God doesn&#39;t care about free will.

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.28.2024 09:19PM

Apologists claim that God is not evil even though he allows all of the evil. That he just appears evil because he respects our free will. This is patently false, for multiple reasons:

God overides free will on multiple occations. He hardens the heart of pharao so he can continue torturing the Egyptians. He is also many times using world leaders to enact his will - without them even knowing or consenting. He is even going to force every knee to bow for him when he returns.
The children and infants never chose to be sick with malaria, so there is no free will to overide in order to heal them. God chose to create malaria, not a human, and then he continually choses to ignore the cries of all its victims. Whose free will is he respecting in this case?
Why does God respect the free will of the rapist, but not the free will of the victim? Doing nothing is the equivalent of siding with the rapist.
God is sending to hell many people that were never even introduced to the concept of an almighty God. People that were only exposed to primitive religions and were never faced with the question of accepting or rejecting Jesus. These people never chose hell, but yet were born destined to go there.
How can someone have free will if they are possesed by demons? The Biblical stories about demon possesions are proof that God doesn't guarantee our free will.

So in conclusion, the Biblical God cares jack shit about free will, and apologist need to find a better answer to the problem of evil.

Mall

Debates: 336

Posts: 866

Mall

01.28.2024 09:23PM

-->

@Benjamin

Saying that God is evil is a personal judgement.

Granted to being that you decide to disobey God which as I understand God would recognize as evil, wouldn't make God evil .

The judge or the lawman isn't criminal because they prosecute you or charge you with being a criminal.

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 5,122

FLRW

01.28.2024 09:47PM

-->

@Benjamin

Well, the word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weakness.

Best.Korea

Debates: 269

Posts: 7,586

Best.Korea

01.28.2024 10:41PM

Respecting free will is a myth.

First, if God respects free will which prevents him from taking actions which violate it, why did he create diseases and laws about death penalty?

If respecting free will means not doing anything which violates free will, why does he send people to hell?

That violates their free will for infinite amount of time.

Then the question follows, why are there two worlds?

This world and the afterlife.

If this world is morally perfect, then afterlife shouldnt exist and is unnecessary, and this world should be eternal.

If afterlife is morally perfect world, then why delay that world by creating this world?

Free will isnt mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

It might be slightly implied by covenants, but the exact term is never mentioned.

Its a made up invention in desperate attempt to solve the problem of evil.

But problem of evil cannot be solved in any way, because existence of evil caused by God cannot be rationally denied in any way.

Omnibenevolent God cannot do action which contains evil.

Giving free will to humans contains evil.

Even creating people who will do evil is an action which contains evil.

Debates: 0

Posts: 21

01.28.2024 10:44PM

-->

@Benjamin

Hi Benjamin!

I don't personally subscribe to libertarian free will, but I want to respond as if I do just for the sake of having a conversation.

I have two things to say about your first point. The first is to say that God hardening Pharaoh's heart doesn't necessarily remove his free will. Libertarians believe everybody has free will, regardless of their desires. So consider two people - Jim and Bob. Jim loves old ladies and wants to protect them. Bob hates old ladies and hopes bad things happen to them. Because of their desires, Jim and Bob behave differently whenever old ladies are around. However, this is perfectly consistent with them having libertarian free will. If it happened that the reason they have their respective desires is because God made it so, they would have just as much free will as they would had their desires gotten there a different way. So God hardening Pharaoh's heart doesn't necessarily remove his free will. As long as Pharaoh has the ability to act contrary to his desires, he has free will.

Second, let suppose God does remove free will when he hardens Pharaoh's heart. That wouldn't justify the sweeping claim that God doesn't care about free will. The case of Pharaoh could be considered an exception to the rule. In fact, God's acting miraculously in the world is always the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise, we'd all be seeing miracles every day. God may override free will in special circumstances to bring about some plan, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a general desire for people to act freely most of the time.

As far as everybody bowing the knee, the Bible doesn't say God is going to force them to do that. It simply says they every knee will bow. For all we know, every knee may bow because that's what people choose once they see God face to face. The Bible is silent on the reason they choose, so it could be a free will choice.

To your second point, obviously children don't choose to get malaria, and probably nobody else chooses for them to get malaria. But there are two ways free will might come into play to explain malaria. First, malaria afflicts some parts of the world more than other parts. People who live in parts of the world where malaria is rampant have the freedom to choose whether to procreate or not. Knowing there's a lot of malaria around, they freely choose to procreate anyway. So they are, by their choices, increasing the chances of children getting malaria. Second, it could be that God is respecting the free will of demons. This would explain natural evil, like malaria. I'm not saying that's the case, just that it's possible.

To your third point about rape, free will doesn't mean having the ability to resist an attacker. I am physically unable to jump 20 feet in the air, but that doesn't mean I lack free will. The victim of rape isn't having their free will suspended, so it's not a matter of pitting one person's free will against another. God isn't siding with the rapist by respecting his free will and not the victim's. A better argument would be to say that the evil of rape outweighs the good of free will, so God SHOULD have violated the rapist's free will in order to spare the victim.

