to other situations. If it says not to commit adultery, it didn't mean solely "adultery" but actually all forms of sexual immorality. The same is this. The notion is that of her being a betrothed virgin having sex in the city willingly, and then her being executed because of it. No where in the verse does it infer or suggest that she was raped, that she didn't give consent. You keep repeating that Jesus is the way. What if he wasn't the way? There are people out there who consider Muhammad was the way- would you ever consider them and how they think? Simply because people don't think 2+2=4, it will still equal 4. You just said it merits death. Killing is not equivalent to murder. I've already gone over this. No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death. Btw, how do you use bold writing? 2 asterisks before and after what you want to bold Side: Yes because...
The Bible is not literalistic. Old Testament law, and the Bible for that matter as a whole, was considered, historically and contemporarily, to be paradigmatic, which is to say that they took a general notion and applied it to other situations. If it says not to commit adultery, it didn't mean solely "adultery" but actually all forms of sexual immorality. The same is this. The notion is that of her being a betrothed virgin having sex in the city willingly, and then her being executed because of it. No where in the verse does it infer or suggest that she was raped, that she didn't give consent. It does say that if she didn't scream loud enough... she should be stoned. What does screaming imply? Connect the dots. I know that you believe the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, but there are people out there who have murdered people by taking the Bible literally. What would God have to say to them? Simply because people don't think 2+2=4, it will still equal 4. Have you forgotten you have neither more or less credibility than the one who follows Muhammad? Killing is not equivalent to murder. You just said it merits death. Here, I will quote you, "They have sinned. This is what merits death." No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death. It states that if she didn't scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death. 2 asterisks before and after what you want to bold k thanks Side: Yes because...
It does say that if she didn't scream loud enough... she should be stoned. It says the following: "the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city". No where in there is a level of volume. The only thing that the passage brings to the paradigm is that she was screaming for help, that she didn't want the sex. What does screaming imply? Connect the dots. Screaming implies a lack of consent. The verse is clearly saying that if she is not screaming, then she should be put to death, indicating that she was willing involved in the sexual relations. I know that you believe the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, but there are people out there who have murdered people by taking the Bible literally. Of course there are. That doesn't mean anything, though. What would God have to say to them? To whom? Murder is murder, and should be punished appropriately. It was either punished in Christ, or will be punished towards them. Have you forgotten you have neither more or less credibility than the one who follows Muhammad? Thats irrelevant. Jesus has offered a way out. If one wants to accept it, then good for this one. If not, then so be it. Credibility is irrelevant. You just said it merits death. / Here, I will quote you, "They have sinned. This is what merits death." What about it? It states that if she didn't scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death. Thats not rape. Thats clearly saying in the paradigm that she was a willing participant. No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death. Side: Yes because...
It says the following: "the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city". No where in there is a level of volume. The only thing that the passage brings to the paradigm is that she was screaming for help, that she didn't want the sex. Crying for help assumes she seeks someone to hear and acknowledge that she wanted to be helped, otherwise people would never have known and would stone her anyway. But in the real world, people aren't always there to hear her, or she isn't able to cry out. Crying for help= obviously vocalizing someone to come and help her- not that hard to understand. Screaming implies a lack of consent. The verse is clearly saying that if she is not screaming, then she should be put to death, indicating that she was willing involved in the sexual relations. ... screaming implies, well to a normal human being, it implies that she wants help. When a human screams, it lets others know that something terrible is happening. Basic human instinct. Of course there are. That doesn't mean anything, though. So God actually doesn't care that his Bible was responsible for the suffering and torment of people? xXLogicXx To whom? Murder is murder, and should be punished appropriately. It was either punished in Christ, or will be punished towards them. God should have been wise enough to consider that people may take his word at face-value. Thats irrelevant. Jesus has offered a way out. If one wants to accept it, then good for this one. If not, then so be it. Credibility is irrelevant. You have just admitted you have closed your mind off to other points of views, and have no value for logic. Credibility is irrelevant??? Who says that. Why is it so difficult for you to be unbiased? Can you at least pretend? Emotion is not trustworthy, and you are swimming in the thick of it. You feel you are to be right- that is emotion, and emotion is the opposite of logic. What about it? You denied that it merits death, when you said it merits death. xXLogicXx Thats not rape. Thats clearly saying in the paradigm that she was a willing participant. No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death. Ignorance. There, I have said it. Side: Yes because...
Crying for help assumes she seeks someone to hear and acknowledge that she wanted to be helped, otherwise people would never have known and would stone her anyway. But in the real world, people aren't always there to hear her, or she isn't able to cry out. Crying for help= obviously vocalizing someone to come and help her- not that hard to understand. Exactly... Crying infers that she wanted help and had no consent. This means that the verse, therefore, adds to the paradigm that she was consenting, since she did not cry for help and was stoned to death. ... screaming implies, well to a normal human being, it implies that she wants help. When a human screams, it lets others know that something terrible is happening. Exactly. So keep going with the logic. This infers that, since she did not scream, that she must have been wanting the sex. So God actually doesn't care that his Bible was responsible for the suffering and torment of people? xXLogicXx People are responsible for suffering and torment, if done unrighteously. God should have been wise enough to consider that people may take his word at face-value. He knew this. But this is irrelevant. You have just admitted you have closed your mind off to other points of views, and have no value for logic. Credibility is irrelevant??? Who says that. I don't thin you are understanding. Simply because Jesus and Muhammad have the same credibility, it does not infer that Jesus is not enough for a way out. Sure people will accept Muhammad. But you are missing two big points: people go to hell because they have sinned, which everyone has done, which is what Jesus is rescuing people from (He picks criminals, then saves them, but has no obligation to save them), and, second, the Holy Spirit is that which gives one faith, which means that they cannot believe unless God wants them to do so. Why is it so difficult for you to be unbiased? Can you at least pretend? Emotion is not trustworthy, and you are swimming in the thick of it. You feel you are to be right- that is emotion, and emotion is the opposite of logic. No one is unbiased. You denied that it merits death, when you said it merits death. xXLogicXx How so? Ignorance. There, I have said it. Thats not rape. Follow logic, not what you want it to say. No where in the Bible does it state that rape victims are to be stoned to death. Side: Yes because...
Have you considered people that were born North Korea? They cannot leave their country. They do not have any contact with the outside world. They must only follow what their leader tells them to do. Religion is strictly illegal to the point that even the population is convinced that Religion is bad. Would you think they deserve Hell for being raised into a world in which their leader was the only moral guideline they had ever known? Side: Yes because...
Have you considered people that were born North Korea? They cannot leave their country. They do not have any contact with the outside world. They must only follow what their leader tells them to do. Religion is strictly illegal to the point that even the population is convinced that Religion is bad. Would you think they deserve Hell for being raised into a world in which their leader was the only moral guideline they had ever known? Have they sinned? Yes, they have. Therefore, they deserve death. And even if the religion is illegal, this does not mean that they should not obey and believe it, if it is true and righteous. Side: Yes because...
Have they sinned? Yes, they have. Was it their fault? No it was not. Was it the tiger's fault for being a tiger? No it was not. Was it a human's fault to breath oxygen so they wouldn't die? No it was is not. Do you lack any sense of empathy? Yes you do. Therefore, they deserve death. I remember you previously stating that evil does not warrant more evil. And even if the religion is illegal, this does not mean that they should not obey and believe it, if it is true and righteous. But you're avoiding a main factor here; the population of North Korea is blocked off from the rest of the world. They follow what their leader tells them. From childhood, North Koreans are fed fake stories that their leader is some kind of God. If you were born in North Korea, and were told (ever since you were born) that all religion is bad, and you can only trust your leader, do you think you would deserve hell? Side: Yes because...
Was it their fault? No it was not. All men have sinned and are guilty of sinning. Was it the tiger's fault for being a tiger? No it was not. And if the tiger was evil by nature, would it be a good thing to destroy it? Of course it would be! I remember you previously stating that evil does not warrant more evil. Dealing death is not equivalent to evil. If you were born in North Korea, and were told (ever since you were born) that all religion is bad, and you can only trust your leader, do you think you would deserve hell? Yeah. They have still sinned. You keep coming back to the same point, ignoring what I say. Sin is what makes one answerable to hell. They have sinned. Therefore, they deserve hell. This is independent of having hear of Jesus, happening necessarily out of human nature. Side: Yes because...
To whom? Murder is murder, and should be punished appropriately. It was either punished in Christ, or will be punished towards them. So if someone murders someone else because they misinterpreted the Bible and they are Christians, Christ will pay for their sins and they get off scot-free. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE This does not fix anything, what if the person they murdered was a fellow Christian? Christ would pay for their sins, and their friend would still be dead. They never try to learn from their mistake or make up for it. the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city What if she was silenced by her attacker and could not scream? Side: Yes because...
Christ would pay for their sins, and their friend would still be dead. They never try to learn from their mistake or make up for it. As Christians, we bear the Holy Spirit within us, desiring the good, hating the evil, yet we live by the law of flesh, being apart of flesh. A murderer being atoned for by Christ is a wonderful thing! Moses and David were both murderers... and God loved them both! This is amazing grace and mercy and love! And if the murderer was a Christian, then he would have regretted it! But he, and all of the world, would still be a part of the body of flesh, still sinning. This is why Christ came, though! To release us and save us from the inevitability of our nature. What if she was silenced by her attacker and could not scream? The Bible is paradigmatic, which means that the paradigm being added here is that of the woman willingly having sexual relations with the man. The Bible is not literalistic. It is to be upheld by the righteous judges of the land. Side: No because...
Ahh, but previously you said that killing was not evil, murder was. Murder is unlawful killing, but according to the Bible the price for evil is death, therefore making their death justified and lawful. I did say this. And it is a just thing for evil to be destroyed. This is not equivalent to murder, which is evil. So, whats your point? Side: No because...
