# God's Will?



## TheBishop

http://news.yahoo.com/least-12-people-killed-colo-batman-showing-124845145.html

If god exsists it allowed this to happen.  Either god willed it himself, or god knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Either way I see no reason to worhip an entity that allows this.  Benevolence is not a trait of an omnipotent being that oversees evil and allows it to exsist.


----------



## hummdaddy

He pulled the trigger himself


----------



## centerpin fan

As president of the Free Will Society (Dunwoody chapter), you know where I stand.


----------



## TheBishop

centerpin fan said:


> As president of the Free Will Society (Dunwoody chapter), you know where I stand.



God stood by and watched it happen. I know your not going to like it but I'm going to ask you a question now.

How does benevolence play into that?


----------



## atlashunter

Yeah free will. Free will for murderers trumps the free will of their victims. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/least-12-people-killed-colo-batman-showing-124845145.html
> 
> If god exsists it allowed this to happen.  Either god willed it himself, or god knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Either way I see no reason to worhip an entity that allows this.  Benevolence is not a trait of an omnipotent being that oversees evil and allows it to exsist.



If there is no God, this tragedy is just man worshipping his maker.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Yeah free will. Free will for murderers trumps the free will of their victims. Makes perfect sense.



Murderers can take free will.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> If there is no God, this tragedy is just man worshipping his maker.


----------



## Mars

Who said God is purely benevolent?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Murderers can take free will.



Of course they can. Apparently that is God's preference over intervening with the free will of the murderer.


----------



## atlashunter

Mars said:


> Who said God is purely benevolent?


----------



## centerpin fan

TheBishop said:


> I know your not going to like it but I'm going to ask you a question now.



NOOOOOOO!  NOT A QUESTION!  THERE'S ONLY ONE THING I HATE MORE THAN QUESTIONS!!!


----------



## centerpin fan

TheBishop said:


> How does benevolence play into that?



It doesn't.  The shooter was not the least bit benevolent.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> If there is no God, this tragedy is just man worshipping his maker.



Or there is a god and he just doesnt care, or He willed it himself which makes him evil, or he doesn't have the capacity to stop it, or he doesn't want to stop it (agian makes him evil).


----------



## centerpin fan

atlashunter said:


> Free will for murderers trumps the free will of their victims.



Only if the victims are outgunned.


----------



## TheBishop

centerpin fan said:


> It doesn't.  The shooter was not the least bit benevolent.



Good dodge.  But I'm not talking about the shooter.  I'm talking about god or the lack thereof.


----------



## Mars

Is it not possible for God to be omnipotent without being purely benevolent? If God is omnipotent and is the creator of all things and knows everything thing the has happened and will happen to everything, then God either created every event in a person's life or he is not purely benevolent and allows evil.


----------



## centerpin fan

TheBishop said:


> Or there is a god and he just doesnt care, or He willed it himself which makes him evil, or he doesn't have the capacity to stop it, or he doesn't want to stop it (agian makes him evil).



Haven't we done this one before -- multiple times?


----------



## centerpin fan

TheBishop said:


> Good dodge.  But I'm not talking about the shooter.  I'm talking about god or the lack thereof.



I realize that, and I gave you my answer back in post #3.


----------



## atlashunter

centerpin fan said:


> Only if the victims are outgunned.



Yep, in a world with no magical super heroes that makes perfect sense.

Free will is such a weak argument in cases like these. _Someone_ is going to have their free will violated. The only question is who? If you are aware of a murder about to take place and have the power to intervene, choosing not to is as much an act of your will as intervening. We throw folks in prison for that.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> As president of the Free Will Society (Dunwoody chapter), you know where I stand.



Hope to see you at the FWS state convention in the fall, I'll be there with a booth representing the Barnesville chapter.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> Yep, in a world with no magical super heroes that makes perfect sense.
> 
> Free will is such a weak argument in cases like these. _Someone_ is going to have their free will violated. The only question is who? If you are aware of a murder about to take place and have the power to intervene, choosing not to is as much an act of your will as intervening. We throw folks in prison for that.



This ^^^


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Or there is a god and he just doesnt care, or He willed it himself which makes him evil, or he doesn't have the capacity to stop it, or he doesn't want to stop it (agian makes him evil).



Is this kind of thing always evil, or just in this particular case?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Yep, in a world with no magical super heroes that makes perfect sense.
> 
> Free will is such a weak argument in cases like these. _*Someone*_* is going to have their free will violated*. The only question is who? If you are aware of a murder about to take place and have the power to intervene, choosing not to is as much an act of your will as intervening. We throw folks in prison for that.



...which is part of having free will, no? The chance to have it violated by someone.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> _Someone_ is going to have their free will violated. The only question is who?



No, the question is "_by who_."

In this case, not God.  If God intervened, then he would be the one violating free will.


----------



## centerpin fan

stringmusic said:


> Hope to see you at the FWS state convention in the fall, I'll be there with a booth representing the Barnesville chapter.



Looking forward to it!  I will be giving three presentations:


"Salvation by Works:  Fun for the Whole Family"

"Altars in Church:  How Big Should They Be?"

"I Am Sovereign.  God is Not."

Hope you can attend!


----------



## Mars

Why do people insist that we even have free will? If we really had free will, nothing would ever happen to us that we didn't want to happen. Everyone's so called free will is violated on a daily basis.


----------



## stringmusic

centerpin fan said:


> Looking forward to it!  I will be giving three presentations:
> 
> 
> "Salvation by Works:  Fun for the Whole Family"
> 
> "Altars in Church:  How Big Should They Be?"
> 
> "I Am Sovereign.  God is Not."
> 
> Hope you can attend!


----------



## centerpin fan

Mars said:


> Why do people insist that we even have free will? If we really had free will, nothing would ever happen to us that we didn't want to happen. Everyone's so called free will is violated on a daily basis.



Did God make you type that?


----------



## Mars

centerpin fan said:


> Did God make you type that?



If you believe that God knows all and created all, then yes he did.


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> Why do people insist that we even have free will? If we really had free will, nothing would ever happen to us that we didn't want to happen. Everyone's so called free will is violated on a daily basis.



So having free will from your perspective is the same as being omnipotent?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> Or there is a god and he just doesnt care, or He willed it himself which makes him evil, or he doesn't have the capacity to stop it, or he doesn't want to stop it (agian makes him evil).



Or perhaps you judge God based upon how well he carries out your agenda for the world. Or perhaps you believe in the supremacy of you. God is omnipotent and sovereign. We are at his mercy.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> "I Am Sovereign.  God is Not."





That right there was funny!


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> If you believe that God knows all and created all, then yes he did.



Just because He created you and knows what your going to do, doesn't mean He made you do it.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> No, the question is "_by who_."
> 
> In this case, not God.  If God intervened, then he would be the one violating free will.



Right. So given a choice between standing by and watching a murderer violate the free will of his victims or intervening with the free will of the murderer he chooses to stand by with folded arms. This is what people call a good god? Imagine someone using that defense in court. "Well your honor yes it's true I could have stopped that murderer at no personal risk to myself and saved lives but that would be violating their free will and I would rather they be the one violating the free will of others to live than for me to violate their free will to commit murder." If you're on the jury that is an excuse you would buy? That is the decision that a perfect being would make?


----------



## centerpin fan

Mars said:


> If you believe that God knows all and created all ...



I do, but I don't think He made me type this.


----------



## Mars

stringmusic said:


> Just because He created you and knows what your going to do, doesn't mean He made you do it.



Can you explain your definition of free will to me?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> This is what people call a good god?



First, we do not choose "God."  We are not capable of making the rules.  If one concludes he exists, one must accept things as they are.  It's not a "choose your own adventure" scenario.



atlashunter said:


> Imagine someone using that defense in court. "Well your honor yes it's true I could have stopped that murderer at no personal risk to myself and saved lives but that would be violating their free will and I would rather they be the one violating the free will of others to live than for me to violate their free will to commit murder." If you're on the jury that is an excuse you would buy? That is the decision that a perfect being would make?



For a person in court, your scenario is correct.  It would be a lame defense.

However, we are not talking about the American court system.  We are talking about the rules of the universe.  Do we have free will or not?  What you or I think that implies about God is irrelevant to the fact.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Right. So given a choice between standing by and watching a murderer violate the free will of his victims or intervening with the free will of the murderer he chooses to stand by with folded arms. This is what people call a good god? Imagine someone using that defense in court. "Well your honor yes it's true I could have stopped that murderer at no personal risk to myself and saved lives but that would be violating their free will and I would rather they be the one violating the free will of others to live than for me to violate their free will to commit murder." If you're on the jury that is an excuse you would buy? That is the decision that a perfect being would make?



So your saying God should stop giving people free will when they are about to do something you consider wrong?


----------



## Mars

If you have free will then you would be able to make your own choices about events in your life. Agree?

Have you never had something happen in your life that went against your desires? I know I have.


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> Can you explain your definition of free will to me?



We have the ability to make choices in our lives. I can choose to shoot up a movie theater when I get off work or I can choose to go on a date with my wife. God is not going to force me to do either one, although He knows the date is going to win out.


----------



## gemcgrew

If man is free from God in any sense or degree, then God does not control and ceases to be God.


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> If you have free will then you would be able to make your own choices about events in your life. Agree?
> 
> Have you never had something happen in your life that went against your desires? I know I have.


...


stringmusic said:


> So having free will from your perspective is the same as being omnipotent?


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> If man is free from God in any sense or degree, then God does not control and ceases to be God.



Gem, we go 'round and 'round about this, but I see that as your rules and definition of God.


----------



## JB0704

I wish collinscraft77 would jump in here, then we would have all the "elect" in one thread!!


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> First, we do not choose "God."  We are not capable of making the rules.  If one concludes he exists, one must accept things as they are.  It's not a "choose your own adventure" scenario.



I'm perfectly ok with that if that is what you want to believe. Just don't tell me that this being is perfect or good.




JB0704 said:


> For a person in court, your scenario is correct.  It would be a lame defense.
> 
> However, we are not talking about the American court system.  We are talking about the rules of the universe.  Do we have free will or not?  What you or I think that implies about God is irrelevant to the fact.



We are talking about the morality of choices made by a being claimed to have an active role in our universe. You can declare that the great dictator is all powerful and therefore gets to do as he pleases but if you pass the moral judgment that the dictator is benevolent I'm going to question that judgment based on the reality we find ourselves in.


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> Gem, we go 'round and 'round about this, but I see that as your rules and definition of God.



Scripture declares that he does whatsoever he pleases and none can stay his hand. Not my definition.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> So your saying God should stop giving people free will when they are about to do something you consider wrong?



No I'm saying it is immoral to standby and allow people to commit murder when you have the power to stop them and choose to do nothing. That is in itself an immoral act. I'm also saying that if free will is high on your list of priorities then you should not permit people to violate the free will of others.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Is this kind of thing always evil, or just in this particular case?



Yes mass murder is always evil.


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Scripture declares that he does whatsoever he pleases and none can stay his hand. Not my definition.



Then why do the actions of men change his mind so often in the OT?  What "pleases him" may be our exercise of free will to follow him.......


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> I'm perfectly ok with that if that is what you want to believe. Just don't tell me that this being is perfect or good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about the morality of choices made by a being claimed to have an active role in our universe. You can declare that the great dictator is all powerful and therefore gets to do as he pleases but if you pass the moral judgment that the dictator is benevolent I'm going to question that judgment based on the reality we find ourselves in.




Amen.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> We are talking about the morality of choices made by a being claimed to have an active role in our universe.



I do not know what the level of activity is.  If he intervened, we would not be free.  I think freedom is a gift of life....and we choose to use that for good or evil.



atlashunter said:


> You can declare that the great dictator is all powerful and therefore gets to do as he pleases but if you pass the moral judgment that the dictator is benevolent I'm going to question that judgment based on the reality we find ourselves in.



I don't pass a "moral judgement" because I do not blame evil on the creator.  I blame evil on the perpetrator of such actions.  Again, free will is a good thing, and can be used for good.  Evil, is a product of freedom, because good would not be good if it was a mandate.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> No I'm saying it is immoral to standby and allow people to commit murder when you have the power to stop them and choose to do nothing. That is in itself an immoral act. I'm also saying that if free will is high on your list of priorities then you should not permit people to violate the free will of others.


Your going to have to explain it to me in a different way I guess, because it seem like your answer is.....


stringmusic said:


> So your saying *God should stop giving people free will when they are about to do something you consider wrong*?


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Yes mass murder is always evil.



Unless you are mass murdering evil people


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Yes mass murder is always evil.



You objective moralist you. 

I might save your post in my "favorites" for future discussions.


----------



## Mars

stringmusic said:


> So having free will from your perspective is the same as being omnipotent?



Yes, thats right. Did you choose your wife or do you think that God placed her there for you?


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Scripture declares that he does whatsoever he pleases and none can stay his hand. Not my definition.



Do you reliaze how pointless this makes everything including worship?  I have said this before,  though your belief makes acts like this more reconcilable than the free will guys, it makes worship and belief more pointless.  God created man so he may use man to worship himself? We are nothing but dolls in his hands according to you.  Any act is not ourt act, any emotion is not our emotion, any doubt is not our doubt, ect... 

Then there is no point to anything it all just entertainment for god.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Then there is no point to anything it all just entertainment for god.



And not very entertaining if you already have all the lines memorized.......


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> You objective moralist you.
> 
> I might save your post in my "favorites" for future discussions.


 

My morals are not universaly practiced by mankind string. Nice try though.


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> Yes, thats right. Did you choose your wife or do you think that God placed her there for you?


First off, I don't agree that a person must be all powerful to have free will. To me, free will is simply the ability to make choices, not controlling all aspects of it.

To answer your question, I would say both. God placed her here, and knew that I would marry her, and I chose to marry her.


----------



## centerpin fan

We really need a separate "free will" forum.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> I do not know what the level of activity is.  If he intervened, we would not be free.  I think freedom is a gift of life....and we choose to use that for good or evil.



Do you believe the bible?




JB0704 said:


> I don't pass a "moral judgement" because I do not blame evil on the creator.  I blame evil on the perpetrator of such actions.  Again, free will is a good thing, and can be used for good.  Evil, is a product of freedom, because good would not be good if it was a mandate.



Am I to understand that you take a neutral position on the morality of God? You don't consider him and his decisions good any more than you consider him evil? You would neither agree or disagree with the proposition that he is a perfect being? If that is your view then you are in a distinct minority of believers.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> My morals are not universaly practiced by mankind string. Nice try though.



Objective morals don't have to be practiced by everyone for you to have them. You objectively think mass murder is wrong, that has zero bearing on whether anyone else thinks it is or not.


----------



## Mars

stringmusic said:


> First off, I don't agree that a person must be all powerful to have free will. To me, free will is simply the ability to make choices, not controlling all aspects of it.
> 
> To answer your question, I would say both. God placed her here, and knew that I would marry her, and I chose to marry her.



Where do you draw the line between your free will and God's will?


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> We really need a separate "free will" forum.



This topic gets all the Christians arguing with each other, and gives the atheists plenty more reason to dislike God.  It's a natural fit for this sub-forum.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> And not very entertaining if you already have all the lines memorized.......



That begs the question :Why would an entity such as god need to be entertained?


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> No I'm saying it is immoral to standby and allow people to commit murder when you have the power to stop them and choose to do nothing.



It would be immoral only if he decreed a moral law that forbids himself from doing it.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> First off, I don't agree that a person must be all powerful to have free will. To me, free will is simply the ability to make choices, not controlling all aspects of it.
> 
> To answer your question, I would say both. God placed her here, and knew that I would marry her, and I chose to marry her.



If the decision is known before you make it, did you really have a choice in the matter?


----------



## Mars

atlashunter said:


> if the decision is known before you make it, did you really have a choice in the matter?



this^^^^^


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> It would be immoral only if he decreed a moral law that forbids himself from doing it.



So much for moral absolutes. 

Are you a divine command theorist?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Objective morals don't have to be practiced by everyone for you to have them. You objectively think mass murder is wrong, that has zero bearing on whether anyone else thinks it is or not.



Good you understand the difference.  I have a personal objective moral code and there is no such thing as Absolute Universal morality. It all personal therefore subjective to each individuals beliefs.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> It would be immoral only if he decreed a moral law that forbids himself from doing it.



How can you write that statement and not see how ridiculous it sounds.  If it is all his doing there is no such thing as morals period.  It is all about the flavor of his moment.  

Why does god need to play with dolls?


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> Good you understand the difference.  I have a personal objective moral code and there is no such thing as Absolute Universal morality. It all personal therefore subjective to each individuals beliefs.



As confirmed by the resident theists who declare there is no objective morality by which to pass moral judgments on God. Funny that in the next breath they will somehow confirm that God is good.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Do you believe the bible?



Yes.  Perhaps a little differently than some.  This is a loaded question.......



atlashunter said:


> Am I to understand that you take a neutral position on the morality of God? You don't consider him and his decisions good any more than you consider him evil? You would neither agree or disagree with the proposition that he is a perfect being? If that is your view then you are in a distinct minority of believers.



My position is that if God exists (I believe yes), then his morality is not mine to consider.  If God writes the rules of the universe, then he is the decider of what is "good."  If allowing men to be free is "good" to him, then it is not mine to quesiton.  So, if freedom is used for evil, the orginal gift is not to blame.  A good example is guns.  Who is responsible for gun crime?  The maker of the gun, or the person who uses it inappropriately?

Every Christian will question God.  I am not in a minority to claim that I often look at things and scratch my head.  Take that picture of the little girl being hovered over by a vulture.......our perspective cannot comprehend what eternal being would allow such a fate.

But.......

What if the little girl is a victim of men, and not God?  What if God, in his "perfect" wisdom determined that the greatest gift he could give men was freedom?  Then, men abused that freedom to create circumstances like the little girl and the vulture.  Does that imply that the gift of freedom was not good?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> As confirmed by the resident theists who declare there is no objective morality by which to pass moral judgments on God. Funny that in the next breath they will somehow confirm that God is good.



If God exists, my (and your) opinion of his morality is irrelevant.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> This topic gets all the Christians arguing with each other, and gives the atheists plenty more reason to dislike God.  It's a natural fit for this sub-forum.



Exactly.  It's the "Bible version" issue for the AAA forum.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> That begs the question :Why would an entity such as god need to be entertained?



I don't know....but, I am a "free willer."  I think life is a gift.


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> Where do you draw the line between your free will and God's will?



According to what He has revealed to me.



Here something for everyone to read...... http://www.gotquestions.org/Gods-will.html


----------



## Mars

stringmusic said:


> According to what He has revealed to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Here something for everyone to read...... http://www.gotquestions.org/Gods-will.html



That article would be a better reference for my point of view.



> In other words, there is nothing that happens that is outside of God’s sovereign will.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> If the decision is known before you make it, did you really have a choice in the matter?



Absolutely


----------



## stringmusic

Mars said:


> That article would be a better reference for my point of view.


Also included in the article.... 

_"This understanding of His sovereign will does not imply that God causes everything to happen. Rather, it acknowledges that, because He is sovereign, He must at least permit or allow whatever happens to happen."_

I didn't mean to post that as necessarily a proponent of my position, it was just good material for the topic.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  Perhaps a little differently than some.  This is a loaded question.......



 I'm just asking because the bible gives you a pretty good idea of just how active this God is in the world.




JB0704 said:


> My position is that if God exists (I believe yes), then his morality is not mine to consider.  If God writes the rules of the universe, then he is the decider of what is "good."  If allowing men to be free is "good" to him, then it is not mine to quesiton.  So, if freedom is used for evil, the orginal gift is not to blame.  A good example is guns.  Who is responsible for gun crime?  The maker of the gun, or the person who uses it inappropriately?



Is it good to permit men to murder one another? That hardly seems like a position that is in favor of free will. I'm sure you can see that as a libertarian. If it is not good then why does God do it? Look if someone says "there is an all powerful being that made the world as it is and I cannot say anything one way or the other about the morality of this being, I cannot say he is good, I cannot say he is evil", that at least doesn't create the contradiction that is being pointed out in this thread. If you call God good or perfect and you also say that this God watches as people murder others and chooses to do nothing even though they could save the lives of the victims those are contradictory viewpoints, unless your concept of good includes permitting and facilitating murder.




JB0704 said:


> Every Christian will question God.  I am not in a minority to claim that I often look at things and scratch my head.  Take that picture of the little girl being hovered over by a vulture.......our perspective cannot comprehend what eternal being would allow such a fate.



Sure it can. It's just that such a being is not one that is all good and all powerful. As Epicurus pointed out, something must give.




JB0704 said:


> But.......
> 
> What if the little girl is a victim of men, and not God?  What if God, in his "perfect" wisdom determined that the greatest gift he could give men was freedom?  Then, men abused that freedom to create circumstances like the little girl and the vulture.  Does that imply that the gift of freedom was not good?



If God is omnipotent then there is also a middle ground he could have chosen which would mean freedom to exercise one's liberty up to the point of violating the liberty of others. If the only choice God could have made was absolute liberty or none at all then such a God is not omnipotent.

And besides that, even if we find a way to blame the circumstances of that particular child on men two inconvenient facts remain.

1. The bible describes a god that intervenes in the world in myriad ways and for myriad reasons. Christians must necessarily believe in a God that is aware of the circumstances of that child, had the power to act, and chose not to. Meanwhile many of those same Christians will tell of how God helped them get a good grade on an exam or found a new job or found a lost wedding ring at the beach. Can such a being be called good with a straight face? I challenge you to do it.

2. The fact remains that these conditions can and do arise absent any possible blame on man and his free will.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Absolutely



Sam Harris recently gave a talk on free will. I highly recommend it. I'm not entirely persuaded but I'm less sure than I once was that free will isn't an illusion. You can find the talk on youtube.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> Why does god need to play with dolls?



Paul addressed a similar question. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> 1. The bible describes a god that intervenes in the world in myriad ways and for myriad reasons.* Christians must necessarily believe in a God that is aware of the circumstances of that child, had the power to act, and chose not to*. Meanwhile many of those same Christians will tell of how God helped them get a good grade on an exam or found a new job or found a lost wedding ring at the beach. Can such a being be called good with a straight face? I challenge you to do it.
> 
> 2. The fact remains that these conditions can and do arise absent any possible blame on man and his free will.


Again, when do you want God to intervene and stop giving people fee will when they are doing things you don't like?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> If God exists, my (and your) opinion of his morality is irrelevant.



Yet Christians are constantly sharing their opinion of his morality.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Again, when do you want God to intervene and stop giving people fee will when they are doing things you don't like?



Has nothing to do with "what I like". A rational God that gives a flip about free will 1. Would not himself intervene with free will as the bible says he does and 2. Would not permit people to violate the free will of others. This free will defense of God is akin to saying we should not do anything to restrict people from killing and stealing because we are in favor of maximum liberty. Such a position actually favors maximum liberty for the murderers and thieves at the expense of less liberty for their victims.


----------



## gemcgrew

stringmusic said:


> Absolutely



Are your choices limited? Are you a created being or not? If man is created by God, is not everything about you also created?


----------



## Paymaster

atlashunter said:


> No I'm saying it is immoral to standby and allow people to commit murder when you have the power to stop them and choose to do nothing. That is in itself an immoral act. I'm also saying that if free will is high on your list of priorities then you should not permit people to violate the free will of others.



The God I worship, allowed his only Son to be nailed to a cross. He knows the end game better than we.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Yet Christians are constantly sharing their opinion of his morality.



True.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Paul addressed a similar question. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"



It doesn't even come close to answering my questions. For any question you ask of god is nothing more than god asking of himself. 

If we have no free will how do we question his exsistence?  Is it not god questioning his own exsistence?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> IIf we have no free will how do we question his exsistence?  Is it not god questioning his own exsistence?



No. God purposed you to question. He holds you accountable for questioning. God is sovereign and makes you responsible. You are responsible because God is sovereign. Your reaction is irrelevant, since it comes under divine sovereignty.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I'm just asking because the bible gives you a pretty good idea of just how active this God is in the world.



The level of interaction seems to change after the gospels. 



atlashunter said:


> Is it good to permit men to murder one another?



No.  But again, I do not believe that is what happens.  Back to the gun dealer.....is the person who sells the gun responsible when the person who buys it murders somebody?  The dealer is fully capable of prohibiting the murder by refusing to sell the gun.  The buyer would not be "free" if the seller was not able to sell it.

So, do we live free or not?  I see that as the predicament.  If Gemcrew is right...we are not free, and God not only permits evil, but orchestrates it.  If I am right, evil happens as a consequence of freedom.  But, under a free will perspective, God is "good" because he gives freedom.  Men are "bad" when they make poor choices.



atlashunter said:


> If you call God good or perfect and you also say that this God watches as people murder others and chooses to do nothing even though they could save the lives of the victims those are contradictory viewpoints, unless your concept of good includes permitting and facilitating murder.



My concept of good includes allowing men to be free.  If God intervened, then we are no longer able to make those choices.



atlashunter said:


> Sure it can. It's just that such a being is not one that is all good and all powerful. As Epicurus pointed out, something must give.



I guess where this is going is that if there is no free will, then God orchestrates evil, and must be evil.  If there is free will, then God allows evil, and must be evil.  But, I see another view......free will is the plan, and a choice between good and evil must exist for there to be good.  If God limited the choice to "only good" then free will would not exist.



atlashunter said:


> If God is omnipotent then there is also a middle ground he could have chosen which would mean freedom to exercise one's liberty up to the point of violating the liberty of others. If the only choice God could have made was absolute liberty or none at all then such a God is not omnipotent.



I don't know how many options he had, or if the options were limitless and this is the choice he went with.



atlashunter said:


> And besides that, even if we find a way to blame the circumstances of that particular child on men two inconvenient facts remain.
> 
> 1. The bible describes a god that intervenes in the world in myriad ways and for myriad reasons.



