Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
This suggests that God created certain persons knowing that they would be damned to Hell. How is that any different to creating them for Hell?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're kind of asking why God doesn't just send Satan's people to hell before they have a chance to live. He says that he allows the weeds to grow amongst the wheat so as to not disrupt the wheat from growing. In the afterlife the results of people's behavior to finally come back to them. Until then, people are granted mercy enough to repent in between the time they committed the offense and when they die.
We are not kept from doing those things, we just do not know how to do them.
To stop evil would mean we would be unable to do things we already know how to do.
This suggests that God created certain persons knowing that they would be damned to Hell. How is that any different to creating them for Hell?
God is the potter and people are the clay.
Which means that we are helpless. Whether we end up in Heaven or Hell isn't up to us at all; it's up to the potter who moulds us however he pleases.
If nothing is impossible for God and things like genocide, the holocaust, rapes & molesting of children, famines, destructive tsunamis, destructive earthquakes and destructive tornadoes do occur, then it defines God as NOT loving.
How do you know God is everywhere? Have you searched every last corner of the universe and failed to find a spot where he wasn't?
When you say "it still depends", what is "it"? Why would genocide be necessary?
If God is capable of preventing the aforementioned calamities, then by definition, God isn't loving. Why? Because such atrocities do occur. A loving being who was capable of preventing such atrocities would prevent them.
Most people who believe in God say he is supernatural, not natural. Can you please explain what you mean by natural?
If he can do anything but chooses not to prevent the aforementioned catastrophes, then by definition, he wouldn't be loving.
If he were all-loving, he would have to prevent catastrophes - or he would cease to be all-loving.
If God can do anything, then he could cause the internet to be available without requiring a genocidal event to occur.
How does God get his knowledge of every possible outcome?
Once again, you're revealing that you hold an implicit belief that God is not all-good.
Why do you suppose some people hate God?
Your explanation fails because if God can do anything, then he can cause that incredible harvest for villagers whether the tornado occurs or the tornado doesn't occur. Or do you believe that stopping the tornado would diminish God's omnipotence?
A central thing I believe you are mixing up is ability VS obligation. You are also mixing up perceived inaction with hate, or lack of love. Huge errors in logic.
God can do anything and everything.
He is not obligated to do anything.
Just because He chooses not to do something does not mean He can't do it.
I am not chewing gum at this moment - not because I cannot chew gum, but because I don't want to.
Because I am not chewing gum, I do not automatically qualify as a Stalinist.
You [should] know that many of the people that died in Afghanistan and Iraq were children and women. Are you, therefore, bad because you did nothing to stop it? After all, "humans can do anything they put their minds to, so surely you could have stopped those wars."
No god - good or evil - has an obligation to its creation. No god. If that makes you feel milky, it is unfortunately neither here or there: those gods will still be gods, and He will still exist.
All of the other emotionalism and queries on life is a filler of information if you get the first four lines down.
If that's the case, why call him "good"? He is not obligated to do good.
He is not obligated to keep his covenants or to judge justly or to show mercy and compassion.
He can be cruel and callous if he so desires. We are merely his playthings, created for his amusement perhaps.
And, yet He does good every picosecond. Your life, and the fact that He doesnt delight in your torture is one good thing at least, no?
And, yet He does to everyone He makes them with.
Abraham has had billions of kids, easily fitting the simile God gave him as promise. And, since the end of the world has not happened yet, Abraham's seed is still continuing. God even let Esau have his due portion of inheritance since he was from Isaac - who God blessed. Esau sold it to Jacob. God told Abraham he would have a child. He did, despite what modern science said was possible. God said that He wanted to know if Abraham lived Him more than Isaac, so He told him to sacrifice his only son (a foreshadow to Christ.) Of course, God did no make Abraham do it, and gave Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead (another foreshadow to Christ.)
God promised all of us that there would be a new covenant/agreement between whoever believes in His son, His works, and follows Him. When the dead rose (especially Christ,) God's promise of abundant, new life was fulfilled.
He promised Job a replenishment of his entire livelihood including kids and wife. He delivered.
He promised the Hebrews that if the followed Him, and temporally Moses, He would lead them to land flowing with milk and honey. He vindicated the evil of the serpent; let's find a serpentine animal that walks on legs, without hugging dirt or Terra...
