The Instigator
felixmendelssohn
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dukeofpanda
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God Is Unnecessary As A Basis For Morality And Justice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
00days22hours06minutes13seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 116101
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)

 

felixmendelssohn

Pro

The topic of whether God is a necessary foundation for morality and justice has been topic of every religious debate. Christians often points to the usefulness of God as a foundation for freewill and justice. I am, however, convinced that nature and logical laws are enough to justified moral instincts.

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2,3,4: pro and con responds to each other arguments.
dukeofpanda

Con

I accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
felixmendelssohn

Pro

Since I claimed God was unnecessary as a basis for morality and justice, I will attempt to establish a system of morality that consistently produces moral consequences that align with our moral instinct without the relying on the existence of a deity. As there are two primary components of any theory: assumptions and derivations, I will present my arguments in similar order.

Premises:

1. Morality is the product of interactions driven by self-interest in a society.

One common characteristic among moral laws is that they protect the good of everyone in a society. For example, stealing is socially accepted as being morally wrong because a society tolerates stealing would have the following problems:
a. Due to the principle of least action, people would not produce but would instead rely on stealing, the option that takes less effort.
b. This results in a society where no one would produce because who would have an incentive to produce just for their property to be stolen.
c. The group of thieves who dominate and survive in this society must therefore be : very intelligent and/or physically superior.
d. Since the group of individuals who possess both favorable traits mentioned in (c) would be a rarity (because they lie at the upper end of a normal distribution) compare to the majority of people who lie at the lower and middle of the distribution, a society tolerating theft would fail to protect the good of everyone .
e. By the principle of self-interest, the majority of people who is not at the elite top of the population both in term of intelligence and physical strength would not allow tolerance of theft to constitute a society.

2. Objective Moral Values is unnescessary and all that requires to explain where morality comes from is natural selection

Objective moral values is claimed to exist but there is no other way to find it which make it a useless concept.

As each individual in a specie undergoes natural selection, so does societies. It is easy to conceive many societies that have different moral axioms. In the U.S for instance, Hamilton made a axiomatic assumption that all men are created equal. The moral axioms of a society is like traits of an individual. Some proves to be lengthening a society existence in time while others detrimental. For example, imagine a society that tolerate murder and another society that does not. The society that tolerate murder would have quite some problem. Since life is full of conflicts, everyone would just murder anyone they don't like. Those found at the top of this hierachy would naturally be muderous psychopaths. Those underneath would be oppressed to work in slavery for their lives. Furthermore, this would prove to be a very unstable if not impossible hierachy because when it comes to the ability to kill, the majority at the bottom have more than those few at the top of the hierachy. This hierachy if collapse would result in constant killing and the society either stagnate or annihilate itself. Thus, a society that tolerates murder cannot exists and progress through time like one that does not.

By these two principles, one can explain any moral virtues and thus God is unnecessary.



dukeofpanda

Con

I would like to open by stating that this argument is very closely tied to the core issue in the Bible. In the book of Genesis when Adam is told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad Adam is being presented with the choice to accept God's rulership over him and his standards of what is right and wrong, or he can take from the tree and decide for himself. Thus it is fitting that when Satan tempts Eve and tells her she can become like God deciding what is right and wrong for herself because that is exactly what the tree was; independence from God by establishing one's own rules for what was right and wrong; essentially morality. Satan manipulated Eve into choosing independence and Adam willfully went along.

From a religious point of view Adam and Eve joined Satan in rebellious independence and chose to make their own rules regarding morality.

Today we are discussing this same issue. The pro has essentially sided with Satan in this case by arguing that we do not need God to establish what is morally right, wrong and just.

I disagree with the pro and hold that God IS necessary for establishing what is morally right, wrong and just.

First I want to rebut your points.

