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?

[Daddieslittlehelper]

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

1. Is God perfectly fair and just?

Yes

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

well God is just and fair, so.

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

No the Devil is already condemed but even he still goes into heaven now and then, as with the story of Job.

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

Yes. Everything you have you owe to the God that created you. What can a pot say to the potter?

You actually seem to think you could potencially know better then god.

As it is written in the end only God will be shown to be truly rightous.

God gave man freedom, to choose, and that freedom can be misused. But to take that freedom away would make man nothing more then a robot, that only does what God decrees, and that is not what god wants for humanity. He wants us to choose life and life with him. You dont want to thats your choice.

[bluethread]

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?

According to your standards of morality, justice and fairness, I would say that is the case. However, Why should a deity be subject to that morality? As Adonai says through Yeshiyahu, (Is. 29:16) "You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?" Paul affirms this principle when he says, (Rom. 9:21 NIV) "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" So, egalitarianism is not a Scriptural principle. I would also say that it is humanist hubris to believe that any other life form should be subject to a moral standard that is not even universal among humans. In fact, the dog whisperer says that this view is the cause of most, if not all, problems people have with their pets. If dog morality is different from human morality, why would one expect human morality to apply to a deity?

[Justin108]

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

No the Devil is already condemed but even he still goes into heaven now and then, as with the story of Job.

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

Yes. Everything you have you owe to the God that created you. What can a pot say to the potter?

You actually seem to think you could potencially know better then god.

As it is written in the end only God will be shown to be truly rightous.

God gave man freedom, to choose, and that freedom can be misused. But to take that freedom away would make man nothing more then a robot, that only does what God decrees, and that is not what god wants for humanity. He wants us to choose life and life with him. You dont want to thats your choice.

This does not address the OP at all. I demonstrated that, because not everyone has an equal chance to get to heaven, god is not fair. All you have to respond with is "don't question god"? Come back with an actual argument

[ttruscott]

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.

IF you are so interested in scripture, why don't you tell me what your interpretation of the quoted verses means so we can debate the meaning, hmmmm?

No one was thrown out of heaven until after the creation of Rom 1:20 For since/FROM the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has [ed: just] been made, so that they are without excuse.

Since no one in all of the world's history has ever found YHWH and bowed to HIS divinity and power by the study of nature, (in fact, most of the world interprets nature to mean that they are gods and never ever even think of YHWH) I contend that this refers to our witnessing the creation of the physical universe as proof of HIS divinity and power so no one has an excuse for not accepting HIM as their GOD. Backup: Job 38:7 proves people were there at that occasion so why not us as I have said. Sheol and Tartarus, the place of the waiting spirits (often called the dead because they have no bodies), were built into the earth in its depths.

The single most important thing to notice about this verse is found in the understanding that no one is guilty for sin against GOD's divinity, that is, rejecting HIM as a false GOD and HIS promises of election and salvation as lies, as long as they can change their minds by their free will...!...so it was only after seeing the proof of HIS divinity and power in the creation of the universe that their sin was set into their character because they could no more change their minds by free will because they knew the proof and so would be changing their minds by a will forced by fear of hell. Only now could GOD begin to eradicate evil from all of creation by the redemption and sanctification of HIS sinful elect and the banishment of the eternally evil reprobate to the outer darkness.

Satan was forced from heaven for his sin by Michael and the holy angels: Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.…9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, [to Tartarus in Sheol] and his angels with him.

We RETURN TO SHEOL so it is implied we came from Sheol or return doesn't mean return: Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol ... Kiel - Delitzsch(#16) - Yea, back to Hades must the wicked return... sealing up where Satan was hurled.

Matt 13:38-39 tells us that we are sown into the world by the Son of Man or the devil according to whether we are sinful people of the kingdom or sinful people of the evil one. Since it is reasonable to assume the sinful good seed are in sheol also, it suggests they are in one part of sheol and the demons, Satan's angels, in another called Tartarus.

This parable also tells us that the good/ elect seed must live with the reprobate tares until they are mature enough to be harvested. Since the only maturity that saves people from being pulled up by the judgment and cast into the fire is a mature holiness, it is easy to see that that is the reason they are born on earth, to redeem them from their choice to be sinners pre-earth.

