I think you error by saying that God created Satan knowing ahead of time that he would destroy God's plan; Satan's evil plans are used in God's plan. God's responsibility is in creating free will, free will seems very important to all of God's plan.
So you believe god created Satan and that he knew ahead of time what Satan would do in all possible world's correct?
So God created the garden knowing that Satan was going to trick Eve. This is all according to God's plan of course, he is just using Satan right? So who then is responsible for the fall of man? God knew before he created Adam and Eve that they would sin, he created them with a nature inclined to sin (so how were they perfectly created then?) but without knowledge of what sin was (remember in your story they haven't eaten from that tree yet). So either he never intended for humans to live in the paradise of Eden or he messed up.
To your second point about this being about free will, I remind you that you have yet to make a biblical case that free will is important to God (that si the part later that you said you couldn't scroll up to find. You had said you wanted time to look into that, since free will is so central to your arguments here).
He knows what every person created will do in all possible situations and all possible worlds. With this knowledge He has determined I assume that this is the best possible world for us to be saved and for the most souls to live in communion with Him. It is conceivable that in every possible situation the person would still do something sinful. If there is a limit on our will, it is not free.
So I notice that you slid in the phrase " I assume", but what evidence do you have experienced that this is the best of all possible worlds?
Free will would not have limits upon it or we would not have free will. We would have semi-free will or partial free will but not totally free will. I don't think that there is a middle ground here. Your example is not totally free will and in that would not be free.
So does this mean that you don't have free will because you are unable to flap your arms and fly like a bird? You do after all seem to have the limit of not being able to choose to do this.
I scrolled up and this doesn't make sense to me with what you are quoting and your response. I will later go back and see if I am missing something here.
It was the case for free will as being important to God.
Now, if what I say is true and the Christian God is actually real then no other God exists and so yes, they would be deluding themselves. That or as God is the God of all, may at times move in relationship to their needs.
So either people are deluding themselves or God answers when people pray to Allah and Vishnu.
So how can you be certain you are not deciving yourself?
Why in the Bible does God not seem to answer the prayers of people praying to different gods?
Nothing in the Bible makes this claim, that the African Americans were
dirty, lesser or animal like. IN fact, quite the opposite. We as Christians are not suppose to do anything but love the sinner and so as Christians we are not to judge, that is God's place.
I not saying the Bible does say this. My point was that telling someone they are lesser to the point of being an abomination (as in the case of homosexuals) is damaging psychologically and emotionally and that African Americans are an example of a similar phenomenon.
I think you are aware of the universe from nothing concept from the Bible...here is the other example I brought up about life starting in the seas:
I am familiar with it, what I wonder is why you think it is impossible that this idea came up culturally. Why is the only possible explanation for this story, that God told them?
21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
So you are saying that sea monsters really means single celled organisms? And that because the sea monsters are listed first that this implies that all life in the rest of the list is evolved from them? Does the rest of the list follow the accepted science in order in evolutionary history. I don't know, I am actually curious.
So an overview of this is that the day includes first the Paleozoic and next the Mesozoic
Wait... what? Are you saying that this all happened in a single day but then God messed with the geological evidence so that it would look like a long time?
The details of the Creation Narrative in the Christian Bible most accurately fits with evidence we have garnered from the universe.
Do you mean that having looked at the universe and having read the Bible it should be clear to all that Yahweh is the God who made the universe? But we (and the Bible verse itself) are talking about people who don't have the Bible, who haven't heard the gospel. How could these people be expected to deduce just from the evidence of the universe alone (thiseams no Bible, no Christian teaching telling them how to interpret the data) that your God is the one true God?
You have focused on the children being killed in the Bible as being immoral but have said that the society is not immoral for killing children as we both view fetuses as children, you saying you believe them to be. By way of claiming that killing children in the Bible being immoral and then on the other hand claiming society is not immoral for killing children is a contradictory element in your belief system, is it not?
I do see what you are saying for sure. I actually think that even at the time of the Bible's writing, those cultures knew it was wrong to kill babies. My point was that their actions (and ours) are based upon how they understood the world. To them it wasn't immoral to sell your daughter into sex slavery because their understanding of the world was that women were property to do with as you wished. Today we disagree because we know that women are not property but are in fact human beings just like men, with thier own worth and dignity etc. So today it is immoral to sell your daughter into sex slavery. So when I judge an ancient culture I am doing so based on our current best understanding of the facts of the universe. They were not acting immoral in thier context but our understanding of the context has grown which changes what is more all acceptable. The problem I would have with God in this is that he supposedly knows all the facts. He knew when he was telling the Jews that taking slaves from the tribes around them, that slavery was immoral. God knew that cutting women open was wrong back then as well. So God does not get the pass of ignorance that ancient humans do. So either God's objective morals have changed over time, or he knew it was immoral and did it anyway.
. If we can allow that, is it not reasonable to conclude in the Christian theology that God too can make a more moral decision for the greater good?
I actually don't think it is, even in your theology. If you believe the Bible you believe that God's best possible plan was to create creatures that he knew would sin, then to punish them for acting in accordance with the nature's he created them with, then tried to fix it be sending help but already knowing that he was going to drown almost everyone anyway and on it goes. I do think see how you are justified in believeing that God is any good at planning or executing a plan or that even if he were, that it is somehow a plan for good.
God's morality is unchanging as is ours. We have an ingrained morality within us.
So why has mkroty changed over time do you think, of we all have the same morality ingrained in us?
These people were not good people as they did evil all the time. That is presented in the passages. Now we know that these people were very different to those that went on to populate the world after the flood. If God had not stepped in, His plan would be destroyed
So quick question, did these people (and of course this includes infants and foetoses) choose by thier free will to be drowned or did God override their free will so that his plan wouldn't be ruined?
He had to allow these souls that would never accept Him to die so that others in the world could live and accept Christ as their Savior. So it was a moral act for the greater good.
Would you consider it moral for parents to have 20 children and kill all the ones who didn't end up loving them enough?
Why then do you call it good and moral when God does the same?
After the birth, death and resurrection of Christ it is a different reason and purpose to what God does. He hasn't changed, but the circumstances have.
Sounds like you do the believe Jesus when he said, I and the father are one.
Because indentured servitude does not allow for sex slavery and besting almost to death. Hence they are not the same thing.
We know that the Jews had a multitude of laws about all sorts of things. I feel that the lesser action (not murder) was covered elsewhere possibly.
I think rather than assuming this is the case, that you should provide evidence that this is so. Otherwise it seems reasonable to conclude based on your own scriptures that God is fine with the abusive horrendous version of slavery. And if you can't find any scripture (and I will wait for your evidence on this one, because it might be there, I honestly don't think so but I could be wrong) to support your speculation, how will you justify slavery as good and moral since your God condoned it.