Would you murder someone who thought that stoning a rape victim is immoral? Evil should not be repaid by evil. Here you are saying it is wrong. Ahh, but previously you said that killing was not evil, murder was. Murder is unlawful killing, but according to the Bible the price for evil is death, therefore making their death justified and lawful. I did say this. And it is a just thing for evil to be destroyed. This is not equivalent to murder, which is evil. So, whats your point? And here you say it is correct. Side: Yes because...
Would you murder someone who thought that stoning a rape victim is immoral? Evil should not be repaid by evil. Here it is said that murder is evil and stoning a rape victim is also evil. Ahh, but previously you said that killing was not evil, murder was. Murder is unlawful killing, but according to the Bible the price for evil is death, therefore making their death justified and lawful. I did say this. And it is a just thing for evil to be destroyed. This is not equivalent to murder, which is evil. So, whats your point? This says that murder is evil also. So where is the contradiction? Side: No because...
Here it is said that murder is evil and stoning a rape victim is also evil. You said evil should not be repaid by evil, but what is the "evil" that is being repaid, and what is the "evil" that is being used to repay the other evil? This says that murder is evil also. But you said killing is not the same as murder. According to you, all sins are worthy of death, so do you believe a petty thief should be killed? Side: Yes because...
You said evil should not be repaid by evil, but what is the "evil" that is being repaid, and what is the "evil" that is being used to repay the other evil? Evil is that of murder and that of the stoning to death. We should not murder someone to pay back someone who has been stoned to death. But you said killing is not the same as murder. I did. According to you, all sins are worthy of death, so do you believe a petty thief should be killed? I do. Side: No because...
Then why don't you go kill a petty thief? It would be just, and while you might get in trouble, man's laws are of no importance in God's Kingdom. Because we, the general people, excluding the actual judges and executioners, are neither judges nor executioners. It is unjust for us to kill someone who has not been convicted; it would be unjust for us to kill someone whom we have no right to kill. These things are murder. Side: No because...
But that would be breaking God's law, therefore committing a sin, therefore worthy of death. And it doesn't matter if we was a good Christian, if he repents for everything wrong he did except for the cookie, he would still deserve eternal damnation for stealing the cookie. Side: Yes because...
But that would be breaking God's law, therefore committing a sin, therefore worthy of death. How would that be breaking God's law? And it doesn't matter if we was a good Christian, if he repents for everything wrong he did except for the cookie, he would still deserve eternal damnation for stealing the cookie. No one repents, in any way, unless a Christian. And Christians necessarily are saved. So if he repents, in any way, then he is a Christian. And if he repents, in any way, he is saved. Side: No because...
How would that be breaking God's law? Thou shalt not steal. No one repents, in any way, unless a Christian. What if he doesn't repent for stealing the cookie? And Christians necessarily are saved. Then they can do whatever they want without fear of consequence. So if he repents, in any way, then he is a Christian. I repent for my wrongdoings, albeit not to your deity. Why? How can you repent to something you do not believe in? So with your logic, I am a Christian Side: Yes because...
Thou shalt not steal. That is a command. But it isn't breaking God's law not to kill him. What if he doesn't repent for stealing the cookie? Christians necessarily repent. Maybe not occurrently, but definitely dispositionally. Then they can do whatever they want without fear of consequence. Thats exactly right! But the Bible states that we do not want to do evil, because we have been made anew. I repent for my wrongdoings, albeit not to your deity. Why? How can you repent to something you do not believe in? Repenting to yourself is not repenting towards God. So with your logic, I am a Christian Not by my logic. Side: No because...
1
point
He wasn't attempting to nullify Jesus as a way out. He's pointing out that it's blatantly unfair and unequal. It's easy for somebody raised in a christian family to believe. It's not so easy for someone who grew up indoctrinated into Islam. It's not so easy for someone who was raised by vocal anti-religious atheist parents. Even working under the assumption that christianity is truth (and not digging into the various sects of christianity and the fact that they disagree violently on several issues), the deck is stacked firmly against those not born to christian parents. If the choices were simply christianity and atheism, it would still be unfair and unequal due to the parents a child was born to. Add in the fact that there are hundreds of other religions that claim to offer the same thing and do so in a way that's every bit as lucid and appealing as christianity does, and it's a full blown nightmare. In effect, this standard boils down to a prejudice based on birth, and carries with it the connotation that all men are not in fact created equal. Who wants to believe in a prejudiced God? Side: Yes because...
He's pointing out that it's blatantly unfair and unequal. It's easy for somebody raised in a christian family to believe. It's not so easy for someone who grew up indoctrinated into Islam. It's not so easy for someone who was raised by vocal anti-religious atheist parents. Even working under the assumption that christianity is truth (and not digging into the various sects of christianity and the fact that they disagree violently on several issues), the deck is stacked firmly against those not born to christian parents. This doesn't matter. God is selecting from the many criminals of the world, whom He desires to be His elect. They believe because God chose them to believe, and be saved. If they are not from a believing household, then it doesn't matter. We have all sinned. It is perfectly fair for everyone to go to hell. The only unfairness is that God chose certain people, from these criminals who deserve hell, to be saved through Christ. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether or not it is harsh for one to be sent to hell for not being Christian. People are sent to hell because they have sinned; they are not rescued from this fate if they are not Christians. In effect, this standard boils down to a prejudice based on birth, and carries with it the connotation that all men are not in fact created equal. Who wants to believe in a prejudiced God? God shows no partiality towards any one nation when in justice, nor in choosing His elect. However, once His elect, He shows immeasurable graces Side: Yes because...
1
point
With all due respect, bullshit. Maybe he doesn't judge individuals based on their nationality (but in effect he does, as the christian message doesn't even reach the whole world; North Korea comes to mind) but he certainly does stack the deck for or against them based on their parents- and how. If God is real, and in particular the Christian view on God is real, then God blatantly favors humans born to a minority of the world population while at the same time doing the opposite to the majority. This applies doubly if God truly chooses ahead of time who will be saved and who wasn't. Triply if God truly believes in the idea of original sin. The God you are describing is no more worthy of respect than the average internet troll- is that really how you want your faith to come across? You do your own faith a large discredit. And yes, being sent to hell PERIOD is harsh. There is nothing any one human can do over the course of a lifespan that would warrant eternal torment. Nothing. By any reasonable measure, using any moral framework. Even murder- the human lifespan is finite, and all humans die eventually. At worst, murdering an infant deprives that individual of an apparent absolute maximum of ~120 years. About 1/2 of that at best is likely. Even if he had to answer for every single murder commited by his followers personally, and had to suffer one million times what he inflicted for it, even Hitler would not deserve eternal torment. But more importantly: How do you address the North Korea dilemma? In a nation where the citizens are brainwashed from early childhood, and where only approved material (read: not bibles) is allowed into the nation, and the christian message is all but completely absent, what justification is their for condemning these individuals? How is there ANY justification for condemning an individual for not believing in an individual they not only haven't ever heard of, but couldn't have heard of no matter what path they chose in life? Side: Yes because...
If God is real, and in particular the Christian view on God is real, then God blatantly favors humans born to a minority of the world population while at the same time doing the opposite to the majority. God does not need to favor anyone. If anything, God should hate and find disfavor with everyone. The issue is whether God will have mercy on us, us criminals. He simply chose out of the stack of criminals of the world whom He wants to favor, without partiality. And yes, being sent to hell PERIOD is harsh. There is nothing any one human can do over the course of a lifespan that would warrant eternal torment. Do you not think that death is that which should be followed from sin? Death is eternal. But Christ has already borne the punishment, so just believe in Him and you will be saved. He offers a way out. It is really easy. How is there ANY justification for condemning an individual for not believing in an individual they not only haven't ever heard of, but couldn't have heard of no matter what path they chose in life? I already told you. We are condemned for sin. Trusting in Jesus to save us is the alleviation of the punishment for sin. We all deserve death. Jesus is simply offering a way out from what we already deserve. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding some things. God doesn't owe us anything. He could sentence us all to hell and He would still be absolutely just. Him sending His Son to die for us is simply the taking away of what we already deserve. Side: Yes because...
1
point
By your own logic, a godly parent should hate and find disfavor with his or her own children when they disobey, and would be wholly justified in killing the child for it. If we're criminals, and God exists, we are criminals because he made us criminals. Without partiality? Then why are the overwhelming majority of christians born of christian parents? We aren't talking about death here- we're talking about eternal torment of the soul. What rational reason is there to believe in christ? Answer that. If Christ did in fact bear the punishment for all of mankinds sins, then it would follow that all of mankinds sins have been forgiven. If a single person goes to hell, then Christ did not in fact bear the punishment for all of mankinds sins, only those of the elect. Prejudice- literally prejudice. Before you were even born, I knew you? So even before someone has been born, they have been judged in your view. That's worse than any prejudice mankind is capable of. Maybe God doesn't owe us anything, but he absolutely would not be just in sentencing us all to hell. He would not be just in sentencing even one human to hell. The second God sentences a single person to hell, he is worse than satan. And his sending his son to die is a bad joke too, for that matter. Infinite eternal being takes on a mortal body, dies a mortal death, and returns to being an infinite eternal being? If Christ truly bore everyone's sins, he is not coming back- he is in hell, and is there to stay. Except I forgot that the christian god is a judgemental prejudiced prick who loves to play favorites- at least the way you describe him. Side: Yes because...
