Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

Well, Jesus didn't show up until the New Testament so things were different back then. The way you would become righteous in the eyes of God was the sacrifice of a perfect animal.

Are you telling me the only reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine judgment was that they forgot to sacrifice a perfect animal?

Whether it be through sacrifice or accepting something based on blind faith, God's grace appears to always have been tied to very arbitrary acts. This does not explain the cases of 'divine justice' being performed as punishment for sin.

For the rest, please refer to Fish's post above.

What he's stating here is that God reserves the right to pick and choose who is punished based solely on His own whim. What he fails to address is that "mercy" and "justice" cannot rationally apply to people who have done nothing wrong. Esau does not receive "justice" in this narrative, but reprisal, and not for being disobedient, but for being conceived "fallen" just like everyone else.

I don't think he meant to say that God applied "mercy" and "justice" to Jacob and Esau. God rather gave grace to Jacob in this case as Jacob was the one who got the blessings.

Here he describes the idea of "double predestination" in which God actively interferes with some lives in order to save them and actively interferes with other lives in order to doom them, basically creating faith and righteousness in certain people and seeding disbelief and evil in the rest. He fails to address the fact that God would have no need to interfere with what He Himself knowingly set in motion; you don't need any hidden aces when you've already stacked the deck. No one begins life believing in God, simply because there is no biological design for belief in Him. Evil can't even exist in the universe if not by His own will.

I think you missed the part where he advocated for the idea that God passively interferes with people's live to do what they want to do without his interference. Now where did this idea that God created evil come from?

Please refer back to the analogy I made on page 21:
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.

Please refer to my explanation on the word "can".

Which can only be His own fault.

How can you blame someone for your own transgressions. If someone without a gate in their front yard said don't step on my lawn and you do it anyway, is it their fault for not putting the necessary protections?

That's assuming that you already know you're a creature of God, rather than of Odin or Azathoth, and know how to find out if He demands anything at all, AND know which of the wilderness of "divine commands" out there are actually His.

This is a new argument. I hope you don't mind if I put it aside for later.

Are you telling me the only reason Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by divine judgment was that they forgot to sacrifice a perfect animal?

Sodom and Gomorrah just received justice earlier for their disobedience to God which includes that.

I don't think he meant to say that God applied "mercy" and "justice" to Jacob and Esau. God rather gave grace to Jacob in this case as Jacob was the one who got the blessings.

Well, he certainly did say it. Several times, in fact. Neither you nor he have explained why Jacob was chosen over Esau, but it's made quite clear in the video that it wasn't because of anything either of them had done.

I think you missed the part where he advocated for the idea that God passively interferes with people's live to do what they want to do without his interference.

Interference cannot also be non-interference.

Now where did this idea that God created evil come from?

1 God creates the universe and everything in it according to His divine perfect plan.
2 There is no power above God and nothing beyond His knowledge.
3 Evil exists in the universe.

Therefore, God and God alone is the ultimate source of all evil in the universe.

Please refer to my explanation on the word "can".

It didn't explain anything. This isn't about the "I guess I could, but I just don't feel like it" group; it's about people who have no reliable information about what counts as a sin, no idea which deity to believe in, or no idea what your religion is about. These people can't, because it's utterly impossible.

How can you blame someone for your own transgressions.

Ignoring the fact that many people do that all the time, in what way am I blaming someone for my transgressions? I was not in Eden. I was not engineered with a drive to be righteous. It is not my doing that led to this; it can only be His.

If someone without a gate in their front yard said don't step on my lawn and you do it anyway, is it their fault for not putting the necessary protections?

No; it's only their fault if they coerced me into doing so and/or made it unavoidable, which is exactly my point.

Interference cannot also be non-interference.

Do you really believe that God makes people sin based on what was said? It's passive interference meaning that he is not doing anything to stop them. I guess you really can't call it interference then huh?

1 God creates the universe and everything in it according to His divine perfect plan.

Then He leaves his creation to choose to obey Him or not.

2 There is no power above God and nothing beyond His knowledge.

And God gets to decide to whom He exercises mercy or justice.

3 Evil exists in the universe

Because people chose to disobey God.

