If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[Riverwolf]

Congrats, know a little about the Bible before King James was revised 1400 times?
Love God, that's cool, whatever. But very happy there is one less Christian cheering on eternal inferno for third-world children. As if this world wasn't hell enough, eh.

Believe it or not, there are TONS of Christians who don't believe in literal hellfire. :yes:

After all, hell isn't even really in the Biblical canon all that much. :no:

The Old Testament speaks of Sheol, which means "grave." That's simply the place you go when you die.

The Gospels speak of the garbage heap outside of Jerusalem. (Not kidding. lol)

Only in the book of Revelations is the Lake of Fire, where Satan will burn for ever and ever, and where sinners go after the final judgment in a second death, is mentioned. Whether or not they burn eternally isn't really clear in the text, as far as I can remember.

The hell of modern Christianity is actually borrowed from other religions: most notably Tartarus of Greek mythology.

 

[dust1n]

I know a "little " about Christianity *instinctively" before there was even a "Bible".

Nice. I think we all did, huh.

And listen its not even "3rd world" children..You should hear the "Christians" (modern day) asking if the kid that died in a car crash was "saved" or not when I reported a tragic accident of a kid up at my sons school..They were WORRIED about his soul.

I wasnt "cheering " .They werent "cheering " either what is sad they were "crying" because he wasnt "saved".

I didn't say you were cheering, I said someone was.. and it was a satirical statement, not far from truth though. Plus, third-world children who die under exploitative regimes who are funded by capitalism. As companies take advantage of free trade, almost all the factories are in the third world (or China) where children work 7 days a week, until they die from a disease, unable to even visit a doctor. Cheering on capitalism is a "multi-religion" item. This is much different then seeing someone die in a car accident. Personally, I think we should be a little less worried about souls, a little more worried about people. There is still a touch of decency in those kids though. Nevertheless, didn't mean to paint a picture of you by anyways. Forgive my manners, it's been a couple years since I've been on this forum.

"I've seen the same thing happen with elderlies.The children of elderlies and the Christians say "was he or she "saved".(when they die)"

Was he or she "saved"?

Was he or she stashed away in a retirement home?
Was he or she abused by any of the low payed workers?
Was he or she depressed?

Emotionless kids..

In fact I want to tell them to go take a walk off a short bridge or maybe go straigth up and make a u-turn..

Love

Dallas

=D Just speculation.

 

[dust1n]

Believe it or not, there are TONS of Christians who don't believe in literal hellfire. :yes:

After all, hell isn't even really in the Biblical canon all that much. :no:

The Old Testament speaks of Sheol, which means "grave." That's simply the place you go when you die.

The Gospels speak of the garbage heap outside of Jerusalem. (Not kidding. lol)

Only in the book of Revelations is the Lake of Fire, where Satan will burn for ever and ever, and where sinners go after the final judgment in a second death, is mentioned. Whether or not they burn eternally isn't really clear in the text, as far as I can remember.

The hell of modern Christianity is actually borrowed from other religions: most notably Tartarus of Greek mythology.

I'm aware. The majority of Christians (unfortunately, the most powerful ones as well) don't have such a clear understanding.

Nicely put though.. If I had figured out how to do the frubbles, I would give you some.

 

[DallasApple]

Believe it or not, there are TONS of Christians who don't believe in literal hellfire. :yes:

After all, hell isn't even really in the Biblical canon all that much. :no:

The Old Testament speaks of Sheol, which means "grave." That's simply the place you go when you die.

The Gospels speak of the garbage heap outside of Jerusalem. (Not kidding. lol)

Only in the book of Revelations is the Lake of Fire, where Satan will burn for ever and ever, and where sinners go after the final judgment in a second death, is mentioned. Whether or not they burn eternally isn't really clear in the text, as far as I can remember.

The hell of modern Christianity is actually borrowed from other religions: most notably Tartarus of Greek mythology.

Ha ha you are correct..

The "hell" came from a garbage heap (to my knowledge) where they burned trash and garbage and they went ahead and burned the bodys of dead criminals outside of the city gates.Basically cremation..but slow burn.

I could be wrong..but I think thats where the "burning in hell" scenerio came from..

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Nice. I think we all did, huh.



I didn't say you were cheering, I said someone was.. and it was a satirical statement, not far from truth though. Plus, third-world children who die under exploitative regimes who are funded by capitalism. As companies take advantage of free trade, almost all the factories are in the third world (or China) where children work 7 days a week, until they die from a disease, unable to even visit a doctor. Cheering on capitalism is a "multi-religion" item. This is much different then seeing someone die in a car accident. Personally, I think we should be a little less worried about souls, a little more worried about people. There is still a touch of decency in those kids though. Nevertheless, didn't mean to paint a picture of you by anyways. Forgive my manners, it's been a couple years since I've been on this forum.