But to what extent after Jesus?



atlashunter said:


> Christians must necessarily believe in a God that is aware of the circumstances of that child, had the power to act, and chose not to. Meanwhile many of those same Christians will tell of how God helped them get a good grade on an exam or found a new job or found a lost wedding ring at the beach. Can such a being be called good with a straight face? I challenge you to do it.



We do pray, and ask to get our way.  Then, when it doesn't happen, we all say "it wasn't God's will."  But in the Bible God changes his mind based on prayer......that is the hope when we pray, that our prayers may influence interaction.....which would also be an exercise of our free will. A reaction based on our free action.



atlashunter said:


> 2. The fact remains that these conditions can and do arise absent any possible blame on man and his free will.



Yes.


----------



## White Stag

I normally stay away form this sub-forum for a reason, however I felt compelled to address some of the statements on here because of who I know God to be.

Firstly God does not NEED to be entertained. He did not have to create any of us. He did so because He wants a relationship with each of us! A humbling fact. He gave us free will, yes even the free will to do terrible things. It is the difference between having someone choose to love you or making someone be with you. He knew the risks and made us anyway because he loves us. Terrible things happen in this world but there is good also! God does intervene in this world, but maybe not in the way we think he should sometimes. I don't pretend to know why bad things happen to people, but I do know that God's heart toward us is good. In my life he has been faithful and I am amazed by his grace and mercy. 
I am reminded of Job, and his questioning of God.  God has been patient with Job until Chapter 38.
The Lord Challenges Job

1Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:

2“Who is this that questions my wisdom

with such ignorant words?

3Brace yourself like a man,

because I have some questions for you,

and you must answer them.

4“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Tell me, if you know so much.

5Who determined its dimensions

and stretched out the surveying line?

6What supports its foundations,

and who laid its cornerstone

7as the morning stars sang together

and all the angelsa shouted for joy?

8“Who kept the sea inside its boundaries

as it burst from the womb,

9and as I clothed it with clouds

and wrapped it in thick darkness?

10For I locked it behind barred gates,

limiting its shores.

11I said, ‘This far and no farther will you come.

Here your proud waves must stop!’

12“Have you ever commanded the morning to appear

and caused the dawn to rise in the east?

13Have you made daylight spread to the ends of the earth,

to bring an end to the night’s wickedness?

14As the light approaches,

the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal;

it is robed in brilliant colors.b

15The light disturbs the wicked

and stops the arm that is raised in violence.

16“Have you explored the springs from which the seas come?

Have you explored their depths?

17Do you know where the gates of death are located?

Have you seen the gates of utter gloom?

18Do you realize the extent of the earth?

Tell me about it if you know!

19“Where does light come from,

and where does darkness go?

20Can you take each to its home?

Do you know how to get there?

21But of course you know all this!

For you were born before it was all created,

and you are so very experienced!

22“Have you visited the storehouses of the snow

or seen the storehouses of hail?

23(I have reserved them as weapons for the time of trouble,

for the day of battle and war.)

24Where is the path to the source of light?

Where is the home of the east wind?

25“Who created a channel for the torrents of rain?

Who laid out the path for the lightning?

26Who makes the rain fall on barren land,

in a desert where no one lives?

27Who sends rain to satisfy the parched ground

and make the tender grass spring up?

28“Does the rain have a father?

Who gives birth to the dew?

29Who is the mother of the ice?

Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens?

30For the water turns to ice as hard as rock,

and the surface of the water freezes.

31“Can you direct the movement of the stars—

binding the cluster of the Pleiades

or loosening the cords of Orion?

32Can you direct the sequence of the seasons

or guide the Bear with her cubs across the heavens?

33Do you know the laws of the universe?

Can you use them to regulate the earth?

34“Can you shout to the clouds

and make it rain?

35Can you make lightning appear

and cause it to strike as you direct?

36Who gives intuition to the heart

and instinct to the mind?

37Who is wise enough to count all the clouds?

Who can tilt the water jars of heaven

38when the parched ground is dry

and the soil has hardened into clods?

39“Can you stalk prey for a lioness

and satisfy the young lions’ appetites

40as they lie in their dens

or crouch in the thicket?

41Who provides food for the ravens

when their young cry out to God

and wander about in hunger? (NLT.)

It continues on this way until Chapter 41. 
We look at the world through human colored lenses, God knows the end game. It is like telling a child not to put a key in an outlet, they may get angry and think we are not fair, but they don't understand. Some things we can not understand because we are not God. 
I put my faith in God, he has never once let me down...I can not say that for one person on this planet. A god small enough to figure out, isn't worth worshiping. God's ways are his own and we will never figure all of it out, but one day I plan on asking him about some of it, although I am sure I will be in such awe struck wonder to be in his presence, it won't matter. 
Miracles happen every day...my son is one, so don't tell me God doesn't show up! If you don't see God's intervention, then maybe you need to open your eyes, seek him out, try praying to him...it is a two way form of communication. He wants to hear from you! 
I won't post on this thread again because I am not getting into a debate. God is who he says he is and that is it. I did this so that I could go about my day with a clear conscious, not to win an argument. God Bless.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> No.  But again, I do not believe that is what happens.  Back to the gun dealer.....is the person who sells the gun responsible when the person who buys it murders somebody?  The dealer is fully capable of prohibiting the murder by refusing to sell the gun.  The buyer would not be "free" if the seller was not able to sell it.



If said gun dealer is omniscient and omnipotent then yes they are absolutely responsible. The only reason we don't hold gun dealers responsible for what someone does with a gun purchased from them is that the dealer does not know how the gun will be used and absent that knowledge is powerless to prevent or stop the crime. God on the other hand doesn't have that excuse. He has a front row seat to every event leading up to the murder and a magic eraser to change the course of events that he chooses not to use. You sell a gun to someone knowing with 100% certainty that they are going to go out and murder people with it, then you go pull up a chair and watch the murders take place, having the power at every step of the way to stop the murderer and choosing not to use it, yes you are responsible. You've got blood on your hands under those circumstances.




JB0704 said:


> So, do we live free or not?  I see that as the predicament.  If Gemcrew is right...we are not free, and God not only permits evil, but orchestrates it.  If I am right, evil happens as a consequence of freedom.  But, under a free will perspective, God is "good" because he gives freedom.  Men are "bad" when they make poor choices.



If God wills that we live in a state of absolute freedom then who are we to infringe on that freedom? Right? What keeps getting overlooked is the resulting loss of freedom for the victims. Are we to believe that God preferred the killer in that theater to have his free will more than he preferred the 12 people who are now dead to have theirs? I'm sorry but this is morally unjustifiable and it just makes Christians look all the worse trying to defend and justify it. If any human followed God's example in this regard everyone would declare that human as lacking a moral compass if not downright evil.




JB0704 said:


> I guess where this is going is that if there is no free will, then God orchestrates evil, and must be evil.  If there is free will, then God allows evil, and must be evil.  But, I see another view......free will is the plan, and a choice between good and evil must exist for there to be good.  If God limited the choice to "only good" then free will would not exist.



So God is limited in his choices? He cannot eliminate evil without also eliminating free will? That presents a real problem with the whole concept of heaven doesn't it?


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> No. God purposed you to question. He holds you accountable for questioning. God is sovereign and makes you responsible. You are responsible because God is sovereign. Your reaction is irrelevant, since it comes under divine sovereignty.



No free means I have no actions of my own. There is no other way to reconcile this. I cannot question if I do not have the ability to do so of free will. If I have no free will how can I be responsible? 

Do we have free will or not?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> If I have no free will how can I be responsible?


A sovereign God makes you responsible. 



TheBishop said:


> Do we have free will or not?


No. A sovereign, all powerful God and free will are mutually exclusive.


----------



## TheBishop

[





> QUOTE=White Stag;7057511]I normally stay away form this sub-forum for a reason, however I felt compelled to address some of the statements on here because of who I know God to be.
> 
> Firstly God does not NEED to be entertained. He did not have to create any of us. He did so because He wants a relationship with each of us! (But god has the very human trait to desire something.)A humbling fact. Don't use the word fact, you have none just belief.)He gave us free will, yes even the free will to do terrible things. It is the difference between having someone choose to love you or making someone be with you. He knew the risks and made us anyway because he loves us. Terrible things happen in this world but there is good also! God does intervene in this world, but maybe not in the way we think he should sometimes. I don't pretend to know why bad things happen to people, but I do know that God's heart toward us is good. ( He just chooses to let bad things happen, If thats a good heart he less good than I.  For if I new bad was going to happena and had the ability to stop it I would.) In my life he has been faithful and I am amazed by his grace and mercy. Please enlightment me so I to may be able to see what that is.)
> I am reminded of Job, and his questioning of God.  God has been patient with Job until Chapter 38.
> The Lord Challenges Job



Bible quote = boring.  Interpreted differently by different people even of the same faith= unreliable.



> It continues on this way until Chapter 41.
> We look at the world through human colored lenses, God knows the end game. It is like telling a child not to put a key in an outlet, they may get angry and think we are not fair, but they don't understand. No its like watching a child put it in the socket and not attempting to stop them even though you know its going to hurt/kill them.  You are not good for doing so.Some things we can not understand because we are not God.
> I put my faith in God, he has never once let me down...I can not say that for one person on this planet. A god small enough to figure out, isn't worth worshiping. God's ways are his own and we will never figure all of it out, but one day I plan on asking him about some of it, although I am sure I will be in such awe struck wonder to be in his presence, it won't matter.
> Miracles happen every day...my son is one, so don't tell me God doesn't show up! Please elobrate I too have children but don't consider them miracles.)If you don't see God's intervention, then maybe you need to open your eyes, seek him out, try praying to him...it is a two way form of communication. He wants to hear from you! (Too one sided of a conversation I'll pass.)
> I won't post on this thread again because I am not getting into a debate. God is who he says he is and that is it. (How do you know those voices in your head are god?) I did this so that I could go about my day with a clear conscious, not to win an argument. God Bless.



I did this becuase I could not in clear conscious let the fallibility in your thinking go unhighlighted.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> God on the other hand doesn't have that excuse. He has a front row seat to every event leading up to the murder and a magic eraser to change the course of events that he chooses not to use.



That is one thought, if you get a chance, read through this link....it is another.....

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=14




atlashunter said:


> If God wills that we live in a state of absolute freedom then who are we to infringe on that freedom? Right? What keeps getting overlooked is the resulting loss of freedom for the victims. Are we to believe that God preferred the killer in that theater to have his free will more than he preferred the 12 people who are now dead to have theirs?



I do not see it as a choice.  "Freedom" is a universal state.  People operate within that context.  One is not "less free" than another.  Unfortunately, one can use that freedom to enact evil on another.



atlashunter said:


> So God is limited in his choices? He cannot eliminate evil without also eliminating free will? That presents a real problem with the whole concept of heaven doesn't it?



Can God make a rock so big even he can't pick it up?  I dunno man....it is a logical box.  But I openly stated that I do not know what the choices are.....I am only stating my hypothesis as to what the final choice was.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> A sovereign God makes you responsible.
> 
> 
> No. A sovereign, all powerful God and free will are mutually exclusive.



Do you not understand the contradiction you are making?

I am responsible for things outside my control, and god blames me, all the while its him making all the moves.   And thats a god I suppose to worship?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> That is one thought, if you get a chance, read through this link....it is another.....
> 
> http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=14



Omniscience or plausible deniability. You can have one or the other but not both. Take your pick.




JB0704 said:


> I do not see it as a choice.  "Freedom" is a universal state.  People operate within that context.  One is not "less free" than another.  Unfortunately, one can use that freedom to enact evil on another.



You don't see God's willful inaction as a choice?




JB0704 said:


> Can God make a rock so big even he can't pick it up?  I dunno man....it is a logical box.  But I openly stated that I do not know what the choices are.....I am only stating my hypothesis as to what the final choice was.



Logic is a harsh mistress isn't she?


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> Do you not understand the contradiction you are making?
> 
> I am responsible for things outside my control, and god blames me, all the while its him making all the moves.   And thats a god I suppose to worship?



The various claims crumble under scrutiny.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> Do you not understand the contradiction you are making?
> 
> I am responsible for things outside my control, and god blames me, all the while its him making all the moves.   And thats a god I suppose to worship?



That is a God you can't worship, unless he purposes it.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> That is a God you can't worship, unless he purposes it.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> You don't see God's willful inaction as a choice?



I guess so.  It seems it is all relevant to how "free" we are, as each act of intervention limits the "freedom" of men.  So, if the "coice" is to be free, then the willful inaction would be to that end.....and the hope is that men would "choose" good over evil.



atlashunter said:


> Logic is a harsh mistress isn't she?


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> That is a God you can't worship, unless he purposes it.



It's not a god you worship either.  You worshiping would invovle free will.  Its a god worshiping himself through the use of his dolls.  That is it and nothing more. You cannot reconcile this without contradicting yourself.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> The various claims crumble under scrutiny.



Always.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> I guess so.  It seems it is all relevant to how "free" we are, as each act of intervention limits the "freedom" of men.  So, if the "coice" is to be free, then the willful inaction would be to that end.....and the hope is that men would "choose" good over evil.



You're still ignoring the victims. Let's say you're in that theater and locked and loaded when the bad guy walks in and you know what's coming. You have a choice. You can either put one between his eyes and limit his freedom to kill. Or you can sit back and watch him do the same to 12 others thus violating their will to live. Which choice maximizes freedom? Which choice is the more moral?


----------



## atlashunter

BTW, if the reason God doesn't intervene to stop evil is because he takes a principled position of not intervening with mans free will how does one explain his intervention with the free will of the Pharaoh?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> It's not a god you worship either.


It is the God I worship.


TheBishop said:


> You worshiping would invovle free will.


Again, the God I worship and human free will are mutually exclusive.


TheBishop said:


> Its a god worshiping himself through the use of his dolls.  That is it and nothing more.


It is God who does whatsoever he pleases.


TheBishop said:


> You cannot reconcile this without contradicting yourself.


But I have, hence your frustration.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Which choice maximizes freedom? Which choice is the more moral?



For a person in the theater, absolutely, the limited response would be to intervene, and hope it was the most moral response.........

But, if we are judging the morality of God, we must consider the perspective a God would have on the situation......which would include all variables and information available beyond the theater walls.

I can intervene, and save the victim. But what if the victim is molesting kids back home. By intervening I have just allowed another child to be molested because the killer was actually creating "good" through "evil."  The death of the victim would have been a net positive.

I know that is far fetched, and all, but it is just one example of how additional information may influence the "morality" of a decision.  Christians assume such information would be available to God, but not us. And in a situation I described, allowing evil would be "good."  I am not saying that is what happened in the theater, I am just tossing out ideas as to how additional information affects whether or not something is "moral."


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> It is the God I worship.
> 
> Again, the God I worship and human free will are mutually exclusive.
> 
> You do realize this statement acknowledges the exsistence of free will, don't you?
> It is God who does whatsoever he pleases.
> 
> But I have, hence your frustration.



My frustration? Um Ok.  I think its fun to highlight how insanely contradictory your position is, hence I'll keep at it.  

How are you making the choice to worship if you do not have the free will to do so?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> For a person in the theater, absolutely, the limited response would be to intervene, and hope it was the most moral response.........
> 
> But, if we are judging the morality of God, we must consider the perspective a God would have on the situation......which would include all variables and information available beyond the theater walls.
> 
> I can intervene, and save the victim. But what if the victim is molesting kids back home. By intervening I have just allowed another child to be molested because the killer was actually creating "good" through "evil."  The death of the victim would have been a net positive.
> 
> I know that is far fetched, and all, but it is just one example of how additional information may influence the "morality" of a decision.  Christians assume such information would be available to God, but not us. And in a situation I described, allowing evil would be "good."  I am not saying that is what happened in the theater, I am just tossing out ideas as to how additional information affects whether or not something is "moral."



I wonder how the victims families might respond to this.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> You do realize this statement acknowledges the exsistence of free will, don't you?


Only if the God I worship does not exist.


TheBishop said:


> How are you making the choice to worship if you do not have the free will to do so?


Purposed by God.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Purposed by God.



If it can only happen if purposed by God doesn't that make the choice his and not yours?


----------



## ross the deer slayer

If God gives us something(free will), he isn't going to take it away.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I wonder how the victims families might respond to this.



Come on now 

I put plenty of qualifiers in there saying it was just a far fetched example as to how additional information affects the morality (or good / evil value) of the decision to intervene.


----------



## atlashunter

ross the deer slayer said:


> If God gives us something(free will), he isn't going to take it away.



Exodus 9:12
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> If it can only happen if purposed by God doesn't that make the choice his and not yours?


Nothing happens apart from his will. That does not prevent me from being responsible. He is sovereign, and being such, makes me responsible.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Come on now
> 
> I put plenty of qualifiers in there saying it was just a far fetched example as to how additional information affects the morality (or good / evil value) of the decision to intervene.



If you're not suggesting that was the case in this particular instance then what is the relevance? We all know that bad things like this happen to good people so the picture you're painting is not likely to be the reality. What you are suggesting would really only shoot down the point of this thread if it could be said that there was a bigger picture good every time something like this happened. You don't really believe that do you? It seems to me that you're really reaching at this point. It's a good effort and I appreciate that but what is more likely to be true? That there is a benevolent god that permits evil for some greater good? That there is a malevolent god? Or that there is no god at all? Which of those propositions best explains the reality of this world? I'd say of the three the first is the least likely and absent any good reason to believe the second the most sensible is the last.


----------



## gemcgrew

ross the deer slayer said:


> If God gives us something(free will), he isn't going to take it away.


"Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths." I am sure Gomer thought that she was exercising her free will. Little did she know that her path, and the end of it, was determined by God.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Nothing happens apart from his will. That does not prevent me from being responsible. He is sovereign, and being such, makes me responsible.



Does anybody else see how contradictory this statement is?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> Does anybody else see how contradictory this statement is?


Good grief. I know you are bent towards contradictions. If you believe to see one in my statement, point it out, and I will be more than happy to hurt your feelings.


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> Does anybody else see how contradictory this statement is?



Yep. It's his decision but I'm responsible.


----------



## Ronnie T

There was a time when I would have a really good "canned" answer for this question and situation, but not any more.  I could no more explain the intricate influences of God upon American society than I could explain His influences upon Iraqi society.

I know this.  At the precise moment that man killed all those people there were millions of other things going on in the world.  Beautiful babies were being borning to happy married couples; people were shooting up with drugs; abortions were being carried out; courts were sentencing felones to jail; storms were destroying property; birthdays were being celebrated.

I cannot even begin to tell how or if God influenced any of those things.  Some can, but they are the ones who've been educated beyond their intelligence.
Tires go flat, lawnmowers break down, people commit murder, just as Cain killed Abel.

I know this.  I will never personally kill 50 people in a rampage (I hope).  And if I'm ever a victim of an assault such as this, God will strengthen me and help me through whatever it brings me.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> Yep. It's his decision but I'm responsible.


Still no contradiction in the context of an all powerful God. No different than what I said in post 92 and 97. God is sovereign, and in his sovereignty, declares man responsible.
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Still no contradiction in the context of an all powerful God. No different than what I said in post 92 and 97. God is sovereign, and in his sovereignty, declares man responsible.
> "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"



Indeed. Who is the doll to protest when the voice of the doll is actually the voice of God? This God must be awfully impressed with himself!


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> I cannot even begin to tell how or if God influenced any of those things.  Some can, but they are the ones who've been educated beyond their intelligence.


Or perhaps they read and understand Scripture.

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:9-11)

A god without purpose, or a purpose that can be thwarted or resisted, is not God.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Still no contradiction in the context of an all powerful God. No different than what I said in post 92 and 97. God is sovereign, and in his sovereignty, declares man responsible.
> "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"



Whatever you have to tell yourself, but your still making statements that in no way reconcile with each other.  You are saying god cuases us to do everything we do, we have no choice, no free will, but somehow our responsibility.  If you have free will, you have no actions to call your own, therefore the responsibility of your actions are not your own.  

It's exactly like us playing with a doll, using that doll to break a window and then blaming the doll.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> It's exactly like us playing with a doll, using that doll to break a window and then blaming the doll.



I will go there with you. Why would we be like dolls if God determines our thoughts and actions? What would be the similarities?


----------



## ross the deer slayer

TheBishop said:


> It's exactly like us playing with a doll, using that doll to break a window and then blaming the doll.



Dolls don't have minds..no brains..no intellegence. They are objects. People are not objects, people have minds, brains and intellegence. Meaning that a doll, an object, not in motion, remains not in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. That force would be the person throwing a doll at the window


----------



## atlashunter

ross the deer slayer said:


> Dolls don't have minds..no brains..no intellegence. They are objects. People are not objects, people have minds, brains and intellegence. Meaning that a doll, an object, not in motion, remains not in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. That force would be the person throwing a doll at the window



Think of the doll as a robot behaving as you programmed. Ultimately you're still the one running the show.


----------



## Ronnie T

gemcgrew said:


> Or perhaps they read and understand Scripture.
> 
> "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.” (Isaiah 46:9-11)
> 
> A god without purpose, or a purpose that can be thwarted or resisted, is not God.



Maybe.  
But what if they read and don't understand?


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> Think of the doll as a robot behaving as you programmed.


Robots do not have a mind, they do not have thoughts. Even though humans are completely controlled by God, they are unlike robots.


atlashunter said:


> Ultimately you're still the one running the show.


Now we are back to an all powerful God.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> Maybe.
> But what if they read and don't understand?


That is determined by God. Flesh and blood does not reveal it.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> If you're not suggesting that was the case in this particular instance then what is the relevance?



To illustrate that variables would exist to a God that would not exist to a person in the theater.  We could plug all sorts of stuff in there, really.  I cartainly was not suggesting that is what happened.



atlashunter said:


> We all know that bad things like this happen to good people so the picture you're painting is not likely to be the reality.



Correct. The term I used was "far fetched."



atlashunter said:


> What you are suggesting would really only shoot down the point of this thread if it could be said that there was a bigger picture good every time something like this happened. You don't really believe that do you?



Chritians have always struggled with wondering why bad things happen to good people.  I don't have a rock solid answer.  My current hypothesis is that freedom is the greater good.   Men abuse that freedom for evil.  That doesn't make the evil any easier to understand, but it makes it more understandable that they are permitted to do so by a loving God if the purpose is to choose good.



atlashunter said:


> It seems to me that you're really reaching at this point. It's a good effort and I appreciate that but what is more likely to be true? That there is a benevolent god that permits evil for some greater good? That there is a malevolent god? Or that there is no god at all? Which of those propositions best explains the reality of this world? I'd say of the three the first is the least likely and absent any good reason to believe the second the most sensible is the last.



Because I believe in God, I am going to have to stick with #1.  I understand what you are saying.  I just don't see it like you do.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Robots do not have a mind, they do not have thoughts. Even though humans are completely controlled by God, they are unlike robots.



If humans are completely controlled by the mind of God does it matter whether or not humans have a mind? If I program a robot with its own consciousness but I'm still in control of it who is responsible?


----------



## Ronnie T

gemcgrew said:


> That is determined by God. Flesh and blood does not reveal it.



And that is my response to the subject of this thread.
I don't know the mind of God.  The clay does not tell the master what the master does or does not do.
The Holy Spirit filled apostles didn't, I don't either.


----------



## atlashunter

Ronnie T said:


> And that is my response to the subject of this thread.
> I don't know the mind of God.  The clay does not tell the master what the master does or does not do.
> The Holy Spirit filled apostles didn't, I don't either.



A little consistency would be nice. If believers can't pass moral judgments on God then they have no more business declaring him good than they do declaring him evil.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> If humans are completely controlled by the mind of God does it matter whether or not humans have a mind?


It does in your comparison to robots. Humans are unlike robots.



atlashunter said:


> If I program a robot with its own consciousness but I'm still in control of it who is responsible?


Responsible for what?


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> It does in your comparison to robots. Humans are unlike robots.



According to you, not in the essential characteristic of being under the control of another party.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> According to you, not in the essential characteristic of being under the control of another party.


It does in the sense that God has infinitely more control over us than we do of robots.


----------



## Ronnie T

atlashunter said:


> A little consistency would be nice. If believers can't pass moral judgments on God then they have no more business declaring him good than they do declaring him evil.



God doesn't need me to pass moral judgment on Him.

God is God.
I'm just Ron.


----------



## atlashunter

Ronnie T said:


> God doesn't need me to pass moral judgment on Him.
> 
> God is God.
> I'm just Ron.



But you are making a moral judgment just as much when you say God is good as when someone else says God is evil.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> But you are making a moral judgment just as much when you say God is good as when someone else says God is evil.



Nah, man.  Just going with what the book says.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Nah, man.  Just going with what the book says.



Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Ronnie T

atlashunter said:


> But you are making a moral judgment just as much when you say God is good as when someone else says God is evil.



ANYONE who says God is evil, does not know God.

1 Timothy 4:4   For everything created by God is good

3 John 1:11
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. 

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Pardon me for including scripture here.  But without scripture, we just a bunch of good ol boys talkin trash.


----------



## atlashunter

Ronnie T said:


> ANYONE who says God is evil, does not know God.
> 
> 1 Timothy 4:4   For everything created by God is good
> 
> 3 John 1:11
> Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.
> 
> Mark 10:18
> And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
> 
> Pardon me for including scripture here.  But without scripture, we just a bunch of good ol boys talkin trash.



I'm sorry Ronnie but you don't get to have it both ways. If you want to claim a God and declare this God is good (and you have despite saying you are in no position to make moral judgments in this regard) then that claim will be put to the test. The challenges raised by this thread shows the claim fails the test. The evasion tactic of "who are we to judge God" applies to all judgments. The reality of evil demonstrates that if there is a God who is all knowing and all powerful this God is not good by any commonly accepted definition of good. Even the scriptures themselves (if they are to be believed) demonstrate that God is evil but more importantly the real world shows that the various claims made about God (all knowing, all powerful, perfect and good) are not logically reconcilable.


