The Instigator
epicfirebird64
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
djdipretoro
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Is the Christian god perfect?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
djdipretoro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 790 times Debate No: 67472
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

epicfirebird64

Con

Rules:

This is a debate on whether or not the Christian god is perfect and just in what he does or allows. Exp: what he commands you to do.

first round is acceptance

P.s first debate so still new to this
If I get something wrong I will redo this sorry again.
djdipretoro

Pro

Accept, and I look forward to this debate. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
epicfirebird64

Con

Okay so lets start. I believe the Christian god is not perfect because of what he does and does not do. Here is the definition for perfect: having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. Now lets start. God has the power to put people in hell (because he is all powerful) so lets see here. what is worse 100,000 Holocausts or 1 person burning in hell for all eternity. the answer is obviously the latter. because eventually that one person will suffer more than all those people who died. Now if god sends a lot of people to hell then he is Infinitely worse than anything Hitler could have ever done. And if someone is cause more suffer daily than a mass killer how can you call him perfect.

Okay still first time but don't hold back I can only improve in this training. I'm a young Atheist btw. oh and may the odds be ever in your favor (only read the first two books trust me)
djdipretoro

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I think this is a great topic for both atheists and theists to discuss.

Argument 1: Scripture testifies to the perfection of God.

The claim of Scripture is that God is free from any moral impurity. Jesus tells us that we "must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Deuteronomy 32:4 says "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Again, Leviticus 19:2 and 1 Peter 1:15-16 tell us that God is holy, and that we should therefore be likewise. The Bible is replete with passages that point to God's uprightness, perfection, goodness, and overall moral purity. The point in this contention is that the Bible, which is normative for all Christian belief, claims that God is perfect and just in all that he does. The same Bible that says God punishes the wicked is the same Bible that says God is just in all that he does.

Argument 2: Hell

If we are to discuss if God is perfect we must discuss what he has done; what theologians call his works. Now, as noted above, Deuteronomy 32:4 says that God's "work is perfect, for all his ways are just." At the same time, we are told in John 3:18, 36 that those who do not believe in the Son of God are condemned, and the wrath of God remains on them. The Bible claims that God is just, and while being just he condemns people to hell for eternity (Rev. 14:11). God's condemning people to hell is the central action we are discussing.

The question I am answering is "How can God's perfection/justice be reconciled with him condemning people to hell?" As C.H. Spurgeon said, I don't try to reconcile friends. If God truly is perfect and just, then he must take care of sin. He must hate it. A good and perfect God would not approve of sin. Hell is the active realization of God's wrath against those who have been disobedient to His law and not repented/believed his gospel.

Many objectors of hell claim that sin is a "finite crime." But, given the situation presented in the Bible, that is not the case. What must be remembered is that any crime against an infinite God is by necessity an crime of infinite value. If God has given commands that are holy and good, than transgressing those commands are unholy/impure and evil. And if God is infinitely good, perfect, and just, then he must punish evil. The question is not "how can a good God punish people in hell?" Rather, we should be asking "how can a good God NOT punish people in hell?" God's very nature requires him to punish sin.

Argument 3: The Cross of Christ.

This is probably the most counter-intuitive thing I will say. Hell actually shows us how far God is willing to go to show his love. Romans 5:8-9 says "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." On the cross, Christ took the punishment of hell so that we would not have to. The Son of God took on the pain of hell, God's wrath, so that sinners could be saved from eternal punishment by faith. So yes, hell is a demonstration of God's justice against those in rebellion against Him. But it also shows us the pain that Jesus went through to save sinners from hell. God in being just, condemns sinners to hell. God in being gracious, justifies and saves sinners by the substitutionary death of his Son in our place. This is not the action of an unloving God. It is the action of a good, great, and perfect God.

Rebuttal:

My opponent says that it is worse for one person to be in hell for eternity than for 100,000 Holocausts to happen. This is an immense statement. During the Holocaust, millions upon millions of people were put to death for unjust reasons. To my opponent, would you really rather have millions of people killed unjustly instead of one evil person go to hell?

"eventually that one person will suffer more than all those people who died."
Sure, that might be the case. But if that one person is a sinner who committed an infinite crime, then he will suffer justly. And it must be noted that no one has suffered greater than Christ. Jesus drained the cup of God's wrath that takes on eternity to pour out on us. If by faith we receive the free gift of salvation, then we will not suffer eternally, because Christ will have suffered in our place. Either we pay for our sins or Christ does.

"Now if god sends a lot of people to hell then he is Infinitely worse than anything Hitler could have ever done."
By what standard? What measurement of right and wrong are you using in order to say that God is worse than Hitler because he sends people to hell?

