The Futile Arguments Thread

[Stevil]

God is allowing Satan to work for a common goal, - "God's Glory"

God works all things in revealing his glory.

Without Satan, God's plan "glory" simply would not work. Satan is crucial towards God's glory.
Satan is much more important and essential than any of the angels, saints, or apostles. It would be quite an interesting debate to work out which character is more important Jesus or Satan.

If one believes in God and Satan then one could see the vital importance Satan offers in making God's plan an actuality. Satan should be praised for the tireless effort and hard work seemingly in a selfless fashion, whilst only being vilified by God's worshipers in return.

I would actually say that Christians ought to love Satan just as an all loving God no doubt would love Satan. The work Satan is providing is actually getting you closer to heaven as it helps to challenge you and provides you with ample opportunity to learn and to grow and to prove your worth to God.

If Satan stopped working, then God's plan would be ruined. There would be no free will, not tests, no good and evil, earth would be pointless for Christians.
I actually read into the bible that God and Satan are one in the same. If they are not then they are very, very close and both are working tirelessly towards the same goal, the salvation of your soul.

Of course I believe in neither, and have no vested interest in promoting Satan, but I do see the strange false dichotomy imposed by Christians on to the concepts of God and Satan. A catch-22 where Satan is vilified however essential in God's plan. Same thing goes for Judas who was crucial in God's plan for the resurrection which was extremely important and positive for Christians.
 
Of course this is all based on the stories of the bible, which I currently don't have a belief that this book can be trusted.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

God is allowing Satan to work for a common goal, - "God's Glory"

God works all things in revealing his glory.

Without Satan, God's plan "glory" simply would not work. Satan is crucial towards God's glory.
Satan is much more important and essential than any of the angels, saints, or apostles. It would be quite an interesting debate to work out which character is more important Jesus or Satan.

If one believes in God and Satan then one could see the vital importance Satan offers in making God's plan an actuality. Satan should be praised for the tireless effort and hard work seemingly in a selfless fashion, whilst only being vilified by God's worshipers in return.

I would actually say that Christians ought to love Satan just as an all loving God no doubt would love Satan. The work Satan is providing is actually getting you closer to heaven as it helps to challenge you and provides you with ample opportunity to learn and to grow and to prove your worth to God.

If Satan stopped working, then God's plan would be ruined. There would be no free will, not tests, no good and evil, earth would be pointless for Christians.
I actually read into the bible that God and Satan are one in the same. If they are not then they are very, very close and both are working tirelessly towards the same goal, the salvation of your soul.

Of course I believe in neither, and have no vested interest in promoting Satan, but I do see the strange false dichotomy imposed by Christians on to the concepts of God and Satan. A catch-22 where Satan is vilified however essential in God's plan. Same thing goes for Judas who was crucial in God's plan for the resurrection which was extremely important and positive for Christians.
 
Of course this is all based on the stories of the bible, which I currently don't have a belief that this book can be trusted.

What I think would like to see is Satan repenting. That'd throw everyone for a loop.  

[Stevil]

What I think would like to see is Satan repenting. That'd throw everyone for a loop.  

or the Trinity expanded with Satan being the new member to the fold.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Accuser

Funny, looking up "Satan" on Wiki

...an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith

Seems this was the original Hebrew idea of Satan but it got changed (bastardised) by Christianity and Islam.
The Hebrew idea seems much more logical to me, but the importance is so staggering I would be tempted to expand the Trinity.

Vote Stevil for Pope, and I will delivery you the Quadrinity!

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

What I think would like to see is Satan repenting. That'd throw everyone for a loop.  

or the Trinity expanded with Satan being the new member to the fold.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Accuser

Funny, looking up "Satan" on Wiki

...an accuser appointed by God to test men's faith

Seems this was the original Hebrew idea of Satan but it got changed (bastardised) by Christianity and Islam.
The Hebrew idea seems much more logical to me, but the importance is so staggering I would be tempted to expand the Trinity.

Vote Stevil for Pope, and I will delivery you the Quadrinity!

