Hell

[Grayson]

It has been said to me that God gives people faith to believe in Him.

Fine.

But if that is the case, how can one justify God sending people to Hell for not believing in Him if He only gives certain people the faith to believe in Him? Because it is His will? Then why Create people in the first place if only to send them to Hell?

Anyone?

[achilles12604]

I am game. "Is the Bible true?" seems like a rather large and unspecific topic, would you like to narrow it down a bit?

Ok. Where shall we start? I do not know enough about you to know what you accept and what you deny about Christian beliefs. Some atheists deny Jesus was the son of God and therefore the Bible is junk and then other atheists flat deny the existence of Jesus all together. Some Atheists agree that the New Testament was passed down accurately and the problem exists in the original writings and then others say it could not have been transferred correctly.

I have debated enough to know that no two atheists have the same complaints about the bible. They often ended up debating each other about a point before I even got a word in edge wise.

So where to start . . . .

Have you had better luck that I in figuring a place to start? I just finished discussing the existence of Jesus with another atheist. I am told by a second atheist who was involved in the debate that he became busy and therefore could not longer debate. So our discussion is over. Do we need to start there or is Jesus at least historical in your opinion?

OK, maybe I have misunderstood you. I thought that you had said that souls that rejected God in life would choose after death to go to Hell rather than be in God's wonderful presence. I thought that I was disagreeing with you.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear on this subject. At any rate we agree somewhat now about the IF portion of this particular question. Good enough for me.

So your God is not omnipresent. Your God is omnipotent and has the ability to be omnipresent but He is not actually omnipresent. I get it.

Yea close enough "

God cannot die. God himself died. And people say that religion is not logically consistent!

I can see where this is difficult to understand even if you do believe. If you do not believe then it becomes impossible to understand. I know what I mean when I say that the Spirit and Father God can not die but that Jesus (man-God if you will) can and did. But like I said this is a difficult philosophy to understand and even harder to accept.

Perhaps I can try one more time to explain. This concerns the idea of the trinity.

God the Father is a Spirit being. The Holy Spirit is a spirit being. Because they both are spirits they can not die. They have no mortal body to die. However, Jesus had the same spirit as the Father and The holy Spirit yet he also had mortal body. So he could die physically. Hence God and his spirit was the same in all three including Jesus but only Jesus of the three could die.

Think of is as water. Water is water no matter what condition it is in. We can use ICE for Jesus, liquid water for the Holy Spirit and Water Vapor for God. The chemical makeup is the same. They all contain the same parts and do the same thing and react the same to their surroundings but they are all unique in some way.

This is why I see no logical problem when I say God (the father) can not die but God (the son) can.

So if I commit a murder and find an innocent who would willingly take my punishment, you would consider it just that I escape punishment?

Basically yes. I would add that the person needs to be able to understand the total circumstances as well. If another will take your sin on his shoulders and receive the punishment for that sin in your place both knowingly and willfully, then I am saying just that. The sin has still been paid for so it is no longer an issue. He/she took on the responsibility for that sin with full knowledge and understanding of the consequences. It is a clean and even trade. The key is willingly.

But in our courts, except for the most serious crimes, the sentence is finite. After time served, the criminal returns to society with a chance to start over.

This is true in our courts and with violations of our laws. This is also true in "God's court" if you will. Look at all the mistakes Christians make. We screw up all the time everywhere we go. Yet Jesus taught us "your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more." He answered a question. "How many times must I forgive my brother? Seven times? I tell you not seven but seventy times seven."

Jesus preached on second chances. BUT . . .

As you pointed out the most serious of crimes are punished with life in prison or death. The same is true in God's court. Only the ONE SINGLE MOST EVIL SIN, denying God, is punished with a forever sentence.

Actually if you run the numbers of sins vs punishments, God is WAY more forgiving that our courts. You can get life in courts for several different crimes where as with God there is only one. Also you can be punished for several thousand things for a shorter time in our courts. God simply washes those sins away when asked.

God is much easier to get along with than even our own courts.

If there are a certain number of souls which have been living over and over and over again until they get it right, where did the First souls come from? If there are a certain number of souls which have been living over and over again, how do you account for the massive increase in population over the last few thousand years?

Would these questions be answered in the same way as that a non-reincarnationist would answer it?