By your own logic, a godly parent should hate and find disfavor with his or her own children when they disobey, and would be wholly justified in killing the child for it. Who says that? My logic does not infer this at all. If we're criminals, and God exists, we are criminals because he made us criminals. Without partiality? Then why are the overwhelming majority of christians born of christian parents? We sinned. It is our fault that we have passed our sinful nature on to others. The reason Christians are born to other Christians is because they are around people who preach the Gospel, compelling them to believe. We aren't talking about death here- we're talking about eternal torment of the soul. And eternal torture of the soul is spiritual death. What rational reason is there to believe in christ? Answer that. If Christ did in fact bear the punishment for all of mankinds sins, then it would follow that all of mankinds sins have been forgiven. If a single person goes to hell, then Christ did not in fact bear the punishment for all of mankinds sins, only those of the elect. Prejudice- literally prejudice. Before you were even born, I knew you? So even before someone has been born, they have been judged in your view. That's worse than any prejudice mankind is capable of. Jesus did not die for everyone. He only died for His elect. Maybe God doesn't owe us anything, but he absolutely would not be just in sentencing us all to hell. He would not be just in sentencing even one human to hell. The second God sentences a single person to hell, he is worse than satan. And his sending his son to die is a bad joke too, for that matter. Infinite eternal being takes on a mortal body, dies a mortal death, and returns to being an infinite eternal being? If Christ truly bore everyone's sins, he is not coming back- he is in hell, and is there to stay. Except I forgot that the christian god is a judgemental prejudiced prick who loves to play favorites- at least the way you describe him. How would God be unjust for sentencing someone to hell? Christ paid the eternity's length and breadth of punishment, for His elect, while on the cross. Side: Yes because...
1
point
Sure it does. We are described as God's children. In your model, God is wholly justified in hating and disfavoring those who do not obey by believing in Jesus, and sentencing them to hell for eternity. A godly parent following that example would be wholly justified in hating and disfavoring disobedient children; while unable to sentence them to hell for eternity, they are certainly capable of killing them. It's not the same thing, in fact what these godly parents would do is in fact less harsh than what God does. And insofar as Christians being born to other Christians is concerned, exactly my point. Children born to Christian parents are indoctrinated into the religion and believe it naturally; they basically get a free pass whereas everybody else has the deck stacked against them. As far as being unjust... jus·tice noun \ˈjəs-təs\ : the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals Emphasis being fairly. Eternal torment is not a fair punishment for ANY amount of earthly transgression. Even if original sin is real. Even if every child bears the sins of all of his forefathers. Even if said child, in addition to inheriting original sin and his ancestors sin, dedicates his life to being a serial rapist/murderer, eternal punishment is entirely disproportionate. Furthermore, in what way does suffering on a cross for a few days pay for even one individuals sins, if the punishment for said sins was eternal torment? It doesn't. If Jesus was truly without sin, and spent eternity in hell, he would be paying for the sins of exactly one person. If he only spent a few days in hell, or never went to hell at all, it's not even a drop in the bucket. The very idea is ridiculous. Side: Yes because...
We are described as God's children. Only God's elect are considered to be His children. In fact, I would argue that the Bible is very explicit in saying that nonbelievers are descendants of Satan, not the sons of God. In your model, God is wholly justified in hating and disfavoring those who do not obey by believing in Jesus, and sentencing them to hell for eternity. A godly parent following that example would be wholly justified in hating and disfavoring disobedient children; while unable to sentence them to hell for eternity, they are certainly capable of killing them. It's not the same thing, in fact what these godly parents would do is in fact less harsh than what God does. Not at all. Parents are not inherently judges, nor executioners. And insofar as Christians being born to other Christians is concerned, exactly my point. Children born to Christian parents are indoctrinated into the religion and believe it naturally; they basically get a free pass whereas everybody else has the deck stacked against them. Anyone who is a Christian gets a free pass. But that is because it is based in the grace and mercy of God, not in what we do. No one deserves the pass. We are given it by God. Emphasis being fairly. Eternal torment is not a fair punishment for ANY amount of earthly transgression. Even if original sin is real. Even if every child bears the sins of all of his forefathers. Even if said child, in addition to inheriting original sin and his ancestors sin, dedicates his life to being a serial rapist/murderer, eternal punishment is entirely disproportionate. Furthermore, in what way does suffering on a cross for a few days pay for even one individuals sins, if the punishment for said sins was eternal torment? It doesn't. If Jesus was truly without sin, and spent eternity in hell, he would be paying for the sins of exactly one person. If he only spent a few days in hell, or never went to hell at all, it's not even a drop in the bucket. The very idea is ridiculous. How is it not fair? They die spiritually, and death is eternal. Side: Yes because...
1
point
God ostensibly created all of mankind. So if we're not all considered his children, he has disowned us; not only is he a tormenter, he's a deadbeat dad too. Certainly left his own son to die! Why do you believe God to inherently be a judge or an executioner? In this scenario, they are following God's own example. What's the issue? By your own words, God picks and chooses those who gets this free pass, and overwhelmingly favors those born to Christian families. It's not fair because the punishment does not, and can not ever match the crime. No amount of transgressions measures up to eternal torment. All the crimes committed in the entire past, present, and future of the world combined do not even amount to a blip compared to eternity. Side: Yes because...
God ostensibly created all of mankind. So if we're not all considered his children, he has disowned us; not only is he a tormenter, he's a deadbeat dad too. Certainly left his own son to die! Some were never His children. Some were always His children. Genesis 3 establishes that Satan will have spiritual descendants and so will Eve. He adopts us, as Romans 8 says, into His family. Why do you believe God to inherently be a judge or an executioner? In this scenario, they are following God's own example. What's the issue? Because I am neither a judge nor an executioner. By your own words, God picks and chooses those who gets this free pass, and overwhelmingly favors those born to Christian families. Thats because God chose for many of His elect to be born into Christian homes. The homes bear the Gospel. What about it? It's not fair because the punishment does not, and can not ever match the crime. No amount of transgressions measures up to eternal torment. All the crimes committed in the entire past, present, and future of the world combined do not even amount to a blip compared to eternity. How does it not match the crimes? Death is eternal. Either you choose God to sustain your life, or you choose death, which is hell. Side: Yes because...
3
points
No, it doesn't work like that. God created mankind; they were his children. Their descendants are his as well. He doesn't adopt anyone, he just picks and chooses who he recognizes and which are just the bastards. You did not address the idea of God being a judge or an executioner at all. The issue is the overwhelming majority of people who are punished for not believing in Jesus. It's even WORSE in your model, because God has predetermined who is and who is not within his elect. As such, nobody destined for hell deserves it at all because they never had the chance to do otherwise. How can you possibly believe that, and if you do, still respect that God? It's pretty simple, really. Assign a number- any number- to a crime or sin, based on its severity. Add them up. Add them ALL up. What you're left with is a finite number, albeit likely a very large one. What do you need to multiply this number by to reach infinity? That multiplier would indicate how disproportionate the punishment is to the crime. In this case, it would need to be multiplied by infinity; as such, the punishment is infinitely disproportionate to the crime. If you disagree, please explain your rationale. Side: Yes because...
No, it doesn't work like that. God created mankind; they were his children. Their descendants are his as well. He doesn't adopt anyone, he just picks and chooses who he recognizes and which are just the bastards. Creation does not infer family. You did not address the idea of God being a judge or an executioner at all. God's nature is such that He is. The issue is the overwhelming majority of people who are punished for not believing in Jesus. It's even WORSE in your model, because God has predetermined who is and who is not within his elect. As such, nobody destined for hell deserves it at all because they never had the chance to do otherwise. How can you possibly believe that, and if you do, still respect that God? They are punished for sinning. They are not saved because they do not trust in Christ to save them. Understand this. God does not owe us anything; and without God we would necessarily be dead. It's pretty simple, really. Assign a number- any number- to a crime or sin, based on its severity. Add them up. Add them ALL up. What you're left with is a finite number, albeit likely a very large one. What do you need to multiply this number by to reach infinity? That multiplier would indicate how disproportionate the punishment is to the crime. In this case, it would need to be multiplied by infinity; as such, the punishment is infinitely disproportionate to the crime. If you disagree, please explain your rationale. Some crimes deserve death. Murder deserves death. I think that rape should deserve death. They both equal the same punishment, which is death, but have unequal degrees to evil: rape is less than murder. The reason for this is that one cannot punish one past death, since death is eternal. Hence, if sin deserves death, then sin being punished is death, which is eternal. Therefore, to argue that hell is harsh is to say that death is harsh. If you say that, then you cannot say that you believe in justice any more, since a death for a death would be demanded by your definition of justice. Side: Yes because...
1
point
I disagree; I believe creation is even more of a familial relationship than biological family. Jf God's nature is as you describe him, he is far worse than any criminal on earth, far worse than satan, and is guilty of every sin he decries. Being dead in terms of oblivion is one thing- being dead in the sense of ones soul being held eternally in thrall under constant torment is another thing entirely. Oblivion is preferable to hell as described in Revelations. NOTHING warrants that; can you seriously dispute that? Side: Yes because...
Thats because God chose for many of His elect to be born into Christian homes. The homes bear the Gospel. What about it? That shows there is no free will, since the reason most Christians are Christian is that they are born Christian, therefore God determines who will be saved and who will not. Side: Yes because...
That shows there is no free will, since the reason most Christians are Christian is that they are born Christian, therefore God determines who will be saved and who will not. Free will and determinism are not incompatible. God determines all things, but in this determinism our choices are determined, thus, making it such that free will and determinism are compatible. Side: No because...
1
point
"This holy anarchist [...] was a political offender [...]. It was this which brought him to the cross: the proof of which is the inscription which was put upon the cross. He died for his own sins; and there is no ground for believing (no matter how often it is reiterated) that he died for the sins of others. [It is unclear] whether Jesus was aware of this alternative explanation of his acts, or whether his acts merely lent themselves to this alternative explanation." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, p.26, XXVII-XXVIII Side: Yes because...
Few problems with this: He said multiple times before His capture that He was going to die for the sins of the world, He willingly gave Himself over to the authorities, Pilate said Himself that he could find no wrong with Jesus, and the inscription read that He was the King of the Jews, mockingly. Moreover, even if He were to be tried under what man thought was evil, this does not infer that it actually was evil. Hence, He could be tried under man's authority, being sentenced to death for that which He did do righteously, then claim that He did it for the sins of the world, because this was a Holy act. Sorry, but Nietzsche is obviously wrong on this one. Side: No because...