I just find it a cruel joke that we have to believe on "faith", or be tested, especially when something as ridiculous as eternal suffering of our souls is on the line.

[Stevil]

I just find it a cruel joke that we have to believe on "faith", or be tested, especially when something as ridiculous as eternal suffering of our souls is on the line.

A non Christian would see this as the push (motive) for one to trust the bible and just go with it, it works especially well with children who start off with a trusting nature and desire to learn but only develop reasoning and doubt later on in their lives.

There are also a lot of people in the world with superstition fueled fear of the unknown, especially in countries that lack an offering of decent education.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

I just find it a cruel joke that we have to believe on "faith", or be tested, especially when something as ridiculous as eternal suffering of our souls is on the line.

A non Christian would see this as the push (motive) for one to trust the bible and just go with it, it works especially well with children who start off with a trusting nature and desire to learn but only develop reasoning and doubt later on in their lives.

There are also a lot of people in the world with superstition fueled fear of the unknown, especially in countries that lack an offering of decent education.

For those who don't have the scientific knowledge we do, superstitious beliefs fill a natural human desire to "know" what this life, this reality, is all about. Two thousand or so years ago I'm sure this was one of the most valid understanding about the Universe available, but old habits die hard, eh?

And yes. Children see their parents as God, as perfect, and believe whatever they're told for the most part, at least untill they reach the "age of reason." Though certain beliefs, especially if the entire community around the family believes the same thing, will last well into adulthood, religious beliefs especially, though this is probably because of the fear of Hell that was instilled in them in their younger days more than anything else.

The reason we don't believe in Santa Claus anymore is because nobody ever said you'd go to Hell for not believing.

[LegendarySandwich]

The reason we don't believe in Santa Claus anymore is because nobody ever said you'd go to Hell for not believing.

Then why do we have adult Buddhists? The reasons for continued religiosity are far more complex than simply the notion of Hell.

[defendor]

Salvation is not for Angels

Other religions try to compensate for the sin and suffering of this world.  Buddhism is a reclusion to an inner state of peace that is unaffected by the brokenness of the world around.  Hinduism says all is God, the good, and the bad.  So every religion deals with the question of evil.

Stevil- Why do we trust in the bible?  Because it is not about us.  We are dependent on an interactive God to build us up, not our own effort.  

If we are mostly good, why is there so much evil?

I also think you misinterpret Satan.  In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve already had the choice to do bad or good.  But Satan is known as the "tempter".  The bible also says that we are dragged away by our own flesh and enticed by our own desires.  So the ability to do bad or good is already within us.  Satan and his minions only tempt us, but never push us in any direction.  But in our own desire, we already do bad.  We don't do the good that we want to do.  It may make us grow, but it doesn't make us better.  

I found this and think you might like it http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/

Wildfire_emissary- this isn't the best world, but the best way to the best world.

[Stevil]

Stevil- Why do we trust in the bible?  Because it is not about us.  We are dependent on an interactive God to build us up, not our own effort.

I see a strong dependancy trait being taught to Christians. Dependancy on the Bible, dependancy on the Church and dependancy on your spiritual leaders/guides. It seems that you have willingly given up your right to be an individual, to be an adult and make your own value/moral based decisions. You no longer have faith in yourself, moral fortitude and self belief that you can be good. You are tagged as a sinful sinner, at war with your God who you so much want to love and be loved by.

I also think you misinterpret Satan.  In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve already had the choice to do bad or good.  But Satan is known as the "tempter".  The bible also says that we are dragged away by our own flesh and enticed by our own desires.  So the ability to do bad or good is already within us.  Satan and his minions only tempt us, but never push us in any direction.  

I am no authority on Satan, so most likely misinterpret. If Satan is unnessesary then why does this character have such a large role in the bible? And why does it seem to reinforce god's plan rather than disrupt (given the assumption that Satan hates God)?
I feel Satan was introduced because otherwise people would assume that Evil comes from the perfect, all loving, Good God.
I feel there is credible reason to doubt the stories pertaining to Satan and Satan's actions within the bible. Ether the bible is a fabrication of man, or a decipt of Satan. I struggle with the concept that the bible is the honest and true word of God. I just don't feel that anyone can know this.

