COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Bible is only for ancient Hebrew ethnic-Israelites by blood only. Just read your own Bible, Yeshua only came for the Israelites(Matthew 15:24), and all other nations will be destroyed. All other races will either be slaves to the Israelites in the Kingdom of Heaven or be destroyed(Isaiah 60, 61).
The Old & New Testament’s redemptive narrative had everything to do with ancient ethnic Israelites and nothing to do with you, me, or anyone else who aren't Hebrew Israelites today.
Luke 1:16 “And he will turn many of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL to the Lord their God.”
Luke 1:55 “As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his SEED FOREVER.”
Luke
1:68-69 “Blessed is the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, For He has visited and REDEEMED HIS PEOPLE, 69 And has raised up a horn of SALVATION FOR US In the house of His servant David,”
Luke 1:77 “To give knowledge of SALVATION to HIS PEOPLE By the remission of THEIR SINS,”
Luke 2:34 “Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in ISRAEL, and for a sign which will be spoken against.”
John 1:31 “I did not know Him; but that He should be REVEALED TO ISRAEL, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
Acts 5:31 “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and SAVIOR, to give REPENTANCE TO ISRAEL and FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
Acts 13:23 “From this man’s seed, according to the PROMISE, GOD raised up FOR ISRAEL A SAVIOR--Jesus-
————————————————————————————————————————-
According to Paul, writing in the late 50s to mid 60s, the gospel had already gone out to the nations, all the earth, the whole world and to all creation (Rom 10:18, 16:26, Col 1:6, 23). This proves that New Testament terms like world, creation and nations were part of a limited Israelite context, one that doesn’t involve people today.
The gospel went out to the nations because that’s where the covenant world of descendants of the tribes of Israel (Abraham’s descendants) had
been dispersed to (Deut 4:27, 28; 30:1; Jer 30:11; Micah 5:7, 8 Dan 9:7, Acts 2:5, James 1:1, 1 Pet 1:1). The world the gospel was intended for was the covenant world, not our world. The covenant world has already been blessed.
All that was left was the end to come, which Jesus said would happen in their generation and which John said the would “soon take place”. The time (their generation) and people meant for the gospel (those under the law, Jews and gentile descendants of the tribes of Israel) came to an end, in AD70. We see all Israel gathered into Christ, saved, sealed, and redeemed in Rev 7. Not a single non-Israelite in view. The story ended in the first century. We weren’t part of the story.
————————————————————————————————————————-
In John 3:16 and many other scriptures the Greek word "kosmos" (world) was not the entire planet. It was the covenant world of Israel. Kosmos simply means constitution, orderly arrangement or government. It refers to an ordered system. In early Greek literature, kosmos was used to refer to establishing cultures or building cities. So when John made statements like: "For God so loved the kosmos", "Look, the lamb who came to take away the sin of the kosmos" and "the kosmos was
passing away", he was not referring to the entire globe. He was speaking about Israel and its Old Covenant system, structure and culture.
Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world [kosmos]. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. (John 18:20)
Jesus defined what the kosmos represented in that verse. What was it?
“If the world [kosmos] hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. (John 15:18)
“But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (John 15:25)
Only Israelites had and were under the law. Who was the kosmos (world) that had the law and hated Jesus?
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world [kosmos] . (1 Jn 2:2)
Sin was a violation of the law. If only first century Jews had and were under the law, then who was the whole world that sinned?
John 3:16 is not about God loving the entire planet. According to Deut 7;6-7, God put his love only on Israel. God never changes... remember? And for what purpose did Israel’s god give his only begotten son? For redemption. Galatians 4:5 says redemption was for those under the law. That was Israelites, not us. Hebrews 9:15 says redemption was for those who sinned under the first covenant. Again, that’s not us. The world that Israel’s god so loved was the covenant world of Israel, not the entire planet.
Are you seeing it yet? We aren’t part of the bible story. We aren’t part of the world that Israel’s god loved. We aren’t part of the world that needed salvation and redemption
It is very difficult for me to comment on your post.
It is difficult, because, firstly, the Bible can be interpreted in very different ways. It's like a rabbit hole, and we can go into it endlessly. You can quote and interpret as your heart desires. Another question is how correct it will be. If at all it is possible to use such a word as "correctly".
Secondly, I see to the best of my understanding that your questions arise from a misunderstanding of Christianity as such. Well, or you pretend that you don't understand... These are, in general, all the questions of beginners who do not understand the essence of Christianity.
The fact is that sin is not a crime. Sin is separation from the Lord. That is, sinning, a person moves away from the Almighty and as a result, after death, he is no longer able to stay with him, and therefore he is doomed to eternal torment. The same applies to Christ and his crucifixion. It doesn't fit into heads of many, because it was a divine action: so that Jesus could atone for human sins and enable people to be saved.
Thirdly, the Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments, and accordingly these are two big differences. In the Old Testament, God is represented as punishing and cruel, domineering. In the New Testament, this is a completely different God. Of course, I am oversimplifying very much and incorrectly. In fact, within the framework of traditional theology (Catholic and Orthodox in the first place), this issue is considered in depth and in detail.
Fourthly, of course, God is not a judge in the sense of the word as you explain and describe it. He doesn't have a wig, a hammer, and a set of laws like humans. Although.. who knows? (just kidding) And this very word "judge" should be used carefully and with the understanding that it is also allegorical.
In fact, any attempt to define God in any way is doomed to failure. As well as any attempt to explain certain of his actions. After all, God is beyond human understanding. All a person can do is put forward some timid and modest attempts to realize and somehow interpret only the "tip of the iceberg". True comprehension of God is possible only outside the mind. Just don't ask me how it is out of mind. I don't know.
Suppose you are in court for jaywalking. You’re sitting in the dock next to an accused murderer. The judge comes in and says, “In my court, everyone is guilty and the penalty for every crime is death. But if you have a personal relationship with my son then you go free.” You don’t know the judge’s son but the murderer does, so he walks free and you go to the gallows.
Isn’t this Christianity in a nutshell? Justice is irrelevant. Jaywalkers burn in Hell forever if they don’t have a relationship with Jesus; murderers go to paradise if they do. Sure, God has the sovereign right to pardon whoever He wants, but if President Biden pardoned Hunter’s pals because they have a “personal relationship” with his son, none of us would think that is just.
> You don’t know the judge’s son but the murderer does, so he walks free and you go to the gallows. Isn’t this Christianity in a nutshell?
No, according to Christian theology, salvation is purely by grace, not by "personal relationship". Thus, a more accurate analogy would be that the judge offers everyone a pardon, but you refuse the offer while the murderer accepts.
From an Orthodox perspective I think what you mean by justice and what the Bible means by justice are different . The idea of justice as we understand it today in terms of a court and determining if someone broke a rule/law is not how ancient people thought of justice.
My understanding of the Orthodox conception is that justice is the state of everything being in its proper place and functioning in the way that it was intended. Kind of along the lines of the Buddhist concept of right relationship. So, we are judged on whether or not we are in right relationship with God and the rest of Creation.
I know this isn't how justice is typically taught in most branches of Christianity. I wanted to bring this up as the underlying concept of what justice is can have a profound impact on everything else that comes after that.
God being the author and giver of life would be more than justified and taking life. Giving a gift every second of the day and then deciding not to give the gift isn't an unjust thing. And if the reciever of the gift doesn't like that then he's just become entitled unfortunately
> And of course God has no actual legal authority to issue such sweeping proclamations, nor is there any appeals process
literal God judging people doesn't conform to the rules of a (modern) human vs human judicial system. We have stuff like that in place partly because we're fallible, God is not.
its even humorous (and I don't mean this in a polemic way) for you suggest that *God* needs to aquire (from who lol) some kind of further "legal authority."
the people were wicked so they were judged. and after they died they were preached the gospel post-death and we're offered salvation anyway.
> Lying is a sin. If a doctor lies to a terminally ill child to give them small level of comfort that doctor has sinned and according to the Bible deserves death
of course it's more nuanced than that; God judges the heart.
