Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

No, I think you are

I'm sure that the most wise being in the universe would be capable of presenting a very convincing argument to a Canaanite that would convince him to freely choose any position that God saw fit without damaging his "free will" in the slightest..

He presented a very convincing (the most widely accepted theological view in human history) argument to the Hebrews with miracles and proof and they killed him. The human capacity for self-delusion through cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful forces in history and this Forum is proof. People will willingly die and have by the millions before adopting the most useful or benevolent concepts possible. The Aztecs chose death instead of medicine, education, commerce, and advancement of every kind so they could keep cutting the hearts out of tens of thousands of their own people. The same thing has happened in a thousand cultures and is happening today. Reasoning with a committed man is about the most unreasonable thing and if God made an argument that can't be refused where did freewill go? He value our sovereignty to choose so much he will not violate it.

So when people do horrible things to each other, this is God's will.

It might be consistent with his passive will. The same way you may allow your child to screw up and suffer. It is not something you desire but something you know is necessary.

Come again? How am I "Satan", exactly?

If I meant you were Satan I would have said so. These appeals to sympathy don't make any arguments at all. Even Christ did not mean Peter was Satan. Christ knew very well there was only one Satan and it was not Peter. He meant as I did a specific claim you and he made is consistent with Satan's purpose. He would agree with it and has made identical statements.

Your arguments seem to rely heavily on it. And if you've found that it's sound, then you're the first person to have come to this conclusion. Please share the chain of logic you used to justify your position.

I covered this above.

But on your other point: your position is if we could see the "big picture", then we would understand that torturing babies to death is sometimes the best option?

Until or unless I do know everything I can't say for sure. I think the possibility exists for that to be the case. By the way having the flu or some other sickness is a little short of pulling out finger nails or beating a person to death. Please get away from these appeals to sympathy and the absurd, it shows bias to clearly.

I disagree, but for the purposes of this conversation, we're exploring the implications if it was true, so I'm not going to debate the point.

So you would in your infinite wisdom have let Israel just waste away so when Christ came he would have had drastically less impact and millions would have not been saved. That or forced Israel to do whatever it is you wished by taking away their choice. I vote for God, not you, for the office of God.

This isn't required for the context we're talking about. Where in the Bible did God "reveal" this tidbit?

That is philosophy 101 and a freshman is at least familiar with the concept.

... and God was powerless to prevent it or to change their minds.

No, he could have forced them to or made an argument that can't be resisted. Both kill freewill and choice and are not consistent with love. He gave the general consequences and appealed to them to change and they said screw you so they got what they chose.

This brings me back to the question I had earlier: how can mortal humans thwart the will of an omnipotent God?

By that God deciding not to force the issue and allow us to choose. Almost every claim you make is some kind or an appeal to the absurd or sympathy. You I guess think they are cleverly constructed paradoxes or something but they are not.

So the ends justify the means?

How could they not be? We make the exact same decision every single day.

Founding a nation on genocide is hardly moral.
... or unique, unfortunately.

I am getting weary with these false equalities and appeals. The nation of Israel was founded on one specific thing. Abraham’s statement of faith in God. Genocide came much later and was only made necessary by the enemies of God and Israel.

Again: your God sounds very weak for an omnipotent deity.

The weakness is all ours. If God wiped out opposition you would yell tyranny. If he made an argument that can't be resisted you would yell coercion. If he left us alone you would say he is indifferent. God being a perfect moral being it is a wonder he puts up with so much crap at all. It would not have been a surprise if he wiped out everyone who intentionally defies him over and over yet his mercy and tolerance is legendary and has no equal.

I disagree.

Still logically valid.

 

[1robin]

Oh, believe me 1robin, there is no need to find help getting set up. Your posts do just fine all by themselves.

Yeah, those arguments that have withstood withering but ineffective criticism and the persecution of the world's most powerfull empires for thousands of years and are still valid in professional debates on theology and which have never been effectively countered are bound to be overwhelmed by the awesome scholarship in this thread.

I'm sure the arguments you will bring up has been heard and countered hundreds of times before by LDS Christians like Katzpur.

That may very well be true as I do not usually discuss LDS but have seen debates on the issue. It does not look defensible but who knows.

My own personal experiences with Mormons has been nothing short of positive, and with their adherence to their faith in Christ, I think those I've conversed with over the years are excellent representatives of Christianity.

I will clarify my claims concerning them if Katzpur wishes a debate but I agree they are usually very consistent and moral people. I have no complaint against every day modern Mormons (old school Mormons are another matter) what so ever, it is the doctrines and traditions I find cult like and founded on very little reliable facts.

 

[1robin]

I'm out of frubals for 9-10ths, but that looked like a very thorough job of slicing and dicing baloney. It beats me how those who claim we are unqualified to judge God will spend so much time trying to defend their judgment that he is good. There is another end to the scale of "goodness." God cannot be both simultaneously on and off that scale.

My belief that God is good is mainly composed of my personal experience, historical track record, and the conclusion of billions of others who experience him. It is not rooted in being able to evaluate the entire range of information at his disposal or assuming what an infinite being must do or not. I give God the benefit of the doubt based on my personal experience with him. Your side indicts him for every doubt based on preference and no experience with him at all. In God was half as evil as you desired him to be then why are the concepts of God and Christ more universally associated with good than any other in human history. Why do people who believe in him build hospitals by the hundreds and compose one of if not the most charitable groups on Earth. Why are Churches the place people go when everything worldly has failed them? Why is the life of Christ held up as the only possibe example (or most likely) of perfect human character in history? Reality does not support your assumtions. Let me illustrate this another way:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish TheologianJames Stuart


Can you challenge anything these scholars have said? Can you make the case that all the worlds non-believing moralists combined has equalled the possitive moral influence Christ has had based on a three year career in a minor tribe of the middle east? You must first assume a moral system exists which can only exist if God does even to have a foundation to judge him by? Atheistic claims often end in these self contradicting paradoxes.