Ignoring the fact that many people do that all the time, in what way am I blaming someone for my transgressions? I was not in Eden. I was not engineered with a drive to be righteous. It is not my doing that led to this; it can only be His.

Back to the notion that God made you to be evil. I don't know the specifics of Adam and Eve's fall, but all I know is that I am responsible for my wrongdoings and I need forgiveness.

No; it's only their fault if they coerced me into doing so and/or made it unavoidable, which is exactly my point.

That certainly won't do well in court.

I believe that you can't be held accountable for sins if you are mentally incapable of understand sin (for example babies).

Would someone be logically sound to kill babies in order to keep them free from sin?

With Christianity, you are not required to follow any laws to be saved because Jesus did it for you.

With this addition, a person could do literally anything without consequence, as long as they accept Christ.

It is ONLY by the grace of God that you are saved.

James 2:14-26 disagrees.

Would someone be logically sound to kill babies in order to keep them free from sin?

I hope no one comes to that conclusion. Let's see why no one will if they truly believe in the saving grace of God.

With this addition, a person could do literally anything without consequence, as long as they accept Christ.

Yuhhhhhh. Praise Jesus.

James 2:14-26 disagrees.

I don't think so. This is for judging yourself. If you are really saved, you would want to worship God by doing good works, sharing the gospel, and obeying God's laws. If you're not doing those things, have you really been saved?

Sodom and Gomorrah just received justice earlier for their disobedience to God which includes that.

That doesn't really answer my point. Sodom and Gomorrah were smitten because of their sins, which were not limited to not sacrificing. This story has been so iconic that it even coined the term sodomy. There are other examples of God killing or punishing people for their sins (read: acts), I'm pretty sure even in the New Testament. He certainly still interferes quite actively in the NT.

I hope no one comes to that conclusion. Let's see why no one will if they truly believe in the saving grace of God.

Because according to you, God doesn't judge people for their sins anymore, so they could kill babies but it wouldn't make them any more or less punishable in God's eyes. However, God would be pleased if they killed babies in the firm belief that it increases His glory. Am I wrong?

Yuhhhhhh. Praise Jesus.

Not really. He took away all meaning from our actions, if what you say is true.

you are not required to follow any laws to be saved because Jesus did it for you.

If you are really saved, you would want to worship God by doing good works, sharing the gospel, and obeying God's laws. If you're not doing those things, have you really been saved?

Let's see why no one will if they truly believe in the saving grace of God.

Yuhhhhhh. Praise Jesus.

The only requirement is to accept Christ. You're falling into No True Scotsman by adding that someone is not "really saved" without showing it.

That doesn't really answer my point. Sodom and Gomorrah were smitten because of their sins, which were not limited to not sacrificing.

Yeah that's what I'm saying.

There are other examples of God killing or punishing people for their sins (read: acts), I'm pretty sure even in the New Testament. He certainly still interferes quite actively in the NT.

The thing about interfering is that God still interferes but He won't cause someone to disobey Him.

Because according to you, God doesn't judge people for their sins anymore, so they could kill babies but it wouldn't make them any more or less punishable in God's eyes.

God doesn't judge people who have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus. The second part is correct. They could BUT they probably wouldn't.

However, God would be pleased if they killed babies in the firm belief that it increases His glory. Am I wrong?

Who said it increases His glory? What shows His glory the most is when He shows mercy to those who deserve it the least.

Not really. He took away all meaning from our actions, if what you say is true.

Okay I should really explain that because on the surface it looks like that. However, if someone accepts Christ, they can have the full confidence that God will save them from whatever consequences come from their decisions. God still grants favor to those who do his will.

The only requirement is to accept Christ. You're falling into No True Scotsman by adding that someone is not "really saved" without showing it.

No someone can still be saved if they don't show it. It's not up to others to judge. It's up to the person to check oneself to know that God has really started a good work in them.

The thing about interfering is that God still interferes but He won't cause someone to disobey Him.

But He punished them for disobeying His commandments and living/acting the way they did. Whether or not they did it by themselves was not my point at all. God eradicated two cities because they didn't live the way He wanted them to live. Also the emphasis of the story, as I remember it, has nothing to do with anything relating animal sacrifice, so that's clearly not the only thing that was required to "become righteous in the eyes of God" in the OT. Acts were important; the commandments are important to Christianity. And God's continued interference in the NT shows us this hasn't changed fundamentally in between.

