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

[idav]

the second he does not know something, in your example the outcome, he ceases to be be all knowing.

Knowing doesn't cease. The knowledge is there of what happens if God decides to intervene, assuming god really has free will to do so.

 

[Copernicus]

Knowing doesn't cease. The knowledge is there of what happens if God decides to intervene, assuming god really has free will to do so.

This raises another interesting philosophical conundrum. Can an omniscient being even have free will? Does God know every action he will ever take? If so, then he has no power to change anything. He can't help himself but create everything the way he initially decides. If not, then he cannot be certain of the future, which is something that his omniscience is supposed to cover.

The more you try to make sense of omniscience and omnipotence, the less sense they make as coherent attributes that a being could possibly have. In any case, the Bible describes God's behavior as if he were capable of being surprised by, and disappointed with, human behavior, even though he is supposedly a being whose omniscience prevents surprise and omnipotence prevents frustration.

 

[CG Didymus]

This raises another interesting philosophical conundrum. Can an omniscient being even have free will? Does God know every action he will ever take? If so, then he has no power to change anything. He can't help himself but create everything the way he initially decides. If not, then he cannot be certain of the future, which is something that his omniscience is supposed to cover.

The more you try to make sense of omniscience and omnipotence, the less sense they make as coherent attributes that a being could possibly have. In any case, the Bible describes God's behavior as if he were capable of being surprised by, and disappointed with, human behavior, even though he is supposedly a being whose omniscience prevents surprise and omnipotence prevents frustration.

How about the Christian concept of fallen angels? Do they have free will? If they don't then how did one third of them fall? If they do, then why trust any of them? Can we trust Gabriel and Michael? Why can't some of the fallen angels change their minds (repent) and go back to following God? But if, in his fore-knowledge, he knew they would fall, then that's different. I think? Let's see? He made them, knew they would rebel, and then made a place for them to be eternally punished for rebelling? But in the meantime, he sent them and their leader to try and get us to deny God. But, God, knows who will reject him, so why does He need the fallen angels to try and trick us? What a convoluted mess. If God is not evil, then what is he? He made it all? He made his opposite, but is not in or part of his opposite? Is he everywhere or not? He is the light but not in the darkness? He is love, but not hate? So he did create a place where he can't be. Then why not a rock he can't lift?

 

[Falvlun]

Free will, in this context, is only about moral free will. I though it was pretty obvious we can't defy gravity--which, btw, like animals, is innocent and incapable of moral free will.

I'm not talking about free-will here. I am talking about suffering. You claimed that suffering can be explained by free-will. Well, what about suffering that is not caused by free-will?

Isn't that just an extension of your first point?

See above. But I do not think there really is a distinction between "moral" free-will and "physical" free-will. That sounds like micro vs macro-evolution. Free-will is free-will. Anything that constrains you making a choice you want to make is a constraint upon your free-will.

Thus, gravity is a constraint upon my free-will, if I desire to fly. My parents were a constraint upon my free-will when they forced me to go to bed when I desired to stay up later. My lack of money is a constraint upon my free will, since it doesn't allow me to persue my desire of traveling all the time. Mental handicaps are a constaint on free-will since, depending on the handicap, these people are less able to reason, learn, and persue their desires. Being born in Saudi Arabia is a constraint on the free-will of many women, who desire to drive cars. And on and on.

I know this is hard to understand, but that's my whole point, He can't because He mustn't.

Why musn't he? Who's forcing the supreme omnipotent Being of the Universe?

 

[Copernicus]

How about the Christian concept of fallen angels? Do they have free will? If they don't then how did one third of them fall? If they do, then why trust any of them? Can we trust Gabriel and Michael? Why can't some of the fallen angels change their minds (repent) and go back to following God? But if, in his fore-knowledge, he knew they would fall, then that's different. I think? Let's see? He made them, knew they would rebel, and then made a place for them to be eternally punished for rebelling? But in the meantime, he sent them and their leader to try and get us to deny God. But, God, knows who will reject him, so why does He need the fallen angels to try and trick us? What a convoluted mess. If God is not evil, then what is he? He made it all? He made his opposite, but is not in or part of his opposite? Is he everywhere or not? He is the light but not in the darkness? He is love, but not hate? So he did create a place where he can't be. Then why not a rock he can't lift?

Well this takes us to all the issues that drive so many people to atheism, and it strays from the topic at hand. We are supposed to accept that there is some being we refer to as "God", and that being is inherently beyond our understanding. Given that assumption, is he evil because he allegedly caused all the suffering that humans have undergone?

Falvlun makes a very important point in this regard. There is a difference between human-caused suffering and other kinds of suffering. God is allegedly the prescient intentional progenitor of both.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We don't have the physical free will to jump off of a cliff and float. We do have the moral free will to choose to kill our neighbor and take his wife and stuff, or not.

