Login/Sign Up




Is the Christian God unjust?
Religion

saruman
Oct 27, 2011
17 votes
16 debaters
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

7
Yes


joryrferrell
Oct 30, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

The followers of Nazism had faith as strong as that of a child.....didn't they? They followed just as a naive child does. They weren't aware that they were going to be considered some of the most evil people of all time.
Those people with faith strong enough to move moutains did in fact upheave a lot.....mainly the lives of the innocent. Nothing but faith lead those people to raise their children believing the Jewish deserved what they got.
Those children having had nothing but faith, left them open, undefended, incapable of protecting themselves against their parents/societies ideology and other human beings paid with their own lives, and the lives of their loved ones.

 
saruman
Nov 02, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

Fascinating rebuttal. Let me see if I’ve got it right. “You are right, if you don’t like it you can go to hell”? You have admitted God is infinitely cruel and selfish, but you ignore some major implications. For instance “God is love”. As in, his very being is Love itself. However in 1 Corinthians 13 we are given a very revealing glimpse at what love really means- “…love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud…it is not self seeking”. God may be holy and just, but he is never portrayed as justice itself or as holiness itself. Therefore God’s relationship to love is unique among his attributes, meaning any other of his ‘personality traits’, like justice and holiness, are dependent on his nature as love. Love is the foundation of all his laws (Matthew 20:40) not his holiness or justness. In a sane theology his justice would be required by his infinite love since by trespassing against his laws you have trespassed against the he love requires, either for him or your fellow creatures which his nature demands total love between. You have saved me the hassle of dealing with a sane theology. By admitting God is not only insanely cruel, but also insanely proud since he does everything for his own glory, you’ve made the bible contradict itself on who God is, since God is love and love is none of those things.
Your ‘just’ and ‘righteous’ God is selfish, cruel, indifferent to those he hurts, and vain. Does that sound like a God who is holy or worth your worship? You have removed all infinitely ‘good’ characteristics that the nearly 2000 years of Christian tradition nearly unanimously ascribes to God. Your God is infinitely powerful not infinitely good. I’m not sure I can even still debate with you since this debate is about the Christian God and you’ve broken with nearly the entire Christian tradition.
FWI- idolatry is not not worshipping god, its worshiping something or than god.


 
xyze
Nov 12, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Born sick and commanded to be well.

The Christian God is definitely unjust.
God has the power to feed every person on this Earth, yet he does not.
He has the power to cure all illnesses, yet he does not.
He creates people in remote regions of the Earth, makes sure they die within a year or two (or less) then immediately sends them to hell to burn for eternity. Why? Because they never heard about this god.
The Christian Heaven and Hell is disgusting, archaic, barbaric and tribalistic, with no basis on morality, fairness, logic, or humanity. People can spend their lives improving humanity, campaigning for peace and kindness, but if they don't believe in what one person believes in, they're going to burn in hell for eternity? For what reason?
Whereas a person who commits evil acts but believes in one specific cult gets to paradise?

What God would decide that Hitler goes to heaven because of his catholicism, whereas Ghandi goes to hell because he didn't believe? Unjust is a kind word to use.

 
saruman
Oct 27, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Christians believe we are incapable of living up to God's standards. No matter how hard we try we will sin and thus incur his eternal wrath. NO MATTER HOW HARD WE TRY WE WILL SIN. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin is unavouidable, thus God is going to torture us for our inability to live up a standard that is impossible by our nature. None of chose this nature. Its pointless to claim free will, because Christians claim that every person will ineveitably sin, it would be the equivalent of claiming a person ultimately always has the ability to choose whether or not to urinate.God is going to torture you for what cant be helped. That is not justice.

 
jay520
Oct 27, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
God Knows all. God creates hundereds of billions of imperfect humans, against their will. Just based off basic statistics, God knows some of these people won't find Him simply due to their nature. Yet, he continues to create billions of humans (against their will) with the knowledge that some are GUARANTEED to face an eternity of tortue.

Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, supposedly loving being CREATE so many imprefect creatures, yet, he tortues them for ETERNITY when they don't meet his rules. He doesn't teach them the right path of life, no, he gives them an enormous amount of tortue for an eternity. How could our creator who loves humans so much allow this to happen? Is this the ONLY acceptable response to 'human' flaws?

 
joryrferrell
Oct 28, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

Ok...you say that babies aren't held accountable by god for failing to understand his will. I agree that makes sense if you mean babies as in under a child under a year old. But do you literally mean babies? Would you consider a ten year old a baby? Afterall, in terms of understanding the world, they are not yet prepared to strike it out on their own, and so are probably incapable of truly understanding the ultimatum put forth by "god". Would it be fair of god to damn a child to hell for eternity when they don't yet have the ability to grasp/cope with the utter coldness that can be exhibited by others on this planet, and so are technically incapable of being able to understand what real deep love is?

 
jonjax71
Oct 28, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Is this only about the "christian" god whatever that is or all gods whatever they are?
By labeling this "christian god is unjust" it implies that other gods are just
the very concept of god be it christian, islam, judaic or any other montheistic belief system is that there is only 1 god

 
saruman
Oct 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

First, you obviously don’t believe in Occam’s razor. While there is technically nothing wrong with how you have rationalized it, I think you have gone beyond what Christianity actually teaches. If what you are saying is true then God wishes us to choose him out of our own free will and thus he allowed the entire course of history (fall, incarnation and all) to occur just so that we now have the choice to love and follow him, but that makes Christianity itself totally arbitrary. Why not just create a world where people are equally able to please and offend God. Look at Islam, God doesn’t demand impossible standards of people and heaven is not simply something you earn. There is no reason for a Christianity other than because Christianity says that this is the way the world exists. Slightly irrelevant to the argument, I know, but what objective reason can you possibly have for believing in Christianity?
More importantly, you don’t answer the question of why it is justice to condemn a man for what can’t be helped. In the Bible God has to send Jesus because of our condemnation, not the other way around as you have it. You can’t simply state it is just (if that’s how you were trying to explain it) because he actually intended to overturn the whole system. Your understanding makes sense, but where in the bible is this actually stated? I contend that you read in to it what is not there so that you could give it a sense of morality that it didn’t have.
Third (and I think this is totally irrelevant to the argument but I say it because you must not or else you wouldn’t have brought up) “it was for this Love that God deemed it was worth the risk and definite down fall of some of mankind”??? Yes surely worth the risk, after all it wasn’t his butt up for eternal barbeque. You make God cruel and indifferent to those who were the inevitable waste products of master divine plan. If God were truly omnipotent he could just destroy those souls rather than torture them forever, especially since according to you they are little more byproducts the scheme of his divine wisdom. Or he could not have created them at all since divine foreknowledge let him know that creating them was going to be dooming them to torture forever and ever and ever. If any of them had any special role to play in the divine scheme, omnipotence would let him carry out his plan in another way. And if God is by nature Love itself then surely any of these would have been preferable. Your explanation again makes the way the universe is arbitrary instead of actually explaining anything.
Last and not least, common standards of morality and justice which are obvious to children but which I don’t personally believe were on the minds of those who wrote the bible would say that everyone will actually get the choice of whether or not accept Jesus/God before damnation. I’m not arrogant enough to know I can’t be wrong but I defy you to give me a single passage in the bible that actually and definitively states that is the case.
Also do you believe in total depravity?
Hope this makes sense, if I catch anything else wrong with your explanation I’ll let you know.


 
saruman
Oct 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carlodog Show

First let me say I think I understand your point, however I don’t buy it. No offense but I see no reason why your understanding is more theologically or biblically correct than mine. What passage in the bible do you use to base your understanding that our inability is “a willful inclination” not to follow the law rather than a defect in the will or nature of man himself? Are we not called “slaves to sins” without Christ? If you are going to make slave just a figure of speech by what standard do you decide what language is to be used as definitive? To say that our inability is purely unwillingness and not a genuine disability to work righteousness and avoid sin in man is contrary to the entire protestant tradition (to which I by default assume you belong), if the bible teaches our condition is only unwillingness it didn’t do so strongly enough for either Luther or Calvin (as I understand them) to pick up on it.
Second you yourself say we are unable to please God. How does a universally inborn inclination to our own will that is so strong that every human who has ever lived follows it not count as an inability to please God? I assume you would agree with that the implication of your understanding is that every human is born with the potential to please God. Does it makes sense to claim that a phenomena that universally and invariably occurs is one that does not necessarily occur? If you happen to be much more philosophical than I am perhaps you can logically claim and show that it does not, but you’ll have to show me before I believe it. It is not logically sound to state that a phenomena that will happen every single time given the right conditions is not a phenomena that has to occur given those conditions. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it, for my part no example comes to mind that contradicts such an understanding.
I hope I’m being clear enough


 
saruman
Oct 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ynhs Show

You, I don’t even know how to respond to your post. I guess like this: Isaiah 10:12, Isaiah 13:11, Isaiah 24:21, Isaiah 26:21, Jeremiah 5:9, Jeremiah 9:9, Jeremiah 9:25, Jeremiah 11:22, Jeremiah 13:21, Jeremiah 21:14, Jeremiah 23:24, Jeremiah 25:12, Jeremiah 27:28, Jeremiah27:8, Jeremiah 29:32, Jeremiah 30:21, Jeremiah 36:31, Jeremiah 44:13, Jeremiah 44:29, Jeremiah 46:25, 49:8, 50:18, 50:31, 51:47, 51:52, Lamentations 4:22, Ezekiel 7:3, 7:4,7:8,7:9, 7:11, 23:24, 25:17, Hosea 1:4, 2:13, 4:9, 8:13, 9:9, 12:2, Amos 3:2, Zephaniah 1:8, 1:9, 1:12,8:14, 10:3, plus: Matthew 3:7, John 3:36 Romans 1:18, 2:25, 3:5, 5:9 12:19 9:22, 2 Corinthians 7:11, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:3 2 Thessalonian1:9, 2:8, 2:16, Hebrews 10:27, James 4:12, 2 Peter 2:6, 3:7, Jude 1:5,
God punishes people. End of story. You can’t show me a verse where God isn’t portrayed as actually and deliberately inflicting pain on people as a punishment. Here’s the definition for torture:The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. And also, yes hell was created- Matt 25:41


 
raiders2012
Oct 30, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
'Unjust' - 'To be lacking in fairness.' Yes I would say that the christian god lacks fairness. You only need to look at the frowned upon gay partnerships by the christian community as they tout the parables from the bible. How is it fair to homosexuals? They didn't choose to be 'created' that way, a loving fair god would not put a large percentage of his 'creations' through such labelling on purpose. We are all created with flaws, and yet we are expected to be perfect. As we cannot live up to the example of Jesus (Its impossible) we must then assume the slave position and ask for forgiveness from the master. This is not fair. It is a wonderful thing that there is no reason to believe that the christian god exists, otherwise we would be living under a total dictatorship of which there is no appeal.

