Total Posts:317|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is immoral

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Secular ethics generally recognizes this principle. In American law, people can be punished only for volitional acts. If someone is prone to seizures and has an involuntary muscle contraction, causing their arm to hit someone else, we do not permit them to be prosecuted for assault.

Proposition 2: Humans are not culpable for their decision to disbelieve Jesus' divinity.

There are a number of justifications for this. (1) The evidence for Jesus' divinity is far from overwhelming. All of the evidence (e.g. a virgin birth) comes from only two gospels of the New Testament (John and Matthew). There are countervailing reasons to doubt the veracity of these accounts. Mark and Luke do not mention the virgin birth, which is something major to leave out if it were true. Luke writes that Jesus is the Son of Man, a human being who is perfect only in his devotion to God, but is not divine. No non-Christian historian (e.g. a Roman) ever mentioned a virgin birth or a man rising from the dead, both significant events that would be worth recording. And there's no way to verify that Jesus must have been born of a virgin (e.g. a firsthand account proving that Joseph could not have had sex with Mary prior to marriage due to their geographic locations or DNA evidence proving that Jesus was not related to Joseph). In modern times, if an engaged couple became pregnant and claimed not to have had sex, we would simply disbelieve them. Claims of a virgin birth would be attributed to the couple wanting to avoid being shunned by their community for violating community norms regarding premarital sex. In addition, accounts of the resurrection say that Jesus' followers did not recognize him at first. In modern times, such a claim would be met with skepticism, such as Phoebe on Friends claiming her mom was resurrected into a cat. People would simply say that Jesus' followers had found a crazy man claiming to be Jesus, and decided that Jesus had come back to life. So even if the biblical accounts of the resurrection or virgin birth were true, common sense would lead us to disbelieve any such claims. (2) There are other reasons to disbelieve the Bible, such as its demonstrably false claims about creation and the age of the Earth. (3) Even assuming that Creationism was correct and carbon dating is just completely wrong about an Old Earth, you run into the Problem of Free Will. God's omniscience tells him that exactly how all of his actions will affect people's beliefs or disbelief in Jesus' divinity. By making carbon dating seem accurate, placing dinosaur and hominid fossils on Earth, and redshifting light, God knows that he will convince a substantial number of people that the Bible is inaccurate and therefore cannot be trusted as proof of Jesus' divinity. We're essentially talking about a trickster God here (akin to Loki) who has purposely planted substantial and compelling evidence that the Bible is not a trusted source of information. (4) The Problem of Free will is also a issue because God knows that once a person is born into a particular religion, that person becomes extremely unlikely to change religions. God allows Islam to be created, despite its disbelief in Jesus' divinity, and allowed a substantial portion of the world to be born and indoctrinated into this religion. So God has purposely chosen to make it extremely unlikely that a substantial portion of people will believe in Jesus' divinity. (5) The Bible was not compiled by the Catholic Church until long after Jesus had died. Prior to the compilation of the Bible, there was *no* evidence for Jesus' divinity. So disbelief by non-Christians during this time period is inherently non-culpable. Given the lack of persuasiveness of the evidence in favor of Jesus' divinity, the substantial scientific evidence contradicting the inerrancy and accuracy of the Bible, the problem posed by pre-Bible peoples' disbelief, and the unlikelihood of someone born into another religion converting to Christianity, people are not culpable for their disbelief in Jesus' divinity.

Proposition 3: Access to Heaven is contingent on belief in Jesus' divinity.

This is an accepted proposition by most Christians.

Conclusion: God is immoral.

This follows from the propositions because God punishes people (by sending them to Hell) for a decision for which they are not culpable (disbelief in Jesus' divinity). This conclusion is further supported by the Problem of Free Will because God has specifically chosen to withhold the evidence that would convince someone of Jesus' divinity (e.g. a definitive discovery of Jesus and Joseph's remains that could be submitted to DNA testing) or God has specifically chosen to plant evidence (e.g. hominid fossils) that He knows will cause someone to switch from belief to non-belief. When you're playing against someone with omniscience, the deck is stacked against you. People cannot reasonably held culpable or morally blameworthy for making a decision that God conned them into using divine foreknowledge. And yet God chooses to punish them anyway, for an outcome that was entirely in His control, and is only within theirs in the most remote sense. Thus, God is immoral.

