Is the Christian God loving and compassionate?
First an apology. I accidentally deleted my previous post "A Simple Question"--along with all the comments--in the process of editing this one. Sorry! I'll do what I can to retrieve it.
The following argument is valid.
1. No one whose rational faculties are functioning perfectly can make an irrational decision.(premise)
2. Rejecting God is an irrational decision. [assumed for the sake of argument]
3. Therefore, the rational faculties of nonbelievers are not functioning perfectly. (from 2, 1)
4. Therefore, their rational faculties are defective in a way that prevents them from making a rational decision with respect to accepting God. (from 3)
5. If the Christian God were loving and compassionate, then he would want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers (premise)
6. The Christian God does not want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers.(premise)
7. Therefore, the Christian God is not loving and compassionate. (from 7, 6)
The following argument is valid.
1. No one whose rational faculties are functioning perfectly can make an irrational decision.(premise)
2. Rejecting God is an irrational decision. [assumed for the sake of argument]
3. Therefore, the rational faculties of nonbelievers are not functioning perfectly. (from 2, 1)
4. Therefore, their rational faculties are defective in a way that prevents them from making a rational decision with respect to accepting God. (from 3)
5. If the Christian God were loving and compassionate, then he would want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers (premise)
6. The Christian God does not want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers.(premise)
7. Therefore, the Christian God is not loving and compassionate. (from 7, 6)
59 comments:
As I said, (2) is absolutely false. I know of no one who accepts the truth of (2). Even Turek, whom you referred to earlier (and whom, along with Geisler, I'm no fan of), has said that belief in god is beyond reasonable doubt, but not beyond doubt.
Now, I'm not sure you can identify an unreasonable doubt with irrationality, but that's not relevant. Let's say, arguendo, that you can. Still, Tuerk and Geisler hardly speak for all Christians, so your argument isn't directed at Christianity as such, but at specific form of Christianity, and even then only those who accept what Turek and the like have said on this matter. They certainly don't speak for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Christians (which together comprise the large majority of Christians, roughly 65%). They may be influential among some Southern evangelicals, but again, that's a relatively small, and relatively recent, branch of Christianity. So, if you want to make it clear that your argument targets only a minority of Christians, and is not applicable to the vast majority of them, then fine, I have no problem with that (other than the problems I mentioned in the previous thread concerning (1), which I think sets up a strawman with respect to the epistemology of *proper* function).
The Christian God is gracious but He's also just. Grace is something you don't deserve so God is never obligated to be gracious. Since He is never obligated to be gracious then He does nothing wrong by witholding His grace. Since He does nothing wrong by witholding grace then He remains good. Since He's good then He has a morally good justifiable reason for not being gracious even if I don't know the reason "why." Logical explanations are infinite and I'm not infinite. To know why God would allow such things would require me to get iside the mind of God.
Again, you cannot deserve as a non-being to be created and have all your needs met by God. He's the Creator you are the creature. He has rights a prerogatives that we don't have. God is never obligated to be merciful to anything or anybody. Especially sinners.
Hey Robin,
What about the cross? Was sin not taken care of at the cross? Jesus came to set the captives free, so are you accusing Him of being a failure at what He came to do?
Richard,
Christ died for His elect who are scattered throughout the whole world. Christ accomplished what He set out to do. Save God's children.
From all nations, nationalities, races and tribes. The wole world.
OMG! You are a Calvinist! Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the WORLD - not just the elect! Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD - not just the elect. Jesus is the propitiation for not our sins only, but for the sins of the whole WORLD! You need to repent of the false teachings of Calvinism and believe what the Bible teaches instead!
Eric,
If belief in god is beyond "reasonable doubt," then it would be irrational to reject God. How can you deny this?
Tell me: if you think it could be *rational* to reject God, then can nonbelievers be blamed for rejecting God? Can nonbelievers be blamed for rejecting something that is rational for them to reject?
you wrote:
---------
other than the problems I mentioned in the previous thread concerning (1), which I think sets up a strawman with respect to the epistemology of *proper* function).
------------
What strawman?
Robin,
If you reject the conclusion, then you need to reject one of the premises.
Richard,
The whole world means all nationalities and races. Not every single individual within the world. All men refers to all types of men. Not only the Jews but also the Gentiles.
Robin,
You have been brainwashed by Calvinism! World means world. Quit changing and distorting God's word by redefining words according to the false doctrines of Calvinism.
Richard,
No I've been brainwashed by the Bible. But I don't think this is the time to discuss that here right now.
Eric,
I assume you believe nonbelievers will continue to reject God while suffering in hell. Would it be irrational to reject God then? Yes or no?
Spencer,
God wants to be gracious to His elect. But He wants to show His wrath when He destroys the Reprobate.