"And if someone is cause more suffer daily than a mass killer how can you call him perfect."
Again, I will say that if someone is suffering for the sins the have themselves committed, than there is no injustice being done. Certainly, murderers and rapists suffers when they are sentenced for life or put on death row. But they have brought that on themselves. It is no unjust thing to punish a criminal. Likewise, God causing harm to someone who willfully brings it upon themselves is justice (Rom. 2:5).

The one question I would ask of my opponent is, By what standard is hell a bad thing? By what standard is the Christian God not perfect?

Good job and good luck. Looking forward to the rest of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
epicfirebird64

Con

Thank you for you argument and response this is something I wish to do but have not been able too.

You say that scripture testifies to the perfection of God. The scripture has some contradictions so that we can't relie on scripture but, his attributes not what scripture says he is. MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. This shows a contradiction in Matthew or Mark showing that the scripture itself is flawed and we must look at attributes instead of what it says.

You say god must hate dealing with sin but god gave us free will which is a bi product of sin meaning he made sin. Sure the devil tempted them but he allowed in the first place. Now you say that crime against god is infinite and he must punish people. We are by far a weaker and less knowlagable creature then god and we have sin because of god due to free will. So by following what he made us with it deserves punishment. We are so small compared to a god and only following human nature why would god punish us? It is like if you put a dog in a room with food and say don't eat it and you punish it for eating it. It was following nature and your so much bigger and powerful that sure a punishment is in order but not forever.

Now you argument with the cross says that Christ took the punishment of hell. But we still go to hell if we don't believe in him. It did not take away hell it gave us another way out of hell but did not take it away. He does not take our sins he just allows him too take our sins. But we still go to hell. Christ may have died on the cross but is that pain equal to eternal hell? No, the only way it was worse is that he was son of man.

While my statement about the holocaust was big, it was not untrue people will be punished unjustly but god wants to punish us for follow human nature. If he gave us free will then we will go against him. If god didn't want anyone to sin then he shouldn't have giving us free will. Now you might say that if I give me son a gun and he misuses it I should punish him. Well here's the difference while me giving my son a gun and giving him rules is giving him the chance of breaking them. But I would only give the gun to him if he was mature enough. God gave it to us when we didn't understand it. He knows everything so he knows who will go to hell but he created us. If he knew there was going to be sin and people would suffer if he did this but he still did it.

The standard im using is what we would expect out of someone who is loving, kind, and just. Would you expect a loving kind person to send people to burn forever?

Now you say that if we suffer for the sin we have committed then are punishment is just but like I said if we don't believe or if we were born where the word can't reach us we will burn because of not knowing? If someone murder someone and is put on death row then they brought that on themselves because they knew what they were doing when they did it. (usually) but you can sin without even knowing about it. Such as if you look at a women in lust then you have committed adultery in you heart. There are so many rules that are impossible to follow for a human. But he made us meaning that either believe in him or go to hell no other options!

By what standard is hell a bad thing? What are you talking about eternal torture for people who couldn't have prevented it but to believe in a god? That sounds bad doesn't it?

By what standard is the Christian God not perfect? The standard is what we would expect a all loving god to do. be fair.

Debate 1
If god is perfect then he is fair right? I will show you a verse from the bible and see if they are fair.1
Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]
This is not fair to women this would suggest that men are better then women. Is this perfect that god likes one person over the other.

Also the entire book of job is unfair. Satan challenges god and god lets Satan ruin someone's life. If god is all knowing then wouldn't he already know if job would sin against him. Why was the test necessary? That is god playing with lives.

would you expect a all loving god to do these things NO. Also I would like to bring up the point of the great flood. If god killed everyone but Noah's family then he would have killed babies, children, and fetus in the womb what part of this would you call perfect and nice. Sure you could say but it killed all the bad people but if god is all powerful then he could have saved them.

Final point (for now)

If god is perfect that means he is all knowing and all powerful. So if god is all knowing then he knows what lust feels like? if not Then he wouldn't be perfect but if he doesn't know what lust feels like then he is not all knowing. and if he doesn't know what lust feels like then why can he judge what he can't understand?

My question to my opponent is can you explain why god treats women differently and the question above

Good job and good luck I can see your experience in this.
djdipretoro

Pro

I will take this paragraph by paragraph unless noted otherwise.

Paragraph 1: "The scripture has some contradictions so that we can't relie on scripture but, his attributes not what scripture says he is."

The problem with this statement is that it undercuts the entire debate. The only way to talk about the Christian God is to appeal to what the Bible says about Him. To throw the Bible out is to throw out God's revelation about himself. Christians would not know the Christian God without Scripture. If we do not look at what the Bible says about God, then we cannot talk about the Christian God and there is no sense in this debate. What if I said, "Scientists have said contradictory things, so we cannot rely on science?" That would be absurd! Of course we can rely on science, we just need to see if the contradictions can harmonize in any way, or if they cannot be taken together. Scripture has many texts that on the surface look like they contradict but when careful study is done we can see that they do not. For example, the passages that you brought up do not contradict. Mark said that the rooster would crow twice, but Matthew only said that the rooster would crow. He did not say how many times. Mark was specific, Matthew was not.