 

[1robin]

Morality is preference with or without a Deity. It IS derived by group opinion.

Nope, God's morality would be true even if no human existed. That is what makes it objective in effect as well as in reality. What you described is what is left without God and it is insufficient for justice. You are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology.

As I have already pointed out - Sex slavery, murder, some of the "laws" of your "God's People" prove their so-called morality is just "derived by opinion."

Again, you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. You would also have to give a law and show it to be immoral given it's context first.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Morality is ALWAYS opinion, corralled by the group, including religious groups.

No deity is needed to come up with such laws, so called morality, etc.
If Grog steals food from Crok - Grog is going to beat the crap out of him and probably take Crok's food along with his own.
If Grog takes Crok's mate - Grog is going to beat the crap out of him.
Same with murder, or any other so called moral dilemma.
The other cavemen watch and LEARN what happens when you do these things. It becomes the group's "law." Eventually it gets written down. No deity needed.
Don't steal!
Don't covet someone's mate!
Don't murder!
These are just logical results of group living to prevent chaos. Such logical growth is needed to continue societal growth.
*

The rest of this is based on the same false presupposition and is more of a rant than an argument. If you can clear up the original problems then make an applicable argument I will respond.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My belief that God is good is mainly composed of my personal experience, historical track record, and the conclusion of billions of others who experience him.

... IOW, things you just argued are unreliable?

All of the excuses you just gave for why we can't judge God to be evil - if they were valid - would also prevent you from judging God to be good. If you're going to argue that killing a baby might be good for reasons that we can't understand, then you have to allow for the possibility that any apparently good act might be evil for reasons that we can't understand, too.

 

[1robin]

That is not correct. Slavery continued, including Christian slave owners. This is documented. Do a search. New Testament Christians said nothing against slavery.

I have no idea what you are contending. I do not defend the actions of a Christian who defies the Bible. I defend the Bible and it does not authorize slavery (cruel impressment) in the NT. If someone practices it anyway it has nothing to do with God or the Bible. I already said clearly that yes Christians defied God and owned slaves. I think you are confusing slavery in the old south with the Biblical concept of voluntary indentured servitude anyway. Even in virtually all of Old Testament "slavery" was voluntary. I recently researched this in depth and found existing records (though not many remain) that show slavery was mainly a way to pay off debts and was voluntary. It was a humane practice in general that had a purpose and met the needs of the slave as well as the master unlike in 1860.

Several place in the NT they tell slaves to be content and serve their masters well.

1Ti 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
1Ti 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
Note that "benefit," - slaves are a benefit!
*

This is a good example of something. You begin by presupposing God is evil or non existant and find anything true or not to support your view. You have no interest in and will resist any facts that show what you chose actually does not mean what you think. This is shown by the fact you did not do what I did. I actually looked up the scholars commentary and the original language use.

1. First the word slave does not even appear in these verses. Yet you twice claim it does.

2. You did not bother to find out what words were originally used. The word used for servant was actually:
doulos: It means
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1401&t=KJV

So it can mean slave (not old south US slave though), servant, a follower of Christ, or attendant.

So which is meant in this case.

3. This passage contains rules concerning what to do about things the early Christians would find when they were travelling far and wide spreading the message. IOW when they come across X what should they do.

4. When they came across someone who was in a position of servitude were they to say Christ came so you should run away or rebel against your master (employer).

5. If they went around undoing every contract or arrangement of every culture they would not succeed in their true goal. Spreading the word. It is a practical instruction about what to do in certain cases.

6. It is not by any means a commentary concerning whether God wishes slavery or servitude to exist, but what action to take when it is encountered.

Slavery even in the OT is not what you think and already existed in every culture on earth. God did not say slavery is good and you must do it. He said slavery exists and he made it much more humane by restricting what could be done. For instance he made it mandatory that they be released, debt paid or not after I think 6 or 7 years. Many stayed anyway. There was to be no abuse (along the lines of the southern US) and it was mutually beneficial. I could write a paper on it by now but there is no need, papers and dissertations can be found all over the net.

Summary
1. OT slavery was normally indentured servitude and already existed everywhere.

2. God made it more humane. God's purpose is not to fix this miserable word but to save people out of it and eventually destroy it and rectify all these injustices.

3. These verses you gave concern what a Christian is to do when he finds someone in a servile position when in the service of his mission. The words used were servant instead of slave so that is the context. Another reason for this is the chaos and misery that would happen if you basically turn every servant or slave loose. Who is to feed them? Where will they sleep? etc.... God is interested in practicality not creating the optimal world you arbitrarily make up.


See this link for an exhaustive explanation of those verses if you are actually interested in one:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1805&commInfo=5&topic=1%20Timothy&ar=1Ti_6_1
This site has everything necessary to find out what verse actually mean and can be used to avoid false starts like this one.

 

[1robin]

A lot of white people call themselves Cherokee are you actually part of a tribe or do you have like 10% ancestry when one of your relatives raped a native american?

I am part of a tribe. I have my card. To be honest though I am of course more white than not. The point was I have a vested interest in defending Indians (I spent many years going to reservations and watching them dance and teach as a child, my mother was one quarter Cherokee I believe) yet find little that could be defended honestly.

"But they did it to!" is not much of an argument, Native Americans where human and made mistakes like everyone else. Especially when your supposedly God driven superior civilized people brought torture, destruction and pillaging to an art form that shocked the "savages"

I have no idea what you are saying here. Yes both sides did terrible things. I think the Indians did far more of them. I am not obligated to defend God for all acts commited by any one who has a cross around his neck if their actions are not Biblical. What is the point here?

 

[1robin]

I hope I got everyone caught up but I think I owe 9-10th's penguin one more, but it will have to wait I am exhausted.

 

[1robin]

... IOW, things you just argued are unreliable?