I found this and think you might like it http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/cosmic-treason/

Do you not find the message scary Defendor?
I read that the author is telling us that if we trangress "sin" then we are at war with God. It appears to me that the message is that we should just do as we are bloody well told and not to think about whether what we are told is right or wrong. If we want to be in God's Grace then just do as you are told.

So those that are willing to become Christians are willing to give up their right to think, their right to make decisions and instead follow a 2,000 year old book. they are willing to treat other people poorly in the hope that their actions bring them into God's grace. Is this not a selfish way to think? Doing things because it will get them into heaven?
I feel that I will continue to treat all people with respect. If God exists and I get to meet God one day then God can confront me about this if he/she chooses to. If God is not happy, then that is God's problem not mine. I will conduct myself in a way that I feel is appropriate, I will not compromise my values to make God happy.

[defendor]

well a few interesting points.  I think there is one main point in this.  The misunderstanding of the sovereignty of God.  From the understanding our Free Will within the realms of God's free will or his sovereignty.

I appreciate your admission of ignorance, I probably have no idea what I'm talking about either, I just pray the Holy Spirit reveals to you through some of this.

So to kinda help illustrate the ideas of Evil.  You are absolutely right.  I believe God ordained and allowed evil.  I do not think he created it, but he did not stop it and could have.  So this begs the question, WHY?  that seems so unjust and unfair.  But I would like to make a few mentions in this.  

God's foresight- God has ordained and created Good, and only things that exist come from Him and his power.  So he did allow evil.  Before I go on,

Good is not Evil and Evil is not Good.  There has to be a clear distinction.  You can't tell me what's evil and what's not evil, you can tell me what's evil and good in regards to yourself. I may agree with some of those notions, but in an atheistic worldview there is no external framework for anyone is to accept your notion of evil, or to accept your standard as the true measure of it. Dan Barker described morality in the following simple way : the minimization of harm.  Such as Barkers silly one, I mean what the heck is harm? I'm sure Hitler felt killing the Jews was a minimization of harm to German society. The problem of evil, that the atheist attempts to paint, that an all loving and all powerful god would not allow evil to exist in the world, is incoherent, because your positing an objective standard for what morality is to be, your positing your sense of morality to have an external authority which it doesn't have. In order for the problem of evil to be true it has to be objectively immoral, for an all powerful and all loving being to not allow evil to exist. How else would you refute, that it's moral for an all powerful and all loving  being to allow our world to exists at it is now, with it good and it's evil? The problem of evil only works, if you paint an objective standard for morality, and an objective standard for morality, requires a belief in an external authority to make it so.

How do we account for this moral law? The answer is that there must be a universal moral law Giver. It would be more than just odd if we had this universal moral law without someone to give it. In fact, if a universal moral law just arbitrarily existed on its own (which is unlikely, but we'll just assume it for the sake of argument), then it would seem there is no moral foundation for believing it. Sure, it exists, but that does not explain why it is the right standard to obey. The plain truth is that laws exist, because someone wrote them. What can we know about this universal moral law Giver? Just on the evidence of the moral law, I believe we can deduce (at least) three attributes of the moral law Giver. First, the moral law Giver must be the kind of being that gives moral commands. Otherwise, there would no moral law which we follow. Second, the moral law Giver must be interested in our behavior. Why give rules and laws if there is no interest in how we live? The law Giver must be concerned with how we're living, or else He wouldn't give us guidelines on how to behave. Third, the moral law Giver must be absolutely good. In order to set the absolute standard of what is right and wrong, this law Giver must be qualified to do so. The typical crisis at this point is called the "Euthyphro dilemma" (named after Plato's dialogue that first pointed this out). It seems that we are stuck saying either (a) whatever the moral law Giver wills is right, because He says so or (b) the moral law Giver commands what is right. The dilemma is that (a) suggests the moral law is just the arbitrary whims of the moral law Giver, hence He could have made anything (like rape or murder) morally right, and (b) suggests that there is something higher than the moral law Giver. However, there is a way to escape this dilemma, and that is by saying that the moral law emmanates from the eternal nature of the moral law Giver. In other words, the moral law Giver's inherent nature is good, so what flows from Him will be good.

Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution.

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.

Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?

Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

Could There Be No Moral Law?

Perhaps we have these moral intuitions, but they are all just our own fancy. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could just cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

So with this in mind, and referring to God's foresight, "what you meant for evil, God meant for Good."  God has a higher purpose than settling the quandaries of moral dilemmas.  Is it necessary to show God's power? NO, but is that the case we are dealing with now? yes.  So I reiterate, this is not the best world, but the best way to the best world.  God has a higher purpose, and farther and grander perspective, so he allows evil for Good.  This is an interesting thing.  Good sees the evil, and uses it for the greater good.  The greater good is his glory to be revealed.  I'm from the Dallas/fort worth area, and there is a baseball player named Josh Hamilton.  The dude is a beast and super religious guy.  He has been in and out of rehab 9 times.  Why did God allow this man to suffer through such distress.  So that Josh's story has nothing to do with his own might, but the might of God.  Check out the Christian website, "I am second."  This is the hope we have, that we don't have to save ourselves, we let God do the saving for us.  

But also, I mentioned a verse that we sin and we do the evil that we wanted to do in the first place.  Adam and Eve wanted to sin and disobey God, or else they wouldn't have done it.  We all do things in the moment we want, but later regret it.  But at one time, in one place, we wanted to do something that we innately knew was wrong.  We in our beings are at war with God, and this is how it is shown.  But how gracious is it that He made a way to reconcile this, through the shedding of blood from his own son.  This is where such intangible ideas such as Evil, Justice, Love and Forgiveness all meet in one place at one time.  We see the Evil it was on a spotless lamb, God's justice to eradicate sin, out of Love did he do this, for the forgiveness of our sins.  It is a horrible thought to hear how at odds we are with Christ, but until we hear the Good News of Christ.  Simply doing good, as if God will somehow be in debt to you, is not sufficient payment. If God is real and all this and all that, he would make a way to know him, and has made the way known.  "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life"- Jesus

[Stevil]

First off, I must be open about my bias, I have no belief in Good or Evil, neither do I have a belief in objective morality.

How do we account for this moral law? The answer is that there must be a universal moral law Giver. It would be more than just odd if we had this universal moral law without someone to give it.

There are two dilemas with regards to objective morality.
1. Who or what is the authority?
2. How do the people know of the objective morals?

You, no doubt would say the answer to 1. is the Christian god. I would think this is an assumption, based on your faith.
I am unsure what you would say with regards to 2. If you say that God imprinted it into us, then we know that is wrong because people often disagree with regards to moralities. Christians often refer back to their scriptures rather than follow their own thoughts and feelings, so potentially you might say that the bible is how people would know. I would say for the billions of people that do not refer to the bible, there is no objective morality.

In other words, the moral law Giver's inherent nature is good, so what flows from Him will be good.

Here are a couple of assumptions made by Christians and Christians only (1 God is inherently good and hence only creates good objective morals, 2 the bible is the direct word of God). A non Christian does not think of the Christian god as inherently good and does not think of the bible as the word of God. A non Christian will make critical assessments of Christian morals and hence may or may not agree with them. I personaly would like to see Christians think more deeply about the morals presented in the bible. e.g. Is it truly good to think of homosexuals as sinners and homosexual sex as a sin? What is the outcome of this stance? Are there victims to a Christian having this stance? Are there victims if a Christian refuses to hold onto this stance?

The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law.

This is misleading, if a person holds a value to be true and acts contrary to that value because of their desires it doesn't mean that the person doesn't recognise that they have compromised one of their values. I feel a big problem with religion is to paint the world as black and white. There are often times that values clash with each other or with our desires. People need to make choices, these are not always the right choices, people make mistakes, people go through different stages in their lives, grow and have their values and desires reassessed. Life is complex and dynamic and can't simply be painted black and white.