----------



## Ronnie T

atlashunter said:


> I'm sorry Ronnie but you don't get to have it both ways. If you want to claim a God and declare this God is good (and you have despite saying you are in no position to make moral judgments in this regard) then that claim will be put to the test. The challenges raised by this thread shows the claim fails the test. The evasion tactic of "who are we to judge God" applies to all judgments. The reality of evil demonstrates that if there is a God who is all knowing and all powerful this God is not good by any commonly accepted definition of good. Even the scriptures themselves (if they are to be believed) demonstrate that God is evil but more importantly the real world shows that the various claims made about God (all knowing, all powerful, perfect and good) are not logically reconcilable.



You're above statement is untrue and uninformed.  I don't say that from a position high above you.  I say that only because I'm a believer who is content with whatever God might choose to do, will, or destroy.  You are an unbeliever whose logic doesn't match my logic.  We just aren't going to agree on many things in regard to this subject.  And you aren't likely to agree with much of what I say.

God is good, even as an immoral doctor conducts an abortion tonight.  God is good, even as the 50 or so people were murdered.

And I'll restate this statement:  3 John 1:11
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. 


  The "who are we to judge God" is not an evasive tactic.  It's a logical response from one who believes in the Creator God, but cannot fully describe the supreme nature of His mind or will.  

And now, I can only refer you back to my post at 2:26PM today.

I must get my beauty sleep now.


----------



## atlashunter

Ronnie T said:


> God is good, even as an immoral doctor conducts an abortion tonight.  God is good, even as the 50 or so people were murdered.
> 
> 
> The "who are we to judge God" is not an evasive tactic.  It's a logical response from one who believes in the Creator God, but cannot fully describe the supreme nature of His mind or will.



Saying "God is good" is making a judgment on the morality of God. If you can't do it then don't. If you do it then don't tell others they cannot.


----------



## fish hawk

TheBishop said:


> It's exactly like us playing with a doll, using that doll to break a window and then blaming the doll.



It's high time yall stopped playing with dolls......Aint some of yall getting a little to old for that!!!


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> I will go there with you. Why would we be like dolls if God determines our thoughts and actions? What would be the similarities?



We do not act unless god makes us act, we do not think unless god makes us think, we do nothing of own accord, all this according to you.  God controls every aspect of us.  

Again, how after all that do we have any responsibility? 
Are our thoughts our own? (Hint: Free thought = a level of free will).


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> I'm sorry Ronnie but you don't get to have it both ways. If you want to claim a God and declare this God is good (and you have despite saying you are in no position to make moral judgments in this regard) then that claim will be put to the test. The challenges raised by this thread shows the claim fails the test. The evasion tactic of "who are we to judge God" applies to all judgments. The reality of evil demonstrates that if there is a God who is all knowing and all powerful this God is not good by any commonly accepted definition of good. Even the scriptures themselves (if they are to be believed) demonstrate that God is evil but more importantly the real world shows that the various claims made about God (all knowing, all powerful, perfect and good) are not logically reconcilable.



Drilled it!


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> We do not act unless god makes us act, we do not think unless god makes us think, we do nothing of own accord, all this according to you.  God controls every aspect of us.
> 
> Again, how after all that do we have any responsibility?
> Are our thoughts our own? (Hint: Free thought = a level of free will).



I have already answered that in 42 and 97.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

"bishop", your stated premise reveals an utter lack of knowledge of the relationship between the Creator and his Creation(s). The Lord does not force you to worship, nor obey him. The fault for the Colorado incident cannot be laid at the feet of the Almighty. One individual with a dark heart is culpable. If the Lord prevented bad things I wouldn't be answering your foolishness. If you genuinely seek knowledge of the Creator, get a good King James Version of the Holy Bible and read it daily. In about ten years you'll acheive the beginners level. I've been reading mine for about 37 years. I realize today how little I know and how much more I have to learn. I will NOT charge God foolishly!


----------



## Ronnie T

atlashunter said:


> Saying "God is good" is making a judgment on the morality of God. If you can't do it then don't. If you do it then don't tell others they cannot.



Again, you don't see it.
Saying "God is good" is not a judgment call in the least.
Anyone who believes in God must KNOW that God is good.  It isn't not a judgment, it's a fact.

One who does not believe in God, knows nothing beyond that unbelief.


----------



## TheBishop

Michael F. Gray said:


> "bishop", your stated premise reveals an utter lack of knowledge of the relationship between the Creator and his Creation(s). The Lord does not force you to worship, nor obey him. The fault for the Colorado incident cannot be laid at the feet of the Almighty. One individual with a dark heart is culpable. If the Lord prevented bad things I wouldn't be answering your foolishness. If you genuinely seek knowledge of the Creator, get a good King James Version of the Holy Bible and read it daily. In about ten years you'll acheive the beginners level. I've been reading mine for about 37 years. I realize today how little I know and how much more I have to learn. I will NOT charge God foolishly!





Boy you need to go back and read the entire thread.  Maybe you can better explain some of the descrepencies the other believers have failed to explain.


----------



## TheBishop

Ronnie T said:


> Again, you don't see it.
> Saying "God is good" is not a judgment call in the least.
> Anyone who believes in God must KNOW that God is good.  It isn't not a judgment, it's a fact.
> 
> One who does not believe in God, knows nothing beyond that unbelief.



Logic fail.


----------



## atlashunter

Ronnie T said:


> Again, you don't see it.
> Saying "God is good" is not a judgment call in the least.
> Anyone who believes in God must KNOW that God is good.  It isn't not a judgment, it's a fact.
> 
> One who does not believe in God, knows nothing beyond that unbelief.



How pray tell does one "KNOW" God is good? Is this an evaluation of the nature of God? Or simply a parroting of a scriptural evaluation? Either way yes it is a judgment, a statement describing the moral nature of God. If you want to set the standard that you aren't qualified to make such a description then please don't be a hypocrite by violating that standard.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> I have already answered that in 42 and 97.



Your statments completely contradict each other.  You have yet to reconcile the fact that somehow actions that are not our own, and thoughts that are not  our own, are somehow our responsibility.  Please explain that.

How do we take responsibility for things that are not of our control?


----------



## atlashunter

You know its funny that someone on the other forum can make a testimony  about how their friends cousin overcame some obstacle and everyone will respond "God is good!" but let someone else point out that God stands by and watches children get slaughtered by a mad man and we are told "Who are you to judge God!?".


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> Your statments completely contradict each other.  You have yet to reconcile the fact that somehow actions that are not our own, and thoughts that are not own, are somehow our responsibility.  Please explain that.
> 
> How do we take responsibility for things that are not of our control?



I think he's just trolling. The contradiction is plain as day.


----------



## TheBishop

There is more dancin' goin on in this tread than that takes place in Rio during carnival!


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> I think he's just trolling. The contradiction is plain as day.



I like to seem him squirm!


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> Your statments completely contradict each other.  You have yet to reconcile the fact that somehow actions that are not our own, and thoughts that are not  our own, are somehow our responsibility.  Please explain that.



You are responsible because an all powerful God declares you responsible. That is all it takes. Your reaction to it is irrelevant. He has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Your issue is with an all powerful God.


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> There is more dancin' goin on in this tread than that takes place in Rio during carnival!


----------



## Ronnie T

atlashunter said:


> I think he's just trolling. The contradiction is plain as day.



Then I'll leave the discussion.
Too many people talk of us "stuffing" our religion down your throats. I don't want to do that.

So I'll leave you to figuring out the God that you don't believe in.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> There is more dancin' goin on in this tread than that takes place in Rio during carnival!



Like breaking the analogy of our discussion by throwing a doll into it. Is it dancing or intellectual dishonesty?


----------



## atlashunter

Ronnie T said:


> Then I'll leave the discussion.
> Too many people talk of us "stuffing" our religion down your throats. I don't want to do that.
> 
> So I'll leave you to figuring out the God that you don't believe in.



I wasn't referring to you.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Like breaking the analogy of our discussion by throwing a doll into it. Is it dancing or intellectual dishonesty?



I'm not the one with 100% conflicting statements, that no matter how hard you try can't be reconciled.  Perhaps i should have used puppet, instead of doll, would that have worked better for you?



> You are responsible because an all powerful God declares you responsible. That is all it takes. Your reaction to it is irrelevant. He has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Your issue is with an all powerful God.



My issue is not with god, for the one you claim exists makes absolutely zero logical sense, but with the logic you use do describe this god. Which highly contradictory and cannot be reasoned. Statement added to that which have already claimed, again cannot be reconciled.  You cannot explain away free will. With it you god falls apart, without it your logic falls apart.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> I'm not the one with 100% conflicting statements, that no matter how hard you try can't be reconciled.


My statements do not conflict. If you see a contradiction, it may be based on your false assumption that responsibility presupposes freedom. I am saying responsibility presupposes divine sovereignty, not freedom.


TheBishop said:


> Perhaps i should have used puppet, instead of doll, would that have worked better for you?


We are discussing an all mighty God in relation to man. Now you want to discuss man in relation to puppet. I am ok with that as long as we maintain attributes. But that doesn't help you.


TheBishop said:


> You cannot explain away free will.


I don't have to explain it away. I've already said that it doesn't exist.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> My statements do not conflict. If you see a contradiction, it may be based on your false assumption that responsibility presupposes freedom. I am saying responsibility presupposes divine sovereignty, not freedom.
> 
> We are discussing an all mighty God in relation to man. Now you want to discuss man in relation to puppet. I am ok with that as long as we maintain attributes. But that doesn't help you.
> 
> I don't have to explain it away. I've already said that it doesn't exist.



Jay carney is that you? My assumption is not false, it is an absolute necessity.  You cannot be responsible for that which you have no control.  

re·spon·si·ble [ ri spónssÉ™b'l ]   1.answerable to somebody: accountable to somebody for an action or for the successful carrying out of a duty
2.being to blame for something: being the cause of something, usually something wrong or disapproved of
3.important: conferring the authority to make decisions independently and requiring conscientiousness and trustworthiness

The definition is quite clear.  The only way we can reconcile your arguement is as follows.

Free will does not exist.  Every action, thought, emotion, and urge we have is conferred to us by god. Therefore our they are not of our own but are gods acting trough us.  Like a puppet or doll void of life when the master is not at the control, we do nothing without out god acting through us. There is no responsibility, there is nothing to judge, for it would only be god judging his own acts and thoughts. It is not us that worships god but through us god worships himself. 

Our soul would be god, and the life thereafter would be him sending himself to heaven, and there is no haides, becuase there is no reason to punish acts which he alone commits.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> My assumption is not false, it is an absolute necessity.


It is necessary only in order for you to deny an all powerful God.



TheBishop said:


> You cannot be responsible for that which you have no control.


Again, Paul addressed your objection. 

Objection - "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Answer -  "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?’"

The created is at the mercy of the Creator. God is sovereign and man is not free.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Again, Paul addressed your objection.
> 
> Objection - "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
> 
> Answer -  "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?’"
> 
> The created is at the mercy of the Creator. God is sovereign and man is not free.



That's right Gem. Who is the puppet to back talk the guy making it speak? It's not the fault of the puppet master what the puppet says or does. It's the puppets fault! The all powerful puppet master says so! You must see how absurd your position is. You're describing a psychotic God that is ultimately at war with himself.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> .........we are told "Who are you to judge God!?".



Judge?  Maybe not.  If he exists, our opinion is irrelevant.  Which makes your statement about us proclaiming his goodness quite valid.

But, like myself and Mr. Ronnie tried to point out.....it is not a judgement call to claim he is good.  It is a statement of fact (to us).  We believe it is as true as the sun rising in the East.

Do you wake up in the morning, and "judge" which direction the sun will come up?  No, you look east and say "the deer should start moving soon."  But, more than that, the greater point is that it does not matter one bit what I think about God.  It doesn't really matter what you think about God.  We can all wish and hope for the sun to rise in the west one magical day......but all that will be useless because some things just are what they are.  We see God as "good."

Now, to answer why?  Like I said before, it's what we believe based on the text we believe about the God we believe.  You can point out that I am not thinking for myself....but I assure you, I come to the conclusion of God's existence through much thought and pondering and a sincere desire to discard my faith (because I never really got along with Christians).  I could no more deny God's existence than you could deny your libertarian principles.  I look at life, and if it is a creation, logic tells me the creator is good because he gave life to inanimate space.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> That's right Gem. Who is the puppet to back talk the guy making it speak? It's not the fault of the puppet master what the puppet says or does. It's the puppets fault! The all powerful puppet master says so! You must see how absurd your position is. You're describing a psychotic God that is ultimately at war with himself.



That is a lot of dancing. Can you not hold to the discussion without diverting?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Judge?  Maybe not.  If he exists, our opinion is irrelevant.  Which makes your statement about us proclaiming his goodness quite valid.



Well as long as Christians see fit to express their irrelevant opinion on the matter I'll see fit to point out that the emperor is naked, that their conflicting claims cannot all be true.




JB0704 said:


> But, like myself and Mr. Ronnie tried to point out.....it is not a judgement call to claim he is good.  It is a statement of fact (to us).  We believe it is as true as the sun rising in the East.



Believe what you will but at least have the integrity to acknowledge it for the opinion that it is (an unjustified opinion in my view).




JB0704 said:


> Do you wake up in the morning, and "judge" which direction the sun will come up?  No, you look east and say "the deer should start moving soon."  But, more than that, the greater point is that it does not matter one bit what I think about God.  It doesn't really matter what you think about God.  We can all wish and hope for the sun to rise in the west one magical day......but all that will be useless because some things just are what they are.  We see God as "good."



The terms good and evil are qualitative and must in some way be evaluated by some standard. Now I'll admit that standard is subjective and varies from one person to the next but it involves an evaluation nonetheless. Imagine for a moment an evil god rather than a good god. How would you differentiate between the two? There must be some way to make the distinction. How do you do it if you lack any means of evaluation? If you and Ronnie are saying God is good simply by virtue of his power or relation to us then that means that God could command the rape of children or any manner of other activity which most of us would identify as evil and you would still claim this as good because it came from God. Going down that road renders the terms meaningless or at least gives them a very different meaning from the common understanding. On the one hand you want to declare God good (and add to the insult by suggesting with no basis whatsoever that your opinion is fact) and on the other hand you want to tell anyone that doesn't share your view as evidenced by the evil we find in the world (which you acknowledge) that their opinion doesn't matter and they are not to pass judgment on God.




JB0704 said:


> Now, to answer why?  Like I said before, it's what we believe based on the text we believe about the God we believe.  You can point out that I am not thinking for myself....but I assure you, I come to the conclusion of God's existence through much thought and pondering and a sincere desire to discard my faith (because I never really got along with Christians).  I could no more deny God's existence than you could deny your libertarian principles.  I look at life, and if it is a creation, logic tells me the creator is good because he gave life to inanimate space.



If you came to your conclusion based on your own thoughts then you should be able to defend the claim without having to say "nah we're just repeating what is written".


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> That is a lot of dancing. Can you not hold to the discussion without diverting?



No diversion there as I have no doubt you know.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> No diversion there as I have no doubt you know.


I take that you no longer want to participate but would rather belittle and misrepresent.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> I take that you no longer want to participate but would rather belittle and misrepresent.



Belittling you would be assuming you aren't smart enough to see the glaring contradiction in your position that has been repeatedly spelled out for you. I'll make no such assumption.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> It is necessary only in order for you to deny an all powerful God.
> 
> i'm not denying anything remember I have no free will to do so. God is denying himself through me.
> 
> 
> Again, Paul addressed your objection.
> 
> Objection - "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
> 
> Answer -  "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?’"
> 
> The created is at the mercy of the Creator. God is sovereign and man is not free.



O.k. One more shot, at this in the simplest terms.  In order to form your own thoughts to speak and doubt god your mind must be free to choose those words, thus free will.  If you do not have free will to freely choose your own thoughts, and they are manifestations from god, then god is doing nothing more than speaking to himself.

Is there any part of our being our own?


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> Belittling you would be assuming you aren't smart enough to see the glaring contradiction in your position that has been repeatedly spelled out for you. I'll make no such assumption.



No sir, he HAS to see it.  I've spelled it out a dozen different times.   I have read enough of his posts to understand he is smart enough to understand the blatant contradictions which have been easily highlighted. I believe he just refuses to acknowledge it and repeats what has been told to him to explain away that which cannot be reconciled.  There is no other explanation.  If he acknowledges them he HAS to question his doctrine.


----------



## TheBishop

Their backs are agianst the wall in this one and they have no where logically to run.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> Belittling you would be assuming you aren't smart enough to see the glaring contradiction in your position that has been repeatedly spelled out for you. I'll make no such assumption.



Would you point out the contradiction? And please, without diverting our discussion by interjecting robots, dolls and puppets.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> ......that their conflicting claims cannot all be true.



I agree.  Not on the emporer is naked stuff, but we cannot all be correct.  



atlashunter said:


> Believe what you will but at least have the integrity to acknowledge it for the opinion that it is (an unjustified opinion in my view).



Integrity?  Why are we going there?  I have pointed out several times in here why it cannot be an opinion from my perspective.  God, as I believe, has to define "good."  So, my questions relveant to the morality of his actions (or inactions) cannot change that.

Now, from your perspective, it is an opinion.  But, put yourself in the shoes of a person who believes God defines good, and you will see why it cannot be an opinion to us no more than his existence is an opinion.



atlashunter said:


> The terms good and evil are qualitative and must in some way be evaluated by some standard.



Yes.  Your standard is "Atlas' opinion."  Where my standard is "God."



atlashunter said:


> Now I'll admit that standard is subjective and varies from one person to the next but it involves an evaluation nonetheless. Imagine for a moment an evil god rather than a good god. How would you differentiate between the two?



I would believe the one that I believed in.  If I believed in both, then each would define things for me....because that would be the right of any God, good or evil.



atlashunter said:


> There must be some way to make the distinction. How do you do it if you lack any means of evaluation?



What distinction do you want, and by who's standards do we decide?  If I believe in God, I would be forced to use his standards.  Since you do not, you are able to use your own standards.



atlashunter said:


> If you and Ronnie are saying God is good simply by virtue of his power or relation to us then that means that God could command the rape of children or any manner of other activity which most of us would identify as evil and you would still claim this as good because it came from God.



Very tricky subject here....because some would say God does determine for children to be raped.  You are going to get conflicting opinions from christians on this one.

I believe the rape of children to be evil.  The view I have of God is that he is not going to command the rape of children because that would be evil.  So, there must be other factors involved that are not God.  This is where free will comes in.  The picture of purity would be the garden of Eden....God's will.  Now, I believe Genesis is metaphorical, but still an accurate prortrayal of original intent.  "God's will," Eden in this case, did not include all the horrors and misery that you and your fellow skeptics like to point out.  Man, being free, chose to pursue evil instead of "good."  



atlashunter said:


> Going down that road renders the terms meaningless or at least gives them a very different meaning from the common understanding. On the one hand you want to declare God good (and add to the insult by suggesting with no basis whatsoever that your opinion is fact) and on the other hand you want to tell anyone that doesn't share your view as evidenced by the evil we find in the world (which you acknowledge) that their opinion doesn't matter and they are not to pass judgment on God.



1. I gave you a basis in my last post (life).
2. You are free to pass whatever judgement you want.  My whole point is that if God exists, what we think is irrelevant.......isn't it?  If there is a God, Atlas, does he change characteristics based on your thoughts?



atlashunter said:


> If you came to your conclusion based on your own thoughts then you should be able to defend the claim without having to say "nah we're just repeating what is written".



I just did.  And I did in my last post.  The "believing the book" was a bit of a joke because we are always accused of being narrow minded non-thinkers.  Apparently, I did not convey the sarcasm intended.  Apologies.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> If you do not have free will to freely choose your own thoughts, and they are manifestations from god, then god is doing nothing more than speaking to himself.


I don't have an issue with that. It is his creation. If he has all of creation praising himself, what is your issue?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> No sir, he HAS to see it.  I've spelled it out a dozen different times.


Pointing out your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position, is not pointing out contradictions.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Pointing out your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position, is not pointing out contradictions.



The whole responsibility thing is a contradiction.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> I don't have an issue with that. It is his creation. If he has all of creation praising himself, what is your issue?



That it is complete pointless, and life has no value to us. Your view makes our entire discussion god argueing his exsistence with himself.  Explain that one. 

Why is god in this very discusion doubting his own exsistence?


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> The whole responsibility thing is a contradiction.



I have already addressed that. It is only a contradiction within your assumption that responsibility presupposes freedom.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> I have already addressed that. It is only a contradiction within your assumption that responsibility presupposes freedom.



It is not an assumption but a necessity, by the very definition of the word. 

*re·spon·si·ble [ ri spónssÉ™b'l ] 1.answerable to somebody: accountable to somebody for an action or for the successful carrying out of a duty
2.being to blame for something: being the cause of something, usually something wrong or disapproved of
3.important: conferring the authority to make decisions independently and requiring conscientiousness and trustworthiness*

*Why is god in this very discusion doubting his own exsistence?*

Care to take a stab at that one?


----------



## Ronnie T

TheBishop said:


> It is not an assumption but a necessity, by the very definition of the word.
> 
> *re·spon·si·ble [ ri spónssÉ™b'l ] 1.answerable to somebody: accountable to somebody for an action or for the successful carrying out of a duty
> 2.being to blame for something: being the cause of something, usually something wrong or disapproved of
> 3.important: conferring the authority to make decisions independently and requiring conscientiousness and trustworthiness*
> 
> *Why is god in this very discusion doubting his own exsistence?*
> 
> Care to take a stab at that one?



What in the world are you talking about?

"Why is God.........in this very discussion....doubting his own existence?"

Absurd!


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> What in the world are you talking about?
> 
> "Why is God.........in this very discussion....doubting his own existence?"
> 
> :



That would be the case if god scripted all actions.  Not trying to answer for bishop, but it is my greatest struggle with the Calvinist position.  All religious conflict would be design......and that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

But, gems is extremely consistent in his positions.  I admire his faith.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> It is not an assumption but a necessity, by the very definition of the word.


How so? We have yet to define freedom and freedom from what?

You are acknowledging and validating your assumption. In your haste to jump forward with our discussion, you dismiss my position as contradictory. Maybe the point of this thread was to produce dancing, but in front of a mirror? Really?


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> "Why is God.........in this very discussion....doubting his own existence?"
> 
> Absurd!



It was nothing more than a frustrated outburst. It is what we do sometimes in our haste to pat ourselves on the back.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Would you point out the contradiction? And please, without diverting our discussion by interjecting robots, dolls and puppets.



It's already been pointed out many times as you well know.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Integrity?  Why are we going there?  I have pointed out several times in here why it cannot be an opinion from my perspective.  God, as I believe, has to define "good."  So, my questions relveant to the morality of his actions (or inactions) cannot change that.
> 
> Now, from your perspective, it is an opinion.  But, put yourself in the shoes of a person who believes God defines good, and you will see why it cannot be an opinion to us no more than his existence is an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Your standard is "Atlas' opinion."  Where my standard is "God."





JB0704 said:


> What distinction do you want, and by who's standards do we decide?  If I believe in God, I would be forced to use his standards.  Since you do not, you are able to use your own standards.





JB0704 said:


> The view I have of God is that he is not going to command the rape of children because that would be evil.



You aren't being consistent here. How can you say that it would be evil of God to command child rape if you believe good and evil are whatever he happens to say they are? For you to say that would be evil (and I'm in strong agreement with you) demonstrates that you are using a moral compass that stands separate from the whims of God and it is that compass by which you are evaluating his commands. As I said before, if someone truly and consistently believes that what is good is simply anything God says it is then good and evil take on a very different meaning than is commonly understood. You're left in the position that if God sits with folded arms and watches children being slaughtered in a theater of gassed in a concentration camp or raped by their parent or hovered over by a vulture as they starve to death that these choices by God are the good and perfect choices simply by virtue of his having made them. Your refusal to apply the same measuring stick to God that you would apply to anyone else has the effect of destroying that measuring stick altogether. God is your measuring stick and if that means defining child murder and rape as the moral choices then so be it. That is the sacrifice of reason one must make to maintain God above the moral laws that supposedly came from him in the first place. Please don't bother answering this point. Just give it some thought. If you think I'm wrong that's fine. I've said what I have to say and my point is made whether you agree or not.




JB0704 said:


> 2. You are free to pass whatever judgement you want.  My whole point is that if God exists, what we think is irrelevant.......isn't it?  If there is a God, Atlas, does he change characteristics based on your thoughts?



I don't think I've ever suggested that if such a God exists that my opinion or yours has any bearing on his character. Yes the truth is whatever it is. I'm simply taking issue with what you identify as the truth. An evil God will remain so regardless of whether you call him good or I call him evil. But if you are declaring an evil God good then I'm simply challenging your assessment of the situation based on real world events.

