Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

This is the thing (as I understand it) that broke our relationship with God such that no one who died before Jesus's sacrifice went to heaven. As I understand it, people who died before this ultimately sacrifice simply weren't in the market for redemption. Jesus fixed all that.

What you're talking about--post-Jesus sin--can be rectified by repenting (either in confession to a priest, through penance, or to God).

What I'm talking about is original sin that has made humans unable to reach heaven because of a disconnection to God--one that was breached when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

I've since Googled this and I'm even more confused than ever. Like, literally every different website I went to had a different story about why Jesus was necessary and what happened to those who died before Jesus's time on Earth.

Do you have any thoughts on that, or am I just rambling?

But I looked over it again and I think that I believe C and I add in DCT because God is the one who enforces universal morals. Idk does that make sense?

He would never forgive someone unless they come to Him and repent.

Is it impossible not to lie? Is it impossible not to say God's name in vain? Is it impossible not to envy? Is it impossible not to feel anger towards someone?

But we are talking about a theoretically perfect judge.

I can see why you say that but please elaborate.

I like to think that God is in the business of redeeming people so I don't think He would like to wipe everyone out in order to take care of a naturally sinful species.

They would never do that unless they knew they had a reason to, so why can't or won't God make that reason known to everyone?

I don't care. Is it possible to commit yourself to a deity you've never seen or heard of in your entire life?

So? As long as the accused isn't perfect, there's no logical reason to hold them to the standards of absolute perfection.

Suppose someone commits all of the most unspeakable crimes on earth 900 consecutive times, and is them apprehended. Well, it's reasonable to conclude that some combination of factors led to this, so doing what is best for everyone would include preventing that combination of factors from occurring. Also, the culprit clearly cannot be released as-is, so some means of reform is necessary. If reform is impossible, the culprit will need to be cared for in permanent isolation. Hell is not any of this. Hell is needless torment with no option of reform, no consideration of the well-being of the condemned, and no preventative measures other than some people claiming that it exists.

I hope you don't mind if I try to reset the debate. So I've been reading up on the subject and I think a divine command theory is the best to describe my position. God is the ultimate authority who made all the rules. I am going to argue that God's most important rules have never changed which makes Him the perfect judge. At the same time, I will also say that God is not fair not because He breaks his own rules, but because his rules are inherently unfair. On top of all this, I am willing to conclude that God is worthy of praise and worship because He saved me. It's possible that you guys will not appreciate it, but I believe it's also possible that you might come to the same conclusion because you have been saved yourself. To start off, do you have any questions or objections to anything I said?

God is the ultimate authority who made all the rules. I am going to argue that God's most important rules have never changed which makes Him the perfect judge.

[...] but because his rules are inherently unfair.

I'm not sure how you associate unchanging rules with perfect judgement.

What are you gauging their importance by?

Is there any particular reason for that?

lozerfac3

I'm going to leave it to the others to offer objections to your view (e.g. the Euthyphro dilemma). I wanted to offer some support here and maybe help you make sense of some of this unfairness. I really appreciate your openness and honesty as you wrestle with these difficult concepts. It's so very refreshing to see someone critically engage with this stuff, rather than just accept it and tout it as obviously true, despite all these problems.

There's going to be a bit of tension between the idea that God's laws are unfair and yet He's still worthy of worship. Your reasoning is still fine here and your argument works. He's worthy of worship because he is the creator of all things and He saved you, despite the fact that His laws are unfair. But I'm betting you're able to still see some tension here.

A pretty common move to say that God is above moral judgment. A better way of putting this is that it's nonsensical to talk about God's moral commitments. So, to say that God's laws are unfair is, on this view, just not something you can say. It's almost like saying that gravity isn't fair because I can't jump as high as I want to. (The analogy here is meant to help illustrate the point--not to defend it.)

There are a lot of arguments behind this claim, depending on which way you want to go. A common idea is that we cannot morally assess God because He is the fount (the source) of what is good. This line ties into the idea that calling God's laws unfair is just kind of nonsense. Another thought is that us trying to understand God's nature or His laws is like an ant trying to understand world politics. It's just something far, far beyond our comprehension. Ants have some very basic level of something we might try to identify as politics (ants have individual roles that can change based on the situation and they have interactions with other ant colonies). But the comparison here is very weak because they're just on a such a different level in terms of understanding or conceptualising what's going on. In a similar way, our silly human understanding of fairness or justice is just a tiny fraction of divine fairness or divine justice. It's just not something we can process because of our limited intellect.

There are, of course, problems with all of these lines. I'm just making them available to further the discussion and to maybe help you problem solve some of the issues you're wresting with. Personally, I disagree with everything I've discussed above and don't find these lines compelling. But plenty of people do, and you might be one of them. If it helps, then super. And if not, that's okay!

@Moegreche Thank you for your input. I love your role in these debates. I think that's what I was trying to go for. It's common for someone in my church to say "Who are we to question God?" and point to the Book of Job. Job displayed a tremendous amount of faith and yet his life was like hell on Earth. And then at the end, God seemed to reward him for his faith and gave him everything back and more I think. I think God was not even obligated to give Job everything back, but He did anyway. That's what I heard from teaching from my church and a YouTube video I watched and I think it makes the most sense. My own reasoning that God doesn't have to make all his rules clear, is because He wants our relationship with Him to be super personal and so that we wouldn't take it all for granted.

