Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread
| 704 | 251361 |
So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!
Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!
I'm going to start the ball rolling:
We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?
Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj
- 704 Replies
@EmperorPalpatine Sure x'D You're probably making a good point, but I'm sure they can makes efforts about theirs beliefs when it come to make progress together ^^ !
God did not make us perfect because then we would be like Him. Only He will be glorified. God also created us with a free will, with the decision to disobey Him, because He wanted to create a people who loved Him because He loved them.
If we have a free will he should love us unconditionally and not punishing us to be different when it is the case, what really confuse me is the actual world, How can a punishing God could kill some child for a moquery about someone bald, and let atrocious people at the top of the world during thousands of years ? That doesn't make sense for me, what the point of killing your son and let criminal abuse of people during thousands of years ?
All of them disobeyed God. He threw away a basket full of rotten fruits. He wants perfect fruits.
There always a better solution from a rotten basket as just throwing it to hell x'D,
Instead you can use their talents to doing good things, all people can be useful for something even the worse, bad people are often bad because they suffered a lot, trying to understand why could be a better idea from God to simply wipe them in my opinion.
Also, if you are just, you won't let any crime go unpunished.
Wiping and unpunishing isn't the same thing, if someone make a crime they are plenty ways for him to be judged, people need to learn from their errors, if you hit someone because he's doing bad thing he will not understand anything and he will surely re do that one times even worse than previous time. kill someone even from being just, doesn't make you just at all because if you do that you're just a killer too and you're not better than the first killer.
When you are saved, you are believing that Jesus died for your sins and that all the punishment that was meant for you went to Him. He gives us plenty of chances everyday to trust in Him considering that we aren't dead
I don't like the idea of deresponsabilize us, and just give all our crap to a poor guy saying he suffered for us we can do what we want and just say I'm sorry I believe in you x'D)
When I worship, I'm not worshiping to make myself great, but to glorify someone who is already great.
You can also worship people who want to make our world better, glorifying people who have a great and useful goal
Thanks again for your time
In the article, it also says that "the King James version has done us a disservice by [translating] the term as 'children'." The same can be said for the translation that Doombreed read.
That's just the author's opinion, isn't it And I don't blame the author for trying to find a way to make it sound more acceptable. It's only human, and I might do the same if I believed in a deity as described in the Bible.
Already I can tell you that we are far from God's standards. So yes, I do understand why a God so seemingly unattainable is easily rejected.
I'm not subject to the "choice" of accepting or rejecting Him, since I don't believe in Him. I probably would reject Him nevertheless if I believed, though, for the reasons we're debating about
'Unattainable' doesn't even come close to the issue. He is inhuman, both in the sense that He is fundamentally not human and that He lacks any respect for humans. A perfect and loving God, I'm sure, would have found a way to punish the 42 kids while letting them live, and even try to show them their errors. Doing so would not impact their free will, so that's not an excuse. That would be humane, as expected from a God that understands and loves us. Instead, He had them all brutally mauled to death, and we're told that this is good for reasons we cannot understand? This is not unattainable, this is absurd.
Maybe it is good/just by His standards, and who are we to judge, we whose sole existence is to worship Him? But in that case, I would not consider Him loving, nor truly perfect. That would be a hard, terrifying deity whom you better worship if your existence is dear to you. This is indeed the kind of deity that the Bible is about, as far as I'm concerned.
Remember that God is all-knowing and perfectly just. Because He is omniscient, He sees from all perspectives and is able to judge perfectly. Now, I'm not saying because God is omniscient, God is perfectly just. He has the potential to judge perfectly. Nevertheless, God is righteous and fair in judgment.No, He isn't. You don't seem to understand the problem here. Perhaps I can illustrate:
Person A: Donald Trump is just what America needs. He's infinitely more honest and dependable than any other president we've ever had.
Person B: Actually, that isn't true at all. As you can see from what he said here, here, here, here and there, his plans on this, his entire platform, and virtually everything he did there.
Person A: I get what you're saying, but we must remember that Donald Trump is infinitely more honest and dependable than any other president we've ever had. He always tells it like it is.
Person C: I don't think you do get it. Nothing he says is reliable. As Person B has shown, Trump regularly contradicts himself and clearly has no idea what he's even talking about most of the time. What reason would we have to trust him?