Based on what we know about this world anyone who claims a good God that is also all knowing and all powerful cannot be right on all of these points. And anyone claiming to have a perfect and divine source for these claims cannot afford to be wrong.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> You aren't being consistent here. How can you say that it would be evil of God to command child rape if you believe good and evil are whatever he happens to say they are? For you to say that would be evil (and I'm in strong agreement with you) demonstrates that you are using a moral compass that stands separate from the whims of God and it is that compass by which you are evaluating his commands. As I said before, if someone truly and consistently believes that what is good is simply anything God says it is then good and evil take on a very different meaning than is commonly understood. You're left in the position that if God sits with folded arms and watches children being slaughtered in a theater of gassed in a concentration camp or raped by their parent or hovered over by a vulture as they starve to death that these choices by God are the good and perfect choices simply by virtue of his having made them. Your refusal to apply the same measuring stick to God that you would apply to anyone else has the effect of destroying that measuring stick altogether. God is your measuring stick and if that means defining child murder and rape as the moral choices then so be it. That is the sacrifice of reason one must make to maintain God above the moral laws that supposedly came from him in the first place. Please don't bother answering this point. Just give it some thought. If you think I'm wrong that's fine. I've said what I have to say and my point is made whether you agree or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever suggested that if such a God exists that my opinion or yours has any bearing on his character. Yes the truth is whatever it is. I'm simply taking issue with what you identify as the truth. An evil God will remain so regardless of whether you call him good or I call him evil. But if you are declaring an evil God good then I'm simply challenging your assessment of the situation based on real world events.
> 
> Based on what we know about this world anyone who claims a good God that is also all knowing and all powerful cannot be right on all of these points. And anyone claiming to have a perfect and divine source for these claims cannot afford to be wrong.



Does inaction define God, if he exists, as evil.  Would such a definition be limited by perspective?


----------



## gordon 2

What makes some nurses better than other nurses according to patients? My experience is that "nice" nurses, those who demonstrate caring and empathy are "better" nurses according to patients than just "I know my stuff nurses that are cracky and rough around the edges."

Being good is being kind. Now if in general a patient wants to disregard "good advise" they will have to suffer the consequences. It is not my fault and  it cannot be said I am indifferent to their suffering...that they will bring on to themselves, their families and their community.

I suggest that similarly God is not indifferent to suffering--even in paliative care and this is how I understand scripture.

Perhaps those with a scientific prespective and those with a fundamentalist perspective could do well to remember that in the beginning... is not the start of a story with cartoon character super heros and not the blast of a big bang.

In the beginning is of a Spirit which man does not have enough of, and the Big Bang is when man realized it. I think both factions can find agreement on this. Yet because our minds will not reason well on all of this, it will take time.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> How so? We have yet to define freedom and freedom from what?
> 
> You are acknowledging and validating your assumption. In your haste to jump forward with our discussion, you dismiss my position as contradictory. Maybe the point of this thread was to produce dancing, but in front of a mirror? Really?



Your contradiction has been highlighted to many times, to continue to argue this point. Your deflection does nothing but further strengthen the conclusion that you cannot reconcile the various inconsistencies in your doctrine.  While I find it difficult not to admire your steadfastness, at the same time, I find it apalling that one could cling to such faulty notions in the face of overwhelming logic.


----------



## TheBishop

Ronnie T said:


> What in the world are you talking about?
> 
> "Why is God.........in this very discussion....doubting his own existence?"
> 
> Absurd!



It is absurd.  If you wonder were that conclusion is drawn,  a very logical and reasonable one I might add, go back and read the entire thread. It is gemcrews position, the only one that can be held, absent free will.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> Does inaction define God, if he exists, as evil.  Would such a definition be limited by perspective?



I would say either apathetic, or non-exsistent.  Evil, maybe not, but good definitely not.  In own laws you can be convicted becuase of inaction.  Inactions is an action in-itself in the fact you are choosing not to act. If you saw that vulture standing over the child and could help, yet you did nothing, you in fact would be just as guilty in their death as the vulture.


----------



## centerpin fan

TheBishop said:


> It is absurd.  If you wonder were that conclusion is drawn,  a very logical and reasonable one I might add, go back and read the entire thread. It is gemcrews position, the only one that can be held, absent free will.



I highlighted the key phrase.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> I would say either apathetic, or non-exsistent.  Evil, maybe not, but good definitely not.  In own laws you can be convicted becuase of inaction.  Inactions is an action in-itself in the fact you are choosing not to act. If you saw that vulture standing over the child and could help, yet you did nothing, you in fact would be just as guilty in their death as the vulture.



The party not acting would be complicit.  And, according to our laws, guilty.  I agree on that point.

What I was trying to get at is that (and I know this sounds like a terrible cop-out) we do not have all the information a God would have.  I am trying to avoid examples, because it seems the example is picked apart rather than the reasoning behind it.  But, I can only assume that God does have all info.

Why he doesn't act is a mystery to me.  But, my belief system tells me he is not an "evil God."  That is the basis I work from.  Now, you, Atlas, and the others can attack that premise, and it is easily done because there is evidence to the contrary.  But, for me, I am left assuming there is a "greater good" at stake where God could be viewed as complicit in "evil."


----------



## TheBishop

centerpin fan said:


> I highlighted the key phrase.



Thank you centerpin. I take it you follow my logic then, and find it equally absurd?


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> The party not acting would be complicit.  And, according to our laws, guilty.  I agree on that point.
> 
> What I was trying to get at is that (and I know this sounds like a terrible cop-out) we do not have all the information a God would have.  I am trying to avoid examples, because it seems the example is picked apart rather than the reasoning behind it.  But, I can only assume that God does have all info.
> 
> Why he doesn't act is a mystery to me.  But, my belief system tells me he is not an "evil God."  That is the basis I work from.  Now, you, Atlas, and the others can attack that premise, and it is easily done because there is evidence to the contrary.  But, for me, I am left assuming there is a "greater good" at stake where God could be viewed as complicit in "evil."



Trust me, I understand why you have to take that position.  But logic does lend that ability to me.  I only have two conclusions I can make. Apathy, or non-exsistence.  

Evil does not work for me either, becuase then you would have the problem of "good".


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> I would say either apathetic, or non-exsistent.  Evil, maybe not, but good definitely not.  In own laws you can be convicted becuase of inaction.  Inactions is an action in-itself in the fact you are choosing not to act. If you saw that vulture standing over the child and could help, yet you did nothing, you in fact would be just as guilty in their death as the vulture.



Is it evil to choose for evil to exist?


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> Is it evil to choose for evil to exist?



I would say yes. But is apathy evil?


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Trust me, I understand why you have to take that position.  But logic does lend that ability to me.  I only have two conclusions I can make. Apathy, or non-exsistence.



....or "greater good."  I know how that sounds to y'all.  It is what it is.



TheBishop said:


> Evil does not work for me either, becuase then you would have the problem of "good".



I had never actually looked at it from that direction.....good point.


----------



## atlashunter

Evil for a greater good?



"To think in this way is to fail to reason honestly, or to care sufficiently, about the suffering of other human beings." I couldn't agree more.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Is it evil to choose for evil to exist?



If one wishes to accomplish "good," one would think there must be "evil."  If we were to be free, there must be a choice.

Is freedom then "evil" because "evil" is the natural opposite of "good."


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Evil for a greater good?



Who is the instigator of the evil?


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> I would say yes. But is apathy evil?



It goes far beyond apathy if you really think about it.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Is it evil to choose for evil to exist?



No, and you know the answer why.

Is love a possibility without evil?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Who is the instigator of the evil?



If you are an all knowing, all powerful, creator of all then ultimately the buck stops with you.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> If one wishes to accomplish "good," one would think there must be "evil."  If we were to be free, there must be a choice.
> 
> Is freedom then "evil" because "evil" is the natural opposite of "good."



Is it logically possible for there to be a heaven without a lake of fire?


----------



## centerpin fan

TheBishop said:


> Thank you centerpin. I take it you follow my logic then, and find it equally absurd?



I have not been following this thread that closely, so I'm not exactly sure what part of gemcgrew's position you find absurd. My point in post #203 is to make it clear that not all Christians agree with gemcgrew's position.  I certainly don't.  I'm a "free will" kinda guy.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> It goes far beyond apathy if you really think about it.



I have for a long, long time.  If it was one thing that turned me away more than others it was the problem of evil.  I think apathy can be a logical choice.  Notice I did say can be, which means I cannot rule it out as I have good and evil.

To me the most logical choice is non-exsistence, atleast of omnipotent interactive diety.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> No, and you know the answer why. I don't please explain why. Logic dictates you are wrong on this one.
> 
> Is love a possibility without evil?



Absolutely.


----------



## TheBishop

centerpin fan said:


> I have not been following this thread that closely, so I'm not exactly sure what part of gemcgrew's position you find absurd. My point in post #203 is to make it clear that not all Christians agree with gemcgrew's position.  I certainly don't.  I'm a "free will" kinda guy.



Understood.  My point, was/is, that if you do nothing of your own accord, absent free will to do so, then even worship and debate is nothing more than a maifestation of god through you. I.E. God worhiping/argueing himself.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> I don't please explain why. *Logic dictates you are wrong on this one*.


I some what answered your question by my question in that same post. Love and true relationship don't exist without a choice by both parties involved, and with one of those parties being humans, you have evil.



> Absolutely.



Explain that scenario for me please, how can evil not exist, and love be apart of God's relationship with us.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Is it logically possible for there to be a heaven without a lake of fire?



Yes.  But, your point is the equivalent of saying the Mets are the logical opposite of the Braves.

Is good really good if there is no evil?  Good would be the mandate, and the norm, and there would be no basis for judgement.


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> I have for a long, long time.  If it was one thing that turned me away more than others it was the problem of evil.  I think apathy can be a logical choice.  Notice I did say can be, which means I cannot rule it out as I have good and evil.
> 
> To me the most logical choice is non-exsistence, atleast of omnipotent interactive diety.



I could only see apathy as a possible explanation if the claim was that God had nothing to do with evil existing in the first place, that he simply showed up on the scene after the fact and opted not to change anything because he didn't care. I've never seen a theist make that claim.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I some what answered your question by my question in that same post. Love and true relationship don't exist without a choice by both parties involved, and with one of those parties being humans, you have evil.
> Please eloborate I don't follow.  Just becuase one of the parties is human you have evil?
> 
> 
> Explain that scenario for me please, how can evil not exist, and love be apart of God's relationship with us.



I don't know about god's relationship part, I don't have those kind of voices in my head.  But I don't believe love will not exsist absence of malice.  We're talking evil here. Acts were people lack empathy or gain pleasure from the pain of others. That in no way defines love, nor is necessary for love to exsist.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, your point is the equivalent of saying the Mets are the logical opposite of the Braves.



Afraid you lost me there. The point is, if heaven, a place that is absent of any evil, can exist without the hot place existing then good can exist without evil. In fact doesn't God in the end destroy evil?




JB0704 said:


> Is good really good if there is no evil?  Good would be the mandate, and the norm, and there would be no basis for judgement.



I think what you are talking about here is having the freedom to make a choice between good and evil. That certainly throws a wrench into the works with the whole concept of heaven and free will which has been brought up in a separate thread. The response from many of our resident theists was that you will have freedom to choose but evil choices will simply not be on the menu. You have to admit it is funny the contradictory answers we get depending on how the same question is framed. Now in a world absent a god the human constructs of good and evil make perfect sense. They are value descriptions assigned to different choices a person might make and so of course choice implies freedom to choose and there is no magic bullet to eliminate the bad choices while maintaining the others. But I'm not the one claiming magic here. So just to clarify, are you saying that God's hands are tied and he is simply incapable of eliminating evil?


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> I could only see apathy as a possible explanation if the claim was that God had nothing to do with evil existing in the first place, that he simply showed up on the scene after the fact and opted not to change anything because he didn't care. I've never seen a theist make that claim.



So would you then conclude that in creating all, even if evil was a byproduct, and god was apathetic, he would then be evil.  If that is your line of reasoning I follow, and somewhat agree.  But then, what would say about good exsisting aswell?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Afraid you lost me there. The point is, if heaven, a place that is absent of any evil, can exist without the hot place existing then good can exist without evil.



I do not see how the existence of heaven mandates the existence of he11.  There could be, instead of a burning he11, a place where men are forced to spend eternity shopping at Bed Bath & Beyond.  Or, there could be a "mass redemption" and the gates of heaven welcome all.  There are multiple logical options available.

Good and evil are natural opposites, one mandates the other.



atlashunter said:


> In fact doesn't God in the end destroy evil?



I recon.  You may know more about Revelation than I do.  I'm still kind-of trying to wrap my head around that book.  I read a theory recently where the author believes Revelation was political propaganda against Roman rule.  Not sure I believe that, but I think it opens up logical possibilities when we are determining what the Bible is actually saying about the end-game.  The point I am making is that I am no scholar on the end-times.




atlashunter said:


> I think what you are talking about here is having the freedom to make a choice between good and evil.



Yes.



atlashunter said:


> That certainly throws a wrench into the works with the whole concept of heaven and free will which has been brought up in a separate thread. The response from many of our resident theists was that you will have freedom to choose but evil choices will simply not be on the menu.



Again, I know very little about this stuff.  I struggle with the concept of heaven.  



atlashunter said:


> You have to admit it is funny the contradictory answers we get depending on how the same question is framed.



Yes.



atlashunter said:


> But I'm not the one claiming magic here.



We could (and I think we have) do a whole 'nother thread on this topic, but God would be "natural" if he exists, and there would be nothing magic at all about his existence.  The things you find "supernatural" would not be, and the description you use to define that would be based on a limited understanding of possibilities.



atlashunter said:


> So just to clarify, are you saying that God's hands are tied and he is simply incapable of eliminating evil?



No.  I think the point of faith is for us to elliminate evil.


----------



## atlashunter

TheBishop said:


> So would you then conclude that in creating all, even if evil was a byproduct, and god was apathetic, he would then be evil.  If that is your line of reasoning I follow, and somewhat agree.  But then, what would say about good exsisting aswell?



I think as you suggested before that control and responsibility go hand in hand. So the question would then be, was evil a necessary byproduct which God was unable to prevent? If so then he is not omnipotent. If not then that means he chose evil. Being an all knowing all powerful creator of something makes it very difficult to wash your hands of the nature of your creation. It just goes with the territory.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> I do not see how the existence of heaven mandates the existence of he11.  There could be, instead of a burning he11, a place where men are forced to spend eternity shopping at Bed Bath & Beyond.  Or, there could be a "mass redemption" and the gates of heaven welcome all.  There are multiple logical options available.



I agree. If such a place as heaven can exist then that would mean the existence of good is not dependent on the existence of evil.




JB0704 said:


> Good and evil are natural opposites, one mandates the other.



If this is true then heaven cannot exist. It would be a place where the term good simply held no meaning.




JB0704 said:


> No.  I think the point of faith is for us to elliminate evil.



That doesn't answer the question I asked. I think we can all work to minimize evil but my question was can God eliminate it? 

I actually do think an all powerful God could. There is nothing logically requiring that in order for me to give you a hug I also must be capable of punching you in the nose. Imagine if the laws of nature were set up such that committing evil was like putting two magnets with like poles together. I could hug you but if I took a swing at your face my fist would be deflected away before it got there. I would still be free to choose a great many things but I would simply be physically incapable of doing evil things. Yes we would have limitations on our freedom by the laws of nature but we have those in this reality anyway. I can't simply zip off into space like superman and head over to the next galaxy to check it out although that would be pretty cool. We are limited by the physical laws of nature so in that sense eliminating evil would be no more a restriction on our free will than we already experience.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Please eloborate I don't follow. Just becuase one of the parties is human you have evil?


God could have made the world without good.
God could have made the world without evil.
God could have made the world without either one.
God could have made the word with both.
The last option is the only option that allows for love and true relationship.



> I don't know about god's relationship part, I don't have those kind of voices in my head.  But I don't believe love will not exsist absence of malice.  We're talking evil here. Acts were people lack empathy or gain pleasure from the pain of others. That in no way defines love, nor is necessary for love to exsist.


How can love exist without the option for humans to reject that love? Love equals relationship, if one or the other is forced into that relationship without a choice, it is not love and it is not a true relationship, both something God wants us to have with Him.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> I think as you suggested before that control and responsibility go hand in hand. So the question would then be, was evil a necessary byproduct which God was unable to prevent? If so then he is not omnipotent. If not then that means he chose evil. Being an all knowing all powerful creator of something makes it very difficult to wash your hands of the nature of your creation. It just goes with the territory.



That is a very interesting conundrum.  I think you just swayed me from apathy being a possibility. So it is safe to say that if an omnipotent god exsist he must be both good or evil, and there is no other way around it.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I agree. If such a place as heaven can exist then that would mean the existence of good is not dependent on the existence of evil.



I do not see it that way.  Heaven could be independent of he11.....or "post evil."



atlashunter said:


> If this is true then heaven cannot exist. It would be a place where the term good simply held no meaning.



The term good might hold no meaning in heaven for all I know.  We could turn this around and say there could be no he11 without a heaven, but that is not the case.  God could have been an evil God and sent everyone to burn eternally, with no chance of heaven, regardless of the "good" one accomplishes.



atlashunter said:


> That doesn't answer the question I asked. I think we can all work to minimize evil but my question was can God eliminate it?



You asked if God was incapable of elliminating evil.  I said "no."  According to my beliefs, he is capable of elliminating evil.  Also, according to my beliefs, the choice was given to men to choose good.  That would mean God would leave the ellimination of evil to men (while we are here).



atlashunter said:


> There is nothing logically requiring that in order for me to give you a hug I also must be capable of punching you in the nose.



The choice is there, isn't it?



atlashunter said:


> We are limited by the physical laws of nature so in that sense eliminating evil would be no more a restriction on our free will than we already experience.



I follow your analogy, but if you think about it, when you try to punch my nose, before you are deflected, you have still chosen an evil alternative to the good hug.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> God could have made the world without good.
> God could have made the world without evil.
> God could have made the world without either one.
> God could have made the word with both.
> The last option is the only option that allows for love and true relationship.
> Uhm ok if you say so.
> 
> How can love exist without the option for humans to reject that love? Love equals relationship, if one or the other is forced into that relationship without a choice, it is not love and it is not a true relationship, both something God wants us to have with Him.



Rejecting love is not evil, in my book.  Again, evil is one of those terms that is difficult to define. So you beleive god created evil, and he is still good?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Rejecting love is not evil, in my book.  Again, evil is one of those terms that is difficult to define. So you beleive god created evil, and he is still good?



I'm saying the choice to choose the opposite of what God wants for our lives has to be there in order for God to love and have a relationship with us. If we only do good, and do not have a choice to do evil, then we don't have a choice in the matter. I think God created that choice so that love and relationship are possible. 

You have an absolute moral code you choose to live, or not live by everyday. I know your going to say that your moral code is not absolute because not everyone agrees with you, but you do not hold what you know to be true to that same standard.

Example, you think mass murder is wrong, in your mind, no matter what, although it is not absolute because not everyone agrees with you

We know that if you jump off a building that gravity will send you to the ground. If someone disagrees with this truth does that make it subjective?


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> I do not see it that way.  Heaven could be independent of he11.....or "post evil."



Sure but the point is that logically speaking if heaven is a good place without evil and can exist independently then evil is not a logical necessity. Even if the one place did require the other that still really wouldn't mean anything because they are separate domains. What I should have asked is if good and evil require each other then how can heaven be an exclusively good domain?




JB0704 said:


> You asked if God was incapable of elliminating evil.  I said "no."  According to my beliefs, he is capable of elliminating evil.  Also, according to my beliefs, the choice was given to men to choose good.  That would mean God would leave the ellimination of evil to men (while we are here).



But this God would know that man is incapable of eliminating evil. So while countless suffer and die the only being capable of completely eliminating that suffering places the burden on those he knows don't have the capability. Kind of sick and twisted and that takes us back to the OP.




JB0704 said:


> I follow your analogy, but if you think about it, when you try to punch my nose, before you are deflected, you have still chosen an evil alternative to the good hug.



Perhaps. It would still be far better than a world where a guy could walk into a theater and start plugging people wouldn't it? And thinking, wishing for, the evil alternative you are incapable of would be just as pointless as me wishing I could beam myself over to the next galaxy.

Or perhaps you make the laws of nature such that the human mind simply isn't capable of evil thoughts. These are just two possibilities. I'm sure an all knowing God could think of others.


----------



## ambush80

Ahhhhh....apologetics......


----------



## Ronnie T

Hey, yall need to check occasionally and make sure your
boss isn't looking over your shoulder.
Don't want any of you to get fired.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> What I should have asked is if good and evil require each other then how can heaven be an exclusively good domain?



Honestly, I think you would have more fun debating heaven with some of the other scholars on here.  The problem I have is that I am not so certain free will exists in heaven.  If what I have been taught about it is correct, one cannot choose evil in heaven, and as such, they have no freedom to do so.....so there is no "will."

Follow me here?  I have always been taught that in heaven we will only want to sing and praise God.  That being the case, my desire to catch stripers, hunt deer, or fish the surf, will be supressed.  Do I then even have a will?  I dunno......

Up in the Christian forum I have discussed heaven at length with like-minded believers.  The concept is almost "Scary" in the sense that I do not see an option for a free will as tradition teaches.  Many call heresy on that, but I am just being honest.

I cannot defend or scrutinize any concept of heaven, because I am not certain what I believe about it myself.......



atlashunter said:


> But this God would know that man is incapable of eliminating evil. So while countless suffer and die the only being capable of completely eliminating that suffering places the burden on those he knows don't have the capability. Kind of sick and twisted and that takes us back to the OP.



How does he know we lack the capability?  The Bible is clear that men are "evil" by nature, but they are mandated to seek "good."  Many good deeds are done every day.  If there was no evil, those deeds would not be good.  If I, in my life, take one day to do nothing but good, haven't I just elliminated evil to the greatest extent possible?  Men, on an individual level, are certainly capable of choosing good.




atlashunter said:


> Perhaps. It would still be far better than a world where a guy could walk into a theater and start plugging people wouldn't it?



Whether or not it is better depends on how much freedom you want.  We could elliminate all guns on earth, and some would say that was good because nobody would ever die frmo guns again, and others would say that was bad because we no longer have the freedom to own guns.




atlashunter said:


> Or perhaps you make the laws of nature such that the human mind simply isn't capable of evil thoughts.



They would no longer be free.  The choice would be made for them.


----------



## JB0704

Ronnie T said:


> Hey, yall need to check occasionally and make sure your
> boss isn't looking over your shoulder.
> Don't want any of you to get fired.



My office is at a gov't facility......nobody ever checks on me


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Honestly, I think you would have more fun debating heaven with some of the other scholars on here.  The problem I have is that I am not so certain free will exists in heaven.  If what I have been taught about it is correct, one cannot choose evil in heaven, and as such, they have no freedom to do so.....so there is no "will."
> 
> Follow me here?  I have always been taught that in heaven we will only want to sing and praise God.  That being the case, my desire to catch stripers, hunt deer, or fish the surf, will be supressed.  Do I then even have a will?  I dunno......
> 
> Up in the Christian forum I have discussed heaven at length with like-minded believers.  The concept is almost "Scary" in the sense that I do not see an option for a free will as tradition teaches.  Many call heresy on that, but I am just being honest.
> 
> I cannot defend or scrutinize any concept of heaven, because I am not certain what I believe about it myself.......



Yep, not easily answered question. The dialog goes something like this.

"Why doesn't God just eliminate evil?"

"He will."

"Well what is he waiting for? Why didn't he just start out with eliminating it?"

"He wants us to have free will."

"So when he eliminates evil we won't have free will any more?"

"No we will still have free will."

"What!?"

"God works in mysterious ways."




JB0704 said:


> How does he know we lack the capability?  The Bible is clear that men are "evil" by nature, but they are mandated to seek "good."  Many good deeds are done every day.  If there was no evil, those deeds would not be good.  If I, in my life, take one day to do nothing but good, haven't I just elliminated evil to the greatest extent possible?  Men, on an individual level, are certainly capable of choosing good.



We can individually minimize evil but not eliminate it as a matter of free choice. God would have known that man would fail in this regard from the very beginning. He creates a problem knowing that only he can fix it, knowing that who he expects to fix it won't, knowing that in the end he will fix it. Does this sound rational to you?




JB0704 said:


> Whether or not it is better depends on how much freedom you want.  We could elliminate all guns on earth, and some would say that was good because nobody would ever die frmo guns again, and others would say that was bad because we no longer have the freedom to own guns.
> 
> They would no longer be free.  The choice would be made for them.



That is like saying I am not free because the laws of nature prevent me from beaming myself across the universe or swim through the core of the sun. Those choices are made for us and it would hurt no one else for us to be free to make them. Yet we wouldn't be truly free if we couldn't hurt other people? Are we not still free in a great many other ways despite physical limitations on our choices?


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> We can individually minimize evil but not eliminate it as a matter of free choice. God would have known that man would fail in this regard from the very beginning. He creates a problem knowing that only he can fix it, knowing that who he expects to fix it won't, knowing that in the end he will fix it. Does this sound rational to you?



Are we better for having existed, or would existence have been better never occurring?  The answer is clearly subjective, but I think one must consider this when determining whether the act of creation is evil.

I believe the creation of free will is obviously within the understanding that it can be abused.....but would we be better off not free to choose?  I would think that is a question only a God could answer with certainty.



atlashunter said:


> That is like saying I am not free because the laws of nature prevent me from beaming myself across the universe or swim through the core of the sun.



Many times when sitting on the couch I find myself wishing God had created me with "the force," so that I could get a beer.



atlashunter said:


> Those choices are made for us and it would hurt no one else for us to be free to make them. Yet we wouldn't be truly free if we couldn't hurt other people? Are we not still free in a great many other ways despite physical limitations on our choices?



True.  But limitations are what they are with or without God in the picture. Think about it......I could wish I had evolved to be 10 feet tall or to be able to manipulate gravity, but it didn't happen.  I could wish God had given me the force, but it didn't happen.

Limitations are placed on us for whatever reason, I think I am discussing freedom within the boundaries of those limitations.

Besides.....without gravity we wouldn't be free to stand in one place.....it goes both directions.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Are we better for having existed, or would existence have been better never occurring?  The answer is clearly subjective, but I think one must consider this when determining whether the act of creation is evil.
> 
> I believe the creation of free will is obviously within the understanding that it can be abused.....but would we be better off not free to choose?  I would think that is a question only a God could answer with certainty.