To your fourth point about people going to hell who never had a chance to be saved, this doesn't address the subject of free will at all. Besides that, people who don't get to hear the gospel still have free will. They act freely every day. They choose whether to behave with kindness or cruelty. God doesn't owe anybody a pardon, so nobody is being wronged just because they didn't hear the gospel. If there is any miscarriage of justice, it's in the fact that God saves sinners who don't deserve salvation, not in the fact that God condemns people who deserve condemnation. If somebody knows the good they ought to do, but they choose to do bad instead, they are culpable for their actions whether they were ever offered a pardon or not.

To your fifth point about demonic possession, I don't know of any Biblical story in which somebody is blamed for what they did while they were possessed by a demon. I may be wrong about that. But there are two things to say about it. First, it's hard to say whether free will is violated when somebody is possessed or not. It could be that our capacity for making choices is diminished when we are possessed, but not done away with altogether. In that case, we might still have free will even when possessed. On the other hand, if it's a complete take-over, then the person isn't acting at all when they are possessed. It's the demon that is acting. The demon is animating their body, and they are just in neutral. In that case, it isn't that their free will doesn't exist; it's just that it's not being used. But let's say demonic possession does remove free will. All that would follow is that a person isn't responsible for their actions when they are possessed by a demon since it isn't really their actions. It's the demon's action.

Sam

Topic's author

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.28.2024 11:41PM

-->

@philochristos

You propose the idea that maybe every single human ever is going to freely chose to bow when in the presence of Jesus. If that is the case then every single human would be recognizing and accepting Jesus as their Lord. This in turn would render hell completely empty. I don't think this argument of yours makes sense.

You say that free will can explain malaria but then you fail to explain malaria with free will. Parents chose to bring children into this world with all the risks that entails, but that is not an explanation for malaria. God created malaria unprompted. He then proceeds to not help children with malaria. That is his choice, not the parrents. He would not be violating the free will of the parrents by curing their child. Quite the opposite, they will be praying to him and he will ignore them. As for your theory that free will of demons explain natural evil - that is a contradiction of terms. Demonic induced evil is by definition not natural. And we know for sure that malaria is a natural evil, not a demonic one.

Your rebuttal to the point about rape is that being raped is not a suspension of your free will, because you have chosen to resist but simply lack the strenght to stop it. I can turn that argument on its head. God can prevent rape by putting an invisible wall between the would-be-rapist and the target. Free will is not suspended, the choice to rape has still been made, but he just cannot physically execute it. God could even just tell him in a vision that rape is wrong - because according to your logic, the overwhelming obedience to God when he shows his face is perfectly consistent with free will. So there are multiple ways for God to stop rape that are compatible with free will.

Hell is very much connected to the free will argument. You say that nobody deserves salvation. I can grant that without losing my case. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is by definition unjust and excesively cruel. So even if nobody deserves heaven, nobody deserves an eternity in hell. The apologist will say that this is not God being unjust and excesively cruel, it is us humans who choose to live in hell because we reject God and don't want to live in heaven with him. This is a bad argument because nobody who was aware of the existence of hell would choose to go there, heaven would be preferable even if they didn't like God personally. Especially the people who never heard of hell or God, these people never chose to go to hell. They were created by God with flaws, and are tortured for eternity because of those flaws. They never had a free choice to go there.

To the point of demonic posession. You say that God allows for you to literally loose control of your body, just so that a demon can enact evilness. Then why does he not send his angels to posess wicked people before they rape and kill children. It seems like he is only okay with posessions that are evil.

In conclusion, your arguments create more problems that they solve.

Debates: 0

Posts: 21

01.29.2024 12:16AM

Benjamin,

You started this thread to question whether free will is a good explanation for why there's evil in the world. Whether everybody is saved in the end or not seems irrelevant, so I'm not sure what your point was in saying that if everybody bows the knee, hell will be empty.

I used free will in two way to explain Malaria. The free will of people to procreate was meant to explain why children get malaria, not why malaria exists, so you're attacking a straw man there. Second, I suggested the free will of demons to explain the existence of natural evil, malaria being an example. You say this is a contradiction because if demons cause it, then it's not natural. This is an understandable response, but it's based on a misunderstanding of what I meant by "natural evil." By "natural evil," I just mean to distinguish things like disease from situations where one person intentionally inflicts harm on another. I don't mean to imply that things like malaria happen purely by natural causes.

Your response about rape strikes me as being irrelevant to what I said. You originally claimed that being raped is a violation of free will. I argued against that, and you didn't so much as deny that what I was saying was true, and you didn't defend your claim that being raped is a violation of free will.

In response to Hell, you say that people don't have the free choice to go to hell because they were created with flaws. But having flaws doesn't eliminate free will. A person can have flaws and free will at the same time. We are not slaves to our nature. You can desire to do wrong and choose to do right anyway. People resist their own desires all the time. I quite drinking Dr. Pepper a couple of months ago. I had a mad craving for Dr. Pepper, but I chose not to drink it. So the fact that people are born with flaws does not mean they had no free will.

As as far as nobody choosing hell if they knew better, I have to disagree with you there based on what I've heard many people say. Either they're lying, or you're wrong. I've heard lots of people say they would choose hell over bowing the knee to God.

I want to say something about your claim that an infinite punishment is not justified by a finite crime. This is irrelevant to our discussion, but I want to talk about it anyway. Your argument assumes that there is some connection between the length of time it takes to commit a crime and the length of time you spend being punished so that justice is served. But there is no connection between these two things.

A murder can be committed within seconds whereas robbing a house might take several minutes. But does it follow that a person should get a longer prison sentence for robbing a house than for murder? Of course not! They have nothing to do with each other.

