Contradictions

[crimsonleaf]

I'm not reading that whole link.

If you want to answer my questions you can.

spoonfeedmode/off

 

[Resha Caner]

So God can't make bad things good except when he can?

Huh? Where did I say that? Rape will never be good under any circumstances. However, if poor treatment of women finally causes someone to stand against it, then some good might eventually result from it. That was the intent of my comment about Pakistani women. I guess if they want to wear a burka, etc. that's fine. I wouldn't object. But forcing it (along with all the other things that go with that) is tough. I feel bad for them. I wish it were different. Unfortunately, the men raised in that environment are more likely to think that's the way it should be.

One argument I often get is: you can't say Christianity is "right". You're just inclined to think that because you were raised Christian. What I meant is that I'm not disputing that. I am more inclined toward Christianity because I was raised by Christian parents. No doubt about it. A Muslim boy is going to be more inclined toward an acceptance of Islam. That's what makes fighting against ideas like jihad so difficult.

So, the next argument I get is: Well then it's not fair for the Christian God to punish people raised in those other cultures. They can't help it. In short, my reply is that they can help it. It would be a long discussion to make that more than trite. But, the fact is, just because those born into Muslim families are inclined toward Islam doesn't mean all of them believe it. But that's a long conversation.

This line against the Biblical genocides is based on the assumption that every single child of those civilisations will be wholly unregenerate and unrepentant, which is dubious.

I didn't say they were. Note I've said that IMO death is not the worst thing. Nor did I equate that wiping out Sodom meant all those who died went to hell. Third, recall the conversation between God and Abraham before the calamity came. "If there are 100 people, 10 people, etc." Abraham was asking the same questions you are. If God's reason was simply to send all of Sodom to hell, then Isaiah 64:6 applies. God should have wiped out the whole planet. I'm not going to claim I know God's reasons for everything he did in the Bible, but the message I get from Gen 19 is: This culture is not going to continue. I'm going to wipe it out.

"Tough row to hoe" means "eat fire and brimstone, sinner"

I think I've explained that this isn't what I meant.

Being a utilitarian, I like that some Christians are inclined to go utilitarian when it suits, but those kinds of arguments cannot reasonably account for all of God's actions in the Bible.

And I think I explained that I'm not generalizing. I was speaking of one specific event and the message I got from it. It doesn't necessarily apply every time, nor will I claim that I have the only correct interpretation of Gen 19.

Don't make the punishment eternal when it's his [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-up in the first place.

I could agree with you about the first part of that phrase. Don't make it eternal. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I'm not God.

As for the last part, I don't see an alternative. It goes back to my analogy. If I give someone a machine and tell them, "It will do p," and their reply is, "I'll take your machine, but I want it to do q, and I'm going to blame you because it doesn't." ... well, I just don't get that attitude. The analogy was meant more to say, "Fine. Take the machine and do with it whatever you please. If you can change it, and if you think that change is going to be better, have at it. But don't expect me to participate. My proposal for cleaning up the mess is 'heaven', but if you disagree, go your way and we'll call that 'hell.' "

Don't judge people for making honest decisions to not follow him because there is no good evidence for belief.

I wouldn't agree that there is "no good evidence."

 

[trientje]

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered PhilVaz Phil Philip Phillip Porvaznik

I came across this site and want to send the above. If you people are truly studying the contradictions of the bible then this site might help as a guide. I have been a Christian for a long time and I'm still learning and questioning. The bible is a book, if read and studied with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will reveal itself to the sincere seeker. Good luck to you with your search.

 

[Paradoxum]

I see. I don't think that falsifies Gen 2. The positions of some people conflict with Gen 2, but they don't falsify it.

What do you mean? Humans were created through evolution, not dust.

Actually, you do. Welcome to big brother. It's called a social contract. Sure, you can do anything you want, but then don't expect anything back from society.

Well that is pretty sad if that is the only reason you don't do bad things.

As I said, I don't need an authority above me, to be good.

You can say it that way if you want (that he makes stuff up). I don't think his design was arbitrary, but neither do I think he had to do it the way he did.

And I had a good theological reason for that when I was a Christian... better than the moral relativism you attribute to the God and world below.

You seem to miss the point though. God can't do contradictions. He can't make bad things good. As such, he gave us a list. If you kill, it hurts, so let's call that bad. If you steal, rape, pillage ... bad, bad, bad. Rape hurts because God didn't want it to happen, and doing what God doesn't want hurts.

What? That doesn't make any sense. It is nearly always the victim who gets hurt, not criminal. Why would God do that? Is he just sadistic? Rape is wrong so hurt the rape victim? If God were good (and works in the way you say) it could be the rapist who is hurt.

No, things hurt and that is why they are wrong. Put very very simply. You have it backwards and make God look like the devil.