Maybe I will have to find one and ask them. From what I understand, these questions do not have answers. But then I am wrong a lot.

If Stalin had repented and decided to seek God, then he would no longer have been trying to place himself in God's place and would therefore, while seeking God, be welcome into Heaven. That was my point exactly.

and this is just?

Forgiveness? Yes, forgiveness is just. But along with forgiveness, the original sins had to be paid for. The fact that Stalin's sins were paid for negates them. So justice is served.

Stalin deserved to be beaten, and tortured to death very slowly. Well Jesus was beaten and tortured to death very slowly, when he did nothing wrong. Jesus was totally innocent. Crucifixion was such a horrible way to die that even in that BRUTAL time, it was looked at as a humiliating way to die. And this is during the time where being torn apart my lions was a good way to go. This tells us something about how bad it really was.

Jesus did that. Stalin deserved that. So if Stalin had simply repented and accepted God in his place, then his sins would have been attributed to Jesus and not to him. Then his sentence of eternal death would have been lifted.

I know this hurts the vengeful crowd, but oh well. Revenge isn't everything.

Society has rebuked drunk driving pretty well and the punishment is usually 1 year in Jail. This is a punishment. It is designed as a punishment. And guess what . . . from the lack of repeats on DUI's it works. Many of the men who are in on DUI's, I have talked to and a great number of them never realized they even had a problem until they were sent to jail. Now they voluntarily go to AA and other programs. Some of them now have GED's and all of them know the PUNISHMENT for drinking and driving.

So therefore, I think that punishment does have a place in the justice system. Feel free to disagree and we will just agree to disagree on that point. I know first hand, to some degree or another, it works.

I agree with you. This punishment does work. But it does not work because it is some form of retribution on the offender. It works because the negative consequences, in many cases, affects the behavior of the offender not to continue offending. Since Hell is eternal, I don't quite see the parallel.

You mentioned it above. The most serious of sins deserves life in prison. I made an error of comparing the punishment part with the deterring part. The punishment of Hell is eternal and reserved for those who continue to defy God. The deterrent works on many people. UNFORTUNATELY this is why some people become Christians, to avoid Hell.

While I am glad they become Christians, there is a plethora of better reasons than fear. Jesus came to "Give life and give it more abundantly."
The biggest gain I have personally received from being a Christian has nothing to do with Hell. I have gained peace in hard times (very hard times). I have gained trust in God for everyday things. I now recognize and appreciate the blessings that I have. Before, I was taking my blessings for granted, worrying about family, money and work, and stressing out at every little thing.

This is what happened to me when I became a Christian. So no matter what else was gained, my physical and mental well being is much better now than before. I have life, "more abundantly".

This is a much better reason to be a Christian than simply avoiding Hell. But since we are talking about Hell it has to be mentioned here as well.

And if she chooses not to come home, you would eventually find her, lock her in the basement and torment her.

If she choses not to come home then she is already in darkness. Hell is not heavens basement. Hell is Antarctica and Heaven is Europe. They are two separate places and if my daughter choses to go to antarctica and refuses to come home, the I (God) am not going to violate her free will and take her back by force, no matter how much I loved her.

In a Christian worldview we find that objective morals come from God. He authors them and all actions are weighed against him as holy and perfect.

So you are of the persuasion that a particular thing is good morally because God has declared it to be morally good rather than the persuasion that God has declared something to be morally good because it is intrinsically good?

Yes. Things become intrinsically good when God declares them as such. Otherwise things just are. Unless or until that declaration is changed, that thing will always be good. For example when Man was created he was created good. Then he chose to sin and take on something that was declared evil. So man became evil.

God declared both things what they were and warned the man not to associate with the evil because then he would die. And that is what happened.

Remember, morals had to come from somewhere if they are in fact a human adaptation as you suggested. Something triggers all adaptations.

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective (or being measured against something) values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals. Objective values cannot exist in and of themselves. They must come from somewhere else, God.

[/quote]

I'm sorry but I think you just contradicted yourself. Perhaps I misunderstood. You said "

objective values can not exist in and of themselves

." True. In fact I said this exact same thing. Then you said, "

They must come from somewhere else, God

"

Again true and again I said this exact same thing.

But since in the theist's view God exists, how can you explain

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals

?

You just presented A + B = C

Actually you presented it C= A+ B

A) Objective morals require an object to compare to (GOD)
B) In a theist's view God exists to be compared to

C) ?

