God stuff again. Surprise.

[Andrew56]

I was browsiing through the "Religion" topic, and I saw this. Posted by empar.

It was so vehement and whatnot, I thought I'd slap my conservative Christian views on for you guys to disagree with, or enjoy. Or whatev. :D

FIRST OFF! god is probably real, however not in the way that christains beleive, so lets name him uncle buck. uncle buck is an all powerfull dude, but hes like a kid with a magnafying glass, burning ants. (were the ants)

A higher power exists only to destroy us? Why's it taking so long?

i know that christianity is wrong in the sense that god is "good" because look at the world, global warming, 9/11, the AIDS crisis in africa, starving all over the world, war in Iraq. i can go on but ive made my point.

God didn't not create evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is the absence of good. It is impossible for people to maintain free-will without being allowed to lack good. Just as Christian's say to God, "Thy will be done" so does God say to those who choose the absence of good.

And no, I'm not being self-righteous here - I have an absence of good as well. We all do, or there would be no need for a forgiving Saviour.

heres the problem with "jesus crist" although he may be real, why would you follow some dude that got OWNED AND NAILED TO A PEICE OF WOOD????? heres a question to all those that are christian, so if i nailed myself to a peice of wood and walked around the US preaching that..... uh..... a cheese doodle is god, and i am the son of a cheese doodle, wouldnt that be the same thing?!?!?!?! but no you would just call me a looney and call the cops on me

Jesus didn't get "owned". His sacrifice allows anyone to believe Him and be forgiven for their absence of good. Jesus said he could have prayed to His Father and He would have sent down more then 12 legions of angels.

Let's say it was just 12.

Legion = 72,000 angels

12x72,000=864,000

It is mentioned in the bible that a single angel killed 185,000 in one night by himself.

864,000x185,000=159,840,000,000

He could have been covered if He wanted. To believe that He died on the cross(from the bible), and then to say it was out of His power to stop it(not in the bible) is ridiculous. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible.

And the important part of that story is that He was dead for 3 days. And then rose again. Do that, and you'll have my attention.

ONE FINAL THING: i dont know much about the bible but ive herd the quote from genisis often with : god made the earth and it was good : and that stuff. but my point is ITS YOUR BIBLE SHOULDNT IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY AN ADULT NOT A 3 YEAR OLD????

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Is that really a problem?

[The Batman]

What he posted crossed the line from debate to christian bashing it is completely disrespectful and rude and none of it should be taken serious at all.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I don't think the ant analogy means he wants to destroy us, as much as alleging that God gets some kind of perverse sadistic enjoyment out of our suffering. Someone with a magnifying glass is probably not out to destroy every ant ever.

God had to create the concept of absence of good. If God existed beforehand, there was only perfection. No matter how you cut it, equilibrium was perfection, and that was disrupted. This plays into a difficult question about God -- why would a perfect being need to disrupt the equilibrium of perfection, and then get upset about it?

As for the "good" thing...that's a stupid criticism, especially since the Bible wasn't written in English.

(I wish I hadn't missed that post when it was originally made. It deserved some tearing apart.)

[Ryandel]

Views do differ from person to person, but he crossed the line

[theOperaGhost]

It was his opinion, however, most of it crossed the line from "opinion" to "bashing." It's not that "some guy" went around preaching and then was "owed" and nailed to a cross, do you know of the miraculous things he did (according to the Bible)? He healed a blind man so he could see again, along with many other healing type things, as well as many other things.

Do some research before making statements on something that you want to have an opinion on. If you don't know basic things about Christianity, don't bash Christians and call it an opinion.

[Andrew56]

God had to create the concept of absence of good. If God existed beforehand, there was only perfection. No matter how you cut it, equilibrium was perfection, and that was disrupted. This plays into a difficult question about God -- why would a perfect being need to disrupt the equilibrium of perfection, and then get upset about it?

Skeptic point #1:

a) God is the author of everything.
b) Evil is something.
c) Therefore, God is the author of evil.

But as I said, evil is when good should exist, but it does not.

So . . . if God was perfect, and He made a perfect world, where did evil come into the picture?

Skeptic point #2:

a) Every creature God made is perfect.
b) But perfect creatures cannot do what is imperfect.
c) So, every creature God made cannot do what is imperfect.