I do not remember arguing these issues at all. They are not proof. I can't say put these things on one side and on the other side of the equality they equal God is good. They are however perfectly consistent with my belief that God is good. IOW they are not proof and can't be used to prove absolutely either contention. However I do not think they are consistent with an evil God at all. In fact I know they aren't concerning person experience. I really wish you would find a new way of arguing rather than telling me what I think by mischaracterizing it and appealing to the absurd. That is how selfish politicians argue and I believe I remember your argumentation as better than that in the past.

All of the excuses you just gave for why we can't judge God to be evil - if they were valid - would also prevent you from judging God to be good. If you're going to argue that killing a baby might be good for reasons that we can't understand, then you have to allow for the possibility that any apparently good act might be evil for reasons that we can't understand, too.

I never said I can't have faith that God is good given these inputs. I said neither of us can prove it one way or the other. In other words the data is on my side but does not equal proof. Most historical claims are evaluated this exact same way. Technically almost every claim of any kind depends on judgment calls based on limited and not completely sufficient evidence.

 

[Copernicus]

I do not even understand the opinion. What brand of religion do I have? I have no belief that the Bible does not support. That is where I got them. What's more I will give up any belief I have if the Bible clearly teaches something different. Lastly I have not contrasted my beliefs with the Bible here and no one else has either. Where did you get this?

I get it from reading the thread discussion, and your denials do not change my impression that others have contradicted things you have said about your religious belief with passages in the Bible. For example, you claimed that the NT did not support slavery, and Inglesdeva quoted verses to you that did. I'm not surprised that you reject their interpretations. That is part of the cherry-picking game that some often play with the Bible: choosing what to ignore, what to assign improbable literal interpretations to, and what to interpret in a non-literal fashion, all done for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of not disagreeing with the Bible.

I never even hinted at or said that. Please do not make up stuff I said. In fact I said the exact opposite. I was very clear:
1. I said a Mormon can be a Christian by virtue of being born again through faith in Christ, in spite of Mormonism.
2. I said specifically that the Mormon religion it's self is incompatible with the Bible.
Again if you wish to discuss anything with me please do not make up the opposite of what I say and attribute it to me.

What you actually said was: "A mormon may be a Christian. That only requires faith in Christ..." Since Mormonism requires a faith in Christ, it follows from your own admission that Mormonism is a Christian religion. Now you want to put a different spin on what you plainly said. In your opinion, Mormonism is incompatible with your interpretation of the Bible, but so what? There are many other religious faiths that we call "Christian" and that are not compatible with your personal take on the Bible.

My belief that God is good is mainly composed of my personal experience, historical track record, and the conclusion of billions of others who experience him. It is not rooted in being able to evaluate the entire range of information at his disposal or assuming what an infinite being must do or not. I give God the benefit of the doubt based on my personal experience with him...

You are so anxious to contradict anything and everything I say that you do not slow down to absorb my point. I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that you judge God good. I only point out that you are judging him on the same scale that "evil" is on, yet you seem to insist that nobody has standing to judge him evil. You also stubbornly insist that we cannot judge imaginary beings to be good or bad, based on what the Bible and people say about them, yet we do that all the time when we read novels and watch movies. That point has been made to you repeatedly, and you have repeatedly ignored it.

...Your side indicts him for every doubt based on preference and no experience with him at all. In God was half as evil as you desired him to be then why are the concepts of God and Christ more universally associated with good than any other in human history...

I get my experience of God from the same place that you do: accounts of God found in the Bible, religious literature, and word of mouth by believers. I do not dispute that you believe you have direct experience of God, but I have no reason to credit that claim as any more believable than the claims of other believers that you disagree with (e.g. Mormons). You cannot all be right, and I think it quite likely that you are all wrong.

...Why do people who believe in him build hospitals by the hundreds and compose one of if not the most charitable groups on Earth. Why are Churches the place people go when everything worldly has failed them? Why is the life of Christ held up as the only possibe example (or most likely) of perfect human character in history? Reality does not support your assumtions...

You have no idea what my "assumptions" are. Not all hospitals and charities are based in Christianity, so how do you come to your assumption here that Christians are primarily responsible for all the hospitals and charities? You don't bother to back up such claims, because you did not arrive at them by examining evidence for them. You just jump to conclusions about the behavior of Christians and atheists, who, in my experience, behave not all that differently from each other when it comes to good works. I'm certainly not surprised that you think of Christ as "the only possible example (or most likely) of perfect human character in history." You are, after all, a Christian. However, the majority of people on the planet are not. You need to get out more.

Let me illustrate this another way:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

What kind of malarkey are you trying to pull here? The man was a Protestant Irishman who studied divinity. He was a Christian, just like you. Can't you find a non-Christian "secularist"?

And please stop trying to proselytize me. I was raised a Christian, so repeating things that I've been exposed to all my life is not going to suddenly change my views. Try to focus on the discussion, not your self-imposed mission to convert people to Christianity. When you quote glowing praise of Jesus from other Christians, it does not contribute substance to the discussion.

Can you challenge anything these scholars have said? Can you make the case that all the worlds non-believing moralists combined has equalled the possitive moral influence Christ has had based on a three year career in a minor tribe of the middle east? You must first assume a moral system exists which can only exist if God does even to have a foundation to judge him by? Atheistic claims often end in these self contradicting paradoxes.

Well, this particular claim has ended in nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. I could engage in the same behavior and start peppering you with quotes from Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc. That would be no more effective with you than your Christian propaganda is with me.

Morality is an interesting question here. 9-10ths has done an excellent job of explaining to you why God provides no foundation whatsoever for it. I'd like to see you refute his points rather than merely restate your own in argumentum ad nauseam style.

 

[1robin]

For example, you claimed that the NT did not support slavery, and Inglesdeva quoted verses to you that did. I'm not surprised that you reject their interpretations. That is part of the cherry-picking game that some often play with the Bible: choosing what to ignore, what to assign improbable literal interpretations to, and what to interpret in a non-literal fashion, all done for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of not disagreeing with the Bible.

If you read my response to that claim you will quickly see the flaws with it. Or maybe your presuppositions will not allow that to even be possible.