Yet you say theists view can not include objective moral values? I am confused.

[McCulloch]

God cannot die. God himself died. And people say that religion is not logically consistent!

I can see where this is difficult to understand even if you do believe. If you do not believe then it becomes impossible to understand.

I've heart that explanation before.

I know what I mean when I say that the Spirit and Father God can not die but that Jesus (man-God if you will) can and did. But like I said this is a difficult philosophy to understand and even harder to accept.

Perhaps I can try one more time to explain. This concerns the idea of the trinity.

God the Father is a Spirit being. The Holy Spirit is a spirit being. Because they both are spirits they can not die. They have no mortal body to die. However, Jesus had the same spirit as the Father and The holy Spirit yet he also had mortal body. So he could die physically. Hence God and his spirit was the same in all three including Jesus but only Jesus of the three could die.

I fear that you are in danger of equivocation. Death is the cessation of life. I do not accept that there are separate physical and spiritual deaths. If Jesus died, his life ended. If God cannot die, then God's life cannot end.

So if I commit a murder and find an innocent who would willingly take my punishment, you would consider it just that I escape punishment?

Basically yes. I would add that the person needs to be able to understand the total circumstances as well. If another will take your sin on his shoulders and receive the punishment for that sin in your place both knowingly and willfully, then I am saying just that. The sin has still been paid for so it is no longer an issue. He/she took on the responsibility for that sin with full knowledge and understanding of the consequences. It is a clean and even trade. The key is willingly.

I defy you to find a court that would accept this principle that we could call just.

As you pointed out the most serious of crimes are punished with life in prison or death. The same is true in God's court. Only the ONE SINGLE MOST EVIL SIN, denying God, is punished with a forever sentence.

Why? In our world, a crime's punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. Anything else is called unjust. Yet not believing in God has little or no objective demonstratable negative consequences, yet God reserves the worst punishment for it.


Definition: Objective (adj) Having actual existence or reality

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

Let me restate:

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals. This is because in the theist worldview moral values cannot exist in and of themselves, they have no actual existence or reality. They must come from somewhere else. That source of moral values is God. Without a revelation from an external source (God), a theist cannot determine the moral value of anything. "God is good" is a meaningless tautology.

[achilles12604]

We must be making headway. You are not responding negatively to many of my points anymore. Isn't debate fun?

God cannot die. God himself died. And people say that religion is not logically consistent!

I can see where this is difficult to understand even if you do believe. If you do not believe then it becomes impossible to understand.

I've heart that explanation before.

I would certainly hope so. Considering you are a former Christian I would be very alarmed if you had not heard of the Trinity before. However, I am not sure of what you meant by "I've heard that before." Was this a statement intended to cast doubt on what I said? If so I would humbly suggest, (even though I am newer at this than you) that your rebuttals either present some kind of evidence or else point out a logical fallacy included in my argument.

I know what I mean when I say that the Spirit and Father God can not die but that Jesus (man-God if you will) can and did. But like I said this is a difficult philosophy to understand and even harder to accept.

Perhaps I can try one more time to explain. This concerns the idea of the trinity.

God the Father is a Spirit being. The Holy Spirit is a spirit being. Because they both are spirits they can not die. They have no mortal body to die. However, Jesus had the same spirit as the Father and The holy Spirit yet he also had mortal body. So he could die physically. Hence God and his spirit was the same in all three including Jesus but only Jesus of the three could die.

I fear that you are in danger of equivocation. Death is the cessation of life. I do not accept that there are separate physical and spiritual deaths. If Jesus died, his life ended. If God cannot die, then God's life cannot end.

Ah there in lies the truest spirit of debate. The main problem you have with my whole argument relies on

I do not accept that there are separate physical and spiritual deaths

You do not accept something which is fundamental to my theology and something fundamental to atheist thinking (God does not exist) is something I do not accept.

However, as I am sure has been said many times, accepting something or not does not fall under the category of evidence. Things in this category include but are not limited to things like archeology, science, literature, witness, statements, history, etc. Declaring that you refuse to accept something is not evidence against it. After all 1000 years ago society refused to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe and 500 years ago they did not accept that the earth was round. Yet both those things were still true.

You can refuse to acknowledge something all you wish but can still be wrong.