Again, I'm not sure what distinction you're making. If I decided to pummel my neighbour with snowballs or lace his food with chocolate in an attempt to poison him, he'd live. An all-powerful God could have set up the universe so that these things would be fatal, but he didn't. He has already limited my ability to kill my neighbour.

If making human skin impervious to a snowball doesn't violate our "moral free will" (even if I might try to kill him with a snowball), why would it violate our "moral free will" to make us impervious to bullets?

Then you aren't picky about appreciating free will.

What I'm focusing on is the outcome: the people actually dying. You've talked about "moral free will" (which I take to mean something like "will" or "motivation") and "physical free will" (which I take to mean something like "means" or "capability"). Both need to be present to create the outcome. You've said that God won't compromise our "moral free will", but will compromise our "physical free will". However, since we need both to make our desires actually happen, I don't see how your argument does anything to explain how God couldn't stop the negative outcome from happening, since, AFAICT, he could do it by merely restricting "physical free will", which you say he can do.

All religious people who believe in the supernatural in this universe and divine revelation, absolutely.

And there's where the problem is.

The Problem of Evil... i.e. the thing we're talking about here, applies to a specific formulation of God with particular characteristics. It's those characteristics (combined with the fact of evil and suffering around us) that are what create the "problem" of the Problem of Evil.

Lots of people don't believe in a God with those particular characteristics, so the Problem of Evil doesn't apply to their beliefs. It seems to me that your argument amounts to saying that your God is not the God assumed in the Problem of Evil. If so, fine - you've got plenty of other believers in your camp.... but it doesn't actually do anything to resolve the Problem of Evil for those believers who do believe in the PoE's God.

His only action, if He exists, has been to create the natural universe. All choices and actions since have been ours.

So he's a bystander. Do bystanders not have moral responsibilities in your view?

Apparently, and it appears, logically so.

That's not logical; it's just a bald assertion.

The only evil that exists is when one human or group chooses to demean the EQUAL rights of others.

What on Earth does this mean?

The advantage of evil is its ability to lie--which God must not interfere with. The problem is those who assume that God intervenes. The author of Job tried to address this problem, but all he could come up with is, it's none of your business. Every revealed religion has the same problem, trying to explain why God doesn't answer prayers, and evil ones don't even ask Him t o.

Non sequitir? I don't think you were responding to the point I raised.

???

What I'm getting at is that I think you're confusing an "is" with an "ought". I'm saying that a set of beliefs has certain implications, and noting that people do actually hold those beliefs. Your argument that they shouldn't hold these beliefs is a red herring.

God does what He must to maintain free will--and that means non-interference. We are so indoctrinated (atheist and theist) into the idea that God interacts (or would if He exists), we're unable to comprehend why He wouldn't, and especially if the reason is only our free will.

And I think that you're so wrapped up in your own beliefs that you don't realize that you're just putting forward unsupported assertions, not unquestionable truths.

 

[CG Didymus]

I was thinking about another angle here. In some ancient religions the gods needed to be appeased or they would send plagues and natural disasters. Even in Judaism, it seems that God expected his Laws and rituals to be followed in order for him to send his blessings. If the people did evil in his sight, he would send calamities. This God is the same God that Lady B believes in. How does he respond now? Is he a righteous judge, and as soon as we willingly choose to turn away from him, he has no choice but to cause some kind of evil to befall on us?
It doesn't seem like it. It seems like people do have a free-will to do what ever they want, and we, as a group, have to make our own laws to try and control bad behavior. In everyday occurrences, God doesn't seem to be involved. Hurricanes, tsunamis, and mass murders seem random. He might be in control, but not like in the old days when he could pin point a lightening bolt to take out a bad guy. Now, he seems distant and indifferent, and if he's there and not doing anything, then if that isn't evil, then it's being plain old lazy.
Come on Lady B, what'ya got. There's got to be a good explanation, 'cause I'm beginning to lose my faith. Or, while all hell is breaking lose on Earth, is he just being patient with us? Because, he doesn't want to see any of us perish but to come to a saving knowledge of him?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

They are not the same.
Fulfillment or satisfaction is possible for a fully-determined being such as a robot. All you need to do is program it with needs that require fulfillment. Then contrive to fulfill those needs.

Fulfilling a requirement or a purpose can be accomplished without sentient consciousness and will. Animals eat and procreate, but they can't understand the "I" behind the purpose.

the second he does not know something, in your example the outcome, he ceases to be be all knowing.

To Copernicus, Mestemia and all who are making or agree with this argument. Yes, technically, even though an omnipotent being would have the power to retract our free will, providing us with the capability to have free will does limit God's omnipotence, making Him non-omnipotent. So God's omnipotence is reduced by the (limited) power He has imparted to us and could retract at any time. So what? We don't even know if God exists, much less if he "started out" being omnipotent. This is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth when we can't even see the horse.