If Adam and Ever were perfect, how did they fall? Don't blame the snake because didn't God make the snake perfect too? The answers lies within the perfection itself.

a) God made everything perfect.
b)One of the perfect things God made was free creatures.
c) Free will is the cause of evil, or the choice to not do good.
d) So, imperfection can arise from perfection indirectly through freedom.

Taking away any part of our freedom, takes it all away. And just as forced love isn't love at all, nothing we did would be anything at all if we were mindless.

But still . . .

Skeptic point #3:

a) If God is all-good, He would destroy evil.
b) If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.
c) But evil is not destroyed.
d) Hence, there is no such God.

First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. Without it, we are not free beings, and without freedom, we could not love. Love is the greatest good.

This argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. If we restate the argument to correct the oversight in temporal perspective, it turns into an argument for God.

a) If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
b) If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.
c) Evil is not yet defeated,
d) Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil.

So, yes, apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious spirit than reign supreme over rocks and trees.

But, what is the purpose of evil?

Skeptic point #4:

a) There is no good purpose for much suffering.
b) An all-good God must have a good purpose for everything.
c) So, there cannot be an all-good God.

Just because we don't know God's purpose for evil, doesn't mean there isn't one. And on top of that, we do know some of His reasons. Evil can come as a warning of greater evil. The first time burn yourself on something hot, you will instantly have an existential awareness of the meaning of the word "hot". Pain also keeps us from destroying ourselves. Sometimes it may seems like a high price to pay, but some evil brings about greater good.

And sometimes, permitting evil actually helps defeat evil. The ultimate example? The cross. An infinite injustice was wrought on an innocent Man so that good might come to all.

But, couldn't God have just made the world with no evil?

Skeptic point #5:

a) God knows everything.
b) So God knew evil would occur when He created the world.
c) God had other nonevil possibilities:
1 - not create anything
2 - create a world without free creatures
3 - create free creatures that wouldn't sin
4 - create free creatures that would sin, but all be saved in the end
d) Hence, God could have created a world that did not include evil.

Well . . .

1 - This idea hardly makes any sense. It would have been morally better for God to have made a nonmoral world? What has no morality attached to it can't be better or worse. This isn't even like comparing apples and oranges; they both exist.

2- Same thing almost. A nonmoral world (world with no freedom) is the essence of evil. And even without moral corruption, there would still be physical corruption. Physical degeneration and decay are inevitable, so it would just be trading one form of evil for another.

3 - Logically, it seems possible. But just because things are logically possible, doesn't make them a reality. In order for creatures to remain free and not choose evil would be a matter of chance. Immensely small odds that can't be controlled without taking away from freedom.

4 - Again - manipulation of free will is not free will at all. God isn't a divine rapist.

[Antares]

Yeah, so umm this should have been posted in the religion sticky however it wills crew everything up if I merge it so I won't but next time anything to do with religion goes in that stucky lol sticky.

[Sage]

Funny how you define 'evil' as a 'lack of good' when you could just as easily define 'good' as a 'lack of evil'.

...Just my two cents

[Dolphus Raymond]

Yeah, so umm this should have been posted in the religion sticky however it wills crew everything up if I merge it so I won't but next time anything to do with religion goes in that stucky lol sticky.

I really don't like this new rule. Limiting religious discussion to one thread is going to suffocate religious discussion, and turn it more into the kind of opinion-baiting that you're trying to avoid. I like the fact that we can have discussions with only occasional interruption of "I'M AN ATHEIST CHRISTIANITY IS DUMB" (or other fly-bys). The very idea that there is one mode of theological discussion, is what causes the problem in the first place. Having one topic (with a poll -- yuck) is just going to encourage that mode.

I hope you won't think I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd really prefer this conversation not be merged. (Or future ones, for that matter.) Just a member's two cents.

-----------

Skeptic point #1:

a) God is the author of everything.
b) Evil is something.
c) Therefore, God is the author of evil.

But as I said, evil is when good should exist, but it does not.

So . . . if God was perfect, and He made a perfect world, where did evil come into the picture?