So if I commit a murder and find an innocent who would willingly take my punishment, you would consider it just that I escape punishment?

Basically yes. I would add that the person needs to be able to understand the total circumstances as well. If another will take your sin on his shoulders and receive the punishment for that sin in your place both knowingly and willfully, then I am saying just that. The sin has still been paid for so it is no longer an issue. He/she took on the responsibility for that sin with full knowledge and understanding of the consequences. It is a clean and even trade. The key is willingly.

I defy you to find a court that would accept this principle that we could call just.

I defy you to show me God's court room. The laws of heaven are different than those on earth. Obviously. After all I already showed that courts here were willing to punish for every small crime yet God forgives and forgets those. Obviously there are differences between God and judges.

As you pointed out the most serious of crimes are punished with life in prison or death. The same is true in God's court. Only the ONE SINGLE MOST EVIL SIN, denying God, is punished with a forever sentence.

Why? In our world, a crime's punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. Anything else is called unjust. Yet not believing in God has little or no objective demonstrable negative consequences, yet God reserves the worst punishment for it.

Why? In our world, a crime's punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. Anything else is called unjust.

You obviously have little experience with crimes and sentencing. I however, am deeply immersed in this area of society so allow me to explain.

I have in jail a lot of people. These individuals come from many walks of life. They all have different backgrounds. Sentencing depends on these varied backgrounds, the charges, the judge, the mood of the judge, the jury, the mood of the jury, the time of day and a whole ton of other things which most people do not even consider.

An example. Since sentencing is public information it would be legal for me to reveal both their names and actual charges. However, because I am at work, this would border on unethical and inappropriate for me to do so. Therefore I will hold names but I will present the actual charges and sentences.

In work release, the lowest possible jail level there is, we have several individuals who's charges may surprise you.

We have individuals in for sexual exploitation of a child who are in work release. We have individuals who are in for aggravated motor vehicle theft and eluding police. We have one colorful individual who is in for Felony menacing with a deadly weapon. One is in on drug trafficking and second degree assault (usually this means they REALLY hurt someone and usually it was with a weapon). The sentences for these individuals range from 60 days (really it turns into 30 for good time) all the way to 1 year. But remember that these people are allowed to leave the jail and go to work just like you or me. (Well not me. I go to jail to go to work. Wierd huh?)

We have a lot of higher level criminals in the lowest possible jail setting. They are there usually because they have good behavior and have entered into rehab programs.

Then, on the other side of the scale I know of one individual who was here on motor vehicle theft. He was in jail for 15 months until he was re-sentenced to 3 years in DOC. And his theft was non-violent.

I have an individual in MAXIMUM security who is here on a single count of harassment. Nothing more than simple yelling at someone and he is in Max. There is an individual in Max who is sentence to Max for no less than 6 months possibly to be moved to DOC depending on his next court date, who is in here for not going to court on a 3rd degree assault (this is basically a simple fight. if anyone is really hurt it becomes a 2nd degree). Just for not going to court and he is in Max with a hard sentence.

Now compare the two. It seems a little backwards but like I said being sentenced depends on a lot. For example we have many judges. Most will give a first time DUI no more than 30 days and that is if they are a jerk. However, one judge lost his child to a drunk driver. ANY DUI in his court room receives no less than 1 full YEAR. This is just the difference between judges.

As you can plainly see,

In our world, a crime's punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. Anything else is called unjust

is simply not true, even here on earth.

Now as for your last sentence,

Yet not believing in God has little or no objective demonstrable negative consequences

I wonder why you have decided this. I really begin to wonder how you can make any kind of judgement on this at all, especially since you are a mortal and no mortal has any clue how things work beyond this life. How can you be sure that God is wrong and you are right? After all Christian theology shows the last time someone thought like you (Lucifer) all of heaven was immersed into war. For you to make the same statement as a mer mortal seems a little . . . Well you decide what that seems to be. Suffice to say, I at least am never going to claim to be smarter than the author of the universe, all the laws of physics, the laws and process of biology, and the creator and giver of life. I barely passed Chemistry in High school. I would be pretty arrogant to say I knew better than the one who invented chemicals and authored their interactions.