You explained your argument on free will, but you didn't provide an answer to that point.
What about all evil and suffering that is not caused by free will? How do you justify its existence?

MORAL free will requires a rational, natural environment in which to exercise it without God looking over our shoulders. Every tragedy and God's non-intervention in it is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. But if there is a God, there must be an afterlife where eternity will remove that pain in an instant. We even see vestiges of that in the relief of grief that time provides in this life.

This raises another interesting philosophical conundrum. Can an omniscient being even have free will? Does God know every action he will ever take? If so, then he has no power to change anything. He can't help himself but create everything the way he initially decides.

Good question, and I believe the answer is that it could be one of the reasons He created us--not only for companionship, but to be surprised and delighted as well as bored and disappointed.

How about the Christian concept of fallen angels? Do they have free will?

Angels are a holdover from ancient pagan mythology. What purpose could they possibly serve for an omnipotent, omnipresent God, fallen or otherwise, who is everywhere and can do anything? They would not have the capability to have free will, never being able to have it tested. This is exactly why God created the Universe.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm not talking about free-will here. I am talking about suffering. You claimed that suffering can be explained by free-will. Well, what about suffering that is not caused by free-will?

It is all brought about by providing the circumstances to exercise free will.

I do not think there really is a distinction between "moral" free-will and "physical" free-will.

Gravity is part of the natural environment we've been provided. Being unable to override it is a natural limitation.

Do you not see the difference between not being able to float at will, and choosing to kill your neighbor or not? If we had physical free will we could use it to destroy any one we wanted to, before they destroyed us, by mere thought. Adam would have killed Eve right after she gave him the apple. Or she could have killed Adam and got it on with the Devil. Free will has to have a rational, natural environment, with natural limitations, in which it can be exercised rationally.

Again, I'm not sure what distinction you're making. If I decided to pummel my neighbour with snowballs or lace his food with chocolate in an attempt to poison him, he'd live. An all-powerful God could have set up the universe so that these things would be fatal, but he didn't. He has already limited my ability to kill my neighbour.

If moral choices have no consequences, there is no choice.

If making human skin impervious to a snowball doesn't violate our "moral free will" (even if I might try to kill him with a snowball), why would it violate our "moral free will" to make us impervious to bullets?

Same answer.

What I'm focusing on is the outcome: the people actually dying. You've talked about "moral free will" (which I take to mean something like "will" or "motivation") and "physical free will" (which I take to mean something like "means" or "capability"). Both need to be present to create the outcome. You've said that God won't compromise our "moral free will", but will compromise our "physical free will".

Our physical free will is limited by our natural capabilities. The alternative is immortality. if you start messing with that for some sort of in between situation, rationality is thrown out the window.

However, since we need both to make our desires actually happen, I don't see how your argument does anything to explain how God couldn't stop the negative outcome from happening, since, AFAICT, he could do it by merely restricting "physical free will", which you say he can do.

He could, but He mustn't, not with out making us immortal and revealing Himself, which would negate our free will. He must remove knowledge of His existence as far away from us as possible. Thus the 13+ billion year age of the universe.

And there's where the problem is.

The Problem of Evil... i.e. the thing we're talking about here, applies to a specific formulation of God with particular characteristics. It's those characteristics (combined with the fact of evil and suffering around us) that are what create the "problem" of the Problem of Evil.

Evil exists whether God exists or not--another reason for God keeping Himself unknown from us, if He exists.

Lots of people don't believe in a God with those particular characteristics, so the Problem of Evil doesn't apply to their beliefs.

It may not apply to their beliefs, but it still applies to them, whether they like it or not. Only God could change reality. We can't change it by believing it's something different than it is. If we could, we'd be God, and the universe would be in chaos.

So he's a bystander. Do bystanders not have moral responsibilities in your view?

A highly interested bystander. If He could prevent our suffering and maintain our free will, I'm sure He would. But He had to know from the beginning this would all occur. And against the backdrop of eternity, and our priceless gift of free will, do you judge Him wrong for that?

That's not logical; it's just a bald assertion.

It 's actually the only logical explanation for our situation. And the arguments for it are all the facts and evidence for it, and there is only hearsay evidence against it. But I can see where it isn't compatible with other "explanations".

What on Earth does this mean?

All evil derives from a moral double standard, and that is motivated by vanity. "My right to your life, liberty or property, is greater than your right to them", they say--and so on. Can you give and example where this doesn't apply?

Non sequitir? I don't think you were responding to the point I raised.

The Book of Job was written to try to explain why an interactive God doesn't reward good and punish the bad in this world, consistently. But the explanation is a brushoff by God (the author), who says it's not for you to know. IOW, it's a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

What I'm getting at is that I think you're confusing an "is" with an "ought". I'm saying that a set of beliefs has certain implications, and noting that people do actually hold those beliefs. Your argument that they shouldn't hold these beliefs is a red herring.