 
saruman
Oct 30, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

First let me say you have my respect as a member of our military.
Now then- It is arbitrary precisely because you have explained things as being the way they are because God decided things should be precisely the way they are. What is wrong with the systems of Islam, Sikhism, or the theistic branches of Hinduism? Precisely because God is infinitely powerful (able to do anything) is why he would be able to create a world where people can freely offend him or not. You may not realize this but you apparently believe that this is already the case: you believe we have a choice to follow or offend God in this world, but you add that we will invariably fail and can then (again!) freely choose to take God’s way out. But what you don’t explain is why add another level to things. Why allow this specific universe to happen the way it did where instead of being able to fulfill god’s law by our own choice, we cannot and need to take the way out that God planned all along. In most other systems you are free to follow God’s laws of your own choice and most even teach that we have can’t do it our own but need to freely accept God’s grace. Instead, according to you, God allowed a world to occur where are free to follow his laws, then inevitably fail to do so, thus requiring him to exploit a loophole in his own system, then offer us his way out at our own choice. There are extra steps there that don’t serve any essential purpose. Perhaps you think me dense, but you have yet to explain why the system is as complicated is. Thus I call it arbitrary.
There is no other reason for your entire scenario to exist other than without it you are only left with the Christian bible itself and its teachings, which are incoherent and not morally sound when unadorned with an accompanying theology that is only based on the bible in so far as it ties up loose strings and inconsistencies that the bible contains. I see nothing either in the bible or in anything you have produced to challenge this view.
Secondly, you still don’t really address my original issue of Justice and inability. I can simplify it however; do you believe that on our own we are capable of pleasing God? Obviously you do not. There are different ways you can explain the details, but it doesn’t change the basic issue: we are unable because of our very nature to please God, so why is it just for God to be displeased?
Also, eternal separation from God’s love and grace certainly sounds more excusable than gratuitous unending torture by fire. But again I have to accuse you of reading into the bible what is not there. Where is Hell ever portrayed in the bible as anything other than a punishment or God’s wrath? Where is hell-fire ever portrayed as symbolic? Where is hell ever portrayed as just a self-imposed separation from God?


 
saruman
Oct 30, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I thank one of my opponents for pointing this out to me: God wants us to freely love and accept Jesus, in order to be able to do so he gave us free will and then allowed the entire history of the universe to transpire the way it has/still is. In order to be truly free the possibility for damnation also exists. Even without mentioning divine omniscience, basic probability would tell God that at least some people would end up in eternal pain and misery if he allowed our present universe to occur. But because God’s desire to have some people who would love him of their own choice and who he could love back was more important than a few hundreds (more likely thousands or millions)of eternally miserable byproduct souls he allowed the universe to happen the way it has, even though it meant the inevitable eternal damnation of others. That makes God infinitely selfish, cruel, and indifferent. He knowingly allowed thousands of souls to come into existence who would ultimately be damned because there was no other way to satisfy his own desires. He is infinitely so because the pain he causes other in order to satisfy himself is infinite. Would not a god who is love itself rather content himself with an imperfectly fulfilled desire than create a universe that would inevitably place others in pain just to because he was lonely?

 
saruman
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show


“Believes this answers your questions for why we can't do it on our own”
In fact it brings us back to exactly where I started the debate. Such are the wonders of biblically informed reasoning I guess. We can’t do it on our own. Did you actually read the first post or did you just see the heading and immediately put your complete Biblical catechism on CD in and hit repeat and not give it a second thought? We are sinners by nature. According to the bible because of this if he wanted to have us around with him in heaven he had to send Jesus because without him he had to condemn us all. BUT THAT’S NOT JUSTICE. If we can’t help sinning then we’re not morally responsible for doing it.
Now as to the nature of justice and righteousness- figure out what you believe. Does God place the rules on us that he does and govern the way he does because he is all-powerful or because he is all-good? You say both, which I suppose is more of that glorious depth of bible understanding God has graced you with.
God is not simply automatically just because he is God. No real Christian theology has ever claimed that he is. God is just because he is just, not because he is too powerful for anyone to say he’s wrong. You contradict yourself. You say “that God is righteous and that the Law is in the heart of God and is a reflection of God's character since it is Holy and good.” – which I doubt is something you worked out on you own but copied from some evangelical apologetics website or something. I say so because your own statements, the ones you come up with yourself to answer my arguments, contradict it.

“God has told us that HE chooses and works all things for His will, pleasure, or glory. God is essentially worshiping HIMSELF. He is glorying in HIMSELF. God is being selfish and HE will do it HIS way.”
“It is just because He is righteous, because He is God, because without Him there would be nothing. As creator, it is His choice on the laws.”

Your mixing two different understandings of God that I doubt even you precious “bible college” professors would agree with. God can’t do anything he wants. He is bound by his own righteousness. Either God chooses to act in any way he wants because he can OR he only acts in accordance with his own nature. Only the second has ever been taught by any Christian theology ever. If the laws are God’s choice then he didn’t have to follow them, he didn’t have to torture to death his own son to forgive us. Since love was the motivation for not wanting to torture all of us forever (Rom 5:8, John 3:16) he could have just forgiven us- meaning he only wanted to torture to death the only human who ever pleased him because the whim struck him, again making him sadistic and cruel, which he can’t be if his nature requires him to be good.
And simply calling something just because god does it does not magically make it just, like you claim. If a retarded person j-walks then it would be justice to torture him for the rest of life. That is essentially what you are claiming by saying god tortures for breaking his laws when it can’t be helped. And the only way you can claim that it would be justice is that if God does it is automatically justice. That means righteousness and justice are determined by God’s will not by God’s nature. Which contradicts your claims to the opposite. So either guilt can be imputed for what cannot be helped, and thus destroying any possibility of moral responsibility in the world, because God has said it can OR you have to show how it is just and compatible with God’s nature to impute guilt without any real moral responsibility. However you really shouldn’t be arguing with me but with the vast majority of Christians who claim God is just because he is genuinely just and not just cuz he is too big for anyone to argue with. If you admit that moral responsibility is a myth then you destroy all basis for morality, and admit that that there is nothing intrinsically torturing innocent people and that no human has any real concept of any kind of morality at all. Which of course will probably bounce off your head because you will say some crap about a fallen world. But I demand you honestly consider all notions you have fairness, and innocence, morality and admit that they are infinitely wrong, that if it’s wrong to beat people intoa bloody pulp who accidently bump into you, that if the holocaust and every other genocide that ever happened was wrong, that if its is wrong to kill and torture people who have done nothing to you, that if its wrong for a government to imprison and torture and kill at its own whims, that it is only wrong because humans are doing it and not god.


 
saruman
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carlodog Show

For Ephesians, it doesn’t say if we were by nature the children of wrath because we walked according to flesh or if we walked according to the flesh because of the nature that made us children of wrath.
For Romans: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their heart…” 1:24
And: “…God gave them over to shameful lusts…” 1:26
And: “…he gave them over to a depraved mind…” 1:28
These clearly portray that the will to sin is not free, you cannot be given over to something that you can control, and further God does it to them which would mean that God is cause of their lack of will and therefore their sin. But yes all of them state that this occurred because of something else the people did implying a choice. All that gives is us however is a bizarre circle that, I think, neither helps you nor hurts me, but I’ll deal with that momentarily.
You are at odds with 2,000 years of Christian tradition. There was no reason for Christ’s redemption if we are capable of pleasing God on our own. According to you we had a completely able chance and blew it. I think you undercut much of Christianity’s perspective on what is so special about Christ if you believe. You don’t believe Christ had to be god in order to be sinless like so many Christians. And if we are so natured to reject God given the chance why is it that we not everyone rejects Christ? At most you can claim he did nothing particularly special except give God a loophole so that he could give us a second chance. And if we are free in a way that is freely inclined to not follow God in the way that you claim, how is it that we universally reject God the first time yet do not the second time in Jesus?
I think you have played some kind of word game on me. You have somehow equated unwilling with unable. If I am asked to take out the trash and out of my freewill do not do it, I am not unable to take out the trash, I am unwilling to take out the trash. You claim that we actually are able to perfectly follow the laws of god (which as I’ve said before is in contrast to most of the Christian tradition, especially protestant Christianity) which means that Christ didn’t save us because we needed him to and were unable to please God, but essentially because we were too lazy to please God.
You never really answer why our inclination to sin which is so strong that no human, who’s not also God, is able to resist it does not count as a genuine inability. Either you believe that we are unable to not sin or you believe we are unwilling, but as the verses I already discussed show, as well as such verses as Paul’s:
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. -Rom 7

you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want -Gal 5
(FWI- Both the above passages do a perfect 180 on your understanding, they both explicitly state sin occurs against the will)

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,b God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.c And so he condemned sin in sinful man,d 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mindf is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit,
(Key part in that is verse 8-nor can it do so)

Plus the verse on slavery, which if we take as genuinely appropriate metaphor and interpret in relation to the ones I gave show that we are slaves to sin and thus not in control; even if that condition is one we enter into by free will, they show clearly that sin is not something controlled by us. As for the fact that several times it is stated or implied that we find ourselves in that condition because of our own choice, my answer is that is that it is that the bible is being absurd and wasn’t written with intention of making perfect sense. I say so because, while I am not a lawyer and thus unable to say what the exact legal status of a person who commits a crime but was devoid of moral responsibility because of a noncriminal choice he made before the crime would be, I am fairly certain that such condition does not exist. Nothing comes to mind.
But we are not morally responsible because all the verses above state that either will to sin is not controllable or that act of sin itself is not controllable (another a bizarrely contradictory fact for a divinely inspired book I might add). Even if we are responsible for the choice that brought us to that condition, we are not responsible for the crime; because the texts do not state that rejecting (which is the most the new testament allows for us to have a choice in) God is the sin, thus we don’t choose to do the crime, rather they all state that that sin (which we don’t control) is what follows after rejecting god. If you think that’s absurd, I couldn’t agree more, but I believe I’ve stayed quite true to the words of texts we’ve examined.
Regardless, that we have the power over the act of sin itself is not something those passages support. Thus we have no moral responsibility. You may still argue that we are responsible for the sin because we made the choice that caused the sin. If that’s the case at the very least you must admit that your position that we choose to commit sin itself is unfounded. Furthermore, if I claim the opposite: that even though we make the choice to put ourselves in bondage does not impart guilt to us because we don’t choose to do the act of sin itself, I don’t think you have any right to criticize me because the position is, as far as I can see, at least as logically sound as your own: that a will that inevitably chooses to sin no matter what is still a free will because it chooses to sin.
Which is not something you have clarified yet, by the way. Either every human really does have the ability to not sin, in which case at least one person (who is a regular human and not also god) had to have lived who never sinned and would therefore have no need of Jesus, or you believe every single person sins because human nature cannot but help to sin. Even if human nature includes a defective will, the defect cannot be such that we inevitably sin and still be free. That human nature cannot help but to sin is the near-unanimous position of almost 2000 years of Christian tradition and theology: that Jesus saves us because we are unable to save ourselves. You either make Jesus the unnecessary savior of those to lazy rather than unable to save themselves, or you admit that sin is unavoidable in the literal sense of the word and that God is condemning us for what can’t be helped.
Hope I didnt loose you, fwi thank you for actually debating with me, as far as i can tell youre the only one who actually argues the issues here

 
saruman
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ynhs Show

All right, no offense, but I’m lost. I think I’m picking up the vibe that your theology differs a little from standard conservative Protestantism. I am saying that that we are unable by nature to please God, so God is unjust for punishing us, in the afterlife, forever. In the new testament several verses speak of punishment and God’s wrath in the some point in the future. That is what most of new testament verses I gave you speak of. If you arguing that premise –that god is going to punish us eternally in the afterlife for our sins- then let me know and I’ll argue that with you. Otherwise please answer the original objection(s). If you believe you already have, then I apologize but you’ll have to clarify.