He said multiple times before His capture that He was going to die for the sins of the world According to the Bible. Not proof. He willingly gave Himself over to the authorities, Pilate said Himself that he could find no wrong with Jesus, and the inscription read that He was the King of the Jews, mockingly. And none of this demonstrates divinity or that Jesus died for anyone's sins. Moreover, even if He were to be tried under what man thought was evil, this does not infer that it actually was evil. Hence, He could be tried under man's authority, being sentenced to death for that which He did do righteously Whether it was "righteous" (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant to the veracity of divinity and sin. then claim that He did it for the sins of the world Which there is no proof he did. Only the Bible says so. That is not proof. because this was a Holy act. Again, according to the Bible only. Not proof. Sorry, but Nietzsche is obviously wrong on this one. Sorry, but I'll trust one of the most reputed and well-known philosophers' critical interpretation of religious history over your Biblical assumptions. Side: Yes because...
You know what is so logically absurd about this entire thing you wrote? Nietzsche is using the Bible for his argument, but then rejects the other parts of the Bible to support his own agenda. I don't trust him, since he is willingly deceiving people. Sorry, but I'll trust one of the most reputed and well-known philosophers' critical interpretation of religious history over your Biblical assumptions. Read some William Lane Craig. Or read over the debate manuscripts he had with Bart Ehrman. You are only a skeptic about the things you want to be skeptical about, but nothing else. Don't be a hypocrite; you're verging on it. Side: No because...
You know what [...] willingly deceiving people. No, he is not. He is pointing out that there is no proof that Jesus is divine or that he died for his sins. And he is criticizing the total lack of critical thought inherent in insisting on the veracity of those claims on the sole basis of repetition. It is notable that rather than actually refuting any of my direct responses to your first post in this thread, you just jumped back to accusing Nietzsche of being wrong (without actually giving a single example demonstrating how he is wrong). You claim he is using the Bible as his proof, when the direct quote and overall work does not cite the Bible once. He rejects the Bible and religion in its entirety. That you accuse Nietzsche of the willful deceit is almost laughable. The Bible is the "resource" here that relies on deception; it has convinced millions of people that mere assertion is adequate grounds for defending their core beliefs and assumptions. Read some [...] verging on it. I have not read William Lane Craig, but I will look into him. I have always gone on to read the works of those you have mentioned if I have not already done so. I do this with every debate and every issue. Can you say the same? Meanwhile, I have read the works of other Christian apologetics and other theologians. I have watched numerous debates including theist philosophers and intellectuals. I do not exclusively expose myself atheist and anti-theist perspectives, nor am I solely critical of theist perspectives. I have openly criticized some of the arguments presented by major atheistic philosophers, including Nietzsche and Hutchinson. Moreover I do not have beliefs. I have either an absence of belief that does not cease to exist until I have been presented with objective evidence to consider a thing true, or I have disbelief as a consequence of legitimate evidence indicating that a particular thing is objectively false. The theist however inherently assumes a thing true without objective evidence. You in particular also reject my arguments time and again without ever refuting the evidence I present. So who is being selectively skeptical? Until responding to your attacks on my intellectual integrity, I do not believe I have ever accused you of selective skepticism or anything that was not substantiated by what you had said. Please do direct me to any instances where you disagree and I will be more than willing to explain my basis for these purported accusations. Until you also produce an actual case of my accusing you of something which I then go on to do myself, your assertion that I am a hypocrite is nothing more than a baseless assertion. Side: Yes because...
It is notable that rather than actually refuting any of my direct responses to your first post in this thread, you just jumped back to accusing Nietzsche of being wrong (without actually giving a single example demonstrating how he is wrong). Except I did show how he was wrong.... Did you not read my post? Apparently not. And I did refute your responses. They were all, for the most part, saying that these things to which I presented were the things to which the Bible claimed. Hence, your argument reverts into the question of the quality of the Bible, being true or not. Nietzsche got his argument from the Bible, since he is referencing what Jesus did and did not do. So, you are questioning the very thing to which he got his argument from, yet you and he both ignore that the argument is from the Bible! So, yes, I did rebut your argument, because it is logically biased, leaving out key information, being deceptive. Moreover I do not have beliefs. I have either an absence of belief that does not cease to exist until I have been presented with objective evidence to consider a thing true, or I have disbelief as a consequence of legitimate evidence indicating that a particular thing is objectively false. The theist however inherently assumes a thing true without objective evidence. You in particular also reject my arguments time and again without ever refuting the evidence I present. So who is being selectively skeptical? You would hate Wayne Davis. He is a reductionist who states that we always have beliefs, them being intrinsic to our being. We have dispositional beliefs and occurent beliefs. No one does not have a belief. It is logical inept to say that one does not have beliefs. Until responding to your attacks on my intellectual integrity, I do not believe I have ever accused you of selective skepticism or anything that was not substantiated by what you had said. Please do direct me to any instances where you disagree and I will be more than willing to explain my basis for these purported accusations. Until you also produce an actual case of my accusing you of something which I then go on to do myself, your assertion that I am a hypocrite is nothing more than a baseless assertion. When did I say that you were a hypocrite? I gave you an imperative to not be one, since you were verging on being one. And the basis of that claim is in the argument itself, since you and Nietzsche are both willingly ignoring the very source to which your argument basis itself upon, while rejecting other people's claims about the Bible, because of the uncertainty of the Bible's truthfulness. Logically inconsistent is not the same as hypocritical. I clearly said the former. I never said the latter; I said that you were verging on it, since logical inconsistency leads many times to hypocrisy. Do not do the latter. Side: No because...
Except I did show how he was wrong.... So, yes, I did rebut your argument, because it is logically biased, leaving out key information, being deceptive. You initially only asserted that Nietzsche sampled selectively from the Bible, without giving any further elaboration or identifying when he did so. You now claim that because Nietzsche spoke about Jesus he must have gotten his information from the Bible, which is highly fallacious since the Bible is not the only documentation that Jesus existed as a human being (though it is the only source that claims his divinity). There is no proof at all in The Antichrist that Neitzsche cited the Bible to back his claim. The precise point that Neitzsche was making, as I have now explained multiple times, was that the Bible was not a reliable historical portrayal because it is the distortion of the reality of an actual historical person unsubstantiated by reason or fact. You need to prove otherwise. My argument does not "revert" into a question of the veracity of the Bible. That is precisely what I was questioning already. The Bible has repeatedly been incorrect about historical events, not the least of which is the age of the Earth. There is absolutely no reason to believe that is a reliable source of information, and plenty to think it suspect. My entire challenge to you was to prove me otherwise. You still have not done so. You would hate Wayne Davis. He is a reductionist who states that we always have beliefs, them being intrinsic to our being.[...] It is logical inept to say that one does not have beliefs. Why would I hate Wayne Davis? For starters, there is no rational reason for me to hate him just because he says something with which I might disagree. Further, from what I have read of his work in other areas I do not find all of his ideas objectionable. Additionally, much of his work is linguistic and self-professedly semantic and there is a thus a fair probability that Davis and I are using belief in a different context and/or with a different meaning. Finally, given your reliance on the Bible as a source you will pardon my skepticism of your simplistic interpretation of Wayne Davis as entirely accurate. How about you actually quote and cite your asserted representation of his views on belief so that I don't have to wade through every thing he has ever written in order to address his (purported) point. It is not at all illogical or inept to assert that I have no beliefs. A belief is not something which I consider myself to have, and nor has anyone demonstrated to me that I have any beliefs with which I am unaware of possessing. Even if I did have beliefs, I would not place any value in them and would discard them the moment they were revealed to me. They have no utility and they cloud judgement, which was my actual point. My perspective is that belief has no value; yours is that belief has the ultimate value and that evidence to the contrary can and even should be ignored. This was a direct response to your attack on my integrity. You elected to dally in the semantics of belief rather than address the actual point being made. Try again. When did I say that you were a hypocrite? Either way, you were implicating my intellectual integrity without a valid reason or clear articulation as to why. You now claim that this accusation/imperative was due to my basing my argumentation upon the Bible while simultaneously decrying its unreliability. At no point ever have I based my argument upon the Bible. Give me one single instance where I said something was true because the Bible said so. I never have. Side: Yes because...
There is no proof at all in The Antichrist that Neitzsche cited the Bible to back his claim. And what sources did he use? Because the sources that do claim Jesus to have gone to the cross, outside of the Bible, generally claim radical things about Him, namely that He did miracles, or, as you said, was a trouble maker. However, the Bible claims that He was a trouble maker. So to claim anything outside of the notion of Him being a trouble maker, which is to what the sources overall say, is grounded in belief. Moreover, his entire argument of "the proof of which is the inscription which was put upon the cross" is entirely incorrect. There is no basis to argue for Neitzsche's position from that inscription, that Jesus was a political offender, making Him go to the cross, in the sense to which he is using it. In fact, it argues the very reverse, historically. The inscription read that Jesus was King of the Jews. If anything, this suggests that He claimed, or was widely believed, to be the Messiah, the long awaited Jewish King, who was supposed by the Jewish people to rule on earth, physically during this life time. Rome was always trying to show their dominance over the Jews. So, for them to kill their long awaited Jewish King would be a political tool, yes. However, the issue was that the Old Testament makes it very clear that the Messiah would take away the sins of the world, by dying, though the Jewish people did not realize it. Hence, because there is no reason for the apostles to have gone with the story of Jesus dying on the cross for sins, when the Jewish people did not believe it was so, shows that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah to do this very same thing, making him known to Rome, making Him a potential enemy to Rome, which is why Pilate made the inscription, to ensure the recognition of Rome's power over the people of the time. But it doesn't just stop there, the Jewish leaders are recorded to have hated Jesus too, since He claimed to be things that were "blasphemous," which suggests that the notion of Jesus claiming to be God was true. So, to wrap it up, historically, the inscription argues in favor of Jesus going to the cross for the sins of the world: mainly because the "King of the Jews" was represented by the notion of the Messiah, who Jesus claimed to be and the apostles claimed Him to be, saying that He would take away the sins of the world, the long standing Old Testament prophesy of the Messiah, in a time in which this belief was not prevalent. Hence, Jesus most likely, from a historical basis, went to the cross with a belief that He would be dying for the sins of the world. The Bible has repeatedly been incorrect about historical events, not the least of which is the age of the Earth. It hasn't though... How about you actually quote and cite your asserted representation of his views on belief so that I don't have to wade through every thing he has ever written in order to address his (purported) point. "A Theory of Happiness" They have no utility and they cloud judgement, which was my actual point. And everyone is biased, in every platform of life, which one might recognize as a subconscious belief, or a disposed belief. Either way, you were implicating my intellectual integrity without a valid reason or clear articulation as to why. You now claim that this accusation/imperative was due to my basing my argumentation upon the Bible while simultaneously decrying its unreliability. At no point ever have I based my argument upon the Bible. Give me one single instance where I said something was true because the Bible said so. I never have. Outside of the Gospels, there is little written about the life of Jesus. Outside of the Bible, there are few retained works bout Jesus' death on the cross. The only way one could argue anything against Jesus going to the cross to save the world from sin is to pick and choose historical references, which is just as bad as picking and choosing what you want from the Bible. So you can either say that you are logically deceptive from a historical standpoint, or from a Biblical standpoint. Pick the poison. Side: No because...