It is your judgement that it wasn't necessary. So, you are judging God. By what standard? If you can prove an absolute standard to me apart from God, I'd be surprised.

Well if you think it is necessary aren't you putting something above God, forcing him to do something?

I'm judging your interpretation of the Bible, not God Himself.

In the case of Sodom, what would those children likely have grown up to accept? That the horrible things occurring there were justified. People always throw at me this, "People born Christian are more likely to be Christian, those born Muslim are more likely to be Muslim" thing as an argument against Christianity. But I don't disagree. Being born a woman in Pakistan means you've been given a tough row to hoe. Absolutely.

What is your point here? Sorry.

I suppose I differ from you in thinking that death is not the worst possible thing. Some of the things that have happened to my children were more painful than what my own death will be. And, yeah, I know that. At one point in my life I was told that if treatment failed, I had 6 months to live. Not a fun place to be. But what one of my sons went through ... I would have died to spare him that.

I agree that death isn't the worst thing. Death doesn't have to be a bad thing.

You missed the point. The design has been violated, and we must suffer the consequences.

Except that God is a person, not a force, so He has a choice.

But, OK. Let's say you're right and God messed up. It didn't seem to work to wipe everything out and start over (Noah), so what should God do? I don't know, maybe offer life after death to those who want to do it his way? And let those who don't want to do it his way completely separate from him?

By the way, I'm not saying God messed up... my point is that your interpretation is incorrect.

God could let people know he is there, and what his way is, and then allow those into heaven who want Him. Then those who reject him could either be allowed die forever, or live in a limbo, in which they could escape is they repent.

Some of the repetitive things that bored me when I was young don't bore as much now - maybe because I've learned that each time I do it, it's a little bit different.

Perhaps you are right.

Time is physical? In what sense? Can you see it, touch it, smell it, taste it? It makes for a nice model for science, but other than that ...

It can be bent. It is different in different places in the universe because gravity bends it. This has been proven by satellites.

You didn't like my answer. I think that is because we're assuming different things and analyzing the text in different ways.

Probably.

spoonfeedmode/off

This forum is for discussion, not you telling me to read a whole freaking book, most of which I have probably heard before. If you don't want to explain your point of view then that is fair enough, but don't be giving me some nonsense about spoon-feeding. I'm not going to read a whole book because some random internet guy told me to.

If you meant it as a joke, then sorry, but it looked more like an insult to me.

 

[GenetoJean]

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered PhilVaz Phil Philip Phillip Porvaznik

I came across this site and want to send the above. If you people are truly studying the contradictions of the bible then this site might help as a guide. I have been a Christian for a long time and I'm still learning and questioning. The bible is a book, if read and studied with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will reveal itself to the sincere seeker. Good luck to you with your search.

I just read through several and some were listed as "copiest errors". If there are any errors of any type then there can be other errors. Either the Bible is perfect, and then I can believe God directly controlled the writing of the whole Bible or it isnt, in which case humans put stuff in it. If it is the second then everything has to be researched to be seen if it is correct and just because it is in the Bible it cant be assumed to be correct.

 

[Resha Caner]

What do you mean? Humans were created through evolution, not dust.

I'm not as convinced of that as you seem to be.

Well that is pretty sad if that is the only reason you don't do bad things.

I never said it was the sole motivation for my actions.

As I said, I don't need an authority above me, to be good.

I don't believe that you've never done anything to end up on Santa's naughty list. You are good only by your personal standard of good. If everyone has a different standard, then there is no standard.

Well if you think it is necessary aren't you putting something above God, forcing him to do something?

I don't understand.

What is your point here? Sorry.

I expanded on that to Gadarene.

Except that God is a person, not a force, so He has a choice.

A choice to do what? Make a rule and then not enforce it because you don't like it? I don't see that as a very workable idea.

God could let people know he is there, and what his way is, and then allow those into heaven who want Him.

I think that's what God has done. As far as the repenting thing, I don't see how it would ever be genuine if you're holding their feet to the fire. There's just no point in it.

What? That doesn't make any sense. It is nearly always the victim who gets hurt, not criminal. Why would God do that? Is he just sadistic? Rape is wrong so hurt the rape victim? If God were good (and works in the way you say) it could be the rapist who is hurt.


No, things hurt and that is why they are wrong. Put very very simply. You have it backwards and make God look like the devil.

Wow. It's not like I ever thought I was seen as a moral beacon at CF, but ... well ... if you think I'm sympathizing with the criminal ... I dunno. I'm not sure what to say that isn't going to be distorted. Rape does hurt the criminal, but that's not what I was saying nor does it excuse the crime or obviate the punishment.

The hurt to the victim is surely the more horrid, the larger loss, the greater tragedy ...