Paragraph 2: "We are so small compared to a god and only following human nature why would god punish us?"

Your analogy of the dog does not apply to the situation presented in Scripture. We are not dogs, we are humans bearing the image of God. However, because of sin we are in bondage. What we call "freedom of the will" Martin Luther called the "bondage of the will." You are correct when you say we are just following are nature. But as we are sinners by nature, we are also sinners by choice. We sin because we it is in our nature and because we want to. Like the dog, we are told not to sin, but we do so anyways. We sin because it is in our nature, and because it is what we want to do.

Paragraph 3: "It did not take away hell it gave us another way out of hell... He does not take our sins he just allows him to take our sins... Christ may have died on the cross but is that pain equal to eternal hell? No"

It seems that you may have misunderstood what I said. I did not say that Christ takes away hell, but rather that he saves sinners from it. Those who by faith trust in him are saved. If we have faith in him we will not go to hell. That is why the Bible uses the word "propitiation"(Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). To propitiate is to appease wrath. Jesus, on the cross, took the wrath of God. Now if hell is the active realization of the wrath of God, then that means that Jesus took the wrath of hell. But it is by faith that he is put forward us a propitiation for someone. So what Jesus went through is actually equal to what unbelievers experience in hell for eternity.

Paragraph 4: "If God didn't want anyone to sin, then he shouldn't have given us free will."

You say that God gave us free will when we did not have a proper understanding of it. But that is not true. God clearly told our first parents, Adam and Eve, that they could either enjoy the benefits of living in the Garden with the all-satisfying God or they could willingly disobey his commands. God gave sufficient information to Adam and Eve, and this is seen in the fact that Eve talks with the Serpent quite deeply about the subject. We have sufficient information too, "for what can be known about God is plain"(Rom. 1:19) and we are "without excuse"(Rom. 1:20). Even though God knows who will go to hell, he does no injustice in creating them. For, some people will not respond to God no matter how loving he is (Is. 5:4; Matt. 23:37).
Paragraph 5: "The standard im using is what we would expect out of someone who is loving, kind, and just. Would you expect a loving kind person to send people to burn forever?"

This does not answer the question. Who told you that being loving, kind, and just is a good thing? I want to know the reason why we should expect someone to be loving, kind, and just. Moreover, I would expect a loving kind person to punish someone. There is no love without wrath. If God loves what is good, then he necessarily hates what is evil. But, there is something that needs to be said here. The Bible often speaks of people sending themselves to hell. God gives people up to their desires (Rom. 1:24) and people store up wrath on the day of judgment (Rom. 2:5). C.S. Lewis said, "There are only two kinds of people - those who say "Thy will be done" to God or those to whom God in the end says, "Thy will be done." All that are in hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."

Paragraph 6: "There are so many rules that are impossible to follow for a human. But he made us meaning that either believe in him or go to hell no other options!"

It seems like you understand some part of the Bible well. I agree with the quoted section above. However, there is no place "where the word can't reach us." Jesus said that he has all authority on heaven and earth, and then he told his disciples to go to every nation, making disciples. If Jesus has all authority, would not his Word be able to go wherever he commanded? It would. "So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it"(Isa. 55:11).

Paragraph 7-8: "The standard is what we would expect a all loving god to do. be fair."

It is fair that crimes should be punished, even from an all loving God. You ask if eternal torture sounds bad. But there is a difference between an emotional response to hell and an intellectual response to hell. I agree that hell sounds terrible. I hate the idea. But that does not mean it contradicts the moral perfection of God.

Reply to Debate 1: "This is not fair to women this would suggest that men are better then women. Is this perfect that god likes one person over the other."

The Bible does not present a flat equality. There are (at least) two types of equality we can speak of: ontological (fundamental) and economic (functional). For example, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are all ontologically equal, but they function in different ways. The Father did not die on the cross, but the Son did. The Holy Spirit did not send the Son, but the Father did, and the list goes on. The same can be said of men and women. Men and women are fundamentally equal, but have functional differences in God's created order. Notice how God took Eve from the side of Adam. She was not taken from the foot, to be below him. She was taken from the side to be equal. And we should note how the equality of men and women is displayed in 1 Cor. 11:11-12. "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." God shows no partiality.

You bring up the book of Job. But the entire book of Job is summed up is his response in Job 1:21. "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." God does not owe anyone a "good life." He has the prerogative to take life because all life is his to take away. It is not an unfair book, because God did nothing wrong.

