Why would God create a flawed creation?

[the iconoclast]

I think the phrasing is wrong.

The question is "why would God allow a suffering world to emerge?"

not "why does God go to the specific effort of minutely defining a world in which suffering is unavoidable?"

one is the Devil, not God

These two questions are linked together. One is much the same as the other.
again without good there is no evil. How would you know beauty with ugliness

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't understand how that would make God sadistic, since sadism implies taking delight in inflicting pain, and that goes against Christian theology, both in God's perfection (God is eternally satisfied in himself), and the Biblical witness, which doesn't show sadism to be an attribute of God.

Perhaps the Bible and Christian theology got it wrong?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So in other words, God should have created us to be unconscious automata.

I notice a tendency among atheists to embrace a nihilistic desire to return to unconsciousness.

Do you notice the same tendency among Christians wanting to go to Heaven?

 

[the iconoclast]

Perhaps the Bible and Christian theology got it wrong?

Got what wrong?

Please elaborate?

 

[Gottservant]

These two questions are linked together. One is much the same as the other.
again without good there is no evil. How would you know beauty with ugliness

If you think they are the same, there is a good possibility you don't (at least completely) understand English.

There is a world of difference in terms of moral accountability between, the ball hit the wall and the wall was hit by the ball.

 

[the iconoclast]

If you think they are the same, there is a good possibility you don't (at least completely) understand English.

There is a world of difference in terms of moral accountability between, the ball hit the wall and the wall was hit by the ball.

Ok explain this ball theory please?

 

[Gottservant]

Ok explain this ball theory please?

It's just a fact, if you say the ball hit the wall, the ball is the subject and therefore morally culpable; if you say the wall was hit by the ball, the wall is the subject and therefore morally culpable.

Assuming that the onus is on the innocent to remain innocent.

 

[the iconoclast]

It's just a fact, if you say the ball hit the wall, the ball is the subject and therefore morally culpable; if you say the wall was hit by the ball, the wall is the subject and therefore morally culpable.

Assuming that the onus is on the innocent to remain innocent.

At its core. Aren't you just explaining one event. In this case there is one truth. A ball hit a wall.

 

[Gottservant]

At its core. Aren't you just explaining one event. In this case there is one truth. A ball hit a wall.

As I said the assumption is that the innocent must preserve their own innocence, therefore to be the subject puts the onus of defence on the subject.

It is the one event, but is the ball doing the wrong thing, or is the wall in the wrong place?

The same goes for God, God allowed the world to emerge, He did not force its suffering upon it - the onus is not on Him to defend the world, unless He so desires on top of His existing plan of salvation.

 

[the iconoclast]

As I said the assumption is that the innocent must preserve their own innocence, therefore to be the subject puts the onus of defence on the subject.

It is the one event, but is the ball doing the wrong thing, or is the wall in the wrong place?

The same goes for God, God allowed the world to emerge, He did not force its suffering upon it - the onus is not on Him to defend the world, unless He so desires on top of His existing plan of salvation.

The ball is an object. It can not know wrong or right nor does it know its in the wrong place.

Please try again.

 

[Gottservant]

The ball is an object. It can not know wrong or right nor does it know its in the wrong place.

Please try again.

a second ago you were listening to me, now I find you cannot understand an analogy?

how I am I supposed to describe moral accountability best, without accusing anyone - if I cannot use objects?

 

[the iconoclast]

a second ago you were listening to me, now I find you cannot understand an analogy?

how I am I supposed to describe moral accountability best, without accusing anyone - if I cannot use objects?

You can use things which know good or evil, if you are talking about things that can know. Otherwise I think youll find that your position has no ground

 

[Gottservant]

You can use things which know good or evil, if you are talking about things that can know. Otherwise I think youll find that your position has no ground

I don't need to use ground when discussing things of the air with people of the wind.

My whole life people have used object analogies with me and all of a sudden I am supposed to pretend its invalid, for your sake?

 

[the iconoclast]

I don't need to use ground when discussing things of the air with people of the wind.

My whole life people have used object analogies with me and all of a sudden I am supposed to pretend its invalid, for your sake?

Yes. Give it a go

 

[Gottservant]

Yes. Give it a go

You give no reason that is better than what I have already been told

 

[the iconoclast]

You give no reason that is better than what I have already been told

No you havent.
You basically invited me to reason the second you put yourself out there

 

[Gottservant]

No you havent.
You basically invited me to reason the second you put yourself out there

no you are trying to contradict people that don't need or want to be contradicted

I am against that

 

[the iconoclast]

no you are trying to contradict people that don't need or want to be contradicted

I am against that

Iam not trying to contradict. Thats what you think. Im trying to find out about you. You came to a forum, debate me with your ideas

 

[Gottservant]

Iam not trying to contradict. Thats what you think. Im trying to find out about you. You came to a forum, debate me with your ideas

It's just a fact, if you can accept an object as an example, you do not grasp the meaning of subjects

I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying you are forced to learn something (which I know is good, for you to learn)

 

[the iconoclast]

It's just a fact, if you can accept an object as an example, you do not grasp the meaning of subjects

I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying you are forced to learn something (which I know is good, for you to learn)

It all sounds learned. All of this so far means nothing. Are you god?