One could of course respond that it's incoherent or irrelevant to try to apply human morality to God, who transcends morals. While this Apologetics response may seem sufficient at first blush, it's still the case that we can conclude that God is cruel and refuse to play his game. And in fact, Christians generally believe that God is a "just God" (the Bible says he is) and some even assert omni-benevolence. Justice generally requires some sort of external mechanism for determining what is just; it cannot be made up at the whim of the actor. And omni-benevolence implies a lack of cruelty. The only easy way to sidestep this dilemma is to concede that the God of the New Testament is also the God of the Old Testament, who was a cruel God that murdered the woman and children who would oppose his followers. This perfectly explains why God would punish people for a decision for which they are not culpable, in order to empower his chosen followers (Christians) to wield the bludgeon of Hell as a weapon.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:58:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Sorry, but you are very wrong.

First, Jehovah does not transcend morals, he is the epitome of morality, and every action he take is controlled by his four primary characteristics of:

Love
Wisdom
Justice.
Mercy.

There is no higher or finer morality than the perfect balance of those 4.

Human morality is at best a pathetic imitation of Jehovah's.

We are all responsible for our decisions and the outcome of those decisions. It cannot be otherwise.

That is why Jehovah has empowered his son to gather a group of people on the earth to let people know what the results of their decisions will be, and how to make the best choice for all concerned.

You cannot get any more moral than that.

As scripture shows, to those who know it well enough, Jehovah has always done everything with a moral purpose behind it, usually to protect or strengthen those faithful to him from spiritual or physical destruction.

Even the upcoming Armageddon is going to happen to save the faithful.

Which is, again, why his son has organised a people on earth to tell us how to be amongst the faithful.

But in the end the decision is ours, because the consequences are ours also.

To try to avoid the consequences of your own decisions and actions is moral cowardice at it worst.

As for the divinity of Christ, that depends on what you mean by divinity, and if you accept the way it is used in scripture.

According to scripture, Jehovah is divine.

Jehovah's son, who became the Christ is divine.

The Angles are divine.

However even within t#divinity there is rank and file.

Jehovah is the foremost rank. His son is next, and the angels below them, apparently with ranks even within that group (Cherub and Seraph for example).

The problem arises over whether or not people accept the truth about Jehovah , Christ and the Angels, and that is important because truth is the only acceptable foundation for worship of Jehovah.

John 4:23-24
ASV(i) 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth. (emphasis mine).
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 7:01:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

How can the fact that everything Jehovah has ever done has been for love of his creation and in protection of those who chose to be faithful to him be even remotely rotten?

Would you not do all in your power to protect your loved ones?

Then to criticise Jehovah for doing just that is hypocritical and the response of a moral coward desperate for a reason not to believe, no matter how false.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:52:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What you are trying to say is that the deity screwed up its creation so very badly it is looking for a get out clause!
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 1:08:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

Your claim is illogical since one of the things "claimed for it in the Bible" is that God is good.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 2:20:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:58:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Sorry, but you are very wrong.


Your reply borders on the irrelevant. All you've asserted that is remotely relevant is that God is good because he sent Jesus to preach the Truth to us. But people make similar claims all the time. BoG claims to speak for God. If Jesus existed today and *if* he actually said he was literally the son of God, most people would just think he was crazy. You haven't responded to the fact that the weight of the evidence renders Jesus' divinity entirely unconvincing, and a loving God would not punish humanity for making a fully rational choice to disbelieve.

The God you have posited is a trickster God who has sent BoG and other false profits claiming to be Jesus, the son of God (https://www.youtube.com...). If he truly wants us to believe in Jesus, why is he trying so hard to trick us by sending other false profits and making science seem to disconfirm many things in the Bible?

Also, whenever the Bible quotes Jesus directly, he never asserts his own divinity, or does so in very ambiguous ways. There are a lot of passages where he says he is the son of man (i.e. not divine), which supports the view that the historical Jesus was merely a very religious Jew who railed against the establishment. Assuming the gospels are not entire fabrications, they are not firsthand accounts, which means they are compilations of quotes and stories passed down by Jesus' followers through oral tradition. In no other field of history would we trust non-primary accounts when the actual facts are so in dispute.

For people who don't believe, God has chosen to withhold the evidence He Knows will convince us. And when we die and pass into the afterlife, and can see Jesus with our own eyes, he does not allow us to repent for our disbelief when we are finally faced with incontrovertible proof. That is an illogical religion that asks you to ignore your common sense and the weight of the (trickster) evidence, and then doesn't allow you to change your mind when the evidence is finally made clear.

