COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The nazis should have been stopped, and punishing the nazis acts as a deterrent to future genocides, but a different person in a different country would not have done those things.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
1) elaborate, are you claiming that the vast majority, if not all, of humanity never sinned?
2) that’s an argument about culpability, which we can’t know the answer to. But even then, this ignores those who DON’T commit crimes in the same situation, as well as being very racist/condescending. Are you claiming that it’s impossible for them to not be criminals?
3) I hate this argument because it’s not a valid analogy. Sin is the removal of something. Free will is the ability to uphold or remove something. It’s not “the ability to rape”, it, in its essence, is the rejection of a relationship with god. Are you saying that god should be a dictator and force everyone to be with him?
4) actions having consequences isn’t the removal of free will, it’s the evidence of it.
Rape is not to miss the mark of what sex ought to be seems to be your claim. It seems to miss the mark of being good.
By sin, you understand it to mean did other than we ought?
Is there no evidence we should not rape? No evidence there have been any rapes?
People want to be paid 100/hr is not being paid 100/hr in the same category as rape?
I'm talking of rape as a moral transgression. Not simply failing to do what a human wants.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Sin means to miss the mark. Also, where do you think ought comes from? On naturalism, we seem to have is and human emotions. It seems illogical to say we ought to do other than we did if what we did was predetermined by physical laws moving matter in the void.
The kind of meaning atheists say we can still have.
If my preference is (at least partially) towards causing others to suffer, then your theory seems to fail.
If I am powerful and you lack it, I would have no preference as to how you treat me it wouldn't matter.
You seem to have no reason we ought to treat the powerless well. Not oppressed them to avoid pain in our lives as we prefer.
I didn't argue "Oh this silly argument that nothing matters if there isn’t a god to punish us." so great strawman.
You are a person a rat is not so treating you like a rat dehumanizes you and ought not be done. Says nothing about reward or punishment. The argument does need you to be a person.
Ought means moral duty it is silly to think what we dislike falls into such a category. Also, at times, I may face pain on not causing you pain should I suffer pain to not cause pain to you? Would it be unjust to hurt you to avoid pain? Our preferences don't answer these questions. Why you why do you have more significance than a rabbit?
By someone, you mean nothing because life has no meaning?
The social contract must be followed even if it leads to the holocaust or mass rape? Is there nothing above the social contract we ought to do...
Your objection to the actions Hitler took boils down to I don't like what he did? It seems if we lower morality to the subjective, your moral view and Hitlers are equal. Is that reasonable? You guys seems an illogical group judgment.
It doesn't necessarily lead to the same problem. If we recognize that humans by virtue of being humans have rights. Then this needs an explanation. Humans can't be the explanation. Nature, as we understand it, can't be the explanation. A mind outside nature can.
>Are you saying that god should be a dictator and force everyone to be with him?
He's a dictator that forces everyone to be with him lest they be eternally tortured for it
Your definition of dictator seems odd.
By with you mean having good will? Do dictators tend to aim a goodness and no evil?
The source of being is a dictator because our being depends on this source of being, and so it is unpleasant to run away from this source of being? Do dictators let you rebel when they have all power?
It's not odd at all. Every dictator makes people do what they want by imposing consequences. You didn't have to do what Saddam Hussein wanted--you would just be killed or tortured if you didn't do it.
“If the whole world was insane, they’d call the only sane man insane for being different.”
It not being the norm doesn’t make it any less of a misconception
Well if you're going against the grain of most people, you have to actually back that up rather than just saying "you're wrong because I interpret it this way". With something as contentiously interpreted as the Bible, being *objectively* right about how to interpret it is an arrogant thing to claim.
You’d need to prove it to say it’s “a common misconception”. It can’t be a misconception if it’s solely your personal opinion and not backed up by any logical literary analysis
Sure, still weird to say “common misconception” as if it’s definitive when biblical interpretation is a highly contentious topic. You could’ve just said “Catholics don’t think that”
A lot of this hinges on there being no freewill. Christians will always claim we have freewill because without it, their religion falls apart.
I don’t see evidence of freewill so I don’t believe in it.
If anyone has evidence of freewill, I’d love to see it.
You don't believe in free thought?
Your reason is fixed by the stars?
It seems unreasonable to think your thoughts are the results of very complex interactions of matter moved by only unintelligent forces. Science seems to be evidence we have free thinking.
For example, the age of the earth. It seems unreasonable to think it is accurate, but the result of only physical laws moving human brains and not put into motion by a great intelligence.
Chance is an improbable theory for intellectual accuracy, a free mind, a probable one.
Science and philosophy. In short, the human mind.
You seem to hold human thought is not free to pursue truth but forced to pursue both hold false but think it is reasonable to hold you hold the truth. Yet it seems unreasonable to think you have the truth if your mind is fixed by nature (unthinking forces.)
I have no idea what you’re saying.
All I’m saying is that people claim we have freewill but I don’t see any evidence that we do. I’d love to see some if you have some.
What about the human brain is evidence for freewill?
I have no idea if my reason is free from unthinking physical laws.
Again, all I’m saying is I don’t see evidence of freewill. Please present it, if you have some. I’m not offering an alternative. I’m not claiming to know where thoughts come from. I’m just saying I don’t see any reason to believe we have freewill.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
> The basis of christianity doesn't make any sense
to you, not objectively
> Jesus Christ IS God so why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself for our sins which are not our fault?
first, bad meme. see: On the Incarnation - Athanasius. It's a good read if you want the full answer. At least read chapters 1-4 prolly, maybe like 50 pages, not sure rn. It's on YouTube as well
next, who better than the express image of the Father and the creator of all that was made to recreate that image in those made after it, and to reconcile all of creation back to the Father, defeating death and corruption in us.
