You are a product tester...

[Atomist]

and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame-resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discovered your neighbor's house on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stood by and watched the family perish. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

A) All-powerful
B)All-knowing
C) All-loving
D)Mysterious

Source: Ebon Musings: Religion 101 Final Exam

 

[Skwim]

and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame-resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discovered your neighbor's house on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stood by and watched the family perish. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

A) All-powerful
B)All-knowing
C) All-loving
D)Mysterious

Source: Ebon Musings: Religion 101 Final Exam

E] Idiotic: for coming home while while dressed in a flame-resistant suit and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher.

 

[Atomist]

E] Idiotic: for coming home while while dressed in a flame-resistant suit and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher.

The christian god?

 

[JustWondering]

I found the exam amusing.

 

[Engyo]

I never liked those neighbors anyway.

 

[Willamena]

and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame-resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discovered your neighbor's house on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stood by and watched the family perish. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

A) All-powerful
B)All-knowing
C) All-loving
D)Mysterious

Source: Ebon Musings: Religion 101 Final Exam

E) None of the Above.

 

[Willamena]

The christian god?

Oh, I thought it was about those fire fighters last month.

 

[ChristineES]

I always find these tests a little bit silly. Why not just come right out and ask "Why doesn't God rescue people from ______?" Why try to be so coy?

 

[Atomist]

I always find these tests a little bit silly. Why not just come right out and ask "Why doesn't God rescue people from ______?" Why try to be so coy?

The purpose is to show that if someone did that in real life we would be very appalled but if god did that people would make excuses for her.

I mean if I asked that straight up I'm inclined to be given excuses... but I don't know if you want to give excuses for the product designer when he or she is not directly god.

 

[stillsearching]

The purpose is to show that if someone did that in real life we would be very appalled but if god did that people would make excuses for her.

I mean if I asked that straight up I'm inclined to be given excuses... but I don't know if you want to give excuses for the product designer when he or she is not directly god.

But now those people are living with said God and they are in bliss living with him. Doesn't that mean He was all-loving?

 

[Atomist]

But now those people are living with said God and they are in bliss living with him. Doesn't that mean He was all-loving?

Still has to be demonstrated that god exist... but lets grant that for the sake of argument.

That argument sound a lot like this:

But now those people are living with cats and they are in bliss living with cats. Doesn't that mean cats are all loving?

 

[Man of Faith]

I always find these tests a little bit silly. Why not just come right out and ask "Why doesn't God rescue people from ______?" Why try to be so coy?

Because that has already been asked in multiple threads. This is similar to the myriad of ways that Christens pronounce Pascal’s Wager. The point trying to be made in all of these threads is that hell is immoral. Atheists use many different scenarios and ways to say this but that is what it comes down to.

I have a question for Atheists. Is sending someone to hell an absolute immoral act?

 

[Atomist]

Because that has already been asked in multiple threads. This is similar to the myriad of ways that Christens pronounce Pascal’s Wager. The point trying to be made in all of these threads is that hell is immoral. Atheists use many different scenarios and ways to say this but that is what it comes down to.

Obviously you didn't read the OP...

I have a question for Atheists. Is sending someone to hell an absolute immoral act?

2 things
1) Answer the OP first
2) Hell is not a product of an all loving god and hell is incoherent.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because that has already been asked in multiple threads. This is similar to the myriad of ways that Christens pronounce Pascal’s Wager. The point trying to be made in all of these threads is that hell is immoral. Atheists use many different scenarios and ways to say this but that is what it comes down to.

I have a question for Atheists. Is sending someone to hell an absolute immoral act?

I'm not sure anyone used the word "immoral," I've seen many folks including myself use the word "malevolent" though.

Atheists are pointing out the discrepancy between God having the supposed attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence simultaneously while allowing or actively perpetuating the existence of Hell or even suffering on Earth. It's a logical contradiction, not explicitely a moral contradiction (though it may indeed be that as well).

 

[Riverwolf]

Unfair comparison based on a very limited view of God.

If this aptly describes the Christian God, show me all of the verses from the NT that describe Him as all-loving (or even "mysterious").

Not to mention, let me add a condition: those neighbors are active supporters of terrorism, and you only found out about this earlier today. You were going to call the police when you got home, but saw the fire and decided not to.

Would the anger at your actions be so universal, now?

 

[Atomist]

Unfair comparison based on a very limited view of God.

I think you missed the point of the thread... It was never suppose to be based on a general view of god

If this aptly describes the Christian God, show me all of the verses from the NT that describe Him as all-loving (or even "mysterious").

Now now... do you people to do that... I mean especially when a goal is to show the idea of an all loving "neighbor" is absurd given this condition

Not to mention, let me add a condition: those neighbors are active supporters of terrorism, and you only found out about this earlier today. You were going to call the police when you got home, but saw the fire and decided not to.

Would the anger at your actions be so universal, now?

So what you're saying is all loving and vindictive are not mutually exclusive... plus that's not a valid analogy since he obvious allowed innocent people to die and innocent families to suffer (say 9/11)... Unless you want to argue that all the "innocent" families and victims were somehow bad people and thus should be punished.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think you missed the point of the thread... It was never suppose to be based on a general view of god

Then which Christian denomination's view of God do you want to talk about?

Now now... do you people to do that... I mean especially when a goal is to show the idea of an all loving "neighbor" is absurd given this condition

I believe in God, but I don't believe that He is all-loving. I've never read ANY Scripture that's made that claim, and the world also supports that notion.

So what you're saying is all loving and vindictive are not mutually exclusive...

...not really. In fact, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.

I added a condition. Your argument was that people make excuses for a certain God-concept who does this, but those same people would be appalled if a human did the same thing. However, with the conditions you provided, the hypothetical product tester was never on the same level as ANY concept of God (at least none that I've ever heard of). I added a condition to help level out the playing field a bit.

plus that's not a valid analogy since he obvious allowed innocent people to die and innocent families to suffer (say 9/11)...

Okay, that reference to 9/11 seems random in the context of what you're talking about.

Unless you want to argue that all the "innocent" families and victims were somehow bad people and thus should be punished.

In the condition that I added, those neighbors are hardly innocent. By "supporters of terrorism" I mean secretly giving help to terrorists, not people who simply agree with them. There's a difference.

 

[Goodlivn]

I believe in God, but I don't believe that He is all-loving. I've never read ANY Scripture that's made that claim, and the world also supports that notion.

John 3:16 "god so loved the world..."

or some such

 

[stillsearching]

Still has to be demonstrated that god exist... but lets grant that for the sake of argument.

That argument sound a lot like this:

But now those people are living with cats and they are in bliss living with cats. Doesn't that mean cats are all loving?

I am more of a dog person so if I was living in bliss with dogs then, yes, dogs would be all loving. Dogs are generally more loving than cats anyway.

 

[Riverwolf]

John 3:16 "god so loved the world..."

or some such

...that just says that God really loves the world, not that He's all-loving.