Jesus is not divine. It's that simple. It's too much of a coincidence that the entire divinity story is pulled from pagan gods, like Horus - born of a virgin, resurrected someone named Lazarus. His death day was stolen from a pagan holiday that involved rebirth, hence why Christians paint eggs on Easter. That has nothing to do with Jesus; it's a pagan tradition. And his birthday was stolen from the pagan sun god religions because it falls on the winter solstice, and you cut down nice green trees and wrap it in lights to celebrate that pagan holiday.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
kman100
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 2:47:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 1:08:15 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

Your claim is illogical since one of the things "claimed for it in the Bible" is that God is good.

The bible also claims that people should be stoned to death for everything from adultery to homosexuality.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy. If you have a seizure and crash your car into someone else and kill them, it's not your fault, so you're not punished. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that is not within their reasonable control.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:16:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy.

Why?

If you have a seizure and crash your car into someone else and kill them, it's not your fault, so you're not punished. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that is not within their reasonable control.

Why?

You did not answer the question and you aren't being logical. Don't tell me what you do, or that you name what you do "moral". Tell me why what you do is moral or immoral.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "moral". It seems so far that, you define moral as "whatever we personally like", with immoral being "whatever we don't personally like". Am I correct?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:20:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy. If you have a seizure and crash your car into someone else and kill them, it's not your fault, so you're not punished. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that is not within their reasonable control.

Such people are legally responsible. If they knew, they had a medical condition that caused seizures, then it would have been reasonable to suspect they were putting others in danger by driving.

Are you arguing that people are not responsible for not accepting Jesus as savior?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:34:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:16:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy.

Why?

Really?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:35:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 2:47:21 PM, kman100 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 1:08:15 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

Your claim is illogical since one of the things "claimed for it in the Bible" is that God is good.

The bible also claims that people should be stoned to death for everything from adultery to homosexuality.

So are you saying that stoning people is immoral? Based on what?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:49:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:20:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy. If you have a seizure and crash your car into someone else and kill them, it's not your fault, so you're not punished. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that is not within their reasonable control.

Such people are legally responsible. If they knew, they had a medical condition that caused seizures, then it would have been reasonable to suspect they were putting others in danger by driving.

I didn't say someone with a diagnosed seizure disorder. You're ignoring the broader point about volition in favor of nitpicking. The example could be an undiagnosed seizure disorder. The example could be having a spontaneous stroke. It doesn't matter what the example is.

Are you arguing that people are not responsible for not accepting Jesus as savior?

Try reading the OP.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:49:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 1:08:15 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

Your claim is illogical since one of the things "claimed for it in the Bible" is that God is good.

Which is the truth about God. He is good, the epitome of goodness.

Any God that wouldn't stand up for and protect his own is no God at all.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:16:07 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy.

Why?

If you have a seizure and crash your car into someone else and kill them, it's not your fault, so you're not punished. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that is not within their reasonable control.

Why?

You did not answer the question and you aren't being logical. Don't tell me what you do, or that you name what you do "moral". Tell me why what you do is moral or immoral.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to understand what you mean by "moral". It seems so far that, you define moral as "whatever we personally like", with immoral being "whatever we don't personally like". Am I correct?

I could posit many objective systems of ethics that would reach the same conclusion. Kant. Util. Discourse ethics. I did provide an explanation above. Discourse ethics at least requires you to disprove my statement and provide plausible grounds for why punishing someone when they are non-culpable is morally justifiable.

So, no, I'm not invoking pure subjective morality. Regardless, even if you disproved Kant, util, and discourse ethics as objective, if we universally agree on a moral proposition, it doesn't really matter that morality is subjective. There's no legitimate basis for punishing a non-culpable entity.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:49:13 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 1:08:15 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

Your claim is illogical since one of the things "claimed for it in the Bible" is that God is good.


Which is the truth about God. He is good, the epitome of goodness.

Any God that wouldn't stand up for and protect his own is no God at all.

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://www.thedailybeast.com...

Headline: A Global Slaughter of Christians ... Christians are being singled out and massacred from Pakistan to Syria to the Nairobi shopping mall.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:49:04 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:20:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:34:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 3:12:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Proposition 1: It is immoral to punish someone for an action or decision for which they are not culpable.

Why is that immoral?