 
saruman
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The Christian understanding of the atonement does away with God’s justice. In the first place it is not justice to punish someone else for the crimes another person commits. Let’s say someone commits a murder and received a death sentence: first of all what judge in his right mind would accept someone else trying to take the punishment for that person and be satisfied? It’s preposterous, it doesn’t satisfy justice to punish an innocent person and let the guilty go free. Plus it even if some judge accepted it as justice (and didn’t lose his job) the guilty person would not become innocent, punishing someone else doesn’t remove your guilt.
That God could accept the atonement as justice raises a very interesting issue about what his justice is. There are two possibilities for how it works, as well as two possibilities for what we are under it. For us: either we are incapable of any ‘good’ or righteous acts, in which case we have no choice but to sin and God is unjust punishing us for it OR we are still capable of at least some righteousness. God’s system can function one of two ways: either he rewards’ good’ and punishes ‘bad’ (which every Christian theology more or less rejects in some way but still has biblical support) OR he created us specifically for righteousness and therefore we deserve nothing for fulfilling our purpose but can deserve punishment for deviating from it (sinning). If it is the first, and we are capable of being both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in our life, then no one deserves hell. Christians believe because God is infinite his justice is infinite and therefore even a single sin demands an infinite satisfaction so we get an infinite punishment, eternity in hell. But if God’s ‘infinite justice’ works both ways then a single good deed or a single instance of fulfilling the law of would also therefore carry infinite merit. Thus we would not be universally guilty but universally neutral, neither deserving reward nor punishment since as long as we had one instance of good behavior and one instance of bad behavior and both carried infinite satisfaction and infinite dissatisfaction which when added up would leave us even.
IF however justice works by punishing us for not doing our duty then giving us nothing for what we were created to do then, then that means we deserve nothing inherently for fulfilling the law. That would mean even if someone was perfectly righteous, he would either get nothing for it, or he would enter into eternal life at death; but not because eternal life was a reward for fulfilling God’s justice. It could then only be because God made promised it to man and that if fulfilled his end of the bargain then God, bound by eternal standards of whatever qualities it is that Christian ascribe to him keeping him honest, would act accordingly and allow that man life- “Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.”-Lev 18:5.
BUT that removes the possibility of any atonement taking place. Either Christ couldn’t take our punishment because he wasn’t technically righteous thus had no righteousness to impute to us and his death was only continuing in his father’s will and therefore as a human deserved nothing for his life of faithful service OR (if eternal life is given because of a promise made by God in exchange for following his laws) by renouncing the reward he had rightfully earned by being put to death instead God was able give the credit he never claimed to us. BUT that makes Christ’s resurrection pointless AND it means that God caused the atonement by breaking his own deal. God can’t lie so even if God really wanted to, he couldn’t not give eternal life to Jesus, he was bound by his own nature to honor his promise. Yet the atonement is consistently portrayed throughout the bible as being orchestrated God, and being carried out by his will. Thus God broke his own promise but since God can’t lie he can’t break a promise, even if he wanted to, even if Jesus willingly chose death- God couldn’t have sent to his death, which is what happened according to the bible, because that would have made him liar.
That fact that his death wasn’t eternal but just a brief bodily death doesn’t change anything, because ( assuming they really believed in a substitutionary atonement) no new testament writer distinguishes between the physical death of Christ and the spiritual death of any normal human.


 
saruman
Nov 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

Fine. We'll play by your rules. As briefly as possible explain what you believe. Explain Christianity step by step. Only use bible verses where it is essential to the point. Keep it as brief as possible but go as in depth as you can without sacrificing briefness (this had to be done in this way because this had to be that etc). You refuse to actually answer most of my argumnets. Instead you throw up a screen and say I'm misrepresenting the facts and retreat behind that. So I will only argue what you claim you believe.

 
saruman
Nov 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carter71646 Show

WTF? So non-christians arent punished for their sins? That means that God didnt have to send Christ to atone for sins? Because without Christianity there would be no punishmnet for sinning, only punishment for...? That would mean that Christianity doesnt save people from their sins, since sin is ony imputed for Christains. That must mean before there was a Christianity people needed salvation from the fact that they werent Christians, not from being sinners. And that Christains dont actually get saved from their sins by being christians, they get saved from being non Christains. And Jesus didnt die to atone for sins, he died to establish Christianity, since without Christianity people wouldnt have been punished for their sins but for not being Christians. That is fascinating.
And- "All have sinned." was actually just Paul filling up blank space in his epistle. It would have been more accurate to say "all have not been Christians".
And the fact that all sinned means we don't have free will, because if everyone does it inevitably then they are not free to not do it. But that has no relavance to you since we are not in danger from being punished for our sins but for not being Christians.

 
saruman
Nov 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: carlodog Show

I dont think I know how to make it less complicated. Technically the final idea isnt even supposed to make that much sense (you were supposed to realize that and conlcude the bible was absurd and contradictory, but oh well).
Briefly slavery is a powerful metaphor, and implies a lack of free will. Assumably when Paul says we're slaves to sin he means that sin controls us. That undertsanding is supported by other quotations I supplied.
I already had made that claim, and you countered that Paul, before the verses in question, implies that, in what ever way, we enter that state by something we do, presuambly of our own free choice. I agreed that Paul says that, but I denied that that changes anything. Because several of my verses state cleraly that either the acts of sin themselves are not in our control or the will to sin itself is not in our control. The verses on slavery also imply that. I then drew the conclusion that at most (I think even this is debatable from some of my quotations) the bible allows for us to choose to put ourselves in the condition where we are unable to not sin. I then summited to you that this b.s. Because the bible never claims that rejecting God or choosing unrighteousness (or however its phrased) is the sin, sin results from that. Yet the sin that results is the problem, not the fact that we chose to do some other noncrimianl activity. The only conclusion is that we are not responsible for the acts of sin, only for the non punishable act that put us into the state of bondage to sin. But because we are not responsible for the acts of sin, first of all, is a refutation of what you have been claiming (that we really are responsible when we choose to sin) and second of all gives you a hard to defend alternative to fall back on-- that we are not responsible for the acts of sin themselves, only for the condition that results in the acts sin.
But I maintain that the fact that we are clearly not responsible for the sin itself and that in the bible the sins results from from turning away from god (etc), which implies that that the turning away is not a sin in itself but only leads to sin, doesnt do anything for your position. At most we are responsible for being slaves to sin, but god doesnt punish us for being slaves to sin, he punishes us for committing sins. I think my quotations support this. Thus God is still punishing us for what can't be helped.
If you were to claim (as I assumed you at least might) that we are still responiblie because we still at least chose to be in bondage to sin, I would have responded that the bible says we are punished for the sins, not for rejecting god. Rejecting God is not the crime. Rejecting God reults in sins that have to be punished. But the sins themselves that it results in aren't done according to our choice, which my quotations attest to. Thus we are still not morally responsible for our acts of sin.
If you think that this understanding--that we commit a nonpunishable act that puts us into a state where we cannot attain moral responsiblity and thus we cannot recieve blame for the acts that we commit in that state makes us innocent--isnt logically sound, I would counter by saying that I have stayed true to the words of bible, and that it makes as much sense as your own previous claim; that we are free in such way that we inevitbaly choose to sin no matter what means that when we choose to sin we still chose it freely.
Hows that?

 
xyze
Nov 12, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

The penalty for sin is eternal life in hell? Says who? Who decided that this is the punishment? (Hint: God)
So if one person tells a lie, they are destined to burn in hell for eternity?
And yet your God is fair and just?

Do not tell me that a newborn baby is guilty and deserves to burn in hell unless he/she believes in some wizard.


 
saruman
Nov 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

This may seem tedious but please bear with me. When I have everything I need, I will continue the debate.
You say that the penalty for sin is death, and that hell is both a real and spiritual place, are they equivalent? Do the death resulting from sin and the state of hell (both its physical and spiritual aspects) denote essentially the same thing? Are they interchangeable? And, most importantly, are they a punishment. Even if sin also naturally results in a separation from God because of his holiness, does it also result in some kind of action by God that is dictated by his nature as pure holiness/righteousness/justice? (you strongly imply this is the case but I need to be sure and you always stop just short of saying it outright)
Also how does the death of an animal have any relevance to a person’s moral standing?
Also is righteousness only the absence of sin, or is it more? Please clarify on the nature of the relationship between sin, righteousness, the law, death, eternal life, and the relationship we were made to have with God. Is eternal life the natural result of the proper relationship with God which sin prevents? Are righteousness, fulfilling the law, and having a proper relationship with God synonymous? Does the law accurately portray the nature of God’s righteousness? Etc.
Also perfect is an ambiguous concept. What does it entail?
Also you state that Christ couldn’t be held in hell because he was blameless, and that he conquered the grave. Well and good but is that the extent of the significance of his death? What (and how) has his death done that affected our condition as sinners?

One more thing, and this is separate from where I intend to take the argument, if it is so important that we choose God out of love instead of fear why has the knowledge of the existence of hell and its unpleasantness been given to humans? You don’t think that skewers the conversion process at all? In fact Luke 12:5- "Fear him who can torture you with fire forever" (Im paraphrasing). If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom, even if love casts out fear, the relationship still has its foundation in fear. Is god such an unpleasant person to be in a relationship with that god needs to keep a person in a relationship with him through fear until that person is used to him?



 
jdw
Nov 21, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

That's still not "just". If all people have to do to win his favor is accept Jesus as their lord and savior, then that would mean that someone could murder, rape, torture, and steal from people and get in to heaven; while an honest, hardworking atheist who donates to countless charities can be sentences to eternal damnation for their mistakes? Obviously God isnt fair if someone can go to heaven for murdering babies, and another should be killed and have to suffer for eternity because they had to work on sunday.

 
paranoidandroid
Nov 24, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I don't think anyone - even Hitler - deserves to spend an eternity in hell. Much less virtuous non-believers. So he is unjust for putting virtuous non-believers, liars, and even Hitler through eternal suffering.