Now I'm confused. We can believe whatever we want and expect it to be true? I am indeed saying if they aren't true, if they are a lie, we shouldn't believe them. Why should anyone do otherwise. That appears to be what you're saying anyway.

And I think that you're so wrapped up in your own beliefs that you don't realize that you're just putting forward unsupported assertions, not unquestionable truths.

You haven't shown they're unsupported while I've shown at least something of the opposite. I come to forums like this in hopes that I can be shown whatever errors there might be. And there have been some, mostly minor, and it's been a long time since I've had to modify anything. I know that even you you believe me, that does you no good, and you can believe my intentions are honorable, and that does you no good either. All I can say is that the pieces are falling into place now almost on their own. Believe me or don't. Above all, the Truth speaks for itself, and I struggled against it myself for a long time. The last vestige of my former religion that I gave up the hardest, many years after I started this...."journey", was prophesy, fate and divine providence. That was when the pieces started flowing.

I was thinking about another angle here. In some ancient religions the gods needed to be appeased or they would send plagues and natural disasters. Even in Judaism, it seems that God expected his Laws and rituals to be followed in order for him to send his blessings. If the people did evil in his sight, he would send calamities. This God is the same God that Lady B believes in. How does he respond now? Is he a righteous judge, and as soon as we willingly choose to turn away from him, he has no choice but to cause some kind of evil to befall on us?
It doesn't seem like it. It seems like people do have a free-will to do what ever they want, and we, as a group, have to make our own laws to try and control bad behavior. In everyday occurrences, God doesn't seem to be involved. Hurricanes, tsunamis, and mass murders seem random. He might be in control, but not like in the old days when he could pin point a lightening bolt to take out a bad guy. Now, he seems distant and indifferent, and if he's there and not doing anything, then if that isn't evil, then it's being plain old lazy.
Come on Lady B, what'ya got. There's got to be a good explanation, 'cause I'm beginning to lose my faith. Or, while all hell is breaking lose on Earth, is he just being patient with us? Because, he doesn't want to see any of us perish but to come to a saving knowledge of him?

The reason is maintaining our free will. And He isn't indifferent. God, if He exists, created this universe for that specific purpose, the only purpose, our free will--but He cannot, must not intervene. And for the record, all hell has been breaking loose since time began, it fact it's been a whole lot worse at times.

People say "why doesn't God intervene. He used to in the old days". Says who? God? Who says God says?

C'mon, are you really gonna say "God" again.

 

[Lady B]

Wow, some good debates while I was absent !, will take a little time to read thru. Hope you all had lovely hollidays !

 

[Debater Slayer]

Wow, some good debates while I was absent !, will take a little time to read thru. Hope you all had lovely hollidays !

Welcome back, Lady B! I hope you had a lovely holiday too.

 

[Lady B]

I was thinking about another angle here. In some ancient religions the gods needed to be appeased or they would send plagues and natural disasters. Even in Judaism, it seems that God expected his Laws and rituals to be followed in order for him to send his blessings. If the people did evil in his sight, he would send calamities. This God is the same God that Lady B believes in. How does he respond now? Is he a righteous judge, and as soon as we willingly choose to turn away from him, he has no choice but to cause some kind of evil to befall on us?
It doesn't seem like it. It seems like people do have a free-will to do what ever they want, and we, as a group, have to make our own laws to try and control bad behavior. In everyday occurrences, God doesn't seem to be involved. Hurricanes, tsunamis, and mass murders seem random. He might be in control, but not like in the old days when he could pin point a lightening bolt to take out a bad guy. Now, he seems distant and indifferent, and if he's there and not doing anything, then if that isn't evil, then it's being plain old lazy.
Come on Lady B, what'ya got. There's got to be a good explanation, 'cause I'm beginning to lose my faith. Or, while all hell is breaking lose on Earth, is he just being patient with us? Because, he doesn't want to see any of us perish but to come to a saving knowledge of him?

Well, I can tell you what I have got, but you won't listen, I can tell you what I believe But you wont believe me, I can tell you what the Bible says regarding disaster, suffering and God's hand, But the Bible is but old parchments to you. Here is the thing, until faith comes to you, If faith comes to you, you will never have any answers or peace in what is unanswerable. In Luke 2 Jesus spoke about 2 atrocities, the people were grumbling amongst themselves saying " oh look at the Galilean they must have been horrid to earn such a fate as that" they were speaking of Pilot and how he mixed the blood of the Galilean in with the sacrifice, while I am not certain of the details of the event, sounds to me like a massacre of the same magnitude we see today. So Christ said to them," do you see yourselves as better then those galleons that suffered? Repent or your fate will be likewise". So what I see in this passage is God's judgment is on all people, none is more deserving and none is innocent in God's eyes.