Let's just drop it.

 

[trientje]

I just read through several and some were listed as "copiest errors". If there are any errors of any type then there can be other errors. Either the Bible is perfect, and then I can believe God directly controlled the writing of the whole Bible or it isnt, in which case humans put stuff in it. If it is the second then everything has to be researched to be seen if it is correct and just because it is in the Bible it cant be assumed to be correct.

Oh well, I sent the above to give you a resource.

So these contradictions have been around a while. Keep in mind that we are not biblical scholars, and our replies are not intended as the "final word" in these matters. Instead, they are offered as possible, even plausible, ways to resolve the apparent contradictions. If they succeed at doing merely this, the contradictions have not been established and the critic has not adequately shouldered his/her burden. Enjoy.

the article was not meant to be an exhaustive search. As a matter of fact the above was quoted in the article. Perceived bible contradictions can take a life time to solve for the bible is self revealing but only after exhaustive study.

 

[GenetoJean]

Oh well, I sent the above to give you a resource.

the article was not meant to be an exhaustive search. As a matter of fact the above was quoted in the article. Perceived bible contradictions can take a life time to solve for the bible is self revealing but only after exhaustive study.

That is true. There could be lots of reasons, I admit.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I just read through several and some were listed as "copiest errors". If there are any errors of any type then there can be other errors. Either the Bible is perfect, and then I can believe God directly controlled the writing of the whole Bible or it isnt, in which case humans put stuff in it. If it is the second then everything has to be researched to be seen if it is correct and just because it is in the Bible it cant be assumed to be correct.

Most people claiming biblical inerrancy claim that they are so in the "original autographs", or original writings. Copiest errors are errors made over time which transpose numbers or mis-spell names. No copiest error is claimed to be responsible for altering the meaning of a particular phrase or any doctrine or dogma associated with it, with a couple of notable exceptions. One such exception is the famous "adulterer's bible" in which the word "not" was omitted from "Thou shalt not commit adultery", rendering it "Thou shalt commit adultery". Such blatant errors become infamous in their own right.

As such, you can rely on the bible saying in essence exactly what God and the original authors intended it to.

 

[GenetoJean]

Most people claiming biblical inerrancy claim that they are so in the "original autographs", or original writings. Copiest errors are errors made over time which transpose numbers or mis-spell names. No copiest error is claimed to be responsible for altering the meaning of a particular phrase or any doctrine or dogma associated with it, with a couple of notable exceptions. One such exception is the famous "adulterer's bible" in which the word "not" was omitted from "Thou shalt not commit adultery", rendering it "Thou shalt commit adultery". Such blatant errors become infamous in their own right.

As such, you can rely on the bible saying in essence exactly what God and the original authors intended it to.

If God allowed copiest errors then he didnt control the translation. Man could have translated it to say what he thought it was going to say. Everyone who translates it even now, I believe, still does.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm not as convinced of that as you seem to be.

Do you look into and reject other science theories?

I rejected evolution for a little once, until I realised how hypocritical it was to accept science all other times, but rejection evolution just because a few Christians say otherwise, and give alternative facts.

I never said it was the sole motivation for my actions.

Well I hope you wouldn't say the same of me then.

I don't believe that you've never done anything to end up on Santa's naughty list. You are good only by your personal standard of good. If everyone has a different standard, then there is no standard.

I've been a very good girl.

The rest of your point is no better than saying that there is no morality because people disagree with God, or get things wrong. People getting maths wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer.

A choice to do what? Make a rule and then not enforce it because you don't like it? I don't see that as a very workable idea.

God didn't make up morality to begin with. But He shouldn't be killing people like that because it is immoral. God doesn't enforce morality anyway. He lets children starve to death, and millions of Jews to suffer and die in the holocaust. Perhaps allowing it to happen in ok for God (or perhaps not), but history proves that God doesn't enforce morality on earth.

I think that's what God has done. As far as the repenting thing, I don't see how it would ever be genuine if you're holding their feet to the fire. There's just no point in it.

I don't think you should burn those people. Causing literal eternal pain is a worse than anything any criminal or demon could do.

Wow. It's not like I ever thought I was seen as a moral beacon at CF, but ... well ... if you think I'm sympathizing with the criminal ... I dunno. I'm not sure what to say that isn't going to be distorted. Rape does hurt the criminal, but that's not what I was saying nor does it excuse the crime or obviate the punishment.

The hurt to the victim is surely the more horrid, the larger loss, the greater tragedy ...

Let's just drop it.

I didn't say you sympathized with the criminal. You said that God makes the breaking of his rules hurt, but it is the victim (who is innocent) who gets hurt, not the one breaking the rules. So it doesn't make sense.