You are wrong to assume that the principle of least action would lead to a society of thieves becoming unproductive. A society accustomed to theft would take appropriate countermeasures to theft and eventually make theft the path of most action. It could even generate a society better suited to taking advantage of societies around them with the know how to prevent foreigners from stealing from them. Or you could argue that if theft were not morally wrong that particular society would simply have no concept of personal property as the people were free to take as they needed. What you could end up with is a society that works toward the betterment of the whole society through over abundance for the whole in order to eliminate all want or need. My point is that a society of theft would not view theft as we do, those who live in a society where the concept of theft exists and is wrong.

Also the progressive tax is direct proof that the majority of of people not part of the elite top in terms of strength and intelligence DO allow for theft to constitute a society. Ask any Republican and they will tell you that the progressive tax is theft.

Your premise that Morality stems from self interest is entirely false. Self interest leads to a society that allowed for the systematic imprisonment and extermination of Jews and others during world war 2. A process that also saw the theft of all their possessions. The US saw the same thing happen to the native American population. Those people were killed and driven off their land into small sections of society only to have he government try to further exterminate them by initiating a forced sterilization program. Society turned a blind eye to these atrocities for years for as long as they could and even today many of the injustices still haven't been resolved. This stuff continues to happen in countries were religious and ethnic minorities continue to be openly beaten and have their belongings illegally confiscated all to the approval or complicity of the majority. There is a self interest being played out in these circumstances that appear entirely moral to the members of those societies. But they are not moral.

This is all definitely part of a selection process as well. Is it natural? It is within the parameters of what constitutes human behavior but it can be argued that humans are far removed from the natural world. Humans are unique in that our actions aren't dictated by instinctual programming. We are self aware of our existence and, to a degree, our place in the universe. There is no natural selection taking place in our decisions to rape, murder, minimize groups of people, and then turn around with some process of rationalization to morally justify the reasons we did it. But it happens daily and for all these reasons both of your premises are highly flawed if not completely false.

And now I'd like to present the first of my arguments.

God is necessary for a basis of Morality because mankind's sense of morality and justice is inconsistent and problematic.

Throughout my rebuttal I have detailed what happens when people are left to decide what is morally acceptable. Sure, in hindsight we say that those things are morally acceptable, but during the height of the moment when those things happened the majority of people who witnessed it turned a blind eye and many of those committing those crimes never even questioned the morality of what they were doing. Because in those moments the majority of society involved decided it was morally acceptable. The morality of man bends to their own selfish desires. It is only when man has finished running the course and turns around to see the trail of blood and tears smeared across history do they decide it was probably not the right thing do. After which they will declare that have learned better and are thus morally just, right until they repeat the whole process every single time, over and over.

We continue to have this trial and error approach to justice and morality and while we try to figure it out and how to implement the execution of laws to uphold those ever changing concepts people are suffering and dying. This is what we have chosen when we decided to figure it out on our own independent from God.

It's like if you were to try to play a sport, but everyone kept changing the rules and objectives as you went along. It's frustrating and in the end you have no clear idea what you are even doing on the field.

The Principles of morality as set by God are unchanging. They provide a consistent standard that does not bend to the whims of whimsical mankind. We don't have to toil away trying to figure out what is right and wrong. The more we keep trying to change and adjust what is right and wrong to suit our misguided desires the more people will suffer.

God is necessary as a basis for morality in order to give people clear direction; a solid foundation.
Debate Round No. 2
felixmendelssohn

Pro

I thank Con for the penetrative critique. However, I think con had misunderstood my points therefore I'll first clarify and defend my previous points and then respond to con's arguments.

Clarification and Defending my own arguments.

I. Con argued by presenting alternate logical possibilities that I overlooked in my first premise. I will attempt to defend by showing the logical route I presented is the most valid.

1. “A society accustomed to theft would take appropriate countermeasures to theft and eventually make theft the path of most action”
This supports my point. Given any two societies where one favors theft and the other does not, the one favors theft will evolve into one that does not. The point is that a theft-favoring society is just as impossible as a squared circle.

2. “It could even generate a society better suited to taking advantage of societies around them with the know how to prevent foreigners from stealing from them”
Then let them continue to dominate the world until they have no other countries to steal from but themselves, then my argument still holds.

