Christian Doctrine Undermines its Own Morality

=== Intro === I need to remind Tarzan that his burden is to show that Christian doctrine undermines its own morality, not that secular or non-Christian understandings undermine Christian morality. "into an unnecessary semantic argument about who gets to define evil." Not at all! Since my opponent has insisted that evil was indeed a problem, certainly the premise that evil exists must be shown as true! Since my opponent has furnished no evidence for the actual and objective existence of evil, how can there by shown that there is a problem? === Determinism === My opponent insists that omniscience necessitates determinism. He has not fully understood my argument and has consequently avoided it (perhaps my lack of clarity is to blame). I know the outcome of past events. All past events must be exactly as they are – for indeed, they have already taken place! However, I know, for instance, that my friend misplaced his foot on the second step of my stairs and sprained his ankle. I neither determined the action, nor wanted it to happen. I know that my friend's incident was the result of his free action. If God is outside the dimension of time, he could see all the things that we have CHOSEN to do. How is this NOT, at bare minimum, possible? Also, I am not affirming any particular view in terms of God's omniscience, since all that is required is that at least one view be possible. Moreover, it is Christian doctrine that humans have free will. This is evidenced by when God used the Hebrew word Timshel when talking to Cain before he killed his brother: "thou mayest." God told Cain that he could either choose to kill his brother or not. My opponent has taken the Christian Doctrine of omniscience (though I am not sure that he has a firm grasp of biblical omniscience) and tried to show that it necessitates determinism. But this is NOT a Christian doctrine! Christian doctrine states that we have free will! Therefore my opponent is not showing that Christian doctrine undermines itself, but that his non-biblical, non-doctrinal deduction from a singular Christian doctrine undermines morality – this is in contradiction with the resolution. Since Christian doctrine states that (1) God is omniscient and (2) we have free will, then my opponent cannot substantiate his claim of determinism without moving outside of resolution. Furthermore, God can remain omniscient without knowing the future. How? Capacity does not necessarily indicate full utilization and possession does not dictate use. Since determinism requires that the future be known, and it is possible for an omniscient God to not know the future, my opponent's point is bunk. Possession of all knowledge is not equal to the utilization of all knowledge. For instance, I am holding the book, "Les Miserable" in my hand. I paid for it and read it through in its entirety. I not only possess the book in real and legal sense, but now it can be said that I possess all of the knowledge contained within it in every relevant meaning of the term. But can I recount the first sentence on page 1221? No, not without taking action and looking at it. This properly illustrates the vital difference between capacity and action. === The Beef === "Jesus, also being God would be bound to this general rule." My opponent's reasoning quickly eroded with the abovementioned quote. Jesus, in his humanity, could be said as being bound by said rules – but that was during his earthly incarnation. My opponent must prove that God (doctrinally referred to as spirit, not human) is bound by those rules. Since Christian doctrine teaches that God is NOT bound by our ways, my opponent is sourcing something outside of the resolution and his forcing an interpretation that is not required by the text. My opponent goes on to state that he is an atheist and can judge God all he wants… Okay. My opponent may do as he pleases, but it is not within the scope of the debate. My opponent must show that Christian doctrine undermines its own morality. His very tenuous argument that there is no salient/clear example as to what the moral code actually is, is irrelevant. This undermines Christian morality how? More importantly, it does not take an exemplar for a clear understanding to be had. What is unclear about "thou shall not steal?" === Responses to responses === "Christian doctrine lacks a clear example for its moral code and the doctrine itself leads one away from moral responsibility." Prove that Christian doctrine requires an example (though Jesus was a pretty dang good one), and explain exactly what doctrine leads people away from moral responsibility. Moreover, explain what this moral responsibility is and where it stems. "it rests on a lack of a relate-able example for moral behavior and the fact that Christian doctrine leads to empirical determinism, which leads to a lack of ultimate responsibility." Jesus was a relatable example (though it still stands unproven that an exemplar is necessary) that could only reasonably be said to have been bound by human ways in his humanity – since Christian doctrine asserts that GOD is not bound by our rules. Even still, it has not been shown that God broke any rules! Furthermore, Christian doctrine leads to free will – that IS what it teaches after all. "What my opponent means to say is that Christians can't judge God. In order to say that God is the only one who can judge himself, he must provide some sort of binding reason why nonbelievers are not allowed to judge God." The binding reason in this resolution is that it is Christian doctrine. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?" (Romans 9:20). Remember, it is Christian doctrine that needs to be shown to undermine its own morality – not the misguided assertions of nonbelievers. "Consider the case of the Biblical flood - certainly thousands of innocent babies were killed. What is required is proof that these are LAWFUL killings." If you are right on this point, then you are wrong in the debate because Christian doctrine teaches that God is perfect and all his ways are right and just. Therefore, if God committed unlawful killings (which would require him being bound by these commands, which is tantamount to saying that a game designer ought to be bound by his own programming), it would contradict Christian doctrine and consequently contradict the resolution. Christian doctrine needs to be shown as undermining its own morality! === Other Responses === "1) Omniscience necessitates deterministic conceptualizations regarding the causation of behavior." This is not necessarily true or shown to be true. Moreover, to even by considered true the future must necessarily be known. Since omniscience does not require that the future be known, insofar as capacity does not necessitate or require use, it is possible that an omniscient God does not know the future. "2) Christian morality cannot be properly conceptualized because the exemplar giving moral criteria is himself above the moral law. The manner in which he is placed there challenges the conception of what is evil or the attributes of God himself." What exactly does proper conceptualization look like? Moreover, is it possible for a being to create a system or dimension in which all entities therein are bound by rules and laws that the creator himself is not bound by? Since we can conceptualize, for instance, a game designer producing such a system, why is it so hard to imagine ourselves as part of a very similar system – where rules and laws apply to us but not the being that created them? "In order to support his contentions my opponent must show: 1) Free will is possible given God's knowledge of empirical facts." I need only show that Free will is Christian doctrine. It is Christian doctrine that needs to undermine its own morality, right?