Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[CG Didymus]

You keep saying that without an absolute moral law giver, there can be no moral truths. What you're essentially saying is we need the mightiest of the mighties to tell us how to behave - that we are incapable of detecting right from wrong without some absolute authority figure dictating it to us (or writing it on our hearts).

Sorry 1 Robin, there is no absolute, objective law giver. Who and what God is, is subjective. People's concept of who God is and what he thinks is proper and right for human behavior is the opinion and determined by those people. Your church group, whether it's Baptist or whatever, has a concept of the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is subjective.

Falvlun post 2931: Making poor decisions is part of our whole learning process, part of our environmental (or genetic) conditioning or conditions, and, as you say, an inevitable part of human life.

Joining a religious group or rejecting religion altogether are personal decisions for most of us now. In the past religion was essentially forced on a person. You were whatever your society said you are. Now we have choice and many make poor choices in which religion they join. But why are they looking? For a lot of us, it was because Christianity didn't have the answers we needed.

Falvlun post 2933: While I think that morality is more than *just* opinion, think of it this way: I can claim that something is beautiful, even if, as most agree, there is no objective standard of beauty. And it will be true: That thing is beautiful (to me).

A particular Christian groups opinion/interpretation of the Bible is the standard for that group. It is "beautiful" to them. It is what is right to them. It is "objective" truth to them. Which, makes it subjective to everybody else other than them.

Falvlun post 2934: This is also consistent with the idea that morality developed in order to facilitate the functioning of society. It makes sense that many general principles would universally be found to work. It also makes sense that regional differences would tweak these general principles to better serve a culture’s predilection, traditions, or requirements.

The family needs rules. Society needs rules. We all make rules. We all learn about different rules. We consider some rules by other idiotic. We think ours are the best, but, in time, we might change our rules. "No drinking, no sex, no drugs, do your homework" sounded like stupid rules to me when I was sixteen. Now at 65... No, they were still a little stupid because they were imposed on me, so I wanted to rebel. I wanted to have "fun." I didn't want to become like my parents that just went with the rules and moral standards of a sick and boring society. Society was a little right, but not perfect. They had illicit sex. They had their "drugs" of choice. But, to follow their rules is "better" for a majority of the people in society.

A Grumpy Old Troll 2940: First, most civilizations during or predating Yahweh monotheism, held in place laws and practices of what we call morally sound today. Monogamy ( for the non-elite), laws prohibiting theft, adultery and murder ect. Those things are not morals and more defined as ethics or a species instinct. This is done to maintain a cohesive society not because of any given religious principles.

You know, the God of the Bible sure sounded like a warrior god in the beginning. His moral codes were very different than the kinder and gentler standards of his son. But all societies had their gods and moral codes to them "a cohesive society". What is best for us today? We, as a group, are deciding and changing. Many of us, like me as a teenager, can't and won't live by the fundy Christian standard. It doesn't even work for them. They can't even obey it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You know, the God of the Bible sure sounded like a warrior god in the beginning. His moral codes were very different than the kinder and gentler standards of his son.

Yahweh was a Canaanite war god, originally.

Yahweh (Canaanite deity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[psychoslice]

If your not happy with your god, then get rid of him!!.

 

[kjw47]

Sorry 1 Robin, there is no absolute, objective law giver. Who and what God is, is subjective. People's concept of who God is and what he thinks is proper and right for human behavior is the opinion and determined by those people. Your church group, whether it's Baptist or whatever, has a concept of the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is subjective.
Joining a religious group or rejecting religion altogether are personal decisions for most of us now. In the past religion was essentially forced on a person. You were whatever your society said you are. Now we have choice and many make poor choices in which religion they join. But why are they looking? For a lot of us, it was because Christianity didn't have the answers we needed.
A particular Christian groups opinion/interpretation of the Bible is the standard for that group. It is "beautiful" to them. It is what is right to them. It is "objective" truth to them. Which, makes it subjective to everybody else other than them.
The family needs rules. Society needs rules. We all make rules. We all learn about different rules. We consider some rules by other idiotic. We think ours are the best, but, in time, we might change our rules. "No drinking, no sex, no drugs, do your homework" sounded like stupid rules to me when I was sixteen. Now at 65... No, they were still a little stupid because they were imposed on me, so I wanted to rebel. I wanted to have "fun." I didn't want to become like my parents that just went with the rules and moral standards of a sick and boring society. Society was a little right, but not perfect. They had illicit sex. They had their "drugs" of choice. But, to follow their rules is "better" for a majority of the people in society.
You know, the God of the Bible sure sounded like a warrior god in the beginning. His moral codes were very different than the kinder and gentler standards of his son. But all societies had their gods and moral codes to them "a cohesive society". What is best for us today? We, as a group, are deciding and changing. Many of us, like me as a teenager, can't and won't live by the fundy Christian standard. It doesn't even work for them. They can't even obey it.