"I've seen the same thing happen with elderlies.The children of elderlies and the Christians say "was he or she "saved".(when they die)"

Was he or she "saved"?

Was he or she stashed away in a retirement home?
Was he or she abused by any of the low payed workers?
Was he or she depressed?

Emotionless kids..




=D Just speculation.

I do not feel "accused" by you ..

We are not in an argument.

I was just commenting.

Love

Dallas

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm aware. The majority of Christians (unfortunately, the most powerful ones as well) don't have such a clear understanding.

Nicely put though.. If I had figured out how to do the frubbles, I would give you some.

The scales in the top-right-hand corner of posts. Thanks for the idea. ^_^

I'm not sure we can say "majority" or "minority" as we really can't know without doing a survey of every single Christian in the world.

 

[DallasApple]

The scales in the top-right-hand corner of posts. Thanks for the idea. ^_^

LOL!!!!!!!!!

I'll give you some hunny!

Love

Dallas

 

[cottage]

One simply has to admit that it's possible for evil to exist in the presence of a completely good, powerful, and knowing God. There simply isn't really any strictly logical problem here. That is why, by and large, professional philosophers have abandoned it in favor of more emotive arguments. These arguments admit that it's possible for God to have adequate (if unknown to us) reasons to permit evil but that there still remains the problem that God's response to evil is not adequate, and that this has implications for theology -- although it doesn't reach as far as an atheological argument. It also doesn't render Christian theism (the usual target) incoherent. But in the hands of particularly clever atheists, these arguments can (and should) make theists uncomfortable and chastened. It's about the only value of Dawkins when he climbs out of his biological shell.

Frankly it’s breathtaking to hear you say: ‘There simply isn’t really any logical problem here’. If there were no logical problem you wouldn’t be trying to argue around it. Let’s understand something, which applies equally to you, just as it does to me. God is logically possible. The atheist who says ‘there is no God’ (except perhaps as an empirical conclusion), wants to say too much. You will agree that God is logically possible because the conception of an Absolutely Necessary Being and the argument from contingency involve no contradictions, just as you will agree that ‘God is not God’ is necessarily false. Therefore you must accept that a benevolent, loving God cannot send evil into the word, since that proposition comprises the same logical structure and formality.
I would add that unlike others (including me), Dawkins gives no credence to the problem of evil. It is a non-problem, whether a good god or a bad god, because to him it makes no difference. He rejects the God hypothesis in any putative form.

Let's talk about theodicy a bit. First, what should we say of a theodicy that doesn't satisfy you? That the theodicy is therefore not a good one? Why should that follow? It seems to me that in these matters, humans cannot be objectively rational. Everyone has a stake in how the argument turns out. As a result, people's positions become entrenched. I've long believed that there's no such thing as an atheist or theist who adopted their view on strictly rational grounds. Anyone who thinks such a thing is self-deluded. And a committed atheist is not likely to accept the validity of any theodicy whatsoever because doing so threatens her atheism.

Oh I disagree entirely. I think you are projecting your own profound disposition onto others who take a different view. I reserve the right to change my mind on any subject matter, and I’ve previously given a criterion by which God’s existence would be proved true for me. No theodicy satisfies me because no theodicy actually addresses the problem! The Unknown Purpose (argument from ignorance), Soul-making (Irenaeus), and the FWD (St Augustine/process theodicy), are all apologetics, as are ‘Evil as a privation’ (Plato, Buddhism), ‘Evil as illusion’ (Christian Scientist), ‘No good without evil’, Secondary causation (St Thomas), The Parent/child analogy, Relative suffering etc, etc. Every one of the above skirts round the contradiction, leaving it in place. And the problem exists because the great majority of theists cannot accept God as other than wholly good, despite the evidence that they see all around them. Now that is an example of an entrenched position!

Of course, the same works in reverse. If an atheist explains to a Christian how her theodicy fails on this or that ground, the Christian may be perplexed but not necessarily perturbed. She might say, "Hmm, you have a point. Yet I'm still convinced God is trustworthy, so I'm not about to abandon Him over a logical quibble I can't fully get round." In other words, theodicies fail (or succeed) primarily because of emotive and faith commitments, not because of anything particularly good or bad about the theodicies.


But as I've said before, I've heard the logical PoE and its rebuttal. I find myself convinced by the rebuttal. There is simply no logical contradiction between the existence of an all good, powerful, and knowing creator and evil in the creation.

God is either all good, or he is not all good (law of excluded middle).
1) God and evil
2) God and no evil.
Since #1 is true, #2 must be false.

