[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
God wanted people who would love him of their own free will - we’ve had that discussion.
You said it yourself: Foreknowledge does not mean forcing someone to behave in a certain way.
Think about it for a minute.
If you know in advance that John is going to make poor moral choices which lead to eternal suffering, and that Mary is going to make good moral choices which lead to eternal life, does that mean you are actually making these choices for them? Of course not.
The point is that, knowing this, a benevolent god could choose not to create John but could still create Mary.
If you disagree with this point, please specifically explain WHY.[/quote]
You’re just playing semantics now - both John and Mary sinned - both John and Mary have the same opportunity and same ability to confess and profess - John chooses not to and Mary chooses to - and you’re saying that all of the Johns should never have been created because they would freely choose to not confess their sin as wrong and profess faith in God while all the Mary’s would choose to do so- BECAUSE the Johns would be punished so horribly for their choice. same rationale that O is using - it is the weight of the punishment - not the main story that you have a problem with.
basically-all your argument and O’s argument boils down to is that God should never have created someone that he loved since he would punish them with eternal damnation BECAUSE their punishment is too great for the crime. Like I told O - if God was just giving out time-outs for sin - you’d have no problem with it and no argument to make - your whole view revolves around the nature of the punishment - NOT the nature of God.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
They made bad choices? That would be the place to start.
The point was that if it takes the “breath of god” for people to exist in an afterlife, this implies that the damned also receive the “breath of god”, otherwise they would cease to exist upon death.[/quote]
Ok, I am not sure what the confusion is. The damned become so because they want to be that way. That’s their own choice.
If your asking why God created creatures that can choose to act in a way that is against their own nature and himself, I have no idea. I don’t know why he did anything the way he did it. He could have made us all cats that live on Mars for all I know.
You’d probably want to ask Him yourself. I haven’t been given that revelation.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Why do you have a problem with this? People have faith in all sorts of things. The fidelity of partners, the basic decency of people with whom they trade, the good nature of the large dogs they allow to roam freely around toddlers, and so on.
[/quote]
All of the examples you cite are based on evidence, rather than on a random decision. Nobody in her right mind would blindly choose to have faith in some stranger when choosing a partner, for example.
When it comes to the multitude of gods and religions though, there is no such evidence warranting that kind of faith. Lacking this evidence, wouldn’t the most honest approach be to withhold judgment?
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
The perfection of mathematics . . .
The design of the universe . . .
the nature of man . . .
the historical record . . .
the validity of scripture . . .
If any of these reasons was demonstrated to be less than incontrovertible, would you willingly revisit your conviction about your god?
Do you guys even read what I write? - I have said that exact same thing in my answers to TCD . . .
So if, for example, it was demonstrated that the biblical historical record was POSSIBLY tampered with rather than representing a true historical account of what happened, you would forego your faith in the Christian god?[/quote]
Try again - been through every one of those textual criticisms - you’d need better ammo than that . . . if you don’t have a new argument - there’s nothing to change
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Makavali wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleeme, you take off on a lot of rabbit trails, sugar. Leave this Islam - Christianity comparison thing alone or you are going to look awfully silly. This is truly the most ineffective weapon in your arsenal.
Yeah, Islam and Christianity have nothing in common.
I actually did lol.
I have no doubt you did lol. After all this thread is an emotional exercise for you rather than an intellectual/logical one - much to the chagrin of the facade you have set up.
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
So you don’t believe animals have an afterlife, only humans that are given eternal life by the breath of god?
If it takes the breath of god for creatures to live forever, how do you explain the people that suffer in hell for eternity?
Have you ever read Genesis?
Yes, but I’m curious about your interpretation of Genesis, not mine. Could you just answer the questions?
[/quote]
Fine, just for you. When God breathed into Adam the breathe of life - all subsequent human beings take part in that same eternal existence. Thus even those who suffer in hell are still recipients of the breathe of life (immortality of the soul)
if you had cut with the bs answer you would have remembered the question. It was this:
What makes the cut as getting a soul? Does an amoeba have a soul? Does a conjoined twin have one soul or two? At what point is something too much like a plant for it to have a soul?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Also, is anyone going to directly answer forlife?