As I explained above, we don't punish people for things for which they are not morally blameworthy. If you have a seizure and crash your car into someone else and kill them, it's not your fault, so you're not punished. It would be unfair to punish someone for something that is not within their reasonable control.

Such people are legally responsible. If they knew, they had a medical condition that caused seizures, then it would have been reasonable to suspect they were putting others in danger by driving.

I didn't say someone with a diagnosed seizure disorder. You're ignoring the broader point about volition in favor of nitpicking. The example could be an undiagnosed seizure disorder. The example could be having a spontaneous stroke. It doesn't matter what the example is.

Are you arguing that people are not responsible for not accepting Jesus as savior?

Try reading the OP.

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:35:05 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

So are you saying that stoning people is immoral? Based on what?

Secular ethics ===================>
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:01:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct

blamed =/= blameworthy, but other than that, yes
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:01:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct

blamed =/= blameworthy, but other than that, yes

So you think ignorance of the law is justifiable defense to punishment by the law?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:52:29 PM, JJ50 wrote:
What you are trying to say is that the deity screwed up its creation so very badly it is looking for a get out clause!

No that is not what I am saying at all. You do love to twist things don't you.

He never screwed up at all.

Satan chose to go up against him and is still screwing up God's creation to this day.

But the time Jehovah gave him to prove his case is almost up. Satan has lost and he knows it, and God's son is slowly and carefully sorting it all out.

Soon his father will let him turn his attention to this earth, and the healing of both the planet and everything on it will start.

You see, for all you say against him, Jehovah is so moral that his justice extends to the guilty as well as the innocent, and eh actually gave a disobedient angel time to prove his case.

Jehovah knew it could never succeed, but he still gave Satan, who he could have destroyed with a thought, chance to prove his case.

There is only one circumstance in which Satan hasn't been able to prove his case yet, and that is being set up for both us and him. For us to succeed and him to fail.

That is why I say so often, any, like you, who choose only to see what is bad are missing so much, but with jaundiced minds like yours you always will unless you change.

No, I'm no looking at it all through rose tinted glasses, but even if I were it would be better than looking at it all with such a negative self-destructive attitude as yours. Self-destruction is all you will achieve.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:02:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:01:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct

blamed =/= blameworthy, but other than that, yes

So you think ignorance of the law is justifiable defense to punishment by the law?

No, but that perfectly exemplifies my point. There is a United States Code where you can go look up the law and know it with absolute certainty. The Bible's assertion of Jesus' divinity is anything but certain. For pre-Bible peoples, knowledge of the Jesus story was *unknowable.* The law is not unknowable. People have the ability to look it up and know it with certainty. They choose not. I'm not saying people who choose not to read the Bible are blameless. I'm saying people who do read it and find it wanting and believe God's purposeful tricks (e.g. redshifting) are not blameworthy. It would be like if the US purposely passed vague or conflicting laws that were somewhere between difficult to impossible to follow. Laws are invalid if they create two legal obligations that are irreconcilable or are void for vagueness because people cannot reasonably be expected to conform their behavior to the law under these circumstances. The evidence in the Bible is vague, unconvincing, and controverted by massive amounts of scientific evidence and common sense.

Basically, nice try, but that's really a horrible analogy.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:11:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:01:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct

blamed =/= blameworthy, but other than that, yes

Ignorance of the facts are inexcusable when there is so much opportunity being offered to people to learn them.

That is why Jehovah has gathered a people to his son's side to complete the work he started back in the first century, and give all who want them the facts to decide on.

There is no longer any excuse for ignorance, knowledge is being handed to you on a plate. All you have to do is answer the door the next time the JWs knock and they will happily help you to see how you can save yourself.

If no the judgement soon to come any says "But I didn't know" all Christ will have to say is "But whose fault is that? You chose not to listen". You will have judged yourself in effect.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:14:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:07:37 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:02:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:01:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct

blamed =/= blameworthy, but other than that, yes

So you think ignorance of the law is justifiable defense to punishment by the law?