Jesus is the exact image of his God and Father---- Both hate sin 100%--- Jesus will ride the white horse at Harmageddon and lead Gods armies to the earth and destroy all that is wicked and wickedness. 1% = the Few that found the narrow gate to the cramped path that leads to life.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Jesus is the exact image of his God and Father---- Both hate sin 100%--- Jesus will ride the white horse at Harmageddon and lead Gods armies to the earth and destroy all that is wicked and wickedness. 1% = the Few that found the narrow gate to the cramped path that leads to life.

So in heaven there's no free will?

 

[1robin]

Yahweh was a Canaanite war god, originally.

Yahweh (Canaanite deity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh Lord, not this thing. I have addressed this in detail previously and it can easily be found. I would go through it again but it isn't worth it. All information (including what I may reference) from this, edge of history period, is far too uncertain to even have a meaningful debate concerning. I have given plenty of info in response but there can be virtually nothing known for sure about the time period in question and that makes a debate boring and futile.

 

[1robin]

Sorry 1 Robin, there is no absolute, objective law giver. Who and what God is, is subjective. People's concept of who God is and what he thinks is proper and right for human behavior is the opinion and determined by those people. Your church group, whether it's Baptist or whatever, has a concept of the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is subjective.

You have no way to know that and even less to prove it. The fact almost all of us perceive an objective moral realm puts all the evidence firmly against you but claims to certain knowledge are not justifiable to begin with. God is not subjective. If he exists he exists objective and that would be true even if know one way right about him, ever. The fact that I may have a slightly different take on a verse than a Catholic does not in any way mean that an objective truth does not exist. by your standards (disagreement equals subjectivity) all of science, history, and even most math is subjective.

[/B]You know, the God of the Bible sure sounded like a warrior god in the beginning. His moral codes were very different than the kinder and gentler standards of his son. But all societies had their gods and moral codes to them "a cohesive society". What is best for us today? We, as a group, are deciding and changing. Many of us, like me as a teenager, can't and won't live by the fundy Christian standard. It doesn't even work for them. They can't even obey it.

Since as mankind advances and God's local purposes are different is it not expected that he will at one point do certain things and at others different things. Your latest methodology seems to be to claim that uncertainty eliminates truth. Strange methodology that renders almost everything unknowable from the get go.

I do not really see an argument in this post at all. Just assertions, bizarre criteria, and strange extrapolations.

 

[1robin]

You keep saying that without an absolute moral law giver, there can be no moral truths. What you're essentially saying is we need the mightiest of the mighties to tell us how to behave - that we are incapable of detecting right from wrong without some absolute authority figure dictating it to us (or writing it on our hearts).

What the heck are you doing? I keep saying over and over that is exactly what I am not saying. This is gong from rhetorical to dishonesty fast. You might have had a point if morality followed from power necessarily given God but it doesn't. He could be all powerful and not have a moral characteristic about him. The two have nothing to do with each other. I did not use absolute in any relationship to power but to certainty. God as the creator of everything would be the ultimate standard for truth even if he had no capacity to ever enforce anything. Murder would be no less wrong even if he could not hold us accountable and so no one cared about what he told us to do. These are two completely independent issues. I will no longer respond to this argument. Everything necessary to indicate the non-relationship of capacity to hold accountable with moral truth has been said several times. I can't stop you from repeating your self or simply saying nuh-uh over and over but I can not take notice of it.

Good point.

I wish I could remember what it was like being a baby.

I am not sure I want to remember not being able to talk or walk. While it is a certainty babies think, dogs think, and most animals do so. IMO cats do not. If you look in a cats eyes there is nothing there. A cat's entire thinking format is a perpetual dddddduuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh. Of course I am joking.