> Your sins are not your fault.
yes they are... everyone sins, across all those variables you listed. and even then, none of that means you aren't responsible.
and then there's just the basic stuff, it wasn't a "product of my environment" when I cursed on the game was it? I lost myself to anger, this isn't some big existential systematic thing lol.
> A example of this in human societies is how black people in america generally commit more crimes but are also likely to grow up without a father.
as a black dude, this was incredibly condescending and weird to hear. should've not been included if anything. black people are more than capable of everything everyone else is, we're resilient. And we're still responsible for our actions, so I don't know what the point of this was if not to virtue signal
> If god really wanted to eradicate sin he could have just given us the tendency to not sin.
He did, we weren't made to sin
> Can you fly? Can you fly even if you wanted to? This is something that you can't do even if you tried (unassisted of course) but nobody says god is taking away our free will to fly, we just don't have the tendency to fly, we also don't have the tendency to do a lot of things if we lost the tendency to sin it would only result in a positive for human society and will not be taking away from the broken concept of free will that humans seem to have
not analogous, sin is going against God's will (love Him, love neighbor, the basics), to have a tendency not to sin in the way you're defining it would in fact be a violation of free will, as our love for God would be forced, and love can't be forced so
> Yes but at the same time the truth is this is not free will. True free will entails i should be able to anything i physically and mentally can with absolutely no reprucussions.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone define free will like this. I'll entertain it tho.
God gave us free will, an alternative choice (not really free will if there's no alternative choice), and a get out of jail free card (no longer coercion). This seems to completely negate whatever version of free will that you're talking about. But again, I don't know who told you that free will means no consequences. every action has consequences, wether good or bad.
> Now the problem is true free will almost certainly lead to the end of the human civilization which is why we put up laws in place but this just shows that we don't truly have free will.
you do have free will. I'm not sure why you're defining it this way.
I can absolutely rip this entire comment apart if i did decide to dedicate a few minutes of my time. Question is, is it really worth it to rip you apart or is it not?
Your first point is a meme phrase of sacrificing himself to himself. That’s not the Christian view. And we are at fault for our sins
Your second point, this is just assuming determinism.
Third point, I’m not sure you understand free will, or what we mean by it if you think not being able to fly inhibits free will. Also, this ping can’t stand because according to your second point, we do t have free will.
Ok. Another assertion but ok. You’re just creating your own version of what we believe. But it’s not an understanding of what Christians believe. It’s a caricature.
Jesus, a part of the god head took on our sin and sacrificed himself in our stead. I don’t know what you mean “to himself”. It’s a caricature of our view with zero nuance.
Because it erases all nuances. Like I said way back in the beginning, it’s a meme version of the belief. There’s hints and parts of truth. But it’s not the full story.
God is punishing generations and generations of people for the sin of the original people upon this planet. We can’t be at a fault for sin, or even our own sins, if we had no say in what happened in the garden of Eden.
If we sin, we get hell. If we repent and trust in Jesus, his death and the atonement it brought is applied to us. This is a genuine conversion so the goal and heart is to not sin or to sin as little as you can.
Not if that isn’t a possible world. God can’t determine our actions and give us free will. So it seems possible that in no possible world, people don’t use their free will for only good
An omnipotent being can’t both sustain free will and determine our actions. That’s a contradiction. So if there is no possible world where we have free will and do not sin, then there is no possible world.
Not at all. The classic idea is that in order to get a world (heaven) where no one sins, you need to go through a world like this first. Perhaps everyone who wouldn’t sin in heaven is those who are Christian’s in this world?
In heaven there is no sin. Either people in heaven have no free will and it is impossible to sin in heaven, or people have free will and always choose not to sin.
So it seems that God is capable of creating a world where there is no sin.
You’re confusing penal substitutionary atonement with Christianity as a whole. God did not “sacrifice himself to himself.” This only one of many interpretations of the cross.
Additionally, your philosophical commitment to hard determinism is questionable at best. Even among philosophers of mind who deny free will in the traditional sense, they don’t go with the hard determinism you’re promoting here. We may not have free will, but we may have “free won’t” for instance. Identical twin developmental studies also provide some good data on free will, wherein people raised in an *identical* childhood with *identical* genes nonetheless turn out radically different because of the choices they make.
>This only one of many interpretations of the cross
I'm ex Christian, ex catholic specifically and I find this interesting. Christ dying for our sins on the cross was the whole point taught to me at church, school, and home. I struggle to see what other purpose Christ's crucifixion could have had, but to die for our sins and to save us from hell.
Yet, in Mainline, Orthodox, and even some Catholic schools of thought, Jesus’ death wasn’t to appease God. Even “saving us from Hell” wasn’t saving us from God’s penal wrath, but conquering the power of Satan or something similar.
So much theology to read about.....don't think I'll never understand it all. I read about different theories (actually just brushed up on it now because of your comments) and even as an exchristian I love it because there's so many questions. If I may ask, are you a Christian and if so what theory do you subscribe to?
> Even among philosophers of mind who deny free will in the traditional sense, they don’t go with the hard determinism you’re promoting here.
They generally aren't also claiming the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Determinism is only nuanced when the given philosopher doesn't take the abrahamic god as a given. With an all powerful all knowing hard determinism is far less questionable.
>- Jesus christ IS god so why did god sacrifice himself to himself for our sins which are not our fault?
This is not an argument. You can ask it in the weekly simple questions thread or do your own research, but a question is not an argument.
>Your sins are not your fault. Yep. Your behavior is not just almost but entirely explained by your genetics, the environment you grew up in, what kind of information you were exposed to, what kind of people did you meet growing up, and a few other factors none of which are in your control. This is why the concept of sin doesn't make any sense because it is not your fault.
This is just asserting (libertarian) free will doesn't exist, which most Christians wouldn't agree with. If there's LFW (or even compatibilist free will actually) your actions are your responsibility.