Robin,
I'll say it once again: if you want to reject the conclusion of my argument, you need to reject one of the premises.
Robin,
The Bible does not teach what you believe, only Calvinism does. I was a Calvinist for over 30 years. The Greek word "Kosmos" means all humanity. "Ethnos" means nations.
I am extremely familiar with all of the tenats of Calvinism. They distort and change the meanings of words to fit their false doctrines. You did NOT learn Calvinism from the Bible! Someone deceived you into believeing a fallacy about the meaning of WORLD.
Richard the Bible does teach what I believe. I've done a word study and studied the scriptures and made up my mind.
Spencer,
Why should I believe you're irrational? You can be wrong and still be rational.
BTW I answered your question. You just casn't see it.
It is no wonder there are so many atheists with all of the ridiculos teachings that "Christians" come up with.
Jesus died only for the elect???? What utter and absurd nonsense! The Jews were the elect when Jesus died on the cross, so then only Jews have the ability to get saved according to this demented doctrine! Jesus forbade His disciples to even go to the Gentiles! They were unholy DOGS!
Robin,
If you've answered my question, then I've certainly missed it. Please tell me again: which premise of my argument do you reject and why?
Spencer,
God doesn't want to save everybody. He doesn't want to show His grace to everyone. He wants to destroy the reprobate.
He's gracious and He's just.
Robin,
You have done a word study??? Is that it? I have studied this indepth for 100's of hours. Calvinisn is a doctrine of demons, and is heresy. Instead of making up your mind, have the mind of Christ and be transformed by the renewining of your mind.
I'll bet that you are a very young person, probably under 30 yrs old. Am I correct?
Richard,
According to you I'm going to heaven anyway. So it doesn't matter.
Robin,
If God wants to destroy the reprobate, then why dod He even make them in the first place!
GOD IS LOVE! Love does not keep account of a wrong suffered! Are you calling God a hypocrit?
"If belief in god is beyond "reasonable doubt," then it would be irrational to reject God. How can you deny this?"
Spencer, I don't know what's going on with you today. You're usually demonstrate much more perspicacity than you have with respect to this issue.
I didn't 'deny' it; I questioned any blithe identification of the two. My motivation should be obvious: I question any blithe identification of rationality and reason. It strikes me that 'reason' is a much broader category than 'rationality,' and that it is at least open to question, before these terms have been clearly defined and analyzed, whether something like 'unreasonable doubt,' which pertains to reason, can be identified with 'irrationality,' which pertains to rationality. You studied philosophy; surely, you must be aware of the difficulties here.
That aside, it's a non-issue, since I granted any potential identification of the two and proceeded to argue from there.
"Tell me: if you think it could be *rational* to reject God, then can nonbelievers be blamed for rejecting God?"
It may be rational for me to reject my fiancee's explanation of where she was last night, but I can still be 'blamed' for not believing her -- for not *trusting* her. So yes, of course there are rather obvious contexts in which we can be blamed for reaching a perfectly rational conclusion. You seem to be confusing a purely intellectual issue with what is fundamentally a relational issue. Rationality is not, in any sense, the only relevant factor as far as relationships go. (To preempt your response, I don't think that there are any rebutting defeaters for god's existence, so it's not the case that my rationality can be directly in conflict with my faith; however, I concede that there may be undercutting defeaters.) In short, you're making the all too common atheist fallacy of reducing theism to belief in some narrow sense along the lines of 'assent to the truth of a proposition.' As any theologian will tell you, you can believe that god exists without having faith in god; indeed, you can know that god exists without having faith in god.
"I assume you believe nonbelievers will continue to reject God while suffering in hell. Would it be irrational to reject God then? Yes or no?"
I believe that the suffering of hell *is* the rejection of god, so your question is incoherent.
Robin,
It DOES matter! The truth will set us free! God wants us all to know the TRUTH! Is it possible that your children are going to Hell because thay are not part of the elect??? Are you going to be happy in Heaven while your children are in eternal torment because God never chose them??? PLEASE!
Richard,
I'm an annihilationist. I don't believe in the eternal torment of humans.
Spencer, could you tell us a little about yourself in your Blogger Profile.
thanx
Eric wrote:
-------
I didn't 'deny' it; I questioned any blithe identification of the two.
---------
I didn't identify one with the other -- I said one follows from the other, which is undeniable.
you wrote:
--------
It strikes me that 'reason' is a much broader category than 'rationality,' and that it is at least open to question, before these terms have been clearly defined and analyzed, whether something like 'unreasonable doubt,' which pertains to reason, can be identified with 'irrationality,' which pertains to rationality. You studied philosophy; surely, you must be aware of the difficulties here.
------------
I don't see how some proposition can be "beyond reasonable doubt" and yet open to being "rationally rejected." Can you give an example?
you wrote:
--------
That aside, it's a non-issue, since I granted any potential identification of the two and proceeded to argue from there.