Definition: Objective (adj) Having actual existence or reality

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

Let me restate:

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals. This is because in the theist worldview moral values cannot exist in and of themselves, they have no actual existence or reality. They must come from somewhere else. That source of moral values is God. Without a revelation from an external source (God), a theist cannot determine the moral value of anything. "God is good" is a meaningless tautology.

Mr. McCulloch, if you are going to present a definition please present more than just the one you would like to use. Otherwise you are simply hiding evidence. I would hate for someone to be fed INCOMPLETE facts. Hence I try to give more information than is required.

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

n.
Something that actually exists.
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
Grammar.
The objective case.
A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

You used the SECOND definition under the adjective use of the word.

First look to the uses of the word as it applies to Grammer. Both apply and the second

Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

is EXACTLY what I did. But I can go on.

The 1st, 3rd and 4th definitions under the adjectives apply to God and morals. Bascially you picked the one definition which could support your claim and ignored the rest because they all can support mine.

What is the problem with what I said? Please

restate:

[McCulloch]

I can see where this is difficult to understand even if you do believe. If you do not believe then it becomes impossible to understand.

I've heart that explanation before.

I would certainly hope so. Considering you are a former Christian I would be very alarmed if you had not heard of the Trinity before. However, I am not sure of what you meant by "I've heard that before."

Actually I meant the one about you cannot understand it until you believe it first. Not a strong debating argument is it? We have a debate on Trinity. There is a Christian who asserts that the doctrine of trinity is heretical. Christians, as far as I know, have never been unanimous on this point. However, this is Hell not Trinity.

I fear that you are in danger of equivocation. Death is the cessation of life. I do not accept that there are separate physical and spiritual deaths. If Jesus died, his life ended. If God cannot die, then God's life cannot end.

Ah there in lies the truest spirit of debate. The main problem you have with my whole argument relies on

I do not accept that there are separate physical and spiritual deaths

You do not accept something which is fundamental to my theology and something fundamental to atheist thinking (God does not exist) is something I do not accept.

Then we can agree. We cannot make significant progress on the topic of Hell other than to discuss the logical incongruencies of it, while I am not convinced on the doctrine of Dualism. You may wish to join Harvey1 in his many attempts to argue the case that there really is another realm.

IHowever, as I am sure has been said many times, accepting something or not does not fall under the category of evidence. Things in this category include but are not limited to things like archeology, science, literature, witness, statements, history, etc. Declaring that you refuse to accept something is not evidence against it. After all 1000 years ago society refused to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe and 500 years ago they did not accept that the earth was round. Yet both those things were still true.

You can refuse to acknowledge something all you wish but can still be wrong.

Yes, that is true. I should have said that I refuse to accept without evidence that there is a spirit world, that there are souls and that if such things do exist, that we can know with assurance the kind of things that the various religions teach about this alleged spirit realm.
Evidence?

I defy you to show me God's court room. The laws of heaven are different than those on earth. Obviously. After all I already showed that courts here were willing to punish for every small crime yet God forgives and forgets those. Obviously there are differences between God and judges.

Equivocation again. You have argued that Hell must exist because of God's justice. Then when pressed, God's justice has a different meaning than our meaning of justice.

[...]
As you can plainly see,

In our world, a crime's punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. Anything else is called unjust

is simply not true, even here on earth.

Where I come from, the examples you cited would be examples of how the system is not just. Your point is?

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

Let me restate:

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals. This is because in the theist worldview moral values cannot exist in and of themselves, they have no actual existence or reality. They must come from somewhere else. That source of moral values is God. Without a revelation from an external source (God), a theist cannot determine the moral value of anything. "God is good" is a meaningless tautology.

IMr. McCulloch, if you are going to present a definition please present more than just the one you would like to use. Otherwise you are simply hiding evidence. I would hate for someone to be fed INCOMPLETE facts. Hence I try to give more information than is required.

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Let's stop there. In both of our quotes above, we are clearly using the adjective not the noun form of the word. Also, it is superfluous to use the grammatical, or medical definition. That is clearly not the sense in which either of us were using the word.

The 1st, 3rd and 4th definitions under the adjectives apply to God and morals. Bascially you picked the one definition which could support your claim and ignored the rest because they all can support mine.

As I see it, in the context of discussing moral values, the adjective objective can have two possible meanings:

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

I chose the second because it makes sense in context. If you wish to argue the first, then by all means do so.