You see God doesn't intervene, I see every morning I wake up and my heart still beats is intervention for me and a gift of grace.Look at how fragile our earth is, any day an asteroid could come into our sphere and cause absolute calamity. How do you see this has never happened in any great magnitude? Why not? What do you suppose is holding it back? Where you see devastations and sufferings, do you not see what is not being destroyed? Those who are not suffering? I see God intervening almost everyday, how many times have you said "Good luck"to someone? You really think it is luck?

Have you ever really read the book of Job? The underlining message is " hey humans, where were you when I created this earth? You are but a vapor that ceases to exist under direct sunlight....

I guess it is useless for you to consider the Bible's message, but It can give you an idea, how we believers don't want to question God's purpose in every great calamity, but we are sure he will use it for the good of us, somehow,sometime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If moral choices have no consequences, there is no choice.

Same answer.

So... if I try to kill someone and I'm unsuccessful at actually killing them, I haven't made a choice?

Our physical free will is limited by our natural capabilities. The alternative is immortality. if you start messing with that for some sort of in between situation, rationality is thrown out the window.

But we're in an in-between situation right now! We always have been and always will be.

Things that used to hurt and kill people no longer do. New things can hurt and kill us that never did before.

For instance, we've nearly eradicated polio. Before this, people would suffer and die from the disease all the time. Has our free will today been infringed? If it hasn't, then how would it have infringed the free will of people living in the past if they had lived in a polio-free world, too?

In the last century, we figured out how to kill people with nuclear fusion. If preventing this would deny our free will, then how could all the people had free will over the past hundreds of thousands of years where it was physically impossible for someone to kill them with an atom bomb?

He could, but He mustn't, not with out making us immortal and revealing Himself, which would negate our free will. He must remove knowledge of His existence as far away from us as possible. Thus the 13+ billion year age of the universe.

Please explain how knowledge negates free will.

Please also explain how you have knowledge of God, but have still (I assume) retained your free will. Or haven't you?

Evil exists whether God exists or not--another reason for God keeping Himself unknown from us, if He exists.

How is that a reason?

It may not apply to their beliefs, but it still applies to them, whether they like it or not. Only God could change reality. We can't change it by believing it's something different than it is. If we could, we'd be God, and the universe would be in chaos.

I think you're missing my point.

A highly interested bystander. If He could prevent our suffering and maintain our free will, I'm sure He would. But He had to know from the beginning this would all occur. And against the backdrop of eternity, and our priceless gift of free will, do you judge Him wrong for that?

How would the intervention of God negate free will any more than the intervention of anyone else?

When the fire department rushes in and puts out a house fire, we wouldn't say that the victims have been denied their free will. If God did exist, what would make him anything other than just another player (albeit maybe the wisest and most powerful player, perhaps) in the game?

It 's actually the only logical explanation for our situation. And the arguments for it are all the facts and evidence for it, and there is only hearsay evidence against it. But I can see where it isn't compatible with other "explanations".

That's absurd.

First off, you're making an argument from ignorance. "I can't see any other explanation" does not imply "there are no other explanations." You also haven't demonstrated that your explanation is logical, so it's not even clear that your own explanation passes the test that you say it should pass.

Second, we fallible humans reduce the amount of suffering in the world all the time. Are you arguing that the most powerful entity in the universe is less capable than we are?

All evil derives from a moral double standard, and that is motivated by vanity. "My right to your life, liberty or property, is greater than your right to them", they say--and so on. Can you give and example where this doesn't apply?

This statement looks to have so much assumption and question-begging in it that I have a feeling it's not worth my while to unpack it into something analyzable and actually evaluate whether it's true.

Edit: also, your challenge at the end is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It's your argument; it's up to you to defend it, not up to me to try to refute it. The mere fact that you came up with it does not imbue it with merit; you have to support it yourself.

The Book of Job was written to try to explain why an interactive God doesn't reward good and punish the bad in this world, consistently. But the explanation is a brushoff by God (the author), who says it's not for you to know. IOW, it's a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant to my point that you responded to.

Now I'm confused. We can believe whatever we want and expect it to be true? I am indeed saying if they aren't true, if they are a lie, we shouldn't believe them. Why should anyone do otherwise. That appears to be what you're saying anyway.

No, I'm saying that we can look at the internal consistency of a belief system without having to evaluate its external consistency.

The statement "if A, then B" has a truth value independent of the truth value of A. It is possible for the statement "if A, then B" to be true even if A itself is false.

You haven't shown they're unsupported while I've shown at least something of the opposite.

When I say they're unsupported, I mean that you haven't given support for them... and you haven't. You say you've been in other discussions in other forums before; while that's all fine and good, you didn't have them here, so the people here aren't privy to them.

Personally, I'm not prepared to accept your word that the arguments you gave elsewhere were excellent and that your position now has been carefully formulated and honed. If you want me to believe that, you'll have to show me. And so far, you haven't.

 

[idav]

This raises another interesting philosophical conundrum. Can an omniscient being even have free will? Does God know every action he will ever take? If so, then he has no power to change anything. He can't help himself but create everything the way he initially decides. If not, then he cannot be certain of the future, which is something that his omniscience is supposed to cover.