Person A: Remember that Donald Trump is honest and dependable. He would never mislead us, because that is not in his nature. He is a reasonable and honest person ...
This, ad nauseam, is what you're doing, only with God in place of Trump.
We can all agree that we have all sinned, right?Wrong. Sin is an arbitrary and subjective construct.
To illustrate, think of your conscience. If you have done anything against your conscience, you have violated a moral law. This is a sin.No, it isn't; it's cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, this cognitive dissonance can only apply if you're trying to adhere to a moral code in the first place.
God hates sin because he is holy and righteous and just. He is morally perfect so He can't stand moral imperfection. He wants His creation to act according to his preceptive will, but we turn our backs on Him. He is just so justice will be dealt. I hope I have made myself clear.See, that's what you were supposed to verify in the first place. It cannot verify itself.
Perfection is a real concept.Just like communism, perpetual motion, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
In your definition, a perfect being does not hurt others. In fact, if that were the case, why should we, people created by God who deny God in His holiness and wage war and hate others and even just call people bad names for being ugly or stupid, deserve exemption from punishment?From His punishment, you mean? Well, it's because He is ultimately responsible for literally all of it and His ideas of "punishment" tend to be more about indiscriminately subjecting people to horrific deaths than it is about showing them the error of their ways.
And before you claim that God also does these things without reason (for example wage war), know that God will use the sin of a people to punish the sins of others. He uses our sin, our decisions, in His plan.Which only further demonstrates His cruelty.
You are only a child of God when you accept Christ as your Savior from sin and punishment. Therefore, He still has the obligation as a holy judge to punish anyone outside of the kingdom of God.That has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that you don't teach people a lesson by completely destroying them, nor can you make them better people by tormenting them for eternity with no means of redemption. That is not how punishment works.
However, since all my punishment has been payed for on that cross, I don't have to worry about punishment. Instead, God will discipline me (like a "Father" ) when I sin. The difference is that discipline is done out of love and out of hope that the receiver of discipline will grow in righteousness.Which means that eternal salvation is dependent upon nothing but credulity and circumstance, which is not just by any means.
These things aren't bad in and of themselves. Envy is a sin, but not jealousy. The difference is that envy comes from the desire to have something someone else has.And jealousy is the resentment of someone else for having something.
God is jealous because He deserves our praise.No, He doesn't. He does not warrant praise, He does not need praise, He doesn't even need to be the only object of praise, and if we accept the premise that He can do whatever He pleases and has done so since the dawn of time, He certainly doesn't need us to give Him that praise and has no valid reason to demand it of us.
Finally, God is prideful and rightfully so because He created the entire universe and He created beautiful creatures like you and me. God also has pride in His holiness, righteousness, love, compassion, mercy, and grace.None of those are valid reasons for pride. Pride is a character flaw, and one which a divine being should not have any use for. It's also a basic behavioural trait, so unless He specifically intended humans to be prideful, He shouldn't have put that in there.
Yet, Christians are called to share the gospel to those people but more importantly to love them. This is not the fault of anyone because maybe it is not in God's decretive will that some of those people are saved.It's a fault of God for making it nigh impossible for most of those people to reach salvation due to His inexplicable favouritism of another group.
All of God's wrath was poured out on Jesus during his crucifixion.Why? There is absolutely no point whatsoever. We might expect that sort of flippant caprice from the ancient Greek mythos, but Almighty God should be above such petty grievances; not controlled by them. He should not have any need to smite before He can forgive.
Having read all of what @FishPreferred wrote , i have to say im absolutely agree to all he said , if god is such a powerful being beyond our understanding why would he make humans (which he alledgely created) not to believe in him? from that point of view i can do whatever i please , since just showing little to no regret before dying he will still forgive you , so people would be free of doign their will , since it has no punish whatsover , the bad things you think of like murder and such and just moral manners people have , killing someone wont do nothing to you except sending you to jail and you will have that feeling of regret it from happening , but if God existed and he would punish evil people , then why should that person be forgiven after one prayer? why should he be credited for all the things people do like saving lives? sincerely , that way he has of thinking is beyond me
In the article, it also says that "the King James version has done us a disservice by [translating] the term as 'children'." The same can be said for the translation that Doombreed read.