3. “Or you could argue that if theft were not morally wrong that particular society would simply have no concept of personal property as the people were free to take as they needed. What you could end up with is a society that works toward the betterment of the whole society through over abundance for the whole in order to eliminate all want or need”
What you just described is communism which has been shown to fail and the evidence is that there are way more capitalist countries than communist countries. The reason why the society you describe doesn’t work is because history has shown that it is impossible to make people work for stuff that is not theirs.

4. “My point is that a society of theft would not view theft as we do, those who live in a society where the concept of theft exists and is wrong.”

It doesn’t matter what that society views theft as, such society just cannot exist and persist through time.

5. “Also the progressive tax is direct proof that the majority of of people not part of the elite top in terms of strength and intelligence DO allow for theft to constitute a society. Ask any Republican and they will tell you that the progressive tax is theft.”

This is mere word play. In my argument, people who are NOT in the elite class condemn theft because it takes property away from them. In your example, such people tolerate theft for it adds to their quality of life, not taking it away. My “theft”: take away from the poor. Your “theft”: take away from the rich. 2 different things.

6. “Self interest leads to a society that allowed for the systematic imprisonment and extermination of Jews and others during world war” and ”A process that also saw the theft of all their possessions. The US saw the same thing happen to the native American population”
You misinterpreted my point because when I mention self-interest, I did NOT say that only a certain group is entitled to act according to their self-interest but rather each rational individual in a society exerts their self-interest. The Native American did exerts their self-interest against this in the “American Indian Movement”. I wonder what you think about the Bible justifying discrimination against homosexuals? Two opposing groups in a society exert their self-interest on one another till they reach an agreeable equilibrium. In this view, morality is something that emerge over time as individuals interact with self-interest in mind. Self-interest does not instantly creates morality but rather eventually.

7. “There is no natural selection taking place in our decisions to rape, murder, minimize groups of people, and then turn around with some process of rationalization to morally justify the reasons we did it. But it happens daily and for all these reasons both of your premises are highly flawed if not completely false.”

I think you misinterpreted what I meant again. When I mention the natural selection of societies, my ideas was that :
a. Morality is something that is agreed among the majority of the members belong to a society.
b. If it is agreed among the members of a society then it is subjective to that society and therefore there can be different societies with different laws that its people agree upon.
c. Not all societal laws are the same. Some laws allow a society to flourish through time and some do not. That is why the societies that survive till today all hold some traits in common such as the prohibition of murder. Just like the animals that survive and observed today are capable of reproduction.


8. “We continue to have this trial and error approach to justice and morality and while we try to figure it out and how to implementthe execution of laws to uphold those ever changing concepts people are suffering and dying. This is what we have chosen when we decided to figure it out on our own independent from God.”

I would have prefer for con to restrict his use of the Bible since I do not assume the Bible to be the source of truth that we agreed on. What con seems to argue here is way weaker than the claim of this debate. The assumption that it would be better for us to have obey God in the garden does not say anything about god’s necessity for morality.

9. “The Principles of morality as set by God are unchanging. They provide a consistent standard that does not bend to the whims of whimsical mankind. We don't have to toil away trying to figure out what is right and wrong. The more we keep trying to change and adjust what is right and wrong to suit our misguided desires the more people will suffer.”
I think such statements are impractical. Even if such objective morality set by God is unchanging, it is inaccessible because we are constantly adjusting morality so that opposing groups can exert the same amount of self-interest.

ARGUMENTS:

1. There are moral laws that prove morality is a constantly evolving human construct. Take for example playing music too loud in a library. We know this to be morally wrong (because if it were a right thing to do then we perhaps we shouldn’t be so annoyed at the act of righteousness) but what does the bible have to say about this, or even more general, what does other religions have to say about this. NOTHING. This is because the bible or other religious texts reflect the morality at the time and at the time the concept of music player and library as we know it seems nonexistent. Our list of moral acts nowadays is much more extensive due to the simple fact that morality evolves.