Your argument also assumes that the length of punishment is the only thing the punishment consists of. You ignore the severity of the punishment. Being tortured for five minutes could be far worse than being grounded for seven days. That means two people could be punishment for the same length of time, yet one is punished more severely than the other. So it could be that even though Hell lasts the same amount of time for two people, one person may be punished more severely than another in the process.

In fact, this is consistent with several passages in the New Testament. For example, Jesus said it would be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for Chorazin and Bethsaida. Hell isn't a one-size-fits-all punishment. The punishment varies according to the severity of the crime.

You also say that an infinite punishment isn't justified by any crime at all. But that depends on the severity of the punishment and how it is distributed.

Consider a math example. If we add 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + . . ., this will sum to infinity if there are infinitely many 1's we add. But if we add 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + . . ., this will not sum to infinity. It will sum to 1. So even though there may be infinitely many numbers we've added, they still sum to a finite amount.

In the same way, punishment could be distributed unevenly over time in such a way that even though the punishment is infinite in time, it only sums to a finite severity.

But besides that, if you think about it, Hell will never be infinite even if it never ends. Each day, you've only added one more day to a finite number of days. Each time you do that, you only arrive at a finite amount of days. You will never reach infinity because for as long as you suffer, you will only be adding another finite day to a finite number of days, resulting in a finite amount of days. The punishment will always be finite in duration.

Sam

Topic's author

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.29.2024 01:38AM

-->

@philochristos

Sam,

Preservation of free will cannot be a valid motive for God to ignore all of the evil in this world. God preserving free will is not enough to dispell my argument.

My original point was that if everyone is goint to bow to God, then God would need to violate the free will of all those people who would never choose to do that willingly. Your counter was that maybe they all do so willingly. That was a bad counter because its implications are firmly unbiblical. So since we know that your argument would render hell empty, and an empty hell is unbiblical, your argument must be unbiblical. My point wasn't that hell would be empty, but that your argument is unbiblical.

You say that children getting malaria is because people freely choose to procreate. Sure, children existing is a prerequisite for children getting malaria, but that is not the same as it being the main cause. By that logic you could also blame all suffering on the parrents of whoever experiences it. You are dodging the question with absurdities. The question is this: how does free will JUSTIFY or EXPLAIN the refusal of omnibenevolent God to cure children of malaria? You have not answered this question. You have instead argued that malaria as demonic natural evil is not an oxymoron. This is irrelevant, because your argument is still wrong. Malaria isn't demonic, it happens purely by natural causes, we know this based on lots of evidence. You have not yet justified why free will prevents God from curing children with malaria.

The apologist argument relies upon the notion that to protect free will means that you cannot prevent their decisions from being executed. "God cannot stop rape because that would infringe on rapist's free will.". The problem with this is when two free wills make contradicting choices about the same subject - sex vs no sex. In this case God gets to choose which free choice is going to be enforced. He can be passive and allow the rape, or he can prevent it. You said that being raped doesn't contradict free will. I countered that preventing a rape would also not contradict free will then. You ask why this matters, I will explain. If God views being overpowered by a rapist as compatible with free will, then he must also view being overpowered by God as compatible with free will. Thus, he could prevent the rape without violating free will. You cannot say that God allows rape in order to preserve free will.

Going to hell is only a choice if you have the option to choose not to go there. It is unbiblical to say that any human can choose never to sin. You can choose what sins to commit, but you cannot choose not to commit any, because everyone is born with flaws and sinfull natures. For this reason it is impossible to avoid hell without faith in Jesus. So if you have never even been exposed to the idea of Jesus, you literally can not choose to avoid hell. For these people Hell is not a free choice.

You say that some people would never bow to Jesus even when threatened with hell. That contradicts the bible verse saying that everyone is going to bow.

You are strawmanning my argument. I am not saying that punishment duration should be linked to crime duration. I am saying that the severity of the punishment should be linked to the severity of the crime. Hell is a punishment way to severe for any crime possible to commit. You cannot possibly "lower" or "distribute" this excessively cruel punishment across infinity to make it fair. That is disregarding the fact that your theories are firmly unbiblical. You can lower the torture all you want over time, but the fact that it is infinite solitary confinement would make the it sum up to infinity - which would make it unfair. You can claim that infinities cannot be realistically experienced - but after a billion billion billion billion years the punishment would already have far surpassed what can be seen to have any semblance of fairness.

You have not adressed this argument: a God that allows demon posession should be fine with using angel posession to prevent rapes and murders, yet he doesn't.

So in conclusion, free will is not a good excuse for God allowing all of the evil here on earth, and commiting the biggest possible evil of all, hell.

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.29.2024 06:51AM

-->

@Benjamin

We could always blame Mickey Mouse instead.

#10

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.29.2024 09:01AM

-->

@Best.Korea

Free will isnt mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Free will is mentioned about offerings and tithing. Do I need to find you the reference or will you just concede I am correct?