I don't accept that the either free will or no evil is a limitation for an omnipotent God. Neither do theists who believe in an evil free heaven where people exercise free will.

*The caveat to the above is a distinction between evil and sin.





JB0704 said:


> True.  But limitations are what they are with or without God in the picture. Think about it......I could wish I had evolved to be 10 feet tall or to be able to manipulate gravity, but it didn't happen.  I could wish God had given me the force, but it didn't happen.



Right but we aren't only discussing what is but what could be for an omnipotent being, what you must believe the omnipotent being chose based on what is, and what that choice says about the being.




JB0704 said:


> Besides.....without gravity we wouldn't be free to stand in one place.....it goes both directions.



Come on. Use your imagination.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> I don't accept that the either free will or no evil is a limitation for an omnipotent God.



....and we are pretty much back where we started....can God build a rock so big etc. etc.  Logic, for me at least, mandates that evil must exist for there to be good, otherwise, good does not exist.

The Bible urges men to choose righteousness as an act of obedience.  Men, in turn, choose either righteousness or the other.  This leads me to believe that the choice is given to men, freely, as to which road the choose to take.

I don't know why this is the way it is.  But, then again, I don't know why we didn't evolve to much cooler physical abilities either.


atlashunter said:


> Right but we aren't only discussing what is but what could be for an omnipotent being, what you must believe the omnipotent being chose based on what is, and what that choice says about the being.



We operate within the rules given.  Is God evil because I do not have the force?  

I am left assuming that there is a reason the natural world exists with it's limitations.....I can use my imagination and assume there are much greater things out there if it weren't for the natural laws that constrict us.  But, it is all speculative.  I do not know for sure that I would be better off with the force.  Besides, if I had the force, the force wouldn't be so special.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I'm saying the choice to choose the opposite of what God wants for our lives has to be there in order for God to love and have a relationship with us. If we only do good, and do not have a choice to do evil, then we don't have a choice in the matter. I think God created that choice so that love and relationship are possible.
> 
> You have an absolute moral code you choose to live, or not live by everyday. I know your going to say that your moral code is not absolute because not everyone agrees with you, but you do not hold what you know to be true to that same standard.
> 
> Example, you think mass murder is wrong, in your mind, no matter what, although it is not absolute because not everyone agrees with you
> 
> We know that if you jump off a building that gravity will send you to the ground. If someone disagrees with this truth does that make it subjective?



Again thank you for finally coming to the realization that there is no such thing as a universally absolute morality.  It is about time you came around to that fact.  That morality is subject to individual interpretation, even though many can share similar views. 

I still don't understand how love and a relationship is impossible without, evil, that the god either created or allows to happen.  It sounds demented in the terms you frame it.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Again thank you for finally coming to the realization that there is no such thing as a universally absolute morality.  It is about time you came around to that fact.  That morality is subject to individual interpretation, even though many can share similar views.


I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?

You didn't answer my question about truth. 



> I still don't understand how love and a relationship is impossible without, evil, that the god either created or allows to happen.  It sounds demented in the terms you frame it.



If God doesn't give us a choice, it is a one sided relationship/love were only one party has a choice. Love cannot exist in this situation, ergo, the choice to do evil must exist in order for love between God and ourselfs to exist.


----------



## TheBishop

JB0704 said:


> ....and we are pretty much back where we started....can God build a rock so big etc. etc.  Logic, for me at least, mandates that evil must exist for there to be good, otherwise, good does not exist.



Using the same logic good cannot exsist in heaven then.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> Using the same logic good cannot exsist in heaven then.



Like I said to Atlas.....I don't know anything about heaven.  I am not sure that man has free will there.....from what I currently understand, he does not.


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> Like I said to Atlas.....I don't know anything about heaven.  I am not sure that man has free will there.....from what I currently understand, he does not.



If we didn't have free will in heaven I would look at it as being forced to stay there, meaning we don't have a choice to love God, but that we are forced to love God.

I think we do have free will in heaven, and I think it is a place that we are not going to want to leave, but can.

Edit: this is just my personal feelings on the matter. Our salvation definitely does not hinge on what we think about it.


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> If we didn't have free will in heaven I would look at it as being forced to stay there, meaning we don't have a choice to love God, but that we are forced to love God.
> 
> I think we do have free will in heaven, and I think it is a place that we are not going to want to leave, but can.



My thoughts are based on the thought that what we do is already scripted there....such as singing and praising for eternity.

I hate singing.  I cannot imagine choosing to sing for an eternity.  This is why I imagine that I would not have a will.  If I am altered in some way to make that choice, then I am still not free, because I would not choose the alteration.

But again, I don't have a clue what the "real" answer is.  I am just shootin' from the hip here.  But heaven causes me a lot of confusion.


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> My thoughts are based on the thought that what we do is already scripted there....such as singing and praising for eternity.
> 
> I hate singing.  I cannot imagine choosing to sing for an eternity.  This is why I imagine that I would not have a will.  If I am altered in some way to make that choice, then I am still not free, because I would not choose the alteration.
> 
> But again, I don't have a clue what the "real" answer is.  I am just shootin' from the hip here.  But heaven causes me a lot of confusion.



I don't believe we know our true selves the way we will when we get to heaven, being striped down to who we are at the core of our being may bring a new meaning to singing and worshipping. It's not necessarily an alternation of who we are, but how we see ourselves and God.

Just a thought, I definitely don't know the answer either.


----------



## TheBishop

Neither of yalls descriptions makes heaven sound desirable.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?
> 
> You didn't answer my question about truth.
> 
> 
> 
> If God doesn't give us a choice, it is a one sided relationship/love were only one party has a choice. Love cannot exist in this situation, ergo, the choice to do evil must exist in order for love between God and ourselfs to exist.



No it doesn't make that truth subjective becuase you can replicate the results of jumping off  a builind every time. it doesn't change, everytime you jump you will fall, despite how much peaople want to believe otherwise. 

So evil is the only other choice god can give us besides love?  What about apathy? I still don't see your case for evil being necessary for love, if choice is a must, evil does not have to be the only alternative.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> No it doesn't make that truth subjective becuase you can replicate the results of jumping off  a builind every time. it doesn't change, everytime you jump you will fall, despite how much peaople want to believe otherwise.


Right, and mass murder is wrong in every case, just as you have admitted, dispite how much people want to believe otherwise. Absolute moral!



> So evil is the only other choice god can give us besides love?  What about apathy?


God can't love us if He doesn't care about us.



> I still don't see your case for evil being necessary for love, if choice is a must, evil does not have to be the only alternative.


Well give me another one, I layed it out in an earlier post, and you said "um ok, if you say so"


----------



## atlashunter

String that is an interesting concept of love you have there. "Love and worship me forever or burn forever. The choice is yours." What kind of foundation for a loving relationship is that.

JB, good discussion. Do the mental acrobatics ever get tiring though? Seems like you would finally get to a point where you just say this doesn't add up.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> String that is an interesting concept of love you have there. "Love and worship me forever or burn forever. The choice is yours." What kind of foundation for a loving relationship is that.



A scary one.



> JB, good discussion. Do the mental acrobatics ever get tiring though? Seems like you would finally get to a point where you just say this doesn't add up.



Logically he seems so close.  It almost seems he's clinging to something he know doesn't make sense out of sheer hope.


----------



## JB0704

Atlashunter said:


> JB, good discussion.







Atlashunter said:


> Do the mental acrobatics ever get tiring though? Seems like you would finally get to a point where you just say this doesn't add up.



Not yet.


----------



## ambush80

TheBishop said:


> A scary one.
> 
> 
> 
> Logically he seems so close.  It almost seems he's clinging to something he know doesn't make sense out of sheer hope.



....so close.....


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Right, and mass murder is wrong in every case, just as you have admitted, dispite how much people want to believe otherwise. Absolute moral!
> 
> 
> God can't love us if He doesn't care about us.
> 
> 
> Well give me another one, I layed it out in an earlier post, and you said "um ok, if you say so"



String I wish you could see things from my side and see how scary your beliefs really sound.  I feel for you, honestly I do.  The god you portray seems narcissistic and to embody evil.  I see no goodness, or love, coming from the way you describe this being.


----------



## stringmusic

stringmusic said:


> Right, and mass murder is wrong in every case, just as you have admitted, dispite how much people want to believe otherwise. Absolute moral!
> 
> 
> God can't love us if He doesn't care about us.
> 
> 
> Well give me another one, I layed it out in an earlier post, and you said "um ok, if you say so"





TheBishop said:


> String I wish you could see things from my side and see how scary your beliefs really sound.  I feel for you, honestly I do.  The god your portray seems narcissistic and to embody evil.  I see no goodness, or love, coming from the way you describe this being.



Umm ok..... did you read my post?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> String that is an interesting concept of love you have there. "Love and worship me forever or burn forever. The choice is yours." What kind of foundation for a loving relationship is that.


Should He have consulted with you first?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Umm ok..... did you read my post?



Its not this post in paticular but all of your posts combined. A omnipotent god that loves us, truely loves us, would not risk our eternal suffering, over a choice.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> Should He have consulted with you first?



Any consultation would have been better.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Should He have consulted with you first?



Asserting the absolute dictatorial nature of your God just proves my point.


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> A omnipotent god that loves us, truely loves us, would not risk our eternal suffering, over a choice.



Maybe it was this god.....

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-admits-humans-not-most-impressive-creation-sub,28806/


Figured you fellas (skeptics) might appreciate that


----------



## stringmusic

stringmusic said:


> Right, and mass murder is wrong in every case, just as you have admitted, dispite how much people want to believe otherwise. Absolute moral!
> 
> 
> God can't love us if He doesn't care about us.
> 
> 
> Well give me another one, I layed it out in an earlier post, and you said "um ok, if you say so"


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Its not this post in paticular but all of your posts combined. A omnipotent god that loves us, truely loves us, would not risk our eternal suffering, over a choice.



I take it you're an omnipotent god then?


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> I don't believe we know our true selves the way we will when we get to heaven, being striped down to who we are at the core of our being may bring a new meaning to singing and worshipping. It's not necessarily an alternation of who we are, but how we see ourselves and God.
> 
> Just a thought, I definitely don't know the answer either.



You may be onto something, I just don't know.  It is an interesting concept to discuss.  Maybe we can get a decent thread going on it again sometime.  

But, I can remember being a kid in Sunday school where the little old lady taught us about heaven and thinking "that sounds so boring!"  

...but, then, I was a really bad kid.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I take it you're an omnipotent god then?



No I'm not.  But it is the logic you cannot ignore, oh wait, I guess you can.


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> You may be onto something, I just don't know.  It is an interesting concept to discuss.  Maybe we can get a decent thread going on it again sometime.
> 
> But, I can remember being a kid in Sunday school where the little old lady taught us about heaven and thinking "that sounds so boring!"
> 
> ...but, then, I was a really bad kid.



My pastor says the same thing, he was told heaven was going to be just like church every Sunday. He says when he was a kid he didn't want to go to heaven if thats what it was going to be like.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> No I'm not.



You could have just stopped there.....


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> You could have just stopped there.....



But I didn't.


----------



## stringmusic

stringmusic said:


>


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


>



Eat all the popcorn ya want, I'm tired of saying the same things over and over and you not being able to follow.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Eat all the popcorn ya want, I'm tired of saying the same things over and over and you not being able to follow.



I'm following just fine. Why can't you give an objection to the first sentence in my post, or answer the question in it?


stringmusic said:


> Right, and mass murder is wrong in every case, just as you have admitted, dispite how much people want to believe otherwise. Absolute moral!
> 
> 
> Well give me another one, I layed it out in an earlier post, and you said "um ok, if you say so"


----------



## atlashunter

Is mass murder wrong when God commands it?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Is mass murder wrong when God commands it?



What is the reason He commanded it?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I'm following just fine. Why can't you give an objection to the first sentence in my post, or answer the question in it?



Then you would realize have already answered your first sentence in this very thread.  Morals are subject to personal interpretation. 

 Answer what question? The one about your broad assumptions about a god that created both good and evil yet you claim is all good?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Then you would realize have already answered your first sentence in this very thread.  Morals are subject to personal interpretation.


Why doesn't truth fall under this personal interpretation catagory? Why is mass murder not an absolute moral?



> Answer what question? The one about your broad assumptions about a god that created both good and evil yet you claim is all good?


It seems you're the one not following along, stop ducking the question/request......



stringmusic said:


> Well give me another one, I layed it out in an earlier post, and you said "um ok, if you say so"


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> What is the reason He commanded it?



Does that make a difference?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Does that make a difference?


What do you think of Hiroshima?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> What do you think of Hiroshima?



I think it was a crime against humanity. You sure are taking your time answering the question. Is it wrong when God commands people to commit mass murder?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> I think it was a crime against humanity. You sure are taking your time answering the question. Is it wrong when God commands people to commit mass murder?



No.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Why doesn't truth fall under this personal interpretation catagory?
> 
> 
> It seems your the one not following along, stop ducking the question/request......



Truth lend itself to exsistence, by its own exsistence. It by definition needs no interpretation. 



> God could have made the world without good.
> God could have made the world without evil.
> God could have made the world without either one.
> God could have made the word with both.
> The last option is the only option that allows for love and true relationship.




You mean this? This wasn't an answer to my question. Just a bunch of assumptions that rely's a great leap of imagination to accept. I have given my answer, evil is not necessary for love to exsist.  Nor would I accept that an omnipotent god would require such.   But it would seem by this very post that you do not accept gods benevolence either.


----------



## Four

It's a battle of definitions. If you can define the terms you can win any argument. 

When god kills or commands to kill it can't be murder because it's god's will and god is good. Morals are universal, except if you're god.

"everything" is really only anything that is non-spiritual. God isnt included in 'everything'/ So when we say that "everything must have a beginning and creator" of course we're not talking about god because god isn't physical, god is spiritual and ethereal, so he doesn't need a beginning.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> No.



So mass murder isn't always immoral?


----------



## JB0704

TheBishop said:


> So mass murder isn't always immoral?



What if you are mass murdering evil people? Just a hypothetical, let's assume it is WWII, and there is a chance to drop a very large bomb on one of the Nazi rallies?  By committing such a mass murder, millions of innocents could have been saved.  Again, it is just a hypothetical..........


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> No.



So much for that moral absolute.

Is there anything that would be immoral for God to command?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Truth lend itself to exsistence, by its own exsistence. It by definition needs no interpretation.


Yes, but someone may still disagree with it, just like they may disagree with an absolute moral. 




> You mean this? This wasn't an answer to my question. Just a bunch of assumptions that rely's a great leap of imagination to accept.


What assumptions did I make in the above? Remember, we are arguing over different ways God could have created the world in order for love and relationship to exist, not if He actually created it or not.



> I have given my answer, *evil is not necessary for love to exsist*.  Nor would I accept that an omnipotent god would require such.   But it would seem by this very post that you do not accept gods benevolence either.


Again, give me an example of how this is possible, and we still have a choice in the matter.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> So much for that moral absolute.
> 
> Is there anything that would be immoral for God to command?



I should have thought a little better in answering your question, God does not command pointless murder, He may use a person of faith in the OT to carry out His judgement on a group of people, but that killing is justified through Him.

Your question in this post is a condradictory one.


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> What if you are mass murdering evil people? Just a hypothetical, let's assume it is WWII, and there is a chance to drop a very large bomb on one of the Nazi rallies?  By committing such a mass murder, millions of innocents could have been saved.  Again, it is just a hypothetical..........



You're absolutely right, but I wouldn't call it murder in that case, I would call it killing. For me, there must be two distinct definitions for murdering a person for no reason, or for a reason that is not justified, and killing someone because they deserve to be killed i.e. they are trying to kill you.


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> Your absolutely right, but I wouldn't call it murder in that case, I would call it killing. For me, there must be two distinct definitions for murdering a person for no reason, or for a reason that is not justified, and killing someone because they deserve to be killed i.e. they are trying to kill you.



Yea, you're right.  I was just having fun with it.


----------



## Huntinfool

Man....I just wrote a dissertation response.

It stinks that I ended up erasing it and just posting this.  

It makes me sad that so many people in this area literally think that, if there is a god, he must be evil.  That, in and of itself, is a greater tragedy than the topic of this thread.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> I should have thought a little better in answering your question, God does not command pointless murder, He may use a person of faith in the OT to carry out His judgement on a group of people, but that killing is justified through Him.



You do realize of course that everyone who engages in mass murder will make the claim that is justified on some basis. They all have a "point" to their murders. Calling it killings doesn't soften it either. Initially you said mass murder is always wrong. Now you're making exceptions to the rule and changing definitions. You don't consider it a moral absolute at all. If God commands it then it must be justified, even if we are talking about entire cities and including children and infants in the slaughter. This is the same mindset of the people who committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I hate to have to say this but you are displaying a level of morality on par with an Al Qaeda terrorist. The only difference is they think they are doing God's work and you think they aren't. But if you could be convinced they were in fact doing his work then based on your understanding of morality they would cease to be murdering cowards and would become morally justified killers of women and children.

I think this is enough to see your God for the morally reprehensible monster that he would be if he was real. Such a God is not moral and is not worthy of praise or reverence from any moral person.




stringmusic said:


> Your question in this post is a condradictory one.



No it is quite straight forward and easily answered. Yet you hesitate once again. Why?


----------



## atlashunter

Huntinfool said:


> Man....I just wrote a dissertation response.
> 
> It stinks that I ended up erasing it and just posting this.
> 
> It makes me sad that so many people in this area literally think that, if there is a god, he must be evil.  That, in and of itself, is a greater tragedy than the topic of this thread.



It makes me sad that people can attempt to justify genocide because of their belief in God.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Man....I just wrote a dissertation response.
> 
> It stinks that I ended up erasing it and just posting this.



I hate it when that happens to me.  Sometimes, I will write a long response, but the network will time out while it is posting, and everything gets lost.


----------



## Huntinfool

atlashunter said:


> It makes me sad that people can attempt to justify genocide because of their belief in God.



Me too.  Nothing justifies genocide or any other horrific act.

It's evil, pure and simple.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I hate it when that happens to me. Sometimes, I will write a long response, but the network will time out while it is posting, and everything gets lost.



It didn't get lost...I just erased it because I saw the futility in what I was about to post.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Yes, but someone may still disagree with it, just like they may disagree with an absolute moral.
> 
> No the truth is not flexible or sujective. You may disagree with the truth but you will be wrong and be able to proven so. That is not the case with morality. Morality tends to be rationalized the truth cannot be.
> 
> What assumptions did I make in the above? Remember, we are arguing over different ways God could have created the world in order for love and relationship to exist, not if He actually created it or not.
> Start with the god created part and go from there.
> 
> Again, give me an example of how this is possible, and we still have a choice in the matter.



Here you didn't catch it the first time:   *APATHY*


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> It makes me sad that people can attempt to justify genocide because of their belief in God.



It makes me sad when _any_ action is justified becuase of a unseen, unproven being.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> You do realize of course that everyone who engages in mass murder will make the claim that is justified on some basis. They all have a "point" to their murders. Calling it killings doesn't soften it either.


Making the claim, and it actually being justified are two different things. Calling it a killing is not what we are talking about, I gave a definition to both a killing and a murder to difereniate the two for this discussion.



> Initially you said mass murder is always wrong. Now you're making exceptions to the rule and changing definitions. You don't consider it a moral absolute at all.


That is why I posted "I should have been more careful in answering your question, and I do consider it a moral absolute.



> If God commands it then it must be justified, even if we are talking about entire cities and including children and infants in the slaughter. This is the same mindset of the people who committed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I hate to have to say this but you are displaying a level of morality on par with an Al Qaeda terrorist. The only difference is they think they are doing God's work and you think they aren't. But if you could be convinced they were in fact doing his work then based on your understanding of morality they would cease to be murdering cowards and would become morally justified killers of women and children.


Al Qaeda terrorist murder people pointlessly, God does not, He is justified in any life He may take. I can obviously see why you would take exception to that, see as you don't think He is real, much less justified in anything.



> I think this is enough to see your God for the morally reprehensible monster that he would be if he was real. Such a God is not moral and is not worthy of praise or reverence from any moral person.


If there is no God, "any moral person" could be whatever I wanted it to be, and what you think wouldn't matter a hill of beans to me. We would be arguing futility, which we may be doing any way.






> No it is quite straight forward and easily answered. Yet you hesitate once again. Why?


No, it's the same as asking "Can God make a rock that he can't lift?" an immoral act by God doesn't exist just as a rock He can't lift.


----------



## ambush80

Huntinfool said:


> Man....I just wrote a dissertation response.
> 
> It stinks that I ended up erasing it and just posting this.
> 
> It makes me sad that so many people in this area literally think that, if there is a god, he must be evil.  That, in and of itself, is a greater tragedy than the topic of this thread.




If god exists, it seems inappropriate to call what he does good or evil.  It's like calling what a lion does good or evil.  He just does stuff that we can't really understand since we're not gods and it seems silly to say what a god does is good or evil despite what the Bible says.


----------



## TheBishop

> Al Qaeda terrorist murder people pointlessly, God does not, He is justified in any life He may take. I can obviously see why you would take exception to that, see as you don't think He is real, much less justified in anything.


-String


How do we differentiate since we know god won't come down and announce his presene and work? How are we suppose to know when it is justfied and when its not? Many have killed and will kill in the various names of gods, christian and muslim alike, What if this guy in op comes out and says he has a personal relationship with god and was commanded to kill?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> No the truth is not flexible or sujective. You may disagree with the truth but you will be wrong and be able to proven so. That is not the case with morality. Morality tends to be rationalized the truth cannot be.


Can you prove that murder(pointless death) of an small child is not moraly wrong? Can anybody? If someone tries to rationalize the fact that murdering a baby is ok, does that make the murder not subject to a moral law?



> What assumptions did I make in the above?





> Start with the god created part and go from there.


Are you kidding me?



> Remember, we are arguing over different ways God could have created the world in order for love and relationship to exist, not if He actually created it or not.





> Here you didn't catch it the first time:   *APATHY*



... and you missed this..... 



> God can't love us if He doesn't care about us.



Got any other examples of how love and relationship can exist without the choice of evil, because apathy doesn't cut it.


----------



## TheBishop

ambush80 said:


> If god exists, it seems inappropriate to call what he does good or evil.  It's like calling what a lion does good or evil.  He just does stuff that we can't really understand since we're not gods and it seems silly to say what a god does is good or evil despite what the Bible says.



Agreed. The more and more I have this discussion the more I realize you cannot call god good or evil.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> -String
> 
> 
> How do we differentiate since we know god won't come down and announce his presene and work?


He's already done that.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Can you prove that murder(pointless death) of an small child is not moraly wrong? Can anybody? If someone tries to rationalize the fact that murdering a baby is ok, does that make the murder not subject to a moral law?
> No I can't prove it is morally wrong thats what defferentiates it from truth. You can't either.  I can rationalize it, which makes it subjective to individual interpretation, and not a moral absolute.
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and you missed this.....
> 
> 
> 
> Got any other examples of how love and relationship can exist without the choice of evil, because apathy doesn't cut it.



Apathy certainly works.  If god loves/cares about me but does not show me in anyway I can understand I can choose not to care, that in no way makes me evil.  Or I can choose to love something else, that does not need evil.  

I met a girl who was desperately in love with (True story) me in college.  She left the man she would eventual marry for me 3 times.  She wanted me to fall in love with but I could not, I cared for her but it was not love, it wasn't evil either. Evil is the antithesis of good, love is good but not a necessary component, you do not need evil to define love.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> He's already done that.



No he hasn't.  You believe your book and the muslims believes their's. So when they kill in allahs name they feel its justified. Your book is no better than theirs, neither of you have the ability to validate your beliefs. 

So how do we distiguish a morally justified killing froma a murder? When its done in the name of christianity? There are many examples of that, Norway anybody?


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> No I can't prove it is morally wrong thats what defferentiates it from truth. You can't either. I can rationalize it, which makes it subjective to individual interpretation, and not a moral absolute.


Wow, you can't prove that murdering a small child is wrong, I think your just being difficult now.




> Apathy certainly works.  If god loves/cares about me but does not show me in anyway I can understand I can choose not to care, that in no way makes me evil.  Or I can choose to love something else, that does not need evil.
> 
> I met a girl who was desperately in love with (True story) me in college.  She left the man she would eventual marry for me 3 times.  She wanted me to fall in love with but I could not, *I cared for her but it was not love*, it wasn't evil either. Evil is the antithesis of good, love is good but not a necessary component, you do not need evil to define love.


This is your example of how God can be apathetic towards us and love still exist?

The fact is, if God does not care about us, then love nor relationship exists. Going back to making my original point is if a love relationship is what God wants us to have with Him, there must be a choice in the matter on both parties. If He made only good, then we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, if He made only evil, we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, if He made neither one, we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, He made both, we have a choice in the matter with the possibility of a loving relationship with Him.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> No he hasn't.  You believe your book and the muslims believes their's. So when they kill in allahs name they feel its justified. Your book is no better than theirs, neither of you have the ability to validate your beliefs.


I made my point and now your attacking the bible. That is pretty typical of this forum though, when all else fails " well, welll, the bible isn't true ya know" 



> *So how do we distiguish a morally justified killing froma a murder*? When its done in the name of christianity? There are many examples of that, Norway anybody?


We don't have too, because....



stringmusic said:


> He's already done that.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Wow, you can't prove that murdering a small child is wrong, I think your just being difficult now.
> Can you? I can make a rationalization were I believe its wrong but I cannot prove its wrong, and neither can you.
> 
> 
> This is your example of how God can be apathetic towards us and love still exist?
> No its an example of how we can be apathetic tward god.
> The fact is, if God does not care about us, then love nor relationship exists. Going back to making my original point is if a love relationship is what God wants us to have with Him, there must be a choice in the matter on both parties. If He made only good, then we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, if He made only evil, we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, if He made neither one, we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, He made both, we have a choice in the matter with the possibility of a loving relationship with Him.