Since we did not create it, we cannot just cast it off. Also, we cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. Ultimately this would lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

The problem with this is that Christians have simply rebranded values as morals and then claimed these as Christianities morals with the Christian god being the authority. There are many reasons for people to have values and this values system does not require a religion or authority. I feel society as a whole is constantly changing and refining its values. The society values of today are alot different to what they were in the 1960s. Each generation of people are greatly impacted by their culture, upbringing and society in general, our informative years are during an early stage of our lives and these thoughts/habbits are hard to break later in life, hence we often have a generational gap with regards to respective personal values of people. Society is evolving, beyond religion, beyond old ideas of predjudice and persecution. I feel that we are maturing with regards to our values and creating a much more equality based and tolerant society. We aren't perfect but we are improving. I do however feel that rigid traditions are holding us back, this includes religions. We need to use our heads and evolve, otherwise as a society we will never improve.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

The reason we don't believe in Santa Claus anymore is because nobody ever said you'd go to Hell for not believing.

Then why do we have adult Buddhists? The reasons for continued religiosity are far more complex than simply the notion of Hell.

Buddhism is one of the few religions I hold respect for. There are secular Buddhists. Alan Watts is one of my favorite examples. There are alot of spiritual practicies that Atheists can benefit from. Things like meditation, for example. The search is not necessasarily for something spiritual, but for something still unknown.

Another reason could simply be because they've been brought up with it their entire lives, and old habits die hard?

[AnimatedDirt]

...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...

Talk about an ad hominem attack. I do know what free will and truth and justice and love is, and I get fucking pissed when someone says that atheists don't know what those things are.

Not an attack at all.  No reason to get f'ing pissed.  It's based on the fact that true freewill means one must be able to choose from ALL choices.  If Evil is hidden, then the giving of freewill is a lie.  That's what I mean when I say *you don't understand what freewill, truth, the inability to lie, justice and love mean.  All these are attributes of God's nature.  In other words, it's what God cannot change of himself.  Yes, He's not "all-powerful" as you define it.  Is it better to keep fire away from a child so that they cannot get burned?  Of course.  But then how does one keep the house warm for the child?  How does one cook for the child?  Are we not able to live in harmony with the fact that fire burns?  There are good uses for fire.  Likewise, there is at least one good use for Evil (that I can think of anyway) and that is that to know what Evil is, is to appreciate Good all the more.  It goes back to the analogy of a blind person who has lived in darkness all their life.  Try explaining white, or light, or colors to a person that has never seen anything.

[Tokage]

...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...

Talk about an ad hominem attack. I do know what free will and truth and justice and love is, and I get fucking pissed when someone says that atheists don't know what those things are.

Not an attack at all.  No reason to get f'ing pissed.  It's based on the fact that true freewill means one must be able to choose from ALL choices.  If Evil is hidden, then the giving of freewill is a lie.  That's what I mean when I say *you don't understand what freewill, truth, the inability to lie, justice and love mean.  All these are attributes of God's nature.  In other words, it's what God cannot change of himself.  Yes, He's not "all-powerful" as you define it.  Is it better to keep fire away from a child so that they cannot get burned?  Of course.  But then how does one keep the house warm for the child?  How does one cook for the child?  Are we not able to live in harmony with the fact that fire burns?  There are good uses for fire.  Likewise, there is at least one good use for Evil (that I can think of anyway) and that is that to know what Evil is, is to appreciate Good all the more.  It goes back to the analogy of a blind person who has lived in darkness all their life.  Try explaining white, or light, or colors to a person that has never seen anything.

I'll go ahead and admit I'm ignorant to most of the posts on this thread thus far, since I'm in lecture I can't really read all of it right now.
But how can free will exist with an omniscient God?

[AnimatedDirt]

But how can free will exist with an omniscient God?

Is this question really making a statement?
If given free will/choice, how is the knowledge what one will choose not free will?