2. Con seems to have agreed with me that morality does evolve over time through trial-and-error and shifted the argument away from its central, original topic. Remember that the central of this debate is whether god is necessary as a basis for morality and justice. One can just simply take the morality obtained through the expensive process of trial-and-error and say that these moral truths were already there before you found it and attribute those moral truths to God, but this would at best settle god as an alternate and artificial foundation for morality rather than a necessary one because morality evolves on its own independent of whether god is in the picture or not.

dukeofpanda

Con

To your argument that the Bible says nothing.

Here's a moral principle in the Bible that covers a multitude of actions, 1 Corinthians 6:12- All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful.

Basically there are many things we have the right to do. You can be a jerk but it isn't helpful. We need to temper what we do in order to not be a burden to others around us. This would include being noisy in a library. The principle of, "don't be a jerk," has not evolved. People have just found new ways to be jerks and so we need to apply this singular unchanging concept to the annoying ways we use new and ever developing technology.

As for your second point. I don't necessarily agree with you. My point was that people dismiss and change their sense of morality when it is convenient for them. The morality of people changes; sometimes for good and other times for worse. That's why it is terrible. And as I said has resulted in the suffering and death of hundreds of millions of people throughout history. Currently in Korea the right to conscientiously object to military service, a right well established in many countries and even in Korea itself, is being trampled upon and many people must suffer time in prison and a criminal record. The Russian government currently violates, harasses and beats people for various reasons most would find morally wrong, but their sense of morality there seems okay with it. This is the problem of morality not based on God. There is no standard. This is not simply trial and error its just straight up getting it wrong. Bribing of public officials is another thing that many would think is bad and yet the US has provisions for it in the law. (slow clap) good job America. The Bible has had principles to protect people from suffering all of these things, if you would study it. And let me tell you its an easier read than all the US laws.

Now for my second argument. Its more from a secular standpoint.

The possibility that a higher power exists has and always should be recognized and the need for authorization by higher authority has been and will always be needed in society.

Throughout history rulers of nations and societies have always sought validation by God, or gods in one way or another what ever that god may be. Religion has been a huge part of the development of many if not all civilizations; it is a fundamental part of our history. God has been an integral part of shaping who we are today whether you like it or not. Having the approval of history to support your legitimacy is still important. That's why the saying of George Orwell, "He who controls the past controls the future," makes sense to so many. Religion, God, is an undeniable part of our past. And if you are going to make any headway into the future especially if it pertains to controlling the moral identity of your people you are going to need to heed God. Why does the money in the US say, "In God we trust?" Why do the leaders the president of the US take his oath on a Bible and conclude with, "so help me god?" It's optional. They aren't idiots, they know the significance of the validation by God whether they believe in him or not. It's unwise to turn your back on history

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, or if you are religious. Or if god even really exists. You can go ahead and think that morality is this human construct that keeps needing to change. The people who really know whats going on will just smile at you and keep on seeking validation from a higher power. If there is a God they sure aren't purposely going to try to piss him off, or the people that believe. That's smart.

God will always need to be a basis for morality and judgement because it's our history; you can't change this part of history. Too many people respect their religious history for leaders and lawmakers to just ignore god. And those leaders know that if there really is a higher authority like so many believe, having his backing is a safe bet, if at least in appearance. Whether you like it or not, God has been, is, and always will be the end all to validation of anything this includes principles of morality and justice.

Just so you know, I will be gone for three days and quite busy so it might be difficult for me to respond. hence why I also put off responding this time till the last possible moment. If you could wait a day or so before responding it would allow me to have time to respond better. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
felixmendelssohn

Pro

I looked up that quote and the meaning within context seems different than your interpretation.

But let's say we go with your interpretation. One can only be a jerk within the context of a society. How could anyone be a jerk when they're alone on an island for example? The point is the principle of don't be a jerk is when your behavior violates the self-interest of others and they bounce back.

It is true that people want moral laws that are convenient for them. But what is convenient for them is inconvenient for others and do you think people would let their convenience taken away?