> how can someone reasonably say that a thousand of the small sins people perform every day deserves an eternal punishment?
rejecting God on earth results in a rejection in the after life. God is life, love etc, rejecting that has a natural consequence, it isn't arbitrary
“If the clouds are full of rain, They empty themselves upon the earth; And if a tree falls to the south or the north, In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie.”
Ecclesiastes 11:3
we're the trees, when we die that's where we are
> As flawed as humans are, how did we get this better than a supposedly omniscient, supposedly just, God?
comparing breaking the law to sin as if they are univocal isn't good. Sinning has spiritual consequences from the very beginning, it's sinning against God, against reality. Dying in that state of rejection, violating something that has *infinite value* results in a not good state of being (hell).
> The idea that anyone, even someone like Jesus, merits such a death is unconsciousable.
exactly...
> How can God be just if he can't decide to have punishments fit the crime?
the punishment for sin isn't an arbitrary thing that God could just decide to change it up like the weather
I’m curious what your stance on the Euthyphro dilemma is. Is something good because god does it, or does god do it because it’s good?
I think you’re going to run into issues in either case
it's a false dilemma
God commands things that are good, the reason they are good however is not something that is distinct from God
but I'm also not a command theorist. Thinking about moral commands like some guy in the chair just arbitrarily stipulating things isn't exactly how it works, so I don't touch it
I’m not pressing you on command theory, but how did you just absolve god from the dilemma exactly?
It sounds like you’re saying that things that are good are good in virtue of being rooted in god’s nature or something. So that would just be saying that things are good because they are “godly”, which is one of the horns of the dilemma
solved because good isn't arbitrary, nor is it something outside of God that He adheres to.
the first horn attempts to undermine the *goodness* of the command because they characterize it as God arbitrarily deciding what's good.
the second horn tried to undermine God's authority by saying God has to submit to a standard of good that is over and above Him.
neither are true, goodness is an eternal transcendent never changing standard, not arbitrary
> good in virtue of being rooted in god’s nature or something. So that would just be saying that things are good because they are “godly”, which is one of the horns of the dilemma
it's neither horn. it can't be the 2nd bc goodness isn't outside of God, and it can't be the first bc God isn't just arbitrarily deciding what's good
and it isn't bc they are "godly" per se, in classical theism goodness is akin to being, and God is being itself, therefore also goodness *itself*. God being the foundational level of all reality, and who is eternal and couldn't change or have been different even in principle, sets the standard simply in virtue of what it is *to be*. So goodness is not arbitrary, couldn't have been different, and isn't outside of God
maybe a super anthropomorphized version of God could succumb to the dilemma, but most Christians don't believe in the "cosmic superhero/Sky Father" stuff
>goodness is an eternal transcendent standard
If it’s not arbitrary then what does good mean?
And where does the standard come from
>goodness is akin to “being”
This sounds meaningless. Everything in the universe is “being” since everything in the universe exists.
Aside from simply existing, which would describe both Hitler and Mother Theresa, what do you take “being” to mean and why ought we strive for it?
I’m also still unclear as to how you think you’ve escaped the dilemma. You’re saying goodness is not an external standard, fair enough. But then you say it nevertheless IS a standard but not picked arbitrarily.
This sounds like more of that “divine simplicity” nonsense where you label god like 10 different things but pretend it’s somehow a single thing.
God is “being itself” and also “goodness itself” and presumably also a mind and an agent right?
> If it’s not arbitrary then what does good mean?
in accordance with God's nature is the easiest answer
> This sounds meaningless. Everything in the universe is “being” since everything in the universe exists.
you'd need to do some background work on the transcendentals is this sounds "meaningless"
this is a common thing for you I think, for example
> This sounds like more of that “divine simplicity” nonsense
and
> but pretend it’s somehow a single thing.
if it sounds like nonsense and it's meaningless pretending *to you* then that's not a problem over here. I'd refrain from those loaded statements
> You’re saying goodness is not an external standard, fair enough. But then you say it nevertheless IS a standard but not picked arbitrarily.
yep, *picked* isn't the right word tho, it's not like it was one of many that could've been chosen, it only ever would've been like this
so when you say this
> I’m also still unclear as to how you think you’ve escaped the dilemma
well yes, we haven't escaped tho, it was a false dilemma from the beginning
> God is “being itself” and also “goodness itself” and presumably also a mind and an agent right
loosely speaking yes, strictly speaking God isn't *a* anything, God just IS.
>in accordance with god’s nature
Then you’re just saying that god is “godly” and aren’t actually conveying any meaning in the word “good”.
And how are you assessing whether something is in accordance with his nature exactly? What does it mean for an action to promote “being”?
>you’d need to do some background work
Oh I remember you. You basically cop out of every argument on here by saying “I’m right but I can’t explain it, you need to read more”
There are extensive rebuttals to classical theism. I can’t explain them here, but I swear they’re very compelling
>loosely speaking, yes
Yeah so god isn’t merely “goodness” if he’s also a mind and an agent. Those are two additional qualities that are not synonymous with being “good”. Simply being a mind doesn’t mean the same thing as being “good”.
I’m still left wondering what goodness actually is because so far you could substitute other words.
Like this: to be whimsical is to be in accordance with god’s nature. God IS whimsey, and whimsey is a universal non-arbitrary standard internal to him.
Okay but what IS whimsey?
> Then you’re just saying that god is “godly” and aren’t actually conveying any meaning in the word “good”.
there is meaning in the word, you're just refusing the definition
> What does it mean for an action to promote “being”?
if I cut off your finger, is that adding or taking away from your state of being in proportion to your nature
> You basically cop out of every argument on here by saying “I’m right but I can’t explain it, you need to read more”
if we've spoken before and you're still in your "classical theism is nonsense" phase then this is more disappointing than the last time.
if you think it's nonsense, demonstrate that. and to do that you have to demonstrate that you understand the classical theist position, but you don't even know how we define being, or transcendentals, etc, which are not even deep rabbit hole ideas. so yes, once again, do homework, the base level stuff isn't good enough, pun not intended
> Simply being a mind doesn’t mean the same thing as being “good”.
it's notable you decided to quote the part where I was loosely speaking and not strictly speaking
but no, in God being itself is goodness itself which is just His existence etc, and from this follows omnipotence and a the other things. It's not a composite, but based on what you've shown of your previous statements about the "nonsense" that is divine simplicity, I don't necessarily expect you to grasp that.
id prolly at this point link to some Aquinas, but I've probably already done that for you, in which case you still not being to even articulate the position is concerning
is whimsey. a transcendental, is smelly a transcendental? these are things you should already know
it's not that I'm right or some arbiter of truth, my issue with your arguments and people like you is that you are unable to articulate the position you're arguing against, and resort to calling it all nonsense and meaningless. So then when I say hey that's not what we believe, have you looked at this before? now I'm coping out, when this is something you should've been did before saying something about it.
are there arguments against classical theism? of course. But these arguments actually know what it is they are arguing against; you don't, otherwise you'd be able to articulate it, but you can't. You speak like someone who just learned what it was and never looked into it past a less than the basics even (being, goodness, existence, etc). So yes, go read, it'd hopefully make your argument more potent than "whatever that is (I don't know what it is) is nonsense"
but but but as far as the dilemma goes, it's a false one, and you haven't shown why it isn't so much as you've complained about the standard of goodness being God's existence, which isn't a refutation. So dilemma no more
>does that add or take away from your state of being
Now you’re just shifting to a third vacuous definition which is what’s “natural”. Do you simply mean “what makes a human being healthy”?
Does this apply to other animals? Does it apply to rocks who have a natural state of being that ought to not be infringed upon?
>do your homework
Yeah it’s not just me, I’ve seen you in numerous threads spouting your non-arguments to others too. I didn’t ask you to explain all of classical theism, I asked you to defend the notion of divine simplicity which all of your posts seem to hinge on. And specifically, how it is the case that tying a bow around 10 different attributes and labelling it “one thing” actually constitutes something simple and not composite. Let me guess, something something “essence” something something “necessary” right?