I saw the best non-theist debater I have ever seen last night. Check out Sean Carroll versus Craig on U-tube or Google video. Despite his working in that part of science so devoid of reliability he was a rational and skilled debater. You may disagree but I have never seen Craig's equal, yet Carroll came closer than any other person and was far more logical and humble than Krauss, Harris, and the rest put together. It is as good as it gets.

 

[1robin]

I can prove that morality is subjective.

No you can't, no one can. No one can possibly prove morality's nature to a certainty either way.

First, most civilizations during or predating Yahweh monotheism, held in place laws and practices of what we call morally sound today. Monogamy ( for the non-elite), laws prohibiting theft, adultery and murder ect. Those things are not morals and more defined as ethics or a species instinct. This is done to maintain a cohesive society not because of any given religious principles.

That does nothing to show morality is subjective. That argument is only used to suggest God is not the author of morality but it even fails that purpose miserably. Biblical morality long pre-dates Jewish morality, the Levitical law, and the ten commandments. It goes back to day one in the Bible and would predate what you mentioned. However let's pretend it didn't and that the ten commandments were the very first time God had codified moral laws in a revelatory way. Since he gave all of us the same moral conscience from day one this would again pre-date anything you could bring up. None of that has any effect on moralities objective nature but it even fails as a who has the oldest moral claim.

I also do not think you have any way to know a single claim you made above. Assertions (some of them wrong) are not proofs or even evidence for anything.

Secondly and most importantly to disprove objective morality and also evil being a subjective matter is this; Hitler.

I find it very comical that every time a discussion about evil is brought up, Hitler and Nazism are thrown in as the top bar of evil's comparison. Hitler attempted to genocide the Jewish people and was instrumental in significant death and suffering during WII. The irony is that the people he attempted to exterminate, The Jews, were one of the first peoples to engage in genocide themselves! All of which is well-documented in the Old Testament, PART OF THE BIBLE! Not only that, they were ordered and aided in these atrocities by a deity, Yahweh... whom people still worship to this day!!! So you have Christians, Jews and Muslims worshiping a deity that engages in genocide...glory to god, praise god....and then yet, oh Hitler what a naughty man he was, for doing the exact same thing.

1. Hitler is not always used. I have given dozens of examples.
2. Hitler is not a laughable first choice any way. He is one of the most evil men in recent history. Our history.
3. He is also one of the least debatable. Virtually everyone considers him evil so he is used to stop wasting time debating if the subject was evil to begin with.
4. The Jews as far as I can find have never been involved in genocide though they certainly fought many wars. genocide is a term that is often misused. Genocide is the destruction of a race or culture for race or culture related reasons. For example the Canaanites were never attacked because they were Canaanites. They were attacked because they barred Israel's progress physically, they were said to be completely corrupt morally (they practiced human sacrifice for example), they raided Israel's supply's at harvest time causing mass starvation. Israel fought for many reasons and they were punished many times because of them, but none of them was a genocidal reason. Not that that makes any difference to the nature of morality either.
5. Even if the Jews had never ever been morally correct even once that would have no relationship to the nature of morality what ever.
6. I have destroyed this genocidal God argument many times. I have no need to do so here because that is not the subject.

Not one single thing you have said so far has had anything to do with the nature of morality even if it was true (and most claims were not)

Same actions, same behaviors, same mindsets and yet opposite opinions, one was glorious the other evil.

Not the same anything. I can destroy any one of these arguments but as they have nothing to do with morality, which was supposed to be the subject. Not to mention your making the exact same mistake that Christians constantly notice about non-theists and which I must have tried to head off a hundred times. You are getting terribly confused between epistemology and ontology. Every point you made has been about apprehensions not foundations or nature.

1Robin wrote:

Really? Leviticus 21:16 (starts at 21:1 but fast forwarded for thread space) Rules for priests

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”
24 So Moses told this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.

"Ok Mr. Fienberg, thanks for applying at the priesthood, before we ordain you, can you please remove your loincloth and hold up your shaft? We need to take a good look at that sack of yours..."