 

[Gadarene]

Huh? Where did I say that? Rape will never be good under any circumstances. However, if poor treatment of women finally causes someone to stand against it, then some good might eventually result from it. That was the intent of my comment about Pakistani women. I guess if they want to wear a burka, etc. that's fine. I wouldn't object. But forcing it (along with all the other things that go with that) is tough. I feel bad for them. I wish it were different. Unfortunately, the men raised in that environment are more likely to think that's the way it should be.

One argument I often get is: you can't say Christianity is "right". You're just inclined to think that because you were raised Christian. What I meant is that I'm not disputing that. I am more inclined toward Christianity because I was raised by Christian parents. No doubt about it. A Muslim boy is going to be more inclined toward an acceptance of Islam. That's what makes fighting against ideas like jihad so difficult.

So, the next argument I get is: Well then it's not fair for the Christian God to punish people raised in those other cultures. They can't help it. In short, my reply is that they can help it. It would be a long discussion to make that more than trite. But, the fact is, just because those born into Muslim families are inclined toward Islam doesn't mean all of them believe it. But that's a long conversation.

Okie doke. I'm sorry, then, for severely getting the wrong end of the stick. I still think that argument of "ours" for want of a better descriptor doesn't go as far as you seem to think it does - proponents of it will readily admit there are exceptions, people who go against the predominant religious/cultural majority.

But this would seem to be in favour of the argument against the necessity of divine genocides - because there are always exceptions, and it's rather implausible to think that all of the members of a civilisation were 100% down with the entirety of its culture.

I didn't say they were. Note I've said that IMO death is not the worst thing. Nor did I equate that wiping out Sodom meant all those who died went to hell. Third, recall the conversation between God and Abraham before the calamity came. "If there are 100 people, 10 people, etc." Abraham was asking the same questions you are. If God's reason was simply to send all of Sodom to hell, then Isaiah 64:6 applies. God should have wiped out the whole planet. I'm not going to claim I know God's reasons for everything he did in the Bible, but the message I get from Gen 19 is: This culture is not going to continue. I'm going to wipe it out.

They may not have ended up in hell - but there's still an inconsistency in what God tells me to do vs what he actually does. Even if someone is destined to go to heaven that's still not a reason to end their life. But as ever with Yahweh, it's do as I say, not as I do.

The problems here are the aforementioned unlikelihood of an entire culture's population buying wholesale into the culture that God has decided to end - and the arbitrariness with which he ended some cultures and not others.

Given that we are talking about an omnipotent deity, simply wiping out an entire civilisation that's doing some bad things smacks of a lack of imagination.

I could agree with you about the first part of that phrase. Don't make it eternal. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I'm not God.

I think the attitude of "but how can you judge GOD?!" also functions as a mental block to considering these things. I can understand the reaction to some degree, having been there once myself but I'm glad that particular block is gone as it stopped me from considering certain arguments.

As for the last part, I don't see an alternative.

I was under the impression we were assuming that God did foul this one up for the sake of discussion, happy to not merely assume it and discuss further though.....

It goes back to my analogy. If I give someone a machine and tell them, "It will do p," and their reply is, "I'll take your machine, but I want it to do q, and I'm going to blame you because it doesn't." ... well, I just don't get that attitude. The analogy was meant more to say, "Fine. Take the machine and do with it whatever you please. If you can change it, and if you think that change is going to be better, have at it. But don't expect me to participate. My proposal for cleaning up the mess is 'heaven', but if you disagree, go your way and we'll call that 'hell.' "

As with many earthly analogies for God, they only ever work so far.

For one thing, if I was hiring machinery, I wouldn't expect someone to immolate me for misuse of it.

For another thing, God is not supposed to be fallible - why would he hire machinery out to someone knowing they will misuse it? And what's more - he made the person knowing they would be inclined to misuse machinery!

God has far, far more control over the parameters of this scenario that we ever could, but we're expected to shoulder the entirety of the blame for it. Goodness, even mutual acknowledgement of foul-ups would be something - but that isn't even on the cards. No, damnation for total depravity it is, even though we're not the omnipotent/omniscient ones.

To carry the analogy further, in most human-constructed hierarchies, superiority correlates with greater responsibility, yes? So why doesn't the same apply to God?

As an additional nitpick, I'd also say it's debatable as to what the machine actually can do, regardless of what the purpose is stated to be. You mentioned actual material harm that results from certain actions that God condemns, like rape. That we can agree on as wrong, even though I don't accept that there's a violation of God's intent/design going on. Because there is an actual material harm there. There are other actions though that are stated as sins but do not produce material harm, such as homosexuality, but they're verboten anyway.

I wouldn't agree that there is "no good evidence."