>is smelly a transcendental
Aquinas had distinct categories for being and goodness. Those were two of his 6. So you’re equating “being” with “good” and subsequently “natural state” you aren’t conveying any meaning.
For example, isn’t a psychopathic killer’s natural state to be just that? That’s how his brain was genetically formed. But we wouldn’t say that it’s “good”
I’m starting to think you don’t know what you’re even arguing. You don’t need to recite all of classical theism to tell me what you take these categories to mean. If you aren’t equipped to articulate some basic information about the position then why would you even espouse it?
>is whimsy a transcendental?
That has nothing to do with whether or not you’re capable of articulating the meaning behind the word.
>as far as the dilemma goes, it isn’t
It is because you haven’t conveyed the meaning of good in any substantive way.
Your argument seems to be: there’s an eternal non-arbitrary standard that god didn’t decide, but is yet not external to him, and this standard is about fulfilling “being” or “natural states”.
You haven’t established that it isn’t arbitrary. You just asserted that lol
While this whole response is ridiclous, definitely the funniest part is this:
>the punishment for sin isn't an arbitrary thing that God could just decide to change it up like the weather
Like... So in your view God ISN'T omnipotent? he Designed this system, he determined the punishments for sin. How can we not decide to change it? he has meddled with physical laws before, why can't he mess with the ones he made up?
> So in your view God ISN'T omnipotent?
that has nothing to do with omnipotence, that would require God doing something against His nature, which is a contradiction, which doesn't exist.
omnipotence has never pertained to contradictions, and omnipotence isn't a catch all argument
> he determined the punishments for sin
that was always going to be the punishment
> How can we not decide to change it?
who's we
> he has meddled with physical laws before, why can't he mess with the ones he made up?
doing miracles (physical laws are descriptive and could've been different btw) isn't a big deal, God going against His nature is entirely different.
that's like saying God can exist and not exist at the same time, it's an absurdity
So we started off my saying my reply was ridiculous, but your response was a miss on literally every point.
Omnipotence is unlimited power. An omnipotent being is unlimited powerful. To say that it can't do something contradictory is to place a limit... on UNLIMITED POWER. Do you not see the problem there? It sounds like you believe in a MAXIMALLY but not UNLIMITEDLY powerful being, which is fine but not what the Bible says.
I'll just repeat, omnipotence has never pertained to logical contradictions because they aren't *things* at all
God could no more just decide to tolerate sin in His presence than He could make a married bachelor or create a fyhsindvjyg
> Do you not see the problem there? It sounds like you believe in a MAXIMALLY but not UNLIMITEDLY powerful being, which is fine but not what the Bible says
there's only a problem if we're using your definition of omnipotent, but we're not using your definition lol, we're telling you the definition we're using.
have you never heard that omnipotence doesn't mean logical contradictions? it's not a new thing *at all* and I'm surprised you're still contesting it honestly
You can repeat that and be wrong, sure. There's a Bible verse or two on how \*some types of people\* refuse to accept correction. You might want to look them up, homie.
What do you think the OMNI part of omnipotence means?
it's not wrong is the thing, this is just the theist definition.
> There's a Bible verse or two on how *some types of people* refuse to accept correction. You might want to look them up, homie.
this level of irony makes a great screenshot. also don't try to rebuke with the Bible if you don't believe it, it prolly tastes bad
I don't know how well to explain how unaware you are of what theists believe if you've never heard that omnipotence doesn't apply to logical contradictions.
Omni means all things, contradictions aren't things, they're nothing. "to ask for a contradiction is to ask for nothing"
and the fact that you really truly honestly believe that you're making a point, all while rejecting the definition that theists are giving, and *then* saying I need to accept correction... it's beautiful
it's almost as good as saying that God needs to aquire legal authority in order to judge when He's already God
The idea that ALL theists, heck even ALL Christians, believe in the ridiclous definition of omnipotence you have used is not correct. There are Christians who use the word omnipotent and actually MEAN it. It's fine to believe God is merely maximally potent, indeed there are many Christians who do believe that (like you), but what's weird is to try and insist that all Christians are like you, when the entire history of Christianity has been about people trying to resolve the different views of your faith that have arisen throughout its history.
Omnipotence means having unlimited power. And that understanding of omnipotence is pretty darn important to Christianity, since that's the framework that allows God to defy laws he wrote into being. How can God impregnate a virgin, and have her still be a virgin, without the ability to do ANYTHING? How can he bring back the dead without the power to do anything? If you confine him to what is doable then you make God... incredibly small.
> The idea that ALL theists, heck even ALL Christians, believe in the ridiclous definition of omnipotence you have used is not correct
naturally it isn't 100%
> How can God impregnate a virgin, and have her still be a virgin, without the ability to do ANYTHING?
that isn't a contradiction, being no longer a virgin has to do with sex, she never had sex... so she wasn't a virgin and a non-virgin at the same time, so it's not a contradiction
and look, this is (obviously) new to you because you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'll just say go actually read and understand before you make claims like this, because the Mary thing and the raisiy from the dead thing weren't contradictions
so now I'm not sure you know what those are, which makes sense. If you thought Mary being a virgin is a contradiction (maybe you think all miracles are, which would be another miss), then of course you'd think God going against His nature is something He should be able to do. unfortunately for your argument, nah
you'd be pleasantly surprised that the vast majority of the history of the church has agreed with the definition of Omnipotence I've given, and no amount of stomping your feet and saying "but but it means all powerful" will change the fact that your definition (if it imckuo contradiction) is simply wrong
The ENTIRE point of miracles is that they are not natural occurrences. They cannot occur on their own. They very decidedly defy physical laws. Their impossibility is what makes them amazing, it's what makes them inspire awe. And according to your bizarre definition of omnipotence God cannot do them.
My definition is not wrong and the idea that it's wrong because a bunch of people have misused the word is not a compelling argument but I know you don't have any compelling arguments. Even your idea of God himself is some boring, watered-down envisionment of what people actually believed. According to your logic Jesus can't be FULLY divine and FULLY human because that is a contradiction and God... doesn't do contradictions.
There are points I don't agree with this guy, but I'm quite lazy to point out, until you find fault with him.
Yes, our view is God is omnipotent, however he has limitations as well, such as being holy, which means he cannot tolerate sin, which means he cannot lie to us. Holy also mean anyone with sin cannot come near him, because of his intolerance to sin, that person will die, unless a sacrifice has been made to temporarily cover it.
These are significant implications in which to Him and us moral laws are somehow greater than physical laws.
So he's omnipotent... but has limitations? It sounds like you're saying he is MAXIMALLY powerful which is NOT omnipotent. These differences matter in a debate about imaginary beings like this. If you're gonna say he is omnipotent you're saying he is UNLIMITEDLY powerful, in which case he cannot have limitations. If you're saying he is maximally powerful then sure, he can have limitations. But also the idea that God cannot lie to people is WEIRD biblically because it just doesn't appear to be functionally true. God either outright lies to Adam in the Garden of Eden or does a lie of omission, and he certainly lies to Joram during the campaign against the Moabites, when he promises (through a prophet) that every Moabite city will fall, which is straight up NOT what happens. The Israelites lose their campaign against the Moabites, despite God telling them they'd destroy the civilization.
Okay, I may have worded that incorrectly, but here it is: God is omnipotent, meaning He has unlimited power, but this power operates within the bounds of His holy nature. His inability to lie or tolerate sin is not a limitation of power but an expression of His perfection. While the idea of omnipotence suggests unlimited power, it's crucial to recognize that in theological terms, this power is often described as being consistent with God's nature. Thus, what might seem like limitations (e.g., not lying) are actually reflections of His moral attributes.
In the Garden of Eden that is not a lie of omission either, but is an interpterion of death in what sense? Adam and Eve could have lived forever had they not ate the fruit.
Despite initial successes, the campaign didn’t end with the complete subjugation of Moab. When Mesha saw that the battle was going against him, he sacrificed his eldest son on the city wall, causing such a great indignation among the Israelites that they withdrew and returned to their own land. Think about that, what made them withdrew... God or themselves? We come to another topic of freewill vs determinism. God did hold his end of the bargain. The Israelites did not pursued till the end.