1. These are not rules about people in general.
2. These are rules for priests and are ceremonial not moral.
3. They also were not literally what you mistakenly believe them to be. The OT contains hundreds of imperfect reflections of NT perfections. They are known as shadows and types. Israel's priests were to be ceremonially perfect to represent Christ's future actual perfection.
4. No one was to be actually perfect because no one can be. They were not to have outward flaws. No human is without millions of physical imperfections at all times. It was also tied to something associated with offerings. Men were not to bring the sick and valueless animals to be sacrificed but perfect ones. For two reasons. They were to offer their best not their worst and this was also a type and shadow of Christ's perfection.
5. It was a ceremonial perfection used to indicate Christ's actual perfection.
6. God many times even in the NT gives us a direction to be perfect but this is not a destination but a goal. That is why Christ had to be perfect and had to take our place. We would never be perfect and so can never satisfy our own debt.


Besides your woeful Biblical misunderstands the main problem here is that you intended to show morality as subjective, yet not a single claim in this post even if true did anything towards reaching that goal.

 

[1robin]

If your not happy with your god, then get rid of him!!.

God is not a pet or a theory, or a pet theory. The most unjustifiable theological point of view is to create a God that tickles your ears, yet that can't actually help in any way or explain anything.

In a list of appropriate response to the idea of a deaity it would go something like this.

1. The best reasoned faith.
2. Next to the best reasoned doubt.




at infinity. Way, way down the list, at the very bottom

Is to render him a byproduct of preference.

That may be the worst approach to any subject in human history.

 

[1robin]

So in heaven there's no free will?

That is a good question and one that may be unknowable at this time. The closest I can get is an educated guess that we will have freewill. Theology defines freewill as the ability to choice any desired choice. However we will no longer have any desire to do wrong or rebel. We have given permission to God to eventually remove that malignant desire forever. Would you claim foul in that case?

 

[kjw47]

So in heaven there's no free will?

Every being has free will.

 

[cottage]

It was offered up as a far more relevant representation of the character of God. What will be true of eternity is far more relevant in discussing his character than what out sin made true for the microcosmic blink of time. I have had others say God was evil because he allowed servitude or war, yet if he was evil and desired those things why do they not exist in heaven?

Let’s see if we can pick up where we left off.
That is irrelevant to the crux of argument, which is that God is not all merciful and benevolent. You are just offering statements in mitigation. To dismiss or disregard a lifetime of suffering as a ‘microscopic blink of an eye’ is callous; and it also misses the point, for an act once done can never be undone. Your last sentence is just a straw man as far as my argument is concerned, because it is not being said that God is evil. God is simply unable or unwilling to be all merciful, an undeniable fact confirmed for us in everyday experience.

For the fourth or fifth time, I see no contradiction. You cannot show that a good God cannot permit evil, especially if that evil results in a greater good and the purpose allowed no other methodology to arrive at the goal. Declaring a contradiction is not to produce one.

But you contradict yourself, twice, and in very clear terms, and then say you can see no contradiction!
You are stating that God can cause/permit evil, but only if the evil overcomes or alleviate a greater evil – and that is simply to confirm that great evil exists, which God causes/permits to exist in the first place! And then you say ‘if the purpose allowed no other methodology’, seemingly oblivious to the fact that any purpose is to overcome the evil caused/permitted by God. The circularity should be obvious.

Do you or anyone even know what all merciful means? It certainly does not mean that every action he takes is the most merciful possible? What does that even mean? Merciful for who God, me, creation, certain groups?

Yes I do know what ‘All merciful’ means, and so do you despite trying to find a semantic escape route. It is an inclusive term. If God were all merciful then his mercy and benevolence would be all encompassing and inclusive, as the term implies, and he would make no distinctions and no individual would suffer.

You are debating against a caricature of God. I could not find him described as all merciful in three translations. He certainly is merciful in that he paid the entire cost to save a doomed race from it's self. But he is also just, he does not simply hand waive away all cruelties we commit against each other. All merciful in the hyperbolic sense would be a travesty of justice and reason. You need to find a characteristic of God actually given in the Bible in it's original language and then complain about it.

The above is irrelevant to the facts. My argument is very simple: I merely identify the facts and what is self-evident. And the self-evidential argument is that there is no being who is omnibenevolent and all merciful. Again, it is you who attempt to argue against the self-evidential truth by presenting a caricature (the very thing which I’m accused of by you) of a particular being that forms your doctrinal belief and in direct contradiction to the facts. With respect, I’m not getting any arguments from you other than obfuscated relies and inadequate excuses, which undermines credibility. And the Bible doesn’t explain away the fact of suffering, given that God is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

P1 is a caricature not related to what it is being used to label. The whole semantic exercise is based on distortion. There is nothing in revelation that binds God to acting perfectly merciful in all cases. His doing so would be as morally insane as acting perfectly vengeful in all cases. I would only agree with the proposition that his vengeance is far outweighed by his forgiveness.