First off, I have to say that it "evil" being defining as "absence of good" could be reasonably inverted too, to "good" being the "absence of evil." This isn't exactly a light/dark situation, where the binary 1 is clearly logically separated from the binary 0. (Edit: Deschain beat me to it.) But anyway.

When God decided to create something with the inertia for non-good, presumably. Before then, there was only good, so everything was perfect. Presumably God created something with the capability of non-perfection for a reason/purpose. The question is why a perfect God would have the incentive to do so, unless non-perfection (and therefore) evil is perfect. Mindscrew.

Skeptic point #2:

a) Every creature God made is perfect.
b) But perfect creatures cannot do what is imperfect.
c) So, every creature God made cannot do what is imperfect.

If Adam and Ever were perfect, how did they fall? Don't blame the snake because didn't God make the snake perfect too? The answers lies within the perfection itself.

a) God made everything perfect.
b)One of the perfect things God made was free creatures.
c) Free will is the cause of evil, or the choice to not do good.
d) So, imperfection can arise from perfection indirectly through freedom.

Taking away any part of our freedom, takes it all away. And just as forced love isn't love at all, nothing we did would be anything at all if we were mindless.

I don't think this is really a problem. It's mostly semantic. If imperfection is defined by the inertia to create evil, then God is evil, regardless of foresight.

But still . . .

Skeptic point #3:

a) If God is all-good, He would destroy evil.
b) If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.
c) But evil is not destroyed.
d) Hence, there is no such God.

First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. Without it, we are not free beings, and without freedom, we could not love. Love is the greatest good.

This argument against God from evil makes some arrogant assumptions. If we restate the argument to correct the oversight in temporal perspective, it turns into an argument for God.

a) If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
b) If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.
c) Evil is not yet defeated,
d) Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil.

So, yes, apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious spirit than reign supreme over rocks and trees.

But, what is the purpose of evil?

If God is perfect, can He not love too? My understanding is that Christian doctrine teaches that he does, a lot.

Other than that, I think this mostly laps back to my previous point about a perfect God lacking incentive to create non-perfection: Why would a perfect entity care if He reigned over perfection? Boredom? Lack of fulfillment? Those emotions seems human to me, not perfect.

Skeptic point #4:

a) There is no good purpose for much suffering.
b) An all-good God must have a good purpose for everything.
c) So, there cannot be an all-good God.

Just because we don't know God's purpose for evil, doesn't mean there isn't one. And on top of that, we do know some of His reasons. Evil can come as a warning of greater evil. The first time burn yourself on something hot, you will instantly have an existential awareness of the meaning of the word "hot". Pain also keeps us from destroying ourselves. Sometimes it may seems like a high price to pay, but some evil brings about greater good.

And sometimes, permitting evil actually helps defeat evil. The ultimate example? The cross. An infinite injustice was wrought on an innocent Man so that good might come to all.

Totally on its own, there's not much disputing this rebuttal. It's a valid answer to the given construct, which I think is flawed.

But, couldn't God have just made the world with no evil?

Skeptic point #5:

a) God knows everything.
b) So God knew evil would occur when He created the world.
c) God had other nonevil possibilities:
1 - not create anything
2 - create a world without free creatures
3 - create free creatures that wouldn't sin
4 - create free creatures that would sin, but all be saved in the end
d) Hence, God could have created a world that did not include evil.

Well . . .

1 - This idea hardly makes any sense. It would have been morally better for God to have made a nonmoral world? What has no morality attached to it can't be better or worse. This isn't even like comparing apples and oranges; they both exist.

2- Same thing almost. A nonmoral world (world with no freedom) is the essence of evil. And even without moral corruption, there would still be physical corruption. Physical degeneration and decay are inevitable, so it would just be trading one form of evil for another.

3 - Logically, it seems possible. But just because things are logically possible, doesn't make them a reality. In order for creatures to remain free and not choose evil would be a matter of chance. Immensely small odds that can't be controlled without taking away from freedom.

4 - Again - manipulation of free will is not free will at all. God isn't a divine rapist.

The premise here is confusing -- isn't God the ultimate arbitrator of what is, and isn't, moral? In what sense could a world be nonmoral? No understanding of morality by its inhabitants? No punishment for violating morality?