As you honestly see it - sure. I can buy that you think that, even though I don't think the same. We're both honestly calling it as we see it - but I don't think that's reason to damn someone if they don't come to the conclusion God wants them to. It's basically condemnation over a disagreement which strikes me as inherently unreasonable.

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you look into and reject other science theories?

Yes. Do you accept them all?

Well I hope you wouldn't say the same of me then.

I never did. Nor did I claim my motivations are always right such that I need no guidance.

The rest of your point is no better than saying that there is no morality because people disagree with God, or get things wrong. People getting maths wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer.

So you believe there is a "correct answer"? How does one determine that?

Causing literal eternal pain is a worse than anything any criminal or demon could do.

Your attribution of cause is different than mine, so we're just talking past each other.

 

[Resha Caner]

As with many earthly analogies for God, they only ever work so far.

I realize that. Fair enough to make your objections to it, but an analogy is only meant to make a point. If the analogy becomes the argument, it has lost its effectiveness.

I was under the impression we were assuming that God did foul this one up for the sake of discussion, happy to not merely assume it and discuss further though.....

Based on this comment, I wonder if you haven't heard my point yet. So, please allow me to start over, and I'll try to be more explicit.

Actor A creates a world.
A creates actor B to live in that world.

There are two possible states in this world.
1) The desires of A and B are aligned.
2) The desires of A and B are misaligned.

We will say that state 2 causes pain and state 1 does not.

There are 2 possible causes for state 2.
i) A takes direct action to stop B (e.g. they are put in prison to stop them from drunken behavior)
ii) B suffers the "natural" consequences of what they desired to do (e.g. they get drunk and drive a car into a wall)

B can have 2 possible reactions to this.
a) B can agree to change desires to align with A
b) B can say they no longer want to associate with A. They want to separate and no longer be ruled by the authority of A.

In both cases, A replies, "OK." But there is a stipulation. A will not make B a god. Therefore, even in the separated condition, B must continue to contend with "nature." However, as B wishes, A will no longer take direct action (cause i will not exist in the separated state) to prevent anything from happening.

The result is that B experiences cause ii, but doesn't die. So the experience occurs over and over and over for all eternity. You might reply that you expect B will eventually learn not to do ii. Well, realize that the actual case will involve billions and billions of people, and given the history of the world and what people have managed to accomplish so far, I doubt it. But, good luck with that.

 

[Gadarene]

Actor A creates a world.
A creates actor B to live in that world.

There are two possible states in this world.
1) The desires of A and B are aligned.
2) The desires of A and B are misaligned.

We will say that state 2 causes pain and state 1 does not.

There are 2 possible causes for state 2.
i) A takes direct action to stop B (e.g. they are put in prison to stop them from drunken behavior)
ii) B suffers the "natural" consequences of what they desired to do (e.g. they get drunk and drive a car into a wall)

Re: the red - do you mean "reactions"/"consequences", something like that, or "causes"? I'm not really understanding how A stopping B from committing a particular act "causes" their desires to be misaligned.

I'd really rather we deal with this conceptually rather than through formalisms though. I'm not having much success figuring out what you're driving at here. I'll try and bear in mind that you might have different conceptualisations of certain Christian concepts than I might be expecting.

 

[Resha Caner]

Re: the red - do you mean "reactions"/"consequences", something like that, or "causes"? I'm not really understanding how A stopping B from committing a particular act "causes" their desires to be misaligned.

You're right. "Cause" isn't the proper word. I suppose "reaction" might be better, but I'm saying the possibilies are i) reaction, and ii) no reaction ... at least that's probably how you would interpret it. But that isn't how I see it. It's more that i) is God's "willful" interaction with the world and ii) is his "mechanistic" interaction with the world. Maybe that's too much of a rat's nest to try to untangle it here. We can just say that i) = reaction and ii) = no reaction.

I'd really rather we deal with this conceptually rather than through formalisms though. I'm not having much success figuring out what you're driving at here. I'll try and bear in mind that you might have different conceptualisations of certain Christian concepts than I might be expecting.

I know my formalisms are a bit loose and would need to be tightened up, but I would prefer working with formalisms ... it was my intent from the beginning ... to see where that would lead.

Oh well.

I'm running out of ways to say this. IMO too many "interpretations" of the Bible are just cherry picking. Whether for or against, people settle in on their favorite verse and refuse to discuss anything else. When one finds a verse that says 1) God does X, and another verse that says 2) God does ~X, there are several options:

A) Only accept 1 and reject 2 as myth, alleogry, error, or whatever excuse one can conjour. The same goes for accepting 2 and rejecting 1.

B) Reject both 1 and 2 and say the Bible is nonsense.

C) Accept both 1 and 2 along with accepting that maybe the X and ~X interpretations are a false dichotomy.