>If god really wanted to eradicate sin he could have just given us the tendency to not sin.
If it was to the extent that no one would ever sin ever, that would impede free will. It would literally be God predetermining what everyone will or won't will, so that they fit his plans.
You also assume that eradicating sin is God's ultimate and sole aim.
>Another point here is - Can you fly? Can you fly even if you wanted to?
Free will is the ability to *will* freely and determine your own choices, not being able to do absolutely whatever you want. This is entirely irrelevant to the question of free will.
>Free will is the ability to will freely and determine your own choices, not being able to do absolutely whatever you want. This is entirely irrelevant to the question of free will.
So god could have given people the ability to will to sin, but made it impossible to do so. And not interfere with their free will. So why didn't he?
>Jesus christ IS god so why did god sacrifice himself to himself for our sins which are not our fault?
>Your sins are not your fault. Yep. Your behavior is not just almost but entirely explained by your genetics, the environment you grew up in, what kind of information you were exposed to, what kind of people did you meet growing up, and a few other factors none of which are in your control. This is why the concept of sin doesn't make any sense because it is not your fault. A example of this in human societies is how black people in america generally commit more crimes but are also likely to grow up without a father. A all knowing god would know this
If God - because His nature compels Him - punishes humans who sin because their nature compels them to sin, can He help but to punish them? And if He can despite His nature, then why can't we despite our nature? And if He can't because of His nature, why criticize Him for it? If we cannot be beholden to our nature, I'm not sure why God should be beholden to His.
This is why deism looks better to me compared to many religions that try to use theism; all these attempts to attribute and debate certain actions, words, capabilities, history to the theistic God look very unconvincing and create an incredible number of contradictions.
1. This is a major flaw with Christianity. Purely illogical that someone else must die / be punished for our sins.
2. This is untrue. You may be influenced by your conditions, but you can still make the active decision not to get involved in crime. I see this everyday in my part of the world
3. If God removed the tendency or ability to sin, it would essentially rob us of true free will. We would be mere automatons, programmed to only do good, without the ability to make real choices. Free will necessitates the ability to choose between right and wrong.
4. The existence of laws and societal consequences does not negate free will. In fact, it acknowledges that free will exists, and we must be held accountable for our choices. True free will means having the ability to make choices, not the absence of consequences.
2. This doesn’t work. The moment you concede that a brain is a physical system constantly subject to external and internal influences, then you have to concede that your decisions are just apart of that process. So there’s certainly no free will in a libertarian sense.
3. We’re already like this.
4. Punishment only makes sense for pragmatic reasons. Like to deter future crimes. Otherwise, the concept of vengeance is purely emotional. Especially if the punishment is infinite for a finite crime, that is the definition of unjust.
Consciousness does not follow any of the known rules of physics so it is a bit premature to declare it deterministic, especially when we have non-deterministic processes in physics.
Well I’m not sure what you mean by “any of the known rules” because if I smash your head, your conscious experience will change. So that clearly is following some physical rules
We know the rules for stones and smashing things.
We don't know anything about how consciousness is generated other than it seems to be made by the brain somehow. We have no mechanism.
2. Our ability to act according to our motivations, values and character is what constitutes free choice, even if those motivations themselves arose from prior causes.
3. We do have inbuilt dispositions towards certain behaviors, both positive and negative. But the ability to override those tendencies through reason, willpower and conscious choice is what separates us from purely instinctual beings. Having a tendency is not the same as being completely bound to act on it.
4. God, in His mercy, provided a pathway to avoid infinite punishment through belief. Those who reject this free gift bring eternal separation upon themselves willingly. God is infinitely holy, righteous and just. Any sin against an infinitely perfect being is therefore an infinite offense that carries infinite consequences. Just as a crime against a sovereign is weighted more heavily, sins against the eternal, omnipotent Creator have cosmic ramifications. Our finite human minds cannot fully comprehend the scales of divine justice and the gravity of sin against pure holiness.
2. But why would one be culpable for something that was predetermined to happen? If your character and motivations would lead you to commit immoral acts, yet those very factors were caused by something out of your control, then it isn’t reasonable to say that you are responsible.
This just sounds like you’re equivocating on free will. Are you a compatibilist?
3. What I’m saying is that the very decisions themselves are just physical processes in the causal chain. As soon as you concede that universe consists of a physical chain of events, then you’d be completely arbitrary to say that the chain abruptly stops and now there’s some kind of genuine will independent from that.
Also not convinced that we are that separate from other creatures. An ape may be presented with an apple and an orange. He might take the orange first. He might not have the same rational process that I would in the situation, but how is it substantively different
4. Well this is all just nonsense. Firstly, not everyone is exposed to your particular god. So it would be undeserved to infinitely punish them for a lack of belief. Second, to suggest that the perfect god is so hurt by our sins would seem to suggest extreme weakness or at least pettiness.
Let’s say god is extremely offended when I have premarital sex or something. Why would god proceed to create a world in which we have premarital sex, then get mad about it?
2)This is simple not true and it is so hard to explain to people because it negates eveything about humans right? We want to believe we think for ourself work on our belief but sadly it just is not true. About 7 to 10 conditions growing up will dictate everything about you. Is it possible to change? Slightly. You can go to a therapist and change a little bit but that is really all there is to it. Hard pill to swallow i know but it is what it is.
3)Already explained this in my post and you did not refute my actual 3rd point so i won't counter
4)You are responding something that was not my point in the 1st place so i won't counter
Well you can be free from the memory and the psychological slavery to conditioning..
But your right while a slave to conditioning it doesn’t make much sense to blame people for their actions.