Korea is a small country. In order to have a denfense comparable to that of the world (which is critical for their existence) they decided that the national good overweight the individual rights to choose.

The bible does not protect the people from all of the immorality like you claimed. In the past the bible was used to justify slavery. It was the slaves acted upon their self-interest that corrects the wrong. This trial and error do not always result in people dying like in the library case. If you don't accept that morality evolves then how did we go from a state of slavery to now?Then and now both derive morality from the bible then whats changed? n if you dont agree with evolving morality, how do you explain stuff in the past that becomes wrong?

Your second point seems to point to the significance of religion in the past. There are alot of things significant in the past but has become heinous in the future like slavery. What has been in the past can be regarded as a lesson, not an immutable tradition because of instances like slavery.

Regarding your last sentence, think of the transitional time between Aristotlian physics and Newtonian phyics. If, like you suggest, we give Aristotlian physics special treatment for its domination in the past, what would the technology now be like?

Sorry if this post is riddled with typos, i posted this from my phone.
dukeofpanda

Con

1 Corinthians 10: 23, 24 says something similar and a bit more pointedly. It adds that we should do what is good for others and not ourselves. Morality from God takes into consideration the well being of others not for self interest but for the interest of peace in general. Romans 12:18 says that as far as it depends upon us, be peaceable with others. The other scriptures in the chapter also tell how a Christian should conduct himself in order to maintain peace.

If you're alone on an Island I suppose you wouldn't have to worry about being a disruption in a library either. An interesting facet to Morality based on God is that those who are governed by godly principles are always conscious of disappointing their god. For example, many people violate speed limits set by local law. It isn't until they see a traffic camera or a police officer that they become concerned with violating the law. This can be said about most crimes that take place. The reach of secular morality is limited to the reach of the government, or societies power and ability to enforce law. Those subjected to Godly principles of morality are constantly concerned with disappointing their God. Now this isn't out of dread but more like how a young child doesn't want to disappoint their parents and lose favor with them. People adhere to Godly principles of morality because they love God and they love their brothers and sisters of faith as well as their neighbors, (which means everyone as illustrated by Jesus parable of the good Samaritan) There is little to no love in secular morality especially if it is guided by "self interest" as you say it is.

To me and many others, morality without love is cold, dead and easily cast off when people aren't forced to adhere to it.

"it is true that people want moral laws that are convenient for them. But what is convenient for them is inconvenient for others and do you think people would let their convenience taken away?"

Yes people, especially men, let their convenience get taken away everytime they get married. People in relationships stop doing things that are convineient, natural, or comfortable to them because it may annoy or make their loved one upset, or uncomfortable. You could say it's out of self interest, but me and a lot of others would say it's because of love. Love is not unneccesary on the contrary it is very neccessary. Godly morality is based on love. A sense of morality is neccessary to function in society and it is reasonable to conclude that the the princiiples of morality based on love would be the superior and more neccessary.

"The bible does not protect the people from all of the immorality like you claimed. In the past the bible was used to justify slavery."

The Bible itself does not justify slavery. It did however impose laws to protect the lives of slaves until slavery could be phased out completely. To explain, under the Mosaic Law Jews were not allowed to completely own their brother or sister of faith. While they could enter into servitude to one another under they were to be freed from their debt of servitude during the jubille year. Even foreign slaves were to be respected and protected. If one were to beat a slave and incur serious damage to their eye they were to be compensated heavily. And should the slave be killed then the owner would have to pay with their own life. There were strict laws regarding slavery and it was not like what we think of slavery nowadays in recent history. While Joseph was a slave in Egypt he aquired a great deal of power, influence, and wealth eventually becoming second only to Pharaoh. But as Christianity came along and brotherhood in faith was extended to everyone, no Christian could realistically keep anyone as a slave especially in the event that a slave become a Christian it would then behoove the owner to set their brother free should the slave desire it. But it wasn't uncommon for slaves to remain in service to their "owners" by choice due to the living conditions being favorable to slaves continued well being. It could be likened to Alfred and Bruce Wayne. Your criticism of slavery in the Bible lacks understanding of historical and biblical context and therefore does not hold up.