Another thought is that us trying to understand God's nature or His laws is like an ant trying to understand world politics. It's just something far, far beyond our comprehension.

It's common for someone in my church to say "Who are we to question God?" [...]

[...] and point to the Book of Job.

What possible reason is there not to question Him?

Where He commits atrocities that don't need to be committed to demonstrate a point that never needed to be demonstrated? If anything, that only gives us more reason to question His behaviour and motives.

We could assume that God operates through some Rube Goldberg process too huge and abstract for anyone to follow, but there should be some valid reason for it to be that complicated instead of immensely simple and intuitive through perfect omniscient optimization.

He is the ultimate authority. We have no right to question Him.

How do we know it's not already optimized?

1 That's like saying the inside of a black hole is the ultimate mystery, and therefore we have no right to wonder what's there. It makes no sense whatsoever.
2 That's a catch 22. Having lots of authority doesn't divest people with less authority of the right to question your authority.

"As God lives, who has taken away my right, and the Almighty, who has made my soul bitter, as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit." (Job 27:2-4 ESV)

Your first clue is that we're talking about a Rube Goldberg process too huge and abstract for anyone to follow

@lozerfac3 I'm partly on board with your idea of divine command theory. Not that I believe, of course; but if He existed, I would agree with the following of your points:

- He'd be the ultimate authority;
As the creator and omnipotent ruler of this universe, it would seem obvious to consider Him at the top of the pecking order.

- He would be unfair by our standards;
I assume you've discussed this point already in previous arguments.

- He wouldn't have to explain anything;
As the omnipotent ruler, He could do whatever He pleases for whatever reason, and if we don't like it, more's the pity. As said above, He isn't fair by our standards.

It's a bit the same thing with good and evil; if He existed, He'd be the origin of all good, right? I've encountered people who are actually genuinely surprised when realizing that an atheist can be a good person. It infuriates me that they would think like that, but I guess it's only consequent from their point of view.

I disagree with the whole 'already being perfect' thing. It would make sense; and something that is already perfect wouldn't need to be changed, thus the 'unchanging' bit you mentioned (although I would say logically His rules would be unchanging because they are perfect, not perfect because they're unchanging).
But it appears that the world we live in just isn't like that. I'd agree with Fish in that a perfect world would be noticeably perfect, although I don't know if simplicity is the only or best criterion to judge this. Either way, simply the fact that the church's dogmas have evolved over time would be an indication that maybe His rules are not unchanging and therefore not perfect. You could say that this is down to human interpretation/fallibility, but that wouldn't be an answer that would satisfy me.

Also, I see no reason why such a being would be praiseworthy. If I was to offer worship to any being, apart from having full knowledge of the being's existence I would also have to be on board with His ideals and all that; yet the Christian God, despite all the talk of love and such, is a brutal and unfair being which was more often than not worshiped out of fear rather than love. The German word 'Gottesfurcht' literally means 'fear of God' and is a synonym for devoutness. I don't think I would praise a deity like that even if it existed.

@HahiHa

I would say logically His rules would be unchanging because they are perfect, not perfect because they're unchanging

Either way, simply the fact that the church's dogmas have evolved over time would be an indication that maybe His rules are not unchanging and therefore not perfect. You could say that this is down to human interpretation/fallibility, but that wouldn't be an answer that would satisfy me.

However, God doesn't even have to save us in the first place. You have to understand that without God's mercy we would be completely vulnerable to God's wrath because we are all sinners.

This is sorta how I understand God's rules:
1. God has all the power to do anything He wants.
2. God is the creator of everything. This includes us.
3. God wants everything to glorify Him.
4. If God is not glorified, then God's wrath will be unleashed.
5. God made up the laws and therefore established good vs evil.
6. Only God has the power to save someone from his wrath.
7. God chooses how He wants to show mercy.

Now, how I understand our relationship with God is that we are naturally enemies of God. Because of our sinful nature (which will probably be another topic of discussion), we disobey God and don't want anything to do with Him while God has his hand stretched out against us ready to pull the trigger because we do not glorify Him. As sinners and enemies of God, we are unable to appreciate God's glory. On the contrary, as a believer of God, you would want to glorify God. So it makes sense if you wouldn't want to praise God like this because you haven't been saved. Of course, this is not an argument for why you should want to praise God, but rather an explanation for why you don't.

I would say that. Just because the church's beliefs have evolved doesn't mean that God's rules have changed.

And that rule is that only God has the power to save and even our faith is given by God.

You have to understand that without God's mercy we would be completely vulnerable to God's wrath because we are all sinners.

3. God wants everything to glorify Him.

4. If God is not glorified, then God's wrath will be unleashed.

5. God made up the laws and therefore established good vs evil.

6. Only God has the power to save someone from his wrath.

Now, how I understand our relationship with God is that we are naturally enemies of God. Because of our sinful nature (which will probably be another topic of discussion), we disobey God and don't want anything to do with Him while God has his hand stretched out against us ready to pull the trigger because we do not glorify Him. As sinners and enemies of God, we are unable to appreciate God's glory. On the contrary, as a believer of God, you would want to glorify God. So it makes sense if you wouldn't want to praise God like this because you haven't been saved. Of course, this is not an argument for why you should want to praise God, but rather an explanation for why you don't.