Flood: If all the earth was evil, then God was justified in destroying all of the people. If God is just then when he punishes sinful people he is being fair.

Final Point: "So if god is all knowing then he knows what lust feels like?"

God's omniscience is does not mean he knows what it is like to sin. God's omniscience is "his knowledge of all actual and possible states of affairs, and/or the truth value of propositions."1 Therefore, God knows the truth of statements, whether real or possible. If I say "I am a sinner," God knows that is true. God does not need to feel like a sinner to know that I am a sinner.

Good job. You are getting better.

1.Frame, John. "God's Attributes: Knowledge.""Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Christian Belief. Phllipsburg: P&R, 2013. Print.
Debate Round No. 3
epicfirebird64

Con

Start

Paragraph 1: "The scripture has some contradictions so that we can't rely on scripture but, his attributes not what scripture says he is." The problem with this statement is that it undercuts the entire debate

I didn't mean to say to throw the bible out of the question, I simply meant that we can't believe the statements that say God is always just due to the book being flawed.

"Scientists have said contradictory things, so we cannot rely on science?"

The difference is that the bible is claiming to be gods word and is saying it's perfect, science has never said it was perfect.

If you don't think those verses contradicted then I will give you some more.

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

These verses about Judas's death completely contradict each other. One say he killed himself and one said his bowels gushed out.

Your analogy of the dog does not apply to the situation presented in Scripture

We are lesser beings that follow nature that gets them in trouble with someone who is stronger.

I did not say that Christ takes away hell, but rather that he saves sinners from it.

So he didn't do anything but allow people to be saved, God could've sent a prophet down with the same idea and his son wouldn't die. If Jesus wasn't god's son then he was a Average prophet.

To propitiate is to appease wrath. Jesus, on the cross, took the wrath of God.

So what changed about god's wrath, he still sends people to hell. He still is pretty angry.

God clearly told our first parents, Adam and Eve, that they could either enjoy the benefits of living in the Garden with the all-satisfying God or they could willingly disobey his commands.

God said don't eat from this tree or else you will die, they didn't know what dieing was at the time. And if that fruit was what gave us common sense then we were stupid at the time. Look how easily eve was tricked.

Who told you that being loving, kind, and just is a good thing? I want to know the reason why we should expect someone to be loving, kind, and just.

Well if someone was loving, kind, and just I would rather have him have power than a greedy, wrathful, and slothful person.

All that are in hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."

So your saying all people that go to hell have souls that don't like joy. So your saying all people that are going to hell are corrupted. That is messed up, so I can be the nicest man and love joy but my soul will never miss it.

However, there is no place "where the word can't reach us

Wrong, hell is the separation of Christ meaning the word can't reach us.

It is fair that crimes should be punished, even from an all loving God

Of course just lessen the sentence like this. Everything bad that you do you burn in hell or a certain amount but if you believe in god you don't have too Infinitly more fair than what god has.

She was taken from the side to be equal.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything Wives submit yourselves to you husband you are equal, doesn't look like it

The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." God does not owe anyone a "good life." He has the prerogative to take life because all life is his to take away. It is not an unfair book, because God did nothing wrong.

So because he has the power and he gave them what they got he can do whatever he wants with them. That sounds like he is abusing power. If I give someone wheat and they make bread is it just for me to take the bread. I gave it to him I have more power.

all the earth was evil, then God was justified in destroying all of the people

Even the children? The infants? The ones still in the womb?

God knows that is true. God does not need to feel like a sinner to know that I am a sinner.

If god never experiences these moments of anger and human nature then why can he judge what he doesn't feel.

Argument 1

Nothing is perfect. Perfect means so many different things to people so it's impossible for one being to be perfect to all people. I might think a perfect god would be a peaceful god, but you might want a god of war. There are no ways one being can be perfect.

Argument 2

The things god does are pretty graphic.
I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

Does any child deserve that? Or any women deserve to see her infant's throat slit. Just because there sinners doesn't make them any less human.

This is getting good and good luck to you.
djdipretoro

Pro

Thank you for the responses. This debate is getting lively.

Let's get in it.

"I didn't mean to say to throw the bible out of the question, I simply meant that we can't believe the statements that say God is always just due to the book being flawed."

It is good to analyze what the Bible says about God's justice. But simply asserting that the book is flawed does not mean it cannot be trustworthy. Science has made flawed assertions too, but it still is trustworthy.

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

These verses do not contradict each other. There are two explanations that show these passages go together. 1) Judas hung himself on a tree that was hanging over a cliff. The rope broke, and he fell onto rocks, thus causing his bowls to gush out. 2) Judas hung himself, and then his body decayed. After some time of his body rotting, his bowels burst open and fell out.

Just because two passages seem like they don't go together does not mean they are contradictory. Different witness to an event have different perspectives, but each perspective is true nonetheless.