Even if you say hell is only an "apart from grace" or "state of separation from God," that is still an eternity no person deserves, especially ones who make the reasonable mistake of not believing in God or believing in the wrong God.

 
studentmwsc5
Dec 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If God is mercy, why is there so much in the world? If God is love, why doesn't he let two people that love eachother get married regardless of sexual orientation? If God is our savior then why does he let all these problems in the world go on?

 
+ Add Argument

10
No


individualeleven
Nov 22, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

"and that hell is both a real and spiritual place, are they equivalent? Do the death resulting from sin and the state of hell (both its physical and spiritual aspects) denote essentially the same thing? Are they interchangeable? And, most importantly, are they a punishment."

Same thing or equivalent? I would say no, being in hell physically would be very bad I'm sure. But the bible puts more emphases on the separation of God spiritually as the greater torment. If you could imagine the most emptiness feeling with the full knowledge of God's reality, with the weight of that one choice you could've made to take it all away, then you'd be closer to scratching the surface of how bad it probably will be.
Interchangeable? No, both would happen and yes both are punishment, but not for sin, for choosing to not accept salvation. Hell was a place for Satan and his followers as punishment, that mankind can choose also, if they decide to not accept Jesus. So to answer directly, yes it is also an action that God will take eventually to send people there.
I do believe every person will have an opportunity, be it now, or after the resurrection to choose Him.

"Also how does the death of an animal have any relevance to a person's moral standing?"
It doesn't... Did I lead on to this previously?

"Also is righteousness only the absence of sin, or is it more? Please clarify on the nature of the relationship between sin, righteousness, the law, death, eternal life, and the relationship we were made to have with God. Is eternal life the natural result of the proper relationship with God which sin prevents? Are righteousness, fulfilling the law, and having a proper relationship with God synonymous? Does the law accurately portray the nature of God's righteousness? Etc."

Righteousness is more than absence of sin, it is anger towards sin, or even hatred of sin. Since Lucifer is now the embodiment of sin, God has righteous anger towards the devil.
The law is set by God, it entails a bit, but the essentials are; "the penalty of sin is death" (spiritual/physical death in the lake of fire, which hell will be tossed into as well, eventually). Jesus came to fulfill the law by being the one perfect sacrifice for all sins.
The free gift of God is eternal life. Thus accepting the free gift of salvation, we say we are "born again". Being born again is by accepting Jesus as lord and savior by faith, not by relationship. Relationship comes after, by desire to want to get to know God more. It is an everyday process to grow in a relationship, as it is in any human relationship. We do this through prayer, meditation, listening, feeling, worshiping, and studying Him. It's something that can't be completely described, as it is an experience.

Righteousness is also love, not our kind of love, but God's love. Where our love is to be selfless, pride-less, caring, ect... God's is prideful, selfish, and demanding. Yet He is God and can be the only one to have That kind of love, which also has many other qualities too, like sacrificing Jesus as a payment for our sins.
We were made for relationship and worship, for His glory. A god like that on the surface with no deeper understanding of a personal relationship, will only lead people to hate him. That is why it was necessary for Him to "Hide Himself" behind His creation, and to give us the choice to choose him by faith. It is the only possibility for us as limited humans, to be able to appreciate Him as a creator properly, and to be able to actually love him, without fear. He is just too grand otherwise for our minds and hearts to accept, if His glory was displayed before us suddenly.

So I would say yes, the law does portray the nature of God's righteousness.
The significance of Christ conquering the grave is one of conquering death and sin, and one of belief, that His followers will continue to follow a living Christ. In that we find our eternal life, because Jesus is now the way, the truth, and the life, back to God.

"One more thing, and this is separate from where I intend to take the argument, if it is so important that we choose God out of love instead of fear why has the knowledge of the existence of hell and its unpleasantness been given to humans? You don’t think that skewers the conversion process at all?"

The fear of the Lord is a much misunderstood concept, perhaps in part because there are actually two types of "fear" of the Lord mentioned in Scripture. The first, mentioned in Isaiah 2:10, 19 and 21, is not a gift of the Holy Spirit; it is the abject terror of an unrepentant sinner before the justice of God. The original Hebrew word is pachad, which always indicates a terrified dread. The Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) contains a parallel passage (6:15-17), in which evildoers try to hide in terror of God's justice.
This kind of fear, can skewer the conversion process, especially when misunderstood. The times now and the times during the apocalypse will be different, in the hearts of people. But it doesn't mean it should be hidden from people, as if we are ashamed of it. We don't like hell and what it entails but it is the act of love of Jesus and his conquering of death and hell that is our hope.
Ultimately, God will have to judge those who do evil and refuse to repent at His loving call. Such people have every reason to dread that day. Yet those who are in Christ are "not appointed to wrath" (I Thessalonians 5:9). Our Lord has redeemed, justified and sanctified them by His Cross and through Baptism. As long as they remain in a state of grace, they are not children of wrath, but regenerate children of God. "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1), for Our Savior did away with their eternal punishment.

The second "fear of the Lord" is of something virtuous, one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word used for this fear is yirah, which denotes piety and reverence rather than abject terror. This is why some modern translations say "revere the Lord" rather than "fear the Lord".


The fear that is being talked about in Luke was of Jesus talking to His disciples, to not fear man that can only damage and kill the body, but if you should fear, fear God because He could do so much more. Here the greek word phobeo is actually used, which also means respect. He is not saying Fear God in terror for what He could do, but Respect God for what He could do. As Jesus then goes on to say that God values you so much more that even the hairs on your head is numbered.

"Also perfect is an ambiguous concept. What does it entail? "

It is for God, to be without out sin. Love, righteousness, holiness, glory, is all part of His perfection, as the creator of our universe. It is an absolute right and good, known as only as God.

For Jesus, it is the same, but also blameless, pure, clean, when used to describe His sacrifice.

We can only describe it as completely above our understanding, best described as without flaws.
Therefore everything that we see as flawed is a limited scope of vision rationalized by a limited mind that is contained in a limited body. The magnitude of the universe is nothing compared to the magnitude of God, in which He is the creator. So everything has a reason for being as it is, and we who are limited, aren’t qualified to judge.

I hope I answered your questions, thank you for asking, this is what makes a debate respectable.


 
individualeleven
Oct 27, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes we all will sin at some point. Yes sin cannot be a part of God for He is perfect.
Yes the penalty for sin is death and eternal life in hell.
However Jesus came to pay the price for that sin and all we have to do is just accept the free gift of salvation. There is no need to do good works to get into heaven, if there was, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to die for us. Every person will get the chance to make the decision, one way or another, unless your below the age of accountability, i.e. babies. By choosing to not accept the free gift you in fact therefore by default choosing to go to hell. For God will not send you to heaven if you don't want to go. Just as he will not part the skies and hold a hammer over all the earth and tell you to choose Him or go to hell, you must come to Him by faith, then choose to accept Him and then Love Him.

For it was for this Love that God deemed it was worth the risk and definite down fall of some of mankind. For God is Love and His love needs to grow. Knowing that many will fall and go to hell, it was worth it for the ones that chose to accept Him and to Love him. God needed us, just as much as we need Him. He couldn't have people freely choosing to Love Him if he created a race that will just all accept Him no matter what and all would go to heaven. For His plan to work, this was the only way it could be done, or it just couldn't be done at all.
If you were a holy good God, what would you do?

What you may not know is, but hell wasn't even created for us, it was for Lucifer and his followers, created before Adam and Eve sinned. With that act of sin, our spirits, which were made in the same image and likeness of God (God is Love and is a spirit being) died. Our bodies became mortal and a slave to sin. We are then born into this sinful nature, though not capable of going to hell until we reach the age of accountability that is we are able to make decisions and know right and wrong.
When we come to Christ in faith and accept Him as lord and savior, our spirits that are our true selves is born again. At this point we are like babies, capable of really learning about God and having a real relationship with Him.
The old testament wasn't about God punishing people and being mean, it was about protecting the line of David that Jesus would come from, it was about showing the path to salvation. The sacrifices of doves and lambs for sins was replaced by Jesus becoming that perfect sacrifice.
It was in the beginning that God created us for a relationship, that was our purpose, and then to expand and populate the earth, to allow that Love to grow even more.

 
individualeleven
Oct 27, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yes we all will sin at some point. Yes sin cannot be a part of God for He is perfect.
Yes the penalty for sin is death and eternal life in hell.
However Jesus came to pay the price for that sin and all we have to do is just accept the free gift of salvation. There is no need to do good works to get into heaven, if there was, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to die for us. Every person will get the chance to make the decision, one way or another, unless your below the age of accountability, i.e. babies. By choosing to not accept the free gift you in fact therefore by default choosing to go to hell. For God will not send you to heaven if you don't want to go. Just as he will not part the skies and hold a hammer over all the earth and tell you to choose Him or go to hell, you must come to Him by faith, then choose to accept Him and then Love Him.

For it was for this Love that God deemed it was worth the risk and definite down fall of some of mankind. For God is Love and His love needs to grow. Knowing that many will fall and go to hell, it was worth it for the ones that chose to accept Him and to Love him. God needed us, just as much as we need Him. He couldn't have people freely choosing to Love Him if he created a race that will just all accept Him no matter what and all would go to heaven. For His plan to work, this was the only way it could be done, or it just couldn't be done at all.
If you were a holy good God, what would you do?