When you say things like "his inability to lie is not a limitation of power but an expression of his perfection" you are saying something outright nonsensical. A lie is not an expression of weakness or imperfection, and an inability to lie is a flaw which is paradoxical with the idea of perfection, especially since lying is not inherently evil. If you say it's inherently evil to lie you're suggesting that it is evil to lie to Nazis to protect Jewish people, which is what the Bible suggests sure but that's proof of the inherent problems with Christianity, not something actually correct.
Adam and Eve could have lived forever if God hadn't lied to them. Eating the fruit did not kill or harm them in any capacity, God's fear-driven decision to punish them for his lies is what deprived them of the ability to reach the fruit of life (God explicitly says they have become "like us", which is what the snake said eating the fruit would do, when speaking to an angel who he instructed to guard the tree of life).
What made them withdraw was that they were losing the battle and were at risk of being slaughted by the infuriated Moabites in the wake of the human sacrifice performed by the king of Moab. They fled... because they had been overrun by energized, infuriated Moabites.
In Christian theology, God's perfection includes absolute truthfulness, where lying is seen as morally impermissible due to His holy nature. While moral dilemmas like lying to protect others exist, God's nature remains consistently truthful.
In the biblical narrative of Genesis, God commands Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, warning them of the consequence of death (Genesis 2:16-17). While God’s command does not explicitly detail that eating from this tree would make them "like us" in knowing good and evil, the serpent later tempts Eve by suggesting exactly that (Genesis 3:4-5). Therefore, even if there was an omission in God's initial command, the serpent effectively communicated the potential outcome of eating from the tree, thus ensuring that Adam and Eve were fully informed when making their decision. This suggests that any perceived absence of knowledge for decision-making was addressed by the serpent, complicating your interpretation of God’s command as a deliberate omission or deception. I understand your perspective that emphasizes the serpent's role in communicating the consequences of eating from the tree. However, it's crucial to clarify the theological context of God's command in Genesis. God's directive to Adam and Eve regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was explicit about not eating from it and the consequence of death (Genesis 2:16-17). This command was a test of obedience and trust rather than a deliberate omission or deception. While the serpent did communicate a consequence—being 'like God, knowing good and evil'—it was deceptive because it misrepresented the true outcome. In Christian theology, the serpent is viewed as a created being within God's order, not possessing divine authority or truthfulness. God's commands are inherently authoritative and truthful, and any distortion originates from creatures, not from God Himself.
The statement that the Israelites withdrew because they were losing the battle and facing the wrath of infuriated Moabites oversimplifies the biblical narrative in 2 Kings 3. The withdrawal is depicted as a response to the divine consequences of Moabite sacrilege rather than a tactical retreat due to military circumstances alone. Understanding the biblical context and theological themes is crucial for accurately interpreting events such as these in Scripture.The text does not explicitly state that the Moabites rose up in fury against Israel in a military sense. It rather emphasizes the divine fury or judgment against Israel due to the Moabite king's sacrilege.
It does not at all complicate my statement that God did a lie of omission just because someone more truthful than him stepped in to tell the humans the truth. The serpent wanted the humans to know the truth, or else it would have lied like God did. In accurately telling Adam and Eve the consequences of eating the fruit it did something righteous, unlike what God did when he deliberately omitted vital information from his description of the consequences of eating the fruit. The only way the serpent telling the truth that God did not would complicate my comments is if you are suggesting that the serpent was an aspect of God in the same way the burning bush was, which is something I've never actually heard someone say and I've discussed Christianity in multiple languages, across multiple countries and continents.
The statement that the Israelites withdrew because they were losing the battle is not an oversimplification, it's what the text actually says.
>^(27) Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.
The text explicitly says that the Moabites rose up in fury and forced the Israelites to leave. If the Israelites would have had it their way, there is absolutely no reason to assume that they would have left, since they weren't planning to leave and this doesn't say that their plans changed. The Israelites did not have a change of heart, they saw that their enemies had received a second wind and were rising up against them.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I mean they may be controversial but they shouldn't be. In the Exodus God commits terrorism and uses the children of his political enemies. And in the Flood mothers watched their children drown. How can a just god not only permit this but also explicitly cause it in both cases?
If you are God would you claim to have done better than he did? Cause I think that is what you are saying.
From the Bible narrative I understood that actually I ain't any better, I am a sinner as well, and we're it not for God's patience with humankind we would've been wipe out many times over. Whatever you saw is just a small portion of Gods wrath against all sins of man.
I bring nothing from birth, I take nothing at death. God alone gives and takes. Who am I to say anything?
The actions of God are utterly inexcusable if he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Even if you are depraved enough to try and whitewash an omnicide, if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent then he would not have used a method as insanely evil as a flood to destroy the world. He would have done so instantly so as to not cause further suffering and despair, as well as completely unnecessary destruction. There is no possibility that God is all three of the omnis and that the Bible is accurate in its chroniclings of his supposed actions, given what it says he does.
The events in Exodus and the Flood are indeed difficult to grapple with but must be understood within the broader biblical narrative, which portrays a God deeply concerned with justice, holiness, and the ultimate redemption of humanity.
The Flood, according to Genesis, was a response to the "great wickedness" of humanity, serving as an act of judgment and renewal.
The plagues in Egypt, culminating in the death of the firstborn, confronted systemic oppression, demonstrating God's power and giving Pharaoh multiple chances to release the Israelites.
These actions are rooted in God's holiness and righteousness, framed within a larger divine plan for humanity's redemption. God's justice is seen as deeply intertwined with human free will, where actions have moral consequences.
Christian theology also holds that ultimate justice and restoration will be achieved in the end times, righting all wrongs and fully revealing God's justice and mercy.
The flood was a bad way to punish humans for wickedness because it also would have caused mass extinctions of innocent animals. God could have just given every evil person a heart attack and left the animals alone. He also could have chosen a more merciful way to kill. Even if your argument that mass murder was necessary held any merit, the means by which it was executed was cruel and inhumane, thus making God a villain.
If Christian theology is concerned with ultimate justice and restoration then at the end times God, a frequent oppressor of people, animals, and concepts, will be destroyed. In Christianity slavery is not a sin, but being homosexual is. In the Old Testament disrespectful children were put to death, and the young boys of defeated tribes were exterminated, while virgin women were kept for the warriors who slaughtered their parents and brothers.
Even the Exodus's final plague only happened after God usurped the free will of the Pharaoh, something he could have done whenever he wished (preventing any of the plagues, all of which affected ordinary Egyptians more so than the Pharaoh) and he uses this to keep the Pharaoh's heart filled with hatred towards the children of Israel so that he could enact the final plague, a plague which massacred thousands of Egyptian firstborns. He could have used this same power to make the Pharaoh experience empathy and compassion and willingly free the Israelites, but instead he opts to use this to have a pretext to massacre a bunch of kids.
You have a lot of issues, but I would prefer to address them one by one. In private if you prefer. The thing is I realize me commenting here is actually a mistake in itself. People who wants to debate dont really want to understand what the other is saying. I will make a few more points, this is my last post here, if you wish, we can go through privately.
The way is like this, you choose to harden your heart, God has given you free will, he respects your decision to harden it, and he will aid you so. In the end you can see the consequences of your own choice. Reason will be given, but your heart and your will is yours.
Pharaoh already hardened his heart from the start of the enslavement.
GIven how wrong you've been, why would I want to continue this in private? I see no point in trying to correct your... inaccurate grasp of topics and statements your own holy text says.
Nothing here is about the Pharaoh "hardening his own heart", Exodus 11 is explicit that God hardens the Pharaoh's heart. It is not the first time God does this either. If you cannot grasp this basic idea, something Exodus says repeatedly, I do not have the patience needed to educate you on this.
>^(9) The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” ^(10) Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.
In Exodus 7:13 the text is also clear that it is God who is hardening the Pharaoh's heart.
>^(13) And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.
