...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[KWED]

Grace, in short, is unmerited favor from God.

Yeah, that's just another platitude. Be precise.

Justice from God would mean we all fail to live up to the standard, so we all either just cease to exist or are eternally separated from God.

Why? He makes rules. If we abide by them, then we will be fine. Are you saying that he has designed the system so that we must fail?

Atheists and agnostics have no basis for justice being a thing...

Of course they do. Perhaps you don't understand what "justice" means?
There are many bases for justice. Social, moral, legal. Every society determines its values of morality and justice.
Ironically, it would seem that god is incapable of being just as he will send a teetotal, pacifist, vegan, celibate, doctor who spent their life volunteering for disaster charities, to hell skimpy because they rejected his existence on the basis of lack of evidence, while a serial child murderer will go to paradise simply by accepting Jesus before they die.
Look at the suffering of innocent children that he could prevent yet choses not to, but answers the prayer of people wanting good grades.

only survival of the fittest.

Firstly, you clearly don't understand what the phrase means in that context - a common mistake amongst religionists.
Second, are you really trying to claim that society in Scandinavian countries is based on the premise that "might is right and the weak must fail"?
Too funny!

 

[KWED]

They aren't. Only those that accept God's grace are saved.

So it is merited, not unmerited.
Basically, god will save those who believe in him.
Kinda circular logic 101, wouldn't you say?

 

[KWED]

The purpose is to reward those who turn away from evil and those who remain faithful through suffering. The challenge is great so that the reward can be great.

Why?
If god hadn't created evil, we wouldn't have to turn away from it.
If god didn't visit unwarranted suffering on innocents, their faith would not weaken.

Whatever explanation is given, they all fail because god didn't need to impose what he imposes, so the "purpose" is arbitrary and meaningless.

 

[KWED]

God knows the entire history, including past and future lives, of [everyone]

So where is the "purpose"? How can we do anything other than follow that predetermined path?
Why did god bother with any of it?
Why did he create anything at all in the first place?

 

[dybmh]

Why?
If god hadn't created evil, we wouldn't have to turn away from it.
If god didn't visit unwarranted suffering on innocents, their faith would not weaken.

Whatever explanation is given, they all fail because god didn't need to impose what he imposes, so the "purpose" is arbitrary and meaningless.

So where is the "purpose"? How can we do anything other than follow that predetermined path?
Why did god bother with any of it?
Why did he create anything at all in the first place?

It's stated in Genesis at the beginning God wanted to see that the creation was good. Good and evil are a pair. In order for good to exist, evil has to exist as well. So even though God created evil, it wasn't the primary motivation. It was a side effect.

 

[KWED]

Given unlimited lives, the abuse could be justified.

I would worry if my worldview required me to defend abuse.

It's impossible to judge God's morality. Not enough information.

Nonsense! of course we can judge it. All civilised people are opposed to slavery. God condones slavery (we have sufficient information from his holy scriptures). Therefore we can judge god to be morally lacking in that respect.

Not only that, but the abused also now has the opportunity for a great reward.

So it's ok to abuse a child if you give them presents afterwards.
Wow, straight from the Abusers' Handbook.

Let's not forget that if I'm right the one who is abusing will incur a great punishment as well.

Not if they accept god before they die. Or if the abuse is done on god's command.

 

[KWED]

No one gets heaven by being good enough to deserve it.

Why the **** not?

 

[dybmh]

So it's ok to abuse a child if you give them presents afterwards.
Wow, straight from the Abusers' Handbook.

That's not what I meant. That's why I said that the abuser gets punished.

Not if they accept god before they die. Or if the abuse is done on god's command.

That's Christian, I'm Jewish so no this doesn't reflect my view.

The point I'm trying to make is that if a person lives multiple lives, but we are not privy to that information, then we can't judge God's morality. The bad things that happen to us might be justified. The people who do bad things may be punished. We simply don't have enough information.

 

[KWED]

It's stated in Genesis at the beginning God wanted to see that the creation was good.

You have missed the point.
Why did god want to create anything in the first place? We are told that he has no needs or desired. He is not influenced by any forces external to him.
Also, as god knows the future, he would have know if "the creation was good". He would not need to find out by creating anything.

Good and evil are a pair.

Only because god created it that way (I'm not convinced they are anyway). He didn't have to. Or are you saying that there are laws of nature that god is constrained by, and that whatever he creates must necessarily include good and evil, whether he likes it or not?

In order for good to exist, evil has to exist as well. So even though God created evil, it wasn't the primary motivation. It was a side effect.

Ah, so there are things in the universe that are beyond god's control. Therefore these fundamental necessities are more powerful than god if he must abide by them. This is usually the logical conclusion of apologists' arguments on this issue.

 

[KWED]

That's not what I meant.

But it's what you said.

That's why I said that the abuser gets punished.
That's Christian, I'm Jewish so no this doesn't reflect my view.

So how does the Jewish god punish abusers who escape the law, and are also devoutly observant Jews?

The point I'm trying to make is that if a person lives multiple lives, but we are not privy to that information, then we can't judge God's morality. The bad things that happen to us might be justified. The people who do bad things may be punished. We simply don't have enough information.