Except the Septuagint was the translation of the Old testament into Koine Greek back when the New Testament was still being written. It was translated in Ancient Greek far sooner and far more times than in English. Heck, (nearly?) the entirety of the New Testament was written in Ancient Greek. I believe as such the Septuagint to be a far more accurate translation. After all, the modern translation into English probably came from Greek and not from Ancient Hebrew, at least in some sites.
Even if the actual term used was the equivalent of the word 'guys' or 'young men', the behavior described befits children far more than teenagers or young adults/nearly adults.
Just like communism, perpetual motion, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The only thing you have proved by this is that we can't achieve perfection. Try to be open to the fact that an absolute and flawless God can achieve anything.
There are few places where I hope to fix my mistakes that you pointed out:
None of those are valid reasons for pride. Pride is a character flaw, and one which a divine being should not have any use for. It's also a basic behavioural trait, so unless He specifically intended humans to be prideful, He shouldn't have put that in there.
God isn't prideful but He is definitely worthy of our praise.
And jealousy is the resentment of someone else for having something.
Let us use this definition of jealousy to differentiate God's jealousy and our own envy:
"a : intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness
b : disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness"
Merriam Webster
This, ad nauseam, is what you're doing, only with God in place of Trump.
We can trust God because of His faithfulness to His promises. I will explain in time.
From His punishment, you mean? Well, it's because He is ultimately responsible for literally all of it and His ideas of " punishment" tend to be more about indiscriminately subjecting people to horrific deaths than it is about showing them the error of their ways.
That has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that you don't teach people a lesson by completely destroying them, nor can you make them better people by tormenting them for eternity with no means of redemption. That is not how punishment works.
Why? There is absolutely no point whatsoever. We might expect that sort of flippant caprice from the ancient Greek mythos, but Almighty God should be above such petty grievances; not controlled by them. He should not have any need to smite before He can forgive.
In a perfect world, there would be no evil. In a perfectly just world, good deeds would receive merit and bad deeds would receive punishment. In other words, every action will result in an equal reaction. That being said, in order for God to be perfectly just, he must carry out punishment to those who have violated the law. You seem to confuse punishment and discipline, which I will now define for you as a reaction that is done "out of hope that the receiver of discipline will grow in righteousness," so that the guilty might not commit the same crime again.
- Punishment is done to provide justice. In God's wrath, people are punished.
- Discipline is done to "[show] the error of their ways." In God's love, people are disciplined.
Therefore, God is just for punishing people for their sin.
Wrong. Sin is an arbitrary and subjective construct.
No. Sin is:
"a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God"
Merriam Webster
Excuse me for not making this clear. But, why is denying your conscience despite there being seemingly any real violation to God's law a sin?
it's cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, this cognitive dissonance can only apply if you're trying to adhere to a moral code in the first place.
To save energy, I said in response to @Doombreed,
Even though someone doesn't violate moral law but goes against their conscience, it is still a sin because they think that it's wrong but they do it anyway.
Because conscience can only apply to your own efforts, you are held accountable.
If you are wondering why our sins are so offensive to God, you are talking about the one who made the law and enforces it. Because we are sinners, we sin and fall short of the glory of God. Note that we are not sinners because we sin. Because of our sinful nature, because of our "vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God," we are worthless to God. (Romans 3:23, 12) Our good works are considered filthy rags to God as long as sin still has a hold on our life (Isaiah 64:6).
The only thing you have proved by this is that we can't achieve perfection.Because it's an impossible combination of impossible extremes that cannot ever exist, yes.
God isn't prideful but He is definitely worthy of our praise.No, He isn't. Not in any sense of the word.
We can trust God because of His faithfulness to His promises.If we were extremely overcredulous and lacked any ability to learn from past experience, I'm sure we could. That does not, however, make Him trustworthy, just, fair, righteous, benevolent, considerate, or sane.
In a perfect world, there would be no evil. In a perfectly just world, good deeds would receive merit and bad deeds would receive punishment. In other words, every action will result in an equal reaction. That being said, in order for God to be perfectly just, he must carry out punishment to those who have violated the law.1 A perfectly just world would be devoid of bad deeds, because preventing those from happening is exactly what justice is for. There would be no violators for Him to punish.