There is alot of middle ground between good and evil. Thats what I'm saying. There is more than just choosing good or evil.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> I made my point and now your attacking the bible. That is pretty typical of this forum though, when all else fails " well, welll, the bible isn't true ya know"
> 
> 
> We don't have too, because....



I'm not attcking the bible I'm teling the truth.  Your book is no more validated than their book and you cannot prove otherwise.  Therefore god has not distinguised the two.  So how do we know who's right? Becuase you say so? The pope says so? Becuase islam sounds ridiculous to you? The bibles says so?  We are talking about justified killing in the name of god, were both allah and christ name has been invoked, to you it only justified when christs name is invoked?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Making the claim, and it actually being justified are two different things. Calling it a killing is not what we are talking about, I gave a definition to both a killing and a murder to difereniate the two for this discussion.



Call it what you want but what this boils down to is you think there are times when killing children en masse is a morally justified act. Your concept of morality is lacking to say the least.




stringmusic said:


> That is why I posted "I should have been more careful in answering your question, and I do consider it a moral absolute.



An absolute with exceptions to the rule. 




stringmusic said:


> Al Qaeda terrorist murder people pointlessly, God does not, He is justified in any life He may take. I can obviously see why you would take exception to that, see as you don't think He is real, much less justified in anything.



The only reason you consider it pointless is that you don't think they have God's blessing. The issue for you is not what they do in and of itself but whether or not they have the authority of God backing them up which of course they do believe they have. What you are saying is that if God tells you to go kill a family and take their home that otherwise immoral act is made moral simply by virtue of his having commanded it. I say that just makes God evil.




stringmusic said:


> No, it's the same as asking "Can God make a rock that he can't lift?" an immoral act by God doesn't exist just as a rock He can't lift.



A simple "No" would suffice. I understand where you are coming from. There is no act so vile and evil that you wouldn't consider it moral if it came from God.


----------



## atlashunter

ambush80 said:


> If god exists, it seems inappropriate to call what he does good or evil.  It's like calling what a lion does good or evil.  He just does stuff that we can't really understand since we're not gods and it seems silly to say what a god does is good or evil despite what the Bible says.



I disagree.


----------



## atlashunter

String,

Suppose the Israelis claimed that God granted them the land of Israel/Palestine and had instructed them to go into the West Bank and Gaza and kill every Palestinian man, woman, and child just as he did with the Canaanites. Would they be morally justified?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Call it what you want but what this boils down to is you think there are times when killing children en masse is a morally justified act. Your concept of morality is lacking to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An absolute with exceptions to the rule.


It not an exception, we are talking about two different definitions. One is an absolute and one is not. Killing someone who, by whatever God deemed they needed to die, and murdering someone with no purpose are two very different things.



> The only reason you consider it pointless is that you don't think they have God's blessing.


Well, that is kind of a sticking point for a believer huh? Also, they are simply murdering for their geopolitical theory.



> The issue for you is not what they do in and of itself but whether or not they have the authority of God backing them up which of course they do believe they have. What you are saying is that if God tells you to go kill a family and take their home that otherwise immoral act is made moral simply by virtue of his having commanded it. I say that just makes God evil.


God's not going to tell me to murder a family, it is not made moral by commanding it, because He won't, and as you probably know, doesn't need to after the whole cross murder and all.




> A simple "No" would suffice. I understand where you are coming from. There is no act so vile and evil that you wouldn't consider it moral if it came from God.


There is no act so vile or evil that God would command for me to consider it immoral.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> String,
> 
> Suppose the Israelis claimed that God granted them the land of Israel/Palestine and had instructed them to go into the West Bank and Gaza and kill every Palestinian man, woman, and child just as he did with the Canaanites. Would they be morally justified?



I have no idea, that would be between them and God.


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> I have no idea, that would be between them and God.




I think all of you theists should find a better source for your morality.


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> I disagree.



Why?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> I think all of you theists should find a better source for your morality.



And where shall we start the looking? I'm thinkin' Germany circa early 1940's.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> It not an exception, we are talking about two different definitions. One is an absolute and one is not. Killing someone who, by whatever God deemed they needed to die, and murdering someone with no purpose are two very different things.



Genocide by any other name is still genocide. 

You're scary dude. Seriously. If God told me to go slaughter every man, woman, and child in a city I'd have a few choice four letter words for him and tell him to do his own dirty work.




stringmusic said:


> Well, that is kind of a sticking point for a believer huh? Also, they are simply murdering for their geopolitical theory.



I'd say they are just as the Israelites did. Sad though that you believe it's A-OK for people to kill each other at God's behest.




stringmusic said:


> God's not going to tell me to murder a family, it is not made moral by commanding it, because He won't, and as you probably know, doesn't need to after the whole cross murder and all.



According to the bible he's already told other people to do just that. Fascinating that you know the mind of God well enough to know what God will and won't do. Even Abraham wasn't so bold as to say "God wouldn't tell me to kill my son so I'm not going to do it.".




stringmusic said:


> There is no act so vile or evil that God would command for me to consider it immoral.



If the bible is true then your God has already done some pretty vile and evil things. If drowning nearly all the living creatures on the planet doesn't qualify as mass murder then nothing does. The God of the bible is monstrous. Anybody that either can't or won't see that is somebody that can pretty well be dismissed out of hand on the topic of morality.


----------



## TheBishop

atlashunter said:


> If the bible is true then your God has already done some pretty vile and evil things. If drowning nearly all the living creatures on the planet doesn't qualify as mass murder then nothing does. The God of the bible is monstrous. Anybody that either can't or won't see that is somebody that can pretty well be dismissed out of hand on the topic of morality.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> And where shall we start the looking? I'm thinkin' Germany circa early 1940's.



You're already there my friend. "GOTT MIT UNS", they thought they were doing God's work. And who is to say they weren't? As you just said concerning the Israelis and Palestinians, "that's between them and God", right? He stood by and watched while 6 million jews were slaughtered.


----------



## Huntinfool

So, just so I'm clear on the rules as I'm thinking through this...

...in order for a "good" god to exist, there can be no suffering or death of any kind for any person.  Am I reading that correctly?

In other words, if God exists and he is good, then he can neither allow, condone or cause suffering....ever.  Is that correct?


----------



## Huntinfool

Second question...

In order for us to acknowledge 'evil', there must be 'good', correct?  We agree on that?  There must be good for evil to exist?


----------



## Ronnie T

Not that anyone will care much about this....................

James 1:
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin


----------



## TheBishop

Huntinfool said:


> Second question...
> 
> In order for us to acknowledge 'evil', there must be 'good', correct?  We agree on that?  There must be good for evil to exist?



We don't know.  This is kinda of discover type of thread more to highlight the difficulty of qualifing god as good.  Which seemingly has been determined not to be using basic logic.  Using your same basic process in order for good to exsist we need evil to qualify.  That issue was approached using the example of heaven. JB and Atlas went round on that one.  

I thought well maybe an apathetic god, but that thought was dismissed aswell. It has been suggested that evil is the only thing left but I don't know how that solves the problem of good.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Genocide by any other name is still genocide.


We are not talking about genocide here, at least as far as God is concerned, look up the definition, the first word in it is murder(a pointless killing.

I take it your against the death penalty?



> You're scary dude. Seriously. If God told me to go slaughter every man, woman, and child in a city I'd have a few choice four letter words for him and tell him to do his own dirty work.







> *I'd say *they are just as the Israelites did. Sad though that you believe it's A-OK for people to kill each other at God's behest.


Yep.




> According to the bible he's already told other people to do just that. Fascinating that you know the mind of God well enough to know what God will and won't do. Even Abraham wasn't so bold as to say "God wouldn't tell me to kill my son so I'm not going to do it.".


Abraham learned that the God of the bible wasn't like the other gods being worshipped at the time through that situation. I don't know everything about what God thinks, but I do know what He revealed through the sacrifice of Christ.

You're asking questions about God telling you to kill someone today as if Christ didn't fulfill anything with His death on the cross.




> If the bible is true then your God has already done some pretty vile and evil things. If drowning nearly all the living creatures on the planet doesn't qualify as mass murder then nothing does. The God of the bible is monstrous. Anybody that either can't or won't see that is somebody that can pretty well be dismissed out of hand on the topic of morality.


"vile and evil things" where are you getting those definitions? Your dismissing me on the topic of morality yet you only have a definition of morality that you choose, which in your own naturalistic frame work means nothing.


----------



## TheBishop

Interesting note.  I was watching "Through the Wormhole" and the latest episode was actually about evil.  I haven't finished it, but is seem that many phsycopaths have similar brain structure and function.  Like they born or created that way, and it is not something they choose.  It was suggested that it can only be countered by proper nuturing and upringing.  

The point to that being, if it is concluded that evil is not a choice, but the result of developmental disorder, then it would truely suggest that any intelligent designer would bare ultimate responsibility. I guess the end result is the same, though.  For in this very tread there has been little reasoning to suggest that if such entity exsist, benevolence, would be a quality it would posses.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> We are not talking about genocide here, at least as far as God is concerned, look up the definition, the first word in it is murder(a pointless killing.



http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/genocide



> the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group



Please share what exactly you think the point of genocide is.




stringmusic said:


> Abraham learned that the God of the bible wasn't like the other gods being worshipped at the time through that situation. I don't know everything about what God thinks, but I do know what He revealed through the sacrifice of Christ.



You've got to be joking. If he wasn't like the other Gods he wouldn't have told Abraham to commit a human sacrifice in the first place, he wouldn't have accepted Jephthah's offer of a human sacrifice, and he wouldn't have required the murder of his son as a human sacrifice.




stringmusic said:


> "vile and evil things" where are you getting those definitions? Your dismissing me on the topic of morality yet you only have a definition of morality that you choose, which in your own naturalistic frame work means nothing.



We've been over this before. Revisit the essay by Elizabeth Anderson if you need to.


----------



## TheBishop

This seems like a good time to resurrect this one.   If there is a god that is all powerful, all seeing, and all knowing, and he sat back and watched what happened today, to his "beloved" children, he is guilty of neglect, and unworth of any kind of praise.  As we would do to any man that could prevent such tragedy and willfullly didn't,  such a being should be abhorred. 

Those that somehow use tragedies like this, to link this senseless act to a nation that is "fallen" from such a dieties grace, are pitiful. This same god allows children, whos innocence is pure, to get slaughtered to prove a point? You are no better than the liberals that will soon point to guns as catalyst for this event. You are looking for an excuse and avoiding the truth.  Stop it.  God, if there is one, had very little to do with this event.


----------



## gemcgrew

Are you afraid or just angry? Emotions can suck the intelligence right out of you.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> Are you afraid or just angry? Emotions can suck the intelligence right out of you.



So can believing god did this himself, to himself.  So why did God kill those childrem gem? It certainly wasn't a man acting on his own freewill, was it?


----------



## atlashunter

You know what I don't understand is why people pray to God for things like this to not happen. Doesn't that suggest they think it is in his hands?


----------



## ambush80

atlashunter said:


> You know what I don't understand is why people pray to God for things like this to not happen. Doesn't that suggest they think it is in his hands?




So let me get this straight,  whether you pray or not, god's will be done.  If you pray, you may or not get the result you want; god's will be done again.  So, is it that He just likes you to pray, though it may or may not affect the outcome?

What an odd creature He must be.


----------



## atlashunter

Prayer suggests that God is standing by waiting to see if he gets enough prayers before he will intervene on behalf of the victims of tragedies like this. If you know he isn't going to stop these events because of free will or some reason then why bother praying? If there is any chance at all he would involve himself for the benefit of the victims a righteous God wouldn't require begging and pleading to do it.


----------



## TheBishop

What about praying for the victims? Hasn't their fate already been d
ecided?


----------



## drippin' rock

I wonder how many of the parents of the kids there that survived are saying it is a miracle or that God was looking out for their children.


----------



## TheBishop

drippin' rock said:


> I wonder how many of the parents of the kids there that survived are saying it is a miracle or that God was looking out for their children.



It was gods will they lived, and gods will the others died.

We need to put god back into schools. The god that smites those children because we stop praying on schools. The god that had the power to stop it but chose not too. Ridiculous.


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> God stood by and watched it happen. I know your not going to like it but I'm going to ask you a question now.
> 
> How does benevolence play into that?



No, actually, we allowed it to happen.
'Humble yourselves to Me and I will heal your nation'. Nothing happened like that 'back in the day' that God was actually called upon in schools to protect us from evil. Take God out of the schools and we are no longer protected against evil. We want to take care of all that ourselves, obviously we aren't doing a good job....are we?

Same as we let people starve...by not sending them help our ownselves. If you don't believe in God then only man is left with his own free will to send food, clothing, etc. Our church support missionaries that not only teach the gospel, but  feed and clothe starving nations.....God puts that in our hearts to do that. And God can use even the unsaved to do that. If we don't send money and food then we are letting them starve, irregardless of a god or not...eh?


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> It was gods will they lived, and gods will the others died.
> 
> We need to put god back into schools. The god that smites those children because we stop praying on schools. The god that had the power to stop it but chose not too. Ridiculous.



How many times did that happen before we took God out of schools? You do the math.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> Prayer suggests that God is standing by waiting to see if he gets enough prayers before he will intervene on behalf of the victims of tragedies like this. If you know he isn't going to stop these events because of free will or some reason then why bother praying? If there is any chance at all he would involve himself for the benefit of the victims a righteous God wouldn't require begging and pleading to do it.



That's why I believe there is evil on earth that we are battleing....that's pretty obvious. If there was no evil on this earth then nothing bad would happen to anyone. And I believe in free will on our part to do or not to do those things. How can you blame it on a God you don't even believe in? Doesn't that put us in the spotlight for letting it happen? Not everyone's thought process is meant for good...it's what they personally believe to be right or wrong without regard to any 'rules'. You have suggested before that most men know the difference in right or wrong all on their own with no regard of a defined difference set between right and wrong.


----------



## mtnwoman

Huntinfool said:


> Second question...
> 
> In order for us to acknowledge 'evil', there must be 'good', correct?  We agree on that?  There must be good for evil to exist?



Exactly.


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> Thats what I'm saying. There is more than just choosing good or evil.



Amen!


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> -String
> 
> 
> How do we differentiate since we know god won't come down and announce his presene and work? How are we suppose to know when it is justfied and when its not? Many have killed and will kill in the various names of gods, christian and muslim alike, What if this guy in op comes out and says he has a personal relationship with god and was commanded to kill?



He can say God commanded him to do it to cop a plea. Because we are so ignorant of God's word. But God's word says thou shalt not kill.  Anyone can use God's name in vain, to explain away their guilt or responsibility of their actions.  If you don't believe in God in the first place, how can you put blame on someone who doesn't exist and use that as an excuse for why you don't believe in God. And then to go on and deny there is evil in the world....walking amongst us? Have you ever thought that God does anything good? Look at the nation we live in, we aren't blessed? and we are not blessed because we all are so good on our own....or these killings would seize. It's good against evil. Satan is loosed on planet earth. We have a choice to battle it or not.

Most of you on here can agree with scientists that make many assumptions of things, and can list 5 pages of reasons why. Why is it so hard to believe that God's words of what He will do if we don't do this or that, and then it comes to pass....why can't that be proof when it does happen? It's proof to me.


----------



## atlashunter

Huntinfool said:


> Second question...
> 
> In order for us to acknowledge 'evil', there must be 'good', correct?  We agree on that?  There must be good for evil to exist?



If that is true then how can God destroy evil without also destroying good?


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> No, actually, we allowed it to happen.
> 'Humble yourselves to Me and I will heal your nation'. Nothing happened like that 'back in the day' that God was actually called upon in schools to protect us from evil. Take God out of the schools and we are no longer protected against evil. We want to take care of all that ourselves, obviously we aren't doing a good job....are we?



Protected by who?


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> That's why I believe there is evil on earth that we are battleing....that's pretty obvious. If there was no evil on this earth then nothing bad would happen to anyone. And I believe in free will on our part to do or not to do those things. How can you blame it on a God you don't even believe in?



I don't. I blame it on the guy pulling the trigger. But if I believed the things about God that you do then he also is responsible. If it was your child killed by a gunman in a school shooting and you later found that I knew what was going to happen long before it did and watched the gunman as he prepared for and carried out his murders having the power all along to intervene at no risk to myself and save your child's life would you not consider me at all responsible? I didn't pull the trigger but I had the opportunity and power to save their life and made a choice not to. You would really hold me completely blameless?


----------



## TheBishop

mtnwoman said:


> He can say God commanded him to do it to cop a plea. Because we are so ignorant of God's word. But God's word says thou shalt not kill.  Anyone can use God's name in vain, to explain away their guilt or responsibility of their actions.  If you don't believe in God in the first place, how can you put blame on someone who doesn't exist and use that as an excuse for why you don't believe in God. And then to go on and deny there is evil in the world....walking amongst us? Have you ever thought that God does anything good? Look at the nation we live in, we aren't blessed? and we are not blessed because we all are so good on our own....or these killings would seize. It's good against evil. Satan is loosed on planet earth. We have a choice to battle it or not.
> 
> Most of you on here can agree with scientists that make many assumptions of things, and can list 5 pages of reasons why. Why is it so hard to believe that God's words of what He will do if we don't do this or that, and then it comes to pass....why can't that be proof when it does happen? It's proof to me.



I'm sorry but this is just complete nonsense. Aren't you a little old to be worried about the boogyman? It's time that humans stop looking for supernatural explainations, and use a little reasoning power that separates us from lower forms of life. There is a struggle going on, but it has nothing to do with god, satan, or the boogeyman.  Neither good nor evil forces exists to manipulate mankind.  We need to stop interjecting this nonsense into the situation start trying to find the real answers.


----------



## pnome

One thing you might not be considering is that death might not be a bad thing.  We here who survive do not know.  

To us, the death of children may seem a great loss, and it is, for us.  But if you believe what the Christians do, then those kids are in a place now where evil and suffering cannot reach.  And that's a comforting thought.   So, yes, God's will be done.  Because only he can see all ends.

Anyway...sure hope the Christians are right on that one.


----------



## atlashunter

pnome said:


> One thing you might not be considering is that death might not be a bad thing.  We here who survive do not know.
> 
> To us, the death of children may seem a great loss, and it is, for us.  But if you believe what the Christians do, then those kids are in a place now where evil and suffering cannot reach.  And that's a comforting thought.   So, yes, God's will be done.  Because only he can see all ends.
> 
> Anyway...sure hope the Christians are right on that one.



Do their reactions mesh with that belief?


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> I don't. I blame it on the guy pulling the trigger. But if I believed the things about God that you do then he also is responsible. If it was your child killed by a gunman in a school shooting and you later found that I knew what was going to happen long before it did and watched the gunman as he prepared for and carried out his murders having the power all along to intervene at no risk to myself and save your child's life would you not consider me at all responsible? I didn't pull the trigger but I had the opportunity and power to save their life and made a choice not to. You would really hold me completely blameless?



How do you know what God HAS intervened on?

How many school massacres happened before prayer was taken out of school? 

I would definately be mad at God if it were one of my kids, because my thought process is the same as yours on a human level.  I do blame it on the man who pulled the trigger. I think all of our troops should be at home protecting our kids and protecting our border....I blame that on us. 

God gives us free will to do good or evil....it's our choice of what we do with it.


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> I'm sorry but this is just complete nonsense. Aren't you a little old to be worried about the boogyman? It's time that humans stop looking for supernatural explainations, and use a little reasoning power that separates us from lower forms of life. There is a struggle going on, but it has nothing to do with god, satan, or the boogeyman.  Neither good nor evil forces exists to manipulate mankind.  We need to stop interjecting this nonsense into the situation start trying to find the real answers.



Who said anything about the boogieman?

What do you say the right answers are, when things like this happen?  

So I presume when you are tempted to do something wrong/evil that is coming from your own brain? even though you resist the temptation? I can tell you this, I have been tempted to do things totally out of character for me, and I think where in the world did that thought come from...but I know where it came from. I'm happy to say that the thoughts didn't come from my own heart.


----------



## gordon 2

atlashunter said:


> I don't. I blame it on the guy pulling the trigger. But if I believed the things about God that you do then he also is responsible. If it was your child killed by a gunman in a school shooting and you later found that I knew what was going to happen long before it did and watched the gunman as he prepared for and carried out his murders having the power all along to intervene at no risk to myself and save your child's life would you not consider me at all responsible? I didn't pull the trigger but I had the opportunity and power to save their life and made a choice not to. You would really hold me completely blameless?




With all due respect Altashunter but "Can you really explain to a fish what it is like to walk on land? One day on land is worth a thousand years talking about it, and one day running a business has exactly the same kind of value." Warren Buffett.

God and the prophets know what is going to happen or/and why things happen, but for man to know such things he must need walk his freedom well. God is blameless for choices and causes that go against His will. But He knows were those choices lead.

The christians and their God you think you know are both perhaps not fully known to you.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> So why did God kill those childrem gem?


For a good purpose. Remember, there was a much greater act of injustice and evil performed by God through secondary agents. "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts 4:27,28)



TheBishop said:


> It certainly wasn't a man acting on his own freewill, was it?


No


----------



## ted_BSR

TheBishop said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/least-12-people-killed-colo-batman-showing-124845145.html
> 
> If god exsists it allowed this to happen.  Either god willed it himself, or god knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Either way I see no reason to worhip an entity that allows this.  Benevolence is not a trait of an omnipotent being that oversees evil and allows it to exsist.



This is a great tragedy.

Bishop's question is understandable, however unoriginal. It is a very old question, with many answers. Here is some suggested reading on the matter.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/articles/theology/badthingshappen.html

I did not read ALL of the posts.


----------



## ambush80

pnome said:


> One thing you might not be considering is that death might not be a bad thing.  We here who survive do not know.
> 
> To us, the death of children may seem a great loss, and it is, for us.  But if you believe what the Christians do, then those kids are in a place now where evil and suffering cannot reach.  And that's a comforting thought.   So, yes, God's will be done.  Because only he can see all ends.
> 
> Anyway...sure hope the Christians are right on that one.



Unless you're a Calvinist.


----------



## mtnwoman

pnome said:


> One thing you might not be considering is that death might not be a bad thing.  We here who survive do not know.
> 
> To us, the death of children may seem a great loss, and it is, for us.  But if you believe what the Christians do, then those kids are in a place now where evil and suffering cannot reach.  And that's a comforting thought.   So, yes, God's will be done.  Because only he can see all ends.
> 
> Anyway...sure hope the Christians are right on that one.



Very nice post.

We hope we are right, too.....and our hope is in Christ.

I'd rather live the rest of my life, after a tradegy, with hope. Hope in seeing my loved ones again, peace in their death, rather than to know or believe that I'll never see them again...if I'm wrong, I'll die and never know the difference...but I will have lived my life in peace and die and be gone.  Except I lived a peacefull, hopefilled, positive life.


----------



## mtnwoman

ambush80 said:


> Unless you're a Calvinist.



Well yeah....lol


----------



## mtnwoman

gordon 2 said:


> The christians and their God you think you know are both perhaps not fully known to you.



I agree, that's obvious.


----------



## JFS

mtnwoman said:


> I have been tempted to do things totally out of character for me, and I think where in the world did that thought come from...but I know where it came from. I'm happy to say that the thoughts didn't come from my own heart.



Of course they did.


----------



## fish hawk

TheBishop said:


> This seems like a good time to resurrect this one.   If there is a god that is all powerful, all seeing, and all knowing, and he sat back and watched what happened today, to his "beloved" children, he is guilty of neglect, and unworth of any kind of praise.  As we would do to any man that could prevent such tragedy and willfullly didn't,  such a being should be abhorred.



Pretty sad that you would use what happened in Connecticut to try and get your point across here!!!It would be different if you were truly searching for answers, but your only using what happened to mock God.


----------



## fish hawk

TheBishop said:


> Those that somehow use tragedies like this, to link this senseless act to a nation that is "fallen" from such a dieties grace, are pitiful. This same god allows children, whos innocence is pure, to get slaughtered to prove a point? You are no better than the liberals that will soon point to guns as catalyst for this event. You are looking for an excuse and avoiding the truth.  Stop it.  God, if there is one, had very little to do with this event.


Funny how you do the very thing your condemning others for!!!


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> How do you know what God HAS intervened on?
> 
> How many school massacres happened before prayer was taken out of school?
> 
> I would definately be mad at God if it were one of my kids, because my thought process is the same as yours on a human level.  I do blame it on the man who pulled the trigger. I think all of our troops should be at home protecting our kids and protecting our border....I blame that on us.
> 
> God gives us free will to do good or evil....it's our choice of what we do with it.



Fine, if that is going to be your excuse for him standing by and watching 20 school kids get murdered then don't tell us about needing to pray for his protection. If he is able to protect without negating free will then free will is no excuse and irrelevant to this discussion. If he isn't able to protect without negating free will then praying for his protection is a pointless exercise and you can't say that his protection was in place at some point in the past.


----------



## atlashunter

gordon 2 said:


> With all due respect Altashunter but "Can you really explain to a fish what it is like to walk on land? One day on land is worth a thousand years talking about it, and one day running a business has exactly the same kind of value." Warren Buffett.
> 
> God and the prophets know what is going to happen or/and why things happen, but for man to know such things he must need walk his freedom well. God is blameless for choices and causes that go against His will. But He knows were those choices lead.
> 
> The christians and their God you think you know are both perhaps not fully known to you.



How is that any different from saying I am blameless for murders I knew were going to happen, watched happen and could have stopped but chose not to? How would it be any different if I stood armed in that school watching the gunman shoot one kid after the next and did nothing to stop him? Would I be blameless? Would you sing my praises and ask that I do a better job next time?