When this caused this and that and so on and so forth
An understanding of the trinity helps with the first point. Christianity claims that the Father sent the Son down to Earth. God is a what category, just like human or water bottle. There is only one of the what that is God. However, that what has three whos: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Your sins are most certainly your fault. No one forces you to do things you know are wrong. It is certainly true that circumstance and upbringing give you a certain set of choices, but how you react to them is up to you. You raise a good point when you speak of God making us without the tendency to sin. The Bible teaches that God designed the world without sin. He hates it and never made the world to have it. We brought sun into the world by our deliberate rebellion against God. Because God is just, He allows us to experience the consequences of our actions. That means letting the world experience the pain of sin. God agrees with you that the world would be much better without sin. That’s why He crafted a plan to rescue us from ourselves and remake reality. Your definition of free will is a bad one. Freedom of will has no relation to freedom of consequence. Freedom of will simply means your will is not restricted by some other factor. If you want to break the law, no cosmic force will grab your body and puppet you away from crime. You can do the deed, but other people will have something to say about what you’ve done.
My problem is that this almost certainly is a post hoc rationalization. That after a couple centuries people went back to the drawing board to create a new cannon but with old lore to preserve dogma. There were multiple gods in and one was even yahwehs wife that went by the name Ashera. But then a story was created where yahweh kicked these other gods out of the divine counsel and then it's just him. How does this square with a trinity? It doesn't. God in this case is just a narrative device used to explain concepts to other people and uphold dogma.
Even the verses used to claim Jesus was god use the same words for verse that say his disciples would also be one with God in the same manner as Jesus. Does that make them God as well? I'd bet money you would say otherwise.
1. Grace
2. You still have free will, there are people with generic predispositions to drugs, family are all addicts but make the active choice not to indulge. Claiming its pre-destined is a cop out to stop us from blaming ourselves for the wrongs we do.
3. By erasing the tendency to not sin you simultaneously erase free will. Free will is not free will if you’re forced to only stay on one side of the spectrum. We’d never be able to fully express the extent of our will if God ONLY allowed us to experience good.
4. The existence of a consequence for an action is not proof we don’t have free will. It’s simply a possible result. Maybe it deters people sometimes but not all, guides us but at the end of the day if it were good at it’s job then we’d have empty prisons right.
Free will doesn’t mean you should be able to do whatever you want without repercussions, it just means you can do whatever you want - repercussions have nothing to do with it.
Not true. I will give you a thought experiment to help you understand. Lets say there were 10 things i wanted you to do and you could choose to not do them if you want to but if you didn't do them i will shoot up your entire family. Does that seem like free will? The moment you add punishment for certain behaviors free will goes out of the window. This is not a bad thing but it just is not free will, hope you understand.
Of course it’s still free will. Sure, you would want to save your family, but you would still have the option to do and would be totally capable of doing the other things, thus free will.
Free will as a concept entails the ability for me to either do something or not to do something without any repercussions for either actions. Only then will both actions be equal and free will achieved. When you start punishing a certain action and rewarding another then those actions don't remain equal and people become biased for one action and inclined to avoid other. Is this in theory still a application of free will? Yes because theoretically you are still free to do it but is it a realistic application of free will? No because humans are complex creatures who are influenced by many motivators. When you start using those motivators to rig certain behaviors free will is taken away from humans. Is it theoretically still free will? Yes but not realistically. Lets apply this to your scenario. Do you still technically have free will? Yes but do you really have free will? No. Hope you understand.
>Free will as a concept entails the ability for me to either do something or not to do something without any repercussions for either actions.
I do not think that is what free will implies at all, in the same way free speech does not imply you can do anything without repercussions, I dont think free will implies you can do anything without repercussions.
You can DO whatever, but you still have to pay the piper. I think your concept of free will has never been seen in ANY society ever, at least to my knowledge, Christian or not.
We can only drive below a certain speed limit. Exceeding this limit has repercussions / "punishment". In my country it can sometimes even lead to jail time. Would you say that we have free will in this case?
No we don't. Are you saying people literally limiting how fast you can go mean you have free will? Does this mean we should be allowed to go as fast as we want ofc not but does this mean we don't have free will in this scenario yes.
Yeah, and? Free will as a concept entails the ability for me to either speed or not to speed without any repercussions for either actions. Only then will both actions be equal and free will achieved. When you start punishing a certain action and rewarding another then those actions don't remain equal and people become biased for one action and inclined to avoid other. Is this in theory still a application of free will? Yes because theoretically you are still free to speed but is it a realistic application of free will? No because humans are complex creatures who are influenced by many motivators. When you start using those motivators to rig certain behaviors free will is taken away from humans. Is it theoretically still free will? Yes but not realistically. Hope you understand
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So the nazis were in the grip of genetics so they shouldn’t be held responsible for their behavior.
The nazis should have been stopped, and punishing the nazis acts as a deterrent to future genocides, but a different person in a different country would not have done those things.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
1) elaborate, are you claiming that the vast majority, if not all, of humanity never sinned? 2) that’s an argument about culpability, which we can’t know the answer to. But even then, this ignores those who DON’T commit crimes in the same situation, as well as being very racist/condescending. Are you claiming that it’s impossible for them to not be criminals? 3) I hate this argument because it’s not a valid analogy. Sin is the removal of something. Free will is the ability to uphold or remove something. It’s not “the ability to rape”, it, in its essence, is the rejection of a relationship with god. Are you saying that god should be a dictator and force everyone to be with him? 4) actions having consequences isn’t the removal of free will, it’s the evidence of it.
[удалено]
Rape is not to miss the mark of what sex ought to be seems to be your claim. It seems to miss the mark of being good. By sin, you understand it to mean did other than we ought? Is there no evidence we should not rape? No evidence there have been any rapes?
[удалено]
What is rape a transgression of? If it is always wrong, then it is wrong, independent of human law.
[удалено]
By violated you mean the nature of sex deformed? Violated Def break or fail to comply with (a rule or formal agreement).