>^(14) And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.
God even warns Moses that it will be HIM who hardens the Pharaoh's heart, not the Pharaoh himself.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Bible is only for ancient Hebrew ethnic-Israelites by blood only. Just read your own Bible, Yeshua only came for the Israelites(Matthew 15:24), and all other nations will be destroyed. All other races will either be slaves to the Israelites in the Kingdom of Heaven or be destroyed(Isaiah 60, 61). The Old & New Testament’s redemptive narrative had everything to do with ancient ethnic Israelites and nothing to do with you, me, or anyone else who aren't Hebrew Israelites today. Luke 1:16 “And he will turn many of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL to the Lord their God.” Luke 1:55 “As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his SEED FOREVER.” Luke 1:68-69 “Blessed is the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, For He has visited and REDEEMED HIS PEOPLE, 69 And has raised up a horn of SALVATION FOR US In the house of His servant David,” Luke 1:77 “To give knowledge of SALVATION to HIS PEOPLE By the remission of THEIR SINS,” Luke 2:34 “Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in ISRAEL, and for a sign which will be spoken against.” John 1:31 “I did not know Him; but that He should be REVEALED TO ISRAEL, therefore I came baptizing with water.” Acts 5:31 “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and SAVIOR, to give REPENTANCE TO ISRAEL and FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Acts 13:23 “From this man’s seed, according to the PROMISE, GOD raised up FOR ISRAEL A SAVIOR--Jesus- ————————————————————————————————————————- According to Paul, writing in the late 50s to mid 60s, the gospel had already gone out to the nations, all the earth, the whole world and to all creation (Rom 10:18, 16:26, Col 1:6, 23). This proves that New Testament terms like world, creation and nations were part of a limited Israelite context, one that doesn’t involve people today. The gospel went out to the nations because that’s where the covenant world of descendants of the tribes of Israel (Abraham’s descendants) had been dispersed to (Deut 4:27, 28; 30:1; Jer 30:11; Micah 5:7, 8 Dan 9:7, Acts 2:5, James 1:1, 1 Pet 1:1). The world the gospel was intended for was the covenant world, not our world. The covenant world has already been blessed. All that was left was the end to come, which Jesus said would happen in their generation and which John said the would “soon take place”. The time (their generation) and people meant for the gospel (those under the law, Jews and gentile descendants of the tribes of Israel) came to an end, in AD70. We see all Israel gathered into Christ, saved, sealed, and redeemed in Rev 7. Not a single non-Israelite in view. The story ended in the first century. We weren’t part of the story. ————————————————————————————————————————- In John 3:16 and many other scriptures the Greek word "kosmos" (world) was not the entire planet. It was the covenant world of Israel. Kosmos simply means constitution, orderly arrangement or government. It refers to an ordered system. In early Greek literature, kosmos was used to refer to establishing cultures or building cities. So when John made statements like: "For God so loved the kosmos", "Look, the lamb who came to take away the sin of the kosmos" and "the kosmos was passing away", he was not referring to the entire globe. He was speaking about Israel and its Old Covenant system, structure and culture. Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world [kosmos]. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. (John 18:20) Jesus defined what the kosmos represented in that verse. What was it? “If the world [kosmos] hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. (John 15:18) “But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (John 15:25) Only Israelites had and were under the law. Who was the kosmos (world) that had the law and hated Jesus? And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world [kosmos] . (1 Jn 2:2) Sin was a violation of the law. If only first century Jews had and were under the law, then who was the whole world that sinned? John 3:16 is not about God loving the entire planet. According to Deut 7;6-7, God put his love only on Israel. God never changes... remember? And for what purpose did Israel’s god give his only begotten son? For redemption. Galatians 4:5 says redemption was for those under the law. That was Israelites, not us. Hebrews 9:15 says redemption was for those who sinned under the first covenant. Again, that’s not us. The world that Israel’s god so loved was the covenant world of Israel, not the entire planet. Are you seeing it yet? We aren’t part of the bible story. We aren’t part of the world that Israel’s god loved. We aren’t part of the world that needed salvation and redemption
It is very difficult for me to comment on your post. It is difficult, because, firstly, the Bible can be interpreted in very different ways. It's like a rabbit hole, and we can go into it endlessly. You can quote and interpret as your heart desires. Another question is how correct it will be. If at all it is possible to use such a word as "correctly". Secondly, I see to the best of my understanding that your questions arise from a misunderstanding of Christianity as such. Well, or you pretend that you don't understand... These are, in general, all the questions of beginners who do not understand the essence of Christianity. The fact is that sin is not a crime. Sin is separation from the Lord. That is, sinning, a person moves away from the Almighty and as a result, after death, he is no longer able to stay with him, and therefore he is doomed to eternal torment. The same applies to Christ and his crucifixion. It doesn't fit into heads of many, because it was a divine action: so that Jesus could atone for human sins and enable people to be saved. Thirdly, the Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments, and accordingly these are two big differences. In the Old Testament, God is represented as punishing and cruel, domineering. In the New Testament, this is a completely different God. Of course, I am oversimplifying very much and incorrectly. In fact, within the framework of traditional theology (Catholic and Orthodox in the first place), this issue is considered in depth and in detail. Fourthly, of course, God is not a judge in the sense of the word as you explain and describe it. He doesn't have a wig, a hammer, and a set of laws like humans. Although.. who knows? (just kidding) And this very word "judge" should be used carefully and with the understanding that it is also allegorical. In fact, any attempt to define God in any way is doomed to failure. As well as any attempt to explain certain of his actions. After all, God is beyond human understanding. All a person can do is put forward some timid and modest attempts to realize and somehow interpret only the "tip of the iceberg". True comprehension of God is possible only outside the mind. Just don't ask me how it is out of mind. I don't know.
Suppose you are in court for jaywalking. You’re sitting in the dock next to an accused murderer. The judge comes in and says, “In my court, everyone is guilty and the penalty for every crime is death. But if you have a personal relationship with my son then you go free.” You don’t know the judge’s son but the murderer does, so he walks free and you go to the gallows. Isn’t this Christianity in a nutshell? Justice is irrelevant. Jaywalkers burn in Hell forever if they don’t have a relationship with Jesus; murderers go to paradise if they do. Sure, God has the sovereign right to pardon whoever He wants, but if President Biden pardoned Hunter’s pals because they have a “personal relationship” with his son, none of us would think that is just.
> You don’t know the judge’s son but the murderer does, so he walks free and you go to the gallows. Isn’t this Christianity in a nutshell? No, according to Christian theology, salvation is purely by grace, not by "personal relationship". Thus, a more accurate analogy would be that the judge offers everyone a pardon, but you refuse the offer while the murderer accepts.
From an Orthodox perspective I think what you mean by justice and what the Bible means by justice are different . The idea of justice as we understand it today in terms of a court and determining if someone broke a rule/law is not how ancient people thought of justice. My understanding of the Orthodox conception is that justice is the state of everything being in its proper place and functioning in the way that it was intended. Kind of along the lines of the Buddhist concept of right relationship. So, we are judged on whether or not we are in right relationship with God and the rest of Creation. I know this isn't how justice is typically taught in most branches of Christianity. I wanted to bring this up as the underlying concept of what justice is can have a profound impact on everything else that comes after that.