#11

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.29.2024 09:14AM

-->

@Benjamin

Apologists claim that God is not evil even though he allows all of the evil. That he just appears evil because he respects our free will. This is patently false, for multiple reasons:
God overides free will on multiple occations. He hardens the heart of pharao so he can continue torturing the Egyptians. He is also many times using world leaders to enact his will - without them even knowing or consenting. He is even going to force every knee to bow for him when he returns.
The children and infants never chose to be sick with malaria, so there is no free will to overide in order to heal them. God chose to create malaria, not a human, and then he continually choses to ignore the cries of all its victims. Whose free will is he respecting in this case?
Why does God respect the free will of the rapist, but not the free will of the victim? Doing nothing is the equivalent of siding with the rapist.
God is sending to hell many people that were never even introduced to the concept of an almighty God. People that were only exposed to primitive religions and were never faced with the question of accepting or rejecting Jesus. These people never chose hell, but yet were born destined to go there.
How can someone have free will if they are possesed by demons? The Biblical stories about demon possesions are proof that God doesn't guarantee our free will.
So in conclusion, the Biblical God cares jack shit about free will, and apologist need to find a better answer to the problem of evil.

Thanks, Benjamin for this topic. I can see you have thought about it quite a bit. Good for you.

I think the discussion of free will is always fraught with lots of questions since it is notoriously hard to define. And are we talking about biblical free will or libertarian free will? Or what? Yes, I could just go to a dictionary, but I am sure you have your definition. Others will have theirs too.

In the Reformed theological system, a system that more commonly resembles determinism than the libertarian free will one, we very often argue against the validity of free will. And yet, on the other hand, we don't think it is inconsistent with God's sovereignty.

We think the solution to the problem of God causing all things and not being evil is resolved by understanding the first and second causes. We see God as the author of history. Hence, nothing happens in history unless he has authored it. Yet, in being the author, he is distanced from the story because he is distinct from the ordinary characters. In a murder mystery book, the author is not the murderer. The murderer is the one who is evil and has committed evil. The author just has a creative imagination but is not guilty of murder or of creating evil. Even though evil occurs throughout the book.

I also think evil is one of the best examples or proofs of God. God might be perfect but he is not a perfectionist. The two are not synonymous. Sometimes, ignorant people suggest that if a good God created something good but which has the potential to do bad, then it was not created by a perfect God. Yet, that is to conflate perfect with perfectionist.

the Bible also indicates that evil is not a thing. It is an action. Or an omission. It is not a thing. You can't go down to the shop and buy a bottle of evil. You can't build an evil. You can't create evil. It is true that we can make a mess or chaos. But that is not the same as evil. Evil the word is an action.

#12

Stephen

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

Stephen

01.29.2024 09:31AM

-->

@Benjamin

@BrotherD.Thomas

Tradesecret wrote @Benjamin:
God might be perfect but he is not a perfectionist.

What an absolute DICK!!

Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Genesis.

It is God that girds me with strength, and he makes my way perfect. Psalms.

The LORD will perfect that which concerns me: your mercy, O LORD, endures for ever: forsake not the works of your own hands. Psalms.

He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. Deuteronomy.

"Congregation of 300! ", my arse!

Topic's author

#13

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.29.2024 12:15PM

-->

@Tradesecret

You can't go down to the shop and buy a bottle of evil. You can't build an evil.

Evil is not a substance or an omission, it is a label. You can buy a bottle of new deadly disease. You can build concentration camp.

The author just has a creative imagination but is not guilty of murder or of creating evil.

That is only because the characters in the book aren't actually real. When God has authored countless genocides as well as thousand of diseases, that is evil. Even if you were only witness to a crime but had the power to stop it - you would still be an accomplice. Especially when talking about a God that doesn't even need to take any risk to prevent all the crimes. God is an accomplice to all the rapes in history, because he had all the power to stop it, but he chose not to.

God also chose to create people with DNA that led them to have mental health problems that lead to them commiting evil. God must be held accountable for this no?

#14

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,278

01.29.2024 12:35PM

-->

@Benjamin

God must be held accountable forth this no?

Hypothetically perhaps, if you've a mind.

If not then don't bother.

#15

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.29.2024 10:12PM

-->

@Benjamin

You can't go down to the shop and buy a bottle of evil. You can't build an evil.
Evil is not a substance or an omission, it is a label. You can buy a bottle of new deadly disease. You can build concentration camp.

Ok. So we are in agreement. But as such evil is still not thing. It just is a description that some people use to describe something they perceive to be evil. For instance, many people describe the concentration camp as evil. Yet others, for example, the high command of Nazi German saw it as a means of ridding the world of evil. Or for instance some people label Trump's presidency as evil. Yet others describe his presidency as heaven sent. In other words, what we are beginning to see is that evil is not just a label, but a very subjective label.

The author just has a creative imagination but is not guilty of murder or of creating evil.
That is only because the characters in the book aren't actually real. When God has authored countless genocides as well as thousand of diseases, that is evil. Even if you were only witness to a crime but had the power to stop it - you would still be an accomplice. Especially when talking about a God that doesn't even need to take any risk to prevent all the crimes. God is an accomplice to all the rapes in history, because he had all the power to stop it, but he chose not to.

Suggesting that a divine author is limited only to a human author, I think, is with respect, somewhat reductionist. I expect that a divine author is much more dimensional than just a human and as such his characters can come to life. Yet even without using that distinction, human authors very often use real characters in their stories telling real stories.