Who said it increases His glory? What shows His glory the most is when He shows mercy to those who deserve it the least.

I didn't say it does, I assumed you'd think God wouldn't mind if they acted in the firm belief that it would.

Okay I should really explain that because on the surface it looks like that. However, if someone accepts Christ, they can have the full confidence that God will save them from whatever consequences come from their decisions. God still grants favor to those who do his will.

I don't see the difference. Our acts are inconsequential and meaningless as long as we accept Him, isn't that what you claim and what I said I didn't like?

It's up to the person to check oneself to know that God has really started a good work in them.

'to know that God started a good work in them'? Aren't you compromising yourself there?

Do you really believe that God makes people sin based on what was said?

Of course not. He'd have to be a part of reality to do that.

I guess you really can't call it interference then huh?

Hence my statement that interference cannot also be non-interference.

Then He leaves his creation to choose to obey Him or not.

Yes, and engineers a special "test" specifically to ensure that they don't.

And God gets to decide to whom He exercises mercy or justice.

He does not, however, decide what is merciful or just.

Because people chose to disobey God.

Disobeying God would constitute a sin, meaning that sin is the origin of evil which is the origin of sin. That's a circular causality, so no, it clearly isn't because people (or Lucifer) chose to disobey.

You cannot separate God from the equation; being the almighty all-knowing designer of both angels and humans means that any penchant for defiance must rest on Him.

[...] but all I know is that I am responsible for my wrongdoings and I need forgiveness.

No, in fact, you don't know that at all. You've just heard it enough times to believe it.

That certainly won't do well in court.

Right, because a) that's a frivolous litigation if ever there was one and b) by preventing me from complying with his wishes, he waives his right to exact penalties for any failure of mine to comply with his wishes.

The thing about interfering is that God still interferes but He won't cause someone to disobey Him.

Then we have to conclude that He did not create the universe and everything in it according to His divine perfect plan.

God doesn't judge people who have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus. The second part is correct. They could BUT they probably wouldn't.

If they believed it would guarantee the babies' passage to heaven, they might.

But He punished them for disobeying His commandments and living/acting the way they did. Whether or not they did it by themselves was not my point at all. God eradicated two cities because they didn't live the way He wanted them to live.

Yeah. That is a good thing because they deserved it.

Also the emphasis of the story, as I remember it, has nothing to do with anything relating animal sacrifice, so that's clearly not the only thing that was required to "become righteous in the eyes of God" in the OT.

Okay I think this is where the confusion is. My fault. You see, the Jews were God's chosen people. I might have to check myself on this but, God has laws for everyone that tells right from wrong. No one is capable of obeying the laws because of their fallen state. God gave his chosen people more laws to distinguish themselves from other nations and commanded them to sacrifice in order to cleanse themselves from their sin. I guess what I'm trying to get at is yes, sacrifice is not the only thing that is required to become righteous in God's eyes. You have to be one of his chosen people and/or actually be perfectly righteous.

Acts were important; the commandments are important to Christianity. And God's continued interference in the NT shows us this hasn't changed fundamentally in between.

Except you don't see God punishing those He saved.

I don't see the difference. Our acts are inconsequential and meaningless as long as we accept Him, isn't that what you claim and what I said I didn't like?

Can you quote me on that please?

'to know that God started a good work in them'? Aren't you compromising yourself there?

Check this out. If I'm really concerned about my salvation, I want to know if God has started a good work in me because they go hand in hand. When you confess your sins, you also repent meaning you turn away from your sin. That's already one indication that God is transforming you. So if I don't see any change in my life, no repentance, no worship, then I'm probably not saved. I need to repent.

Hence my statement that interference cannot also be non-interference.

Agreed.

Yes, and engineers a special "test" specifically to ensure that they don't.

Except it's not God's job to make us obey Him. You can't compare Him to an engineer this way.

He does not, however, decide what is merciful or just.

Agreed.