What you actually said was: "A Mormon may be a Christian. That only requires faith in Christ..." Since Mormonism requires a faith in Christ, it follows from your own admission that Mormonism is a Christian religion.

That is not even a little true. I claim that nothing unique to Mormonism is compatible with the Bible. Faith in Christ is not one of those unique things. I claim they may become Christians in spite of Mormonism not because of it. Salvation and Christ existed thousands of years before Mormonism ever did. Both Satan and demons believe in God and Christ are they Christians as well? It is the unique Biblical nature of Christ that must be adopted.

You are so anxious to contradict anything and everything I say that you do not slow down to absorb my point. I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that you judge God good. I only point out that you are judging him on the same scale that "evil" is on, yet you seem to insist that nobody has standing to judge him evil.

That is not right. I say you can't prove God is good or evil by those methods. You can argue either but I feel "good" is most consistent with the information. I also said that claims you can conclude God is evil without knowing all the facts he possesses used to make the judgment claiming him to be evil is meaningless. There might be some commonality with claiming him to be good but I suspect that is not the case but it will require further thought. The difference is, to be good God must only be consistent with his biblical revelation and I can evaluate that without knowing what he knows. Even if commonality exists then they cancel out and no "good versus evil" distinction can be made. I would be wiling for the sake of argument to allow that to be assumed to not be available for resolution. In short most acts of God are easily seen as good; to claim the exceptions are evil requires information not available.

I get my experience of God from the same place that you do: accounts of God found in the Bible, religious literature, and word of mouth by believers. I do not dispute that you believe you have direct experience of God, but I have no reason to credit that claim as any more believable than the claims of other believers that you disagree with (e.g. Mormons).

Is this a Mormon debate or a God is evil debate? I was not discussing what you use to develop your beliefs. Of course I can't insist you take my word about personal experience. The point was I have potentially more data at my disposal and if true much better data. Also if let's say 95% of people who claim to have direct experience with God claim it to be benevolent that must carry some weight.

You have no idea what my "assumptions" are. Not all hospitals and charities are based in Christianity, so how do you come to your assumption here that Christians are primarily responsible for all the hospitals and charities? You don't bother to back up such claims, because you did not arrive at them by examining evidence for them. You just jump to conclusions about the behavior of Christians and atheists, who, in my experience, behave not all that differently from each other when it comes to good works. I'm certainly not surprised that you think of Christ as "the only possible example (or most likely) of perfect human character in history." You are, after all, a Christian. However, the majority of people on the planet are not. You need to get out more.

I do not get it. Are you challenging that people built hospitals by the hundreds and gave money by the billions as a result of their faith, is wrong? I have been responding to accusations that God is evil and giving evidence that that is at best an unsupported conclusion.

I have never claimed Atheists are bad or can't be just as good as Christians or in fact better. In fact because this is what is appealed to for sympathy by your side even when a theist makes certain to state it upfront, I have additionally stated at least 3 times in this thread and dozens of times before that atheists can be just as good as anyone they just can't explain morality sufficiently on atheism. I am getting real tired of this unmerited accusation; it is not a reflection of anything I have ever said, and in spite of many claims to the opposite from me. I will no longer entertain them.

Do you guys go to seminars or something?

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

What kind of malarkey are you trying to pull here? The man was a Protestant Irishman who studied divinity. He was a Christian, just like you. Can't you find a non-Christian "secularist"?

Yes, would it matter? I can give you atheist or agnostic quotes alone suggesting God is a very likely explanation of reality if it would make any difference. I think you are saying I am trying to claim Lecky was a non-believer and he actually was one.
I never said anything like that. I simply copied what was on the site.
1. I have looked into his biography and can find nothing to suggest he was a Christian. He may have in fact been one. I do not know.
2. It says he was a secular historian. Meaning he wrote historical books and papers of secular history. He did so. He is famous for his secular histories.
3. Is there some reason that if he was a Christian his statement is any less true?
If so then no evolutionist can be used for evolutionary science.
4. This is a sad attempt to shoot the messenger because the message can't or at least wasn't countered. This is a product of your side all too often. I almost never accuse sources of bias or bring up fallacies (I use them only when it is an obvious problem and as a last resort with a stubborn opponent). Instead I challenge the messages not the sources 9 out of 10 times.

And please stop trying to proselytize me. I was raised a Christian, so repeating things that I've been exposed to all my life is not going to suddenly change my views. Try to focus on the discussion, not your self-imposed mission to convert people to Christianity. When you quote glowing praise of Jesus from other Christians, it does not contribute substance to the discussion.

I do not proselytize to anyone in any environment. I do not do it here because everyone here has already made up their mind. I do not do it anywhere because I am uncomfortable with it. I gave what someone else said as a counter point to unsupported claims that God is evil. I have never even attempted to convert anyone that did not ask me to talk to them about my faith (a grand total of 2 and both are Christians). I have no idea what you are talking about and am pretty sure you do not either. If you wish to discuss anything with me do not accuse me of this again. To my shame maybe, I don't care what most people believe, it is too stressful a burden. I defend God and critique methods. I have never felt called to witness “as it were” beyond that.

Well, this particular claim has ended in nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. I could engage in the same behavior and start peppering you with quotes from Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc. That would be no more effective with you than your Christian propaganda is with me.

This is why I do not bring up fallacies because they are an attempt to dismiss what can't or isn't countered. This one is not even a fallacy. Expert testimony is used in every court in the civilised world. I did not say their statements prove anything. I said this is what scholars say and can their CLAIMS not their status be countered. Fallacies are very misused crutches. My point was that is very likely that respected scholars would give that level of hyperbolic claims of goodness for a being who someone said was evil. It was a counter argument not proof of anything and certainly no fallacy. I would counter the claims you provided not hide in false appeals to fallacy or accusations of bias. By the way in my opinion Harris’s debate verse Craig on morality is the worst debate performance in the modern history of moral debate. Craig backed him up into a corner so tight, Harris had no choice but to literally say he must assume his position was valid because he could not show it to be true in any way.