The more you try to make sense of omniscience and omnipotence, the less sense they make as coherent attributes that a being could possibly have. In any case, the Bible describes God's behavior as if he were capable of being surprised by, and disappointed with, human behavior, even though he is supposedly a being whose omniscience prevents surprise and omnipotence prevents frustration.

Knowledge is needed to have free will otherwise there wouldn't be a choice to make. Knowledge of the choices does not negate the other possibilities. It is never a surprise when they were all possibilities depending on will and action. That is an issue for omniscient because the path isn't taken till the will/omnipotnent kicks in which would mean everything single thing is a possible action for having total control and potential.

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, I can tell you what I have got, but you won't listen, I can tell you what I believe But you wont believe me, I can tell you what the Bible says regarding disaster, suffering and God's hand, But the Bible is but old parchments to you. Here is the thing, until faith comes to you, If faith comes to you, you will never have any answers or peace in what is unanswerable.

40 years ago I listened. I was a naive happy-go-lucky hippie eating health foods and doing yoga, then a Baha'i told me the "truth." I believed him. Then a Christian told me his truth. I believed him. I dumped the Baha'is. Then another Christian asked if I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They pushed on my forehead until I fell back and told me to open my mouth and make noises. They said that was my new prayer language. You're a Calvinist. What do you want me to do? And why is it the "right" way to believe? Where is the line where non-Calvinist Christians become so wrong that they can't be considered real Christians? If Jesus is the only way then way is there so many ways? And, they still keep coming. How many sects have developed out of Calvinism?
My original point was that if a non-Christian child dies does your interpretation of God grant that child a pardon, because they weren't old enough to know better? If God does, then how is that fair to the child's older brothers and sisters that could have and should have accepted Jesus, but didn't. And then, the parents, let's say the go to their religions services and do an exceptional job at being all around good people. Yet, they are going to hell, their children are going to hell and the only reason their other child won't join them is because they got killed too young to be found guilty by God. Or, too be consistent and allow the whole family to be together, does God send them all to hell for not knowing Jesus?
I'd be surprised if you had an answer, because there isn't a good answer. Do you or anyone have the perfect interpretation of Scriptures? Rabbis for centuries have studied and made commentaries, but Christians don't trust them. Catholics have met together and decided what some vague Scriptures mean, but you don't believe them. You come along and say that Calvin was right? He was a man. I don't trust him, but I'll listen, and I'll listen to you. I think you're amazing in how you've handled yourself. But, it's not a good response to pull the old, "you can't understand until you believe" thing out. We all have our blinders and rose colored glasses. Peace and be strong in your beliefs Lady B. I'll listen to you anytime.

 

[Koldo]

MORAL free will requires a rational, natural environment in which to exercise it without God looking over our shoulders.

So? Where are you trying to get at?

Every tragedy and God's non-intervention in it is a monument to God's commitment to our free will.

How so? Further explain this point. ( This is the most important part of your post and you haven't throughly explained it.)

But if there is a God, there must be an afterlife where eternity will remove that pain in an instant. We even see vestiges of that in the relief of grief that time provides in this life.

Actually, it is completely possible for a God to exist and no afterlife to exist. But this is irrelevant to this debate. What matters is that putting people into a given condition where they will experience major suffering can not be excused by giving some sort of reward at the end of the road. This would be akin to a random guy killing your father and giving you a million dollars. He is not excused from killing your father simply because he turned you into a millionarie.

 

[Lady B]

40 years ago I listened. I was a naive happy-go-lucky hippie eating health foods and doing yoga, then a Baha'i told me the "truth." I believed him. Then a Christian told me his truth. I believed him. I dumped the Baha'is. Then another Christian asked if I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They pushed on my forehead until I fell back and told me to open my mouth and make noises. They said that was my new prayer language. You're a Calvinist. What do you want me to do? And why is it the "right" way to believe? Where is the line where non-Calvinist Christians become so wrong that they can't be considered real Christians? If Jesus is the only way then way is there so many ways? And, they still keep coming. How many sects have developed out of Calvinism?
My original point was that if a non-Christian child dies does your interpretation of God grant that child a pardon, because they weren't old enough to know better? If God does, then how is that fair to the child's older brothers and sisters that could have and should have accepted Jesus, but didn't. And then, the parents, let's say the go to their religions services and do an exceptional job at being all around good people. Yet, they are going to hell, their children are going to hell and the only reason their other child won't join them is because they got killed too young to be found guilty by God. Or, too be consistent and allow the whole family to be together, does God send them all to hell for not knowing Jesus?
I'd be surprised if you had an answer, because there isn't a good answer. Do you or anyone have the perfect interpretation of Scriptures? Rabbis for centuries have studied and made commentaries, but Christians don't trust them. Catholics have met together and decided what some vague Scriptures mean, but you don't believe them. You come along and say that Calvin was right? He was a man. I don't trust him, but I'll listen, and I'll listen to you. I think you're amazing in how you've handled yourself. But, it's not a good response to pull the old, "you can't understand until you believe" thing out. We all have our blinders and rose colored glasses. Peace and be strong in your beliefs Lady B. I'll listen to you anytime.