[achilles12604]

I defy you to show me God's court room. The laws of heaven are different than those on earth. Obviously. After all I already showed that courts here were willing to punish for every small crime yet God forgives and forgets those. Obviously there are differences between God and judges.

Equivocation again. You have argued that Hell must exist because of God's justice. Then when pressed, God's justice has a different meaning than our meaning of justice.

Yes and no. I believe you were using equivocation, not me. I was showing similarities between the two which are present within all strains of Justice and discipline. However, I was not trying to equivocate God's court and ours. In fact, I believe you have tried to do this a couple times and I continue to point out that the two are not the same.

Therefore, yes both when pressed and when not pressed, I still say there are differences between God's justice and ours.

[...]
As you can plainly see,

In our world, a crime's punishment is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. Anything else is called unjust

is simply not true, even here on earth.

Where I come from, the examples you cited would be examples of how the system is not just. Your point is?

I correcting a statement made by you concerning how you thought our system was always just. It is not. However, my broader point was that we can not use our system as the measure by which to judge God's justice. If anything it should be the other way around. Just because you find self-sacrifice to be against justice, does not mean everyone does. Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree on this subject.

In an atheist worldview there is not such thing as OBJECTIVE morals. Please note that I qualified my sentence. Objective values can not exist because in the atheists view there is nothing perfect to measure it against. God does not exist. Therefore, OBJECTIVE morals can not exist. Therefore the morals must have come from somewhere else.

Let me restate:

In the theist worldview there is not such a thing as objective morals. This is because in the theist worldview moral values cannot exist in and of themselves, they have no actual existence or reality. They must come from somewhere else. That source of moral values is God. Without a revelation from an external source (God), a theist cannot determine the moral value of anything. "God is good" is a meaningless tautology.

IMr. McCulloch, if you are going to present a definition please present more than just the one you would like to use. Otherwise you are simply hiding evidence. I would hate for someone to be fed INCOMPLETE facts. Hence I try to give more information than is required.

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Let's stop there. In both of our quotes above, we are clearly using the adjective not the noun form of the word. Also, it is superfluous to use the grammatical, or medical definition. That is clearly not the sense in which either of us were using the word.

The 1st, 3rd and 4th definitions under the adjectives apply to God and morals. Bascially you picked the one definition which could support your claim and ignored the rest because they all can support mine.

As I see it, in the context of discussing moral values, the adjective objective can have two possible meanings:

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

I chose the second because it makes sense in context. If you wish to argue the first, then by all means do so.

[/quote]

I find the first to be acceptable.

Of or having to do with a material object

.

God's morals are presented in the Bible. Hence an object. God can also fill that role so it works on two levels. Therefore, I will take the first definition and I would also present it makes sense.

[McCulloch]

Yes and no. I believe you were using equivocation, not me. I was showing similarities between the two which are present within all strains of Justice and discipline. However, I was not trying to equivocate God's court and ours. In fact, I believe you have tried to do this a couple times and I continue to point out that the two are not the same.

Therefore, yes both when pressed and when not pressed, I still say there are differences between God's justice and ours.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were not simply showing the similarities between human justice and divine justice. You invoked the principle of justice to justify the existence of Hell. Then when pressed, it turns out that the principle of justice that justifies the existence of Hell is a form or justice that is unintelligible to humans and divorced from what we might consider justice.

I correcting a statement made by you concerning how you thought our system was always just. It is not.

Agreed. But we can determine when our system is just and when it is not.

However, my broader point was that we can not use our system as the measure by which to judge God's justice. If anything it should be the other way around.

We would not be having this debate if you were content to have it the other way around. You would not have said that Hell was necessary because without Hell God could not be just. You would have approached it as, Jails are just because they are like Hell, and Hell is a manifestation of God's justice.

Just because you find self-sacrifice to be against justice, does not mean everyone does. Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree on this subject.

It is not the sacrifice that is in question. It is the acceptance on the part of the judge that is not just.

[achilles12604]

Yes and no. I believe you were using equivocation, not me. I was showing similarities between the two which are present within all strains of Justice and discipline. However, I was not trying to equivocate God's court and ours. In fact, I believe you have tried to do this a couple times and I continue to point out that the two are not the same.