Morality is an interesting question here. 9-10ths has done an excellent job of explaining to you why God provides no foundation whatsoever for it. I'd like to see you refute his points rather than merely restate your own in argumentum ad nauseam style.

No they did not. They merely asserted things. There was no explanation of anything. To be fair I have not explained it very much either. This issue is one of the most one sided I am aware of. I would never use it if I was an atheist, but have at it if you wish. What points am I to contend? I only remember assumptions or assertions but my memory stinks.

 

[CG Didymus]

So you’re the leader of a band of spiritual minute men. Who are your troops and for what are you fighting?

I don't need no stinking badges... Oh, I mean troops. Look around you. We're everywhere but different. We're watching you fall on your face and make a Christian fool of yourself. Get up wipe your face.

1Robin post 687: How in the world is an Atheist qualified to declare a round peg does actually fit perfectly in a squarer shaped hole.
What do I know the more counter intuitive things are these days, the more rabidly they are defended.
Post #677: I will no longer entertain what a non-omnipotent being believes about an omnipotent one. It is meaningless.
Post 699: I have no belief that the Bible does not support.
I have defended these supposed contradictions for years. I usually find it is the atheist that is contradicting the Bible instead. An atheist reads only enough to find a surface contradiction and stops.
Post 701: The human capacity for self-delusion through cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful forces in history and this Forum is proof.

Reasoning with a committed man is about the most unreasonable thing and if God made an argument that can't be refused where did freewill go? He value our sovereignty to choose so much he will not violate it.

Square pegs in round holes is how I see the Fundamentalist-type of Christians beliefs. You have all kinds of doctrines and dogmas that are at best implied in the Bible--The Trinity, the rapture, etc. People have interpreted the Bible, people subject to "self-delusion". You've chosen one of those interpretation as being true. What do you do with the rest? All the others have to be false don't they? The followers in the others have to be deluding themselves at some point, right? At some point there's even that dividing line between being saved or unsaved. That's a pretty important spot to be teetering on.

If I had one foot on either side of that line, what would I choose? Did God make an argument that makes sense or an argument I can't refuse? If Fundamental Christianity is right than he did give me an answer that can't be refused--go this way and live or go that way and die. Those are my choices? I'd choose life. So why do people turn away from God? Because we love the darkness? Because we've been deceived by the devil? Because we believe in a false religion that makes us the same promise of eternal life as your version of Christianity, but we prefer how it interprets God? Why, by all you've said, would I want to follow your God? You sound lost, confused, angry and in love with "debating".

Worst quote ever for a Christian to say:

I am not attempting to win souls here.

I watch Reasonable Faith on TV and William Lane Craig opens the show by saying something like: We are not here to win arguments, but to win people. You said that I'd make a terrible general, well, look at yourself--How are you doing at being a general in God's army? If a person has the letter of the Law, but doesn't have love, what does that make them? A clanging cymbal, right. You are being the very reason why so many of us run from Christianity. You plant the seed of hate in people's heart by your arguments. Do people see Jesus in you? Are you being the "light"? Or are you hiding the light of truth and love under a basket? You are pushing people further away from Christianity. Let's see how you've impressed someone else:

Copernicus post 690: I assure you that atheists are just as qualified as theists to have opinions on religion. As far as compatibility goes, I think that some have done a fair job of pointing out incompatibilities between the Bible and your brand of religion, although I'm sure that you disagree with that opinion.
As for reconciliation with the Bible, I think that just about any Abrahamic religion can reconcile itself more or less with the Bible, but never completely. That book is full of contradictions, inaccuracies, and mistranslations. The challenge of reconciliation is just an exercise in deciding which parts of it to take literally and which parts not to take literally. Every religion depends on cherry-picking its scripture, to some extent.
Post 694: It beats me how those who claim we are unqualified to judge God will spend so much time trying to defend their judgment that he is good. There is another end to the scale of "goodness." God cannot be both simultaneously on and off that scale.
Post 710: That is part of the cherry-picking game that some often play with the Bible: choosing what to ignore, what to assign improbable literal interpretations to, and what to interpret in a non-literal fashion, all done for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of not disagreeing with the Bible.
I do not dispute that you believe you have direct experience of God, but I have no reason to credit that claim as any more believable than the claims of other believers that you disagree with (e.g. Mormons). You cannot all be right, and I think it quite likely that you are all wrong.

All great points. How would I judge this person? Intelligent, caring, wanting to know the truth, not a blind follower of those that claim they have the truth. I don't know much about this person, but I like them. What do you think? Do you like them? Does Jesus? I'm sure you'd say that Jesus loves them. Then what is your responsibility? To show the world his love or make a good argument?

 

[1robin]

I don't need no stinking badges... Oh, I mean troops. Look around you. We're everywhere but different. We're watching you fall on your face and make a Christian fool of yourself. Get up wipe your face.

Ok calm down Bevis, this absurd metaphor has run it's course.

Square pegs in round holes is how I see the Fundamentalist-type of Christians beliefs. You have all kinds of doctrines and dogmas that are at best implied in the Bible--The Trinity, the rapture, etc. People have interpreted the Bible, people subject to "self-delusion". You've chosen one of those interpretation as being true. What do you do with the rest? All the others have to be false don't they? The followers in the others have to be deluding themselves at some point, right? At some point there's even that dividing line between being saved or unsaved. That's a pretty important spot to be teetering on.

We are discussing whether God is evil and none of us believe that or at least 99%. So in this context we are united. I and everyone that has been born again are heaven bound. The Bible says we are all unique with different roles and talents. I may think a cracker is a cracker others flesh (yuck). I may like music others not. Who cares? Is there any particular difference that applies here?

If I had one foot on either side of that line, what would I choose?

Depends on the line.

Did God make an argument that makes sense or an argument I can't refuse? If Fundamental Christianity is right than he did give me an answer that can't be refused--go this way and live or go that way and die

That is not the choice. We both die, for the ones that chose God they live with him. The ones that fought him live separated from him.

