Better than Deserved

Thanks Pro. I. Preface My first message to GCL, which was a few months was very much on this topic, where I strongly disagreed with the notion that I felt that GCL was unjustifiably 'putting herself down' with every time 'better than deserved' and so on was mentioned. From where I stand it is a depressing mindset which is a negative effect of many interpretations of Christianity. So my objective in this debate is to demonstrate that we are in no way better than deserved, and I will attempt to go a stretch further by asserting this even if one accepts the central tenets of Christianity. Best of luck to us both, and without further ado.. II. Our rights/God's rights As humans we need to be capable of standing on our own two feet when it comes to introspection and self evaluation, and as such we need to be able to see what we are deserving of even when under a divine power. That means, humans should be regarded to have rights and their values judged independently of what God's opinion of these might be. God clearly has his own will and desires as described in Christianity, and one of the main tenets of Christianity are that god has granted us free will. We have been given the right... to judge God's and our own rights. As such, God's position as a divine authority should be irrelevant to such introspection. Pro contends that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. God's omnibenevolence is a questionable claim and there is no consensus amongst Christians on whether or not God fits this definition. Many will argue that God himself is the source of objective goodness in the world, but this is a very much questionable claim, especially given that views on morality amongst Christians has generally changed, with all people of all races now regarded as equal, slavery abolished, rape and underage sex generally seen morally wrong, as well as human and animal sacrifices. More recently, same sex marriage, and abortion views have changed in general. Of course this is not entirely consistent across Christians, but it is a clear indication that our values have largely changed independantly of the original values depicted by Christianity's literal reading of their texts. Therefore, it seems reasonable to reassess our self-evaluation independantly as well. If God is onnibenevolent then our results of introspection, should yield results that are consistent with God's will. Now. I have cleared up the foundations of my position, I will establish my first line of argument. III. Depravity of Mankind Much if what Pro argues actually works against her own position. One of most significant problems with the teaching of Christianity are that we are all born in sin, and must repent. Please note Pro's opening arguments: "God is Holy and thus- because He is holy makes Him just, righteous, perfect and good. Whereas the depravity of man-kind is the total opposite because we all fall short of God's glory" And... "We have broken God's law (Exodus 20:3-17) which in right, we are deserving nothing more than God's wrath in hell." Let me ask, why do we deserve nothing more than god's wrath in hell? If all humans fall short of God's glory then surely this is a black and white indication that reaching a level which is essentially unattainable as God is defined is an unfair situation. And is a situations that humans were never consulted on, or had a choice in the matte. If Humans were given no choice in their state if goodness, and are originally born/created in a state that will invariably lead them to eternal torture, then clearly they are in a position that is far worse than their actions merit. *They are much worse than deserved*. Another tenet of Christianity is that Adam & Eve brought about the fall of man by committing the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3), in essence every human is born in sin as a result of their actions that day. "Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come Romans 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." But this contradicts the resolution, because even though Adam & Eve's actions that day would arguably merit their own punishment in hell, and their own sin, it doesn't follow that all their descendants would also carry the same sin. We were all born without being a choice in the matter, we had to be born, and moreover we were forced to be born with a debt we never asked for. Therefore, the whole concept of original sin, and the depravity of mankind are very much in contradiction with the resolution, we humans today never did ask for our existence, and never did ask for the burden that God has placed upon up with original sin and his setting if standards that no human can realistically achieve by their own will. IV. Human life's intrinsic value From Pro's opening argument: "AS human beings we all often are better than deserved. We are all alive; living and breathing." However this begins with the presupposition that being alive is intrinsically good, which Pro needs to support for her argument to work. There are however, quite compelling arguments one can make for the reverse, that life is generally a sufferable existance, and it would be better if mankind simply just went extinct. This works both theologically and philosophically, since of the former there would no longer be any human's committing sin, as well as humans that steal God's glory (although this concept is prima facie questionable). For the latter, life demonstrably exists as various states of discomfort, and suffering, and virtually every pleasure we experience come from fulfilling in a specific state of where we were experiencing discomfort. A meal becomes increasingly pleasurable the hungrier you get, a backscratch becomes increasingly pleasurable the itchier it is in the first place. All sources of discomfort act as pools for which satiation grants a temporary reprieve. Life itself as we observe is a struggle for survival, your body is constantly fighting a losing battle against it's own decay, an unending cycle of fulfilling one aspect of discomfort after another as per our own God given biological makeup forces us to endure. Satiation, or comfort are only temporary interludes, and inevitably the state of discomfort returns. This being the case, it is virtually impossible for humans to ever achieve a state of complete satiation, for which even if it was achieved would not fulfil what is required to make life generally a good thing. Therefore, it is clear that even biologically, God has created us necessarily in a state which could have been substantially better, and worse than a state of non-existence, which is pretty much as close to being 'worse than deserved' as one can get. What is worse is in Christianity, death is not an escape from the sufferable existence of living, as we must face judgement, and our souls are immortal, whether we like it or not. As a result, we have no choice but to spend the rest of eternity in heaven or hell, it is a choice that a non-existent life doesn't need to make, and indeed, we are worse off than we deserve. V. Conclusion My main contentions this debate are to show that the depravity of mankind, and the sufferable mandatory existance which we had no choice in the matter, make for an unfair and undeserving life in depravity and discomfort. We are much worse off than we deserve to be by taking the standard of non-existance, and therefore the resolution is firmly negated. I hand back this interesting albeit depressing debate to Pro, and look forward to her rebuttals