-----------
Okay, then you accept premise (2) for purposes of argument? If so, then how do you reject the conclusion?
you wrote:
------
I believe that the suffering of hell *is* the rejection of god, so your question is incoherent.
----------
There's nothing incoherent about my question. Many Christians believe nonbelievers will be sent to hell after death -- a place they will reside for all eternity. Such a concept is clearly not incoherent. Perhaps you reject this concept, but the *question* certainly isn't incoherent. Do you believe nonbelievers, in the afterlife, go to hell for all eternity?
Robin,
Why would God destroy someone forever? Was the cross not sufficient for all mankind? God is no respecter of persons, right?
If some will be annihilated, then how can every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? How can everyone who is on the earth and under the earth be worshipping in Revelation 5:13?
Annihilationism does not jive with God's word of reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:19. 1 Cor 15:42-44 says the body will be raised incorruptible.
Where sin abounds grace abounds even more. God's mercy endures FOREVER! Did you forget that?
Why would God destroy someone forever?
Romans 9
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
I hold that no one has perfect functioning rational faculties.
And Christians would say this happened because of the Fall.
(5b & 6) are incorrect. The Christian God is loving and compassionate, and he did not want the Fall to happen and thus defects to occur in humans but he valued freedom and free will over the assurance of a perfect creation.
Thus, your conclusion is wrong.
(Get John Loftus to help you, he is seminary trained)
Sabio,
Your assumption that removing this defect violates free will is false.
Moreover, even if it does violate free will, so what?
Calvinism is false, of course, but not because it goes against the bible, but because it is incoherent.
«"God doesn't want to save everybody. He doesn't want to show His grace to everyone. He wants to destroy the reprobate."»
But the word "reprobate" has no real meaning in a Calvinist system. Or rather, it means "everyone who is not God and is not granted grace." It has nothing to do with anything a person has either done or not done.
«"He's gracious and He's just."»
No, by any standard other than special pleading, God is not just. According to Calvinism, God did not and does not judge, in the way that humans might try and examine someone's deeds and figure out whether the good outweighs the bad or not. As you said, as far as God is concerned, it's all bad and there is no good. God just chose the recipients of grace by his random whim: This person to heaven; that person to damnation. There's no actual judgment of the persons that is made.
«"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power"»
"What if?", indeed.
What if wishes were horses? Then everyone would have a pony.
Personally I'd argue that the christian god is incompetent, lazy, and stupid!
He has to come down to commit ritual suicide for a failure on our part that he set up in a way that the only option was eventual failure...
He wipes out all the naughty folks in the most inconceivably complex ways! If he's really omnipotent, why not just snuff out the ones who displease him?
He doesn't know that a bat is not a bird, even though he made both of them!
He has everyone doing his work for him.
Yeah, aside from being a petty, temperamental, jealous, and downright crotchety bastard, he's a lout. Good thing he's totally imaginary!
Robin,
Keep reading! Romans 11 says that all Israel will be saved after the full number of Gentiles has come in! That proves that all will be saved!
Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former.
All God's chosen ones will be saved. The elect. The church.
The others will perish.
It's clearly taught in the Bible.
«"Israel (the Jewish people and the land) has been replaced by the Christian Church in the purposes of God, or, more precisely, the Church is the historic continuation of Israel to the exclusion of the former."»
A God who can change his mind once can change his mind again, or indeed, as many times as he wants.
--------
«"All God's chosen ones will be saved. The elect. The church.
The others will perish."»
Oh, really? And are you sure you're one of the elect?
Maybe you're just as damned as any atheist. How would you know?
«"It's clearly taught in the Bible."»
Since the Bible contradicts itself in more than one place, and is vague in others, nothing can possibly be "clearly" taught in it.
Robin,
Israel has been replaced by the church???? Who taught you that, the church fairy? The Gentile church was GRAFTED IN to the covenat promises, so it cannot replace! You need to get your teachings from God;s word DIRECTLY and not through the eyes of whatever false teachers are brainwashing you.
I was right about you being younger than 30 yrs old, wasn't I? You have an awful lot to learn (as do all of us).
Robin,
People PERISH in their sins during this life. There is no sin in the next life and no perishing of the resurrected body. You are greatly in error. God will save all mankind, not just the elect. The elect are but the firstfruits of God's redemptive opaln.
"Oh, really? And are you sure you're one of the elect?
Maybe you're just as damned as any atheist. How would you know?"
Because Christ is my all satisfing Treasure.
Richard,
Let me suggest you study the Bible a little more. You need to accept what is says. Not what you want it to say.
I'm 34
Richard,
John, in his gospel, was clear in his belief concerning the atonement.