Because the sources that do claim Jesus to have gone to the cross, outside of the Bible, generally claim radical things about Him, namely that He did miracles [...] There are multiple extra-Biblical and secular historical accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. Not the least of these is Annals by Tacitus, a Roman statesman widely regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Seutonius, Thallus, and Pliny also wrote non-religious factual accounts of the crucifixion. The late 19th century, in which Nietzsche wrote, was characterized by a proliferation of Enlightenment publications which drew upon these historical accounts. Nietzsche was not advancing a Biblical argument at all. Rather he drew a logical extension from the historical facts that the Bible is an unsubstantiated exaggeration of the historical crucifixion. So, to wrap it up, historically, the inscription argues in favor of Jesus going to the cross for the sins of the world: mainly because the "King of the Jews" was represented by the notion of the Messiah [...]. That is not a historical summary, it is a religious summary. Your argument is contingent upon the veracity of the messianic assertion, the only proof of which is the Bible. You are using the Bible to prove it's own legitimacy which does not work. Quite simply, the only historical facts stand thus: Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews, a claim rejected by both Rome and the Jewish people. This was an illegitimate claim to authority and power, for which he was put to death by standard legal penalty of crucifixion. It hasn't [been historically incorrect] though... Age of the Earth as calculated through genealogical accounts from Genesis consistently conclude that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This is directly contradicted by scientific evidence. There is no Biblical basis for deriving an accurately aged Earth. Flatness of the Earth is documented by multiple statements in the Bible that would not be possible with a round earth (e.g. the devil showing Jesus the entire world from atop a tall mountain). I could go on, but so many have already done so that I hardly feel the need to become redundant. The simple fact is that the Bible is not widely regarded among historical professionals as a reliable source. "A Theory of Happiness" His argument is not that belief is an intrinsic attribute, but that it is one of three potential variables affecting the human relationship to and experience of happiness. If anything, his conceptualization of belief is an assumption asserted to support his broader argument. And everyone is biased, in every platform of life, which one might recognize as a subconscious belief, or a disposed belief. I will repeat myself. My express point is that whether or not belief is an inherent attribute to the human mind, belief remains innately lacking in relative utility to truth and even the lack of knowledge. Belief is problematically fallacious, and has no value in critical thought and the pursuit of objective truth. Outside of the Gospels, there is little written about the life of Jesus. [...] Pick the poison. As observed above, this is incorrect. There are multiple secular, historical accounts that concur upon the very basic facts that Jesus was a person who existed and who was crucified by the Roman government for a political crime. The fallacy occurs in attempting to extend an assertion beyond these facts, which is precisely what the Bible does with its claims of divinity and messianic resurrection. Flagging this omission of proof does not become a contradiction to my integrity because I am not asserting anything beyond the facts. Side: Yes because...
So just because some people are not worshipping him they get sent to hell for eternal torture? That us the most egotistical thing I have ever heard. I'm going to ask a question I asked someone else, Does an atheist doctor who has no criminal record and not broken the law once and has saved lives multiple times, even Christian lives, deserve to go to hell to be eternally tortured? If so please explain to me why. Side: Yes because...
So just because some people are not worshipping him they get sent to hell for eternal torture? That us the most egotistical thing I have ever heard. They are sent to hell because they have sinned. They are not saved because they are non-believing. Does an atheist doctor who has no criminal record and not broken the law once and has saved lives multiple times, even Christian lives, deserve to go to hell to be eternally tortured? If so please explain to me why. No one has not sinned. Side: No because...
Back to this question I asked, what if this doctor had saved your life or one of your dear loved ones life? Would you still think he deserves hell just because he doesn't believe? Of course. If we are to do good ubiquitously and continually, then it follows that if we do not do "good" even one time, then we cannot make up for that loss. We have to be perfect to go to heaven, to be in the presence of the Almighty and perfect God. So simply because he saved my loved one's life, if he has sinned even once, then he must be put to death. Side: No because...
That is a massive over punishment, whether a sin is minor or major none deserve an eternity being tortured that is just cruel and even that word is an understatement. Death is eternal. Once one is dead, there is no coming back, unless God resurrects them (this is in the spiritual sense). So, if the punishment for sin is death, spiritually, then it follows that the punishment is eternal. There is no issue here. Side: No because...
How is death too harsh? And this is where we clearly show that this is very much so justice: If justice is getting what is fair, then a murderer's justice is to be put to death, in human affairs. Death is eternal, which means that this murderer gets an eternal punishment. Hence, death is not too harsh. However, when looking at it in an absolute, transcendent, and divine outlook, not only does murder necessitate death, but so too does any one sin, since it murderers oneself spiritually, in a certain sense. Hence, justice necessarily makes it such that hell, which is eternal, is the appropriate punishment for sin. Hence, it is in no way unjust, nor harsh. Side: No because...
Wow.... are you serious? This entire time you are arguing for fairness. Now you are saying that fairness is a bad thing. Do you not see the hypocrisy here? You are a hypocrite, logically inept (i.e. being incapable of understanding how logically inconsistent you are being), you just hate God and all that He stands for, meaning that you will argue simply for the sake of arguing when it comes to things about Him, or you are a troll. Get out. Side: No because...
This entire time you are arguing for fairness. facepalm I was not arguing for your philosophy, I was merely going along with it for a while to show you how illogical you position is. I assumed you knew that. TL:DR, I was basically doing "if you're right, then why does..." logically inept (i.e. being incapable of understanding how logically inconsistent you are being) Of course I understand how logically incosistent was. I was being logically inconsistent on purpose as described above so I could show you what was wrong with your philosophy. The fact that you are unfamiliar with this tactic, the fact that it took this long to even realize this, and the fact that you STILL didn't realize that this was on purpose, really shows that you barely bothered to analyze anything I said. you just hate God and all that He stands for I don't hate God, I dislike your personal interpretation of him, and attempted to explain why I think your interpretation is wrong. And I do not hate all he stands, there are many different Gods and even more different interpretations of them. To say I hate him would be VERY big statement. "meaning that you will argue simply for the sake of arguing when it comes to things about Him" I was arguing about God because THAT'S WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT. Side: Yes because...
I posted a dispute for your argument, I'm not sure if you red it tho. Here the link just in case: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: Yes because...
He made us imperfect and judges us by impossible standards, all by his design. His standards are righteous, but easy to obtain: Christ has fulfilled them for us. These thing are beyond our control, yet, somehow, it's our fault! Murderers, thieves, sexually immoral, etc. are still these things, regardless of them being out of their control. It is good that they are destroyed. Side: No because...
His standards are righteous, but easy to obtain: Christ has fulfilled them for us. What about before Christ was born? Murderers, thieves, sexually immoral, etc. are still these things, regardless of them being out of their control. It is good that they are destroyed. Yes, they are. But that does not make it fair. They are not given a choice, and are punished for that. THEY ONLY DID WHAT GOD MADE THEM DO! God makes a man an atheist by placing him in certain circumstances that will cause him to become an atheist, then the man is punished for choosing death BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED TO DO SO! This is not fair, this is not justice, and if your God creates people with feelings and thoughts just so they can be destroyed, then your God is not loving. "But God IS loving, everything about him is loving, everything he does is loving" Then let's think back to this: If God told you to torture a three year old, SOLELY because they disagreed on a favorite color, would you do it? Side: Yes because...
What about before Christ was born? Christ's life and death applied to those before His life as well. Yes, they are. But that does not make it fair. They are not given a choice, and are punished for that. THEY ONLY DID WHAT GOD MADE THEM DO! God makes a man an atheist by placing him in certain circumstances that will cause him to become an atheist, then the man is punished for choosing death BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED TO DO SO! How is it not fair? Does fairness necessitate choice? Everyone is born into a state of utter sin, and unbelief. This is human nature. This is not fair, this is not justice, and if your God creates people with feelings and thoughts just so they can be destroyed, then your God is not loving. God creates everything for a purpose, including the wicked for the day of destruction; however, that does not infer that God is unloving, nor unjust, nor unfair. "But God IS loving, everything about him is loving, everything he does is loving" this is true. Then let's think back to this: If God told you to torture a three year old, SOLELY because they disagreed on a favorite color, would you do it? If God told me to do it, then yes, I would. Side: No because...
What about the people who didn't/haven't heard the words of Jesus, people to whom missionaries and evangilising travellers weren't able to reach. Everyone who lived between the time Jesus died, and the time the bible and the word became widely available to the people at any given time; including the probably millions if not hundreds of millions of people alive today that simply have never been exposed to or read the Bible, and are not compelled to do so because of their upbringing. What about the (fairly) recently discovered tribes in the Amazon to whom there have been no outside human interference, including any worldwide established religion? If God is about Justice and Fairness, condeming billions upon billions to either a) permanent death or b) Eternal torture (depending on which flavor of christianity) because they made the wrong choice, is only valid AND just if the choice is unambiguous, clear and unbiased. Side: Yes because...