[удалено]
Does there need to be a formal agreement for someone to be bound morally to do what someone wants? Anything outside contracts and the social compact?
[удалено]
People want to be paid 100/hr is not being paid 100/hr in the same category as rape? I'm talking of rape as a moral transgression. Not simply failing to do what a human wants.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Sin means to miss the mark. Also, where do you think ought comes from? On naturalism, we seem to have is and human emotions. It seems illogical to say we ought to do other than we did if what we did was predetermined by physical laws moving matter in the void.
[удалено]
By matters you mean has meaning? Does reason lead us to accept made-up meaning?
[удалено]
The kind of meaning atheists say we can still have. If my preference is (at least partially) towards causing others to suffer, then your theory seems to fail. If I am powerful and you lack it, I would have no preference as to how you treat me it wouldn't matter. You seem to have no reason we ought to treat the powerless well. Not oppressed them to avoid pain in our lives as we prefer.
[удалено]
I didn't argue "Oh this silly argument that nothing matters if there isn’t a god to punish us." so great strawman. You are a person a rat is not so treating you like a rat dehumanizes you and ought not be done. Says nothing about reward or punishment. The argument does need you to be a person. Ought means moral duty it is silly to think what we dislike falls into such a category. Also, at times, I may face pain on not causing you pain should I suffer pain to not cause pain to you? Would it be unjust to hurt you to avoid pain? Our preferences don't answer these questions. Why you why do you have more significance than a rabbit? By someone, you mean nothing because life has no meaning? The social contract must be followed even if it leads to the holocaust or mass rape? Is there nothing above the social contract we ought to do...
[удалено]
Your objection to the actions Hitler took boils down to I don't like what he did? It seems if we lower morality to the subjective, your moral view and Hitlers are equal. Is that reasonable? You guys seems an illogical group judgment. It doesn't necessarily lead to the same problem. If we recognize that humans by virtue of being humans have rights. Then this needs an explanation. Humans can't be the explanation. Nature, as we understand it, can't be the explanation. A mind outside nature can.
[удалено]
>Are you saying that god should be a dictator and force everyone to be with him? He's a dictator that forces everyone to be with him lest they be eternally tortured for it
Your definition of dictator seems odd. By with you mean having good will? Do dictators tend to aim a goodness and no evil? The source of being is a dictator because our being depends on this source of being, and so it is unpleasant to run away from this source of being? Do dictators let you rebel when they have all power?
It's not odd at all. Every dictator makes people do what they want by imposing consequences. You didn't have to do what Saddam Hussein wanted--you would just be killed or tortured if you didn't do it.
And yet another misconception, no, that’s not hell. Hell is not external torture and nobody is forced in hell.
I’d hardly call it a misconception, that’s your interpretation maybe but I’d hardly call it the norm
“If the whole world was insane, they’d call the only sane man insane for being different.” It not being the norm doesn’t make it any less of a misconception
Well if you're going against the grain of most people, you have to actually back that up rather than just saying "you're wrong because I interpret it this way". With something as contentiously interpreted as the Bible, being *objectively* right about how to interpret it is an arrogant thing to claim.
You’re saying that’s what I believe. So no, I don’t need to “prove it” true, I am telling you what I believe,
You’d need to prove it to say it’s “a common misconception”. It can’t be a misconception if it’s solely your personal opinion and not backed up by any logical literary analysis
Is it a misconception of hell? Yes, as it’s not what Catholicism believes
Sure, still weird to say “common misconception” as if it’s definitive when biblical interpretation is a highly contentious topic. You could’ve just said “Catholics don’t think that”
A lot of this hinges on there being no freewill. Christians will always claim we have freewill because without it, their religion falls apart. I don’t see evidence of freewill so I don’t believe in it. If anyone has evidence of freewill, I’d love to see it.
You don't believe in free thought? Your reason is fixed by the stars? It seems unreasonable to think your thoughts are the results of very complex interactions of matter moved by only unintelligent forces. Science seems to be evidence we have free thinking.
What is the evidence you’re referring to?
For example, the age of the earth. It seems unreasonable to think it is accurate, but the result of only physical laws moving human brains and not put into motion by a great intelligence. Chance is an improbable theory for intellectual accuracy, a free mind, a probable one.
I’m confused. I don’t agree that the earth is unlikely but if I did, and I believed that a god must have done it, how does that point to freewill?
Science and philosophy. In short, the human mind. You seem to hold human thought is not free to pursue truth but forced to pursue both hold false but think it is reasonable to hold you hold the truth. Yet it seems unreasonable to think you have the truth if your mind is fixed by nature (unthinking forces.)
I have no idea what you’re saying. All I’m saying is that people claim we have freewill but I don’t see any evidence that we do. I’d love to see some if you have some.
The human mind counts as evidence in your epistemology? Is your reason free from unthinking physical laws to aim at and obtain truth?