“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)
It is quite clear that John did not hold that Christ died for every single individual, but for “ours” (the nation – Israel), and not only for “ours” (this nation only), but for the “whole world”, (the children of God who are scattered abroad.)
Robin,
Let me suggest that I have been studying the Bible longer than you have been alive!
The CHILDREN are not the only ones that will be saved! See how you read into the text and assume things! Please stop doing that, for everyone's sake.
Richard2 graduatue from high school take a few college classes and then come back here.
You're done. Go away. You're banned.
I graduated high school and went to college. Try again there, John.
What does banned mean? Do I get a musical instrument to play?
Richard2, it means that your comments won't be seen by anyone unless they choose to comment, and that I may delete them, and that if you're a Christian who obeys the Golden Rule like you should then you shoule no longer comment here. That's all.
Not to tell you how to run your blog, John, but it's useful to leave people like Rich2 to expend pixels on nonsense.
Many of us "ex-Christians" were at the same place at one point in terms of our arrogance and certainty. These people need a forum for hearing another perspective of things, and I fear banning them will just reinforce their certitude.
So why are you banning me? I have not even been talking to you! No one else wants me banned! What is YOUR beef , when I have not even had any discussions with you about anything???? That makes no sense whatsoever.
«"Maybe you're just as damned as any atheist. How would you know?"
Because Christ is my all satisfing Treasure."»
So what? That does not mean that you are not one of the damned.
In fact, I just realized that being an atheist does not mean that I am one of the damned. It's totally up to God's whim -- according to Calvinism, anyway.
-------------
«"Let me suggest you study the Bible a little more. You need to accept what is says. Not what you want it to say."»
You need to accept that the bible contradicts itself with regards to many things, including salvation.
-------------
«"It is quite clear that John did not hold that Christ died for every single individual, but for “ours” (the nation – Israel), and not only for “ours” (this nation only), but for the “whole world”, (the children of God who are scattered abroad.)"»
This contradicts your assertion that Israel was replaced by the Christian Church, and looks more like it is in accord with Richard2's claim that the Church was "grafted in".
Funny how you can't even keep your own theology straight. What was that about accepting what the bible says, not what you want it to say?
Eric wrote: I fail to see what this could be. After all, *you're perfectly free to make this choice right now*.
Eric, I don't believe God exists. As such, I'm not "perfectly free" to love something that doesn't exist. Or are you suggesting that I can consciously change my beliefs?
For the sake of argument, I could pretend to love God but, should he exist and actually be all knowing, he'd see though that. Or I *might* love the idea of the Christian God as a concept, but I don't think this is what you're referring to.
In other words, If I do not think God exists, while other people see his presence all around them, is there something wrong with me?
Is this like being born blind or deaf? Or perhaps it's similar to autism, but one has difficulty communicating or forming a relationships with God?
James, maybe I wish for a higher level of discussion, that's all, like what we find with Eric who actually deals with our arguments. People like Richard2 should listen to him. Richard2 seems to only spout off Biblcal proof texts. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that we do not believe the Bible. He can still listen in. It's just that his comments do not deal with our arguments and as such. It's like he's playing Dr. Phil with a married couple when he has never heard them tell him their problems. First he should get up to speed.
Aw John, let Richy back in.
I love watching dueling dogmatic Christians!
Kinda like gladiatorial combat in a way. Ironically fitting XD
Premise #5: If the Christian God were loving and compassionate, then he would want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers.
I have a couple comments: I'm not a Christian, but I know the typical response to this premise is that God does want to correct the defect of all non-believers. In order to do this, he would have to erase freewill, which for unknown reasons he does not. The question then becomes, could God somehow make it impossible for all human beings to reject him without taking away freewill? Maybe, especially since he is supposedly an omni-competent God. One cannot know why God doesn't fix the "problem" with unbelievers," except through his attempts to communicate with humanity with vague and contradictory bible writings. However, even if freewill cannot remain a possibility, it is irrational for a perfect, all loving God to create the potential for his creation to spend eternity in hell. The expense of freewill far outweighs its benefit.
Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that if humanity is the result of natural processes alone, humans should not trust their reasoning faculties. This is because one's reasoning processes are a result of the blind, purposeless process of natural selection. It seems to me that whether God exists or not, reasoning abilities are unequally distributed among humans. This closer correlates with a blind, natural process rather than a divinely inspired, creation account.
Sarah, good points.
The value of free will is highly overrated: if someone were about to assault me, it would be perfectly justifiable for the cops to restrain the perp against his will. The same holds true for someone about to commit suicide: overriding his free will is for his own good. So, if nonbelievers are truly in the dark about reality, it's not counter-intuitive at all to think a loving and compassionate being would wish to force our eyes open. Christians need to supply strong argumentation for supposing otherwise.
Post a Comment