2 Eye-for-an-eye is not justice. It's childish, vindictive, and counterproductive.
You seem to confuse punishment and discipline, which I will now define for you as a reaction that is done "out of hope that the receiver of discipline will grow in righteousness," so that the guilty might not commit the same crime again.Punishment is a form of discipline, whereas you are clearly and unequivocally confusing punishment for reprisal.
- Punishment is a means of correcting unwanted behaviour to prevent it from happening again.
- Reprisal is inflicting harm on something in retaliation for the harm that it inflicted.
Hence people cannot be punished with anything that renders them incapable of reform. Therefore, God cannot be just if He kills and ****s people instead of punishing them.
No. Sin is:Which is,
"a : transgression of the law of God
b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God"
a : arbitrary and subjective, and
b : His own doing.
Excuse me for not making this clear. But, why is denying your conscience despite there being seemingly any real violation to God's law a sin?No, because it isn't.
Because conscience can only apply to your own efforts, you are held accountable.Which has absolutely no bearing upon moral law, justice, or sin.
Because we are sinners, we sin and fall short of the glory of God. Note that we are not sinners because we sin. Because of our sinful nature, because of our "vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God," we are worthless to God.Which is God's own doing, and when the cause of something is omnipotent and omnicient, you cannot absolve them of blame for the result.
If we were extremely overcredulous and lacked any ability to learn from past experience, I'm sure we could. That does not, however, make Him trustworthy, just, fair, righteous, benevolent, considerate, or sane
Only if there was a time when He did break His promise or if He wasn't constantly revealing His character in our lives. We can trust God because He is consistent meaning we can count on Him punishing us as well as count on Him forgiving us if we come to Him in repentance.
1 A perfectly just world would be devoid of bad deeds, because preventing those from happening is exactly what justice is for. There would be no violators for Him to punish.
This is a description of a perfect world. I make this distinction because where there is law, there is justice.
2 Eye-for-an-eye is not justice. It's childish, vindictive, and counterproductive.
This is not eye-for-an-eye justice. It has the wrong connotation in my opinion. May I bring this question up? Which crime deserve a greater sentence, mugging a person in your neighborhood or doing the same actions against the President? I'm just interested where that conversation will go.
Punishment is a form of discipline, whereas you are clearly and unequivocally confusing punishment for reprisal.
Punishment is a consequence for a bad action. Would you rather me use the word "retribution" to differentiate punishment from discipline? Retribution is appropriate for our sin because we are considered worthless. Why do we deserve a second chance if we are already literally incapable of reforming to God's will?
Which has absolutely no bearing upon moral law, justice, or sin.
I made the claim that going against your conscience is open defiance because you think something is wrong, but you do it anyway.
Which is God's own doing, and when the cause of something is omnipotent and omnicient, you cannot absolve them of blame for the result.
You keep saying that it is God's own doing, but how? We separate ourselves from God when we disobey his commands.
We can trust God because He is consistent meaning we can count on Him punishing us as well as count on Him forgiving us if we come to Him in repentance.He is not consistent. He goes from capricious, intolerant, vindictive, and completely irrational to indirect, unintrusive, somewhat forgiving, and marginally less irrational over the course of the biblical canon. In modern interpretations, He can be anything from one absurd extreme to the other.
This is a description of a perfect world. I make this distinction because where there is law, there is justice.No. It's a description of "perfect justice"; something we would also reasonably expect to be true of a perfect world, but which is entirely distinct from it.
This is not eye-for-an-eye justice. It has the wrong connotation in my opinion.What you stated:
In a perfectly just world, good deeds would receive merit and bad deeds would receive punishment. In other words, every action will result in an equal reaction.
What is that if not eye-for-an-eye?
Which crime deserve a greater sentence, mugging a person in your neighborhood or doing the same actions against the President?Neither. Nor does it have any obvious relevance to the topic.
Punishment is a consequence for a bad action. Would you rather me use the word "retribution" to differentiate punishment from discipline?No, I would rather you not equivocate "punishment" to support your point. Punishment is a form of discipline.
Retribution is appropriate for our sin because we are considered worthless. Why do we deserve a second chance if we are already literally incapable of reforming to God's will?Deserving has nothing to do with this. If a person is incapable of complying it is completely irrational to exact retribution against them for not complying. Look at it this way:
Judge: Defendant, you are hereby accused of failing to complete all of the 12 Herculean tasks.