Your argument seems to be that since God has the power to stop something and doesn't he is somehow an accomplice. Now that's a nice-sounding theory. Yet, it isn't even true in our modern legal world in every circumstance. Many governments and organisations have the power to stop some evil going on - but choose to pursue other avenues. Every government in the world is by that logic guilty of every rape. How? Because every government has the power to put every male into prison as soon as he is born. And the government certainly has the power to do that. So if it doesn't, according to you it is guilty of all the rapes. the question is why don't the government do this - even though they could? Isn't saving one person from rape worth the loss of freedom to all men? Or do you think this is just silly? It might be silly? But it is no less silly than your idea that unless God stop every rape then he is an accomplice as well.

God also chose to create people with DNA that led them to have mental health problems that lead to them commiting evil. God must be held accountable for this no?

And pray tell genius, how does someone hold an all-powerful, all-knowing God accountable? Whose jurisdiction is God under?

Topic's author

#16

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.29.2024 10:35PM

-->

@Tradesecret

I expect that a divine author is much more dimensional than just a human and as such his characters can come to life.

M;y argument is that human authors are just putting ink on paper. Any evil their stories contain is just an idea, not something the author actually created. You are the one that compared God to a human. You wrote "In a murder mystery book, the author is not the murderer." this is true for a human story, where the characters are not real. But the story God is writing is not simply ink on paper, it is real. The suffering that he is writing is real. The evil he is writing is real and his doing.

Many governments and organisations have the power to stop some evil going on - but choose to pursue other avenues.

This is a nonsensical counter. Governments aren't specifically allowing all of the rapes to happen, they are simply unable to detect and prevent all of them.

Because every government has the power to put every male into prison as soon as he is born.

This is a lie, and a ridiculous one at that. And how would this even stop all rapes. Female on female rape occur as well.

But it is no less silly than your idea that unless God stop every rape then he is an accomplice as well.

If you witness a rape happening right in front of you, and you have a gun, yet you just allow the crime to happen, then yeah you are an accomplice. Governments are not everywhere, and it would be evil and impossible for any society to imprison everyone. God is everywhere, so he is present at every rape, and he has the power to stop every rape in ways that don't harm non-rapist.

God is witness to every rape. No rape has ever occured without God's implicit permission.

#17

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.29.2024 10:51PM

-->

@Benjamin

Why couldn't the government put every male into prison? If the end is what you care about? Get rid of evil. Why not get the government just to kill everyone that is born? That would stop evil happening, wouldn't it? And if not, why not?

Your argument is one that proves too much. It therefore makes it redundant as an argument.

You are attempting to put a utilitarian argument as the defining argument. Sorry, not all of us are utilitarians? Some of us believe that the means is just as important as the ends.

I reject your last assertion. Not that God doesn't witness every rape. For he is the judge of all and he will testify as to every human conduct. But I reject it because it is absurd.

The world could be rid of evil. Just drop a nuke. Is that what you want?

God never pretended to be superman. A little hero who flies down whenever there is a cry for help. That is what you are looking for. A band aid solution. Why do people rape people? That is the better question. Not how can God stop people being raped?

God has put into place a plan - one that hits at the heart of evil. That is why Jesus came to this world and died on the cross. He came to destroy sin. One heart at a time. He didn't provide a band aid problem. And he didn't say -I'm going to wipe it out all at once. He is looking at the end but also at the means. It is sin which needs to be dealt with. You haven't got a plan. You just want to have a go at people that are trying to figure it out. I think that is just pathetic.

How about this? You can't beat something with nothing. What is your plan to get rid of evil? I happen to like God's plan. And it is working, one heart at a time. And so far, nothing else has come close. Prove me wrong.

Topic's author

#18

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.29.2024 11:11PM

-->

@Tradesecret

You are making less and less sense. Utilitarianism is not the only moral system that categorically condemns rape. And you have not even tried to adress the fact that governments are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. They cannot prevent every rape.

The world could be rid of evil. Just drop a nuke. Is that what you want?

You are the one defending a God that commited worldwide genocide in order to try and fail to get rid of evil. An omnipotent God failed to do something, ridiculous.

Regarding Jesus Christ. God's perfect plan to get rid of evil is to let the rapist enter into heaven if he is part of the correct god club.

You say you reject my last assertion. Namely, the fact that No rape has ever occured without God's implicit permission. But you accept that God is present at every rape. That leaves only two possibilities. For each rape, God is either allowing it to happen or he doesn't. And if an omnipotent God doesn't allow something to happen, it doesn't occur. Therefore, for any event to occur, God has to permit it. Therefore, No rape has ever occured that God did not allow to happen. This is undeniable.

#19

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.30.2024 02:25AM

-->

@Benjamin

Nope. I am not the one making less and less sense.

You are correct that utilitarianism is not the only moral system that condemns rape. But I notice you did not deny you were one. And it seems to the one you favour since for you the ENDS is the only thing that matters.

Governments don't need to be omniscient or omnipotent to prevent rape. They could write a law or build an army to prevent most rapes. Why worry about every rape anyway? The fact is - governments today could do a lot more than they are doing but they don't. But you won't hold them responsible BECAUSE you know that just because they have the power to do something doesn't mean that by not doing it, makes them responsible.

I'm not defending God. I am just shooting down stupid ideas from you.

God judged the world in the time of Noah. And he will on the Last Day. I don't apologise for that - and I don't see any reason why God judging evil NEEDS to be defended.