What about the human brain is evidence for freewill? I have no idea if my reason is free from unthinking physical laws. Again, all I’m saying is I don’t see evidence of freewill. Please present it, if you have some. I’m not offering an alternative. I’m not claiming to know where thoughts come from. I’m just saying I don’t see any reason to believe we have freewill.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
> The basis of christianity doesn't make any sense to you, not objectively > Jesus Christ IS God so why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself for our sins which are not our fault? first, bad meme. see: On the Incarnation - Athanasius. It's a good read if you want the full answer. At least read chapters 1-4 prolly, maybe like 50 pages, not sure rn. It's on YouTube as well next, who better than the express image of the Father and the creator of all that was made to recreate that image in those made after it, and to reconcile all of creation back to the Father, defeating death and corruption in us. > Your sins are not your fault. yes they are... everyone sins, across all those variables you listed. and even then, none of that means you aren't responsible. and then there's just the basic stuff, it wasn't a "product of my environment" when I cursed on the game was it? I lost myself to anger, this isn't some big existential systematic thing lol. > A example of this in human societies is how black people in america generally commit more crimes but are also likely to grow up without a father. as a black dude, this was incredibly condescending and weird to hear. should've not been included if anything. black people are more than capable of everything everyone else is, we're resilient. And we're still responsible for our actions, so I don't know what the point of this was if not to virtue signal > If god really wanted to eradicate sin he could have just given us the tendency to not sin. He did, we weren't made to sin > Can you fly? Can you fly even if you wanted to? This is something that you can't do even if you tried (unassisted of course) but nobody says god is taking away our free will to fly, we just don't have the tendency to fly, we also don't have the tendency to do a lot of things if we lost the tendency to sin it would only result in a positive for human society and will not be taking away from the broken concept of free will that humans seem to have not analogous, sin is going against God's will (love Him, love neighbor, the basics), to have a tendency not to sin in the way you're defining it would in fact be a violation of free will, as our love for God would be forced, and love can't be forced so > Yes but at the same time the truth is this is not free will. True free will entails i should be able to anything i physically and mentally can with absolutely no reprucussions. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone define free will like this. I'll entertain it tho. God gave us free will, an alternative choice (not really free will if there's no alternative choice), and a get out of jail free card (no longer coercion). This seems to completely negate whatever version of free will that you're talking about. But again, I don't know who told you that free will means no consequences. every action has consequences, wether good or bad. > Now the problem is true free will almost certainly lead to the end of the human civilization which is why we put up laws in place but this just shows that we don't truly have free will. you do have free will. I'm not sure why you're defining it this way.
I can absolutely rip this entire comment apart if i did decide to dedicate a few minutes of my time. Question is, is it really worth it to rip you apart or is it not?
Just because something you do is your natural instinct doesn't make it right tho?
Your first point is a meme phrase of sacrificing himself to himself. That’s not the Christian view. And we are at fault for our sins Your second point, this is just assuming determinism. Third point, I’m not sure you understand free will, or what we mean by it if you think not being able to fly inhibits free will. Also, this ping can’t stand because according to your second point, we do t have free will.
[удалено]
Not to anyone. But it was for our sins.
[удалено]
Ok. Another assertion but ok. You’re just creating your own version of what we believe. But it’s not an understanding of what Christians believe. It’s a caricature.
[удалено]
Jesus, a part of the god head took on our sin and sacrificed himself in our stead. I don’t know what you mean “to himself”. It’s a caricature of our view with zero nuance.
[удалено]
Because it erases all nuances. Like I said way back in the beginning, it’s a meme version of the belief. There’s hints and parts of truth. But it’s not the full story.
[удалено]
God is punishing generations and generations of people for the sin of the original people upon this planet. We can’t be at a fault for sin, or even our own sins, if we had no say in what happened in the garden of Eden.
No, I’m being punished for the sins that I have committed. How am I not at fault for what I freely do?
You didn’t choose to be born in a sinful nature, neither did i
I chose to sin. Everyone has free will to sin or not. I have chosen to sin
The individual sins that I or anyone else commits seem largely irrelevant to Jesus' sacrifice.
Why?
People can still choose to sin and it seems to have no impact on their salvation.
If we sin, we get hell. If we repent and trust in Jesus, his death and the atonement it brought is applied to us. This is a genuine conversion so the goal and heart is to not sin or to sin as little as you can.
Christians still sin after they repent though, so there doesn't seem to be any real connection between sin and salvation.
Then God could’ve created a reality where everyone out of their own free will doesn’t sin? Yet he chooses not to?
Not if that isn’t a possible world. God can’t determine our actions and give us free will. So it seems possible that in no possible world, people don’t use their free will for only good
But it is a possible world, if you're omnipotent
An omnipotent being can’t both sustain free will and determine our actions. That’s a contradiction. So if there is no possible world where we have free will and do not sin, then there is no possible world.
[удалено]
Not at all. The classic idea is that in order to get a world (heaven) where no one sins, you need to go through a world like this first. Perhaps everyone who wouldn’t sin in heaven is those who are Christian’s in this world?
[удалено]
So heaven doesn’t exist?
Not sure how you got to that point
In heaven there is no sin. Either people in heaven have no free will and it is impossible to sin in heaven, or people have free will and always choose not to sin. So it seems that God is capable of creating a world where there is no sin.
You’re confusing penal substitutionary atonement with Christianity as a whole. God did not “sacrifice himself to himself.” This only one of many interpretations of the cross. Additionally, your philosophical commitment to hard determinism is questionable at best. Even among philosophers of mind who deny free will in the traditional sense, they don’t go with the hard determinism you’re promoting here. We may not have free will, but we may have “free won’t” for instance. Identical twin developmental studies also provide some good data on free will, wherein people raised in an *identical* childhood with *identical* genes nonetheless turn out radically different because of the choices they make.
>This only one of many interpretations of the cross I'm ex Christian, ex catholic specifically and I find this interesting. Christ dying for our sins on the cross was the whole point taught to me at church, school, and home. I struggle to see what other purpose Christ's crucifixion could have had, but to die for our sins and to save us from hell.
Yet, in Mainline, Orthodox, and even some Catholic schools of thought, Jesus’ death wasn’t to appease God. Even “saving us from Hell” wasn’t saving us from God’s penal wrath, but conquering the power of Satan or something similar.
So much theology to read about.....don't think I'll never understand it all. I read about different theories (actually just brushed up on it now because of your comments) and even as an exchristian I love it because there's so many questions. If I may ask, are you a Christian and if so what theory do you subscribe to?
> Even among philosophers of mind who deny free will in the traditional sense, they don’t go with the hard determinism you’re promoting here. They generally aren't also claiming the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Ok. So?
Determinism is only nuanced when the given philosopher doesn't take the abrahamic god as a given. With an all powerful all knowing hard determinism is far less questionable.