"So he didn't do anything but allow people to be saved, God could've sent a prophet down with the same idea and his son wouldn't die. If Jesus wasn't god's son then he was a Average prophet."

No. God actually saves people, not merely allows for the possibility of salvation. The Apostle Paul, writing to the church in Ephesus, said that they were dead in there trespasses and sins. They were "children of wrath." But God saved them by grace. He actually saved them, past tense (Eph. 2:1-10).

God did send prophets, but their purpose was to tell of the coming salvation that was to be offered in Jesus. They told people to turn from their sins and to trust in the living God, for he would one day deliver them (cf. Heb. 1:1-4; Rom. 1:1-6). We needed more than someone to tell what to do. We needed someone to do what needed to be done for us. God's commands are to heavy for our sinful human nature, but they are still just. If we do not follow them, we deserve to be punished. But Jesus came and followed the law in our place perfectly, and died the death we deserve to die. So that in him our sin would be counted to him and his obedience would be counted to us. No mere man could have done this. Because as the rapper Shai Linne says "only a human can substitute for human lives, but only God can take the wrath of God and survive." We needed to God-man, the Son of God, Jesus.

"God said don't eat from this tree or else you will die, they didn't know what dieing was at the time. And if that fruit was what gave us common sense then we were stupid at the time. Look how easily eve was tricked."

First, the tree did not give common sense. There is no clear answer to what the tree actually meant, but most likely it was an experiential knowledge of good and evil. If they eat of the tree, then they would know good and evil because they had experienced it, specifically by disobeying God. Moreover, it does not matter if they knew what dying meant or not. When God tells us to do something, he is to be obeyed. God has that authority. If he didn't he would not be God.

"Well if someone was loving, kind, and just I would rather have him have power than a greedy, wrathful, and slothful person."

You are just stating your opinion. I am asking for an objective answer. Your opinion is irrelevant to whether or not something is true.

"So your saying all people that go to hell have souls that don't like joy. So your saying all people that are going to hell are corrupted. That is messed up, so I can be the nicest man and love joy but my soul will never miss it."

What Lewis is saying is that people who are serious about joy go to the most joyful thing. If God is the most joyful thing, then people will go to him. If you want to be warm, get close to the fire. If we really and truly want joy then we will get it, because true joy is found in God. Those who don't want God, reject ultimate joy. No God, no joy.

"Wrong, hell is the separation of Christ meaning the word can't reach us."

Hell is in some sense a separation from Christ, but not totally. Christ is Lord, and hell is Christ's. God is very present is in hell, but he is not present in love and grace, he is present in justice and wrath. So yes, the word cannot reach those in hell because the Gospel is gracious to sinners. But I was saying, as in the context of the discussion, that there is nowhere on earth that the gospel cannot reach. You took what I said out of place.

"Of course just lessen the sentence like this. Everything bad that you do you burn in hell or a certain amount but if you believe in god you don't have too Infinitly more fair than what god has."

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here.

"So because he has the power and he gave them what they got he can do whatever he wants with them. That sounds like he is abusing power. If I give someone wheat and they make bread is it just for me to take the bread. I gave it to him I have more power."

If you give someone wheat, that wheat is no longer yours. But when God gives life, he does not give up ownership of it. God creates life, you did not create the wheat. As Creator, God has the right to do with his creation as he wishes. Fortunately, he is always just and right in what he does.

"Even the children? The infants? The ones still in the womb?"

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"(Psalm 51:5). According to this verse yes, even the infants, children, and unborn were. We inherit sin through Adam, and his one sin led to condemnation for all men (see Rom. 5:12-19). Adam stands in our place as the head of a covenant, and all of the people in Adam, no matter the age, are guilty of sin.

"If god never experiences these moments of anger and human nature then why can he judge what he doesn't feel."

1) God has experience a human nature, that is why the Son of God became a man, so that he could be made like us. But although he had a human nature, he had a sinless, human nature. He was tempted, yet without sin. 2) God can judge us because he is God and he has the authority to judge us. If God is the ultimate authority, then he has the right to evaluate his creation. He does not need to feel the same way his creatures do in order to judge them. If he had been guilty if the same things that his creatures are guilty of, then he could not judge. He would not be perfect and not be the God of the Bible.

Response to Argument 1:

You are just stating your opinion again. And you contradict yourself. You say nothing is perfect, and then go on to talk about what a perfect god might be. But if nothing is perfect, then how can anyone have a perfect god suited even for themselves? If nothing is perfect, then there is not a perfect god for anybody.

Response to Argument 2:

You ask about what people deserve. But if you truly want to know, then there must be a perfect standard of justice. What perfect standard of justice can the atheist bring forth to talk about what people deserve? I hold that if we are to speak of what people deserve, then we must hold to the Christian God, who is justice himself.