Before I go on: Do you think God is limitedly omniscient? That is, blinded to the results of Free Will? And somehow, human behavior (and choice) is based on spontaneous events instead of entirely predicated on processing of past ones (i.e., determinism)?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

In the end, if the Universe truly WAS created, whatever being did it immediately lost all power over this universe once it began; since we know it is governed by laws of physics. Our universe is based on two things: energy and matter. You can't do a thing without them. As God, he would exist outside of this universe, since he's made of neither energy OR matter (why can't we see or feel his influence on anything).

So... even if the universe was created, thats all you could do; you would lose any more changes you may want. So as this universe exists within VERY rigid laws of physics, places like Heaven and Hell simply do not exist in this universe. And I doubt once we die this "soul" we have gets transported outside of the universe. To an omnipotent being like God he probably in fact doesn't give a damn about us if he'd go to all this trouble to send babies to burn forever in a fire. He could really just be shaking his "head" (if he has a physical head) at all our religious squabbling. HE probably knows that we're just advanced animals and when we die NOTHING HAPPENS. He'd probably want us to live our LIVES while we can, it's the only life you get. So don't waste it on petty arguing, none of this will matter when you're dead :D

[Antares]

I really don't like this new rule. Limiting religious discussion to one thread is going to suffocate religious discussion, and turn it more into the kind of opinion-baiting that you're trying to avoid. I like the fact that we can have discussions with only occasional interruption of "I'M AN ATHEIST CHRISTIANITY IS DUMB" (or other fly-bys). The very idea that there is one mode of theological discussion, is what causes the problem in the first place. Having one topic (with a poll -- yuck) is just going to encourage that mode.

I hope you won't think I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd really prefer this conversation not be merged. (Or future ones, for that matter.) Just a member's two cents.
Well first, like I stated I wasn't going to merge it but I really think it is redundant to not talk about religion in the religion thread. CALL ME NUTS! I mean seriously. Anyways, I wasn't gonna merge it because it would screw the order up in stuff. I just said in the future religion discussions should go in the religion thread. It makes sense in my head.

ANYWAYS, why does it always seem that religion talk just becomes a huge...not debate...cornicopia of words that seem to be something said over and over again. Whatever umm I don't necessarily not believe in god however, I don't attend church and all that stuff because science actually proves stuff. There is no evidence that God exists. It is as simple as that. However, I have seen things in church and stuff when I am wondering "How the hell did that happen?!" So I am torn but I am stull not religious if that makes sense.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Well first, like I stated I wasn't going to merge it but I really think it is redundant to not talk about religion in the religion thread. CALL ME NUTS! I mean seriously. Anyways, I wasn't gonna merge it because it would screw the order up in stuff. I just said in the future religion discussions should go in the religion thread. It makes sense in my head.

I understand what you're saying; I juts don't agree with it. Having it in one thread limits things to one thread of discussion. Why not have one thread for all puberty stuff, or any one topic? Same reason. Think of it like having a puberty thread, and then having a poll asking if you're done with it or not. It'd be hard to carry on a cogent conversation. People would be jumping in with unrelated questions, or answering the poll, and then there would always be the limit of one topic at a time.

I always thought the Religion Thread was more of an opinion poll, while the rest of the forum encouraged more in-depth topics. I don't see a reason to change from the status quo. It seems to be working fine, to me. I don't see how merging future threads would fix the problem at hand (repetitive discussions) either. Yeah, religious discussions sometimes go in a circle. Logic sometimes goes in a circle. I'm still having fun, and I think several others are too.

Thanks for hearing me out.

[Antares]

Okey dokey, I see what you mean now. WEll you can still post it because I kinda overlooked that poll in that thread. Anyways, I just feel that religious talk is SOO repetitive that it should be contained to a thread that remains. Anbyways just go ahead with you guys' discussion.

[MrPinnick17]

Religion is just too much for me.

I don't really know or care what god created. He's like a buddy to me, I talk to him when I've got problems and most of the time he solves them. I don't read the bible, It's been marketed into a "Best-Seller" and has too many restrictions on life. I don't need guidelines on how to live my life, my parents have already shaped me and I'm gonna be a great guy I already know.

[Andrew56]

First off, I have to say that it "evil" being defining as "absence of good" could be reasonably inverted too, to "good" being the "absence of evil." This isn't exactly a light/dark situation, where the binary 1 is clearly logically separated from the binary 0. (Edit: Deschain beat me to it.) But anyway.