.
I told you my views, explained the source of my views, gave you an author that explains it far better than I - and all you can do is mock . . .well aren’t you an amazing intellect
I guess I must be a masochist . . . .
Here you go with your victim, poor me role again while at the same time making little pokes at my intellect. Perhaps I wouldn’t laugh if you didn’t send such a mixed signal about how we were supposed to be treating each other during this discussion.
Back to the topic- what’s your answer?
I’m not sending mixed signals - I’m sending very clear signals. I value you and your eternal soul enough to spend a lot of time answering your questions, and I am intellectually honest enough to mock you in turn for absurd reasoning, and I am sensitive enough to care when you are just asking questions to have a laugh rather than seek knowledge . . .pretty clear to me
Answer for which question? Sorry you’re throwing so much stuff out there it gets a little confusing what you are actually asking . . .[/quote]
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Even so, even if John resolutely turns his back on the good and God in this life, John’s choices may well bring him into a deeper relation to God that it would appear.
[/quote]
You’re forgetting the omniscience of god. Omniscience means perfect, absolute, complete knowledge of the choices John and Mary will make, and of the end result of those choices. It doesn’t imply god made these choices for John and Mary, only that god knows IN ADVANCE what those choices are, and what will result from them.
So back to the question:
If god KNOWS IN ADVANCE that John will make poor choices that will result in endless suffering…why wouldn’t god choose NOT to create John, and thus spare John from this horrible fate?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
The perfection of mathematics . . .
The design of the universe . . .
the nature of man . . .
the historical record . . .
the validity of scripture . . .
If any of these reasons was demonstrated to be less than incontrovertible, would you willingly revisit your conviction about your god?
Do you guys even read what I write? - I have said that exact same thing in my answers to TCD . . .
So if, for example, it was demonstrated that the biblical historical record was POSSIBLY tampered with rather than representing a true historical account of what happened, you would forego your faith in the Christian god?
Try again - been through every one of those textual criticisms - you’d need better ammo than that . . . if you don’t have a new argument - there’s nothing to change[/quote]
You didn’t even answer his question. That question implies a “yes” or “no” answer. From the answer you gave, we can assume that your answer would probably be yes, but it’s not nice to assume.
I appreciate your honesty. Do you feel that, according to your human understanding of what it is to act with loving foresight, that god could have done a better job in some areas?
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
They made bad choices? That would be the place to start.
The point was that if it takes the “breath of god” for people to exist in an afterlife, this implies that the damned also receive the “breath of god”, otherwise they would cease to exist upon death.
Ok, I am not sure what the confusion is. The damned become so because they want to be that way. That’s their own choice.
If your asking why God created creatures that can choose to act in a way that is against their own nature and himself, I have no idea. I don’t know why he did anything the way he did it. He could have made us all cats that live on Mars for all I know.
You’d probably want to ask Him yourself. I haven’t been given that revelation. [/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Even so, even if John resolutely turns his back on the good and God in this life, John’s choices may well bring him into a deeper relation to God that it would appear.
You’re forgetting the omniscience of god. Omniscience means perfect, absolute, complete knowledge of the choices John and Mary will make, and of the end result of those choices. It doesn’t imply god made these choices for John and Mary, only that god knows IN ADVANCE what those choices are, and what will result from them.
So back to the question:
If god KNOWS IN ADVANCE that John will make poor choices that will result in endless suffering…why wouldn’t god choose NOT to create John, and thus spare John from this horrible fate?[/quote]
So, you’re asking about a special case - the person who is certainly going to end up in hell with no reprieve? You’re asking, “why would he create, say, Hitler?” Is that it?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
The perfection of mathematics . . .
The design of the universe . . .
the nature of man . . .
the historical record . . .
the validity of scripture . . .
If any of these reasons was demonstrated to be less than incontrovertible, would you willingly revisit your conviction about your god?
Do you guys even read what I write? - I have said that exact same thing in my answers to TCD . . .
So if, for example, it was demonstrated that the biblical historical record was POSSIBLY tampered with rather than representing a true historical account of what happened, you would forego your faith in the Christian god?