Thank you. I look forward to your closing statement.
Debate Round No. 4
epicfirebird64

Con

Greeting lets dive right in.

It is good to analyze what the Bible says about God's justice. But simply asserting that the book is flawed does not mean it cannot be trustworthy. Science has made flawed assertions too, but it still is trustworthy.

I already explained this in my last argument, the bible is the work of god so it says it's perfect science has never claimed it was perfect.

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)
No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)

Does that contradict for you?

"So he didn't do anything but allow people to be saved, God could've sent a prophet down with the same idea and his son wouldn't die. If Jesus wasn't god's son then he was a Average prophet."

No. God actually saves people, not merely allows for the possibility of salvation. The Apostle Paul, writing to the church in Ephesus, said that they were dead in there trespasses and sins. They were "children of wrath." But God saved them by grace. He actually saved them, past tense (Eph. 2:1-10).

Why did you even use my statement, it doesn't relate

But Jesus came and followed the law in our place perfectly, and died the death we deserve to die

Matthew 9:18-25 While Jesus spoke, there came a certain ruler who worshipped him, saying, my daughter is dead, but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Jesus said the girl is not dead, but sleeping. They laughed at him. Jesus went in, took her by the hand, and the maid arose.

If the ruler's daughter was dead, then, Jesus lied (G: sinned). If she was not dead, then Jesus performed no miracle." (G: A sin of deception) C. Dennnis McKinsey

but most likely it was an experiential knowledge of good and evil. If they eat of the tree, then they would know good and evil because they had experienced it,

So they had no knowledge of good or evil so they didn't know whether it was good or evil? Seems like to me that they believed whatever anyone told them too. You can't blame them they didn't have a good idea of what s god was. So they didn't know what he was.

You are just stating your opinion. I am asking for an objective answer. Your opinion is irrelevant to whether or not something is true.

There is no one thing anyone can be to rule your asking something that is impossible. But why would you want someone with negative qualities that go agaisn't what most people think is nice and what your bible thinks is nice.

What Lewis is saying is that people who are serious about joy go to the most joyful thing. If God is the most joyful thing, then people will go to him. If you want to be warm, get close to the fire. If we really and truly want joy then we will get it, because true joy is found in God. Those who don't want God, reject ultimate joy. No God, no joy.

True joy isn't found in god, it is a belief that we will continue to live after we are dead. People don't want a god to they obey, they want to live forever.

"Of course just lessen the sentence like this. Everything bad that you do you burn in hell or a certain amount but if you believe in god you don't have too Infinitely more fair than what god has."

I'm saying that sure he can punish people but lessen the sentence a bit, like so many years in hell for a certain act.

If you give someone wheat, that wheat is no longer yours. But when God gives life, he does not give up ownership of it. God creates life, you did not create the wheat. As Creator, God has the right to do with his creation as he wishes. Fortunately, he is always just and right in what he does.

So your saying because he made us he can torture us. Why would a good creator want to hurt his creation. He knew that if he created us so many people will burn in hell. But he still did.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me"(Psalm 51:5). According to this verse yes, even the infants, children, and unborn were

You see here folks because are ancient ancestors sinned he has the right to kill our babies.

If God is the ultimate authority, then he has the right to evaluate his creation. He does not need to feel the same way his creatures do in order to judge them

So this is a one sided thing here. I will judge you for what I knew you were going to do in the first place. I'm so perfect I don't need to know what being human is like.

1) God has experience a human nature, that is why the Son of God became a man, so that he could be made like us. But although he had a human nature, he had a sinless, human nature

He cursed a fig tree for not having fruit. When it wasn't the time to have it anyway. Or the time he sent demons into pigs and killed them all. The owner of those pigs was sad.

You say nothing is perfect, and then go on to talk about what a perfect god might be.

I gave an example why there can't be a perfect god. I might think a perfect god would be a peaceful god, but you might want a god of war. There are no ways one being can be perfect.

You ask about what people deserve. But if you truly want to know, then there must be a perfect standard of justice. What perfect standard of justice can the atheist bring forth to talk about what people deserve? I hold that if we are to speak of what people deserve, then we must hold to the Christian God, who is justice himself.

There is no perfect standard of justice. What that god did is not acceptable now. Standards change and the bible is looking more like a book of hate as we go into the future.

I say there is no perfect god due to the fact that what we think is perfect of a god might go contradict with another. Other Religions claim that there god is justice why yours? Allah punishes those who go agaisn't him.

*bows*

Thank you everyone for reading and I would like to thank my opponent for a great battle I hope to have debates like this again.
djdipretoro

Pro

Thank you for the debate. It has been good and insightful.

"I already explained this in my last argument, the bible is the work of god so it says it's perfect science has never claimed it was perfect."

