Okay, Christians.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:28pm
Thread Topic: Okay, Christians.
-
If "free will" were an issue, he wouldn't intervene at all.
Explain. If anything, free will would demand he intervene. Man without guidance is sure to sin. -
that's quite the bleak opinion of humanity. And for the sake of argument I would like to emphasize that it's an opinion. You think humanity without guidance would be sure to sin. Where as I feel that people who claim to have had "guidance" have caused more evil than people who act without "guidance".
-
You're getting off track and making opinions of your own which are in no way related to the argument. Explain your quote.
-
If God believed in free will, AKA, people are allowed to make their own choices, then killing them off for not doing what he thinks is right is removing their freedom. He is ending their lives. That's it. End. Game over. Period. Free will ends there.
So if I were to ask, Could an all powerful God stop the crime without killing people off, the response is almost invariably that he wouldn't because it would affect free will. What I was trying to point out in advance is that killing people also affects free will, so that almost invariable rebuttle would be invalid. -
Firstly, it's killing them off for not doing what IS right, not what he thinks is right. A small distinction, but important.
And the rebuttal here is obviously that the circumstances are different. Taking away someone's free will because they're doing bad and sentencing them because they're doing bad are two very different things. And that distinction between them is central to the point.
Killing someone for their crimes is a punishment. A moral sentence. It's a way of saying 'you refused to change, and now you will face the consequences of your actions.' The man is kept his free will, abuses it, and now has to face the consequences for it. That is the intention behind killing someone, that they face the consequences for their evil actions.
Forcing someone to do good however, is simply evil. The man is stripped of his will. He no longer has to face consequences for his actions, but they are no longer his to begin with. He is hardly a man at all. This man is born without his free will, can never abuse it, and never faces the consequences of his actions.
This is the difference between the two. One man keeps his free will, refuses to do good, and faces the consequence. The point is in the choice, not in the removal of it. Yes, killing someone removes their free will, but the circumstances are much different than if God had simply removed free will from the start.
...f--- it, enough editing, lets go. -
The point of a punishment is to teach a lesson. Murdering someone doesn't teach them a lesson. It's just killing them. And no matter how just or impervious to scrutiny a god is, killing is killing.
-
The point of a punishment is to do exactly that, punish. To give retribution for an offense. And if the crimes are deserving of such an extreme punishment, is it not just to hand it out?
But killing is not inherently evil. There are many situations where killing can be good, or in this case, justified. -
I... I have to agree with IHLAOY on this one. Although IHLAOY has made some points that I dis-agree with, he does say right. Which is better, forcing a man to slavery for all his life, or executing him?
-
So an all powerful God would not be able to get people to stop without killing them all? Then he is NOT all powerful.
And on a different note, if God were to simply make his presence known, how much crime would that stop? Having information withheld from someone prevents them from making an accurate choice. So expecting people to do good when all information is not known to them prevents an accurately FREE choice from being made. So if God denies us unquestionable knowledge of his existence, but then gives us unquestionable punishment from his law, not only is he being inconsistent, but he is also being unjust and cruel. Qualities which a God does not make. -
No, we've been over this. The killing of the people is a punishment for the crimes they committed of their own free will. It has nothing to do with stopping them. It's entirely possible to stop them without harming them, but then the guilty go unpunished. It's not just.
Now we're just changing the argument again, because I suspect you know you're on shaky ground. How many times are we going to do this?
God doesn't make himself known because you shouldn't need proof of God to be a good person! That's the whole point of free will! That's your own argument right there, from like, three posts up. You should do good through love, not because you fear divine judgement.
I could probably have phrased that better, but the point is this, if people had knowledge of God's existence, they would be unable to choose to love him. Free will again. And love without choice is hardly love at all.
To quote a parable written by the 19th century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard:
Suppose there was a king who loved a humble maiden. The king was like no other king. Every statesman trembled before his power. No one dared breathe a word against him, for he had the strength to crush all opponents. And yet this mighty king was melted by love for a humble maiden. How could he declare his love for her? In an odd sort of way, his kingliness tied his hands. If he brought her to the palace and crowned her head with jewels and clothed her body in royal robes, she would surely not resistno one dared resist him. But would she love him?
She would say she loved him, of course, but would she truly? If he rode to her forest cottage in his royal carriagethat too would overwhelm her. He did not want a cringing subject. He wanted a lover, an equalFor it is only in love that the unequal can be made equal.
Of course, this entire argument has been debated to death, and I've never really followed it that well; so this might very well be an argument I lose. We'll see. -
On the contrary, that made relatively good sense. And from what I can tell, this conversation has turned in to a circular one debating all powerful and all loving, versus perfectly just.
I'll argue that an all powerful and all loving God would either have a way to do all those things without killing people, or he wouldn't be an all powerful and all loving God.
Then you'll rebuttal with the fact that an all just God would perform the punishments necessary for the crimes committed.
What this is boiling down to is Justice Vs. Mercy. And that is a question philosophers have been arguing since the dawn of time. It really depends on the person. Your God would value Justice. Where as God in my definition would value mercy. Can we settle that it's a difference of opinion and call a truce? -
I can agree to that. Truce.
I wasn't expecting to see someone actually smart on this website though, Barber; I was pleasantly surprised. -
Hunter123 NewbieThat verse means that if you don't believe in Jesus, you will go to hell, but you can always turn to him.
-
Are you calling the rest of us stupid? I doubt it, but half us aren't.
-
What the hell is going on here?
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