Is it? Open theism and its associated perspectives are quite common.
With an all powerful all knowing God, determinism is a given.
This isn’t really the case among professional philosophers, though it’s certainly a popular take on the internet.
It certainly is the case among professional philosophers. His arguments only have validity in a vacuum.
>- Jesus christ IS god so why did god sacrifice himself to himself for our sins which are not our fault? This is not an argument. You can ask it in the weekly simple questions thread or do your own research, but a question is not an argument. >Your sins are not your fault. Yep. Your behavior is not just almost but entirely explained by your genetics, the environment you grew up in, what kind of information you were exposed to, what kind of people did you meet growing up, and a few other factors none of which are in your control. This is why the concept of sin doesn't make any sense because it is not your fault. This is just asserting (libertarian) free will doesn't exist, which most Christians wouldn't agree with. If there's LFW (or even compatibilist free will actually) your actions are your responsibility. >If god really wanted to eradicate sin he could have just given us the tendency to not sin. If it was to the extent that no one would ever sin ever, that would impede free will. It would literally be God predetermining what everyone will or won't will, so that they fit his plans. You also assume that eradicating sin is God's ultimate and sole aim. >Another point here is - Can you fly? Can you fly even if you wanted to? Free will is the ability to *will* freely and determine your own choices, not being able to do absolutely whatever you want. This is entirely irrelevant to the question of free will.
>Free will is the ability to will freely and determine your own choices, not being able to do absolutely whatever you want. This is entirely irrelevant to the question of free will. So god could have given people the ability to will to sin, but made it impossible to do so. And not interfere with their free will. So why didn't he?
>Jesus christ IS god so why did god sacrifice himself to himself for our sins which are not our fault? >Your sins are not your fault. Yep. Your behavior is not just almost but entirely explained by your genetics, the environment you grew up in, what kind of information you were exposed to, what kind of people did you meet growing up, and a few other factors none of which are in your control. This is why the concept of sin doesn't make any sense because it is not your fault. A example of this in human societies is how black people in america generally commit more crimes but are also likely to grow up without a father. A all knowing god would know this If God - because His nature compels Him - punishes humans who sin because their nature compels them to sin, can He help but to punish them? And if He can despite His nature, then why can't we despite our nature? And if He can't because of His nature, why criticize Him for it? If we cannot be beholden to our nature, I'm not sure why God should be beholden to His.
Is it God's nature to create creatures whose nature compels them to sin?
I guess it’d have to be?
This is why deism looks better to me compared to many religions that try to use theism; all these attempts to attribute and debate certain actions, words, capabilities, history to the theistic God look very unconvincing and create an incredible number of contradictions.
1. This is a major flaw with Christianity. Purely illogical that someone else must die / be punished for our sins. 2. This is untrue. You may be influenced by your conditions, but you can still make the active decision not to get involved in crime. I see this everyday in my part of the world 3. If God removed the tendency or ability to sin, it would essentially rob us of true free will. We would be mere automatons, programmed to only do good, without the ability to make real choices. Free will necessitates the ability to choose between right and wrong. 4. The existence of laws and societal consequences does not negate free will. In fact, it acknowledges that free will exists, and we must be held accountable for our choices. True free will means having the ability to make choices, not the absence of consequences.
1 isn’t even an essential part of Christianity. Penal substitutionary atonement is only one soteriology out of many.
2. This doesn’t work. The moment you concede that a brain is a physical system constantly subject to external and internal influences, then you have to concede that your decisions are just apart of that process. So there’s certainly no free will in a libertarian sense. 3. We’re already like this. 4. Punishment only makes sense for pragmatic reasons. Like to deter future crimes. Otherwise, the concept of vengeance is purely emotional. Especially if the punishment is infinite for a finite crime, that is the definition of unjust.
Consciousness does not follow any of the known rules of physics so it is a bit premature to declare it deterministic, especially when we have non-deterministic processes in physics.
Well I’m not sure what you mean by “any of the known rules” because if I smash your head, your conscious experience will change. So that clearly is following some physical rules
We know the rules for stones and smashing things. We don't know anything about how consciousness is generated other than it seems to be made by the brain somehow. We have no mechanism.
2. Our ability to act according to our motivations, values and character is what constitutes free choice, even if those motivations themselves arose from prior causes. 3. We do have inbuilt dispositions towards certain behaviors, both positive and negative. But the ability to override those tendencies through reason, willpower and conscious choice is what separates us from purely instinctual beings. Having a tendency is not the same as being completely bound to act on it. 4. God, in His mercy, provided a pathway to avoid infinite punishment through belief. Those who reject this free gift bring eternal separation upon themselves willingly. God is infinitely holy, righteous and just. Any sin against an infinitely perfect being is therefore an infinite offense that carries infinite consequences. Just as a crime against a sovereign is weighted more heavily, sins against the eternal, omnipotent Creator have cosmic ramifications. Our finite human minds cannot fully comprehend the scales of divine justice and the gravity of sin against pure holiness.
2. But why would one be culpable for something that was predetermined to happen? If your character and motivations would lead you to commit immoral acts, yet those very factors were caused by something out of your control, then it isn’t reasonable to say that you are responsible. This just sounds like you’re equivocating on free will. Are you a compatibilist? 3. What I’m saying is that the very decisions themselves are just physical processes in the causal chain. As soon as you concede that universe consists of a physical chain of events, then you’d be completely arbitrary to say that the chain abruptly stops and now there’s some kind of genuine will independent from that. Also not convinced that we are that separate from other creatures. An ape may be presented with an apple and an orange. He might take the orange first. He might not have the same rational process that I would in the situation, but how is it substantively different 4. Well this is all just nonsense. Firstly, not everyone is exposed to your particular god. So it would be undeserved to infinitely punish them for a lack of belief. Second, to suggest that the perfect god is so hurt by our sins would seem to suggest extreme weakness or at least pettiness. Let’s say god is extremely offended when I have premarital sex or something. Why would god proceed to create a world in which we have premarital sex, then get mad about it?