What you may not know is, but hell wasn't even created for us, it was for Lucifer and his followers, created before Adam and Eve sinned. With that act of sin, our spirits, which were made in the same image and likeness of God (God is Love and is a spirit being) died. Our bodies became mortal and a slave to sin. We are then born into this sinful nature, though not capable of going to hell until we reach the age of accountability that is we are able to make decisions and know right and wrong.
When we come to Christ in faith and accept Him as lord and savior, our spirits that are our true selves is born again. At this point we are like babies, capable of really learning about God and having a real relationship with Him.
The old testament wasn't about God punishing people and being mean, it was about protecting the line of David that Jesus would come from, it was about showing the path to salvation. The sacrifices of doves and lambs for sins was replaced by Jesus becoming that perfect sacrifice.
It was in the beginning that God created us for a relationship, that was our purpose, and then to expand and populate the earth, to allow that Love to grow even more.

 
individualeleven
Oct 28, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: joryrferrell Show

Well the age of accountability that Christians believe is variable. Meaning that each child ages and matures at different paces. What I said was "i.e. babies" as in in example, but not necessarily the only example. For people with mental handicaps could also fall into this category. But I would not say a normal healthy ten year old is unable to know right from wrong. Because I sure did. In fact I learned and understood what Jesus did for me when I was five. I was sheltered as a child, I didn't learn a lot about the world till after my first marriage. This however did not impact how I believed inside but rather just opened my eyes on how I viewed the rest of the world. So even when I was not ready to strike it out on my own, I'm still capable of making my own choices and knowing basic right and wrongs. Whether a child knows love or doesn't from their parents, friends, and peers, they are still capable of learning God's love. And since coming to Christ isn't through love but rather faith, even if the child doesn't fully understand, children know how to have faith. Jesus told his disciples that if they could only have as strong of faith as a child, then they could move mountains.

 
individualeleven
Oct 28, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I have no idea why my first post showed up twice.

 
individualeleven
Oct 28, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Also to clarify one more thing.
Everyone needs to make a choice.
Therefore for the ones that go to heaven without a choice, such as babies that were killed, the bible talks about a thousand year reign under Jesus when He returns. This is in the book of Revelations. At the end of the thousand year reign, Lucifer will be set free once more, and all will have to make the choice then to stay with God or leave.

 
individualeleven
Oct 28, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

I wouldn't say that just because one god is unjust that all others are just.
Since each belief system as you say only recognizes one god, to say the "christian god" is merely to inform all that this topic is only about that god. If a god exists as truth, then despite how many people believe in other gods, they would all be wrong, and their beliefs wouldn't matter.

 
ynhs
Oct 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
God does not torture, nor was hell created.
Hell is the state apart from grace, apart from liberty and compassion.
Christ referred to hell as "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
This is what comes from worrying with vanity, from judging one another, from seeking one's own desires with disregard for the desires of others, from pursuing violence, from allowing oneself to be filled with pride.
As a father, God warned men against these things because he knew the end of them.
He did not make sins to be sins, nor did he make man to desire sin. Otherwise we would not call him benevolent. He merely created man as He was, a spirit, a will of his own. The remainder was our choice.
Naturally, children must learn things. One must teach children not to hit, not to lie, etc. No one would say a man is wicked for having such a child who has not yet learned these things. (Though likewise, one cannot say these things are no wrongs)
Yet what would be unjust is if one would leave the child to such deeds forever, in which case he would reach the inevitable end. This, God did not do. Instead, he sent Christ who taught us to abandon such things and to comfort one another. Doing the will of God over our simpler and self-centered instincts.
Therefore; No, God is not unjust.

 
carlodog
Oct 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

Interesting argument, but I think that you do not understand Christian theology and what the bible teaches on this subject. It is true that humans in their fallen sinful nature are unable to fulfill the law of God, this is because they do not want to. While you used urination as an example, that is slightly misguided. People do not follow the law of God simply because they do not want to follow the law of a perfectly righteous God. Their inability is in there willful inclination to engage in sin. They cannot follow the law of God because they will not follow the law of God. Read the first three chapters of Romans.

So the question should be asked, Is it just for God to 'punish' you for braking His law that you will not, thus cannot follow? The answer is yes. It is just for God to punish those who willfully refuse to follow His perfect law.


 
carlodog
Oct 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jay520 Show

Let me ask you just one question. How did God create a person against their will, if prior to their creation they did not have a will?

An individual only has a will when they are in existence.

You claim that God violated the individuals will for creating the individual. But if this is true the individual must have existed and was exercising his will prior to his creation. If this is true, then God said " I will create you today", but you say to God "no please do not create me".

Your arguing in a circle.


 
individualeleven
Oct 30, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

"First, you obviously don’t believe in Occam’s razor. While there is technically nothing wrong with how you have rationalized it, I think you have gone beyond what Christianity actually teaches. If what you are saying is true then God wishes us to choose him out of our own free will and thus he allowed the entire course of history (fall, incarnation and all) to occur just so that we now have the choice to love and follow him, but that makes Christianity itself totally arbitrary. Why not just create a world where people are equally able to please and offend God."

How is it arbitrary? And how would you create a world where people could choose to offend a God that is so powerful that all of existence came about because he opened His mouth and spoke? I believe in Christianity because of the personal relationship that I experience.

"More importantly, you don’t answer the question of why it is justice to condemn a man for what can’t be helped." Because there is no "can't be helped" scenario, everyone will have a choice. Even if it's in looking at nature and physics and science and concluding that an intelligent designer was behind it.
Hell isn't a place where torture is being conducted for all eternity, it is the separation from God with the knowledge of His true existence that ends up being torture.

"I contend that you read in to it what is not there so that you could give it a sense of morality that it didn’t have."
That would be incorrect, but I will find the verses and references in the bible and get back to you. I'm on a navy ship out on deployment at the moment, so I'm always at work. But when I get the free time, I'll do the research and get it posted here soon.

"Last and not least, common standards of morality and justice which are obvious to children but which I don’t personally believe were on the minds of those who wrote the bible would say that everyone will actually get the choice of whether or not accept Jesus/God before damnation. I’m not arrogant enough to know I can’t be wrong but I defy you to give me a single passage in the bible that actually and definitively states that is the case."

Here is something to read that prods at that topic:
http://myth-one.com/chapter_25.htm

Total depravity? on the surface it seems to correlate with what I believe but I'd have to research it fully to know for sure if that is exactly what I believe. It wasn't a doctrine that I had found and followed, but my belief was determined by my studies of the bible and teachings that I've heard from many churches that I've attended, and also from the bible college I attended.

 
ynhs
Oct 30, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

As for the list verses, none are the words of Christ, and most are from the Old Testament, which should never have been couple with the New Testament, because Christ said not to put a new patch to an old cloth. Christ also pointed out corrections (in some sense). For instance concerning writings of divorce He said that Moses tolerated it, though it was no so.
Because the Bible is selected by man over many documents all apparently authored by man (who is by the way enamoured with power and spectacle and suffering to begin with) you cannot take it to reflect God without some bias.
Nevertheless, I did not say that God does not punish people for doing evil, for punishment is certainly an effective way to teach. My main argument was that hell was the inevitable end of wickedness, and that Christ is the one that leads man out of wickedness.

If your problem is that you find that some of His punishments unjust then I must disagree, for any degree of suffering endured here and now cannot be ultimately seen as anything but wisely given if succeeds in preventing one from enduring an eternal suffering of a far greater magnitude.

As for Matthew 25, it is an illustration that the charitable do not enter hell while the selfish do. Finally, 25:41 says it was prepared, which means "to make ready" which is not the same as creation.

 
individualeleven
Oct 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: joryrferrell Show

I do not refute this, in fact it even says in the Revelations that many will do works in Jesus's name and still not know Him. Meaning that many will believe through faith that Jesus can heal or perform miracles and that through their good works they will be saved, but Jesus said only through Salvation will you be saved. We come to Him by faith first, then relationship. So yes, I believe that through faith without doubt you can do a great many things, even if it's wrong.

 
individualeleven
Oct 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

"It is arbitrary precisely because you have explained things as being the way they are because God decided things should be precisely the way they are."

Then yes it is arbitrary.
All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.

1. God exists.
Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
2. God is infinite
Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God."
Psalm 147:5, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
Jer. 23:24, "Can a man hide himself in hiding places, So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord."
3. God is holy
Isaiah 6:3, "And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”
Rev. 4:8 "And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come."
4. God is righteous
Neh. 9:32-33, "Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who dost keep covenant and lovingkindness, Do not let all the hardship seem insignificant before Thee, Which has come upon us, our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers, and on all Thy people, From the days of the kings of Assyria to this day. 33“However, Thou art just in all that has come upon us."
2 Thess. 1:6, "For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you."
5. Therefore, God is infinitely holy and just.
6. Furthermore, God speaks out of the character of what He is.
Matt. 12:34, "...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart."
7. God spoke the Law
Exodus 20:1-17, "Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me...."
8. Therefore, the Law is in the heart of God and is a reflection of God's character since it is Holy and good.
Rom. 7:12, "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."
9. Furthermore, to break the Law of God is to offend Him since it is His Law that we break. This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite.
10. Furthermore, it is also right that God punish the Law breaker. To not punish the Law breaker (sinner) is to allow an offense against His holiness to be ignored.
Amos 2:4, "Thus says the Lord, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they rejected the law of the Lord And have not kept His statutes."
Rom. 4:15, "...for the Law brings about wrath."
11. God says that the person who sins must die (be punished). The wages of sin is death.
Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."
Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
12. The sinner needs to escape the righteous judgment of God or he will face damnation.
Rom. 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
13. But, no sinner can undo an infinite offense since to please God and make things right, he must obey the Law, which is the standard of God's righteous character.
Gal. 2:16, "...by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
14. But the sinner cannot fulfill the law because he is sinful (in the flesh).
Rom. 8:3, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son..."
15. Since the sinner cannot fulfill the law and satisfy God, it follows that only God can do this.
This is simple logic. If we are unable to fulfill the Law, then we will be punished by it. But, since God desires us to be saved, the Law must be satisfied. Since we cannot keep the Law and it must be satisfied, then the only one capable of keeping the Law must keep the Law: God.
16. Jesus is God in flesh.
John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
17. Jesus was also a man under the Law.
1 Tim. 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
18. Jesus became sin for us and bore our sins in His body on the cross, thus fulfilling the Law.
2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
19. Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place.
Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
Gal. 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."
Eph. 5:2, "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."


Believes this answers your questions for why we can't do it on our own, why there is an added level to things, and what I was saying and still am, is the same as what is taught in non-denominational churches, that we can't do it on our own but rather we need God's grace to fulfill the law, which is through salvation give to us freely by Jesus Christ.

"Secondly, you still don’t really address my original issue of Justice and inability. I can simplify it however; do you believe that on our own we are capable of pleasing God? Obviously you do not. There are different ways you can explain the details, but it doesn’t change the basic issue: we are unable because of our very nature to please God, so why is it just for God to be displeased?"

That is because we "mankind" broke the Law of God, which is to offend Him since it is His Law that we break. This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite.

It is just because He is righteous, because He is God, because without Him there would be nothing. As creator, it is His choice on the laws.

"There is no other reason for your entire scenario to exist other than without it you are only left with the Christian bible itself and its teachings, which are incoherent and not morally sound when unadorned with an accompanying theology that is only based on the bible in so far as it ties up loose strings and inconsistencies that the bible contains. I see nothing either in the bible or in anything you have produced to challenge this view. "

That is because you have not even begun to understand the bible or its teachings. As I have seen in your argument no evidence to suggest that you do.
Granted God is infinitely greater than our own understanding and never ending study of His word will still produce new insight and revelations into His being, but the basics of the Law, how Jesus came to fulfill it, or our purpose for existence.




 
individualeleven
Oct 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

"That makes God infinitely selfish, cruel, and indifferent. He knowingly allowed thousands of souls to come into existence who would ultimately be damned because there was no other way to satisfy his own desires. He is infinitely so because the pain he causes other in order to satisfy himself is infinite. Would not a god who is love itself rather content himself with an imperfectly fulfilled desire than create a universe that would inevitably place others in pain just to because he was lonely? "

God is truly worth all that He PROCLAIMS. You see, He is found JUST in doing this very thing! He would be wrong in not doing so. For God not to seek to GLORIFY His name above all other things (first) would be idolatry.