Those are my choices? I'd choose life. So why do people turn away from God? Because we love the darkness? Because we've been deceived by the devil? Because we believe in a false religion that makes us the same promise of eternal life as your version of Christianity, but we prefer how it interprets God? Why, by all you've said, would I want to follow your God? You sound lost, confused, angry and in love with "debating".

The last one might be a little true the rest are nonsense. You are actually saying not everyone agrees on the most complex and profound issues in human history so either give up or everyone is right. Pick your poison.

Worst quote ever for a Christian to say: I watch Reasonable Faith on TV and William Lane Craig opens the show by saying something like: We are not here to win arguments, but to win people. You said that I'd make a terrible general, well, look at yourself--How are you doing at being a general in God's army?

I am not a general in God's army. You do not get to invent a position that you put me in and then declare I am not qualified for. Try again.

If a person has the letter of the Law, but doesn't have love, what does that make them?

I never said I do not love. I said that is not my primary motivation here. It may be that God would disapprove of what I do. I pray about it often and have not felt that, so I roll on. I am in some respects in training for some possible future roll. Then all the love I can muster would be employed. Quit critiquing me from standards you do not acknowledge, understand, or meet. I at least know I do not measure up and have cast myself on his mercy. There is no name for what you seem to be doing.

A clanging cymbal, right. You are being the very reason why so many of us run from Christianity.

You ran long before you showed up here.

That is enough of this. I have had many people who have requested more information from me privately and have said they appreciated my comments. Christ spoke the most scorching words against his own priests I have ever heard. He literally said they were going to hell. I do not need your approval and you need to get of the soapbox you deny exists in the first place. God is my judge and I petition him regularly, you are not him are you. If you were, you would be convinced you do not exist (actually that might work out well for me). BTW Craig is very loving in his discussions yet you excoriate him as well. It appears you do not believe your own claims. I do not have time for this. Please make a comment on the topic. Claiming I am not perfect is not much of a revelation.

 

[CG Didymus]

Craig is very loving in his discussions...Please make a comment on the topic. Claiming I am not perfect is not much of a revelation.

I'm claiming you don't reflect the fruits of the Spirit that a Christian should have. If I tell you to show a little humility, to show more of Christ's love, is that wrong? You are his representative. If he is not evil, then show me. Do you believe Craig's comment is something a Christian should strive to do? To not want to win arguments but to win people. Why not try it? 99.9% of why people think God is evil is because of the actions and lives of his followers.

Sorry for messing with you. I was pretending to be working for God, as his prosecuting attorney. I thought I'd torment you and point out your flaws. Ahh, you did alright. God isn't the evil one, it's all of us picking on each other.

 

[Ingledsva]

1Ti 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

1Ti 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
Note that "benefit," - slaves are a benefit!

I have no idea what you are contending. I do not defend the actions of a Christian who defies the Bible. I defend the Bible and it does not authorize slavery (cruel impressment) in the NT. If someone practices it anyway it has nothing to do with God or the Bible. I already said clearly that yes Christians defied God and owned slaves. I think you are confusing slavery in the old south with the Biblical concept of voluntary indentured servitude anyway. Even in virtually all of Old Testament "slavery" was voluntary. I recently researched this in depth and found existing records (though not many remain) that show slavery was mainly a way to pay off debts and was voluntary. It was a humane practice in general that had a purpose and met the needs of the slave as well as the master unlike in 1860.


This is a good example of something. You begin by presupposing God is evil or non existant and find anything true or not to support your view. You have no interest in and will resist any facts that show what you chose actually does not mean what you think. This is shown by the fact you did not do what I did. I actually looked up the scholars commentary and the original language use.

1. First the word slave does not even appear in these verses. Yet you twice claim it does.

2. You did not bother to find out what words were originally used. The word used for servant was actually:
doulos: It means
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1401&t=KJV

So it can mean slave (not old south US slave though), servant, a follower of Christ, or attendant.

LOL! You try so hard when shown to be wrong.

And BULL to the not a real slave though..

1. The NT DOES NOT condemn slavery.
2. Christians obviously held slaves right up to the Civil War in the USA and even later in some other countries.
3. These Christian slave owners used the Bible as showing their right to own slaves. The Bible was actually used in the legal fight over slavery.

(Lamsa NT) LET all of those who are under the yoke of slavery honor and respect their masters in every way, so that the name of God and his doctrines may not be blasphemed.

(LEB) All those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, lest the name of God and the teaching be slandered.
Note that YOKE - these aren't hired servants.
*

 

[Copernicus]

If you read my response to that claim you will quickly see the flaws with it...

I read your response, which I did find plenty of flaws with, not to mention your ludicrous attempt to downplay, if not outright justify, slavery in America. You offered the lame excuse that the Greek word for "slave" was ambiguous, but I don't need to add to Inglesdeva's rebuttal. You are in denial on that subject.

...I claim that nothing unique to Mormonism is compatible with the Bible. Faith in Christ is not one of those unique things. I claim they may become Christians in spite of Mormonism not because of it...

You said that faith in Jesus was all that was necessary for one to be a Christian. Mormon doctrine requires faith in Jesus, so it follows that it is a Christian religion, no matter what you say about compatibility with the Bible.

...Salvation and Christ existed thousands of years before Mormonism ever did. Both Satan and demons believe in God and Christ are they Christians as well? It is the unique Biblical nature of Christ that must be adopted.

How does 18 centuries translate into "thousands of years?" And I never understood "faith in Jesus" to be equivalent to "belief that Jesus existed." Mormons accept Jesus according to their interpretation of the Bible, just as you do according to yours. It is hard to have a rational discussion when you distort history and attribute ridiculous positions to me.

That is not right. I say you can't prove God is good or evil by those methods. You can argue either but I feel "good" is most consistent with the information. I also said that claims you can conclude God is evil without knowing all the facts he possesses used to make the judgment claiming him to be evil is meaningless...