We can judge god's morality by what he says and does. Or are you one of those people who defends Jimmy Savile because of all the millions he raised for charity?

 

[dybmh]

Why did god want to create anything in the first place? We are told that he has no needs or desired. He is not influenced by any forces external to him.

Where is it written that God has no desires?

Also, as god knows the future, he would have know if "the creation was good". He would not need to find out by creating anything.

God wanted "to see" that it was good. That means creation was nessessary.

Only because god created it that way (I'm not convinced they are anyway). He didn't have to. Or are you saying that there are laws of nature that god is constrained by, and that whatever he creates must necessarily include good and evil, whether he likes it or not?

That's a good point. I'll have to think about that My gut reponse is that this pairing is required for freewill to exist.

Ah, so there are things in the universe that are beyond god's control. Therefore these fundamental necessities are more powerful than god if he must abide by them. This is usually the logical conclusion of apologists' arguments on this issue.

In order to create humans with freewill, creation needed to be made in a certain manner.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So it is merited, not unmerited.
Basically, god will save those who believe in him.
Kinda circular logic 101, wouldn't you say?

Yes he saves those who believe. Belief doesn't merit salvation, however.
It's not doing anything to earn salvation which is clearly what you would prefer to see God do.
Because like most humans you want to believe you are worthy of saving because you want to believe you are good in yourself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why the **** not?

Because everyone sins.

 

[dybmh]

So how does the Jewish god punish abusers who escape the law, and are also devoutly observant Jews?

After death, the soul gets cleansed of the evil that a person does. It's not supposed to be a pleasant process. It takes about a year, the more sin, the more the soul needs to be cleansed.

We can judge god's morality by what he says and does.

I simply disagree. It's like the difference between a general and a foot soldier in an army. The general might need to send the foot soldiers on a dangerous mission that seems improper to the soldier. However that only appears that way because the soldier is not privy to information regarding the entire battle plan. They only know about their mission and how dangerous it is.

 

[ppp]

OK.

It's not okay. Do better.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I would worry if my worldview required me to defend abuse.

Nonsense! of course we can judge it. All civilised people are opposed to slavery. God condones slavery (we have sufficient information from his holy scriptures). Therefore we can judge god to be morally lacking in that respect.

So it's ok to abuse a child if you give them presents afterwards.
Wow, straight from the Abusers' Handbook.

Not if they accept god before they die. Or if the abuse is done on god's command.

In my opinion, any defense of abuse is offensive because I was abused while growing up. And hearing such a defense from those who believe in the God of the Bible makes me cringe and reminds me of the reasons why I renounced my own belief and faith in God.

 

[dybmh]

It's not okay. Do better.

I'm not sure you will believe me, but I make choices to live my life trying to be a moral person. To me that means do as little harm as possible. I think I do a pretty good job. I think where we disagree is on principle, not in practice.

 

[ppp]

I'm not sure you will believe me, but I make choices to live my life trying to be a moral person. To me that means do as little harm as possible. I think I do a pretty good job. I think where we disagree is on principle, not in practice.

I do believe you. Our (yours and my) practices probably do align in most areas. I find that to be the case with most people. The clashes come in fringe cases where the principles adhered to by doctrine (religious, political or cultural) clash with the principles that we (in most cases) share.

Given unlimited lives, the abuse could be justified.

I have no idea how anyone could justify that statement. Typically, justification is attempted via some variation on the ends justifying the means. While such a justification can sometimes be made situationally where there is a reasonable assumption of shared goals between the parties, it can only be made between beings who are not omnipotent.

It's impossible to judge God's morality. Not enough information.

When you claim that your god is good or moral or justified you are judging his morality.

Not only that, but the abused also now has the opportunity for a great reward.

I have met so many people who say things like this. While growing up Baptist, while exploring other world religions, and and in the decades since. It is one of the reasons that I moved from being apathetic about assorted religions to standing in direct opposition.

Let's not forget that if I'm right the one who is abusing will incur a great punishment as well.

I don't know why this would matter.

 

[KWED]

After death, the soul gets cleansed of the evil that a person does. It's not supposed to be a pleasant process. It takes about a year, the more sin, the more the soul needs to be cleansed.

What is that process? And does it differ depending on what they had done and how much?
And why does a serial child murderer even get their "soul cleansed" at all?

I simply disagree. It's like the difference between a general and a foot soldier in an army. The general might need to send the foot soldiers on a dangerous mission that seems improper to the soldier. However that only appears that way because the soldier is not privy to information regarding the entire battle plan. They only know about their mission and how dangerous it is.

That sounds like "the Nuremberg Defence". It is irrelevant if the soldiers do not know the overall strategy of the general, if they are ordered to do something criminal or immoral, they are not obliged to follow those orders. Claiming that they were "only obeying orders" does not absolve them.
I'm actually a little embarrassed that I have to explain this to you, given your background. *smh*

 

[KWED]

I'm not sure you will believe me, but I make choices to live my life trying to be a moral person. To me that means do as little harm as possible. I think I do a pretty good job. I think where we disagree is on principle, not in practice.

If a person enables or excuses or justifies or defends abuse through any means, it is irrelevant if they never actually abuse anyone themselves. They are complicit.