I have to mention that you accuse me of ‘semantics’, when all I’ve done is to present you with the facts, and yet go to considerable trouble yourself to offer a semantically contrived apologetic.
And is it really okay that God can wreak his vengeance on mankind and then forgive us – for what? The evil and suffering that he caused and permitted?
And you agree with my argument by admitting that ‘God needn’t be ‘perfectly merciful in all cases.’ That’s exactly the case I’m making!

I did not say both God and evil are mutually necessary. I said both God's purpose and the existence od evil are mutually necessary if we failed the test. God could have either created another creation that lacked true love and avoided evil or created nothing at all and still been as much God as ever.

That doesn’t appear to make sense. What are you actually saying?

 

[cottage]

I do not watch u-tube normally. In fact I cannot even get it on the same server as the one I use to debate.

You might consider (hen) Aquinas weak but history does not. (I have heard many claim that theological is the greatest theological work ever written beyond the bible by men who are qualified to know).

Aquinas is undoubtedly one of the greatest theologians. But not one of the greatest philosophers, for as Russell said of Aquinas: ‘He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead.’ He first declares for the Catholic faith. ‘The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.’ (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy)

Are you asking me to supply Craig's and Plantinga's works on the problem of evil in a post? Craig alone required a book to do so. Since you obviously know I cannot even give a summary of so much detailed work in a forum and you have as much access to their works as I do, what is your really asking?

No, of course not! I’m saying instead of just dropping names or appealing to authority figures, you instead state the bones of the arguments you’re alluding to. Then we can debate the points you are advancing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh Lord, not this thing. I have addressed this in detail previously and it can easily be found. I would go through it again but it isn't worth it. All information (including what I may reference) from this, edge of history period, is far too uncertain to even have a meaningful debate concerning. I have given plenty of info in response but there can be virtually nothing known for sure about the time period in question and that makes a debate boring and futile.

Lol. You can go on and think that. Keep those blinders on, buddy. They suit you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus is the exact image of his God and Father---- Both hate sin 100%--- Jesus will ride the white horse at Harmageddon and lead Gods armies to the earth and destroy all that is wicked and wickedness. 1% = the Few that found the narrow gate to the cramped path that leads to life.

This thread was started by a Calvinist. 1Robin is Christian/Baptist. You're a Jehovah Witness. Why don't you believe like they do? Do you believe Jesus is God? They probably do. The Bible and those that follow it vary in their beliefs. You guys don't even agree on an "objective" truth. God and Jesus can say they hate sin all they want, but why did he create the Christian version of The Adversary, knowing full well that he would rebel and take one third of the heavenly messengers with him? Why did he create animals and microscopic creatures that eat dead and dying flesh, if, in his "perfect" creation, he didn't plan on there being death and disease? Apparently, he did plan on it. Why does he allow extreme bad behavior? Why not zap the person before they hurt someone? He's done it in the past. And, supposedly he is coming on his white horse to do it in the future.

The Christian "objective" truth is because Eve got deceived? We're getting what we deserved and what we asked for? I don't think so. Besides, if it really happened like the Bible says, it was a set up. She wasn't smart enough or wise enough to make an informed decision. So why would a "just" and "loving" God curse her, her husband and all of humanity? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, 'cause God and Jesus hate sin. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[1robin]

Let’s see if we can pick up where we left off.
That is irrelevant to the crux of argument, which is that God is not all merciful and benevolent. You are just offering statements in mitigation. To dismiss or disregard a lifetime of suffering as a ‘microscopic blink of an eye’ is callous; and it also misses the point, for an act once done can never be undone. Your last sentence is just a straw man as far as my argument is concerned, because it is not being said that God is evil. God is simply unable or unwilling to be all merciful, an undeniable fact confirmed for us in everyday experience.

I was wondering if you were coming back. I saw perhaps the best non-theist debater and debate I have ever seen before. It was between Sean Carroll and Craig. Carroll was rational, humble (all to rare), and learned scholar and is an example of what the other side ought to do. I have never seen anyone that could hang with Craig and for the first time I cannot give Craig a victory. I think it was a tie. You ought to invest an hour or two in watching it.