The argument rests on the assumption that it is impossible for a good God to have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil of the sort we see in the world today. I say that assumption rests on hubris. It implies that we're so morally astute and intellectually savvy as to have canvassed all the possibilities. It is also morally self-congratulatory in assuming that our rejection of the theodicies we have has nothing to do with our agendas, biases, and moral failings. In short, the PoE succeeds only on the strength of our moral turpitude.

What sort of sense is it to speak of God having a sufficient moral reason to permit evil? How does that work then? God introduces evil to do…what…overcome evil? And if your conclusion is that the problem of evil only succeeds on the strength of our moral turpitude, then I’m afraid you misunderstand the controversy. We have the contradiction because of the existence of suffering. An infant suffering with leukaemia is born innocent into the world; and the inhabitants of a village, swept away in a tsunami, what is their moral transgression?

 

[cottage]

And you understand to perfection so as not be mistaken? How do you know? What do you base this on? What happens if you are wrong?

Then I'm wrong!

 

[cottage]

The real absurdity here is that we should want to eliminate something as useful as pain and suffering. Along with that motivation for improvement goes compassion and medicine, structural skills like engineering and materials engineering, food skills like agriculture and animal husbandry, social skills --heck, pretty much everything there is to being human is motivated by a need to relieve a pain or suffering of some sort.

If God is all good and all powerful the argument cannot be made that a particular existence requires suffering, since the concept of heaven demonstrates that existence without suffering is possible. And it cannot be argued that God lay under some necessary compunction to bring this world into being – unless we want to compromise his omnipotence. Also, as there is no contradiction in conceiving a world without pain and suffering, a world without pain and suffering is therefore perfectly logical.

 

[cottage]

It is your picture that I address -- you, the composer of the argument you're putting forth.

Edit: No free will, no sin. No sin, no argument.

<cough!> A six month old child doesn't 'sin', and pestilence, disease and earthquakes aren't a consequence of free will.

 

[Humanistheart]

You serve your body every day. (I hope. ) When you give to charity or a homeless man, you are serving them for that moment. When you cook a meal for your guests, you are serving them.

I'm sure you can make an adequate case for that with the homeless man but I prefer the term 'helping' and feel it's more apt. As for serving the body, while again I'm sure you can make a case for it, I'd say since it's mine and it's just a body fueling or maintaining would be more accurate verbs.

 

[Humanistheart]

I take it you're not married.

No, unfortunately marriage is not in my future.

 

[Harshtotem]

This is an excellent thread and speak volumes to the reality in which we live- excellent-
It also brings into Question the Pretonnous or Forthought of any creatorin this instance "god'
The Question vindicates itself-
Showing a truly TIMELESS "GOD" by showig that not even forknowledge of things is absolutewithin time-
Everything was then sealed by BLOOD
nothing is saled save b and wih the shedding of BLOOD

 

[Humanistheart]

This is an excellent thread and speak volumes to the reality in which we live- excellent-
It also brings into Question the Pretonnous or Forthought of any creatorin this instance "god'
The Question vindicates itself-
Showing a truly TIMELESS "GOD" by showig that not even forknowledge of things is absolutewithin time-
Everything was then sealed by BLOOD
nothing is saled save b and wih the shedding of BLOOD

Why 'blood'?

 

[dust1n]

I do not feel "accused" by you ..

We are not in an argument.

I was just commenting.

Love

Dallas

Haha, sorry, I spoke quickly and thought I might of looked like an *******. Got to get back into the groove of forum conversation.

 

[Harshtotem]

blood is th potential of Forethought- it is the potential of man- that makes forethought (within Time)

This is why even prophecy can fail
If the potential of man is not harnessed

 

[Dunemeister]

<cough!> A six month old child doesn't 'sin', and pestilence, disease and earthquakes aren't a consequence of free will.

The concept of "sin" relates to more than individual acts of wrongdoing. These are those actions we are to be held accountable for, assuming of course we understand (or are culpable for not understanding -- we ought to have known) that what we are doing is in fact wrong. By that definition of course, a six-month old does not sin. They don't know right from wrong and have yet to develop a moral sense, which takes a bit of maturing to develop.

Another referent for "sin" is the human condition generally in which we are prone to selfishness, pride, and promoting self interest over the legitimate interests of others or the communities to which we belong. By this definition, we Christians would say that a six month old child is "in sin." It is a condition she is born into. However, it is not something for which a six month old is culpable for and she will not be held to account merely for being "in sin."

