Christian Doctrine Undermines its Own Morality

=========== Introduction: =========== I would like to formerly thank my esteemed opponent, JustCallMeTarzan, for initiating this debate. I am looking forward to our future encounters with due anticipation. My opponent contends that theological fatalism leads to inconsistent doctrine, or doctrine that "undermines" itself. I will attack my opponent's case from two fronts: (1) It is not true that theological fatalism is certainly true and (2) even if it was, moral doctrine would not "undermine" itself. =========== Theological Fatalism =========== My opponent's argument for theological fatalism is a non sequitur – insofar as the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Is it true that knowing the future means that the future is necessarily determined? And that it is determined by something (or someone) other than free will? Determinism perhaps does, but does not NECESSARILY follow from omniscience. It would be helpful to remember that a Christian understanding of God is a being that is atemporal (outside of time). Now, when considering past events, do we look at them as causally determined, or events that were free-willfully determined? Just like we can look at past events – knowing full well that are doing so in no way causally determines the already free-willfully determined event – so God can look at future events (which, being atemporal, would be like looking at a timeline of past, free-willfully determined events) without the events being causally determined. My opponent must answer this question: Is there no possible way that a being, who is atemporal and omni-excellent (this includes all attributes ascribed to said God in my opponent's first round) could know future, free-willed actions? Unless my opponent can show the hidden premise that creates a necessary contradiction between free will and omniscience, his point cannot stand. "This is commonly known as the distinction between God knowing the future and knowing everything that is possible to know." Since my opponent accepts the latter as an acceptable Christian rendering (but still thinks it falls by its own merits) then I will show how this does indeed bolster the Christian argument. God will only be able to see narrowly into the future. This means, while God may know you are going to make a poor choice, he neither wanted you to make it, nor created you with the knowledge that you would. He simply allows it to happen because his will (to allow free will) has made it possible. =========== If it were true =========== If it were true that God causally determined us it would make no difference. The Bible teaches that to think God can do wrong is "unthinkable" (Job 34:12), because "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5), and "God is love" (1 John 4:16). God makes the rules, not us. If we think he's wrong, we're wrong – that is Christian doctrine. God is the metric by which we judge. It must be good and just by the mere fact that God did it. To say differently would place morality outside of the character of God and therefore necessitate the explanation and origin of this alternative and transcendental entity that is morality – a burden that would be my opponent's. How does this undermine Christian morality? =========== The Problem of Evil =========== "An omnipotent God could destroy all evil." This is an unsubstantiated premise and needs to be SOUND in order for his argument to hold water. Moreover, my opponent's argument assumes that evil exists. My opponent is either engaging in the traditional begging of the question, that is, his premise (evil) depends on the truth of the very matter in question, or he is presupposing an alternative objective standard by which we may determine evil. Such a presupposition will not be granted and needs to be explained. Since my opponent's argument requires that evil ACTUALLY exist, I will let him prove that evil exist beyond the subjective whims of human conception. Moreover, since the Bible teaches that it is "God [who] declares what is right," (Isaiah 45:19), it is possible that what we perceive to be evil, is in fact, no evil at all. Take for example a man who slowly awakes to find woman cutting his stomach. The man will rightly fuss that such an action is evil! But say he finds out that the woman is a doctor who is trying to remove a malignant mass that will ultimately kill him. Will he not then realize that what he perceived to be evil was not evil at all? Furthermore, my opponent cannot use an alternative understanding of evil without defying the resolution. The resolution states that Christian doctrine undermines itself. In sum, the only way for my opponent's argument to have a sound premise would be for his conclusion to be wrong. Moreover, my opponent must show that Christian doctrine explicitly states that an omni-excellent God would necessarily eliminate evil. =========== The Beef =========== I labeled this section "the beef," because it is the only area where my opponent is actually addressing something pertinent to the resolution. My opponent suggests that since God commits actions in violation of His own edicts, he undermines Christian morality. The problem is that, consistent with Christian doctrine, "God's ways are not our ways" (Isaiah 55:89). God's requirement to obey his own edicts is not inherent in the preaching of Jesus. Jesus expounds on the ways that humans must follow – these ways are not God's (as Christian doctrine states). Moreover, the judged cannot condemn the judge. My opponent's singular example is of God murdering – however this is not true. Murder, by definition, is unlawful killing. So even if my opponent's case were true, he would have to show that God's actions were unlawful. =========== Broken Prongs =========== My opponent's three-pronged attack fails on all fronts. "1) Omniscience necessitates deterministic conceptualizations regarding the causation of behavior." This is far from necessarily true, and even if it were, it in no way "undermines" Christian doctrine of morality. "2) The Problem of Evil represents a challenge to the classification of evil as immoral and/or the attributes of God." My opponent must show that Christian doctrine undermines itself, not that using a non-biblical conceptual framework of evil undermines our understanding of evil. Christian doctrine is consistent on its understanding of evil and God. My opponent has too many hidden premises that need to be shown. "3) The inconsistency between God's behavior and his laws represents a significant hurdle for the conceptualization of Christian morality because the character that gives the criteria for moral judgment can negate the criteria, yet remain moral." My opponent contradicts the resolution by trying to insist that our ways are the same as God's ways – this is clearly not Christian doctrine. Moreover, he has not adequately shown that God breaks his own commandments. His singular example is sorely wanting because he requires proof that God was unlawfully killing – and, unfortunately, or rather fortunately, the only person who can judge that is… well, God. Sorry. =========== Conclusion =========== My opponent needs to remember that he is trying to show how Christian doctrine undermines its own morality. He cannot introduce non-biblical ideas into the debate in hopes of undermining biblical morality, as this is not Christian doctrine.