God, justice, fairness and perfection

[Justin108]

For this debate, I need you to answer each of these questions in order.

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

2. If God is not perfectly fair and just, does that mean God is by definition imperfect?

3. Does everyone have an equal chance in getting into heaven?

4. If everyone does not have an equal chance in getting into heaven, is God still perfectly fair and just?

[Justin108]

Support for our pre-earth creation: people were there at the creation, Job 38:7 why not us, we return to sheol at death implying we came from there and we are sown, not created into this world by the Son of Man and the devil, Matt 13:38-39.

Matthew 13:38 - 39 "The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels."

Following your reasoning, it makes no sense that there are any good seeds on earth at all. Wouldn't they have evaded the Earthly prison sentence? If "sowing" in this context refers to our souls being placed on earth, are you saying that the devil was given evil people souls so he can sow them where he pleases?



Job 38:7 "while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

There is no mention of sheol here so I'm not sure what you mean

Support for our free will: it is a necessary concept to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil, to ensure the true guilt of sinners and to be able to fulfill the heavenly marriage since without free will both love and marriage are denied.

Support for two levels of sin, one eternal and one temporary: GOD's love necessitates that if a person can be saved they will be saved from the consequences of choosing to be evil in HIS sight. Therefore if someone is not saved it must be because they cannot be saved implying that their choice to be evil cannot be corrected by grace

This does not support this...

They did when they were created, pre-earth.

Our earthly lives are a RESULT of our free will choices made pre-conception and only sinners who have rejected YHWH as their GOD or HIS plans for HIS creation by their free will are born as human, a process called sowing by Jesus.

Two levels of sin were chosen to send us to earth: a total rejection of YHWH as GOD resulting in an eternal sinfulness

Even if Pre-Earth existed, and we have free will, and there were two levels of sin, you still need to support your claim that our earthy lives are the "RESULT of our free will choices made pre-conception". Please provide scripture and/or other support.

[Justin108]

...The Hindu in India will be damned through no fault of his own for not having this truth and not believing. Mark 16:16 makes no exceptions...

Why add the idea of "no fault of his own"? Mark 16:16 does not support this addition. It is merely a straw dog with no bite.

Only your unique brand of Christianity (you know, the one with no support) would claim that it is somehow the person's own fault that he was born in India.

In the face of the Christian doctrine about the loving nature of GOD this phrase fails miserably to reach the mark.

Your solution to this dilemma is to rewrite Christianity in order for this doctrine to fit.

My solution is
a) God is not so loving after all
b) God doesn't exist

All are born as sinners means that only self chosen sinners are born on earth

There's a giant leap. Why does being born a sinner automatically mean we chose to be sinners?

[Justin108]

Christians claim we get our morality from God, yet claim that God somehow has a "special" morality that we cannot understand.

No Christian I know claims this...quotes from Church doctrine please, or rescind...

I believe that the image of God refers primarily to humanity’s moral capacities

https://www.gci.org/humans/image

Second, we are also limited by the sinfulness of our minds. Thus we have a moral problem as well as a capacity problem

http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/ ... ty_ap.html

Then there's 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ecclesiastes 8:17 and Job 36:26, all akin to "we mere mortals cannot understand God"

Here we go again dept:
to implant a morality in us would deny us free will which would destroy HIS chances of ever having a loving relationship with us or a true marriage. A free will must be able to decide on all the options of a choice or it is forced to chose one over the others and therefore is not free.

So instead... we have to guess what is right and what is wrong?

[Justin108]

So, are you saying that chance is a force? I thought chance was the absence of force. Isn't it supposed to be random?

Chance isn't always random. If I moved to North America, I would be far more likely to encounter a tornado than if I were to stay in South Africa. The action of moving to North America would not be random. That action is a force that influences chance.

Then is not a matter of chance. It is you choosing to put yourself in harms way.

Yes, and God chooses to put us in "harm's way" by having some of us be born in India and Iraq where Christianity is scarce, thereby depriving us of his revelation.

Similarly, unless you believe that God somehow sprinkles us over the earth so we fall where we may, it would not be random. God's placement of our "souls" influence our eventual salvation (being born in India vs the USA). If God does simply sprinkle us randomly, then it is his lack of care for where we end up that then influences our eventual salvation. Either way, it is God's actions that lead to unfair advantages and disadvantages.