Not that I'm perfect, but C is where I typically try to go. So, WRT this discussion, I think people are cherry picking when they conclude things like:

* Hell is God actively punishing people. He just sits around all day getting his jollies from causing people pain.
* It's not God doing the punishing. Rather, he sent demons to hell to do his dirty work for him.

Rather, hell is God saying, "OK, I'm going to completely withdraw from the world. You want me gone? I'm gone. But I feel I should warn you. Once I leave, you're not going to like it. And when you see that, it will be too late. I keep my promises. I'm not coming back."

 

[Gadarene]

You're right. "Cause" isn't the proper word. I suppose "reaction" might be better, but I'm saying the possibilies are i) reaction, and ii) no reaction.



I know my formalisms are a bit loose and would need to be tightened up, but I would prefer working with formalisms ... it was my intent from the beginning ... to see where that would lead.

Oh well.

I'm running out of ways to say this. IMO too many "interpretations" of the Bible are just cherry picking. Whether for or against, people settle in on their favorite verse and refuse to discuss anything else.

When one finds a verse that says 1) God does X, and another verse that says 2) God does ~X, there are several options:

A) Only accept 1 and reject 2 as myth, alleogry, error, or whatever excuse one can conjour. The same goes for accepting 2 and rejecting 1.

B) Reject both 1 and 2 and say the Bible is nonsense.

C) Accept both 1 and 2 along with accepting that maybe the X and ~X interpretations are a false dichotomy.

Not that I'm perfect, but C is where I typically try to go. So, WRT this discussion, I think people are cherry picking when they conclude things like:

* Hell is God actively punishing people. He just sits around all day getting his jollies from causing people pain.
* It's not God doing the punishing. Rather, he sent demons to hell to do his dirty work for him.

Rather, hell is God saying, "OK, I'm going to completely withdraw from the world. You want me gone? I'm gone. But I feel I should warn you. Once I leave, you're not going to like it. And when you see that, it will be too late. I keep my promises. I'm not coming back."

Wasn't trying to be a pain, but I can work with this.

(WRT the issue of a verse existing that claims God does X and one that claims God does ~X, more often than not defenders of Christianity overplay one verse and downplay the other. So I'll usually play the contradicting verse against such arguments. If you're trying to harmonise them, then fair enough. )

In short, my objections are:

1. I don't accept that the consequences from sin are necessarily as mechanistic as this. I think there is no good reason to think God isn't in control of those as he is claimed to be for anything else. And I mean the whole gamut - right from the response of this world/earth/universe to the introduction of the sin (the fall) to his response to those who die without having fulfilled his salvific requirements.

2. The options you have described are, simply put, not the only options available.

Or, to go back to your formalism now that the quibble I had with it has been cleared up:

Actor A creates a world.
A creates actor B to live in that world.

There are two possible states in this world.
1) The desires of A and B are aligned.
2) The desires of A and B are misaligned.

We will say that state 2 causes pain and state 1 does not.

Granted.

There are 2 possible causes for state 2.
i) A takes direct action to stop B (e.g. they are put in prison to stop them from drunken behavior)
ii) B suffers the "natural" consequences of what they desired to do (e.g. they get drunk and drive a car into a wall)

Here's my first issue - regardless of whether or not we mean "natural" as in material consequences, or "natural" as in sin "naturally" places you in hell (do not agree with), those are both something God has control over, being omnipotent. The reaction of the world to sin was under his control. The consequences of the fall were under his control. His reaction to sin is under his control. His judgement of sin is under his control. You can't just sidestep all that by asserting that it's "natural". I'm a utilitarian as I said, so I'm amenable to judging things as wrong based on their resulting material harms/benefits, but as I mentioned there are problems with that when it comes to God - firstly, some of his proscriptions involve things that really don't have any discernable material harms (homosexuality, e.g.), and secondly, the punishment is still disproportionate to the harm that could ever be caused by a sinful act in this life.

I would also argue that there are several ways that God could ensure that there is a greatly reduced risk of a sin occurring in the first place, that are not commonly regarded by Christians as coercion or a violation of free will. For example, the vast majority of humans today do not feel tempted to sexually abuse children. Call it social conditioning or whatever - but such a thing isn't regarded as coercion, and the non-commission of that sin is a trivially simple thing to attain. Why not foster a society for mankind where all sins, or even just more sins provoked that level of disgust, and thus reduced the likelihood of said sins occurring? It's not a perfect solution, but it's plausible, better than the one we have now, and entirely consistent with our existing ideas of what constitutes coercion and non-coercion to perform a particular act.

B can have 2 possible reactions to this.
a) B can agree to change desires to align with A
b) B can say they no longer want to associate with A. They want to separate and no longer be ruled by the authority of A.

In both cases, A replies, "OK." But there is a stipulation. A will not make B a god.

