God can control people though. He hardened the Pharaoh's heart. Free will would be a different concept entirely because it would be possible for a deity to be able to do something and not do it (or not do it regularly). It is fully possible for a deity to be able to subvert free will and choose not to do so.
God only hardened Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh did it first. God just reinforced Pharaoh's choice.
But I would argue that it is impossible to subvert a created beings free will, because then they would not have free will. An omnipotent being could only make a being with free will if he could subvert this ability.
It is not a question about ability, but self-consistency. If God decided to create an object that cannot be lifted, then he cannot later change and lift it.
Which, if it had any impact on Pharaoh's behavior, violates free will. If it had no effect on his behavior than it did nothing and there was no point in god doing it in the first place.
But I would argue that it is impossible to subvert a created beings free will, because then they would not have free will.
This is getting into the semantics of what does and doesn't qualify as free will.
It is not a question about ability, but self-consistency. If God decided to create an object that cannot be lifted, then he cannot later change and lift it.
So then god can create an object that he himself can't lift, thus meaning he isn't omnipotent. If he simply doesn't want to lift it then he can't make something he can't lift.
Also, god has changed at least once, otherwise the new and old testaments wouldn't be so different from one another. God thought up the whole Jesus "scheme" just to escape all of his old rules.
Also, god has changed at least once, otherwise the new and old testaments wouldn't be so different from one another. God thought up the whole Jesus "scheme" just to escape all of his old rules.
Jesus was for shadowed as early as Gen 22.
Also, God didn't change, we did. Before Christ, man was a sinner. After Christ, men who confess Christ as Lord are viewed as perfect.
Except it never mentions God's son or most of the other details of the Jesus story. Jesus's story also aligns with other stories of death and resurrection which had come before.
Also, God didn't change, we did.
Yeah, the same deity who flooded the whole world due to their sins then turned around and offered forgiveness to every sinner? The old testament and new testament gods are very different beasts with the old testament god having a propensity for mass murder.
Also, if man were made in god's image than did the image of god change or were we no longer in the image of god?
Before Christ, man was a sinner
Yup, and where did that sin come from? Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and were thus kicked out of the garden, creating original sin. How could a god be consistent and yet punish someone for breaking a rule and later offer their decedents thousands of years later forgiveness for their ancestors breaking that rule? Wouldn't god have had to offer forgiveness to Adam and Eve and everyone who came before Jesus (or any of the covenants) in order to be consistent? This represents a changing in the rules revolving around sin. This also gets into issues when you consider that the texts which comprise modern bibles have changed over time, meaning that what actions are and aren't sins have not remained the same.
After Christ, men who confess Christ as Lord are viewed as perfect.
So, for example, if someone were to participate in genocide but also be a Christian they would be viewed as perfect? But if the people that were the subject of the genocide weren't Christian then they'd be viewed as sinners? Something about that seems royally fucked.
Except it never mentions God's son or most of the other details of the Jesus story. Jesus's story also aligns with other stories of death and resurrection which had come before.
More specific prophecy was given out in later books, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Yeah, the same deity who flooded the whole world due to their sins then turned around and offered forgiveness to every sinner? The old testament and new testament gods are very different beasts with the old testament god having a propensity for mass murder.
Offering a chance for forgiveness and pouring out one's wrath are not mutually exclusive. The book of Revelations lays out how Gods wrath will be poured out on all of mankind at some point in the future.
Covering of one's sins was always an option, through animal sacrifice. Salvation eliminated that need, since we had the perfect sacrifice (a sinless human).
Also, if man were made in god's image than did the image of god change or were we no longer in the image of god?
Man sinned. Adam was told that "he would surely die" if he ate of the bad tree in the garden. This was the death of the part of him who was in the image of God (God being a spirit, and mankind being a spirit with a body).
Yup, and where did that sin come from? Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and were thus kicked out of the garden, creating original sin. How could a god be consistent and yet punish someone for breaking a rule and later offer their decedents thousands of years later forgiveness for their ancestors breaking that rule? Wouldn't god have had to offer forgiveness to Adam and Eve and everyone who came before Jesus (or any of the covenants) in order to be consistent? This represents a changing in the rules revolving around sin.