Either God does something intentionally and for a purpose. Or God lets things happen recklessly or because he doesn't have the power to stop it or he doesn't know what is going on. Or he doesn't exist. Ironically, since you don't think God exists, this is a pathetic waste of your time, isn't it? Me, on the other hand, believes that God is good and holy. Everything he does is for a purpose - perhaps only known to him. But I don't have to be privy to EVERY decision he makes. but I do believe in the overall goodness of God.

God desires that all should be saved from their sins. And this includes the rapist and the murderer if they repent of their sins and turn to him. I notice nowhere in the Scripture that God says, if they repent, don't punish them for their criminal actions. Perhaps you might find that for me given your silly assertion. Going to heaven is not a reward for being good. And going to Hell is not a reward for being bad or evil. It always surprises me that people are so knowledgeable and yet they don't have a clue about the Christian faith.

There is no such thing as a correct god club. That is simply an argument of straw from someone incidentally who believes they are right and EVERY religious person is wrong. What do I need to do to get into the Benjamin is right club?

Go back and read what I wrote. I never said that any rape didn't occur without God's permission. I rejected your premise within your statement as being absurd. At least please try and read English.

I did talk earlier about the first and second causes. You do remember that, don't you? This means that EVERY rape will occur because it is the story of history. and many will be prevented. This too is the story of history. History can't take place without the author. Yet God also makes it very clear about what he thinks of rape in history. He forbids it. He puts it in the category of sex outside of marriage. And he applies the death penalty to it.

Yet, he has delegated the jurisdiction of this to the State and so the State is responsible to ensure that such rapes do not occur. Yet rapes do occur. And States for the most part stand by and allow things to go on which promote rape. Things like Porn. Things like violent games. Things like promoting promiscuity. And that sex with whomever you like and whenever you like is fine. On one hand, sex is just another normal thing that humans should do like any animal. But on the other hand, rape - which the animals in the world do all the time is frowned upon. Moral laws for humanity. But not for the animals. Humans should just be like the animals. That is what our scientists promote and which our governments condone.

God is a witness for every victim that the Government has let down. For every victim that is left victimised and not looked after by the government. the government will be held accountable and God is the judge who is also the prosecutor and also the witness. And he will be the executioner.

the problem, of course for you is that commit evil. And you have on numerous occasions and you will do so again. But you just won't call it evil. Your lustful thoughts - your imaginations that go wild. And the situations that you would do if you were to be caught. And you knew you could get away with it.

You are the pot calling the kettle black and yet interestingly enough - you don't even know what you are doing. And you have mistaken God for a kettle. Bizarre really.

But thanks for responding.

Topic's author

#20

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.30.2024 11:31AM

-->

@Tradesecret

I think that the diffrent moral systems all have their merit. You act as if me being a utilitarianist would be a gotcha moment. What of it? Does your prefered moral framework say that rape is moral? Does it say that preventing rape is immoral? For what reason? You say that God permits all the rape because it is part of history. But it is only part of history because God permited and authored it. So God allows rape because he allows rape. You are using circular reasoning.

Governments don't need to be omniscient or omnipotent to prevent rape. They could write a law or build an army to prevent most rapes.

That law does exists and it is called the anti-rape-law. That army exists and it is called the police. Unfortunately the police can't be everywhere, they can't know of every rape and they can't instantly teleport to the crime scene even if they knew that rape was about to occur. Thus, the government literally cannot be present at every rape, and can by definition not be an accomplice.

I don't see any reason why God judging evil NEEDS to be defended.

So according to your logic it is fair to kill all humans because they commit evil. Then it would also be fair to kill all rapists.

I never said that any rape didn't occur without God's permission.

So you do admit that every rape occurs only because because God permits it. Regardless of his motive, that fact makes him an accomplice.

#21

Debates: 0

Posts: 390

01.30.2024 06:48PM

-->

@Benjamin

Benjamin,

YOUR QOUTE OF THE TITLE OF YOUR THREAD HEREIN: "God doesn't care about free will."

The totally Bible inept pseudo-christians like Miss Tradesecret don't have Free Will to begin with, because Jesus as God handles the lives of TRUE Christians like myself from the beginning to the end! A few biblical passages, of many, inspired by Jesus as God that explicitly shows that Christians DO NOT have Free Will are herewith:

JESUS SAID: "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope (Jeremiah 29:11).

“The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the LORD” (Proverbs 16:33).

“Oh Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar. You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with ALL my ways.” (Psalm 139:1-3)

“For truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had PREDESTINED to take place.” (Acts 4:27-28)

Furthermore, we have EVIL in the world because Jesus as God, CREATED IT!:

"I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create evil; I am the Lord, who does all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16).

#22

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.30.2024 09:14PM

-->

@Benjamin

I think that the diffrent moral systems all have their merit. You act as if me being a utilitarianist would be a gotcha moment. What of it? Does your prefered moral framework say that rape is moral? Does it say that preventing rape is immoral? For what reason? You say that God permits all the rape because it is part of history. But it is only part of history because God permited and authored it. So God allows rape because he allows rape. You are using circular reasoning.

On the contrary dear Benjamin, it's not a gotcha moment. Whatever would that achieve? Yet it is helpful to understand your reasoning and your value system. After all, as you so eloquently put it "I think that the different moral systems all have their merit". And this must mean I presume, that you accept that other moral systems apart from your own have merit, even if they arrive at different conclusions to you. And if that is the case, you don't have a universal or unilateral leg to stand on.