What about the people who didn't/haven't heard the words of Jesus, people to whom missionaries and evangilising travellers weren't able to reach. Everyone who lived between the time Jesus died, and the time the bible and the word became widely available to the people at any given time; including the probably millions if not hundreds of millions of people alive today that simply have never been exposed to or read the Bible, and are not compelled to do so because of their upbringing. What about them? God did not rescue them from their sin. God doesn't owe them salvation. What about the (fairly) recently discovered tribes in the Amazon to whom there have been no outside human interference, including any worldwide established religion? Same If God is about Justice and Fairness, condeming billions upon billions to either a) permanent death or b) Eternal torture (depending on which flavor of christianity) because they made the wrong choice, is only valid AND just if the choice is unambiguous, clear and unbiased. If God is about Justice and Fairness, then He didn't have to save anyone. You are still fundamentally misunderstanding the issue here. They have sinned. God could save them; God could not save them. If God destroyed them, then He would be every bit just in doing so. If God saved them by the death of Christ, then He would be every bit just in doing so. He doesn't owe us anything; He doesn't owe us salvation, since we have messed up. But if we were to be saved, then praise the Lord! Side: No because...
It seems, although you are not saying this explicitly, that you are arguing that it isn't harsh NOT because there is an explainable justification of the actions; but you are fundamentally using a different definition of the word "harsh" than any human would view OR accept today. What about them? God did not rescue them from their sin. God doesn't owe them salvation. Creating someone, giving them a set of rules that are physically impossible to stick to, and then torture them eternally on the grounds that they break them; and the creator did not chose to SAVE them. Is unjust, unfair and harsh in any way you can think about it. As God CAN cause them to be saved, or given them the opportunity to be saved them but doesn't, he is essentially creating these humans soley that they can be tortured. For a loving, Just and reasonable God: Why create them at all? Fundamentally, if there was a human justice system where EVERYONE was automatically guilty of something, and the punishment was automatic death at best, and years and years of torture then death at worst; with the only way of getting out of the punishment was to either unquestionably accept the dear leader as the one true leader and never do anything against him (but then only if the dear leader actually deigns you worthy of his mercy) would be worse than the most obscene, unjust and horror filled dystopia one could ever imagine: Yet you seem to be laboring under the impression that this is somehow "fine, and perfectly fair". This is harsh, it was harsh and will continue to be harsh, regardless of whether it is Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, another human or God conducting it. To provide an explanation of why God is automatically exempted from the same moral laws and standards we judge each other by, that was allegedly given to us by him, and was even used by Jesus to help future followers to discern who was divinely inspired and who was not (By their fruits you will know them) requires a significantly more compelling argument than what you have provided here, which essentially boils down to: "Because he is." Side: Yes because...
It seems, although you are not saying this explicitly, that you are arguing that it isn't harsh NOT because there is an explainable justification of the actions; but you are fundamentally using a different definition of the word "harsh" than any human would view OR accept today. How so? Creating someone, giving them a set of rules that are physically impossible to stick to, and then torture them eternally on the grounds that they break them; and the creator did not chose to SAVE them. Is unjust, unfair and harsh in any way you can think about it. How is it unjust? As God CAN cause them to be saved, or given them the opportunity to be saved them but doesn't, he is essentially creating these humans soley that they can be tortured. For a loving, Just and reasonable God: Why create them at all? They are the children of Satan. He is destroying them. Fundamentally, if there was a human justice system where EVERYONE was automatically guilty of something, and the punishment was automatic death at best, and years and years of torture then death at worst; with the only way of getting out of the punishment was to either unquestionably accept the dear leader as the one true leader and never do anything against him (but then only if the dear leader actually deigns you worthy of his mercy) would be worse than the most obscene, unjust and horror filled dystopia one could ever imagine: Yet you seem to be laboring under the impression that this is somehow "fine, and perfectly fair". I don't think you are understanding. Death is the punishment. And death is eternal. You can stop torture. But death is that of eternity that cannot be stopped, unless God makes them alive again. Do you have a problem with the death penalty? Because that is the only way you can logically conclude that God is unjust: to say that death is cruel or harsh. This is harsh, it was harsh and will continue to be harsh, regardless of whether it is Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, another human or God conducting it. Not at all. So to sum up, you simply aren't understanding what the situation even is. You keep coming back to the same arguments, and I keep answering them. Death is the penalty for sin. Death is eternal. Until you can understand that concept, then we are done here. Side: No because...
How so? For the reasons I pointed out below. How is it unjust? Because those that are punished and those who are not are chosen not determined of their actions, intentions, inherent choices, consequences of those actions or inherent accountability for those actions but simply because God wants to. Interestinglly, by your own arguments what people do and how they act are simply irrelevant to their punishment. Everyone is equally guilty, those that murder and rape do not get any worse, or any better treatment than someone who may, at worse, have slightly impure thoughts about his babysitter. Considering that Justice can be described as: acting in a way based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Fairness can be defined as treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.; it can simply stated that people are NOT being treated equally or proportionally and as demonstrated it is obvious by our own moral determination that it is neither right nor fair. All Justice and all fairness in regards of crime and punishment ALWAYS gravitates around the gravity of the crime trying to match the gravity of the punishment. Which is simply removed from your theology. Hitler, were he to repent seconds before he killed himself would be saved, and Mother Teresa, were she not to really truly believe in the right God would go to hell. This is not equal, or proportional treatment to ones deads, it is both unfair AND unjust in any human measure of the term. This begs the question how on earth could a being creates creatures and saving them arbitrarily; and condemning the others on no other grounds that "God did not chose to reveal himself?" Given all the examples here, it is so fundamentally obvious that by any measure humans can use it is both unfair AND unjust; it should be down to you that prove such a horrible, unjust and despicable if not pscyhopathic behaviour can in any way be considered just or reasonable in human terms: Especially considering that if God exists, he is the source of the very morals I am using here to judge him. They are the children of Satan. He is destroying them. According to the bible; Humans are children of God; made in his own image, filled with original Sin based on the temptation of Eve. Do you have a problem with the death penalty? Because that is the only way you can logically conclude that God is unjust: to say that death is cruel or harsh. I have a problem with a Death penalty that is applied to EVERYONE asside from the ones that the leader of the country decides to save; not because of their actions or their crimes, but whether the leader feels the urge to save them. Unless you feel it is completely fair for human dictators to simply kill whomever they like; I am certain that this is the way you feel as well; but somehow absolve God of the same moral burden. Side: Yes because...
1
point
Interestinglly, by your own arguments what people do and how they act are simply irrelevant to their punishment. Everyone is equally guilty, those that murder and rape do not get any worse, or any better treatment than someone who may, at worse, have slightly impure thoughts about his babysitter. All of these things deserve death. That does not infer that they are equal in sinfulness. All Justice and all fairness in regards of crime and punishment ALWAYS gravitates around the gravity of the crime trying to match the gravity of the punishment. Which is simply removed from your theology. Hitler, were he to repent seconds before he killed himself would be saved, and Mother Teresa, were she not to really truly believe in the right God would go to hell. This is not equal, or proportional treatment to ones deads, it is both unfair AND unjust in any human measure of the term. Not at all. Christ died for the sins of those who cling to Him. And those who do not, they die. this is completely and utterly just and fair. This begs the question how on earth could a being creates creatures and saving them arbitrarily; and condemning the others on no other grounds that "God did not chose to reveal himself?" Raises the question not begs the question. I've already told you. You don't seem to understand this yet: they deserve death from their sin. Stop. And remember this. You keep coming back to points that I never make. Given all the examples here, it is so fundamentally obvious that by any measure humans can use it is both unfair AND unjust; it should be down to you that prove such a horrible, unjust and despicable if not pscyhopathic behaviour can in any way be considered just or reasonable in human terms: Especially considering that if God exists, he is the source of the very morals I am using here to judge him. It is actually the very reverse. It is very much so fair and just. According to the bible; Humans are children of God; made in his own image, filled with original Sin based on the temptation of Eve. No they aren't. Sorry. But you need to read Genesis 3. The Bible makes it very clear that God's elect are His children. I have a problem with a Death penalty that is applied to EVERYONE asside from the ones that the leader of the country decides to save; not because of their actions or their crimes, but whether the leader feels the urge to save them. The leader of the country, in the Biblical sense, has already paid the penalty for their crimes. He is, in effect, paid the speeding ticket for the person who has sped. Thus, from this logic, it appears as if you don't have a problem with the Biblical justice system. So, you can either say that the Bible is just, or simply disregard logic. Unless you feel it is completely fair for human dictators to simply kill whomever they like; I am certain that this is the way you feel as well; but somehow absolve God of the same moral burden. The dictator does not kill everyone he wants to kill. He kills everyone who is guilty. Jesus takes the guilt of those whom God has chosen. Hence, they are not guilty. You have yet to understand even the basis of my argument. I've told it multiple times. God does not owe us anything. We have sinned and we deserve to die. He would be utterly just for killing us all right here and now. But He has mercy, and He has eternal mercy on those who have believed in Him, because they are seen as non-guilty, since Jesus has taken their sins from them. Understand this. You keep coming back to the same points, disregarding everything that I have said. Are you trolling or do you seriously not understand? Side: No because...