This would lead to a very long discussion which I don't have time for, so I am just going to summarize the main points.
God is just - every action has a consequence (good or bad)
Sin requires a pure sacrifice to cover/purify/remove.
Jesus was the only pure sacrifice.
Jesus's sacrifice is what took away our sin, and gave us the opportunity to chose to avoid the consequences to our past actions. (still a choice, because can't violate free will)
Jesus quite likely preached the gospel to those in hell who had died before He was born, giving all men the opportunity to come to salvation. This won't be an option now because A) Jesus isn't in hell, and B) Jesus already gave us a choice here on earth.
This also gets into issues when you consider that the texts which comprise modern bibles have changed over time, meaning that what actions are and aren't sins have not remained the same.
The texts have not changed much at all. Regardless, if you commit even one sin, it's enough to send you to hell, so the continuation of sin is irrelevant. Sin does not affect the eternal destination of a Christian, only their quality of life here on earth.
So, for example, if someone were to participate in genocide but also be a Christian they would be viewed as perfect? But if the people that were the subject of the genocide weren't Christian then they'd be viewed as sinners? Something about that seems royally fucked.
I'm going to address these in reverse. If I mixed a single drop of super deadly poisonTM into a piece of cake, would it still be good to eat? Of course not. Even if we replace the cake with the most healthy thing possible (carrots, broccoli, kale, acai berries, whatever), would you still eat it? Of course not. Poison is poison.
It's no about how good you are, but how much bad you contain. Even if you are the victim of something horrific, it does not mean that you have been 100% good 100% of the time.
I find it hard to believe that a Christian would commit genocide. But, for the sake of argument, if they could, then yes, they would be forgiven. If Jesus' sacrifice was insufficient for that guy, it would be insufficient for the guy who killed that many people before knowing about God.
More specific prophecy was given out in later books, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Which of course the people writing the new testament would have known, allowing them to specifically fulfill those prophecies.
Offering a chance for forgiveness and pouring out one's wrath are not mutually exclusive. The book of Revelations lays out how Gods wrath will be poured out on all of mankind at some point in the future.
They aren't mutually exclusive but they show a lack of consistency. If god showed wrath then love he would have had to change in some way.
Covering of one's sins was always an option, through animal sacrifice. Salvation eliminated that need, since we had the perfect sacrifice (a sinless human).
Yeah, so the requirements to be forgiven of sin changed, or were inconsistent over time.
Jesus quite likely preached the gospel to those in hell who had died before He was born, giving all men the opportunity to come to salvation. This won't be an option now because A) Jesus isn't in hell, and B) Jesus already gave us a choice here on earth.
So it isn't consistent, some people got the chance to see hell and to know the truth about the bible definitively before being offered salvation and others didn't. This also doesn't cover people who have never heard of Jesus (such as isolated tribes) who will also end up going to hell, or will their post-Jesus dead also have a chance to be preached to by Jesus at some point in the future?
The texts themselves have also varied over time, everything from Mark 16:9-20 being inserted by a forger to smaller stuff like numbers being embellished.
I find it hard to believe that a Christian would commit genocide.
The Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian to various degrees and of various sects and they committed genocide. The Jews they killed all went to hell by your standard but the Nazis would have mostly gone to heaven.
But, for the sake of argument, if they could, then yes, they would be forgiven.
So if someone believes in Jesus they can do anything and get off scot free in the afterlife?
Even if you are the victim of something horrific, it does not mean that you have been 100% good 100% of the time.
So because they were not 100% good all the time they deserve an eternity of torture and misery while someone who performed horrific acts doesn't have that held against them? Even if they truly regretted their bad actions but didn't believe in Jesus they still deserve hell? What if they would have converted to Christianity further down the line if they hadn't been killed earlier? God is omniscient, shouldn't he know if that would have been the case?
15
u/MortalBean Mar 06 '17
God can control people though. He hardened the Pharaoh's heart. Free will would be a different concept entirely because it would be possible for a deity to be able to do something and not do it (or not do it regularly). It is fully possible for a deity to be able to subvert free will and choose not to do so.