"how do you explain stuff in the past that becomes wrong?"

Some things were always wrong. It just took time for people to be taught. Galatians chapter 3 explains the purpose of the Mosaic law to tutor the Jews and help them understand what was right and wrong and protect them. Matthew 19:8 also sheds light on the consistent wrongfulness of certain practices, but how God made provision to regulate certain preactices, in this case divorce, out of regard for the cold hearts and stubbornness of people. Divorce has always been a bad thing in God's eyes, but he stipulated particular grounds for divorce due to the nature of people. Now if you want to talk about the justification of the Jews killing and displacing groups of people, but how Christians are later told that they should pursue peace and that vengence belongs to God I'd be happy to discuss it in length another time. But the short answer is that the Kingdom of Israel was once the physical representation of God'd kingdom and were instrumental in executing God's judgement on those people at that time. You see Abraham was told that he would have to wait for his decendants to take possesion of the land once the badness of the current inhabitants reached a certain point. And at the time the Jews came in fighting those people practiced male, female, homosexual protsitution in their relgious temples as well as child sacrifice. Their cities were full of rampant debauchery, thievery, and murder. They had become so bad they were a pollutant to the land and were thus displaced by the Jews. But the Jewish nation was eventually rejected after they killed the messiah and a superior Kingdom was established in Heaven. And Chiristians constantly pray and wait for that Kingdom to come and exercise it's will upon the Earth. That's it in a nutshell.

I have pointed out the everchanging tides and currents of secular morality and how it is often found wanting; leading to the pain and suffering of many people. This fact you have not really argued and instead you hold that this trial and error approach to morality which has failed so often is part of some kind of refining process. But to what standard is this product of trial and error constantly held against? What tool is used to check and calibrate secular morality? Whether you like it or not it is God's principles of morality that sets the bar in which to measure secular morality. That's partly why I mentioned the religous history of mankind. Mankind will constantly look back to history to gauge what kind of changes it has made and determine how good or bad those changes were. God will never become unnesseccary for establishing principles of Morality and Justice.

What you have admitted about secular morality, how it is constantly evolving to the whims of troubled societies, and how I have pointed out the disastrous results of those often misguided changes only proves the truth of these scriptures.

Proverbs 14:12 - There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Proverbs 21:2 - Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord examines the heart

Secular Morality is wanting and limited in its ability to affect people. God is necessary as a basis for morality and justice.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 week ago
missmedic
God is all-knowing. It knows everything, future and past. This is the omniscient monotheistic God. Such a God exists outside of time, and can see all future and past events as if they've all already happened. This chain of events has all been created by God, from beginning to end. God is immovable, immutable, beyond time. As a result of all this, God clearly knows what tests we will pass and fail. God knows if we are largely moral or largely immoral. It also knows what the person will do because it is all-knowing, and knows all possible future events. God never needs to actually test the person, God already knows if they'll pass. To say that God needs or wants to "test" us is to say that God is not all-knowing.
Given that God knows who will pass and who will fail its tests, and therefore who will get into heaven, what's the point of Earthly existence at all? God knows who will, in the future, deserve to enter heaven. So why doesn't God, with its knowledge, simply put those people into Heaven now? It could do so, if it wanted. Nothing would be lost. Suffering would be reduced, free will would be unaltered. God could have created a world with no evil, no suffering, and no moral confusions. That way, everyone would be happy all the time, and we would rightly know that a loving God existed. God would still know, if it allowed transgression and evil, who would succumb to temptation and who wouldn't. But the actual creation of potential evil is not necessary. As it is clear that suffering exists and moral dilemmas abound, we know that either God is evil or doesn't exist. We certainly know that evil, confusion, suffering and anything else is not a "test" from God.
Posted by dukeofpanda 1 week ago
dukeofpanda
First of all, Adam never apologized for his sin instead he deflected by blaming God for giving him Eve. Adam made an excuse and blamed God, which is not an apology. Furthermore, Angels are also perfect beings, but they too sinned against God when many of them forsook their positions in Heaven and decided to come to Earth to have sex with women. Their children were abominations called the Nephilim and for this God has reserved those angels for permanent destruction in the future. It is entirely possible for perfect beings to sin against God because being perfect simply means having not committed sin against God.