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> Very nice post.
> 
> We hope we are right, too.....and our hope is in Christ.
> 
> I'd rather live the rest of my life, after a tradegy, with hope. Hope in seeing my loved ones again, peace in their death, rather than to know or believe that I'll never see them again...if I'm wrong, I'll die and never know the difference...but I will have lived my life in peace and die and be gone.  Except I lived a peacefull, hopefilled, positive life.



I'm surprised at your willingness to say such a thing. Very few Christians would admit that. I think this is what it all boils down to and what separates the believer and non-believer. My preference is for what is true, not what I find comforting or hope might be true. I just can't relate to someone that could say "even if my belief turns out to be a lie I still prefer to believe it".


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> How do you know what God HAS intervened on?
> 
> How many school massacres happened before prayer was taken out of school?
> 
> I would definately be mad at God if it were one of my kids, because my thought process is the same as yours on a human level.  I do blame it on the man who pulled the trigger. I think all of our troops should be at home protecting our kids and protecting our border....I blame that on us.
> 
> God gives us free will to do good or evil....it's our choice of what we do with it.



May 18, 1927: Andrew Kehoe. The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings by Kehoe in Bath Township, Michigan which killed 45 people (including Kehoe) and injured at least 58 on May 18, 1927. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

On the morning of May 18, Kehoe first killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, as well as killing and injuring several others. During the rescue efforts, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol planted throughout the basement of the school's south wing.

After the bombings investigators found a wooden sign wired to the farm's fence with Kehoe's last message, "Criminals are made, not born," written on it

This was, and remains, the deadliest act of mass murder at a school in the United States.


----------



## bullethead

gordon 2 said:


> With all due respect Altashunter but "Can you really explain to a fish what it is like to walk on land? One day on land is worth a thousand years talking about it, and one day running a business has exactly the same kind of value." Warren Buffett.



Thanks to evolution the snakehead and some catfish can tell us what it is like to walk on land.


----------



## stringmusic

What did you guys want the God that you do not believe is real to do in this situation?


----------



## stringmusic

Bishop, is this situation absolutely morally wrong?


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Thanks to evolution the snakehead and some catfish can tell us what it is like to walk on land.



I asked every one of them, they wouldn't tell me what it was like, so now they're ready for the fryer!!


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> What did you guys want the God that you do not believe is real to do in this situation?



IF there was such a thing, it would have been easy for such a powerful all-knowing, all capable entity to stop the shooters heart before he pulled the trigger on his mother, let alone while he was shooting his way into the school, but NOT because I would have expected it....it SHOULD have happened as the mass of terrified prayers from his worshipers poured in as they ran and hid. 

Give us a break string, there are no excuses you can make up.
People above asked "how many times has this happened before God was taken out of schools" and "how many massacres were there before prayer was taken out of school"??
Well as usual no one wants to check before they spout their "facts". It happened and happens regardless of whether or not people pray or some imaginary god is allowed in school. It is just another example of sticking up for a no-show.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> IF there was such a thing, it would have been easy for such a powerful all-knowing, all capable entity to stop the shooters heart before he pulled the trigger on his mother, let alone while he was shooting his way into the school, but NOT because I would have expected it....it SHOULD have happened as the mass of terrified prayers from his worshipers poured in as they ran and hid.
> 
> Give us a break string, there are no excuses you can make up.
> People above asked "how many times has this happened before God was taken out of schools" and "how many massacres were there before prayer was taken out of school"??
> Well as usual no one wants to check before they spout their "facts". It happened and happens regardless of whether or not people pray or some imaginary god is allowed in school. It is just another example of sticking up for a no-show.



Should God stop everyone's heart before they do anything wrong?

Let's say right now, somewhere, that a person is about to steal some money from someone, should God go ahead and stop their heart right now?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> I asked every one of them, they wouldn't tell me what it was like, so now they're ready for the fryer!!



Ohhh geeeze, whew! lol, -LMapendegesO , ha! But the truth is that those and a quite a few other examples of fish actually do walk across land, out of water and can do it for days without dying. Don't need to talk to em String, they tell us everything we need to know as soon as they WALK out of the water and travel across dry land.
Examples of living transitional fossils right before your eyes so you better catch em all and fry em up before somebody else notices that they may be in the middle of an evolutionary event.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Ohhh geeeze, whew! lol, - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, ha! But the truth is that those and a quite a few other examples of fish actually do walk across land, out of water and can do it for days without dying. Don't need to talk to em String, they tell us everything we need to know as soon as they WALK out of the water and travel across dry land.
> Examples of living transitional fossils right before your eyes so you better catch em all and fry em up before somebody else notices that they may be in the middle of an evolutionary event.



mmmmmmm, I'd betcha catfish legs would be better'n frog legs.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Should God stop everyone's heart before they do anything wrong?
> 
> Let's say right now, somewhere, that a person is about to steal some money from someone, should God go ahead and stop their heart right now?



an almitghy, all powerful, all knowing God would foresee the outcome and determine the appropriate action.

If I could I certainly would.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> mmmmmmm, I'd betcha catfish legs would be better'n frog legs.



I'd dodge it too if I were you.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> an almitghy, all powerful, all knowing God would foresee the outcome and determine the appropriate action.



Unless it was predetermined that man be free.  If he is not, then the outcome is what God deemed appropriate....as awful as that seems.

String....catfish post was stinking hilarious!


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Unless it was predetermined that man be free.  If he is not, then the outcome is what God deemed appropriate....as awful as that seems.


Right! so then there is absolutely ZERO chance that prayer, in school or out, will do a darn thing. All the people spouting these "facts" have not a single shred of evidence to back it up.
Predetermined that no matter what happens, somebody will give an invisible, non hands on, unobservable, incapable god praise and make excuses for it's non actions.



JB0704 said:


> String....catfish post was stinking hilarious!


Yes. I appreciated the evidence.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> What did you guys want the God that you do not believe is real to do in this situation?



What would you like him to do the next time a nut picks up a gun and heads for a school?


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> What would you like him to do the next time a nut picks up a gun and heads for a school?



I know what a god, any god won't do. That is why I carry.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> an almitghy, all powerful, all knowing God would foresee the outcome and determine the appropriate action.
> 
> If I could I certainly would.


He did forsee the outcome. 

Who determines the appropriate action? You? Me? Or should we leave that to God?



bullethead said:


> I'd dodge it too if I were you.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Yes. I appreciated the evidence.



The evidence for what? Were you expecting me to argue that some fish didn't walk on land?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> He did forsee the outcome.
> 
> Who determines the appropriate action? You? Me? Or should we leave that to God?



In your world, out of those three choices, WHO knew about it before it happened?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> What would you like him to do the next time a nut picks up a gun and heads for a school?


The same thing He did this time, call some to Him. There might be 1,000's of people that come to have a relationship with Christ because of what happened. 



stringmusic said:


> What did you guys want the God that you do not believe is real to do in this situation?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> The evidence for what? Were you expecting me to argue that some fish didn't walk on land?



Nope, I am just glad you showed that some fish do walk on land to those that argue against evolution or make posts about being able to explain to a fish what it would be like to walk on land. No explanation needed. Some fish already know what it is like.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> He did forsee the outcome.
> 
> Who determines the appropriate action? You? Me? Or should we leave that to God?



Tell the parents of those dead kids that the appropriate action was taken.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> In your world, out of those three choices, WHO knew about it before it happened?



God.

I'll ask the question again.....Should God stop the heart of everyone before they do something wrong?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Tell the parents of those dead kids that the appropriate action was taken.



What would have been the appropriate action?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> The same thing He did this time, call some to Him. There might be 1,000's of people that come to have a relationship with Christ because of what happened.



So you're good with massacres as long as they bring more people to your religion. 

This is why religion must die. It destroys reason and compassion. You're eat up with it bad my friend.


----------



## stringmusic

I don't get it. Is the shooting of children the only thing God should stop? Who gets to decide who, what and when God should stop things from happening?

Should he have stopped someone from stealing my CD player out of my truck when I was 17?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> What would have been the appropriate action?



Saving the lives of the victims. You really have to be told this? What would you have done if you could have stopped the gun man and saved lives?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> What did you guys want the God that you do not believe is real to do in this situation?



We know and expect nothing that will be done by imagination.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> So you're good with massacres as long as they bring more people to your religion.



Nice straw man, I never said that I'm good with any massacre.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> I don't get it. Is the shooting of children the only thing God should stop? Who gets to decide who, what and when God should stop things from happening?
> 
> Should he have stopped someone from stealing my CD player out of my truck when I was 17?



Well as priorities go I think 20 kids lives are more important than your cd player but since we are talking about the omnipotent here why not eliminate evil completely?


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Saving the lives of the victims. You really have to be told this? What would you have done if you could have stopped the gun man and saved lives?



I would have shot him up.

I'm just trying to figure out what you guys think God should, or shouldn't stop and when, where and how you think He should do things, if He where real.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Nice straw man, I never said that I'm good with any massacre.



You can't bring yourself to say he should stop the massacre, rather you think the more appropriate course is to stand by and allow the massacre to get more followers.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Well as priorities go I think 20 kids lives are more important than your cd player but since we are talking about the omnipotent here why not eliminate evil completely?



How could we love Him and have a relationship with Him if evil is not a choice?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> I would have shot him up.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out what you guys think God should, or shouldn't stop and when, where and how you think He should do things, if He where real.



You would have intervened but you don't think God should have. That's very convenient. You know we could replace your belief in God with a belief in an egg carton and the egg carton would fare just as well.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> God.
> 
> I'll ask the question again.....Should God stop the heart of everyone before they do something wrong?



I can't speak for you but I would have done something about it if I had the knowledge of foresight like that. Even if it was alert the authorities.

God should, if he was at all 1/1,000,000th the god you make him out to be, take appropriate action. If he wanted to stop their heart....go ahead.....if he wanted to alert a police officer through a hunch to be in the area and catch the thief red-handed....so be it. The god you worship should be able to handle the proper choice.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> You can't bring yourself to say he should stop the massacre, rather you think the more appropriate course is to stand by and allow the massacre to get more followers.



The massacre happened, I never said that was the course God chose, that was the shooters responsibility. I do however think that God can and will use this situation to bring people that He loves to Him.

What if all of these children's parents will now go to heaven because of this tragedy?


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> How could we love Him and have a relationship with Him if evil is not a choice?



What does the one have to do with the other?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> How could we love Him and have a relationship with Him if evil is not a choice?



It isn't working now so no evil needed. Your speaking for yourself. Others don't need evil to hold imaginary friend's hands.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> The massacre happened, I never said that was the course God chose, that was the shooters responsibility. I do however think that God can and will use this situation to bring people that He loves to Him.
> 
> What if all of these children's parents will now go to heaven because of this tragedy?



What if..........?
If your god NEEDS things like this to happen in order to gain followers he is not worthy of being called god.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> The massacre happened, I never said that was the course God chose, that was the shooters responsibility. I do however think that God can and will use this situation to bring people that He loves to Him.
> 
> What if all of these children's parents will now go to heaven because of this tragedy?



Yes it happened but when asked what the appropriate action would have been for a being that you think could have stopped it you can't bring yourself to say they should have stopped it, even though you admit that is what you would have done. Rather the more appropriate action for God according to you is allow it to happen and use it to gain more worshipers.


----------



## atlashunter

bullethead said:


> What if..........?
> If your god NEEDS things like this to happen in order to gain followers he is not worthy of being called god.



Yep, any being that stands by and allows murder so he can get people to love him is a monster not deserving of love.


----------



## bullethead

String you are trying to get us believe the unbelievable and defend the indefensible. It just won't work.

The sad truth here is only a person could have stopped this if they had prior knowledge of it or recognized any signs leading up to it. Maybe the mother did but it was too late. 
Someone could have seen the signs and passed it off.
Or, nobody suspected a thing and therefore nobody could prevent something like this from happening and NOBODY should be making excuses for anything other than the person responsible was a scumbag and menace to society and him taking his own life was the best thing that happened in an otherwise horrific tragedy.
Unfortunately, 85 million gun owners that didn't kill a sole will suffer for the actions of lunatics. Lawmakers will add to the already 20,000+ "gun laws" and law abiding citizens will follow while the crazies and law breakers will go on NOT following those laws. If the laws worked so darn well this stuff would not happen.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> What does the one have to do with the other?


Relationship and love cannot exist without the choice to not love and to not be in that relationship.



bullethead said:


> It isn't working now so no evil needed. Your speaking for yourself. Others don't need evil to hold imaginary friend's hands.


What isn't working now? My relationship with God is working fine.



bullethead said:


> What if..........?
> If your god NEEDS things like this to happen in order to gain followers he is not worthy of being called god.


He doesn't need things like this to happen.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> What isn't working now? My relationship with God is working fine.



worldwide.....he doesn't have the universal support in him just because evil exists.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Yes it happened but when asked what the appropriate action would have been for a being that you think could have stopped it you can't bring yourself to say they should have stopped it, even though you admit that is what you would have done. Rather the more appropriate action for God according to you is allow it to happen and use it to gain more worshipers.



I admit that is what I would have done because I'm a human being, that is all I know to do.

And yes, God allows bad things to happen everyday. It is sad that people choose evil, but they do, and it's not God's fault.

He loves us and wants a relationship with us, therefor, the choice of evil exists in this world, and unforntunately, some people choose to do very evil things.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> ....and NOBODY should be making excuses for anything other than the person responsible was a scumbag and menace to society



I don't think anybody in this thread is making excuses for the shooter.



bullethead said:


> ....and him taking his own life was the best thing that happened in an otherwise horrific tragedy.



I disagree.  The parents will never be able to see justice in this situation.  A much better outcome would have been this degenerate spending the rest of his life being "abused" in prison.




bullethead said:


> If the laws worked so darn well this stuff would not happen.



You would get along so well in the political forum.  And, I agree.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> worldwide.....he doesn't have the universal support in him just because evil exists.



Evil exist as a choice, I never said that because evil does exist that everyone would choose to have a relationship with God through Christ, only that the choice of evil is a necessity to be able to love.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> He doesn't need things like this to happen.



Your right, just tries to use the misfortunes of others. Well, his followers/representatives do, it's really hard for non-existent things to do anything.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Evil exist as a choice, I never said that because evil does exist that everyone would choose to have a relationship with God through Christ, only that the choice of evil is a necessity to be able to love.



This is what you said


> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> How could we love Him and have a relationship with Him if evil is not a choice?


----------



## JB0704

stringmusic said:


> He loves us and wants a relationship with us, therefor, the choice of evil exists in this world, and unforntunately, some people choose to do very evil things.



Thats it.  I can't wrap my head around what happened Friday, but I do know that it has everything to do with an evil person.

I also can't wrap my head around the rest of y'alls debate.  Could God have intervened.....according to my beliefs, yes.  Why didn't he.....there is an answer, I am sure, but I do not have it.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Yep, any being that stands by and allows murder so he can get people to love him is a monster not deserving of love.



Love only exist because of God!

You're very intelligent, yet you still do not understand.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> This is what you said



I know. Are you saing that I contradicted myself?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Evil exist as a choice, I never said that because evil does exist that everyone would choose to have a relationship with God through Christ, only that the choice of evil is a necessity to be able to love.



Evil is just a name we give the most horrible things that humans are capable of doing. Every single one of us has it in us and shows flashes of "evil" at some point in our life. We just do not want to admit that it is a part of us and our world so we pass it off to some "bad god" battling some other "good god". We are responsible for it all.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Relationship and love cannot exist without the choice to not love and to not be in that relationship.



This is true but fails to answer my question. What does evil have to do with this? Are you telling me that it is impossible for God to be loved without the existence of evil?


----------



## stringmusic

JB0704 said:


> Why didn't he.....there is an answer, I am sure, but I do not have it.



The only answer I have is that the choice of evil must be present in order for a relationship to be established between Him and us. 

If there is no evil, or if God stopped every evil act before it happened, then we are forced to choose good. Relationship cannot exist if both parties in the relationship don't have the ability to walk away.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Love only exist because of God!
> 
> You're very intelligent, yet you still do not understand.



Maybe in your warped world. I still love regardless of whether there is a god or not.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> This is true but fails to answer my question. What does evil have to do with this? Are you telling me that it is impossible for God to be loved without the existence of evil?



Yes, I'm saying there has to be a choice, or it's really not love and really not a relationship.


----------



## atlashunter

When something wonderful happens all we hear about is how great God is. He gets the credit for the good that he supposedly did. When something bad happens even though we are told he could have stopped the bad but chose not to we are assured this does not disprove that he is a good and just god. Am I the only one to notice this double standard?

Like I said you could substitute an egg carton for god and get the same results.


----------



## atlashunter

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I'm saying there has to be a choice, or it's really not love and really not a relationship.



Is it not possible to not love without being evil? I think it is. There is no evil in heaven right? Is there love? Is there the freedom to choose?

Besides that what you are really saying is that god does not have the power to create an environment where there is love but no evil. Sort of kills the whole idea of omnipotence.


----------



## JFS

atlashunter said:


> Like I said you could substitute an egg carton for god and get the same results.



Actually the egg carton is one up as I can show it to you and it actually does something predictable and useful.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Is it not possible to not love without being evil? I think it is. There is no evil in heaven right? Is there love? Is there the freedom to choose?
> 
> Besides that what you are really saying is that god does not have the power to create an environment where there is love but no evil. Sort of kills the whole idea of omnipotence.



I don't know atlas........even the angels rebelled......heaven is was it is according to the story that needs to be told at the time.
The more I think about heaven, the more it seems just like earth.
God can do all this, but just doesn't. Always told by someone who has never met him.
Heaven is all this....always told by someone who has never been there.

Omnipotence................


----------



## atlashunter

Sam Harris nails it.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Besides that what you are really saying is that god does not have the power to create an environment where there is love but no evil. Sort of kills the whole idea of omnipotence.



Is it love without a choice.....or just required action.


----------



## TheBishop

gemcgrew said:


> For a good purpose. Remember, there was a much greater act of injustice and evil performed by God through secondary agents. "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." (Acts 4:27,28)
> 
> 
> No



Ridiculous and pointless.  Really dude step back and look at the whole no free will thing, its mind numbling.   

God walked through that door and killed god.  That is your basic premise, and the only way to explain your no free will. 

God nailed himself to the cross, so he could save himself.  


Pointless.


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Is it not possible to not love without being evil? I think it is. There is no evil in heaven right? Is there love? Is there the freedom to choose?


I never said one had to *be* evil, only there must be a choice.



> Besides that what you are really saying is that god does not have the power to create an environment where there is love but no evil. Sort of kills the whole idea of omnipotence.


"Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?"


----------



## TheBishop

fish hawk said:


> Pretty sad that you would use what happened in Connecticut to try and get your point across here!!!It would be different if you were truly searching for answers, but your only using what happened to mock God.



I have no wish to mock your imaginary friend.  Just highlight the hypocrisy of worshiping a being that had the power to stop it, chose not too, and then claim it was becuase we do not worship that entity enough.


----------



## bullethead

atlashunter said:


> Sam Harris nails it.



Phenominal


----------



## TheBishop

fish hawk said:


> Funny how you do the very thing your condemning others for!!!



No quite the same.  I'm not using this as a see I told you so moment like all the people claiming "See this is what happens when you take prayer out of schools."  I'm just highlighting the idiocy of such claims.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Bishop, is this situation absolutely morally wrong?



No. Only in our minds. Is it Evil to us? Absolutely.  Change a few things around and the shooter becomes a hero to some. Belief is the only thing that has power to do that.


----------



## atlashunter

Is God incapable of offering a choice between love and not love without making it love and evil? How about a choice between love and indifference?


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> The massacre happened, I never said that was the course God chose, that was the shooters responsibility. I do however think that God can and will use this situation to bring people that He loves to Him.
> 
> What if all of these children's parents will now go to heaven because of this tragedy?



If he had the power to stop it, knew it was going to happen, and allowed it happen then it certainly was his choice to let it happen.


----------



## stringmusic

stringmusic said:


> Bishop, is this situation absolutely morally wrong?





TheBishop said:


> No


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Sam Harris nails it.



What was Dr. Craig's response?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> What was Dr. Craig's response?



utter delusion


----------



## stringmusic

atlashunter said:


> Is God incapable of offering a choice between love and not love without making it love and evil?



You have the choice to be, or not be in a relationship with God, same with love.

God says, "love me, or don't love me"

What other choice is there? Indifference is the same thing as saying "I don't love you God, and I don't want a relationship with you."


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> utter delusion



Yes bullet, I'm sure it was. Dr. Craig goes around the world debating and lecturing in some of the most intellectual universities in the world because he is delusional.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Yes bullet, I'm sure it was. Dr. Craig goes around the world debating and lecturing in some of the most intellectual universities in the world because he is delusional.



All you have to do is watch the debate.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> utter delusion



On the other hand, if he is right, it's the other guy who is dellusional.  one is right, one is dellusional, and you are now the judge.  It's all in perspective.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> On the other hand, if he is right, it's the other guy who is dellusional.  one is right, one is dellusional, and you are now the judge.  It's all in perspective.



Yes. And telling your possible future employer in a job interview that you not only saw Elvis at the Piggly Wiggly but talked to him also creates a perspective on which somebody is going to make a judgement. Given your outlook on things, you might just be lucky enough to find that other Elvis fan doing the hiring and land the job.

It could happen the way you describe and if you watch the video you might call it differently. When asked about it, I gave my opinion.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Yes. And telling your possible future employer in a job interview that you not only saw Elvis at the Piggly Wiggly but talked to him also creates a perspective on which somebody is going to make a judgement.



I think the comparison of God to an Elvis sighting is a bit superficial, but I see your point.

But, if in the same interview I claimed to have gotten a ride from Elvis, or I just "appeared" in the chair, and only one or the other was correct, one might consider the Elvis possibility a bit further, I think.



bullethead said:


> When asked about it, I gave my opinion.



I understand.  I just pointed out that we each see the "other team" as dellusional.  It might be me, and it might be you.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> But, if in the same interview I claimed to have gotten a ride from Elvis, or I just "appeared" in the chair, and only one or the other was correct, one might consider the Elvis possibility a bit further, I think.



I think that is one of the MAJOR hurdles with religious people. It is either/or. One out of two choices when in actuality it is one out of thousands of possibilities involving other deities, let alone 10,000+ choices involving Christianity. Rarely does a person try em all and then make a choice.
I eliminated religion from the equation and still have many possibilities to research.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I think that is one of the MAJOR hurdles with religious people. It is either/or. One out of two choices when in actuality it is one out of thousands of possibilities involving other deities, let alone 10,000+ choices involving Christianity. Rarely does a person try em all and then make a choice.
> I eliminated religion from the equation and still have many possibilities to research.



No need in bringing religion into this debate.  We can conclude that we either got here by design or by chance.....regardless of the form the designer takes.

So, I using the same scenario, I could have used Thomas Jefferson, Elvis, Marivn the martian, etc. as my method of arrival, when compared to randomly "appearing" the possibility becomes a bit more logical.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> No need in bringing religion into this debate.  We can conclude that we either got here by design or by chance.....regardless of the form the designer takes.
> 
> So, I using the same scenario, I could have used Thomas Jefferson, Elvis, Marivn the martian, etc. as my method of arrival, when compared to randomly "appearing" the possibility becomes a bit more logical.



You might justify that one of those methods as being more logical. I would dismiss both.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> You might justify that one of those methods as being more logical. I would dismiss both.



Can you present a 3rd alternative that does not involve appearing from nothing or a designer?


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Can you present a 3rd alternative that does not involve appearing from nothing or a designer?



I would say a 3rd option to your scenario above is that you may have gotten a ride from a cabbie that looks like one of those guys. I could say with fair certainty you neither appeared or got a ride from the REAL Elvis, T.J. MtM etc....unless that was their real names but not the more famous versions.

Right now Im not so sure we were specifically designed or appeared from nothing. LOTS I'm checking into.......


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Can you present a 3rd alternative that does not involve appearing from nothing or a designer?




everything has always been.

Far fetched, unprovable, existing only in the imagination; a perfect explanation, beyond reproach.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> I would say a 3rd option to your scenario above is that you may have gotten a ride from a cabbie that looks like one of those guys. I could say with fair certainty you neither appeared or got a ride from the REAL Elvis, T.J. MtM etc....unless that was their real names but not the more famous versions.



But, I either got a ride, or I appeared.  We can put any other face on the driver we want, but the scenario remains the same.



bullethead said:


> Right now Im not so sure we were specifically designed or appeared from nothing. LOTS I'm checking into.......



Cool.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> everything has always been.
> 
> Far fetched, unprovable, existing only in the imagination; a perfect explanation, beyond reproach.



Lots of different molecules and universal laws would have to have been quite lucky to be infinite in order for it to work.

Either way.......why is one dellusional and the other logical?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Lots of different molecules and universal laws would have to have been quite lucky to be infinite in order for it to work.



Or just one "god molecule", containing all the material; all the 'strings' as well as all the empty space and gravity that exists.

This is all just speculation based on speculation.  Like arguing about the horsepower of the spaceship Enterprise.  Except we have an idea about how the Enterprise _might_ work based on things that we know.  Can't really make the same case for a "FSM".




JB0704 said:


> Either way.......why is one dellusional and the other logical?



They are equally illogical.  What's illogical, also, would be to claim one or the other as TRUTH.  I know you don't do that.  You admit that you might be wrong.  That maybe there isn't a great "I Am".


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> everything has always been.


We know this to be untrue.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> We know this to be untrue.



How?


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> How?



We have talked about it a million times. Do you want me to post it again?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> We have talked about it a million times. Do you want me to post it again?



I just want to be clear if you are going to side with scientists or Genesis on this one.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> I just want to be clear if you are going to side with scientists or Genesis on this one.



Which scientists?


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Which scientists?



Ok then post or re-post whatever you were going to. I want to know how WE know this is untrue.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> We have talked about it a million times. Do you want me to post it again?