Therefore, yes both when pressed and when not pressed, I still say there are differences between God's justice and ours.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were not simply showing the similarities between human justice and divine justice. You invoked the principle of justice to justify the existence of Hell. Then when pressed, it turns out that the principle of justice that justifies the existence of Hell is a form or justice that is unintelligible to humans and divorced from what we might consider justice.

Hell is necessary to provide Justice against those who would break God's laws and then refuse to accept his forgiveness.

The justice that you refer to as

unintelligible to humans and divorced from what we might consider justice

is where we are bumping heads here. You do not accept that Jesus taking the place of sinners and allowing their punishment to fall on him, fulfills the demands of justice. I do. I see no problem with Jesus self sacrifice and forgiveness, paying any inherent debt in regard to our mistakes.

You on the other hand have a huge problem with this idea. For you this is nonsense. You see the one taking the punishment as a victim of a tyrannical God. The biggest problem I have with that is that it is this same tyrannical God who is the one actually taking the punishment. Therefore, your point seems illogical to me.

If the very one taking the punishment is the same one who declares this to be just, how can we on the outside and bound by mortal laws, tell him he is wrong and creating an injustice against himself?

Also your first sentence,

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were not simply showing the similarities between human justice and divine justice

, strikes me a strange because once again I will point out that other than the fact that the theme of justice runs through both, I have been pointing out the DIFFERENCES between God's justice and mans. They are similar in so much as justice must be done, hence our early conversations comparing the two on this level. However, when you began to say that God must be wrong and man must be right when it comes to what constituted an injustice (a crime), and what must be done to remedy this situation, that is where we parted ways. God's justice is not the same as man's justice. Thank heavens for that. Otherwise I would have to pay for every mistake I have ever made. In human terms I would be locked away and would never see the light of day again. But God's justice is able to pass that justice onto Jesus and himself, leaving me blameless. This is the point you refuse to accept. I accept that you refuse to accept this point. However, attempting to convince me that God should punish each person for exactly what they have done, will never fly because this is one of the central themes of Jesus ministry. Jesus himself declared his purpose was "to take the place of many."

I correcting a statement made by you concerning how you thought our system was always just. It is not.

Agreed. But we can determine when our system is just and when it is not.

Agreed, but only as far as our system goes. We are in no place to judge another totally different set of rules and laws, ie divine law. I agree that as you said, "WE can determine when our system is just according to our understanding of the word. God's realm is entirely outside this statement.

However, my broader point was that we can not use our system as the measure by which to judge God's justice. If anything it should be the other way around.

We would not be having this debate if you were content to have it the other way around. You would not have said that Hell was necessary because without Hell God could not be just. You would have approached it as, Jails are just because they are like Hell, and Hell is a manifestation of God's justice.

Your statement and mine are on two different subjects. Your statement concerns the necessity of Hell because justice ultimately needs Hell to be an option for those unwilling to accept God.

My statement was that God's system of justice should be used to measure ours, and not the other way around. Two totally different lines of thinking not to be confused with each other.

On a side note, your sudden switch of topics was a textbook example of a red herring.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Topic A - God's system of Justice should be the model for ours and ours should be compared to his, not the other way around.

Topic B - You would have approached it as, Jails are just because they are like Hell, and Hell is a manifestation of God's justice

Not even close to the same topic.

Just because you find self-sacrifice to be against justice, does not mean everyone does. Perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree on this subject.

It is not the sacrifice that is in question. It is the acceptance on the part of the judge that is not just.

So your thought here is that even though he designed the process that will save us, God should not accept what he set up as the method of retrieving us from our sins, as just?

[Cathar1950]

Topic A - God's system of Justice should be the model for ours and ours should be compared to his, not the other way around.

Maybe you could tell use what fallacy is being committed above?

What is God’s system?
I am sure that would move you to topic “C”.

What is the model of “God’s” system?
What is God justice?
How do we follow it?
If we can’t follow it they how can it be even called a system of justice?
What do we have and how do we compare it to something we don’t know about?
If you say the “bible” or “Christianity”, what fallacy do you think you are committing there?

Maybe we need to question your question and presumptions?

[achilles12604]

Topic A - God's system of Justice should be the model for ours and ours should be compared to his, not the other way around.

Maybe you could tell use what fallacy is being committed above?

I would be happy to tell you what fallacy was committed. However, your qualifier of "above" is an appropriate. You have taken only a single line out of my previous description and by definition a red herring requires a minimum of two separate lines of thought.