That they must spend their time on earth with the reprobate tares tells us that the presence of the tares is important to the redemption of the elect implying that their sin had to do with their idolatry of the evil of the tares above their GOD, that is, when GOD called for their judgment, they rebelled even though they had accepted HIM as their GOD. They rebelled against the judgment and so became evil in his sight needing HIS promise of election and salvation to be fulfilled in them to become holy, that is, accepting the necessity of the judgment and standing firm with HIM on that issue. Because this is not what we experience on earth I am convinced that it fits the contention that we are working out our pre-earth sins which are forgotten as repressed memories as the rest of Rom 1 tells us is the effect of sin upon a soul enslaved to sin.

[Justin108]

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?

According to your standards of morality, justice and fairness, I would say that is the case. However, Why should a deity be subject to that morality? As Adonai says through Yeshiyahu, (Is. 29:16) "You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?" Paul affirms this principle when he says, (Rom. 9:21 NIV) "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" So, egalitarianism is not a Scriptural principle. I would also say that it is humanist hubris to believe that any other life form should be subject to a moral standard that is not even universal among humans. In fact, the dog whisperer says that this view is the cause of most, if not all, problems people have with their pets. If dog morality is different from human morality, why would one expect human morality to apply to a deity?

So what you're saying though God is not fair, his lack of fairness is not an issue due to his entirely different morality? Or are you saying "fair" means something different to God? The latter makes as much sense as saying God has a different concept of green than our own. Fair is fair. Unless you can actually demonstrate that having an unequal chance is still somehow fair, your argument is nothing but special pleading.

Suppose God did have a different concept of morality, why would God deliberately give us an entirely different sense of morality? Whether God does have a different sense of morality is, however, off topic. If you argue that God's morality is different from our own then so be it. The OP discusses specifically fairness and not morality in general.

[ttruscott]

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?

I know he sows people into the earth. Whether it is as he pleases or by some other rule I have no idea since it is not written and I have not been told.

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

What does that matter? My point is that people were singing GOD's praise for the creation of the physical world implying the spirits were created before the universe so they could see it. Why not us? To Sow does not mean to create since the devil does it also and no one thinks he can create people so it must mean to move from a place of storage to a place of growth.

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...

Ambiguous references in this no debate one liner...

[ttruscott]

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?

Answered post #24...

[ttruscott]

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?

Nope - you got to choose which unproven version of right or wrong suited you as your best choice to gain the most happiness in your lifetime...and once you chose, you put all your faith, all your unproven hope, into this choice, either for YHWH or against YHWH, creating your eternal relationship with HIM forever.

[ttruscott]

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.
...
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 know my answer to this that our lives merely reflect our sinful choices pre-earth but even so, if I am wrong and orthodoxy is right,

NO ONE IS BROUGHT TO GOD BY THEIR FATHER'S RELIGION BUT BY HIS GRACE AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT. PERIOD. And HE can find you anywhere HE has placed you on earth or anywhere you might wander. Nothing we do, no circumstance of life, saves us, only HIS grace.

These ideas do not seem to understand the orthodox position of salvation at all.

[bluethread]

So what you're saying though God is not fair, his lack of fairness is not an issue due to his entirely different morality? Or are you saying "fair" means something different to God? The latter makes as much sense as saying God has a different concept of green than our own. Fair is fair. Unless you can actually demonstrate that having an unequal chance is still somehow fair, your argument is nothing but special pleading.

"What's fair is fair" is literally circular reasoning and actually an appeal to common sense. Both of those are fallacies. Special pleading is only a fallacy if there is no significant difference. If you will look back, you might notice that I addressed your appeal to morality and justice. I am specifically questioning whether all morality and justice must be egalitarian. Do you contest the fact that what is moral for a dog is different than what is moral for a man, or is that a special pleading?

Suppose God did have a different concept of morality, why would God deliberately give us an entirely different sense of morality? Whether God does have a different sense of morality is, however, off topic. If you argue that God's morality is different from our own then so be it. The OP discusses specifically fairness and not morality in general.

If you are asking why Adonai would require us to have a morality that does not apply to Him, I think I made that clear. It is the same as us not only recognizing that dogs have a morality that is different than our own, but requiring it. If you are asking why egalitarianism is not part of the morality that Adonai applies to man, I would say that you are incorrect regarding that being a universal human morality. Many moral codes do not accept egalitarianism. Does that make them unjust or imperfect? You seem to think so, but that does not make it so.