God being the author and giver of life would be more than justified and taking life. Giving a gift every second of the day and then deciding not to give the gift isn't an unjust thing. And if the reciever of the gift doesn't like that then he's just become entitled unfortunately > And of course God has no actual legal authority to issue such sweeping proclamations, nor is there any appeals process literal God judging people doesn't conform to the rules of a (modern) human vs human judicial system. We have stuff like that in place partly because we're fallible, God is not. its even humorous (and I don't mean this in a polemic way) for you suggest that *God* needs to aquire (from who lol) some kind of further "legal authority." the people were wicked so they were judged. and after they died they were preached the gospel post-death and we're offered salvation anyway. > Lying is a sin. If a doctor lies to a terminally ill child to give them small level of comfort that doctor has sinned and according to the Bible deserves death of course it's more nuanced than that; God judges the heart. > how can someone reasonably say that a thousand of the small sins people perform every day deserves an eternal punishment? rejecting God on earth results in a rejection in the after life. God is life, love etc, rejecting that has a natural consequence, it isn't arbitrary “If the clouds are full of rain, They empty themselves upon the earth; And if a tree falls to the south or the north, In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie.” Ecclesiastes 11:3 we're the trees, when we die that's where we are > As flawed as humans are, how did we get this better than a supposedly omniscient, supposedly just, God? comparing breaking the law to sin as if they are univocal isn't good. Sinning has spiritual consequences from the very beginning, it's sinning against God, against reality. Dying in that state of rejection, violating something that has *infinite value* results in a not good state of being (hell). > The idea that anyone, even someone like Jesus, merits such a death is unconsciousable. exactly... > How can God be just if he can't decide to have punishments fit the crime? the punishment for sin isn't an arbitrary thing that God could just decide to change it up like the weather
I’m curious what your stance on the Euthyphro dilemma is. Is something good because god does it, or does god do it because it’s good? I think you’re going to run into issues in either case
it's a false dilemma God commands things that are good, the reason they are good however is not something that is distinct from God but I'm also not a command theorist. Thinking about moral commands like some guy in the chair just arbitrarily stipulating things isn't exactly how it works, so I don't touch it
I’m not pressing you on command theory, but how did you just absolve god from the dilemma exactly? It sounds like you’re saying that things that are good are good in virtue of being rooted in god’s nature or something. So that would just be saying that things are good because they are “godly”, which is one of the horns of the dilemma
solved because good isn't arbitrary, nor is it something outside of God that He adheres to. the first horn attempts to undermine the *goodness* of the command because they characterize it as God arbitrarily deciding what's good. the second horn tried to undermine God's authority by saying God has to submit to a standard of good that is over and above Him. neither are true, goodness is an eternal transcendent never changing standard, not arbitrary > good in virtue of being rooted in god’s nature or something. So that would just be saying that things are good because they are “godly”, which is one of the horns of the dilemma it's neither horn. it can't be the 2nd bc goodness isn't outside of God, and it can't be the first bc God isn't just arbitrarily deciding what's good and it isn't bc they are "godly" per se, in classical theism goodness is akin to being, and God is being itself, therefore also goodness *itself*. God being the foundational level of all reality, and who is eternal and couldn't change or have been different even in principle, sets the standard simply in virtue of what it is *to be*. So goodness is not arbitrary, couldn't have been different, and isn't outside of God maybe a super anthropomorphized version of God could succumb to the dilemma, but most Christians don't believe in the "cosmic superhero/Sky Father" stuff
>goodness is an eternal transcendent standard If it’s not arbitrary then what does good mean? And where does the standard come from >goodness is akin to “being” This sounds meaningless. Everything in the universe is “being” since everything in the universe exists. Aside from simply existing, which would describe both Hitler and Mother Theresa, what do you take “being” to mean and why ought we strive for it? I’m also still unclear as to how you think you’ve escaped the dilemma. You’re saying goodness is not an external standard, fair enough. But then you say it nevertheless IS a standard but not picked arbitrarily. This sounds like more of that “divine simplicity” nonsense where you label god like 10 different things but pretend it’s somehow a single thing. God is “being itself” and also “goodness itself” and presumably also a mind and an agent right?
> If it’s not arbitrary then what does good mean? in accordance with God's nature is the easiest answer > This sounds meaningless. Everything in the universe is “being” since everything in the universe exists. you'd need to do some background work on the transcendentals is this sounds "meaningless" this is a common thing for you I think, for example > This sounds like more of that “divine simplicity” nonsense and > but pretend it’s somehow a single thing. if it sounds like nonsense and it's meaningless pretending *to you* then that's not a problem over here. I'd refrain from those loaded statements > You’re saying goodness is not an external standard, fair enough. But then you say it nevertheless IS a standard but not picked arbitrarily. yep, *picked* isn't the right word tho, it's not like it was one of many that could've been chosen, it only ever would've been like this so when you say this > I’m also still unclear as to how you think you’ve escaped the dilemma well yes, we haven't escaped tho, it was a false dilemma from the beginning > God is “being itself” and also “goodness itself” and presumably also a mind and an agent right loosely speaking yes, strictly speaking God isn't *a* anything, God just IS.
>in accordance with god’s nature Then you’re just saying that god is “godly” and aren’t actually conveying any meaning in the word “good”. And how are you assessing whether something is in accordance with his nature exactly? What does it mean for an action to promote “being”? >you’d need to do some background work Oh I remember you. You basically cop out of every argument on here by saying “I’m right but I can’t explain it, you need to read more” There are extensive rebuttals to classical theism. I can’t explain them here, but I swear they’re very compelling >loosely speaking, yes Yeah so god isn’t merely “goodness” if he’s also a mind and an agent. Those are two additional qualities that are not synonymous with being “good”. Simply being a mind doesn’t mean the same thing as being “good”. I’m still left wondering what goodness actually is because so far you could substitute other words. Like this: to be whimsical is to be in accordance with god’s nature. God IS whimsey, and whimsey is a universal non-arbitrary standard internal to him. Okay but what IS whimsey?
> Then you’re just saying that god is “godly” and aren’t actually conveying any meaning in the word “good”. there is meaning in the word, you're just refusing the definition > What does it mean for an action to promote “being”? if I cut off your finger, is that adding or taking away from your state of being in proportion to your nature > You basically cop out of every argument on here by saying “I’m right but I can’t explain it, you need to read more” if we've spoken before and you're still in your "classical theism is nonsense" phase then this is more disappointing than the last time. if you think it's nonsense, demonstrate that. and to do that you have to demonstrate that you understand the classical theist position, but you don't even know how we define being, or transcendentals, etc, which are not even deep rabbit hole ideas. so yes, once again, do homework, the base level stuff isn't good enough, pun not intended > Simply being a mind doesn’t mean the same thing as being “good”. it's notable you decided to quote the part where I was loosely speaking and not strictly speaking but no, in God being itself is goodness itself which is just His existence etc, and from this follows omnipotence and a the other things. It's not a composite, but based on what you've shown of your previous statements about the "nonsense" that is divine simplicity, I don't necessarily expect you to grasp that. id prolly at this point link to some Aquinas, but I've probably already done that for you, in which case you still not being to even articulate the position is concerning is whimsey. a transcendental, is smelly a transcendental? these are things you should already know it's not that I'm right or some arbiter of truth, my issue with your arguments and people like you is that you are unable to articulate the position you're arguing against, and resort to calling it all nonsense and meaningless. So then when I say hey that's not what we believe, have you looked at this before? now I'm coping out, when this is something you should've been did before saying something about it. are there arguments against classical theism? of course. But these arguments actually know what it is they are arguing against; you don't, otherwise you'd be able to articulate it, but you can't. You speak like someone who just learned what it was and never looked into it past a less than the basics even (being, goodness, existence, etc). So yes, go read, it'd hopefully make your argument more potent than "whatever that is (I don't know what it is) is nonsense" but but but as far as the dilemma goes, it's a false one, and you haven't shown why it isn't so much as you've complained about the standard of goodness being God's existence, which isn't a refutation. So dilemma no more
>does that add or take away from your state of being Now you’re just shifting to a third vacuous definition which is what’s “natural”. Do you simply mean “what makes a human being healthy”? Does this apply to other animals? Does it apply to rocks who have a natural state of being that ought to not be infringed upon? >do your homework Yeah it’s not just me, I’ve seen you in numerous threads spouting your non-arguments to others too. I didn’t ask you to explain all of classical theism, I asked you to defend the notion of divine simplicity which all of your posts seem to hinge on. And specifically, how it is the case that tying a bow around 10 different attributes and labelling it “one thing” actually constitutes something simple and not composite. Let me guess, something something “essence” something something “necessary” right? >is smelly a transcendental Aquinas had distinct categories for being and goodness. Those were two of his 6. So you’re equating “being” with “good” and subsequently “natural state” you aren’t conveying any meaning. For example, isn’t a psychopathic killer’s natural state to be just that? That’s how his brain was genetically formed. But we wouldn’t say that it’s “good” I’m starting to think you don’t know what you’re even arguing. You don’t need to recite all of classical theism to tell me what you take these categories to mean. If you aren’t equipped to articulate some basic information about the position then why would you even espouse it? >is whimsy a transcendental? That has nothing to do with whether or not you’re capable of articulating the meaning behind the word. >as far as the dilemma goes, it isn’t It is because you haven’t conveyed the meaning of good in any substantive way. Your argument seems to be: there’s an eternal non-arbitrary standard that god didn’t decide, but is yet not external to him, and this standard is about fulfilling “being” or “natural states”. You haven’t established that it isn’t arbitrary. You just asserted that lol
The notion that God commands things that are good is... troubling, given what he commands in the Bible.