Yet being a utilitarian means that by admission right and wrong are determined in a couple of ways. The greater good and the outcome. Or as the Marxists would say, the ends justify the means. This of course will muddy the waters. After all, what is the greater good here? Are we talking about one point in history or the end of history? If God, for instance, is using history to weed out the good from the bad, and then on the last Day kills all the bad, how is that not the greater good? After all, the outcome is the measure is it not?

My moral framework does indicate that rape is immoral. And it also indicates that we as humans are obligated to prevent rape if it is at all possible. In my moral framework, God is not obligated to abide by our rules. Since he wrote the rules, he is above the rules. Yet even in saying that in my moral framework, God has delegated responsibility to the government to ensure that people are not raped. Just as God has delegated responsibility to the church to ensure that people understand God's law and to worship him properly. And just as God has delegated responsibility to Family, to ensure that children are trained up in the way they should go.

God is the author of history. Do you prevent dogs raping dogs? Or cats raping cats? God has given humanity the responsibility to enforce laws and to train people how to live. God doesn't take an active role 100% of the time in enforcement since that is our responsibility. And he is not a nursemaid. Yet sometimes, God does take an active role, not so much in enforcement but in judgment. His primary day of judgment is the Last Day.

So although God is the author of history, and thereby permits rapes to occur. And it is also true that God could stop rape. He could also stop every crime and every evil thought. Yet God's purpose for humanity is to learn and to grow. And to take responsibility. God hates rape and so that commit rape will be judged one day if the governments don't catch them now and judge them. This is not circular reasoning. It is the distinction between first causes and second causes. And noting the differences between authority and jurisdiction. The fact is - God is the author of history. YET in his history, he has commanded people to NOT Rape. And during history, rapists will be judged, and those who are not will FACE judgment on the Last Day.

Governments don't need to be omniscient or omnipotent to prevent rape. They could write a law or build an army to prevent most rapes.
That law does exists and it is called the anti-rape-law. That army exists and it is called the police. Unfortunately the police can't be everywhere, they can't know of every rape and they can't instantly teleport to the crime scene even if they knew that rape was about to occur. Thus, the government literally cannot be present at every rape, and can by definition not be an accomplice.

True, the army and police can't be everywhere. But they make allowances for the corrupt who will commit these crimes. They could make a law that separates men from women. They could make a law that isolates every individual. Just think of Covid. And isolation. Perhaps they could legislate to give every newborn baby a needle that prevents them from becoming horny. Who knows what technical things could be done? If the end is what is valuable, why not do this? I think you are just making a weak excuse because you hadn't thought of this before now.

I don't see any reason why God judging evil NEEDS to be defended.
So according to your logic it is fair to kill all humans because they commit evil. Then it would also be fair to kill all rapists.

Absolutely, it would be fair for God to kill all humans because they are sinful. And on Judgment Day, we will see God's justice carried out. God's justice is fair. You seem to think that it's ok to kill a rapist but not someone who commits treason against God. For me, the only thing that won't be fair on that day will be that some people will receive mercy and God's grace. Everyone else will simply get what they deserve.

I never said that any rape didn't occur without God's permission.
So you do admit that every rape occurs only because because God permits it. Regardless of his motive, that fact makes him an accomplice.

That's pretty shallow logic. You need to demonstrate a nexus. You need to demonstrate that in the first place, God's permitting of it was unlawful and unjust. (At the moment, you just have God being the author of history) You need to demonstrate that God MUST save them if he could. And that is where you are going to struggle. You will need to provide us with a manual for what Gods can do what they must do and what consequences flow if they don't do what they must do. It simply is not good enough to assert that the same rules of morality that apply to humanity apply to God. God has the power to give life and to take it and to give it back again. Humans don't have that power. Hence if God kills someone, he very well could give life back to that person. That changes the issues surrounding killing. For us killing a human is the ultimate evil. We can't bring dead people back. And yet if someone had that power, then it is not the ultimate evil for that person. Also God has clearly in the Bible told us what he thinks about Rape. HE says don't do it. He doesn't condone rape. And nowhere in the bible will you find differently. So to prove God is an accomplice will be fun for you. And I imagine you will enjoy doing your homework. Cheers.

Topic's author

#23

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.31.2024 04:52PM

-->

@Tradesecret

Let me get this straight:

You do not believe in libertarian free will, you believe that God is the author of history.
God decided that the rape should happen. He then wrote that into history.
Then the rapist was forced to do what God had written.
???
God is not responsible for the rape.

You say that God caused every rape, but isn't responsible for them, since he is the first cause, not the second one. This makes no sense.

By definition, responsibility for an event falls upon the first and primary cause. Not on the second cause.

Responsibility: being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it. (Oxford languages).

So let me ask you this, do you blame God for choosing to first cause all of the rapes and the genocides and the child murders, or do you credit him for it?

#24

Debates: 0

Posts: 390

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10377/posts/423080

01.31.2024 06:06PM

-->

@Stephen

@Benjamin

Stephen, Benjamin,

POOR MISS TRADESECRET'S QUOTE WHERE SHE ADMITS THAT GOD WILL SEND HER TO HELL: "God judged the world in the time of Noah. And he will on the Last Day. I don't apologise for that - and I don't see any reason why God judging evil NEEDS to be defended."