Your very kind, and I find myself sad for your experiences in the religious sects you chose.It is so very disheartening to see how a person is thrown to and fro by confused people. There is nothing I need for you to do, nor does God need you to do anything, If one day he opens your heart and draws you to himself, you will have all you need to proceed in his Word. People have done grave misdeeds with scripture throughout all history, this baptizing in the holy spirit and acting like a demonic being is in no way biblical, but people will MIS-use scripture to find justification for their feel-good intents. Calvinism is not new, it is actually what our forefathers believed, It is justified only by scripture and not by man's interpretation. It is also not a feel-good, make your own Jesus theology. In fact it is quite offensive to many in these days. In this time in the world people don't want God, they don't want to be forced to do anything outside of their comfort zone, they put humanism first and God on an as-need basis and so interpret God's holy words to fit their needs. Catholics and Pentecostal are not so far off that we could judge them non-Christian, however they add to God's word what is not there, and If it isn't there, it is unnecessary at all. Bahai is not a bible based sect no matter how they choose to align themselves,they are their own religion with their own master and no threat to Christendom.

As for children. The Bible speaks of this exactly 3 times, In one important passage it is David mourning for his child and said " I know I will see him again". This is very important because first we know God took this child's life for his sin with Bethsheba, however David still knew God had that child with him and got up ,washed his face and took bread.

I will come back to this post in just a few and try to discuss other questions you have, Thanks for being patient.

 

[Copernicus]

Fulfilling a requirement or a purpose can be accomplished without sentient consciousness and will. Animals eat and procreate, but they can't understand the "I" behind the purpose.

I don't think that you are in a position to know what other animals think about themselves, but that is a red herring in regard to the original point you seemed to be trying to make about determinism. Determined beings can be programmed to feel "fulfilled". What is not "free" in these discussions over free will is what our desires are. We don't get to choose what we desire to do. We can only choose to resist or give in to a desire, and we only ever do so when there are conflicting desires.

To Copernicus, Mestemia and all who are making or agree with this argument. Yes, technically, even though an omnipotent being would have the power to retract our free will, providing us with the capability to have free will does limit God's omnipotence, making Him non-omnipotent. So God's omnipotence is reduced by the (limited) power He has imparted to us and could retract at any time. So what? We don't even know if God exists, much less if he "started out" being omnipotent. This is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth when we can't even see the horse.

You keep forgetting that we are dealing with a hypothetical case here. Given the existence of the Calvinist God, do we judge him evil? The concept of "depraved indifference" applies here. If God had a choice to prevent evil and failed to prevent it, then we would normally judge that kind of restraint as depraved indifference to suffering. Calvinists are not claiming that we have any choices from God's perspective. God already knows who will be condemned by him, and he chooses not to intervene to prevent that condemnation. Or does he really have any choice in the matter?

MORAL free will requires a rational, natural environment in which to exercise it without God looking over our shoulders. Every tragedy and God's non-intervention in it is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. But if there is a God, there must be an afterlife where eternity will remove that pain in an instant. We even see vestiges of that in the relief of grief that time provides in this life.

Let's try to stay focused on the particular version of God under discussion here. That God does not see us as having a choice to do other than what he knows we will do. Rube Goldberg created some wonderful chain reactions, but he was still responsible for what his machines did. He couldn't step away from them and say that it wasn't his fault that the ball dropped in the middle of the chain reaction he set off. If the ball did what it was programmed to do, then it did what he desired it to do.

Good question, and I believe the answer is that it could be one of the reasons He created us--not only for companionship, but to be surprised and delighted as well as bored and disappointed.

Lady B has told us that we cannot really understand her God's motives. Maybe your God has more understandable motives. If he's just looking for companionship and freedom from boredom, he sounds like a nice guy. He still doesn't sound any more plausible to me than Lady B's God.

Angels are a holdover from ancient pagan mythology. What purpose could they possibly serve for an omnipotent, omnipresent God, fallen or otherwise, who is everywhere and can do anything? They would not have the capability to have free will, never being able to have it tested. This is exactly why God created the Universe.

Didn't Satan fail the test?