It is wrong for us to be selfish for ourselves and to boast about ourselves because we are NOT by any means worthy of these proclamation (we are not God). For us to praise any other being than God is idolatry and for God to praise any other being (or place any other person as being more valuable) but Himself is also idolatry.

So, in Ephesians where God has told us that HE chooses and works all things for His will, pleasure, or glory. God is essentially worshiping HIMSELF. He is glorying in HIMSELF. God is being selfish and HE will do it HIS way.

God is not a contingent being. However, we are. God's choice in us, God's plan of salvation before the foundations of the world is not be-thwarted by any means. It is coming about just as HE has "predestined" it to be. And in this He rejoices.

Also check out this Link: http://christianstudy.homestead.com/files/classes/defending_the_faith/lesson11.htm

Now for Hell:
I want to start by saying that I shouldn't have excluded physical torment.
I believe it is both separation and physical that people will endure in Hell.
First separation from God whom is omnipresent is not a contradiction, but rather viewed on two different levels.
It is a spiritual separation that we experience because of our sin, not a strictly local separation.
So God can be all places but you can be apart spiritually.
Although the church in its infancy did experience God's presence in connection with holy places this experience is abrogated by the coming of Christ (John 4:20-24. That is not to deny the present dwelling of the covenant God among his people by the Spirit, but it is to say that this dwelling is not associated with geographic places. Even so this was well understood by Solomon, who knew full well that event though God would dwell in the temple even the highest heavens could not contain him (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1-2, Acts 7:47-50). So the language of drawing near and departing from God's presence isn't a matter of physical distance but of his relationship to us.

As far as Hell being also a physical place:
Matthew 10:28 is also significant along these lines: “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” What is important to note here is that the place of the destruction of the body is hell. If the body were dead before the soul goes to hell, Jesus could not have said this.

Matt 25:46: “The [wicked] will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.” The parallel (as well as the discourse up until this point) leads us to only one conclusion: the place of torment parallels the place of blessing in its eternal nature. Further, there is no hint of distinction between the righteous and the wicked in terms of body-soul combination. If the righteous go to heaven in body and soul (what else could the resurrection mean?), then the wicked go to hell in body and soul.

2 Cor 5:1-10: Paul discusses the prospects of dying and being in the presence of the Lord, awaiting the reunification with his body (that will be raised at the rapture-1 Thess 4:13-18).

Is God present in Hell? We have to say that he is. Firstly, because Scripture affirms that he is. In Hell there is torment day and night in the presence of the holy angels and the in the presence of the Lamb (Rev. 14:9-11). Secondly, to deny that he is present in all of his creation is to deny that God is infinite and immense. Was God present at the cross when Christ was forsaken? He was spatially as present in Jerusalem then as he is today. Nevertheless in a way that we cannot comprehend but which is the cause of all our hope in time and eternity, we believe that the Son of God knew all the torments of a condemned sinner, and all the relational distance that guilty sinners will receive. His experience of being forsaken was not imagined (Mark 15:33-34). In that cry of dereliction he knew abandonment, as Christ the only true and perfect covenant keeper, bore the full weight of the covenant curses in the place of his people (Gal. 3:10-14).

When we turn to the Westminster Larger Catechism question 29, which deals with the subject of God's relationship to those who will experience future judgement in Hell, we find a precision of thought on these matters that is often lacking today:

Q. 29. What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?

A. The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever. (emphasis added)

Hell is not spatial separation from God, it cannot be because God is omnipresent. No, Hell is separation from the comfortable presence of God. It is the unshielded experience of the presence of God in his holiness and just wrath, and the absence of his mercy and grace.




The biggest thing is, regardless of if there is real fire and torment to cause us never ending pain, it is the separation from God that will be the worse pain of all.

and again this is JUST due to the sin against an eternal God according to His righteousness. And the "good news" is the salvation from this Hell by freely accepting a Gift of eternal life.


 
carlodog
Oct 31, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

Thank you for your response and argument, I believe that you were clear enough.
I in no way claim that the nature of humanity is not defected. The defect is in the wills natural disposition to do evil.. The first chapter of Romans establishes this fact. 1:18-20 God's wrath is revealed against all wicked men that suppress the truth. Even though God clearly revealed Himself. One must use the will to suppress truth. 21-25 Despite their knowledge of God the exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image. and served the creature rather than the creator. the will is exercised to make an exchange and to serve. 26-32 So in response to their willful disobedience God gives them over to their passions and lusts. God gave them over to a depraved mind.

The wrath of God was revealed against humanity because of their willful inclination not to serve Him.

Another passage is Ephesians 2:1-3. Were Paul states that the Ephesians were by nature children of wrath. Why? Because they walked according to the course of this world. Living in the lusts of the flesh, indulging in the desires of the flesh and the mind. They were children of wrath because they indulged (which is a willful choice) in their wicked desires.

You mentioned being slaves of sin, that passage compliments this passage and that of Romans 1.

Romans 6:16 "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" Paul presupposes that one exercises the will when they 'present their selves to someone as slaves"

This is strengthened in verse 19 "...For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification." Just as they chose to in past times to present their selves to sin, now they are to choose to present their self to righteousness. Those who are slaves of sin are slaves because they choose to present their selves as obedient to sin.

What about the universality of this natural inclination to choose sin? This much I do not even have to prove, these passages above teach that those who sin, do so willfully, unlike those who urinate. By this established fact plus the declaration that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It only follows that all men have sinned because they willfully chose to obey their natural inclination to sin and thus have fallen short of the glory of God. Therefor God is completely just to punish those who chose to obey their own inclinations than to obey His perfect and righteous law.

However, Romans 2 and 3 establish this fact as well.

 
individualeleven
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

"Did you actually read the first post or did you just see the heading and immediately put your complete Biblical catechism on CD in and hit repeat and not give it a second thought?"

Your seriously asking this? If I didn't immediately answer the first question stated, then I was answering to someone's post, which in this case I was responding to the first two posts. I then went on to answer more questions that you asked for. If you want to play that kind of game then next time just don't bother to make a debate.

When I said He is just for it is His choice of laws, I was referring to His choice of laws for man, Not Himself. But I should have clarified, even though I didn't put those two statements together like you tried to do and miss use them out of context.
But I agree that He can't do anything He wants. His nature demands that He does certain things and not others, such as sinning or worshiping anything above Himself. I was not contradicting my statement on what the laws that He set for us, but more so that His laws are indeed derived from His nature.

So hopefully that clarifies for you. And therefore just about everything from "If the laws are God’s choice then he didn’t have to follow them, he didn’t have to torture to death his own son to forgive us" and down has now been nullified.

Also any "torture" or what you should mean is "going to Hell" isn't from breaking laws and not being able to live up to God's expectations. It is from choosing to not accept the free way out. By not accepting Him. You keep trying to say that we shouldn't be punished for something that is out of our control, but that is where your wrong. It is in our control, whether in this lifetime or the next, as described in revelations. I know I wrote this before.

And yes I do argue with the "vast majority of Christians" too. The one thing I don't like is the ambiguous title of Christian. There are too many religions all being grouped together under one label, giving a bad rep for all Christians. It's no wonder that there are so many people confused on what is and what isn't.





 
individualeleven
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

By not allowing people into heaven that don't want to go, is not cruel.
God is love and everything that is derives from that nature, including righteousness, justice, and holiness.
1 Corinthians 13:
The apostle Paul was talking about spiritual gifts and that all of it will pass away, except love, that "humans" should have this love first. You took this and used it out of context as well.
The love then described is what we as HUMANS should have and understand.
God is not us, His love is in fact different.
That is why I said "It is wrong for us to be selfish for ourselves and to boast about ourselves because we are NOT by any means worthy of these proclamation (we are not God). For us to praise any other being than God is idolatry and for God to praise any other being (or place any other person as being more valuable) but Himself is also idolatry."

You can believe what you want, add extra adjectives to make your point seem more plausible, but I have not contradicted, nor does the bible contradict itself. You must view it within the context first to know what it actually means, before you can cross reference it with other verses and or attempt to pick at it.



And yes Idolatry is the worship of anything else but God, or even placing anything above God. According to the Christian beliefs. Since that is what we are talking about.
So by your definition "not not worshiping God" how are you then not placing anything else in your life above God, on your list of prioritizes? Anything you do that God doesn't come first is then Idolatry. This is indeed taught in churches. When we speak out against putting things like football or jobs before God. It is in no way saying that those things are wrong, but that we as Christians should regard God with higher value. Otherwise they can become wrong.

It is similar to the definition of addiction. For the reasoning that gambling is not inheritably wrong, but for someone that knows they have troubles in that area, it can become wrong for that individual.



 
individualeleven
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

"Lets say someone commits a murder and received a death sentence: first of all what judge in his right mind would accept someone else trying to take the punishment for that person and be satisfied? Its preposterous, it doesnt satisfy justice to punish an innocent person and let the guilty go free. Plus it even if some judge accepted it as justice (and didnt lose his job) the guilty person would not become innocent, punishing someone else doesnt remove your guilt. "

In a human society yeah. You make it sound like murder is such a cosmic breaking offense that an infinite God, infinitely above all matters would have to take into consideration that that offense is unforgivable. Even families of various victims have found forgiveness of the murderer's sin. How much greater is God?

The reason why Jesus taking our place for our sins is different than an earthly judge accepting someone else to take the fall over the guilty person is this:
For wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) In order for people in the old testament to temporarily atone for their sins, God demanded a sacrifice, so the use of the best dove or sheep or other livestock, became the blood sacrifice. Jesus came to take that ritual away and offer Himself instead, as both God and a Man, to be put to death. But because He was pure and blameless, Hell and death could not keep Him, and He rose again conquering death.

Never does that mean that because one act of sin brought death, then one act of good will save us.

Leviticus 18 Here the Lord is speaking to Moses and giving him laws to live by and for his people.
In verse 5 God is not referring to the word "live" as in eternal life.

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
3After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
5Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.


Your trying to force your understanding of the world around you as a definition for what God can and cannot do.
And in doing so you try to limit the number of possibilities to that of your own understanding, and then state them as if fact.