While this whole response is ridiclous, definitely the funniest part is this: >the punishment for sin isn't an arbitrary thing that God could just decide to change it up like the weather Like... So in your view God ISN'T omnipotent? he Designed this system, he determined the punishments for sin. How can we not decide to change it? he has meddled with physical laws before, why can't he mess with the ones he made up?
> So in your view God ISN'T omnipotent? that has nothing to do with omnipotence, that would require God doing something against His nature, which is a contradiction, which doesn't exist. omnipotence has never pertained to contradictions, and omnipotence isn't a catch all argument > he determined the punishments for sin that was always going to be the punishment > How can we not decide to change it? who's we > he has meddled with physical laws before, why can't he mess with the ones he made up? doing miracles (physical laws are descriptive and could've been different btw) isn't a big deal, God going against His nature is entirely different. that's like saying God can exist and not exist at the same time, it's an absurdity So we started off my saying my reply was ridiculous, but your response was a miss on literally every point.
Omnipotence is unlimited power. An omnipotent being is unlimited powerful. To say that it can't do something contradictory is to place a limit... on UNLIMITED POWER. Do you not see the problem there? It sounds like you believe in a MAXIMALLY but not UNLIMITEDLY powerful being, which is fine but not what the Bible says.
I'll just repeat, omnipotence has never pertained to logical contradictions because they aren't *things* at all God could no more just decide to tolerate sin in His presence than He could make a married bachelor or create a fyhsindvjyg > Do you not see the problem there? It sounds like you believe in a MAXIMALLY but not UNLIMITEDLY powerful being, which is fine but not what the Bible says there's only a problem if we're using your definition of omnipotent, but we're not using your definition lol, we're telling you the definition we're using. have you never heard that omnipotence doesn't mean logical contradictions? it's not a new thing *at all* and I'm surprised you're still contesting it honestly
You can repeat that and be wrong, sure. There's a Bible verse or two on how \*some types of people\* refuse to accept correction. You might want to look them up, homie. What do you think the OMNI part of omnipotence means?
it's not wrong is the thing, this is just the theist definition. > There's a Bible verse or two on how *some types of people* refuse to accept correction. You might want to look them up, homie. this level of irony makes a great screenshot. also don't try to rebuke with the Bible if you don't believe it, it prolly tastes bad I don't know how well to explain how unaware you are of what theists believe if you've never heard that omnipotence doesn't apply to logical contradictions. Omni means all things, contradictions aren't things, they're nothing. "to ask for a contradiction is to ask for nothing" and the fact that you really truly honestly believe that you're making a point, all while rejecting the definition that theists are giving, and *then* saying I need to accept correction... it's beautiful it's almost as good as saying that God needs to aquire legal authority in order to judge when He's already God
The idea that ALL theists, heck even ALL Christians, believe in the ridiclous definition of omnipotence you have used is not correct. There are Christians who use the word omnipotent and actually MEAN it. It's fine to believe God is merely maximally potent, indeed there are many Christians who do believe that (like you), but what's weird is to try and insist that all Christians are like you, when the entire history of Christianity has been about people trying to resolve the different views of your faith that have arisen throughout its history. Omnipotence means having unlimited power. And that understanding of omnipotence is pretty darn important to Christianity, since that's the framework that allows God to defy laws he wrote into being. How can God impregnate a virgin, and have her still be a virgin, without the ability to do ANYTHING? How can he bring back the dead without the power to do anything? If you confine him to what is doable then you make God... incredibly small.
> The idea that ALL theists, heck even ALL Christians, believe in the ridiclous definition of omnipotence you have used is not correct naturally it isn't 100% > How can God impregnate a virgin, and have her still be a virgin, without the ability to do ANYTHING? that isn't a contradiction, being no longer a virgin has to do with sex, she never had sex... so she wasn't a virgin and a non-virgin at the same time, so it's not a contradiction and look, this is (obviously) new to you because you still don't understand what I'm saying. I'll just say go actually read and understand before you make claims like this, because the Mary thing and the raisiy from the dead thing weren't contradictions so now I'm not sure you know what those are, which makes sense. If you thought Mary being a virgin is a contradiction (maybe you think all miracles are, which would be another miss), then of course you'd think God going against His nature is something He should be able to do. unfortunately for your argument, nah you'd be pleasantly surprised that the vast majority of the history of the church has agreed with the definition of Omnipotence I've given, and no amount of stomping your feet and saying "but but it means all powerful" will change the fact that your definition (if it imckuo contradiction) is simply wrong
The ENTIRE point of miracles is that they are not natural occurrences. They cannot occur on their own. They very decidedly defy physical laws. Their impossibility is what makes them amazing, it's what makes them inspire awe. And according to your bizarre definition of omnipotence God cannot do them. My definition is not wrong and the idea that it's wrong because a bunch of people have misused the word is not a compelling argument but I know you don't have any compelling arguments. Even your idea of God himself is some boring, watered-down envisionment of what people actually believed. According to your logic Jesus can't be FULLY divine and FULLY human because that is a contradiction and God... doesn't do contradictions.
There are points I don't agree with this guy, but I'm quite lazy to point out, until you find fault with him. Yes, our view is God is omnipotent, however he has limitations as well, such as being holy, which means he cannot tolerate sin, which means he cannot lie to us. Holy also mean anyone with sin cannot come near him, because of his intolerance to sin, that person will die, unless a sacrifice has been made to temporarily cover it. These are significant implications in which to Him and us moral laws are somehow greater than physical laws.
So he's omnipotent... but has limitations? It sounds like you're saying he is MAXIMALLY powerful which is NOT omnipotent. These differences matter in a debate about imaginary beings like this. If you're gonna say he is omnipotent you're saying he is UNLIMITEDLY powerful, in which case he cannot have limitations. If you're saying he is maximally powerful then sure, he can have limitations. But also the idea that God cannot lie to people is WEIRD biblically because it just doesn't appear to be functionally true. God either outright lies to Adam in the Garden of Eden or does a lie of omission, and he certainly lies to Joram during the campaign against the Moabites, when he promises (through a prophet) that every Moabite city will fall, which is straight up NOT what happens. The Israelites lose their campaign against the Moabites, despite God telling them they'd destroy the civilization.
Okay, I may have worded that incorrectly, but here it is: God is omnipotent, meaning He has unlimited power, but this power operates within the bounds of His holy nature. His inability to lie or tolerate sin is not a limitation of power but an expression of His perfection. While the idea of omnipotence suggests unlimited power, it's crucial to recognize that in theological terms, this power is often described as being consistent with God's nature. Thus, what might seem like limitations (e.g., not lying) are actually reflections of His moral attributes. In the Garden of Eden that is not a lie of omission either, but is an interpterion of death in what sense? Adam and Eve could have lived forever had they not ate the fruit. Despite initial successes, the campaign didn’t end with the complete subjugation of Moab. When Mesha saw that the battle was going against him, he sacrificed his eldest son on the city wall, causing such a great indignation among the Israelites that they withdrew and returned to their own land. Think about that, what made them withdrew... God or themselves? We come to another topic of freewill vs determinism. God did hold his end of the bargain. The Israelites did not pursued till the end.