When God decided to create something with the inertia for non-good, presumably. Before then, there was only good, so everything was perfect. Presumably God created something with the capability of non-perfection for a reason/purpose. The question is why a perfect God would have the incentive to do so, unless non-perfection (and therefore) evil is perfect. Mindscrew.

Well, yes. Good is exactly that; the absence of evil. Only good came first, an evil second as a result of it's absence.

When you use a cookie cutter on cookie dough, the hole is the absence of dough. If you went to an empty table, you could point at it and say, "All of these holes are from the absence of dough." Which would be true.

Bad example because dough and holes are not opposing things, but yea.

I don't think this is really a problem. It's mostly semantic. If imperfection is defined by the inertia to create evil, then God is evil, regardless of foresight.

But the imperfection is not a part of perfection. It is through freedom that we create our imperfection. So if you want to count perfection as a flaw, then I suppose you can. But it's really part of our perfection - it allows us to love. So if freedom is a flaw, even a Higher Power cannot create a flawless being.

If God is perfect, can He not love too? My understanding is that Christian doctrine teaches that he does, a lot.

He can . . . I can't see what I wrote to say He couldn't.

Other than that, I think this mostly laps back to my previous point about a perfect God lacking incentive to create non-perfection: Why would a perfect entity care if He reigned over perfection? Boredom? Lack of fulfillment? Those emotions seems human to me, not perfect.

Reigning over perfection it just the same as nothing. There would be nothing to love, and no point. One could say, even with love, in the end there is really no point to existing.

But aren't you happy to exist? Would you rather have never existed? Beyond the fact that we enjoy being, His reasons are something we'll have to wait and find out.

And God experiences emotion - yes. I wouldn't want to serve a stuck-up monotonous God;

Psalm 103:13 Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,

Deuteronomy 5:9 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,

Psalm 2:4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;

To point out a few.

The premise here is confusing -- isn't God the ultimate arbitrator of what is, and isn't, moral? In what sense could a world be nonmoral? No understanding of morality by its inhabitants? No punishment for violating morality?

I suppose to hold true to the laws of morality in our current world, and then offer alternative worlds is not consistent. You got me.

Before I go on: Do you think God is limitedly omniscient? That is, blinded to the results of Free Will? And somehow, human behavior (and choice) is based on spontaneous events instead of entirely predicated on processing of past ones (i.e., determinism)?

Limited omniscience . . . is that an oxymoron? Personally, the only way I can see it is like this:

If you drop an egg, you haven't seen it hit the ground, but you know it's gonna break. You could reach out and catch it, but why would you when you dropped it and knew it would break on the ground?

Given it's not hard-boiled. Hmm . . .

But I believe God knows the future, but does not change it. He could, but He doesn't. He set things in motion, knew how they would turn out, and there you go.

In the end, if the Universe truly WAS created, whatever being did it immediately lost all power over this universe once it began; since we know it is governed by laws of physics. Our universe is based on two things: energy and matter. You can't do a thing without them. As God, he would exist outside of this universe, since he's made of neither energy OR matter (why can't we see or feel his influence on anything).

That's a Deist's view. That God cannot perform miracles or anything after He has set up the laws of nature.

I can only assume you are saying that His "power over this universe" is the ability to interfere. Miracles in a sense . . .

Miracles are violations of natural laws, and natural laws are immutable. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated, therefore miracles are impossible.

Natural laws tells us what usually happens, not what must happen. They are statistical probabilities, not unchangeable facts. You can't rule out the possibility of miracles by definition.

And only if God is confined to this universe, and our nature can His interference be seen as a violation of natural law. If there is anything beyond the universe which can cause something to happen in our universe, there is a chance it will happen. Only if you deny the existence of God can you deny His ability to rule above and with natural laws.

Religion is just too much for me.

I don't really know or care what god created. He's like a buddy to me, I talk to him when I've got problems and most of the time he solves them. I don't read the bible, It's been marketed into a "Best-Seller" and has too many restrictions on life. I don't need guidelines on how to live my life, my parents have already shaped me and I'm gonna be a great guy I already know.