Not only was Adam created without sin (He didn't sin until he disobeyed God) but we know he was perfect because the ransom to redeem mankind from sin required the life of another perfect human. The Law given to Moses and the Jews helped them understand that justice required equal payment for things. For example if I killed your sheep I had to pay with another sheep, or if I killed you then I had to pay with my life. But none of us could pay for the life of Adam because we were born into sin and imperfect. This is why Jesus, a perfect human, was needed and fittingly called the last Adam because he was created without sin and perfect just as Adam originally was. Jesus could pay the ransom because he was just like Adam; perfect.
Posted by Djistak23 1 week ago
Djistak23
No force can get human to do anything because its our choice,our responsibility.Adam may well choose not to do what is forbidden for him but he didnt. Its his fault, he accept that , in the same way, Satan did not obeyed God when Adam was created. But Satan didnt apologize for this action while Adam apologize and took the responsibility. God knows that mankind is tempted to make mistakes, thats ok, what God wants is the returning to Him , apologize Him after we made mistake and never done it again.Dont try to be perfect human, just be aware of your mistakes and not to do it again. And trust God , dont think that God specially wants you to punish , cause you are trying to understand and search Him , better than just believe what you are told, some of them true and some of them lie things for centuries
Posted by Djistak23 1 week ago
Djistak23
Why do you think " imbedded to punish forever" ? I mean there has to be a justice for poor people who is getting killed or raped , God will punish those criminals . God doesnt force you to do anything, He just gave you a reason to find about Him and then worship Him.its all up to us
Posted by Djistak23 1 week ago
Djistak23
What kind of problems? And how reasonable it could be if the world is perfect, then why we live and die here other than living forever?
Posted by mosc 1 week ago
mosc
Immoral Xtians murdered and slaughtered and ran amuk for over 2000 years with their "saved: Good News".
Posted by felixmendelssohn 1 week ago
felixmendelssohn
Your definition seemed arbitrary and I can conceive problems with a perfect world in your sense. But if the definition is arbitrary then.... perhaps you could show me why your definition is reasonable
Posted by Djistak23 1 week ago
Djistak23
Univers, the living and nonliving things inside the univers and its laws are imperfect because there is entropy rule that every living thing doesnt live forever and non living things does get older, that is an imperfection, these are concrete situations.
There are abstract situations too, for example, happiness, which isnt last forever in the world, the good and the evil conflict, our feelings,sensations are all temporary in this world, so the world is supposed to be created imperfect for a certain purpose
Posted by felixmendelssohn 1 week ago
felixmendelssohn
1. I just wanted to point out that the idea of being perfect and the idea of having multiple-existence are not incompatible.
2. my second comment was directed to duke..... but then god who is all knowing , create a being like adam with such imperfection ( this case is his resistance to temptation) knowing the consequence of the imperfection that he had imbedded in Adam would force him to have to punish him makes no sense to me
Posted by Djistak23 1 week ago
Djistak23
1.Why God has to conceive greater being or more perfect than God? God defines himself as the most perfect being which does not conceive or is conceived. I know that there is nothing left to argue but this is the definition that God told us through prophets, we dont need to look for another perfect being or neither ignore God.
2. Yes, if Adam was perfect, he wouldnt have disobeyed God but that didnt happen. Why?, because Adam is not angel, and he has "nefs" a soul- like being which directs our temptations, mostly disobedient and he has "akl" a reason to choose between right and wrong.
Lets not use the term perfect , because no mankind can be perfect. Because of their inside nature, humans are tempted to make mistakes.However, we can be superior than angels or inferior than animals depending on our attitudes, intentions and actions .
No votes have been placed for this debate.