No, but that perfectly exemplifies my point. There is a United States Code where you can go look up the law and know it with absolute certainty. The Bible's assertion of Jesus' divinity is anything but certain. For pre-Bible peoples, knowledge of the Jesus story was *unknowable.* The law is not unknowable. People have the ability to look it up and know it with certainty. They choose not. I'm not saying people who choose not to read the Bible are blameless. I'm saying people who do read it and find it wanting and believe God's purposeful tricks (e.g. redshifting) are not blameworthy. It would be like if the US purposely passed vague or conflicting laws that were somewhere between difficult to impossible to follow. Laws are invalid if they create two legal obligations that are irreconcilable or are void for vagueness because people cannot reasonably be expected to conform their behavior to the law under these circumstances. The evidence in the Bible is vague, unconvincing, and controverted by massive amounts of scientific evidence and common sense.

Basically, nice try, but that's really a horrible analogy.

In fact the truth about God and his son is perfectly certain and JWs will happily show you how and why if you but let them.

That is their commission from Christ, to carry n his work in this time of the end.

Jehovah and his son are making sure that no-one can justifiably use the excuse "But I no-one told me" because all Christ will have to say is "Well they tried to but you refused to listen".

You cannot make a judgement on what you do not know, though many do and will pay the price for their determined ignorance.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:15:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:11:08 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:01:09 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:59:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I did. To clarify, you are arguing that people should not be blamed for not accepting Jesus as savior and therefore do not deserve hell as punishment? correct

blamed =/= blameworthy, but other than that, yes

Ignorance of the facts are inexcusable when there is so much opportunity being offered to people to learn them.

That is why Jehovah has gathered a people to his son's side to complete the work he started back in the first century, and give all who want them the facts to decide on.

There is no longer any excuse for ignorance, knowledge is being handed to you on a plate. All you have to do is answer the door the next time the JWs knock and they will happily help you to see how you can save yourself.

If no the judgement soon to come any says "But I didn't know" all Christ will have to say is "But whose fault is that? You chose not to listen". You will have judged yourself in effect.

I did listen. You guys don't know how to argue compellingly, or rather can't in light of the evidence and common sense. As is typical, you ignore all the objections in the OP as to why people are not blameworthy for believing in non-divinity.

Prove to me why Christianity is more correct than Islam. Both have holy books to back their claims.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:16:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:14:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


In fact the truth about God and his son is perfectly certain and JWs will happily show you how and why if you but let them.

lol, okay go ahead. Prove to me Jesus' divinity with "perfect certainty."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
kman100
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:35:05 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 2:47:21 PM, kman100 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 1:08:15 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/26/2015 6:09:00 AM, JJ50 wrote:
If the deity exists, and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, it is evil to the core!

Your claim is illogical since one of the things "claimed for it in the Bible" is that God is good.

The bible also claims that people should be stoned to death for everything from adultery to homosexuality.

So are you saying that stoning people is immoral? Based on what?

Stop playing semantic games. Stoning is obviously immoral.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 6:58:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:56:00 AM, bluesteel wrote:

Sorry, but you are very wrong.

First, Jehovah does not transcend morals, he is the epitome of morality, and every action he take is controlled by his four primary characteristics of:

Love
Wisdom
Justice.
Mercy.

There is no higher or finer morality than the perfect balance of those 4.

Human morality is at best a pathetic imitation of Jehovah's.

We are all responsible for our decisions and the outcome of those decisions. It cannot be otherwise.

That is why Jehovah has empowered his son to gather a group of people on the earth to let people know what the results of their decisions will be, and how to make the best choice for all concerned.

You cannot get any more moral than that.

As scripture shows, to those who know it well enough, Jehovah has always done everything with a moral purpose behind it, usually to protect or strengthen those faithful to him from spiritual or physical destruction.

Even the upcoming Armageddon is going to happen to save the faithful.

Which is, again, why his son has organised a people on earth to tell us how to be amongst the faithful.

But in the end the decision is ours, because the consequences are ours also.

To try to avoid the consequences of your own decisions and actions is moral cowardice at it worst.

As for the divinity of Christ, that depends on what you mean by divinity, and if you accept the way it is used in scripture.


According to scripture, Jehovah is divine.

Jehovah's son, who became the Christ is divine.

The Angles are divine.

However even within t#divinity there is rank and file.

Jehovah is the foremost rank. His son is next, and the angels below them, apparently with ranks even within that group (Cherub and Seraph for example).

The problem arises over whether or not people accept the truth about Jehovah , Christ and the Angels, and that is important because truth is the only acceptable foundation for worship of Jehovah.

John 4:23-24
ASV(i) 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth. (emphasis mine).

May I remind you that Jeovah killed a few children using bears to tear them apart? It is impossible to do that if you are the epitome of love, wisdom, justice and mercy.