Lastly, earthquakes are ultimately a product of sin. That is not to say that individual earthquakes are the direct result of the sins of the inhabitants of the affected city (or the country of which the city is a part). Rather, scripture says that at the moment, all creation "groans as if in labour pangs" as a result of the fall of humankind into sin. Somehow, our wilful rebellion against our creator has thrown the cosmos into disorder. Scripture never explains this or argues for it but merely assumes it.

Let me just pre-emptively say (for I see the rejoinder coming) that this does not mean that every natural disaster is "our fault." That doesn't follow. What this view actually means is that our sinful rebellion has created the conditions under which earthquakes and so on are actually possible. Of course, I am aware that there's the whole business of the movement of tectonic plates and all that. Our fall didn't cause the plates to move. What scripture affirms is that sin leads to death. This is true in the individual case but also in the corporate. Ultimately, human death has its cause in human sin.

 

[cottage]

The concept of "sin" relates to more than individual acts of wrongdoing. These are those actions we are to be held accountable for, assuming of course we understand (or are culpable for not understanding -- we ought to have known) that what we are doing is in fact wrong. By that definition of course, a six-month old does not sin. They don't know right from wrong and have yet to develop a moral sense, which takes a bit of maturing to develop.

Another referent for "sin" is the human condition generally in which we are prone to selfishness, pride, and promoting self interest over the legitimate interests of others or the communities to which we belong. By this definition, we Christians would say that a six month old child is "in sin." It is a condition she is born into. However, it is not something for which a six month old is culpable for and she will not be held to account merely for being "in sin."

Lastly, earthquakes are ultimately a product of sin. That is not to say that individual earthquakes are the direct result of the sins of the inhabitants of the affected city (or the country of which the city is a part). Rather, scripture says that at the moment, all creation "groans as if in labour pangs" as a result of the fall of humankind into sin. Somehow, our wilful rebellion against our creator has thrown the cosmos into disorder. Scripture never explains this or argues for it but merely assumes it.

Let me just pre-emptively say (for I see the rejoinder coming) that this does not mean that every natural disaster is "our fault." That doesn't follow. What this view actually means is that our sinful rebellion has created the conditions under which earthquakes and so on are actually possible. Of course, I am aware that there's the whole business of the movement of tectonic plates and all that. Our fall didn't cause the plates to move. What scripture affirms is that sin leads to death. This is true in the individual case but also in the corporate. Ultimately, human death has its cause in human sin.

That explanation effectively blows aways the Free Will Defence.

Original Sin is a curse upon all humanity, an act of extreme vengeance to be passed down and inflicted upon all subsequent generations. God cursed the serpent (talking snake): 'upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life'; and he punished Adam (and men) with a life of toil: 'In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground', and Eve (and women) he punished with painful childbirth and subordination to men: 'your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you'.

Now, I see no 'permissive will' in any of those statements, rather I see an angry God establishing his authority and making an executive decision that concerns every person who will walk the earth.

 

[Dunemeister]

That explanation effectively blows aways the Free Will Defence.

Original Sin is a curse upon all humanity, an act of extreme vengeance to be passed down and inflicted upon all subsequent generations. God cursed the serpent (talking snake): 'upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life'; and he punished Adam (and men) with a life of toil: 'In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground', and Eve (and women) he punished with painful childbirth and subordination to men: 'your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you'.

Now, I see no 'permissive will' in any of those statements, rather I see an angry God establishing his authority and making an executive decision that concerns every person who will walk the earth.

None of what you say applies to the Free Will defense. The Free Will defense argues that Adam and Eve were free to fall or free not to fall. They had an authentic choice. As for the free will of their descendents, only a fool thinks that all our decisions are free. And it may just be that our free will is constrained by a nature we have inherited according to which we are bound to sin. So we are free not to sin in the sense that on each occasion, we have an authentic choice; but given our fallen state, we are bound to sin sooner or later. Usually sooner.

As for the angry God establishing authority, you are wrong on both counts. Certainly God was angry with the sin, but anger does not characterize God. Love does. Thus Adam and Eve did not die immediately, and given the consequences of sin, death is a mitigator (imagine having immortality in a world of sorrows). He promised to redeem the world through the seed of the woman, which is a way of allowing humanity to play a crucial role in their own salvation. Indeed, the only one in the story who has no hope is the serpent.

Notice also that Adam and Eve retreated from God and sewed fig leaves together for coverings when their loss of innocence permitted them to 'realize" they were naked. They felt shame. But fig leaves are an inadequate covering, so God provided an adequate covering for them.

Leading up to the scene of judgment, notice that God tenderly calls out to Adam, "Where are you?" God knew where he was, of course, but he was inviting Adam to return to him. If he had, instead of blaming God, "It was this woman YOU GAVE ME," he would have been restored.

It's a selective reading that results in your conclusion, not the text itself, my friend.