IOW, you deny others the right to judge God as "evil" while retaining the right for yourself to judge him "good." The only thing "consistent with the information" here is that your argument is inconsistent.

There might be some commonality with claiming him to be good but I suspect that is not the case but it will require further thought. The difference is, to be good God must only be consistent with his biblical revelation and I can evaluate that without knowing what he knows. Even if commonality exists then they cancel out and no "good versus evil" distinction can be made. I would be wiling for the sake of argument to allow that to be assumed to not be available for resolution. In short most acts of God are easily seen as good; to claim the exceptions are evil requires information not available.

I have no problem with you attempting to defend your position by reference to the Bible, but it is hypocritical to deny others that same right. People have been quoting biblical passages here that seem very inconsistent with your point of view about what the Bible reveals.

Is this a Mormon debate or a God is evil debate? I was not discussing what you use to develop your beliefs. Of course I can't insist you take my word about personal experience. The point was I have potentially more data at my disposal and if true much better data. Also if let's say 95% of people who claim to have direct experience with God claim it to be benevolent that must carry some weight.

No, anyone can make such claims. History is full of failed divine revelations and hypocritical claims of benevolence. AFAIK, you do not have "potentially more data at [your] disposal."

I do not get it. Are you challenging that people built hospitals by the hundreds and gave money by the billions as a result of their faith, is wrong? I have been responding to accusations that God is evil and giving evidence that that is at best an unsupported conclusion.

Actually, you have been making sweeping generalizations without any evidence. I'm not challenging the idea that many people are motivated to do good works by their religions. Religion functions partially as a necessary social welfare system that has gradually been supplemented or replaced by secular governments. All I'm saying is that atheists have an equal capacity for such deeds. Arguably, the richest philanthropist in the world is a self-proclaimed atheist: Bill Gates. It is not Jesus that leads him to spend so much money on charity.

I have never claimed Atheists are bad or can't be just as good as Christians or in fact better. In fact because this is what is appealed to for sympathy by your side even when a theist makes certain to state it upfront, I have additionally stated at least 3 times in this thread and dozens of times before that atheists can be just as good as anyone they just can't explain morality sufficiently on atheism. I am getting real tired of this unmerited accusation; it is not a reflection of anything I have ever said, and in spite of many claims to the opposite from me. I will no longer entertain them.

If we are in agreement that Christians and atheists behave roughly the same when it comes to good and bad behavior, then there is no need to emphasize how religion motivates people to do good things, because that emphasis implies that lack of religion somehow lacks such motivations. That is why you leave the impression that the accusation is "merited," but I'm glad to see that you reject it. My own opinion about morality is that basing it on religious authority has the potential to undermine it, as we have seen repeatedly in people who use their religion to justify committing atrocities--acts that we do not need faith in God to declare evil. I get my morality from the same place that you got yours--instinctive empathy and an upbringing by people who set good examples for behavior. For many people, religion is a big part of what shapes their morality, but it is entirely unnecessary. People develop a "moral compass" without it.

Yes, would it matter? I can give you atheist or agnostic quotes alone suggesting God is a very likely explanation of reality if it would make any difference. I think you are saying I am trying to claim Lecky was a non-believer and he actually was one..."

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so I'm not encouraging you to pursue this line. I just thought it odd that you would call a man "secular" who once aspired to become a priest. There is no evidence that he rejected his religion, but you somehow want to keep arguing about it. Lots of non-Christians still have positive feelings about Jesus. I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

I never said anything like that. I simply copied what was on the site.
1. I have looked into his biography and can find nothing to suggest he was a Christian. He may have in fact been one. I do not know.
2. It says he was a secular historian. Meaning he wrote historical books and papers of secular history. He did so. He is famous for his secular histories.

I find it hard to believe that you looked into his biography. Just look him up in Wikipedia. He was a divinity student who once thought of becoming a Protestant priest.

3. Is there some reason that if he was a Christian his statement is any less true?

I don't think so, but you seem to have felt it relevant to label him a "secularist" and try to represent him as a possible non-Christian.

If so then no evolutionist can be used for evolutionary science.

I don't believe in evolution because biologists do. I believe in it because biologists can explain to me why they believe in it. They do not claim that their knowledge comes from a source that is inaccessible to me. So your analogy between scientific and religious authorities fails.

4. This is a sad attempt to shoot the messenger because the message can't or at least wasn't countered.

No, it's a sad attempt to get you to recognize that appeal to authority is fallacious nonsense.

This is a product of your side all too often. I almost never accuse sources of bias or bring up fallacies (I use them only when it is an obvious problem and as a last resort with a stubborn opponent). Instead I challenge the messages not the sources 9 out of 10 times.

Your ability to contradict yourself takes my breath away. You just accused my "side" (not just me) of bias and claimed that you "almost never accuse sources of bias or bringing up fallacies." In a debate, it is legitimate to point out fallacious reasoning, and accusations of bias are usually ad hominem fallacies
(continued...)

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
LOL! You try so hard when shown to be wrong.

When exactly did that happen? Your statemnts were made without the doing slightest bit research. A small amount is all that was needed to show the context you gave was wrong. The word slave did not appear in those verse yet twice you insisted it did. You ignored of resisted context and purpose, and simply asserted they meant what you say. They do not.

And BULL to the not a real slave though..

When people who have no apparent competence in Biblical theology draw the opposite conclusions from what the NT scholars themself have said your credibility is drastically lessened. You basically said I do not care if the most respected NT scholars have said it means what I say regardless. The arrogance required to enable this is appealing. I believe I said that your presuppositions about God would make you resent and dismiss scholarly explanation. I thought perhaps by saying that it would stop it from happening. I was wrong there is no weapon ever forged and no textual explanation to simple that they will not be resisted to maintain a viewpoint derived by preference and immune to fact.