Defendant: But, your honour, I am not Hercules. There's no way I could possibly do them!
Judge: Let the records show that the defendant pleads guilty of not doing the impossible. I hereby sentence you to torture unto death for this most heinous crime.
That is in every way as just as the retribution you describe.
I made the claim that going against your conscience is open defiance because you think something is wrong, but you do it anyway.Which, incidentally, has absolutely no bearing upon moral law, justice, or sin.
You keep saying that it is God's own doing, but how? We separate ourselves from God when we disobey his commands.Please refer to pages 5 through 16 of this thread, wherein it was explained no less than ten times.
No, I would rather you not equivocate " punishment" to support your point. Punishment is a form of discipline.
Okay. Why do you disagree that retribution is a valid form of punishment? Other than that it's a form of discipline.
Deserving has nothing to do with this. If a person is incapable of complying it is completely irrational to exact retribution against them for not complying. Look at it this way:Judge: Defendant, you are hereby accused of failing to complete all of the 12 Herculean tasks.
Defendant: But, your honour, I am not Hercules. There's no way I could possibly do them!
Judge: Let the records show that the defendant pleads guilty of not doing the impossible. I hereby sentence you to torture unto death for this most heinous crime.That is in every way as just as the retribution you describe.
First of all, we do sin so it's not like we can't be accused. It already makes us unworthy to God. Because we are sinful and we do sin, we are also unworthy of His forgiveness. About your example, obviously that isn't a crime so it doesn't really fit the punishment. I think I have a better example.
Let's take Apple I guess. You need absolute precision to make all those little parts in an iPhone fit and work properly. If one measurement was off by a a tenth of a mm, all sorts of things can go wrong. If a supervisor of Apple found a flaw like that no matter how minor it might seem, they would recycle it or reuse the materials. That's like us except on a cosmic scale. If we aren't perfect in every way, we should be thrown away.
Which, incidentally, has absolutely no bearing upon moral law, justice, or sin.
Open defiance to God is a sin.
Please refer to pages 5 through 16 of this thread, wherein it was explained no less than ten times.
It's still arguable. If I may start this portion of the debate again, God created us with a free will so it's our choice and our choices have consequences.
He is not consistent. He goes from capricious, intolerant, vindictive, and completely irrational to indirect, unintrusive, somewhat forgiving, and marginally less irrational over the course of the biblical canon. In modern interpretations, He can be anything from one absurd extreme to the other.
Actually, maybe your right in that God is inconsistent. Not over time though. God stays inconsistent. He decides to be merciful sometimes and wrathful other times. But He doesn't promise to be merciful. He also doesn't promise to punish us for all of our sins. God does promise to forgive when we trust in His sacrifice. I know this deserves more explanation, but it will eventually be explained when we keep talking about it, you know?
Neither. Nor does it have any obvious relevance to the topic.
It does haha just bear with me for a sec. So do you think it's wrong that people will have a harsher sentence for attacking the President than a random citizen?
What you stated:
In a perfectly just world, good deeds would receive merit and bad deeds would receive punishment. In other words, every action will result in an equal reaction.
What is that if not eye-for-an-eye?
I just meant that I don't like the connotation that goes with eye-for-an-eye justice. It is the same thing.
No. It's a description of " perfect justice"; something we would also reasonably expect to be true of a perfect world, but which is entirely distinct from it.
Words have many meanings. The definition of justice here is "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments" not "the quality of conforming to law" (Merriam Webster). You can't just deny the use of a definition to destroy an argument. What I'm saying is that a in a perfect world, we wouldn't need justice because there is no crime. In a world that is perfectly just, there is perfect "maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments".
It's still arguable. If I may start this portion of the debate again, God created us with a free will so it's our choice and our choices have consequences.
You claimed He's omnipotent, all knowing. So he'd know the outcomes of the choices resulting in sin, and decided to go ahead anyway, and was offended by the known result.
It's still arguable. If I may start this portion of the debate again, God created us with a free will so it's our choice and our choices have consequences.