Disobeying God would constitute a sin, meaning that sin is the origin of evil which is the origin of sin. That's a circular causality, so no, it clearly isn't because people (or Lucifer) chose to disobey.

Woah what? Excuse me, but why is evil the origin of sin?

You cannot separate God from the equation; being the almighty all-knowing designer of both angels and humans means that any penchant for defiance must rest on Him.

That's assuming it's his will to force people against their will.

No, in fact, you don't know that at all. You've just heard it enough times to believe it.

Maybe so. But given what I just said, I would still gladly take responsibilty for my actions.

Right, because a) that's a frivolous litigation if ever there was one and b) by preventing me from complying with his wishes, he waives his right to exact penalties for any failure of mine to comply with his wishes.

Wait so if he doesn't stop you, you don't receive any punishment? You are expected to respect someone's property.

Then we have to conclude that He did not create the universe and everything in it according to His divine perfect plan.

*If you know that His divine perfect plan calls for forcing people to obey His will against their own.

If they believed it would guarantee the babies' passage to heaven, they might.

Like I said, if they do then they have to reconsider if they themselves are truly saved.

Except it's not God's job to make us obey Him. You can't compare Him to an engineer this way.

Right, except a) it would be His job if He created us and intended for us to obey Him, and b) I'm not referring to Him as an ordinary muggle engineer, but the omnicient engineer of the universe; a position with far more qualifications.

Woah what? Excuse me, but why is evil the origin of sin?

If it isn't, what exactly do you mean when you say "evil"? It can't be defiance of or separation from God, because that, as you stated, is what caused evil to be in the first place.

That's assuming it's his will to force people against their will.

No, it isn't. You don't seem to realize that there's a distinction between freedom of choice and absolute randomness. Think about it. Why do people choose to disobey Him?
"[...] since the fall of man, we have lost the desire to choose righteousness. It's not that we can't choose to obey God, but we would rather not based on our deepest inclinations."
That's very interesting, lozerfac3 from yesterday, and what could cause us to have such inclinations?
"I just want to turn your attention to what temptation is. It never comes from God but rather from the Evil One. Satan makes the most dangerous things look attractive."
Okay, lozerfac3 from October, but why would he be doing that?
"[...] God gave Lucifer a choice. Lucifer chose not to obey and his own arrogance got him punished. It was Lucifer's fault and it was not a direct result from God."
So what made Lucifer so arrogant and corruptible? Was he misled into betraying his creator by a malefic force more cunning than he; a Satan+1, if you will? If so, the same question applies to that one (as well as any others you may care to add), so there really is no way around it.

Wait so if he doesn't stop you, you don't receive any punishment? You are expected to respect someone's property.

So? Did you completely overlook the "if they coerced me into doing so and/or made it unavoidable" part? Otherwise, what you are suggesting is that he is justified in seeking retribution against me for being the patsy in his own plan to have his lawn stepped upon.

*If you know that His divine perfect plan calls for forcing people to obey His will against their own.

Still no.

Right, except a) it would be His job if He created us and intended for us to obey Him, and b) I'm not referring to Him as an ordinary muggle engineer, but the omnicient engineer of the universe; a position with far more qualifications.

Obeying implies that the subject chooses to follow those commands. If they don't choose to obey, then God has every right to destroy them.

If it isn't, what exactly do you mean when you say "evil"? It can't be defiance of or separation from God, because that, as you stated, is what caused evil to be in the first place.

And when did I say that?

That's very interesting, lozerfac3 from yesterday, and what could cause us to have such inclinations?
"I just want to turn your attention to what temptation is. It never comes from God but rather from the Evil One. Satan makes the most dangerous things look attractive.

Apparently, lozerfac3 from October was wrong. Temptations come from your own desires. That's why I take responsibility for my actions.

So? Did you completely overlook the "if they coerced me into doing so and/or made it unavoidable" part? Otherwise, what you are suggesting is that he is justified in seeking retribution against me for being the patsy in his own plan to have his lawn stepped upon.

He definitely did not coerce you though. In the analogy I said that he specifically told you not to go on his lawn and you did it anyway. It's also very avoidable because there are other places other than his lawn that you can step on. Step somewhere else.