You're not mentioning any alternatives for A's behaviour here, which is my other contention with this argument. Again, despite all the power being on A's side, all the responsibility is put on B.

A knows in advance that he will create people whose desires will oppose his - so why create them? Why not dispense with creating them?

Therefore, even in the separated condition, B must continue to contend with "nature." However, as B wishes, A will no longer take direct action (cause i will not exist in the separated state) to prevent anything from happening.

I'd argue that A is still taking direct action on various aspects of the person's life - they're still sustaining them if their existence is sustaining them. Also, see my earlier point about the social structure A has seen fit for B to be created into, which can have a severe effect on someone's likelihood of their desires conflicting with their creator's.

The result is that B experiences cause ii, but doesn't die. So the experience occurs over and over and over for all eternity. You might reply that you expect B will eventually learn not to do ii. Well, realize that the actual case will involve billions and billions of people, and given the history of the world and what people have managed to accomplish so far, I doubt it. But, good luck with that.

I've no idea whether this applies to this life or the next - but I'd imagine that once people actually do have a direct experience of god and then his absence as is claimed to await us after we die, surely they'd realise their mistake?

Again, if they genuinely have no experience of god before death, then wouldn't receiving that experience (after death) change their mind? Why then should A impose an arbitrary cutoff point where even if the person would change their mind, no respite will be given? Or am I wrong, and you hold to some form of "escapism", where there is hope for escaping hell?

Once more, sorry to go conceptual on you rather than formalistic - but as far as I'm understanding your formalism, it isn't a complete description of the scenario we're discussing, and to query it properly I have to go conceptual.

 

[Resha Caner]

1. I don't accept that the consequences from sin are necessarily as mechanistic as this.

Why not? Do you question the mechanistic nature of other things? Take something simple like the law F = ma (relativity aside). IMO it is a law because God has agreed to abide by that law. Every time you apply a force, F to a mass, m, it accelerates with magntiude, a.

To say, "Well, God is in control so if the result is unagreeable he should change it," misses the whole point. Once you take that step, you throw out the entire rule book. The result would be utter chaos - a universe where we have no idea what our actions will cause.

It seems a much better idea to me, to be told F = ma. OK, so that means if I hit someone with force, F ... (I'll skip a few steps here) it's going to hurt. That's the rule.

2. The options you have described are, simply put, not the only options available.

I realize one can imagine many possibilities, but I'd rather not go there. Let's stick with the actual options. If you've got one that I left out, we can consider it.

... the punishment is still disproportionate to the harm that could ever be caused by a sinful act in this life.

Well, 2 things. First, do we actually have a measure of pain such that we can weigh these in the balance? Keep in mind that it must be a full accounting. If I punch someone in the eye, and they thereby lose that eye, I have affected the course of their entire life (and all the lives that person touches) to the bloody end. How do we measure the impact of that?

Second, this reply still misunderstands what I'm trying to say (more later, see the *).

Why not foster a society for mankind where all sins, or even just more sins provoked that level of disgust, and thus reduced the likelihood of said sins occurring?

In short, because of the relativity of it. I'll use my son as an example (and to brag at the same time). My son is a top-ranked martial artist. As part of his training, he actually works to desensitize himself, i.e. so that when he gets hit it doesn't hurt as much (or so that he reacts appropriately when it does hurt). The same thing happens to soldiers. They become accustomed to doing things that civilians can't stomach. Or again with respect to vegetarians. I've not studied it in detail, but I've always suspected that butchers regard meat much differently than vegetarians.

So, let's say we do have a pain scale that goes from 1-10. God decides to create us so that we won't ever cause anyone a pain level above 5. Big deal. People will just say, "Why 5? I think 3 would be more tolerable." The end result is that God needs to eliminate all pain. OK, so I put my hand on a hot stove and feel no pain. That's not going to end well. Or, God intervenes every time a person is about to touch a hot stove (or programs us to avoid it). OK. Sounds pretty robotic to me.

The point is, there's no middle ground.

A knows in advance that he will create people whose desires will oppose his - so why create them? Why not dispense with creating them?

God created because it pleased him. I don't expect that answer is going to make you any happier, though.

I've no idea whether this applies to this life or the next ...

It was meant to imply the next life. God is going to allow you a next life ... a redo ... and you have 2 choices: Do you want your redo to be with or without him?

And this is where God is taking action. It's not, as you said, that God has all the power but all the responsibility is with us. The choice is there. And that is how I'm presenting this - (*) as a choice, not a punishment.

Again, if they genuinely have no experience of god before death, then wouldn't receiving that experience (after death) change their mind

There isn't a person who hasn't had the experience before death. So, I don't consider this an option.