All of these things deserve death. That does not infer that they are equal in sinfulness. All these things are irrelevant. All one needs to do cling to Christ. Sin is irrelevant. Not at all. Christ died for the sins of those who cling to Him. And those who do not, they die. this is completely and utterly just and fair. But the people who can't cling to him because they don't know him because they have never been introduced. Like the aboriginies in africa after Jesus died. This is very much not fair, as they are not punished for not making a decision that they could not make due to geographic separation. aises the question not begs the question. I've already told you. You don't seem to understand this yet: they deserve death from their sin. Stop. And remember this. You keep coming back to points that I never make. Sin is irrelevant. Sin has 0 bearing on whether one is punished or not. This is based on your argument not mine. It is actually the very reverse. It is very much so fair and just. Demonstrate it then. No they aren't. Sorry. But you need to read Genesis 3. The Bible makes it very clear that God's elect are His children. It only actually says anything that you say here if you add words to it. The leader of the country, in the Biblical sense, has already paid the penalty for their crimes. He is, in effect, paid the speeding ticket for the person who has sped. Thus, from this logic, it appears as if you don't have a problem with the Biblical justice system. So, you can either say that the Bible is just, or simply disregard logic. I'm trying to this out. I beleive you're saying that saving someone from punishment gives you the right to inflict the same punishment on them whenever you want; which is a bit incoherent. Because If I "save" you from being tortured and killed, and then torture and kill you. Moreover, considering the person who is paying the penalty is the one who is actually applying the penality in the first place, it makes it even less coherent and a touch Schizophrenic: Because I have condemned you, then saved you from my condemnation, I can now freely condemn you guilt free. The dictator does not kill everyone he wants to kill. He kills everyone who is guilty. Only because he fugdes the rules that makes EVERYONE guilty. This is neither fair, NOR just for the reasons I have stated throughout this that you are trying to contend not because the crimes are actually demonstrably severe, but there is a logical way for you to excuse God. Jesus takes the guilt of those whom God has chosen. Hence, they are not guilty. So God says someone is guilty, then decides to save them, but they're still guilty unless they accept that God has saved them; which requires them to know about Jesus, which people who were died on the other side of the planet from Jesus before word spread are condemned because of Geography. I know exactly what you're arguing, but you are not actually addressing the fundamental point of fairness. I know your argument that is that we are all guilty, and that we need to be saved through Jesus, this is pretty much evidence. But at no point (other than the weird incoherent point about it being fair that God punish such people because he saved them from him punishing them but they don't accept them because they had no way of telling) Side: Yes because...
All these things are irrelevant. All one needs to do cling to Christ. Sin is irrelevant. Not at all. Jesus died to alleviate us of sin. But the people who can't cling to him because they don't know him because they have never been introduced. Like the aboriginies in africa after Jesus died. This is very much not fair, as they are not punished for not making a decision that they could not make due to geographic separation. They have still sinned. Sin is irrelevant. Sin has 0 bearing on whether one is punished or not. This is based on your argument not mine. Sin has everything to do with whether on is punished. Whether one gets out of the punishment is whether Christ died in their punishment. I'm trying to this out. I beleive you're saying that saving someone from punishment gives you the right to inflict the same punishment on them whenever you want; which is a bit incoherent. Because If I "save" you from being tortured and killed, and then torture and kill you. How have I said this at all? Moreover, considering the person who is paying the penalty is the one who is actually applying the penality in the first place, it makes it even less coherent and a touch Schizophrenic: Because I have condemned you, then saved you from my condemnation, I can now freely condemn you guilt free. Can a judge not pay for someone's speeding ticket? Only because he fugdes the rules that makes EVERYONE guilty. This is neither fair, NOR just for the reasons I have stated throughout this that you are trying to contend not because the crimes are actually demonstrably severe, but there is a logical way for you to excuse God. Except everyone is guilty. I know exactly what you're arguing, but you are not actually addressing the fundamental point of fairness. No you don't, actually. You have yet to even state what I have said, let alone argue against it. You keep coming back to the same points. I know your argument that is that we are all guilty, and that we need to be saved through Jesus, this is pretty much evidence. But at no point (other than the weird incoherent point about it being fair that God punish such people because he saved them from him punishing them but they don't accept them because they had no way of telling) And this proves that you don't even understand what I have been saying. You are a troll. I'm ignoring you now. Side: No because...
1
point
Not at all. Jesus died to alleviate us of sin. In order to make sin irrelevant right? ... He sacrifices himself... to himself, and all we have to do is worship him to be saved regardless of whether or not we ever sinned... They have still sinned. Yes and so has everyone else, the difference is, almost everyone else has a chance of being saved by sin, but those people don't even deserve a chance? They all have sinned, and to you every sin is equal ergo everyone is equal, so why do some people not even get a chance to be saved while others are practically born in that very same choice of being saved if everyone is equal? Can a judge not pay for someone's speeding ticket? If god wanted to pay our debts that he gave us, why give us debts at all especially since he is all knowing and thus knew would be saved and punished, hell why create the people he was going to end up punishing at all? Except everyone is guilty. God created us knowing we would become guilty... Why not just create people who wouldn't make the same decisions? And this proves that you don't even understand what I have been saying. You are a troll. I'm ignoring you now. Interesting what makes him a troll? let me gues, because he doesn't understand your argument, right? Side: Yes because...
1
point
In order to make sin irrelevant right? ... He sacrifices himself... to himself, and all we have to do is worship him to be saved regardless of whether or not we ever sinned... We are made sinless, with Christ having taken our sin from us. Yes and so has everyone else, the difference is, almost everyone else has a chance of being saved by sin, but those people don't even deserve a chance? They all have sinned, and to you every sin is equal ergo everyone is equal, so why do some people not even get a chance to be saved while others are practically born in that very same choice of being saved if everyone is equal? No one deserves a chance. God is simply choosing from a batch of criminals whom He wants to save. If god wanted to pay our debts that he gave us, why give us debts at all especially since he is all knowing and thus knew would be saved and punished, hell why create the people he was going to end up punishing at all? Theologians will say that God did it for a greater good. What I think is that God is showing His elect that they need God, and they are shown through these things His mercy and grace. God created us knowing we would become guilty... Why not just create people who wouldn't make the same decisions? That is what the end goal is. But right now He is working to show us His greatness, so that we love and honor Him as God. Interesting what makes him a troll? let me gues, because he doesn't understand your argument, right? He keeps coming back to the same arguments, even though I have answered them. He is ignorant of what I am saying, incapable of understanding what I am saying, or intentionally trying to stir up strife (i.e. be a troll). I have repeated what I have said multiple times so it seems as if the first thing is not it. He responds to the points, which seems to suggest that he is not the second. The last one makes the most sense. Side: No because...
1
point
We are made sinless, with Christ having taken our sin from us. First of all how are we made sinless, if we are only released of the burden of sin, once converting to Christianity. We aren't born Christians after all. Your god doesn't care about sin anymore, your god only cares about who believes or doesn't believe. God sacrificed himself to himself to make sin irrelevant. No one deserves a chance. God is simply choosing from a batch of criminals whom He wants to save. so why does anyone get any chance at all? Why couldn't god given nobody a chance or at least gave everyone the same chance? Even if you were to argue that nobody deserves a chance (which I would be willing to challenge), some people are given this undeserved chance while others aren't, if god is omnipotent why would he have favoritism like this? Theologians will say that God did it for a greater good. What I think is that God is showing His elect that they need God, and they are shown through these things His mercy and grace. You mean putting human beings in a situation where they need god rather than making people incapable of sin. That is what the end goal is. But right now He is working to show us His greatness, so that we love and honor Him as God. You would think for an omnipotent being, it would have been able to get it right the first time... He keeps coming back to the same arguments, even though I have answered them. He is ignorant of what I am saying, incapable of understanding what I am saying, or intentionally trying to stir up strife (i.e. be a troll). I have repeated what I have said multiple times so it seems as if the first thing is not it. He responds to the points, which seems to suggest that he is not the second. The last one makes the most sense. Do you think perhaps he may have the same perception of you? I am pretty sure he wasn't TRYING to troll you, but you just felt trolled. Side: Yes because...
First of all how are we made sinless, if we are only released of the burden of sin, once converting to Christianity. We aren't born Christians after all. Your god doesn't care about sin anymore, your god only cares about who believes or doesn't believe. God sacrificed himself to himself to make sin irrelevant. He sacrificed Himself as the propitiation for our sins. Sins is still very much so in the forefront. We are taken out of sin when we believe; but while in sin, we are punished for our sins. so why does anyone get any chance at all? Why couldn't god given nobody a chance or at least gave everyone the same chance? Even if you were to argue that nobody deserves a chance (which I would be willing to challenge), some people are given this undeserved chance while others aren't, if god is omnipotent why would he have favoritism like this? He is rich in love and mercy, desiring to display all of His characteristics. You mean putting human beings in a situation where they need god rather than making people incapable of sin. We do need God. God is the maker and giver and sustainer of life. We do not exist without Him, not solely in our origins but also in our day to day lives. God is simply waiving it in front of us so that we understand and accept out inability. This was the same case in the Garden of Eden, when it was not good for Adam to be alone. He waived this need in front of Adam, then fulfilled the need. He did this to show Adam his need, to make him appreciate and love Eve, and God, more so. You would think for an omnipotent being, it would have been able to get it right the first time... He did get it right the first time. He has a purpose in it. Do you think perhaps he may have the same perception of you? I am pretty sure he wasn't TRYING to troll you, but you just felt trolled. Pretty sure he was trolling. If not, then he was incapable of understanding the argument anyways, making the discussion pointless from here on out. Side: No because...
1
point
He sacrificed Himself as the propitiation for our sins. Sins is still very much so in the forefront. We are taken out of sin when we believe; but while in sin, we are punished for our sins. Which makes sin irrelevant, or rather at least pointless, it becomes not at all about the sin anymore, and rather about believing or not. Also how does believing free us of our sin anyway? How does believing in the Christian god nullify our sin? Anyways, having everyone to have sinned, then have them save themselves only by believing in him regardless of whatever sin people have, makes sin completely irrelevant. I could go out of my way, and be as sinful as I can possibly be, then repent and go to heaven, while someone who has tried to avoid being sinful as much as they could, and never converted to christianity goes to hell. It doesn't matter what your sins are, how much you have sinned, your sins are irrelevant at this point in time, it is about whether or not you believe. I mean he might as well never made sin, created us, and only gave a shit about whether or not we believed in him. He is rich in love and mercy, desiring to display all of His characteristics. Well apparently fairness isn't one of his characteristics... We do need God. God is the maker and giver and sustainer of life. We do not exist without Him, not solely in our origins but also in our day to day lives. God is simply waiving it in front of us so that we understand and accept out inability. This was the same case in the Garden of Eden, when it was not good for Adam to be alone. He waived this need in front of Adam, then fulfilled the need. He did this to show Adam his need, to make him appreciate and love Eve, and God, more so. Why? It seems awfully a dick move and arrogant to create a living thing, and then flaunt it in it's face that its existence is only because of you, by putting it in a shitty situation where it needs your assistance in order to not burn for all eternity. Secondly why couldn't god created people whom would come to understand this naturally without any interaction? Why not create Adam to have been naturally appreciative of Eve and God, more so? He did get it right the first time. He has a purpose in it. You seem to imply that he didn't I asked why create people whom wouldn't end up becoming guilty later, and you said he was in the process of all that but he needed to show us kindness... this implies that god tried to make us incapable of sin, failed and is trying teach us not to be sinful. Doesn't sound like an omnipotent god to me. Side: Yes because...
