Okay, Christians.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:28pm
Thread Topic: Okay, Christians.
-
Alright IHLAOY, sorry for the delay, I was watching a documentary and doing homework. Anywho, if we're going to keep this debate going, we're going to need to establish what certain terms mean to each other so we don't just start arguing over the definition of a word.
Can you please explain to me what "free will" means to you?
And does your personal definition of God mean an omnipotent, omnipresent, all loving being? Or do you describe your personal God in some other fashion? -
No problem. I was eating a jam donut and playing Dota 2.
Free will means being able to distinguish between right and wrong; and having the ability to do both while being accountable for your actions.
I would describe God as an omnipotent, just and loving being. -
A donut sounds delicious right now. But I'm stuck with just my cup of orange juice.
With those out of the way I have a few questions for you. First off, do you believe in divine preordination. In other words, God put us on earth knowing what we would do with our lives?
And as for your description of God, you still claimed that he is omnipotent, or all powerful. So the question stands that would a loving and all powerful God be unable to convince people to stop their evil ways without affecting free will? Which by your definition would fall under being able to distinguish between right or wrong and having the ability to do both while being accountable for their actions.
Technically under this system, all your God would have to do is give a sign of his existence. The only uncertainty that would clear up would be doubt. And if them doubting his existence is the deciding factor between oblivion and life, can you really call him "just"? -
Nah, I hate orange juice. It's the worst of the juices.
Divine preordination is a tricky subject. I've heard lots of arguments for and against it, so I'm not sure where to stand on that subject. I think I'll wait until I find a good argument for either side.
I'm not sure where you're getting with this, so I'm gonna attempt to explain to the best of my ability. I understand the first paragraph, but you seem to have ignored the argument in the second for an entirely different point.
Doubt of God is not the reason men do evil things, nor was it the reason God decided to kill them. And appearing before man, which he did do (with Noah, at least), did little to convince them to change their ways. And as I have mentioned again, and again, and again, it was not their doubt of God that caused him to kill them. It was their wicked ways that caused him to judge them. From there, the sentence for their crimes was death. -
For one, orange juice is delicious xD
For two-
Yes, God could have stopped the violence; but I can't believe you're trying to argue against having free will. He could have easily forced everyone to get along and be friendly, but that would have been taking away their free will and their ability to make choices. And how can you love something yet force it to love you back? That's not love, that's fear.
So, what you're saying here is that taking away free will would've been wrong, but killing them all was right? -
Yes. What part of this are you not understanding? Do you need me to repeat the thing that I have been saying all thread about WHY it's right?
-
You're basically implying that taking away free will is wrong, but killing is right? Even though you don't exactly have free will once you're dead.
-
DEAD METAL.
-
I don't know, but God may be invincible, but what about all these 'Christians'?
-
Because it's a sentence for the crimes they committed. It's justice in its purest form.
-
^ Well, that's definitely not what jail/prison says.
-
If you're sentencing someone to death, then you've abandoned all hope of helping them. An all powerful and all loving God doesn't seem like the kind to give up on his children.
-
^ I have been sitting here for days trying to put that into words
-
Maybe, but as I've been trying to make you understand, God is not simply all loving. If God was all loving, he wouldn't care if someone sinned, or murdered or stole or any s--- like that. I keep repeating this, God is not only loving, but perfectly just. He must punish those who do wrong and inspire those who do right.
If a pet dog attacks a child, no matter how much you love that dog, you need to punish it. If your brother commits a crime, no matter how much you love him, you need to testify against him. Same theory applies. Justice must be handed out to those who do wrong, regardless of how much you love them.
And if you can clearly see that your dog won't learn, or can see that your brother won't change, and it becomes a danger to everyone else, you need to consider cutting ties with them.
I could probably express this better, but screw it. -
You're using that word again. "Won't".
God may be Just, but he is all powerful. Don't feed me that "Free will" story. If "free will" were an issue, he wouldn't intervene at all. But he's already proven that he will intervene. So since God has already thrown out free will as a viable excuse, is there any reason that an all powerful being could not convince people to do right without killing them?
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