God is like a buddy to me too. Only why do you believe that He helps you solve problems(in the bible), but you'd rather not buy into the "restrictions"(in the bible)? You pick and choose what to believe from one source?

[Dolphus Raymond]

On the subject of religion: I just did three weeks' worth of laundry for five people for free. I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist now.

Anyway! Back to the one of the highlights of my day (really):

Well, yes. Good is exactly that; the absence of evil. Only good came first, an evil second as a result of it's absence.

When you use a cookie cutter on cookie dough, the hole is the absence of dough. If you went to an empty table, you could point at it and say, "All of these holes are from the absence of dough." Which would be true.

Bad example because dough and holes are not opposing things, but yea.

Oh, so you're saying it's binary -- something is either good or evil, and together those subcomponents make up a "greyer" whole. That still doesn't address the second part of my statement, I don't think.

He can . . . I can't see what I wrote to say He couldn't.

There's no love without freedom, there's no freedom without the potential for imperfection, God has no potential for imperfection. God could create perfect creatures that are not omnipotent but have no potential for imperfection. If God can love, why could they not? Yes, no freedom, but if perfect beings (God) are immune from your given rule, that won't matter. Hence that kind of loops around and destroys that being an argument against God creating perfect beings.

Reigning over perfection it just the same as nothing. There would be nothing to love, and no point. One could say, even with love, in the end there is really no point to existing.

...

Again, though, that's a human emotion that stems not from perfection, but from insecurity. The only reason I wouldn't want to hold over a perfect creature is because it would be bored, and being bored would make me feel bad about my purpose in existence. Is God subject to that too?

Limited omniscience . . . is that an oxymoron?

It is, and I meant to use it that way. That is, omniscience that is arbitrarily blinded to matters of free will.

Personally, the only way I can see it is like this:

If you drop an egg, you haven't seen it hit the ground, but you know it's gonna break. You could reach out and catch it, but why would you when you dropped it and knew it would break on the ground?

Which begs the question. If God would be so disinterested in holding over a perfect people, because of the predictability, why be interested in holding over a reality whose fruition He already knows? Even if we assume that we can apply human emotions to God, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense under any construct that I can think of.

[Andrew56]

Anyway! Back to the one of the highlights of my day (really):

Same here. Haha.

Oh, so you're saying it's binary -- something is either good or evil, and together those subcomponents make up a "greyer" whole. That still doesn't address the second part of my statement, I don't think.

Hmm, I suppose.

I also feel inclined to ask, for no reason: Have you ever seen a Zebra run so fast it turned grey? Ah, I love that.

And if it didn't answer the second part of your question, just type it like you were asking a slow person, and I'll try again. (And it's time for me to go to bed, so I can't think)

There's no love without freedom, there's no freedom without the potential for imperfection, God has no potential for imperfection. God could create perfect creatures that are not omnipotent but have no potential for imperfection. If God can love, why could they not? Yes, no freedom, but if perfect beings (God) are immune from your given rule, that won't matter. Hence that kind of loops around and destroys that being an argument against God creating perfect beings.

It is not in God's nature to love. God is love. The very essence of love is God.

Again, though, that's a human emotion that stems not from perfection, but from insecurity. The only reason I wouldn't want to hold over a perfect creature is because it would be bored, and being bored would make me feel bad about my purpose in existence. Is God subject to that too?

Hmm. Rephrase please.

In my tired state, all I can think of is,

Hebrews 4:15 Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin!

Which begs the question. If God would be so disinterested in holding over a perfect people, because of the predictability, why be interested in holding over a reality whose fruition He already knows? Even if we assume that we can apply human emotions to God, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense under any construct that I can think of.

Knowing what will happen does not lessen it. You know your birthday, but you enjoy it each year.

And time does not restrict God at all. He is . . . omnitemporal(?) by our comprehension.

[Dolphus Raymond]

I also feel inclined to ask, for no reason: Have you ever seen a Zebra run so fast it turned grey? Ah, I love that.

And if it didn't answer the second part of your question, just type it like you were asking a slow person, and I'll try again. (And it's time for me to go to bed, so I can't think)

I think I basically got to the argument elsewhere in the post. It's the "perfect God motivation" one.

It is not in God's nature to love. God is love. The very essence of love is God.