Therefore you have misrepresented me. You took part of my quote and deliberately left the rest out so as to allow an opening to question me. However, since you brought this up I will repost my entire posting about a red herring and explain line by line.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Topic A - God's system of Justice should be the model for ours and ours should be compared to his, not the other way around.

Topic B - You would have approached it as, Jails are just because they are like Hell, and Hell is a manifestation of God's justice

Not even close to the same topic.

Now here is what I actually said before you misrepresented me. As you can see a Red Herring is a fallacy which is committed when one side of a debate choses a line of though which seems to be similar to the point presented by the opposing side, yet is unrelated and bears the intention of pulling the topic off course so as to achieve confusion and victory. In this case I was discussing God's system of judgement vs. Man's system. I had stated that god's system should never conform to mans and actually man's system should conform to God's.

At this point McCulloch wrote a reply which said, "

We would not be having this debate if you were content to have it the other way around. You would not have said that Hell was necessary because without Hell God could not be just. You would have approached it as, Jails are just because they are like Hell, and Hell is a manifestation of God's justice.

Although the primary vein of conversation did not alter from forms of justice, the rebuttal offered by McCulloch had nothing to do with Man's system of justice conforming to God's system. Therefore since the definition of a Red Herring is

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic

I pointed out that McCulloch had committed this fallacy.

Now you on the other hand have created a straw man. You have accused me of saying something within a certain context that I did not. This is because you misrepresented what I actually presented by not quoting the entire post as I wrote it.

In either case you two are straying from the topic at hand by continuing to argue with me over definitions of which I am sure you are aware as you both have most than enough "tokens" and posts to understand the basics of formalized debate. Therefore, I am moving back onto topic. follow me if you wish or continue to misrepresent me if you wish. I care not either way.

What is God’s system?
I am sure that would move you to topic “C”.

What is the model of “God’s” system?
What is God justice?
How do we follow it?

With the exception of the second line here, the rest of your questions are all inter-related. God's system of Justice is described in the Bible. Here are a few verses that outline the basic premises.

"For it is in your heart that you believe and are justified." Romans 10:10

Paul is making it clear here that belief from your inner-most being is what will justify a man.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned - " Romans 5 : 12

Paul here is explaining that because all men have sinned, all men are sentenced to death.

"Again the gift of God is not like the result of one man's sin: The judgement followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.. . . Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification, that brings life for all men." Romans 5 15-20

This spells it out pretty well. Paul here makes it clear that even though one sin causes a man to be condemned, Jesus actions brought justification to all men. Hence God's system.

Perhaps you may have heard this one. This spells it out pretty clearly.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him, shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already . . . " John 3 : 16-18

This is pretty clear. Man starts out condemned. We figured out from Paul that this is because we sinned. However, belief in Jesus saves us from those transgressions because of what Jesus did. He took our place.

There are dozens of passages like these. You should know it being a former Christian. If this is news to you then perhaps you should have read the bible while being a Christian. The Christian faith makes much more sense when you actually read it for yourself rather than relying on someone else to tell you.

This problem is rampant throughout Christians though. I expect many more will fall away for no other reason than not reading and understanding their own faith.


To answer your questions one at a time. . .

What is God’s system?

Forgiveness and Justification through Jesus

What is the model of “God’s” system?

It is outlined in the bible.

What is God justice?

1) The quality of being just; fairness.
2) The principle of moral rightness; equity.
3) Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness

We sinned. It is fair for us to be punished for that. Jesus volunteered to take that punishment for us. Justice was done on him voluntarily.

How do we follow it?

Read the bible. It is pretty clear.

If we can’t follow it they how can it be even called a system of justice?

N/A. We can follow God's rules. Some just chose not to.

What do we have and how do we compare it to something we don’t know about?

We have a system of laws which effect order into our societies. We can compare and contrast the forgiveness and mercy of God's judgements against those of the courts on earth. We can also compare and contrast the results of disregarding the laws in place both under God and under Man. We know plenty about it. You really should brush up on the Bible. A lot of your questions are answered dozens of times over in there.

If you say the “bible” or “Christianity”, what fallacy do you think you are committing there?

I don't know of any. You tell me.

Maybe we need to question your question and presumptions?

Likewise.

[smokeyparkin]

This really didn't get anywhere did it?