1. The NT DOES NOT condemn slavery.

I never said it did. It never condemned Iran's nuclear program either. Is it therefore valid? I said it does not allow support slavery. God never said "now children go out and get some slaves". In fact he never even promoted it in the OT. He simply made a practice that was an integral part of every culture of that time more benevolent. The verses you gave do not even contain the word slave and he was telling them what they should do when they encounter indentured servitude as they evangelized across the land.

2. Christians obviously held slaves right up to the Civil War in the USA and even later in some other countries.

So? I and every other Christian who ever lived was fallible. I am not and almost never defend Christians. I defend the Bible and God and that is what we have been discussing. You can't just invent arguments that we are not having and think they have some kind of impact on the issue at hand. Christians have also built hospitols by the hundreds and are one of if not the most charitable groups on Earth. Christians were instrumental in ending slavery in the US. In fact only in Christianity is there a sufficient foundation to outlaw slavery. Without it, it is your arbitrary opinion verses someone else's arbitrary opinion.

3. These Christian slave owners used the Bible as showing their right to own slaves. The Bible was actually used in the legal fight over slavery.

They were wrong and the same Bible was used to stop slavery. I am not responsible for every act by a person who wrongly or rightly claims to be a Christian. Are you responsible for the 20 million the atheistic Stalin killed? The first big attack on slavery was John Brown's raid and he was a Christian. The man who did more than any other to rid the US of slavery was a Christian. The majority of the 300,000 men who died to free the slaves were Christians. Maybe you'd better try again.

(Lamsa NT)

LET all of those who are under the yoke of slavery honor and respect their masters in every way, so that the name of God and his doctrines may not be blasphemed.

(LEB) All those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, lest the name of God and the teaching be slandered.
Note that YOKE - these aren't hired servants.
*

I have already rendered this moot using competent scholars and can provide many many more. Posting the failed argument again will not help your position. BTW yoke is symbolic not literal. I have seldom seen victory claimed by anyone for anything less deserving of it. You have shown nothing besides the fact you will make up arguments I never used and assert they are wrong and have no desire to investigate beyond the surface reading of verses you do not understand. You read only enough to find something you falsely think gives you justification to dismiss God and you are resisting anything that counters this erroneous conclusion. The contention is too valuable to allow any challenge to it to exist or be considered, apparently.

 

[Copernicus]

I do not proselytize to anyone in any environment...

OK, it's my perception that endorsements of Jesus, especially when they have no direct bearing on an argument, are a type of proselytizing. I suspect that you are blind to that behavior when you engage in it, but you aren't the only one. I would just want you to note that I admit that people endorse and praise Jesus, and that they do not need to be Christians to do so. How that got injected into the discussion is beyond me, but I see no point to be made with it.

This is why I do not bring up fallacies because they are an attempt to dismiss what can't or isn't countered. This one is not even a fallacy. Expert testimony is used in every court in the civilised world. I did not say their statements prove anything. I said this is what scholars say and can their CLAIMS not their status be countered....

Trials require that experts first be admitted to the court as qualified. It wasn't clear to me that these people had any special expertise to back up the claims they were making about Jesus, although they may have had expertise in the details of their religious doctrines. More to the point, you did not explain their relevance. It just appeared to me that I was reading commercial messages for Jesus. I am well aware of the fact that people praise Jesus and consider him to have been extremely enlightened, if not divine.

Fallacies are very misused crutches...

When they are used to prop up a bad argument, yes. When they are pointed out, no.

My point was that is very likely that respected scholars would give that level of hyperbolic claims of goodness for a being who someone said was evil. It was a counter argument not proof of anything and certainly no fallacy...

Look, if that is all you were trying to say, I am happy to agree that respected scholars do often make hyperbolic claims about the goodness of God and Jesus. You do not actually need to provide such examples, because I'm not arguing against that point. I would even argue that the 9/11 hijackers who screamed "Allahu Akbar!" (literally "God is good") as they crashed airliners full of people into buildings believed God to be good. The argument here is that such claims can be judged wrong, no matter how fervently they are believed by people of faith, because religion teaches that God defines goodness. What that means, ultimately, is that some people--by no means a majority--can be convinced that evil acts are good, if they believe that God wants those acts to take place. The God that they believe in is therefore evil, in my opinion.

 

[1robin]

I'm claiming you don't reflect the fruits of the Spirit that a Christian should have. If I tell you to show a little humility, to show more of Christ's love, is that wrong? You are his representative. If he is not evil, then show me. Do you believe Craig's comment is something a Christian should strive to do? To not want to win arguments but to win people. Why not try it? 99.9% of why people think God is evil is because of the actions and lives of his followers.

This appeal to sympathy and an attempt to occupy a moral high ground is diversionary and therefor not meaningful. Atheists do not need a Christians behavior to dream up a reason to deny God. Their heart is the foundation for their lack of belief not mine. The Bible makes it clear that:

1. Christ at times was offensive and hostile towards people who thought they knew things that really didn't.
2. That all the kindness in the world will not change the mind of someone hostile to faith.
3. That even miracles will not change their minds because they do not want them changed. I spent 27 years as an atheist so I know this very well.
4. Christ while hostile towards arrogance also forgave the men who killed him. It is his example that must be believed in not ours.
5. Christians give more to charity than almost any group, they have built hundreds of hospitals, fed the hungry by the millions, fought to stop slavery etc... Looking past the millions of good examples and focusing on a single bad example (if that were even true) is an excuse not a reason.

Sorry for messing with you. I was pretending to be working for God, as his prosecuting attorney. I thought I'd torment you and point out your flaws. Ahh, you did alright. God isn't the evil one, it's all of us picking on each other.

Do you realize the description you just gave of your actions and purpose are identical to the descriptions given to Satan in Church tradition? To head your next statement off at the pass. NO I am not saying you are Satan but your actions here are consistent with his purpose. He is referred to as the accuser of the brethren and Christ as the defense attorney. Satan is right I am not perfect yet I am legally made perfect by the merits of Christ. So in the end Satan rightly points out we do not deserve heaven but Christ says it does not matter I am with him and may receive heaven based on the fact of my faith in Christ's merits.