And since God is perfection, transitively, isn't perfection in itself love? I don't see why freedom is required to love. That seems contradicted.

Hmm. Rephrase please.

In my tired state, all I can think of is,

Hebrews 4:15 Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin!

I don't see why we're applying human insecurities to God. God is perfect, except he feels unfulfilled enough to create creatures to praise him? And although he knows the ends of what will happen (therefore kind of rendering the exercise pointless), he somehow feels emotions as it happens.

It doesn't make sense to me on a few levels:

1. Maybe there's Biblical evidence, but I don't see why we're assuming God's emotions (if He apparently has them) are anything like ours.

2. I'd argue that the bad feelings that come from idleness are the product of human insecurity, something which I'd think God would be immune to.

3. If we assume, for some reason, that God does have human-ish emotions, then wouldn't Him knowing the end of the proverbial movie kinda ruin it for Him? And how can he feel sorrow/whatever if we screw up?

Or is God like an emotionally involved screenwriter -- knowing what will happen, but getting so immersed that he feels a twinge of guilt when his lead gets killed off (or sent to hell eternally)? But, for the sake of feeling fulfilled about the "movie," God has to knowingly allow that imperfection (the inertia coming from his knowing creation) to occur? And the audience, I guess, would just be Him, so it perplexes me further.

I don't want to descend into mocking (hard not to when you're doing analogies about somber things), but I think that's pretty true to the concept.

Knowing what will happen does not lessen it. You know your birthday, but you enjoy it each year.

If I knew what exactly would happen, as an omniscient being would, I doubt it. Omniscience is kind of predicated on the idea that nothing is unexpected. When stimuli is expected and known completely, we (if we're still using ourselves as models for God) don't react. It's like the divine equivalent of tickling yourself.

[Physiologically, that's a really invalid metaphor, but this is philosophy, not premed, dammit.]

And time does not restrict God at all. He is . . . omnitemporal(?) by our comprehension.

Hey, now, you tricked me into speaking slowly earlier! Now I guess it's your turn.

[MrPinnick17]

God is like a buddy to me too. Only why do you believe that He helps you solve problems(in the bible), but you'd rather not buy into the "restrictions"(in the bible)? You pick and choose what to believe from one source?

Yeah I suppose, I mean I know he'll help you make it through anything. It might be frowned upon that I don't "worship" god but I don't believe in "worshipping anything" I like god a lot don't get me wrong.

I've never really read the bible, heck I can't even quote one verse but I have learned a bit about it and I guess I use it as a guideline. But I'm never like "oh no I can't do this, god wouldn't approve" I make my own decisions.

I'm not trying to get any arguments with you bud, I know some stuff I said might fuel you. But if you can respect the way I believe in god, then I'll be more than happy to respect the way you do.

[LeRoy_Fan]

It is mentioned in the bible that a single angel killed 185,000 in one night by himself.

Not going to jump into this conversation, but was just wondering where in the Bible it says that.

[Andrew56]

Don't have the time to answer you Dolphus, but I shall.

Not going to jump into this conversation, but was just wondering where in the Bible it says that.

2 Kings 19:35
And it came about on that night that the angel of Jehovah proceeded to go out and strike down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians

[LeRoy_Fan]

2 Kings 19:35
And it came about on that night that the angel of Jehovah proceeded to go out and strike down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians

Ah, ok. Thanks. :)

[Sapphire]

I am agnostic, I guess. I don't know what I believe in, though I am pretty sure that there is some form of Higher Power out there.

But surely, the presence of evil is due to the Devil, not God. God is a loving being. The Devil is the one that (while in snake form) tempted Eve to eat from the forbidden tree. It is because of his temptation and Eve's failure to resist that Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden.

To examine the claim that God is responsible for the creation of evil, you would have to look in religious texts to establish whether He did or did not create angels because Lucifer was one of His angels.

To say that there is no good purpose or reason for suffering, I think, is short-sighted. I believe that suffering exists in the world so that humans have a reason to care about others and to help them. If no one ever suffered then would we not become really self-absorbed? If God were to heal all the sick, give money to the poor and ensure that no misfortune comes to mankind ever again then there would be no reason for people to care and to be concerned about others.

[Poolie1003]

Jesus didn't get "owned".

Classic.