 

[Gadarene]

Why not? Do you question the mechanistic nature of other things? Take something simple like the law F = ma (relativity aside). IMO it is a law because God has agreed to abide by that law. Every time you apply a force, F to a mass, m, it accelerates with magntiude, a.

To say, "Well, God is in control so if the result is unagreeable he should change it," misses the whole point. Once you take that step, you throw out the entire rule book. The result would be utter chaos - a universe where we have no idea what our actions will cause.

It seems a much better idea to me, to be told F = ma. OK, so that means if I hit someone with force, F ... (I'll skip a few steps here) it's going to hurt. That's the rule.

Normally I don't question mechanism, but that's because I'm not normally in the business of thinking personal agents instituted the laws of physics.

When that's under discussion, then yes, yes I will point out that it's not mechanistic because there is a personal agent involved in the institution of those very laws - which begs the question of why this set of laws and not another, particularly if it would alter the proportion of which of his creations attained salvation.

I'm more concerned about this mechanistic concept making its way into holding God to account for his choices. Those are not mechanistic - and they include the choice of consequences. All consequences, as he has control over everything.

Well, 2 things. First, do we actually have a measure of pain such that we can weigh these in the balance? Keep in mind that it must be a full accounting. If I punch someone in the eye, and they thereby lose that eye, I have affected the course of their entire life (and all the lives that person touches) to the bloody end. How do we measure the impact of that?

Erm...it's trivial to notice that it's finite at the very least. Not least because they'll die eventually and won't be suffering from it in the next life.

In short, because of the relativity of it. I'll use my son as an example (and to brag at the same time). My son is a top-ranked martial artist. As part of his training, he actually works to desensitize himself, i.e. so that when he gets hit it doesn't hurt as much (or so that he reacts appropriately when it does hurt). The same thing happens to soldiers. They become accustomed to doing things that civilians can't stomach. Or again with respect to vegetarians. I've not studied it in detail, but I've always suspected that butchers regard meat much differently than vegetarians.

So, let's say we do have a pain scale that goes from 1-10. God decides to create us so that we won't ever cause anyone a pain level above 5. Big deal. People will just say, "Why 5? I think 3 would be more tolerable." The end result is that God needs to eliminate all pain. OK, so I put my hand on a hot stove and feel no pain. That's not going to end well. Or, God intervenes every time a person is about to touch a hot stove (or programs us to avoid it). OK. Sounds pretty robotic to me.

No, he doesn't have to rule out all pain. Only that which matches up with what he calls sin (which in turn, what comprises "sin" is a set of parameters entirely under his control). Again, you do not consider the fact that what we already have available - a world where the vast majority of people find it incredibly easy to not commit child abuse - is arguably "robotic" in turn.

God created because it pleased him. I don't expect that answer is going to make you any happier, though.

It pleases him knowing that his creation is unerringly going to reject him and end up being tormented forever? Sounds like the sadism angle is right on the money, in that case. I'd rather not have existed if it turns out I'm wrong and at the end of it all there's a deity who's going to let me be tormented for the sheer crime of having the honestly-held opinion that he doesn't exist.

Of course, this suggests that he doesn't care about minimising suffering, only maximising his pleasure - so maybe his moral standard is hedonism, not utilitarianism.

It was meant to imply the next life. God is going to allow you a next life ... a redo ... and you have 2 choices: Do you want your redo to be with or without him?

And as I pointed out - just saying "without him" doesn't give him the right to torment you, nor to wash his hands of his role in that - especially given that not all people experience him, not always through any fault of their own.

But if many people got to the next life, and realised their mistake - given that many people would have made that mistake honestly, would forgiveness still be an option by that point? If not, why not? Why the arbitrary cutoff? I can't say I'm optimistic given that creating something doomed to damnation is what this entity finds enjoyable.

And this is where God is taking action. It's not, as you said, that God has all the power but all the responsibility with with us. The choice is there. And that is how I'm presenting this - (*) as a choice, not a punishment.

His reaction to that choice is entirely his choice, which arguably comprises a punishment. You are trying to turn this into a false dilemma and absolve God of his role in choosing what to do with us.

There isn't a person who hasn't had the experience before death. So, I don't consider this an option.

Nope. There are plenty of people who simply don't have a convincing personal experience of God, and not for want of asking. Another reason why if the god you describe is for real, then he either better not be condemning people to torment for disagreeing with him, or he had better be prepared to admit at least one foul-up.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes. Do you accept them all?

Yes, the ones which have been proven. I'm not arrogant enough to think that without proper training I would know better. Science has proven to be much more trustworthy than any one particular interpretation of the Bible.

So you believe there is a "correct answer"? How does one determine that?

Reason, evidence, etc.

Your attribution of cause is different than mine, so we're just talking past each other.

God didn't create hell?