Which makes sin irrelevant, or rather at least pointless, it becomes not at all about the sin anymore, and rather about believing or not. The being saved is that which is about belief. But that which is behind the reason for belief is sin. So sin is still very much so the point. Also how does believing free us of our sin anyway? How does believing in the Christian god nullify our sin? Faith is simply the avenue through which an elect travels. Those who have faith are those who will be saved, at the judgement seat. So, even in Biblical terms, faith isn't even that much of an issue. Faith is simply the outward display of having been saved, at that time period. Christ died for His elect, which means that His elect will believe, and sin no more. Anyways, having everyone to have sinned, then have them save themselves only by believing in him regardless of whatever sin people have, makes sin completely irrelevant. People do not save themselves. God gives them faith, and a new heart. The salvation aspect does have to do with faith, but that which is not salvation is not in belief. I could go out of my way, and be as sinful as I can possibly be, then repent and go to heaven, while someone who has tried to avoid being sinful as much as they could, and never converted to christianity goes to hell. It doesn't matter what your sins are, how much you have sinned, your sins are irrelevant at this point in time, it is about whether or not you believe. I mean he might as well never made sin, created us, and only gave a shit about whether or not we believed in him. No one does good unless a Christian. And one sin is good enough to sentence you to hell. One murder and two murders both sentence a person to death; the punishment is the same because the punishment is that which can go not further. So the sin is still very much so in the forefront. God did not create sin. Well apparently fairness isn't one of his characteristics... How is God not fair? Why? It seems awfully a dick move and arrogant to create a living thing, and then flaunt it in it's face that its existence is only because of you, by putting it in a shitty situation where it needs your assistance in order to not burn for all eternity. Secondly why couldn't god created people whom would come to understand this naturally without any interaction? Why not create Adam to have been naturally appreciative of Eve and God, more so? God showing him his need is a good thing.... one cannot appreciate X unless one understands the value of X, which comes from a need of X a lot of the time. So God shows the need, and then gives him the need. This is a good thing, especially if the need is God, since God is the thing to which all things aim. He did it this way so that He may display the opposite of the good, which is the pain and death and destruction. You seem to imply that he didn't I asked why create people whom wouldn't end up becoming guilty later, and you said he was in the process of all that but he needed to show us kindness... this implies that god tried to make us incapable of sin, failed and is trying teach us not to be sinful. Doesn't sound like an omnipotent god to me. Do not confuse revealed and divine intention. Revealed intention is that to which God wants all things to be: absolutely good and just and perfect. His divine intention, or will, is that of Him allowing the things to which He hates (e.g. sin) to exist in order for a greater good to come about. He created them perfect. But He created them with an ability to sin. Another example of this type of thought is in the death of Christ: God hated that it happened, since it was sinful to put Him to death in humanity, since He was perfect, but God used this for good. So we have a split of absolute and recognized wills. Side: No because...
1
point
The being saved is that which is about belief. But that which is behind the reason for belief is sin. So sin is still very much so the point. You could argue that sin used to be the point, however now that god has sacrificed himself to himself, it doesn't seem like he cares anymore. Like I said earlier one person can go out of their way to sin as much as they possibly could, while another has hardly sinned at all, and because the former believes but not the latter, one goes to heaven and one goes to hell. If god still cared about sin, he wouldn't be so indifferent to it anymore. Another thing that doesn't seem right about this, is how was god sacrificing himself to himself how does that obsolve us? How did god really suffer for us? he went straight heaven. He didn't suffer at all, we are going to suffer because he got paradise? Really? Faith is simply the avenue through which an elect travels. Those who have faith are those who will be saved, at the judgement seat. So, even in Biblical terms, faith isn't even that much of an issue. Faith is simply the outward display of having been saved, at that time period. But we have to believe on zero evidence that god exists and that it is the Christian god, which we have no way of knowing, what for? How about if we are actually good people, and those that actually try to do no wrong go to heaven? If god really wants people who won't sin, he doesn't need people who believe their are divine consequences, but people who wouldn't do wrong for it's own sake regardless of if there was a divine punishment and reward system. Or why doesn't god just reveal himself so good people who would have never sinned like god wants are even less likely to sin, at the very least. Christ died for His elect, which means that His elect will believe, and sin no more. How do you know that those that believe are going to stop sinning from belief. People do not save themselves. God gives them faith, and a new heart. The salvation aspect does have to do with faith, but that which is not salvation is not in belief. ok having everyone to have sinned, then they are saved by god regardless of whatever sin or how much they have sinned, makes sin completely irrelevant, or makes god indifferent to sin all of a sudden. No one does good unless a Christian. How do you come to that conclusion? And one sin is good enough to sentence you to hell. One murder and two murders both sentence a person to death; the punishment is the same because the punishment is that which can go not further. which shows that god is indifferent to sin otherwise, he wouldn't make every sin equal like that. An omnipotent being would be perfectly capable of distributing punishment appropriately so some actions are more discouraged as other actions which makes moral and just sense. The fact of the matter is, you are discouraging two murderers as much as you are discouraging one, which if god genuinely thought that one murder wasn't as bad as two murders, his punishment wouldn't be to the most extreme imaginable, rather save that at least for the worse thing a human being could possibly do. The fact that, that punishment is as great as it can possibly be, doesn't excuse why every sin is punished equally, when god could just not have the greatest possible punishment applied to every sin. The fact still remains, god must be indifferent to sin, if god would punish someone who has hardly sinned at all equally to one who has sinned as much as possible. If god wants to prevent sin, it would seem to be more efficient to punish sin to the degree of how bad the sin is. If he punishes every sin the same then sinners won't care about how little they sin because no matter how much they sin, the punishment remains the same. How is God not fair? God has created people, in a world that he created, that will never have a chance to accept him simultaneously creating people in that same world he created to be born into accepting him. Even if nobody deserves a chance it isn't fair at all to give some people that undeserved chance, while others don't get it. ESPECIALLY if nobody deserves that chance, that just makes it even less fair. God showing him his need is a good thing.... one cannot appreciate X unless one understands the value of X, which comes from a need of X a lot of the time. So God shows the need, and then gives him the need. This is a good thing, especially if the need is God, since God is the thing to which all things aim. He did it this way so that He may display the opposite of the good, which is the pain and death and destruction. what is their to appreciate someone who created you, just to put you in a shitty situation, so that you need him so that people appreciate him... that doesn't sound to be deserving of appreciation, that would be like after my parents gave birth to me, to remind me that they produced me, so that I can appreciate that they did so put me in a foster home my entire life, and then make me earn my way back into their home so that I can learn to appreciate them... If that happened to you in real life, you wouldn't think your parents to be deserving of appreciation, what makes this scenario any different? You are making your god sounds like a drunk dead beat dad... Do not confuse revealed and divine intention. Revealed intention is that to which God wants all things to be: absolutely good and just and perfect. His divine intention, or will, is that of Him allowing the things to which He hates (e.g. sin) to exist in order for a greater good to come about. He created them perfect. But He created them with an ability to sin. Another example of this type of thought is in the death of Christ: God hated that it happened, since it was sinful to put Him to death in humanity, since He was perfect, but God used this for good. So we have a split of absolute and recognized wills. How is creating sin and evil, produce a greater good? elaborate. Side: Yes because...
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
It's because you don't know even know what the experience will be like. Maybe God should have given everyone a free sample to show them what they would be getting into if they disobeyed. If the Christian God was truly all-knowing, then he would have known that there would be people that would not follow him, due to the lack of logically sound evidence. Though I am sure that the sample experience in hell would convince many more to follow. Side: Yes because...
1
point
NO '' first and foremost through out the bible god is describe as a god of love' we were created in his image (. i John 4.19 )..'' AS FOR US WE LOVE BECAUSE HE (GOD ) FIRST LOVED US." his love is shown to us by what he has created for us. this beautiful earth the things we enjoy the variety of foods we can eat , the sunshine ,the rain,and on and on. that is love not hate.. the idea of a caring loving god doing such an evil ,mean things is unimaginable''..god give us all opportunities to correct that which is wrong and make it right. when we sin '' he provides us with the assurance that if we only follow the inspired word the bible there is hope for all imperfect humans. Jehovah does not desire that anyone be destroyed, that is and has always been the job of Satan the devil. Jehovah god desires us all to build a personal relation with him'' through heart felt prayers'' (Matthew chapter 6 verse 9'' he invites us to get to know him by name''(palms 83 verse 18 '' ( that people may know that you whose name is JEHOVAH you alone are the most high over all the earth'' ..the hell fire doctrine is not scriptural it is of pagan roots, used as a scare tactic that still hasn't work. hell is the common grave'(' Ecclesiastes 9; 5,6) as for the dead they are conscious of nothing at all. ( psalms 146 ;4)'' when a man dies his thoughts do perish'''' think about this for a moment''why would a loving god ' resurrect persons from the grave just to have them perish in fiery torment '' is this the qualities of a good god'' or characteristics of the ruler of this system Satan the devil....1 john 5;19'' the whole world is lying in the hands of the wicked one Satan'' Satan along with his tools( popular religions) and their leaders has been trying to sell this lie along with many others for many hundreds of years. if this was designed to scare people into submission it has fail miserably. .it hasn't work'' Side: No because...
|