Statements of mitigation are exactly what I should offer. My clarifications mitigated the applicability of your claims. I think your determination of what an all merciful God should do to mistakenly represent what he can do.

Since you are as usual making only points that flow from what words mean I had to look up all merciful. It, as every word you used that I looked for does not exist in the bible ( I have quit looking for them in dozens of versions as they turned out to not exist and now only use one or two major versions).

So before this goes any further you need to suggest a biblical description of God.

But you contradict yourself, twice, and in very clear terms, and then say you can see no contradiction!
You are stating that God can cause/permit evil, but only if the evil overcomes or alleviate a greater evil – and that is simply to confirm that great evil exists, which God causes/permits to exist in the first place! And then you say ‘if the purpose allowed no other methodology’, seemingly oblivious to the fact that any purpose is to overcome the evil caused/permitted by God. The circularity should be obvious.

Evil is caused by the rejection of God. All evil is a result of that. To prevent that God would have to prevent his own rejection. That would kill freewill, but if you had freewill for a split second I imagine you would claim that too was evil. So if God permits freewill and what it produces he is evil and if he stops both he is evil. That is a head you win tails God loses argument and not helpful. Again you must show one of two things.

1. God's purpose to allow freewill and the suffering it might produce for a limited time was unjustifiable given that love requires freewill.
2. Or that God could have met his exact same purpose using less inconvenient methods.

Yes I do know what ‘All merciful’ means, and so do you despite trying to find a semantic escape route. It is an inclusive term. If God were all merciful then his mercy and benevolence would be all encompassing and inclusive, as the term implies, and he would make no distinctions and no individual would suffer.

Your accusing me of a semantic out is the height of irony. It is your hyperbolic insistence on semantics that has caused me to be that insistent on it. I never choose to debate like that on my own. I grant common language use if allowed. You have not, so I cannot.

God desired love.
1. Love mandates freewill.
2. Freewill must include choosing wrong.
3. Choosing wrong mandates suffering.

So everything flows absolutely from God's desiring love. So you as always must show God was unjustified in desiring love.

Your semantic objection as usually has flaws.
1. The bible does not contain the label you objected to and your whole argument depends.
2. Even if found in it, the bible defines it's word usage. You cannot impose secular definition son biblical terminology in exactitude. It is a meaningless and futile effort. It only matters what the original word usage intended to convey.

Let me make this as simple as possible.

If God created man to exist in harmony with him, granted him freewill to freely chose it, gave chance after chance to repent based on the price he paid in full, and every single man ever born freely chose to deny their creator, God took back the life he created and all men ever born are annihilated. How does even that defy mercy? God is also Just. He is the lamb and also the lion of Judah. Taking either in a vacuum is to do justice to neither. Is God to pack heaven with rebels to meet your requirement that cannot even be found in the bible.

The above is irrelevant to the facts. My argument is very simple: I merely identify the facts and what is self-evident. And the self-evidential argument is that there is no being who is omnibenevolent and all merciful. Again, it is you who attempt to argue against the self-evidential truth by presenting a caricature (the very thing which I’m accused of by you) of a particular being that forms your doctrinal belief and in direct contradiction to the facts. With respect, I’m not getting any arguments from you other than obfuscated relies and inadequate excuses, which undermines credibility. And the Bible doesn’t explain away the fact of suffering, given that God is supposed to be omnibenevolent.

The facts are that God is defined by the Bible and your description does not exist there. If self evident then where is the argument. You claim God is all merciful, now you claim that is self evident, yet not true. Since God is not described in the bible as all merciful he is not obligated to be such and certainly not to be what you decided the term that is missing means. I simply disagree with the last half of that paragraph emphatically. I went back to look at what I said and unusually so found it extremely well stated and perfectly relevant and necessary. I think you have boxed your self in a corner which has betrayed you and you are simply thrashing about unhappy with that predicament.

I have to mention that you accuse me of ‘semantics’, when all I’ve done is to present you with the facts, and yet go to considerable trouble yourself to offer a semantically contrived apologetic.
And is it really okay that God can wreak his vengeance on mankind and then forgive us – for what? The evil and suffering that he caused and permitted?
And you agree with my argument by admitting that ‘God needn’t be ‘perfectly merciful in all cases.’ That’s exactly the case I’m making!