Try again - been through every one of those textual criticisms - you’d need better ammo than that . . . if you don’t have a new argument - there’s nothing to change
You didn’t even answer his question. That question implies a “yes” or “no” answer. From the answer you gave, we can assume that your answer would probably be yes, but it’s not nice to assume.
[/quote]
OH so sorry for not stating what was implied your highness . . .YES
EDIT - how many times do I have to say the same things over and over . . . .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pat wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
inquisition, which everyone loves to forget and make escuses for.
Are you out of your dolphin-wannabe head? WHO in the name of chickens and bonobos everywhere is making excuses for the Inquisition? The perpetrators of the Inquisition are locked in chains awaiting Judgment Day as we speak and they aint got themselves a good enough lawyer to get ‘em off. Holy Headstocks, Batmanoleeme, I can’t believe you lobbed this hand grenade. Those men weren’t Christians. They were evil, despicable, black-hearted fiends. You have got to snap out of it. You’re trippin’, sweetheart.
Most women of the Middle Ages were totally dominated by men. Any man in the family could order a woman to do as he wished. If a woman refused, she was beat into submission, as disobedience was considered a crime against God.
If a man did that he was following his sinful heart not Christianity. Quit attaching the sinful practices of man to what Christ set out for his followers.
Which inquisition are you referring too?
There were several. I would imagine the Spanish Inquisition is the most famous.
[/quote]
The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by King Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain. Pope Sixtus spoke out against it but was powerless to stop it, especially in that he needed military assistance on the eastern front of the war. That inquisition was not carried out by the church, that is a myth.
It was really an excuse to break the Moors who didn’t want to high tale it out of Iberia.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Even so, even if John resolutely turns his back on the good and God in this life, John’s choices may well bring him into a deeper relation to God that it would appear.
You’re forgetting the omniscience of god. Omniscience means perfect, absolute, complete knowledge of the choices John and Mary will make, and of the end result of those choices. It doesn’t imply god made these choices for John and Mary, only that god knows IN ADVANCE what those choices are, and what will result from them.
So back to the question:
If god KNOWS IN ADVANCE that John will make poor choices that will result in endless suffering…why wouldn’t god choose NOT to create John, and thus spare John from this horrible fate?
So, you’re asking about a special case - the person who is certainly going to end up in hell with no reprieve? You’re asking, “why would he create, say, Hitler?” Is that it?
[/quote] Would it be a special case for god to NOT know that Hitler was going to end up in hell?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You’re just playing semantics now - both John and Mary sinned - both John and Mary have the same opportunity and same ability to confess and profess - John chooses not to and Mary chooses to - and you’re saying that all of the Johns should never have been created because they would freely choose to not confess their sin as wrong and profess faith in God while all the Mary’s would choose to do so- BECAUSE the Johns would be punished so horribly for their choice. same rationale that O is using - it is the weight of the punishment - not the main story that you have a problem with. [/quote]
I’m not into semantics games, and I’m sure you aren’t either so let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt.
“John and Mary both have the opportunity and the ability to confess and profess.” Agreed.
“John chooses not to, and Mary choose to.” Agreed.
“It is the weight of the punishment - not the main story that you have a problem with.” Disagreed.
The problem is not that John and Mary are making choices. It is not that a punishment exists.
The problem is that omniscience means god KNOWS what these choices and consequences will be.
Once again, as you have already pointed out, this KNOWLEDGE doesn’t mean god is making these choices for John and Mary. It only means that god knows what choices they will make.
So let’s talk about the real question instead of running down rabbit holes.
How can you describe your god as benevolent, when despite KNOWING WITHOUT A SINGLE DOUBT THAT JOHN IS GOING TO SUFFER FOREVER, GOD STILL CHOOSES TO CREATE JOHN?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Try again - been through every one of those textual criticisms - you’d need better ammo than that . . . if you don’t have a new argument - there’s nothing to change[/quote]
I said it was only an example. I’m trying to figure out how deeply committed you are to your god, based on the five reasons you cited.
If even one of those reasons was shown not to incontrovertible, would you still remain as deeply committed?
Would all five have to be shown not to be incontrovertible to make any difference?