According to the law of conservation of mass, matter can neither be created or destroyed. In  accordance with that  priciples matter is infinite. Under that law it is easy to imagine matter always exsisting in some sort of fashion.


----------



## stringmusic

bullethead said:


> Ok then post or re-post whatever you were going to. I want to know how WE know this is untrue.



Scroll about 1/4 of the way down the page and start reading at "The argument at stage one...."


http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Scroll about 1/4 of the way down the page and start reading at "The argument at stage one...."
> 
> 
> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42



string, you buy into that. Maybe it has solved the question for you. I thought you were going to post the thread where we all agreed to the point where it all started.
I know I didn't so I was really curious.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> On the other hand, if he is right, it's the other guy who is dellusional.  one is right, one is dellusional, and you are now the judge.  It's all in perspective.



Nope, his points are valid regardless of whether a god exists or not.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> Nope, his points are valid regardless of whether a god exists or not.



ok.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Scroll about 1/4 of the way down the page and start reading at "The argument at stage one...."
> 
> 
> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42



So willard, who only makes the ASSUMPTION, that the physical has to have a begining, and that begining cannot be physical or else an infinite regression and who also wants us to make the leap, that the non-physical can be eternal, and doesn't need a first cause, can and did create the physical, is your proof that matter isn't eternal?


----------



## ambush80

TheBishop said:


> So willard, who only makes the ASSUMPTION, that the physical has to have a begining, and that begining cannot be physical or else an infinite regression and who also wants us to make the leap, that the non-physical can be eternal, and doesn't need a first cause, can and did create the physical, is your proof that matter isn't eternal?



Exactly...

Willard's 'regression' ends with "Magic".


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> So willard, who only makes the ASSUMPTION, that the physical has to have a begining, and that begining cannot be physical or else an infinite regression and who also wants us to make the leap, that the non-physical can be eternal, and doesn't need a first cause, can and did create the physical, is your proof that matter isn't eternal?



Be honest, you skimmed through his first argument, didn't you?

Can you point out his faulty logic?


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Exactly...
> 
> Willard's 'regression' ends with "Magic".



No, no it doesn't.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> Be honest, you skimmed through his first argument, didn't you?
> 
> Can you point out his faulty logic?





> So willard, who only makes the ASSUMPTION, that the physical has to have a begining, and that begining cannot be physical or else an infinite regression and who also wants us to make the leap, that the non-physical can be eternal, and doesn't need a first cause, can and did create the physical, is your proof that matter isn't eternal?



You must have missed it.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> You must have missed it.


...


stringmusic said:


> Can you point out his faulty logic?


----------



## ambush80

stringmusic said:


> No, no it doesn't.



"the un-caused cause.  The all powerful being.  The creature unencumbered by the laws of nature."  

magic......

I admit openly that the idea of eternal matter is PURE speculation.  But I know some about matter.  There are some that know ALOT about matter. 

Don't NO ONE know nuthin' bout no other dimensional supreme creature.  Ain't nothin even LIKE that in the real world to extrapolate a notion from.


----------



## TheBishop

By starting with a faulty assumption.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> "the un-caused cause.  The all powerful being.  The creature unencumbered by the laws of nature."
> 
> magic......
> 
> I admit openly that the idea of eternal matter is PURE speculation.  But I know some about matter.  There are some that know ALOT about matter.
> 
> Don't NO ONE know nuthin' bout no other dimensional supreme creature.  Ain't nothin even LIKE that in the real world to extrapolate a notion from.





TheBishop said:


> By starting with a faulty assumption.



His argument is a clear, reasonable and logical.

Willard doesnt start out by saying "matter is not eternal, therefor....." His gives a logical and rational explanation as to why physical matter is not eternal and also give a logical argument as to why there is "something" that created the physical, that in turn, is not physical.

Copy and paste from the article exactly where he makes an assumption Bishop, so we can discuss it.


----------



## TheBishop

stringmusic said:


> His argument is a clear, reasonable and logical.
> 
> Willard doesnt start out by saying "matter is not eternal, therefor....." His gives a logical and rational explanation as to why physical matter is not eternal and also give a logical argument as to why there is "something" that created the physical, that in turn, is not physical.
> 
> Copy and paste from the article exactly where he makes an assumption Bishop, so we can discuss it.



Your boy string, talks pretty good and is convincing, but only if you leave all some minor details. First being, you must assume physical (matter) to be finite, not eternal.  He makes this very clear, saying there must be a first cause or else we will never get to the state we are at now.  The second being that there is something else entirely that can neither be observed,  that we no evidence for, and nothing to even remotely draw upon being the first cause.   

His argument might be clear but his assumptions are erroneous.  The law of conservation would suggest that matter has always been here, in some state or another, and just changed form. Why? I do not know, but I am not ready to plug in an entity that we have no evidence for.


----------



## mtnwoman

TheBishop said:


> Do you reliaze how pointless this makes everything including worship?  I have said this before,  though your belief makes acts like this more reconcilable than the free will guys, it makes worship and belief more pointless.  God created man so he may use man to worship himself? We are nothing but dolls in his hands according to you.  Any act is not ourt act, any emotion is not our emotion, any doubt is not our doubt, ect...
> 
> Then there is no point to anything it all just entertainment for god.



Wow!! We agree....imagine that...


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> I'm surprised at your willingness to say such a thing. Very few Christians would admit that. I think this is what it all boils down to and what separates the believer and non-believer. My preference is for what is true, not what I find comforting or hope might be true. I just can't relate to someone that could say "even if my belief turns out to be a lie I still prefer to believe it".



I'm not saying my belief is wrong, you're saying it is wrong. I'm just telling you that no matter what you think, I've lived a hopeful life in Christ, not ALL my life but part...the part that He has been in it.  
I guess I didn't word my previous post correctly.  When you are saying I'm wrong, I'm saying even if I am.....

It's nothing new that you don't relate to anything I say.

I could also say the reason I believe is because I don't want to go to 'hale'....and that's true, I don't want to. But only God and I know what I believe. I wouldn't believe in a god, that made my life miserable, unhappy, hopeless. Even though I have had quite a few bad things happen to me....He raises me above pain, by giving me joy and peace that I can't even comprehend, especially considering such circumstance...that's how I know what I believe is true whether you do or not.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> Thanks to evolution the snakehead and some catfish can tell us what it is like to walk on land.



Really, they can talk, too?  I'd rather hear them talk, I know what it's like walking on land.


----------



## atlashunter

mtnwoman said:


> I'm not saying my belief is wrong, you're saying it is wrong. I'm just telling you that no matter what you think, I've lived a hopeful life in Christ, not ALL my life but part...the part that He has been in it.
> I guess I didn't word my previous post correctly.  When you are saying I'm wrong, I'm saying even if I am.....
> 
> It's nothing new that you don't relate to anything I say.
> 
> I could also say the reason I believe is because I don't want to go to 'hale'....and that's true, I don't want to. But only God and I know what I believe. I wouldn't believe in a god, that made my life miserable, unhappy, hopeless. Even though I have had quite a few bad things happen to me....He raises me above pain, by giving me joy and peace that I can't even comprehend, especially considering such circumstance...that's how I know what I believe is true whether you do or not.



My point is not whether or not you are wrong but that you place what makes you feel good above what is true if there is a conflict between the two. Your last paragraph only proves that point.


----------



## JB0704

atlashunter said:


> My point is not whether or not you are wrong but that you place what makes you feel good above what is true if there is a conflict between the two.



Absent definitive truth to the contrary....I fail to see any harm.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Really, they can talk, too?  I'd rather hear them talk, I know what it's like walking on land.



"Talk" was your word not mine.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> "Talk" was your word not mine.



Really. Do you speaky or understand fishy language? You said 'tell us how it felt'....how do they do that? Just curious.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> My point is not whether or not you are wrong but that you place what makes you feel good above what is true if there is a conflict between the two. Your last paragraph only proves that point.



There is no conflict on my part of what is true. And the place that makes you feel good, is where? And the place that made the shooter feel good is where?  I felt good when I was out gettin' wild, too. I just changed my choices, what's wrong with that?...oh I know I disagree with what you believe to be true. If what you believe could be proven, don't you think more of us would side with you?
I can't prove it, but neither can you.  What is your point in twisting and turning my outlook on life?

Are you saying you don't do things that make you feel good? While you're throwing darts for me doing the same thing?

Same ol' same ol'.


----------



## mtnwoman

JB0704 said:


> Absent definitive truth to the contrary....I fail to see any harm.



He just likes to torment me..... Everyone can be what they wanna be except Christians.  If it were a gay person in here expressing their viewpoints of why they believe they were born that way, he'd be lickin' it up.

And I'm just using gay as an example....so don't anyone panic.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Really. Do you speaky or understand fishy language? You said 'tell us how it felt'....how do they do that? Just curious.



sorry, you are wrong, I did not say "tell us how it felt"


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> Thanks to evolution the snakehead and some catfish can tell us what it is like to walk on land.



Post 367

Alrighty then, you didn't say they could tell us what it is like to walk on land.

No wonder I'm confused. What are you saying then??? you know how ignernt I am, just give me a break....

All I said was I didn't know they could talk, then you said you didn't say it. Please please please explain to this 'a little too old' woman what you mean. I meant it as a joke in the first place.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Post 367
> 
> Alrighty then, you didn't say they could tell us what it is like to walk on land.
> 
> No wonder I'm confused. What are you saying then??? you know how ignernt I am, just give me a break....
> 
> All I said was I didn't know they could talk, then you said you didn't say it. Please please please explain to this 'a little too old' woman what you mean. I meant it as a joke in the first place.



I did say they could tell us...by OBSERVATION. We can watch them walk on land and observe how they do it.

I did not say they could talk.
I did not say they could tell us how it felt.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> How many times did that happen before we took God out of schools? You do the math.



Do we still have to do the math or do the school tragedies that happened before we took god out of schools not count?
Give me a date on when god was taken out of schools and I can give you some examples if you think it didn't happen when prayer and god was in schools.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> I did say they could tell us...by OBSERVATION. We can watch them walk on land and observe how they do it.
> 
> I did not say they could talk.
> I did not say they could tell us how it felt.



Ok, whatever. It was just meant as a joke anyway. I didn't think you meant they could talk, just a joke.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> Do we still have to do the math or do the school tragedies that happened before we took god out of schools not count?
> Give me a date on when god was taken out of schools and I can give you some examples if you think it didn't happen when prayer and god was in schools.



I can look it up...but thanks.


----------



## atlashunter

JB0704 said:


> Absent definitive truth to the contrary....I fail to see any harm.



Read the last two lines of what she wrote. Completely irrational to say "my beliefs make me feel good, therefore they are true". If you don't see any harm in this then you aren't paying attention to the damage religion has caused and continues to cause. Poor thinking is not harmless.


----------



## gemcgrew

TheBishop said:


> God walked through that door and killed god.  That is your basic premise, and the only way to explain your no free will.


No, that is your asserted conclusion. Perhaps with you, I need to use a larger crayon. If TheBishop whittles two sticks and causes them to hit each other in such a way as to accomplish a desired purpose, is TheBishop hitting himself? Or is TheBishop causing the sticks to hit each other?


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> Read the last two lines of what she wrote. Completely irrational to say "my beliefs make me feel good, therefore they are true". If you don't see any harm in this then you aren't paying attention to the damage religion has caused and continues to cause. Poor thinking is not harmless.



Poor thinking....of course, because I disagree with you?

You don't have good feelings about killing a big fat buck? I don't. Or whatever you hunt or whatever you do? Therefore when you do you feel so so good. And I'm glad for you. Why can't you be happy that I am happy in what I believe/do? If it makes me happy, even as delustional as it seems to you, why can't you let me be me without thinking I'm so ignorant. I don't critisize you because I won't ponder for days of how to get the biggest buck in the hood.
That's never on my mind, I have something else on my mind...Jesus...why is it so hard for you to 'let' me be joyful in that?

Poor thinking, too and I still disagree with you.


That's a bah humbug.


----------



## atlashunter

It might give me a great feeling to believe there is a gold nugget the size of a volvo buried in my back yard. Doesn't make it true.


----------



## mtnwoman

atlashunter said:


> It might give me a great feeling to believe there is a gold nugget the size of a volvo buried in my back yard. Doesn't make it true.



You're right on that.


----------



## stringmusic

TheBishop said:


> Your boy string, talks pretty good and is convincing, but only if you leave all some minor details. First being, you must assume physical (matter) to be finite, not eternal.


You keep saying it, but you're not showing me. 

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on facts such as 





> One of these is as follows: However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.
> 
> This, I submit, is something which we know to be true of the general character of things in the physical world, and of course anyone should feel free to submit a case of a physical state of which this proposition is not true.



and.....





> Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.







> He makes this very clear, saying there must be a first cause or else we will never get to the state we are at now.


Is this an incorrect statement?



> The second being that there is something else entirely that can neither be observed,  that we no evidence for, and nothing to even remotely draw upon being the first cause.


He gives no argument for God in the first argument, only that "something" non-physical, self-existent and eternal is needed to create the physical.   



> His argument might be clear but his assumptions are erroneous.  The law of conservation would suggest that matter has always been here, in some state or another, and just changed form. Why? I do not know, but I am not ready to plug in an entity that we have no evidence for.



Again, show me where his assumptions are, copy and paste them.

And BTW, this IS evidence for God, and very good evidence at that.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> Poor thinking....of course, because I disagree with you?
> 
> You don't have good feelings about killing a big fat buck? I don't. Or whatever you hunt or whatever you do? Therefore when you do you feel so so good. And I'm glad for you. Why can't you be happy that I am happy in what I believe/do? If it makes me happy, even as delustional as it seems to you, why can't you let me be me without thinking I'm so ignorant. I don't critisize you because I won't ponder for days of how to get the biggest buck in the hood.
> That's never on my mind, I have something else on my mind...Jesus...why is it so hard for you to 'let' me be joyful in that?
> 
> Poor thinking, too and I still disagree with you.
> 
> 
> That's a bah humbug.



There is not a thing wrong with being happy. If worshiping Jesus makes you happy go crazy!! Enjoy!
But I question you then why post in here if your posts are meant to just tell us how happy you are? There is a spiritual forum and a Christian forum where others with the same mindset will be overjoyed to hear how happy you are. You start out making a point and then when it misses you circle the wagons and say that you were only expressing what makes you happy or it was a joke and somebody is always picking on you because your Christian. Nobody is picking on you because you are Christian, people are addressing your comments because you are making those comments in threads that are about specific topics. 
Constantly announcing your happiness in here isn't adding to in depth conversation, then you take offense and start making deer killing cracks to posters. I have seen that done twice by you, once yesterday and once today already.
Be joyful about Jesus. If we shared the same joy we would not be "down here" in the AAA forum knocking him all the time.


----------



## mtnwoman

bullethead said:


> There is not a thing wrong with being happy. If worshiping Jesus makes you happy go crazy!! Enjoy!
> But I question you then why post in here if your posts are meant to just tell us how happy you are? There is a spiritual forum and a Christian forum where others with the same mindset will be overjoyed to hear how happy you are. You start out making a point and then when it misses you circle the wagons and say that you were only expressing what makes you happy or it was a joke and somebody is always picking on you because your Christian. Nobody is picking on you because you are Christian, people are addressing your comments because you are making those comments in threads that are about specific topics.
> Constantly announcing your happiness in here isn't adding to in depth conversation, then you take offense and start making deer killing cracks to posters. I have seen that done twice by you, once yesterday and once today already.
> Be joyful about Jesus. If we shared the same joy we would not be "down here" in the AAA forum knocking him all the time.



My posts about deer weren't meant to be a wisecrack. Of course I'm less intelligent, being a woman and all and I think like a woman....but all they were meant for was to say there is no difference in the expectation of santa and having the expectation of getting the big one this year. I guess my ex was the only hunter that 'dreamed' fantisized about the 'big buck' every year. That was my point.
I suppose if someone told my late husband that there was no chance in heck he would get 'one' this year, it would suck the joy right out of what his hopes were.

Besides, I'm the only one in here serving up wisecracks?

ok, I'll leave, I'm a woman and think like a woman and should not be in here talking to a bunch of macho men who don't get what I say, anyway.  lol

Happy Hunting to some and
Merry Christmas to others.


----------



## bullethead

mtnwoman said:


> My posts about deer weren't meant to be a wisecrack. Of course I'm less intelligent, being a woman and all and I think like a woman....but all they were meant for was to say there is no difference in the expectation of santa and having the expectation of getting the big one this year. I guess my ex was the only hunter that 'dreamed' fantisized about the 'big buck' every year. That was my point.
> I suppose if someone told my late husband that there was no chance in heck he would get 'one' this year, it would suck the joy right out of what his hopes were.
> 
> Besides, I'm the only one in here serving up wisecracks?
> 
> ok, I'll leave, I'm a woman and think like a woman and should not be in here talking to a bunch of macho men who don't get what I say, anyway.  lol
> 
> Happy Hunting to some and
> Merry Christmas to others.



Not sure if that post was one of your jokes or if you get Joy out of hurling insults to yourself while trying to imply others have said them. 

Either way. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year


----------



## Ronnie T

bullethead said:


> There is not a thing wrong with being happy. If worshiping Jesus makes you happy go crazy!! Enjoy!
> But I question you then why post in here if your posts are meant to just tell us how happy you are? There is a spiritual forum and a Christian forum where others with the same mindset will be overjoyed to hear how happy you are. You start out making a point and then when it misses you circle the wagons and say that you were only expressing what makes you happy or it was a joke and somebody is always picking on you because your Christian. Nobody is picking on you because you are Christian, people are addressing your comments because you are making those comments in threads that are about specific topics.
> Constantly announcing your happiness in here isn't adding to in depth conversation, then you take offense and start making deer killing cracks to posters. I have seen that done twice by you, once yesterday and once today already.
> Be joyful about Jesus. If we shared the same joy we would not be "down here" in the AAA forum knocking him all the time.





mtnwoman said:


> My posts about deer weren't meant to be a wisecrack. Of course I'm less intelligent, being a woman and all and I think like a woman....but all they were meant for was to say there is no difference in the expectation of santa and having the expectation of getting the big one this year. I guess my ex was the only hunter that 'dreamed' fantisized about the 'big buck' every year. That was my point.
> I suppose if someone told my late husband that there was no chance in heck he would get 'one' this year, it would suck the joy right out of what his hopes were.
> 
> Besides, I'm the only one in here serving up wisecracks?
> 
> ok, I'll leave, I'm a woman and think like a woman and should not be in here talking to a bunch of macho men who don't get what I say, anyway.  lol
> 
> Happy Hunting to some and
> Merry Christmas to others.





bullethead said:


> Not sure if that post was one of your jokes or if you get Joy out of hurling insults to yourself while trying to imply others have said them.
> 
> Either way. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year




Take it all with a grain of salt mtnwoman.
It goes with the territory.

.


----------



## bullethead

Ronnie T said:


> Take it all with a grain of salt mtnwoman.
> It goes with the territory.
> 
> .



Use fresh squeezed Lemon instead of salt....

The American Heart Association wants to help all Americans lower the amount of sodium they consume. 
It is estimated that if Americans cut their average sodium intake by more than half – to an average of 1,500 milligrams a day – there would be a nearly 26 percent decrease in high blood pressure and a savings of more than $26 billion in healthcare costs over just a year.


----------



## ddd-shooter

From Plantinga:

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.


----------



## Artfuldodger

That was a very good explanation of free will. That would explain why Satan chose evil over good.


----------



## bullethead

ddd-shooter said:


> From Plantinga:
> 
> A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.



It never ceases to amaze me how someone can not only understand God but also speak for God and explain his thoughts, actions and intents without ever talking to God. Fascinating is an understatement.


----------



## JFS

> A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.



But of course all isn't equal.  If the net of freedom is more evil than good, where is it proven that free & evil is better than good but predestined? 



> for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.



Non-sequitor.  If you believe in absolute good, you don't need relative evil.  And if good is better than free you don't need evil either.

Besides, doesn't at all explain bad things that just happen without a moral actor.


----------



## Artfuldodger

But the net of freedom isn't more evil than good. There are more good people in the world than evil people. You could walk into most any village around the world and be welcomed. Look how the Pilgrims were helped by the Indians.
Then you enter the created animal world. Most animals are not evil. They would rather flight than fight. I wonder how aliens will be? I hope it's not like "Mars Attacks!"


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> Sam Harris nails it.



Sam Harris does exactly what the majority of preachers do. He plays emotions. Notice his opening statement, "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five". He then goes on to present the old basic argument.

1. God is all powerful/all loving
2. Suffering/evil exist
3. God could eliminate suffering/evil
4. Evil/suffering still exist
5. God is impotent/evil (does not exist)

If Mr. Harris wasn't so blind and stupid, he would see how easily his argument falls. I can use the very same argument but conclude differently. 

1. God is all powerful/all loving
2. Suffering/evil exist
3. God could eliminate suffering/evil
4. Evil/suffering still exist
5. God has a good purpose for suffering/evil

So easy, even a child can do it.


----------



## JFS

Artfuldodger said:


> Look how the Pilgrims were helped by the Indians.



Look at how the European colonists treated the Indians throughout the Americas.


----------



## JFS

Artfuldodger said:


> There are more good people in the world than evil people.



What good will it do them?  Are there more saved people than not saved people?


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> That was a very good explanation of free will. That would explain why Satan chose evil over good.



Sure creates a real conundrum for the concept of heaven though.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Sam Harris does exactly what the majority of preachers do. He plays emotions. Notice his opening statement, "Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five". He then goes on to present the old basic argument.
> 
> 1. God is all powerful/all loving
> 2. Suffering/evil exist
> 3. God could eliminate suffering/evil
> 4. Evil/suffering still exist
> 5. God is impotent/evil (does not exist)
> 
> If Mr. Harris wasn't so blind and stupid, he would see how easily his argument falls. I can use the very same argument but conclude differently.
> 
> 1. God is all powerful/all loving
> 2. Suffering/evil exist
> 3. God could eliminate suffering/evil
> 4. Evil/suffering still exist
> 5. God has a good purpose for suffering/evil
> 
> So easy, even a child can do it.



A good God that employs evil to achieve his purposes. What a novel concept.

Does your concept of perfect morality include the use of evil means?


----------



## Artfuldodger

JFS said:


> Look at how the European colonists treated the Indians throughout the Americas.



Agreed and we called them salvages as we stole their gold & land. We destroyed their easy going lifestyle all in the name of progress. We introduced alcoholism in their villages. They were better off doing peyote.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JFS said:


> What good will it do them?  Are there more saved people than not saved people?



Doing good will help society & civilization. Do you only do good because of laws, mores, & folkways? I guess if you just want stuff evil is the way to go. You can steal & kill and get what you want. You stand a greater risk of being killed yourself. I believe most Atheist & Christians are good. I believe individuals have a easier time being good than when in a group. Individuals in an evil country are usually good.
Maybe "evil" has an easier time duplicating itself than "good." Power usually causes evil so maybe a group becomes evil from power.

I wouldn't have any idea on who is saved in the world. I would assume there are more non-saved. Many will seek but few will enter.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> A good God that employs evil to achieve his purposes. What a novel concept.


Not employs, purposed. The concept is Biblical.

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:36)

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:6,7)

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." (Isaiah 54:16)

"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:4,5)  

This is what Mr. Harris can not comprehend. He is blind. He is an intellectual weakling. Even this, is purposed by God.


----------



## atlashunter

gemcgrew said:


> Not employs, purposed. The concept is Biblical.
> 
> "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:36)
> 
> "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:6,7)
> 
> "Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." (Isaiah 54:16)
> 
> "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Corinthians 5:4,5)
> 
> This is what Mr. Harris can not comprehend. He is blind. He is an intellectual weakling. Even this, is purposed by God.



And there you have it. You worship a God that is the author of evil and in your own view uses it to his purpose to this very day. You've just demonstrated Sam's point. You worship a God that has the blood of millions of children on his hands each year and tell us that this God is moral and worthy of praise. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> And there you have it. You worship a God that is the author of evil and in your own view uses it to his purpose to this very day. You've just demonstrated Sam's point. You worship a God that has the blood of millions of children on his hands each year and tell us that this God is moral and worthy of praise. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.



Not every Christian holds the belief that God creates evil. God can't even tempt us with evil. God grants us free will. We use our free will to perform evil.


----------



## gemcgrew

atlashunter said:


> And there you have it. You worship a God that is the author of evil and in your own view uses it to his purpose to this very day.


My view is not my own.
"Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you"
"Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people"
"so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things"
"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."



atlashunter said:


> You've just demonstrated Sam's point.


Sam has arrived at an intellectual dead end. He is just too stupid to see it. He will then try to refute the All Mighty God of the Bible, using unbiblical definitions. His intellectual dishonesty is exposed in his opening statement.

I will be away from my pc for a couple of days. Look forward to continued discussion.


----------



## atlashunter

Artfuldodger said:


> Not every Christian holds the belief that God creates evil. God can't even tempt us with evil. God grants us free will. We use our free will to perform evil.



What do you make of the scriptures gemcgrew posted and how do you account for all the death and suffering in the world that man had no part in causing?


----------



## Artfuldodger

atlashunter said:


> What do you make of the scriptures gemcgrew posted and how do you account for all the death and suffering in the world that man had no part in causing?



Maybe i'm using emotion instead of scriptures. That's a good question, i'll have to think about that.
On death & suffering not caused by man, I believe in natural selection so germs, bacteria, viruses, and diseases are natural. I view earthquakes, volcanos, & storms the same. I don't think God steers hurricanes. I don't see God as a micro-manager.


----------



## BobKat

my stand is if we allowed people to carry guns in these places then maybe someone would have shot him before he could injure more than 1 person, the same thing with newtown, and virginia tech shootings.


----------