This is a true statement, but it misleads the conversation. You have not shown any sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is a flawed book.

"Does that contradict for you?"

No, it does not actually. Jesus is talking about the Son of Man (himself) being the only to have authority to speak about heavenly things. This is clearly seen when you read the context. Remember that the Bible was not originally written with verses, so it must be taken a chunk at a time. As D.A. Carson says, "a text without a context is a pretext."

Also, Jesus descended and ascended on his on power and authority. Elijah was taken taken to heaven by God. Very different situations.

"Why did you even use my statement, it doesn't relate"

If your statement did not relate, then why use it? If you mean that it does not relate to what I said, then you are wrong. I clearly answered your statement in a full paragraph.

"If the ruler's daughter was dead, then, Jesus lied (G: sinned). If she was not dead, then Jesus performed no miracle." (G: A sin of deception) C. Dennnis McKinsey"

Matthew 9:18-25 is also told in Mark 5:22-43 and Luke 8:41-56. Both Mark and Luke describe the daughter as at the point of death/dying, respectively. The phrase in the original Greek used by Matthew could speak of something that is inevitably going to happen. Matthew was saying the girl was as good as dead. So this is no problem.

"So they had no knowledge of good or evil so they didn't know whether it was good or evil? Seems like to me that they believed whatever anyone told them too. You can't blame them they didn't have a good idea of what s god was. So they didn't know what he was."

It appears you did not understand what I said. They did have knowledge of good and evil, in an intellectual sense, but they had never experienced it. For example, I have all sorts of knowledge about what happens to your body when you use methamphetamine (thanks, dad) but I have no idea what is feel like to actually do meth. Adam and Eve knew the goodness of God and the evil of disobedience, but they did not have an existential, experiential encounter with evil until they ate from the tree. Their hands were not dirty until they started playing in the mud.

"There is no one thing anyone can be to rule your asking something that is impossible. But why would you want someone with negative qualities that go agaisn't what most people think is nice and what your bible thinks is nice."

I do not understand the first sentence. But the second sentence introduces a fallacy. It does not matter what most people think, because a lot of people can be wrong. What matters is whether those people are thinking/believing what is true. Therefore, this point is invalid.
"True joy isn't found in god, it is a belief that we will continue to live after we are dead. People don't want a god to they obey, they want to live forever."

How do you know that we will even live forever if there is no god? And if there is no god, then what is the grounding for an ultimate joy? I maintain that joy is found in God alone, and is one of those fundamental things about our lives. Besides, what is the point if we live forever without anyone to make all of the sad things untrue?

"I'm saying that sure he can punish people but lessen the sentence a bit, like so many years in hell for a certain act."

If God gave a finite punishment for an infinite crime, then he would be unjust. If he is unjust, then he is not perfect. So you are begging the question, and I have repeatedly given the answer.

"So your saying because he made us he can torture us. Why would a good creator want to hurt his creation. He knew that if he created us so many people will burn in hell. But he still did."

I did not say that because he made us he can torture us. We bring the condemnation on ourselves because of our own sin. What I said was that God has the right to take the life of someone, because everyone belongs to him. Has the potter no right over the clay?

"You see here folks because are ancient ancestors sinned he has the right to kill our babies."

Yes, God does have the right to take the life of an infant, however hard for us it may be. But it would be good to notice that God is taking them out of a messed up world.

"So this is a one sided thing here. I will judge you for what I knew you were going to do in the first place. I'm so perfect I don't need to know what being human is like."

I am happy to see you understand. Yes, God knows what everyone is going to do beforehand. And yes, God judges people for the actions they willingly and freely choose. And no, God did not need to know what being human is like. But he did it anyway.

As Hebrews 2:14-18 says, "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."

"He cursed a fig tree for not having fruit. When it wasn't the time to have it anyway. Or the time he sent demons into pigs and killed them all. The owner of those pigs was sad."

I do not see how this relates to the debate topic or anything discussed.

"I gave an example why there can't be a perfect god. I might think a perfect god would be a peaceful god, but you might want a god of war. There are no ways one being can be perfect."

Just because we may have different conceptions of what a perfect God may be does not mean there is no perfect god. If two brothers could not agree on what a pretty girl is, does that mean there are no pretty girls? Of course not.

"There is no perfect standard of justice. What that god did is not acceptable now. Standards change and the bible is looking more like a book of hate as we go into the future."

If a standard changes, then it isn't truly a standard. It's a commodity, a tool that can grow old. And if there is no perfect standard of justice, then you cannot talk about what people deserve. More than that, you cannot even say that my god is not perfect, because you do not have a standard.

"I say there is no perfect god due to the fact that what we think is perfect of a god might go contradict with another. Other Religions claim that there god is justice why yours? Allah punishes those who go agaisn't him."