Well, that is not a matter of chance, but an egalitarian demand. Why must everyone recognize the demands of egalitarians? The original point I was addressing was why everyone does not have an equal chance. Why must things be equal, especially if we are talking about chance? Chance is by definition unequal. It is random.

Because if things are not equal then things are not fair. The fact that God largely leaves it up to chance is not fair. Therefore, God is not fair

[bluethread]

Then is not a matter of chance. It is you choosing to put yourself in harms way.

Yes, and God chooses to put us in "harm's way" by having some of us be born in India and Iraq where Christianity is scarce, thereby depriving us of his revelation.

Well, that is not a matter of chance, but an egalitarian demand. Why must everyone recognize the demands of egalitarians? The original point I was addressing was why everyone does not have an equal chance. Why must things be equal, especially if we are talking about chance? Chance is by definition unequal. It is random.

Because if things are not equal then things are not fair. The fact that God largely leaves it up to chance is not fair. Therefore, God is not fair.

You orginally said that everyone should get a fair chance. Now, you say that it should not be left up to chance, because that is not fair. So, are you calling for a deity that treats everyone exactly the same? If so, what is your justification for that.

[Justin108]

Then is not a matter of chance. It is you choosing to put yourself in harms way.

Yes, and God chooses to put us in "harm's way" by having some of us be born in India and Iraq where Christianity is scarce, thereby depriving us of his revelation.

Well, that is not a matter of chance, but an egalitarian demand. Why must everyone recognize the demands of egalitarians? The original point I was addressing was why everyone does not have an equal chance. Why must things be equal, especially if we are talking about chance? Chance is by definition unequal. It is random.

Because if things are not equal then things are not fair. The fact that God largely leaves it up to chance is not fair. Therefore, God is not fair.

You orginally said that everyone should get a fair chance. Now, you say that it should not be left up to chance, because that is not fair.

My position hasn't changed. It should not be left up to chance and everyone should have a fair chance.

Just because "having a fair chance" uses the word "chance" does not mean that things are left to chance. Take it up with the English language.

If five men were to have a race, they would all start at the same point to keep things fair. They would each have a fair chance. But that doesn't mean that victory is left to chance. Victory goes to the fastest runner.

Similarly, we should all have the same start on earth heading to our salvation. But as things stand, those born in Christian homes are given an unfair advantage over those in India or Iraq. It would be like giving one runner a 5 second head start or putting his starting position ahead of the rest.

So, are you calling for a deity that treats everyone exactly the same? If so, what is your justification for that.

The deity needs to treat everyone the same at birth, allowing everyone the same privileges. Only after people have acted to deserve punishment or reward should they receive it.

My justification? This is necessary if it is to be claimed that this deity is perfectly moral, just and fair. Unless you claim that god is not perfectly moral, just and fair?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 28 by Justin108]

Apologies if I wasn't clear. What I was meaning is that no matter what, if God is what people claim He is (perfect, all powerful, all knowing, great creator, etc) it's not possible for us, to be basically the exact opposite of God, to understand anything about Him.
It would be like trying to pound a large round object into a small square hole.

Additionally, trying to attribute any human ideal or construct to something that's not human is futile. It would be like saying a rock is sad. How can a non-human thing have a human attribute?
Sounds silly to me

[JLB32168]

I asked how are those born into Christianity responsible for receiving the truth, not how are they responsible for what they do with the truth. Your answer addresses what they do with the truth after receiving it.

No – everyone has some measure of truth that is innate given that they are created in God’s Image and Likeness – love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, defend the fatherless, etc. They don’t need to hear the Gospel to know that these things are virtues and their opposites are vices. It’s natural and intrinsic to being a human.

Can you support this with scripture? Or is this more wishful thinking? Nothing in the Bible suggests that non-believers are given leeway in this regard.

To whom much is given, much is required in in Scripture. Go to an online Strong’s Concordance. As for the belief that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel (people who are ignorant of the Gospel because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it such as infants or some pagans), it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Scripture but that’s only important to you. I’m Eastern Orthodox and we don’t believe that God stopped speaking w/the close of Revelation. Christ remains as Head of the Church so that She may expound upon those things not clearly articulated in Scripture. She delivers His opinion on such things.

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.�

Infants and righteous pagans who have never heard the Gospel are condemned in your theology. That is irreconcilable with the assertion that “God is love.�

Are you suggesting the Ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers received divine revelation somehow? Or is this just their interpretation of the text?