I mentioned this briefly before, but choosing to accept or reject God/Jesus as your saviour requires you to believe in his existence to begin with (OR possess knowledge of his existence). You can only logically choose between two options if you know both are valid. It makes no sense to 'choose' if both options are irrelevant to you. Judging me for something I don't have is fallacious and unfair.
Even if we assume God's existence, I would contest the fairness of the choice. You cannot call it a "free choice" if it is clear from the beginning that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, and you're being threatened with eternal ****ation if you pick the wrong answer. It's as if Erdogan made a national poll asking whether you support the Kurds or not. You're free to choose, but pick the wrong answer and you're going to jail or worse. Did I mention he loves you?
You said yourself that you believe humans exist to worship God, right? You believe you exist for the glory of a deity you admitted you feared. I am really wondering, why would you believe that you ever had a choice?
Okay. Why do you disagree that retribution is a valid form of punishment?I don't. I'm telling you that death and ****ation is not punishment, and is therefore not a just form of retribution.
First of all, we do sin so it's not like we can't be accused.Clearly. The point is that the accusal cannot be just.
About your example, obviously that isn't a crime so it doesn't really fit the punishment.Exactly. The defendant is unable to meet an impossible requirement and suffers absurdly extreme penalties for it, simply because the judge deems it to be an offence based on a set of irrational laws.
Let's take Apple I guess. You need absolute precision to make all those little parts in an iPhone fit and work properly. If one measurement was off by a a tenth of a mm, all sorts of things can go wrong. If a supervisor of Apple found a flaw like that no matter how minor it might seem, they would recycle it or reuse the materials. That's like us except on a cosmic scale. If we aren't perfect in every way, we should be thrown away.This analogy only further demonstrates how absurd that would be.
1 Any imperfection is the fault of the maker; not the product.
2 A sufficiently skilled technician can easily fix any such flaw.
3 Eternal ****ation is not at all like recycling.
Open defiance to God is a sin.So? This isn't about defiance of God. It's about a defiance of arbitrary and subjective ethical rules that people apply to themselves.
If I may start this portion of the debate again, God created us with a free will so it's our choice and our choices have consequences.You appear to be laboring under a misunderstanding. "Free will" is not a superpower that allows us to interact with causality while being independent of it. It being our choice does not make it our fault.
God stays inconsistent. He decides to be merciful sometimes and wrathful other times. But He doesn't promise to be merciful. He also doesn't promise to punish us for all of our sins. God does promise to forgive when we trust in His sacrifice.A capricious god is not a just god.
So do you think it's wrong that people will have a harsher sentence for attacking the President than a random citizen?No, I think it's an understandable decision, but one generally unworthy of my attention.
You can't just deny the use of a definition to destroy an argument.Fortunately, I've never needed to.
What I'm saying is that a in a perfect world, we wouldn't need justice because there is no crime.That's right.
In a world that is perfectly just, there is perfect "maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments".That's right, and being perfect in its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime, there would be no crime in a world with perfect justice.
You claimed He's omnipotent, all knowing. So he'd know the outcomes of the choices resulting in sin, and decided to go ahead anyway, and was offended by the known result.
Then, I suspect that the alternatives are to design us to be perfect but without a free will or to not create us at all. Or God could remove all temptation and we would praise Him for being loving to us that way. Except sin does not come from our surroundings. It starts in our hearts. So in effect, removing all temptation means taking everything from us because there would be a way for us to idolize whatever God did not take away.
So I agree. But just because you're offended by something doesn't mean you're surprised by it. For instance, a kid could get bullied everday and expect the same thing the next day. The kid wouldn't be surprised if he was insulted or beat, but he would definitely get hurt.
P.S. I love your username. StarWars is cool
I mentioned this briefly before, but choosing to accept or reject God/Jesus as your saviour requires you to believe in his existence to begin with (OR possess knowledge of his existence). You can only logically choose between two options if you know both are valid. It makes no sense to 'choose' if both options are irrelevant to you. Judging me for something I don't have is fallacious and unfair.
People are judged based on their sin. If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you are free from judgment. People sin regardless if they are saved or not. They sin regardless if they know God or not. Everyone has God's law written in their hearts and that's how they know right from wrong.