 

[Lady B]

40 years ago I listened. I was a naive happy-go-lucky hippie eating health foods and doing yoga, then a Baha'i told me the "truth." I believed him. Then a Christian told me his truth. I believed him. I dumped the Baha'is. Then another Christian asked if I had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They pushed on my forehead until I fell back and told me to open my mouth and make noises. They said that was my new prayer language. You're a Calvinist. What do you want me to do? And why is it the "right" way to believe? Where is the line where non-Calvinist Christians become so wrong that they can't be considered real Christians? If Jesus is the only way then way is there so many ways? And, they still keep coming. How many sects have developed out of Calvinism?
My original point was that if a non-Christian child dies does your interpretation of God grant that child a pardon, because they weren't old enough to know better? If God does, then how is that fair to the child's older brothers and sisters that could have and should have accepted Jesus, but didn't. And then, the parents, let's say the go to their religions services and do an exceptional job at being all around good people. Yet, they are going to hell, their children are going to hell and the only reason their other child won't join them is because they got killed too young to be found guilty by God. Or, too be consistent and allow the whole family to be together, does God send them all to hell for not knowing Jesus?
I'd be surprised if you had an answer, because there isn't a good answer. Do you or anyone have the perfect interpretation of Scriptures? Rabbis for centuries have studied and made commentaries, but Christians don't trust them. Catholics have met together and decided what some vague Scriptures mean, but you don't believe them. You come along and say that Calvin was right? He was a man. I don't trust him, but I'll listen, and I'll listen to you. I think you're amazing in how you've handled yourself. But, it's not a good response to pull the old, "you can't understand until you believe" thing out. We all have our blinders and rose colored glasses. Peace and be strong in your beliefs Lady B. I'll listen to you anytime.

I want to go back to your question about child death. Of course I cannot give you an answer and you well know there isn't one in scripture either. We know God loves children and many Biblical scholars agree that there is a age of acountability.Personnally because of he story of David and his infant, I believe all young children are sanctified and will enter heaven. You say that isn't fair to the siblings who chose unbelief? I don't follow your reasoning here. If in fact there is an age of accountability, and after such time a child is responsible for his rejection of Christ and does so, how is this unfair that God decreed others to die before this period? As for an entire family entering hell because God chooses to keep the families together, that is absurd to me. If an entire family chooses to reject God, then they all will perish, If one excepts Christ out of them, he alone will see Heaven.It is sad to think in our loved ones perishing while we enjoy God's presence, but I hardly think its unfair on God's part.

I have been to funerals of Unsaved loved ones and let me tell you, I cry harder for them than anyone I can be sure has seen heaven. It is a hard thing to go through, but I also have hope that even though we think we knew the heart of them, God alone really knows. Maybe they did come to the saving knowledge of grace before they died, who can really know save God? If anything we should be reminded by Christ's words " Repent or you will likewise perish".

And something else you asked" what makes me right if there are so many ways to heaven? In my belief and that of all real Christians, there is only one way." I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me". There is no other way and while some Christian sects go away from the Bibles actual teachings in many matters, They all believe in this number one doctrine. If anyone tells you different you may certainly question whether or not they are a Christian.Calvinism does not separate from lets say Baptists or even Pentecostal,Lutheran, Methodists etc.. We do separate from Catholicism but for the Mary issues more than anything else. I am sure Catholics who keep the doctrines of grace though they pray to Mary can still be Christians and the men who hit you on the head in order to baptize you in the holy spirit can be also. We all go astray by our lack of understanding in certain things, God did not put a requirement of scholarship on anyone and so we have many that will lead others away from the truth and the Truth being God's word, the bible. This is my belief, so bare with me, those who unbeliever.

 

[Lady B]

I'd be surprised if you had an answer, because there isn't a good answer. Do you or anyone have the perfect interpretation of Scriptures? Rabbis for centuries have studied and made commentaries, but Christians don't trust them. Catholics have met together and decided what some vague Scriptures mean, but you don't believe them. You come along and say that Calvin was right? He was a man. I don't trust him, but I'll listen, and I'll listen to you. I think you're amazing in how you've handled yourself. But, it's not a good response to pull the old, "you can't understand until you believe" thing out. We all have our blinders and rose colored glasses. Peace and be strong in your beliefs Lady B. I'll listen to you anytime.

The Bible is not so difficult really, sometimes when we see a difficult passage we need help from someone who earnestly studies the original language and can execute the definitions of certain words and their use in contexts. Myself, I have a hard time with revelations, I have been meaning to really dig in and try to discern, but I can't seem to keep motivated towards my goal. Calvin was just a man, I don't trust him above God sure, But I have found he is not really the founder of Calvinism but God was. He was just a Great man with awsome discernment. I honestly find some have taken his teachings too far in some things, and thus we have hyper-calvanism which is essentially no free will at all =robots, and no zeal for witnessing,which goes against Christ's great command and therfore cannot be truth.

The reason I 'pull the ole you need faith to understand' line is in all sincerity really. Some things we just cannot know, I wish I could google you the answers or call Calvin from his grave, or better yet ask God in person....But I cannot and so that is truly my best answer for you. If I knew any answer you seek is in scripture, I would not sleep till I found it for you. But some questions are just not to be answered...