Yup.

I don't consider scripture as the only valid evidence, but you have yet to provide any support for your position other than your opinion of what you expect God would or would not do.

I mentioned the Ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers, didn’t I.

What point have I not supported?

When you bail on a civil conversation for no reason other than you disagree with the person then that is indicative of inability to support your point.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 38 by JLB32168]

everyone has some measure of truth that is innate given that they are created in God’s Image and Likeness – love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, defend the fatherless, etc.

Do we? Everyone? Terrorists and other fundamentalists don't want to kill the fatherless?

They don’t need to hear the Gospel to know that these things are virtues and their opposites are vices. It’s natural and intrinsic to being a human.

Seems this is more of a modern concept than a eternal one. Meaning, for many ancient people, it was 'all for me' - it was about individual survival first, family came later.
Even today, for many people it's all about 'me me me' and forget everyone else. Most grow out of that but that still speaks to a means of social development within the brain - not any kind of God-given ability from birth as some seem to indicate - at least to me
Of course, this assumes one believes in evolution-type of humanity and not "boom, people are created just like we are today by a 'creator' in the clouds"
Which speaks to a much larger disconnect between the two groups and how we see things.

[Justin108]

I asked how are those born into Christianity responsible for receiving the truth, not how are they responsible for what they do with the truth. Your answer addresses what they do with the truth after receiving it.

No – everyone has some measure of truth that is innate given that they are created in God’s Image and Likeness – love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, defend the fatherless, etc. They don’t need to hear the Gospel to know that these things are virtues and their opposites are vices. It’s natural and intrinsic to being a human.

This has nothing to do with belief. If your interpretation is that "Gospel = innate morality" then it fails in context of Mark, John and Revelations as those books specifically command belief. So, again, those born in India and Iraq have a disadvantage as they live without revelation of the Gospel that is needed in order to believe.

Can you support this with scripture? Or is this more wishful thinking? Nothing in the Bible suggests that non-believers are given leeway in this regard.

To whom much is given, much is required in in Scripture. Go to an online Strong’s Concordance. As for the belief that those who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel (people who are ignorant of the Gospel because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it such as infants or some pagans), it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Scripture but that’s only important to you. I’m Eastern Orthodox and we don’t believe that God stopped speaking w/the close of Revelation. Christ remains as Head of the Church so that She may expound upon those things not clearly articulated in Scripture. She delivers His opinion on such things.

What criteria do you follow in order to establish that someone has indeed received a revelation from God? If a man claims God spoke to him, do you immediately believe him?

Also, out of curiosity, is the "She" you are referring to Jesus? Or is this the term you use to refer to the Church?

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.�

Infants and righteous pagans who have never heard the Gospel are condemned in your theology. That is irreconcilable with the assertion that “God is love.�

Not my theology. I'm an atheist. This is the Christian theology at face value without any unjustified alternate interpretation.

When I see an example of immorality in the Bible, I conclude that the Bible is immoral. When you see immorality in the Bible, you pretend it isn't there by assuming that "why surely God would not do such a thing". My interpretation is objective and looks only at evidence. Your interpretation is biased, subjective and peppered with what you want the Bible to say. Can you give any objective support for your assumptions? Or are they nothing more than your subjective assumptions?

It's simple; if God did not plan on damning the unbelieving, God would not have mentioned it several times throughout the Bible. Ignoring this fact is simply dishonest.

Are you suggesting the Ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers received divine revelation somehow? Or is this just their interpretation of the text?

Yup.

So basically your "support" is "because my Church Fathers said so". This is nothing but an appeal to authority. Unless you can give me actual reason for believing that your Church Fathers received revelation from God, then you cannot use them as support. Otherwise what would be the point? If all I needed to make an argument was to claim that "X is true. I know this guy who spoke to God and he said so, therefore X is true" then there would be no point in arguing.

I don't consider scripture as the only valid evidence, but you have yet to provide any support for your position other than your opinion of what you expect God would or would not do.

I mentioned the Ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers, didn’t I.

Appeal to authority

What point have I not supported?

When you bail on a civil conversation for no reason other than you disagree with the person then that is indicative of inability to support your point.

I am not bailing because I disagree with you. I am "bailing" because you offer no actual argument other than your opinion and an appeal to authority.