Just because people do not agree on something does not mean that finding an answer is out of the question. Why is my God the perfect God? Because he wrote a Book and told us. And by your logic, if a group of scientists cannot agree on a solution to something, then there is no solution. But that is malarkey.

To the voters:
My opponent has brought up some good points in this debate, but none that were irrefutable. Most of them were not backed up by some sort of evidence, but were rather appeals to emotions. Talking about what people want, how they feel about a certain issue, or what sort of things rustle their jimmies does not provide an adequate basis for proving anything. Moreover, my opponent failed to show that the Bible was unreliable. There was also no way for my opponent to judge my God without some ultimate, perfect standard, which my opponent said he did not have. Without that standard, there is no way to tell if the Christian God is perfect or not.

To my opponent:
Good job on the debate. You progressed throughout the discussion. Thank you for your time. Good luck in future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by really12 1 year ago
really12
The way some Christian sects interpret God as, is not perfect (e.g. Catholicism). However, the way other sects interpret God as, is perfect (e.g. Non-Denominational).
Posted by epicfirebird64 2 years ago
epicfirebird64
I think I set the voting period for too long, just got back from winter camp so I couldn't say good game.

It was nice debating with you
Posted by epicfirebird64 2 years ago
epicfirebird64
Disregard my comment about Saturday I just won't see the results for a while
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
Partykat, I think you understand it correctly. When we speak of ultimate things, we must speak in circular terms. If we appeal to an ultimate authority, then there is no other criterion to judge it by. So if God is the highest standard, then we can't judge him by some lower standard. All we can say is that by his very nature everything he does is good (given we are talking about the biblical god). If we judge him by another standard then he is not the ultimate, which judges everything else. But, if you want to talk more about this, message me. I'm a bit caught up in the holidays.
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
Missmedic, the validity of the Bible is not at question here.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
You can't prove the validity of the bible by assuming its validity as part of your argument.
Posted by Partykat 2 years ago
Partykat
Hi djdipretoro,
Thanks for the link.
The arguments made generally amount to a claim that critics do not consider the historical and cultural context from which the biblical laws arose. (please correct me if I am wrong). That may be true, or it may not.
The argument here is not whether biblical law was a superior moral code for its time and place, but rather , is biblical morality perfect ( a logical conclusion if God is perfect). Perfection in any sense is not contingent on time or culture. We could agree to accept subjective views on perfection, but the term 'perfect' would be rendered meaningless in any objective sense. (I would also add that there were superior moral frameworks in existence at this time (eg Jainism, but that's another topic.)
I would not contend the claim that Abrahamic law was an improvement on other codes in that specific area at that time. But just as importantly, conceding that context is required to view this particular moral code, does not lend well to the claim of objective perfection.
From your source:
"we should not view the OT as offering an ideal ethic for all cultures across the ages. Rather than attempt to morally justify all aspects of the Sinaitic legal code"
"According to Birch, we should acknowledge rather than ignore or downplay morally-objectionable practices and attitudes within Israel such as patriarchalism, slavery, ethnocentrism, and the like."
The authors of your source seem to reject the idea of biblical law as objectively perfect.
R32;My particular question was about seemingly contradictory commands. Specifically, commands to kill including the innocent, and commands to not kill.
The author appeals to special pleading and a circular "anything god does is good" argument to resolve the immoral and contradictory commands of God. This in fact ignores the presentation of a contradiction, and once again appeals to context, which again i feel does not lend itself well to claims of objective perfection.
Thanks fo
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
Partykat, much of what you ask is addressed in this debate. I encourage you to read "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?: The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics" by Paul Copan (http://epsociety.org... ).
Posted by Partykat 2 years ago
Partykat
Hello,
I just joined the site, and this is the first debate i am watching unfold.
I must say it is all very interesting.
A question about the following:
"But disbelief in the Gospel and in God leads to confusion of all sorts of things, as well as a skewed view of morality."
I feel the same about Christians. How does one reconcile commands to not kill, with commands to kill? Often to kill women, children and the unborn?
The bible calls for the death of disobedient children, adultery, non believers and more. As an atheist that uses something like a secular humanistic framework of morality, I can condemn all these forms of murder. I dont understand how one can claim codified moral perfection without defending capital punishment for these often trivial 'crimes'.
I welcome the scrutiny of my moral framework. After all, there is always room for improvement.
Thankyou for your time.
Posted by epicfirebird64 2 years ago
epicfirebird64
Hope we can get this done by Saturday because I won't be here for a week after Saturday.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
epicfirebird64djdipretoroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con showed lots of contradictions in a bible, but as pro showed, without a standard for "perfect", it can only be assumed that God is perfect. Pro also showed how God was just and fair within Hell and even the problems in society.