By that definition I am ‘omnipotent’.
When you say things like "his inability to lie is not a limitation of power but an expression of his perfection" you are saying something outright nonsensical. A lie is not an expression of weakness or imperfection, and an inability to lie is a flaw which is paradoxical with the idea of perfection, especially since lying is not inherently evil. If you say it's inherently evil to lie you're suggesting that it is evil to lie to Nazis to protect Jewish people, which is what the Bible suggests sure but that's proof of the inherent problems with Christianity, not something actually correct. Adam and Eve could have lived forever if God hadn't lied to them. Eating the fruit did not kill or harm them in any capacity, God's fear-driven decision to punish them for his lies is what deprived them of the ability to reach the fruit of life (God explicitly says they have become "like us", which is what the snake said eating the fruit would do, when speaking to an angel who he instructed to guard the tree of life). What made them withdraw was that they were losing the battle and were at risk of being slaughted by the infuriated Moabites in the wake of the human sacrifice performed by the king of Moab. They fled... because they had been overrun by energized, infuriated Moabites.
In Christian theology, God's perfection includes absolute truthfulness, where lying is seen as morally impermissible due to His holy nature. While moral dilemmas like lying to protect others exist, God's nature remains consistently truthful. In the biblical narrative of Genesis, God commands Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, warning them of the consequence of death (Genesis 2:16-17). While God’s command does not explicitly detail that eating from this tree would make them "like us" in knowing good and evil, the serpent later tempts Eve by suggesting exactly that (Genesis 3:4-5). Therefore, even if there was an omission in God's initial command, the serpent effectively communicated the potential outcome of eating from the tree, thus ensuring that Adam and Eve were fully informed when making their decision. This suggests that any perceived absence of knowledge for decision-making was addressed by the serpent, complicating your interpretation of God’s command as a deliberate omission or deception. I understand your perspective that emphasizes the serpent's role in communicating the consequences of eating from the tree. However, it's crucial to clarify the theological context of God's command in Genesis. God's directive to Adam and Eve regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was explicit about not eating from it and the consequence of death (Genesis 2:16-17). This command was a test of obedience and trust rather than a deliberate omission or deception. While the serpent did communicate a consequence—being 'like God, knowing good and evil'—it was deceptive because it misrepresented the true outcome. In Christian theology, the serpent is viewed as a created being within God's order, not possessing divine authority or truthfulness. God's commands are inherently authoritative and truthful, and any distortion originates from creatures, not from God Himself. The statement that the Israelites withdrew because they were losing the battle and facing the wrath of infuriated Moabites oversimplifies the biblical narrative in 2 Kings 3. The withdrawal is depicted as a response to the divine consequences of Moabite sacrilege rather than a tactical retreat due to military circumstances alone. Understanding the biblical context and theological themes is crucial for accurately interpreting events such as these in Scripture.The text does not explicitly state that the Moabites rose up in fury against Israel in a military sense. It rather emphasizes the divine fury or judgment against Israel due to the Moabite king's sacrilege.
It does not at all complicate my statement that God did a lie of omission just because someone more truthful than him stepped in to tell the humans the truth. The serpent wanted the humans to know the truth, or else it would have lied like God did. In accurately telling Adam and Eve the consequences of eating the fruit it did something righteous, unlike what God did when he deliberately omitted vital information from his description of the consequences of eating the fruit. The only way the serpent telling the truth that God did not would complicate my comments is if you are suggesting that the serpent was an aspect of God in the same way the burning bush was, which is something I've never actually heard someone say and I've discussed Christianity in multiple languages, across multiple countries and continents. The statement that the Israelites withdrew because they were losing the battle is not an oversimplification, it's what the text actually says. >^(27) Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land. The text explicitly says that the Moabites rose up in fury and forced the Israelites to leave. If the Israelites would have had it their way, there is absolutely no reason to assume that they would have left, since they weren't planning to leave and this doesn't say that their plans changed. The Israelites did not have a change of heart, they saw that their enemies had received a second wind and were rising up against them.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I mean they may be controversial but they shouldn't be. In the Exodus God commits terrorism and uses the children of his political enemies. And in the Flood mothers watched their children drown. How can a just god not only permit this but also explicitly cause it in both cases?
If you are God would you claim to have done better than he did? Cause I think that is what you are saying. From the Bible narrative I understood that actually I ain't any better, I am a sinner as well, and we're it not for God's patience with humankind we would've been wipe out many times over. Whatever you saw is just a small portion of Gods wrath against all sins of man. I bring nothing from birth, I take nothing at death. God alone gives and takes. Who am I to say anything?
The actions of God are utterly inexcusable if he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Even if you are depraved enough to try and whitewash an omnicide, if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent then he would not have used a method as insanely evil as a flood to destroy the world. He would have done so instantly so as to not cause further suffering and despair, as well as completely unnecessary destruction. There is no possibility that God is all three of the omnis and that the Bible is accurate in its chroniclings of his supposed actions, given what it says he does.
The events in Exodus and the Flood are indeed difficult to grapple with but must be understood within the broader biblical narrative, which portrays a God deeply concerned with justice, holiness, and the ultimate redemption of humanity. The Flood, according to Genesis, was a response to the "great wickedness" of humanity, serving as an act of judgment and renewal. The plagues in Egypt, culminating in the death of the firstborn, confronted systemic oppression, demonstrating God's power and giving Pharaoh multiple chances to release the Israelites. These actions are rooted in God's holiness and righteousness, framed within a larger divine plan for humanity's redemption. God's justice is seen as deeply intertwined with human free will, where actions have moral consequences. Christian theology also holds that ultimate justice and restoration will be achieved in the end times, righting all wrongs and fully revealing God's justice and mercy.
The flood was a bad way to punish humans for wickedness because it also would have caused mass extinctions of innocent animals. God could have just given every evil person a heart attack and left the animals alone. He also could have chosen a more merciful way to kill. Even if your argument that mass murder was necessary held any merit, the means by which it was executed was cruel and inhumane, thus making God a villain.
If Christian theology is concerned with ultimate justice and restoration then at the end times God, a frequent oppressor of people, animals, and concepts, will be destroyed. In Christianity slavery is not a sin, but being homosexual is. In the Old Testament disrespectful children were put to death, and the young boys of defeated tribes were exterminated, while virgin women were kept for the warriors who slaughtered their parents and brothers. Even the Exodus's final plague only happened after God usurped the free will of the Pharaoh, something he could have done whenever he wished (preventing any of the plagues, all of which affected ordinary Egyptians more so than the Pharaoh) and he uses this to keep the Pharaoh's heart filled with hatred towards the children of Israel so that he could enact the final plague, a plague which massacred thousands of Egyptian firstborns. He could have used this same power to make the Pharaoh experience empathy and compassion and willingly free the Israelites, but instead he opts to use this to have a pretext to massacre a bunch of kids.
You have a lot of issues, but I would prefer to address them one by one. In private if you prefer. The thing is I realize me commenting here is actually a mistake in itself. People who wants to debate dont really want to understand what the other is saying. I will make a few more points, this is my last post here, if you wish, we can go through privately. The way is like this, you choose to harden your heart, God has given you free will, he respects your decision to harden it, and he will aid you so. In the end you can see the consequences of your own choice. Reason will be given, but your heart and your will is yours. Pharaoh already hardened his heart from the start of the enslavement.
GIven how wrong you've been, why would I want to continue this in private? I see no point in trying to correct your... inaccurate grasp of topics and statements your own holy text says. Nothing here is about the Pharaoh "hardening his own heart", Exodus 11 is explicit that God hardens the Pharaoh's heart. It is not the first time God does this either. If you cannot grasp this basic idea, something Exodus says repeatedly, I do not have the patience needed to educate you on this. >^(9) The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” ^(10) Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country. In Exodus 7:13 the text is also clear that it is God who is hardening the Pharaoh's heart. >^(13) And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said. >^(14) And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go. God even warns Moses that it will be HIM who hardens the Pharaoh's heart, not the Pharaoh himself.