Playthings worth less to Him than a star? Because, when Adam was made in Enoch, God appointed four stars for him. He chose to let His son who literally has no ending or beginning die for us playthings. Would you die for a rubber ducky? Would you let your son die for rubber duckies you made in your image so that they could live - considering your ducks are just for the bathtub play?
So you believe in a god who is omnipotent at all times. Unless you don't believe that the aforementioned catastrophes occur, then you hold the implicit belief that God doesn't love everyone.No.If God didn't allow evil, would he still be able to achieve his purpose? If not, then he isn't omnipotent. If so, then why allow evil?
But He is STILL omnipotent.
If God is omnipotent, then if he prevents the aforementioned catastrophes, he could still have what he wants. More to the point, if he is all-loving and omnipotent, he could have what he wants by preventing such catastrophes. Since he doesn't, it means he either isn't omnipotent or he doesn't love people enough to prevent such calamities.Because what God wants can be achieved through evil. He CAN have what He wants.
I'm not the one positing an omnipotent god. Christians are.Do you know what He wants? Can He simply say: "Be it" and gets what He wants? God wants YOU. Could He have you? Can He create something like you and automatically belong to Him? Is that you the same as YOU?
God gets me, finally. How does He do that?
The question isn't self-contradictory. If you think it is, please tell me exactly what about it you think is self-contradictory. What's self-contradictory is revealed by the question - and that is the god posited by Christians.Same old, same old...
This question has been demonstrated to be self-contraditory, pointless and silly. It has been answered countless times by many different people.
Here it is again.
Anyone making contradictory claims discredit their overall claim.Someone answer this: Why do atheists keep beating a dead horse? I mean, everyone salutes those with 'grit' and 'stick to it' attitude. But this is past farce.
Atheists claim ignorant Christians discredit Christianity. In some cases, I agree. Therefore, the same atheists have to admit: stupid atheists discredit atheism.
Now you're really contradicting yourself. God can't love everyone and be able to do anything in the presence of mass calamities.But God does love everyone, like it or not.
But not everyone, such as you, likes Him.
So, He is omnipotent. Should He "makes" you like Him?
Good point. It's like the kid who says A+B=C, then says C-B does not equal A, but never does the algebra to see that both of those can't be true.Atheists keep bringing it up because Christian apologists have not advanced a satisfying answer to the problem. The answer they give is typically a variation on "It's necessary to have free will," or "Man introduced evil into the world," or the "God works in mysterious ways" canard.
I've read The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis. CS Lewis doesn't reconcile the problem. What he does is redefine terms - which is really a straw man with respect to my OP.This thread, or a version of it, gets posted every few months.
Anyone actually interested in answers should read this:
Not exactly. According to many Christians, I am destined for Hell simply because of my non-belief.
But he doesn't have to. He could break his covenant and risk no punishment as a consequence.
Having God manipulate Abraham like that doesn't exactly speak to his goodness. But then again, as you noted, he is under no obligation to be good.
Manipulating Job to make a point also doesn't speak well to his goodness.
He also ordered the destruction of entire peoples.
He also blamed Adam and Eve for his mistakes, having created them without the ability to morally appraise his commands,
and then punished them for having acquired that ability from forbidden fruit that he placed within their reach, fully aware of the outcome that would ensue.
This tells me that you reconcile the problem of evil by holding the belief that God doesn't love everyone enough to stop mass calamities.A central thing I believe you are mixing up is ability VS obligation. You are also mixing up perceived inaction with hate, or lack of love. Huge errors in logic.
God can do anything and everything.
He is not obligated to do anything.
Just because He chooses not to do something does not mean He can't do it.
No I am not bad because I did nothing to stop it. But if I was capable of stopping it and loved the people who were about to get slaughtered, then it wouldn't be representative of my loving nature if I failed to stop it.I am not chewing gum at this moment - not because I cannot chew gum, but because I don't want to.
Because I am not chewing gum, I do not automatically qualify as a Stalinist.
You [should] know that many of the people that died in Afghanistan and Iraq were children and women. Are you, therefore, bad because you did nothing to stop it? After all, "humans can do anything they put their minds to, so surely you could have stopped those wars."
Now it's clear to me you believe in a god who is at best indifferent to our plight and at worst sadistic. But certainly not a god who is loving.No god - good or evil - has an obligation to its creation. No god. If that makes you feel milky, it is unfortunately neither here or there: those gods will still be gods, and He will still exist.
What exactly do you think the purpose of my agenda is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?