So, "either we are incapable of any "good" or righteous acts, in which case we have no choice but to sin and God is unjust punishing us for it, or we are still capable of some righteousness." And? is that all there is to the second option?
"God's system can function one of two ways: either he rewards "good" and punishes "bad" (which every Christian theology more or less rejects in some way but still has biblical support) OR he created us specifically for righteousness and therefore we deserve nothing for fulfilling our purpose but can deserve punishment for deviating from it (sinning).
Those are the only two options? Where does "every" Christian theology more or less reject awarding good and punishing bad? Think you need to establish what your meaning by good and bad in relation to the bible. Because good and bad and their coinciding reward or punishment is different from sin and the punishment for that, due to the "reward for good" is not good behavior but merely accepting a free gift. Meaning they're two different topics.
First He created us for the purpose of relationship, His righteousness just gave us a means to get back into that relationship. Sounds like your trying to argue that because God sees the end as well as the beginning, that all His plans had to be created for one thing. But your negating the fact that something can be created for another purpose, while simultaneously knowing that that purpose can be twisted or changed, but this doesn't exclude the intended purpose from the beginning. For example, If I create matches to light lamps, though knowing that fire can and will be used for many other things, doesn't mean that what I the creator, meant for the match.

Here is a third option. Adam and Eve sinned, allowing sin and death into the world, thus breaking His eternal law resulting in eternal death, we being children of Adam and Eve are born into this sinful nature. Yet God being Just gave mankind a way out through Jesus, because God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, so that who so ever believes in Him shall have everlasting life.
Even the people before Jesus's time could be saved by faith in the coming Messiah, as seen in the books about Abraham, Job, and Moses. One example is"
“For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth. And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19:25-26).
Another is: "Abraham believed in the Lord and He accounted it to him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)






 
individualeleven
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

The reason I don’t get into debate about topics like “Is the war in Iraq wrong?” is because I don’t have the information that the generals and advisors have that has been classified as top secret. If I did have that information then I would have an opinion on rather it was wrong or not. Thus to state an opinion on something that I wouldn’t have the full facts on would become an argument of ignorance, unless I state that I’m willing to be wrong and learn otherwise.
Same goes for people that don’t read the full bible in its proper context and take the proper time to see what the scholars say about it. They too end up miss-using quotes out of context and making blanketed statements as if they are fact on subjects they are not fully aware of.

If you want to have a proper debate on something you know limited knowledge of, then you should be asking more questions. If something doesn’t make since, state it so and your reasons for why it doesn’t and then ask more questions to clarify. If an answer replied then doesn’t satisfy, state why and say you’re just not convinced. If your question proves unanswerable, then perhaps the other side can then learn something new or even change their view and side with you.
This line of debate doesn’t exclude your ability to lead off with an argument, but if it is determined that your opponent might know more about the topic in general (even if some things may end up being wrong), then it would then be best to start in with the questions so that real reason will be found.
Otherwise all you end up doing is making arguments with many holes in it that the other side will always point out, and it will keep going.
Now this only works if one opponent knows more on the subject then the other. Which is most debates. Otherwise if both sides are “equally” uniformed, then through mutual questionings, may reason come to light.

For instance this topic: The Christian God is unjust.
You “presumably” not being Christian attacking a Christian’s God puts you at the lesser and me at the greater in the field in which we are debating. So if you want to keep going, I’ll be glad to point out every instance in which your argument fails. Since you have more than made your point for injustice, I have no questions for you and don't see proper reasoning in your arguments. This is up to you to decide if your going to consider new possibilities or just continue on the way you have and end it.

I can see all the points your trying to make, these points are not new as others have made them before, but I have not seen actual points within context of the books within the bible or any facts outside the bible to suggest to me of cruelty or injustice that the bible doesn't adequately explain. This is a faith, one in which people can freely choose to accept or not.


 
carlodog
Nov 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

I think that I understand your argument fairly clearly. However, I am having a hard time understanding these two paragraphs. Would you mind rephrasing? Thank You.

Plus the verse on slavery, which if we take as genuinely appropriate metaphor and interpret in relation to the ones I gave show that we are slaves to sin and thus not in control; even if that condition is one we enter into by free will, they show clearly that sin is not something controlled by us. As for the fact that several times it is stated or implied that we find ourselves in that condition because of our own choice, my answer is that is that it is that the bible is being absurd and wasn’t written with intention of making perfect sense. I say so because, while I am not a lawyer and thus unable to say what the exact legal status of a person who commits a crime but was devoid of moral responsibility because of a noncriminal choice he made before the crime would be, I am fairly certain that such condition does not exist. Nothing comes to mind.
But we are not morally responsible because all the verses above state that either will to sin is not controllable or that act of sin itself is not controllable (another a bizarrely contradictory fact for a divinely inspired book I might add). Even if we are responsible for the choice that brought us to that condition, we are not responsible for the crime; because the texts do not state that rejecting (which is the most the new testament allows for us to have a choice in) God is the sin, thus we don’t choose to do the crime, rather they all state that that sin (which we don’t control) is what follows after rejecting god. If you think that’s absurd, I couldn’t agree more, but I believe I’ve stayed quite true to the words of texts we’ve examined.
Regardless, that we have the power over the act of sin itself is not something those passages support. Thus we have no moral responsibility. You may still argue that we are responsible for the sin because we made the choice that caused the sin. If that’s the case at the very least you must admit that your position that we choose to commit sin itself is unfounded. Furthermore, if I claim the opposite: that even though we make the choice to put ourselves in bondage does not impart guilt to us because we don’t choose to do the act of sin itself, I don’t think you have any right to criticize me because the position is, as far as I can see, at least as logically sound as your own: that a will that inevitably chooses to sin no matter what is still a free will because it chooses to sin.


 
carter71646
Nov 03, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

My beliefs aren't important. But simple knowledge of the Christian Bible proves your point to be wrong. A non- Christian isn't punished for sinning. If you are not a Christian, the only thing you can be punished for is not being a Christian at death and going to Hell. According to the Bible, God gives everyone the free will to choose to be a Christian. It isn't unjust if he gives you free will. As for your argument on simply sinning, according to the Bible, all people have sinned. But a closer look would prove that only Christians are punished by their father for sinning. This punishment comes in different forms, and isn't permanent. The one statement I need to tell you to completely prove you wrong is this; According to the Bible, we all have free will. So if a Christian is punished for sinning, is was under his own free will for committing the sin. If a Non- Christian goes to Hell for not becoming a Christian (assuming Christianity is real) then it is under his own free will that he didn't become a Christian. Another example is this; Is it unjust to allow a murderer to go unpunished? There are laws that conflict him from being legally able to murder someone. So he is punished because he murdered someone under his own free will. His punishment isn't unjust because he committed the crime under his own free will. The same applies to Christianity. If someone sins, (breaking a Christian Biblical law) or doesn't become a Christian, it is under their own free will, and their punishment is justified if Christianity is real.

 
individualeleven
Nov 11, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

I was unaware of which questions I didn't answer. If I missed one please point out which ones I missed and I'll answer them.
What I believe...

God created us for a relationship and worship.
God is love, he is perfect, holy, and righteousness.
Sin cannot be a part of Him.
When mankind sinned, we made an offense to an eternal God.
The penalty for sin was death.
For eternal life tainted by sin cannot be omitted in His presence.
Hell and the lake of fire, is a physical place and a spiritual separation from God.
Sins could only be covered in the old testament by sacrificing the perfect livestock.
However in faith of the one to come, the messiah, one's sin could be forgiven and accounted unto righteousness.
Jesus then came to fulfill the law and become the last perfect sacrifice for past, present, and future sins.
He being blameless, couldn't be held in hell, and three days later rose again, conquering the grave.
He appeared to hundreds and then rose into heaven a little while later in front of many witnesses.
God knowing ahead of time that some of mankind would still choose to not accept this free gift of salvation, still deemed it worth it to create the universe and us.
It was important for an all powerful God to give us freedom to choose Him by faith. If it wasn't for this faith, then any choice towards Him wouldn't be genuine love, but fear. So everything He did was because He loved us so, and there was no better way nor a better opportunity for us as humans to truly appreciate our maker. That is why it is just for Him to do what He did.
So all sins are forgiven, yet we still need to choose to accept Jesus as lord and savior, for He is the only way into heaven.
All will have the choice, in this lifetime or in the next, as described in revelations and the thousand year reign.

I hope this was both in depth and brief.

 
individualeleven
Nov 12, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xyze Show

You cannot get that path of logic from what I wrote, unless you didn't fully read what I wrote. Also If you scroll up and read some of my other arguments, you will find I already addressed the newborn issue as well.

I can understand if you didn't read other arguments before adding your own, many people do that too, but if your going to rebuttal me, then I suggest you see if I've already been asked that question, or at least fully read the segment in which you are refuting.

 
individualeleven
Nov 22, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jdw Show

Let me ask you this then, taking in consideration that you believe God is real for the sake of this argument.
For a God that is perfect and holy and righteous, if no sin can be a part of Him, how would a small sin like a lie, be any worse then a big sin like murder?
If both sins are great enough to be cast out of His presence, it doesn't matter then if one person has a great many sins, and the good atheist has only one minor sin. Instead, Jesus paid the price for every sin, creating a way back to God. This way is a simple choice in accepting Jesus as lord and savior.
It is not the sins that we are punished for, it is not choosing God.
How is that not just?

If a boss fires two people for doing wrong in the company, one person stole money, the other, lied to a customer on a minor detail. If the boss says you both can come back, but all you have to do is write me an apology, would that be unjust?

We has mere humans in a universe of imminence magnitudes are nothing but specks and therefore can't comprehend fully how powerful God is. Why would we then think that God isn't capable of forgiving both the liar and the murderer?
If some families of victims can find in their hearts to forgive a murderer, why would the creator be incapable?

That is why it is the choice to accept Jesus by faith, that God is just.
There are reasons for the way things are, they couldn't be any other way.

 
individualeleven
Nov 22, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jdw Show

Also one last thing;
Christians work on sunday too, as did Jesus.

 
hughes97
Nov 24, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If God has acted unfairly you should forgive him. It's what he would want.

 
carlodog
Nov 27, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: saruman Show

Sorry for my delayed response.

Concerning the passage in Ephesians. The meaning of that passage is quite simple. Any person reading this passage and taking it for what it says at face value, would come to the conclusion that they were children of wrath because of their actions, indulging in the lusts of the flesh and mind, thus, following after the prince of the power of the air. Dead in their trespasses and sins, that is dead ‘through’ their trespasses and sins, or even clearer dead ’because’ of their trespasses and sins.

Now the passages provided that state that God gave them over to shameful lusts and sin, in now way imputes fault on God’s part. Nor does it say that God does anything to them, other than allowing them to continue in their sin. Whoever said that God was obligated to ensure that humanity does not sin? The point is that humanity was bent towards committing sin, so God gave them over to the lusts of their flesh. This passage in no way speaks about the nature of the will of humanity, it simply states that God gave them over to acts of sin. But it does not speak to their ability to resist sin or to even chose it. It presupposes that humanity has already chose to sin. In continuing to sin, God gives them up to what they want the most.