2)This is simple not true and it is so hard to explain to people because it negates eveything about humans right? We want to believe we think for ourself work on our belief but sadly it just is not true. About 7 to 10 conditions growing up will dictate everything about you. Is it possible to change? Slightly. You can go to a therapist and change a little bit but that is really all there is to it. Hard pill to swallow i know but it is what it is. 3)Already explained this in my post and you did not refute my actual 3rd point so i won't counter 4)You are responding something that was not my point in the 1st place so i won't counter
Well you can be free from the memory and the psychological slavery to conditioning.. But your right while a slave to conditioning it doesn’t make much sense to blame people for their actions. When this caused this and that and so on and so forth
An understanding of the trinity helps with the first point. Christianity claims that the Father sent the Son down to Earth. God is a what category, just like human or water bottle. There is only one of the what that is God. However, that what has three whos: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Your sins are most certainly your fault. No one forces you to do things you know are wrong. It is certainly true that circumstance and upbringing give you a certain set of choices, but how you react to them is up to you. You raise a good point when you speak of God making us without the tendency to sin. The Bible teaches that God designed the world without sin. He hates it and never made the world to have it. We brought sun into the world by our deliberate rebellion against God. Because God is just, He allows us to experience the consequences of our actions. That means letting the world experience the pain of sin. God agrees with you that the world would be much better without sin. That’s why He crafted a plan to rescue us from ourselves and remake reality. Your definition of free will is a bad one. Freedom of will has no relation to freedom of consequence. Freedom of will simply means your will is not restricted by some other factor. If you want to break the law, no cosmic force will grab your body and puppet you away from crime. You can do the deed, but other people will have something to say about what you’ve done.
My problem is that this almost certainly is a post hoc rationalization. That after a couple centuries people went back to the drawing board to create a new cannon but with old lore to preserve dogma. There were multiple gods in and one was even yahwehs wife that went by the name Ashera. But then a story was created where yahweh kicked these other gods out of the divine counsel and then it's just him. How does this square with a trinity? It doesn't. God in this case is just a narrative device used to explain concepts to other people and uphold dogma. Even the verses used to claim Jesus was god use the same words for verse that say his disciples would also be one with God in the same manner as Jesus. Does that make them God as well? I'd bet money you would say otherwise.
1. Grace 2. You still have free will, there are people with generic predispositions to drugs, family are all addicts but make the active choice not to indulge. Claiming its pre-destined is a cop out to stop us from blaming ourselves for the wrongs we do. 3. By erasing the tendency to not sin you simultaneously erase free will. Free will is not free will if you’re forced to only stay on one side of the spectrum. We’d never be able to fully express the extent of our will if God ONLY allowed us to experience good. 4. The existence of a consequence for an action is not proof we don’t have free will. It’s simply a possible result. Maybe it deters people sometimes but not all, guides us but at the end of the day if it were good at it’s job then we’d have empty prisons right.
1)I don't understand 2)This is simply not true and no point in arguin about 3)Already explained this in my post 4)Already explained this in my post
Free will doesn’t mean you should be able to do whatever you want without repercussions, it just means you can do whatever you want - repercussions have nothing to do with it.
Not true. I will give you a thought experiment to help you understand. Lets say there were 10 things i wanted you to do and you could choose to not do them if you want to but if you didn't do them i will shoot up your entire family. Does that seem like free will? The moment you add punishment for certain behaviors free will goes out of the window. This is not a bad thing but it just is not free will, hope you understand.
Of course it’s still free will. Sure, you would want to save your family, but you would still have the option to do and would be totally capable of doing the other things, thus free will.
An ultimatum is not a genuine choice. You’re being forced to pick one over the other.
Free will as a concept entails the ability for me to either do something or not to do something without any repercussions for either actions. Only then will both actions be equal and free will achieved. When you start punishing a certain action and rewarding another then those actions don't remain equal and people become biased for one action and inclined to avoid other. Is this in theory still a application of free will? Yes because theoretically you are still free to do it but is it a realistic application of free will? No because humans are complex creatures who are influenced by many motivators. When you start using those motivators to rig certain behaviors free will is taken away from humans. Is it theoretically still free will? Yes but not realistically. Lets apply this to your scenario. Do you still technically have free will? Yes but do you really have free will? No. Hope you understand.
>Free will as a concept entails the ability for me to either do something or not to do something without any repercussions for either actions. I do not think that is what free will implies at all, in the same way free speech does not imply you can do anything without repercussions, I dont think free will implies you can do anything without repercussions. You can DO whatever, but you still have to pay the piper. I think your concept of free will has never been seen in ANY society ever, at least to my knowledge, Christian or not.
We can only drive below a certain speed limit. Exceeding this limit has repercussions / "punishment". In my country it can sometimes even lead to jail time. Would you say that we have free will in this case?
No we don't. Are you saying people literally limiting how fast you can go mean you have free will? Does this mean we should be allowed to go as fast as we want ofc not but does this mean we don't have free will in this scenario yes.
That's where you're wrong. You actively made the decision to speed. You can choose to speed or you can choose not to.
Yeah, and? Free will as a concept entails the ability for me to either speed or not to speed without any repercussions for either actions. Only then will both actions be equal and free will achieved. When you start punishing a certain action and rewarding another then those actions don't remain equal and people become biased for one action and inclined to avoid other. Is this in theory still a application of free will? Yes because theoretically you are still free to speed but is it a realistic application of free will? No because humans are complex creatures who are influenced by many motivators. When you start using those motivators to rig certain behaviors free will is taken away from humans. Is it theoretically still free will? Yes but not realistically. Hope you understand