Again the fact is your semantic exercise is based on first a term not in the bible, second a term defined in exclusion to the bible. I am the one using biblical facts not you. I do not see any factual basis even if the term does apply to God but could be wrong. However I can't be wrong in insisting if it does appear in the bible it is wrong to bind God by it. I never suggested God must be merciful in all cases to begin with. No Christian doctrine teaches that. God always has the commodity of compassion but does not always actualize it, nor if he did so would that reflect justice. If you look at my three necessities that flow from purpose above every claim you make is made by eliminating one, two, or all three for consideration.

That doesn’t appear to make sense. What are you actually saying?

I typed God instead of good. I have a bad habit of always misspelling intended words, as correctly spelled unintended words.

 

[1robin]

Lol. You can go on and think that. Keep those blinders on, buddy. They suit you.

Are you planning to eventually debate in the debate forum at some point. You cannot declare reality into existence and I would not waste my time trying to. If an argument makes an appearance at some point I will see to it at that time.

 

[1robin]

Aquinas is undoubtedly one of the greatest theologians. But not one of the greatest philosophers, for as Russell said of Aquinas: ‘He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead.’ He first declares for the Catholic faith. ‘The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.’ (Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy)

I do not think he was always at the philosophical pinnacle either but I do not think my disagreements with him stemmed from bias. I simply think in a few cases time produced greater clarity than he had. If you want a rebuttal to the supplied accusations of bias I will need specific examples but that is not really the issue. He has one of the greatest theological philosophy reputations in history, yet I never claimed omnipotence concerning him.

No, of course not! I’m saying instead of just dropping names or appealing to authority figures, you instead state the bones of the arguments you’re alluding to. Then we can debate the points you are advancing.

Appealing to authority is one of the most common forms of resolution or persuasion in law, historical studies, science, in fact every area that comes to mind uses it extensively. Why is it only challenged as a method for theology? I usually use those claims for a specific purpose. Either to indicate qualified conclusions to the opposite of what was claimed exist, or for a sufficiency of evidence issue. In those cases at least only names are necessary. Arguments themselves do not get better or worse by linking them to names.

 

[1robin]

This thread was started by a Calvinist. 1Robin is Christian/Baptist. You're a Jehovah Witness. Why don't you believe like they do? Do you believe Jesus is God? They probably do. The Bible and those that follow it vary in their beliefs. You guys don't even agree on an "objective" truth. God and Jesus can say they hate sin all they want, but why did he create the Christian version of The Adversary, knowing full well that he would rebel and take one third of the heavenly messengers with him? Why did he create animals and microscopic creatures that eat dead and dying flesh, if, in his "perfect" creation, he didn't plan on there being death and disease? Apparently, he did plan on it. Why does he allow extreme bad behavior? Why not zap the person before they hurt someone? He's done it in the past. And, supposedly he is coming on his white horse to do it in the future.

The Christian "objective" truth is because Eve got deceived? We're getting what we deserved and what we asked for? I don't think so. Besides, if it really happened like the Bible says, it was a set up. She wasn't smart enough or wise enough to make an informed decision. So why would a "just" and "loving" God curse her, her husband and all of humanity? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, 'cause God and Jesus hate sin. Sorry, I forgot.

We at times disagree because we are discussing the 750,000 most controversial and divisive words in history. They are at times symbolic, apocalyptic, analogous, cryptic, or require much effort to understand fully in non core areas. That being said I see nothing in the surface reading of their statement you responded to that I disagree with.

As for Satan God did not create him as an adversary. He was at one time a faithful archangel. He like man was given freewill. He rebelled and became God's adversary and so one to man. The reasons for this are as follows. Eve was judged because she violated the only order that was required of her. Exactly where is the injustice? Also note that God did not separate himself from her. She separated herself from him. Much evidence exists to suggest she was later reconciled to God even though she had betrayed the only request made of her. She literally wanted to be God, or as God. Is that simply to be hand waived away?

God's purpose for creation was to freely granted love.
1. This necessitates freewill.
2. That necessitates the power to chose wrongly.
3. That necessitates suffering. To deny God is to deny what sustains the good.

Since 1 - 3 follow necessarily no complaint can be made. If a complaint is to be given it must concern God's purpose not the purposes necessary aspects.