Never did I say that we are capable of pleasing God on our own. I said that we are willful slaves of sin, and being slaves of sin we are bound to do sin. Being bound to sin only we are not capable of pleasing God. How this is at odds with 2,000 years of Christian tradition I do not know. This is precisely what Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards taught. Luther and Calvin both being accredited for the reformation were only following Agustin’s doctrine, and Agustin emphatically received his doctrine from the works of the apostle Paul. Humanity is incapable of obeying or pleasing God (Augustine), because we are in bondage to sin (Luther), not under compulsion but willfully (Calvin), willfully because we are inclined to sin (Edwards). All four men are in complete compliance with each other in this regard. This is the protestant doctrine.

This is a genuine inability. Edwards in the most excellent way in his book Freedom Of The Will demonstrated that the human will is bound by its natural disposition. The will cannot contradict its desire. The will always does what is most pleasing to the person who possesses the will. If the will if governing by the desire of the person, if it is true that the person always wills what is most desired, then it is a genuine inability if one does not desire God. They cannot obey God because they do not desire to obey God. They cannot because they will not. Here are a few illustrations of what is called ‘moral inability’ from Edwards book “A woman of great honour and chastity may have a moral inability to prostitute herself to her slave. A child of great love and duty to his parents may be unable to be willing to kill his father. A very lascivious man, in case of certain opportunities and temptations, and in the absence of such and such restraints, may be unable to forbear gratifying his lust… A strong habit of virtue, and great degree of holiness may cause an moral inability to love wickedness in general, may render a man unable to take complacence in wicked persons or things, or to choose a wicked life a prefer it to a virtuous life. And, on the other hand, a great degree of habitual wickedness may lay a man under an inability to love and choose holiness, and render him utterly unable to love any infinitely holy Being, or to choose to cleave to Him as his chief good.”

Why is the inclination to sin so strong in humanity that none choose God? There is nothing external to the human that compels them to have this inclination. They are under not compulsion. The source is in them selves, and is a direct effect of the fall. Its not the strength of the inclination that renders a man to not choose God. It’s the very fact that the inclination is there and is more pleasing to the person than its contrary.

Its not an either I believe that people are unable or I believe that they are unwilling. I say people are unable because they are unwilling.

Now in response to Romans 7. It must be noted that our discussion up to this point has been in reference to unsaved humanity as a whole, and how it is that God is just in PUNISHING those who do not have the ability to obey Him. Now in Romans 7 there is a different premise added, that is the regeneration of the fallen human nature. This additional premise is in Galatians 5 as well. In both Romans and Galatians Paul is speaking to saved people, and was himself saved. In addition to this additional premise that changes the debate, it must also be noted that Paul acknowledges that he is still morally responsible for his sinful actions. Hence, “retched man that I am who will deliver me from this body of death, thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Now to understand both Galatians and Romans you must first understand the context of Romans 7 primarily Romans 6. In ch. 6 Paul draws the distinction between the physical man and the spiritual man. Verses 6 “knowing that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin” Certainly Paul was not speaking of the physical body being crucified. Verse 8 “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.” Note the past tense of the word ‘died’, and the future tense of ‘shall also live’. In the present time, the person who has been baptized into the death of Christ is now dead. Certainly this is not a physical death, or there would be no sense in the future tense ‘shall also live’. This is all spoken of the spiritual man, who is now dead to sin. But the body is still alive to sin, it has not yet been redeemed Chapter 8:23. In verse 17 this dichotomy of spirit and physical body culminates to a conclusion. “But thanks be to God that though you WERE slaves of sin, you became obedient from the HEART, to that form of teaching to which you were committed”. Believers were once slaves to sin in the heart, but now by grace we are obedient to God in our heart.

Now Romans 7 caries the conclusion of verse 17 into a personal testimony. Paul starts off with acknowledging that he is unspiritual and still has a sinful nature. The point of the passage was not to demonstrate that he had no control over his sinful fleshly nature. The point was to show that the sinful fleshly nature wages war against the newly regenerated spiritual nature. The point was that the will is divided, between obedience to God in the newly spiritual nature (heart), and the obedience to the sinful fleshly nature. By the very fact that Paul acknowledge guilt for the obedience to the sinful fleshly nature, demonstrates that he was free to choose either way. This passage as well as the Galatians passage in no way hurts my argument, the very fact that Paul acknowledges guilt strengthens my argument.

Your passage from Romans 8 is explained by the will being governed by the desire.

Thank you for your patience in waiting for this rebuttal. And thank you again for your argument, it is hard to find people on this site that actually want to debate a subject. Most just want to share ideas and feelings.

 
blackdawn
Dec 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If God is unjust, then he isn't a God.

 
Nancy Samaan
Sep 02, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xyze Show

He is?
He made the food, He doesn't go and feeds everyone with a spoon until they're done like babies. He gives the food to people who he expects to be a good person and give to the hungry, now it's completely dependent on what the person with the food does. blame the people who do not give the food to the poor, not God, because God did create and give us the food and tells us to give it to the hungry, and now it's completely dependent on the humans.

He makes the ingredients for medicine, He is kind...imagine if we need snake venom for medicine and he stopped making snakes that lash out venom, wouldn't a lot of people die? He gives us the ingredients and we heal others by it, but it's actually Him who's healing because well he invented the ingredients for you to be able to Heal. And a lot of times he does heal without medicine by miracle like the times where they didn't invent medicine yet, he would heal them by miracle. Blame the humans who don't reach the people in time, not God.

He creates people and makes sure they hear about Christianity before they die and he sees if they accept Him and try to follow Him and look up to Him as God, or they hear about Christianity but don't want anybody to tell them what's right and what's the wrong and rebel, and leave Him, and reject His truth. So, when you die, He sees you heard about Him and His Holy book and everything yet you didn't want to believe in Him or follow his instructions even though He knows way better than anything else. He sees if you even tried to think He exists with all your power or never cared from the first place. Then He judges you fairly...you see sins have to be paid, and the wages of sin is burning in Hell, if you lied, you do deserve to burn in Hell. We ALL deserve to burn in Hell, but the difference with Christianity is that God came down as His human form, Jesus, and died paying for our sins, so you, after you accept Him and everything, you do something bad and you feel bad about it, you run to Him and ask His forgiveness and He forgives you because He took that sin you did and already paid for it but you need to ask to confirm that forgiveness. But, if you reject Christianity and Jesus and you never ask for forgiveness, (and by the way once you accept Jesus, Jesus almost automatically forgives you once you say the word and even if you did a sin a second before you die, you still go to Heaven because you already accepted His sacrifice and all your sins are washed away. So, if you do not, you still have your sins on to you and you still need to go to Hell to pay them off yourself because you rejected His sacrifice of paying for you. It's kinda like going shopping, you can't pay for that dress, so your friends offers to pay for you multiple times knowing you don't have the money and she is able to pay, but you insist on no and working your but off to get the money to pay for yourself even though if you spend eternity working, you still wouldn't gather enough money to pay for it.

And if you died before you heard about God or Christianity, like still a baby, or an innocent child (even if from different religion: someone still not able to comprehend everything in his brain) or a person in an technology isolated place like maybe Africa and no missionaries went to tell him about Jesus and he dies without EVER hearing about Christianity or Jesus, then you go straight to Heaven because it's not your fault you didn't know: you never seen it in a church, or from people, or from technology, have no idea what a Bible is, it's not your fault, you go straight to Heaven because you didn't reject or accept, you didn't even know so you're not to blame.

The christian Heaven is basically a perfect world with no evil, no bad, no sin, no hurt, no pain, no broken hearts, nothing also hanging out and praising God who will be your perfect best friend, and you will be able to sin, but you won't since you don't have your fleshly body who rebels against God, and you don't have devils and demons tempting you to do evil things, you only have the Holy Spirit who leads you to do Good, so you don't do evil, you never lie, you never hurt anybody, you never make anybody cry, you basically become like perfect and sinless but still not as perfect and sinless as God. God goes and prepares a place for you to live and such in Heaven, the city of pure gold, the straights are gold and everything, and all the women and girls have long hair because God says women's hair is their pride and cover over their heads because you can't really talk to God without covering your head and your hair works as a cover because he does not like you having to do something on force, he wants to give you a beautiful veil that you enjoy, like your hair. All the women have long, VERY beautiful hair.

And btw if you're a TRUE christian, you hate doing evil, so you hate commiting evil acts. there is a difference between true and false Christians. True Christians do whatever they can to not do evil and not be of the world and act like everyone of the world, and there are false christians who say a prayer accepting God but don't try to live or act like it, and love doing evil: they are false christians and do not go to Heaven. and AND i think Hitler was freaking possesed by a devil, no normal human being can do all that he did without feeling any guilt. i think he was possesed.

God is not unjust, He did EVERYTHING to try to get poeple into Heaven it's just people refuse to be Christians and follow Him, so they choose where to go. God doesn't force people anywhere, some choose to be christians and follow Him and stay with Him in Heaven too because they wanted that and some people want nothing to do with Him, so He gives them what they want; to be away from Him, and they either be with Him and go to Heaven or don't want anything to do with Him so their only other option is Hell. BTW Hell is just being without God. Because God protects you from the devils and demons trying to kill you and harm you, so when you choose to leave Him, no one is protecting you from the devils and the demons who them torture you forever. God is fair and just and gives people what they want because He loves them, if it menat something other than Him. If you had a boyfriend or a girlfirend but they fell in love with someone else, someone who you know will hurt them and you warned them but they choose to go to that other person, because you love them and want them to be happy even if it means making you miserable, you let them go, because you don't like forcing people to love you. And BTW it hurts God way more to see you in Hell, than for you to be in Hell. That's how much He loves you but it's too late to come back and God actually sobs for you, but you chose your own way and He gave you what you wanted because He loves you and warned you but you refused to listen, so because He loves you, He gave you what you wanted. it's kinda like the guy or girl went to that other guy and got their heart broken and sat down crying and their ex who let them go because he loves them saw them hurt and crying and felt more pain than the person who got their heart broken themselves, and the ex cried even more because it's too late for you to go back together. It hurt the ex even more. Same thing with God.

God Bless

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

atheism christianity debate god islam religion Abortion atheism atheist athiesm athiest BBC belief Beliefs bible buddhism catholic catholicism Christ christian christianity christians Christmas church Creation creationism death debate enlightenment ethics evil Evolution faith god heaven Hell hinduism Islam islamic jesus jewish judaism logic love morality mosque muslim opression peace philosophy politics Pope religion Religon Salvation satan Science scientology sex sin society supernatural terrorism Theology Truth VanCam violence war world