Yes, Jesus as God does not need to be defended when He sends Miss Tradesecret to the sulfur lakes of HELL upon His Judgment Day because she was EVIL in being an ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT with her family members, of which Miss Tradesecret went totally against this Jesus inspired passage: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

The proof of Miss Tradesecret being an admitted sexual deviant is unfortunately shown in this revealing post of hers highlighted in orange: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGUEW9 Therefore, Miss Tradesecret has absolutely no room to talk about anyone in breaking Jesus' rules and commandments in her long-winded jabberwocky posts.

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT WANTS TO STEP IN THE PROVERBIAL POO IN ADMITTING THAT SHE IS GOING TO HELL LIKE SHE DID, WILL BE ...?

#25

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

01.31.2024 10:16PM

-->

@Benjamin

Let me get this straight:

Okay. But I will assist since you continue to misconstrue my position.

You do not believe in libertarian free will, you believe that God is the author of history.

Yes. I agree with that statement.

God decided that the rape should happen. He then wrote that into history.

That is a fair question and given that it is part of history that God has written the answer is yes. But let me add, that this also includes everything else that happens. Including Jesus / God dying on the cross for the sins of the world. It includes people like you despising what you think he is. But it also includes all of the loving, kind and merciful things that happened in history. To focus on one thing is to diminish everything else. Yet, it is fair to say that I agree with that statement. But we do need to give it perspective. Nothing that happens can happen unless God authored it.

Then the rapist was forced to do what God had written.

That would be to misconstrue what I just agreed. God has authored. Yet no one is forced to rape anyone. That was the second cause. The act of the individual who chose to do so. It was not God as the first cause forcing him/her to do so. There is a break in causation. In our government taxation system, we do a similar thing with consolidated revenue. We separate or break the link of causation between taxes collected and the purposes for which they are utilised. This became extremely relevant to the purpose of many in our society who were refusing to pay taxes since the government was then giving some of that revenue to organisations that were conducting unethical business. Abortion for instance. Christians didn't want to pay taxes since the taxes were being used for abortions. This in their mind made them guilty of abortion and also the government. The Supreme Court in America and the High Court in Australia saw the issue but with reasonably profound logic drew a break in the causation. I think there is a significant break in culpability and causation between the author of a book and the characters within it. I also think that there is a significant break in the culpability and causation between the author of history and the person who chooses to rape.

???
God is not responsible for the rape.

So yes, I deny that God forced any person to rape. Each individual is responsible for their actions. God being the author of history doesn't change this fact.

You say that God caused every rape, but isn't responsible for them, since he is the first cause, not the second one. This makes no sense.

In your mind, I accept that. Yet it is what I hold too. And it is what many other people hold to. It is also how the Bible puts it. For me, it makes perfect sense.

By definition, responsibility for an event falls upon the first and primary cause. Not on the second cause.

Responsibility: being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it. (Oxford languages).

Nope, I disagree with you. It doesn't happen in a situation with the author of a book. It doesn't happen in this situation either. I do accept that it does make it difficult for those who don't believe in God, that we credit him for all the good things and don't blame him for all the bad things. However, I don't blame God for anything since although he has decreed all things, what he does is good and holy. And I know that sounds like God talk and it probably is. Yet the alternatives don't make better sense.

1. God intentionally does all things either because he is ALL GOOD or he is ALL EVIL. ( I reject the evil version since that rules out any good at all and even the most cynical person I have met doesn't deny that good exists)

2. God doesn't intentionally cause all things, but knows what will happen and could stop it if he wanted to. (In my view this would make God either careless, reckless, or just stupid. It sadly is the view of most Christians, who have never asked the question why doesn't he stop evil if he could)

3. God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient meaning he either doesn't know everything and where evil is going to take place or he can't stop it if he did know. (This is the god of the modern liberal, it is also the same idea of god as the Romans, the Greeks, and the Hindus, this type of god is still supernatural and more knowlegible and stronger than humans just not on the same level - or anywhere close to the omnipotent and all-knowing God types.

4. God doesn't exist. (I reject atheism on several grounds. One is it is sheer irrationality to think that the creation just came into being by itself. It is too unbelievable to think so. Atheism removes purpose from life. It removes objective morality. It doesn't account for the non-material things that do exist in life, such as love, kindness, and the spiritual.

So let me ask you this, do you blame God for choosing to first cause all of the rapes and the genocides and the child murders, or do you credit him for it?

Yet that idea of blaming and crediting God misses one significant point about first and second causes. God is also a character in his book of history. This means that God is not only the first cause but is also the second cause in every situation aside from the authoring of history. For instance, I would hold that the creation of the universe is not an act of first causes but of second causes. And the Christian person when he credits God for the creation is doing so concerning this second cause, not the first cause. So if God doesn't get credit for the first cause, but only for the second causes, then he should also not be blamed for the first cause.

So the answer to your final question is no. This misses the point that although God is the author of history, We Christians give God credit for his second causes. His first causes are beyond our pay grade. And since God as the character in his book is holy and good, there is nothing to blame.

Topic's author

#26

Debates: 92

Posts: 828

01.31.2024 10:23PM

-->

@Tradesecret

That would be to misconstrue what I just agreed. God has authored. Yet no one is forced to rape anyone.

Okay. So the rapist could have chosen to defy God and act differently than what was written?

#27

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343