Even if we assume God's existence, I would contest the fairness of the choice. You cannot call it a "free choice" if it is clear from the beginning that there is a right answer and a wrong answer, and you're being threatened with eternal ****ation if you pick the wrong answer. It's as if Erdogan made a national poll asking whether you support the Kurds or not. You're free to choose, but pick the wrong answer and you're going to jail or worse. Did I mention he loves you?
Without any clue of Jesus, many people are indifferent about their sins. In fact, people are oblivious of their sins because they don't even know the way God works. Even I commit sins that I don't know are sins until God reveals them to me. Some people aren't even threatened with eternal ****ation. This is exactly why we need a Savior who loves us despite our sin.
You said yourself that you believe humans exist to worship God, right? You believe you exist for the glory of a deity you admitted you feared. I am really wondering, why would you believe that you ever had a choice?
I believe humans exist to glorify God. His people are the ones who worship Him. Given the circumstances of death and destruction because of my sin, it makes my want to thank Him and praise Him more for loving me and saving me from that.
I don't. I'm telling you that death and ****ation is not punishment, and is therefore not a just form of retribution.
Clearly. The point is that the accusal cannot be just.
And I'm telling you that those things are at least form of retribution. If you kill someone in a perfectly just world, you would die with the same amount of pain inflicted on your victim. If you choose a lifestyle contrary to the preceptive will of God, you will get a life separate from God, therefore separate from His blessings.
Exactly. The defendant is unable to meet an impossible requirement and suffers absurdly extreme penalties for it, simply because the judge deems it to be an offence based on a set of irrational laws.
I get what you're saying. I assume you are referring to the laws that mean you can't say God's name in vain or laws that say you must put God first in your life. Basically the first 4 10 Commandments, right?
3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exodus 20:3-11 ESV)
If God is the ultimate authority, how is it irrational? God placed Himself at the top because He was the one who created everything under Him. It only makes sense. And like I said, this is why we need a Savior.
This analogy only further demonstrates how absurd that would be.
1 Any imperfection is the fault of the maker; not the product.
2 A sufficiently skilled technician can easily fix any such flaw.
3 Eternal ****ation is not at all like recycling.
I admit that this analogy has some flaws, but the point is that we even if we are imperfect by the the smallest degree, we are worthless. Therefore
1 You can disregard the maker
2 It requires a skilled technician, a Savior
3 God is not at all like Apple; it's just an analogy
It's just an analogy made to explain our worthlessness to a God so High.
So? This isn't about defiance of God. It's about a defiance of arbitrary and subjective ethical rules that people apply to themselves.
You said it was about sin. Even after I defined sin. Even so, our ethics are based on moral laws which God gave us, the ones He has written in our hearts.
You appear to be laboring under a misunderstanding. "Free will" is not a superpower that allows us to interact with causality while being independent of it. It being our choice does not make it our fault.
I still seem to be misunderstanding. My fault. But if we are not independent of causality, then our choices have consequences.
A capricious god is not a just god.
Why not?
No, I think it's an understandable decision, but one generally unworthy of my attention.
Here the point was that if we were to regard our earthly authorities in this way, we should do so a lot more for the ultimate authority.
That's right, and being perfect in its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime, there would be no crime in a world with perfect justice.
No where in this definition says justice is a deterrent to crime.
Without any clue of Jesus, many people are indifferent about their sins. In fact, people are oblivious of their sins because they don't even know the way God works. Even I commit sins that I don't know are sins until God reveals them to me. Some people aren't even threatened with eternal ****ation. This is exactly why we need a Savior who loves us despite our sin.
But that savior does not love us despite our sin unconditionally. He loves us if we love him. The rest can burn in Hell, quite literally.
Everyone has God's law written in their hearts and that's how they know right from wrong.
By that logic, me and HahiHa and the rest of the atheists/agnostics here who feel that religion and the way God is described and depicted in The Bible is absurd, can 'tell' it's wrong based on God's law which is 'written in their hearts'.
Take a wild guess as to why your example did not work. No? Let me help. It's because what we believe is right or wrong differs sometimes radically from person to person. From disagreements about the efficacy of the Death Penalty to whether cold blooded unjustified murder is 'right or wrong'. Morality is not fixed for everyone.
And just in case you meant only the believers with your example, then the fact that there are so many sects, heresies and wild differences in beliefs and interpretations of the Bible disproves that.
You must be logged in to post a reply!