Who Made God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I don’t understand why it is so hard to fathom.

Well, as you stated, the Bible itself describes God as a “jealous God” (e.g. Exodus 20:5). He experiences grief and repentance, curses His own creatures. Then there is the issue with Lucifer and his dominion over “evil”.

All this, i.e. God being subjected to negative emotions, not being the ruler of “everything”, last but not least man’s free will, makes Him seem limited. It is as if he had limited himself in the course of creation. [/quote]

Wouldn’t that also be within the capabilities of a being that is Omnipotent? Granted, I don’t agree with you, but an Omnipotent being could put whatever rules in place “he” wanted to.

202

[quote]Professor X wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I don’t understand why it is so hard to fathom.

Well, as you stated, the Bible itself describes God as a “jealous God” (e.g. Exodus 20:5). He experiences grief and repentance, curses His own creatures. Then there is the issue with Lucifer and his dominion over “evil”.

All this, i.e. God being subjected to negative emotions, not being the ruler of “everything”, last but not least man’s free will, makes Him seem limited. It is as if he had limited himself in the course of creation.

Wouldn’t that also be within the capabilities of a being that is Omnipotent? Granted, I don’t agree with you, but an Omnipotent being could put whatever rules in place “he” wanted to.[/quote]

An omnipotent being definitely could do that. After doing so (i.e. limiting His omnipotence and transferring dominion over “evil” to Lucifer and control over his own free will to man), however, He would cease to be omnipotent and I don’t see how He would be capable of regaining His omnipotence on His own in that case.

203

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I don’t understand why it is so hard to fathom.

Well, as you stated, the Bible itself describes God as a “jealous God” (e.g. Exodus 20:5). He experiences grief and repentance, curses His own creatures. Then there is the issue with Lucifer and his dominion over “evil”.

All this, i.e. God being subjected to negative emotions, not being the ruler of “everything”, last but not least man’s free will, makes Him seem limited. It is as if he had limited himself in the course of creation.

Wouldn’t that also be within the capabilities of a being that is Omnipotent? Granted, I don’t agree with you, but an Omnipotent being could put whatever rules in place “he” wanted to.

An omnipotent being definitely could do that. After doing so (i.e. limiting His omnipotence and transferring dominion over “evil” to Lucifer and control over his own free will to man), however, He would cease to be omnipotent and I don’t see how He would be capable of regaining His omnipotence on His own in that case. [/quote]

How does man have control over God’s free will? How would an Omnipotent being be unable to regain “omnipotence”? He would never lose it. How could an omnipotent being be unable to do anything?

204

I haven’t read the whole thing, but this is a great thread.

In response to the original question, it doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, if you look at the universe logically you will find yourself in an infinite regress. Logically, there cannot be a beginning. Therefore, something has to be eternal.

205

In response to the church question, first we should clarify what a Christian is, since everyone claims to be a Christian.

This is what a Christian believes:

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, authoritative, and inerrant Word of God (II Timothy 3:15-17, II Peter 1:21).

We believe there is one God, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 10:30).

We believe in the deity of Christ (John 10:33); His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:34-35); His sinless life (Hebrews 4:15, 7:26); His miracles (John 2:11); His vicarious and atoning death (I Corinthians 15:3, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 2:9); His resurrection (John 11:25, I Corinthians 15:4); His ascension to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19); His personal return to earth in power and glory (Acts 1:11, Revelation 19:11-16).

We believe in the absolute necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit for salvation because of the exceeding sinfulness of the human nature, and that all are justified on the single ground of faith in the shed blood of Christ, and that only by God’s grace through faith alone are we saved (John 3:16-19; 5:24, Romans 3:23; 5:8-9, Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:5).

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; those who are saved unto the resurrection of life, and those who are not unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29).

Also, if you are not born again you are not a Christian. Jesus said “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

Paul explains what this means in Romans 8

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace, because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so it be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh; for if ye live according to the flesh ye shall die, but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

If you have not been born again and are not walking according to the Spirit, then you don’t need to worry about whether or not you should attend church. YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR ETERNAL SALVATION!

To those who are saved, yes you do need to be actively involved in a local Church. Half the New Testament was not written to individual believers, but to the local churches meeting together on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) in each city. We are told not to forsake the meeting together of the saints.

However, we are not called to be in bad churches with false teachings. We are especially not called to be in church’s that pursue friendship with the world and embrace all that is worldly.

Get yourself into a good church. They do exist.

206

Does atheism really teach freedom? No. It teaches bondage for its adherents and for those who disagree with it.

207

Great post JPBear!

[quote]JPBear wrote:
In response to the church question, first we should clarify what a Christian is, since everyone claims to be a Christian.

This is what a Christian believes:

[/quote]

Agreed, it’s important that we start from the basic truths. The most important, and non-negotiable, thing is the gospel. If that can’t be agreed upon there is no point in discussing “non-gospel” or “non-salvation” issues such as creation stuff etc etc

[quote]JPBear wrote:
If you have not been born again and are not walking according to the Spirit, then you don’t need to worry about whether or not you should attend church. YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR ETERNAL SALVATION!

To those who are saved, yes you do need to be actively involved in a local Church. Half the New Testament was not written to individual believers, but to the local churches meeting together on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) in each city. We are told not to forsake the meeting together of the saints.

However, we are not called to be in bad churches with false teachings. We are especially not called to be in church’s that pursue friendship with the world and embrace all that is worldly.

Get yourself into a good church. They do exist.
[/quote]

Excellent points. It is hard to imagine a Christian who would not want to voluntarily attend a church full of Christians who are focused on woshipping God and serving each other. I think Prof X summed it up well when he said that one of the churches he went to were full of people more interested in how they looked and what cars they drove, and this was something he was uncomfortable with. I agree with him, this would turn off any gospel-focused Christian because these material things aren’t important.

As a personal example, if I was to move out of the city (and thus the church diocese) where I live at the moment and wanted to find a church, there is no guarantee that I would attend the same denomination of church that I attend now because it is well known that the diocese I live in now is committed to having bible-based evangelical churches, but this is not the case in other areas of the country. My loyalty is not with a man-made administration but with the true bible-based church, no matter who runs it!

208

[quote]JPBear wrote:
In response to the church question, first we should clarify what a Christian is, since everyone claims to be a Christian.

This is what a Christian believes:

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, authoritative, and inerrant Word of God (II Timothy 3:15-17, II Peter 1:21).

We believe there is one God, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 10:30).

We believe in the deity of Christ (John 10:33); His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23, Luke 1:34-35); His sinless life (Hebrews 4:15, 7:26); His miracles (John 2:11); His vicarious and atoning death (I Corinthians 15:3, Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 2:9); His resurrection (John 11:25, I Corinthians 15:4); His ascension to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19); His personal return to earth in power and glory (Acts 1:11, Revelation 19:11-16).

We believe in the absolute necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit for salvation because of the exceeding sinfulness of the human nature, and that all are justified on the single ground of faith in the shed blood of Christ, and that only by God’s grace through faith alone are we saved (John 3:16-19; 5:24, Romans 3:23; 5:8-9, Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 3:5).

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; those who are saved unto the resurrection of life, and those who are not unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29).

Also, if you are not born again you are not a Christian. Jesus said “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

Paul explains what this means in Romans 8

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace, because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so it be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh; for if ye live according to the flesh ye shall die, but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall live.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."

If you have not been born again and are not walking according to the Spirit, then you don’t need to worry about whether or not you should attend church. YOU NEED TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR ETERNAL SALVATION!

To those who are saved, yes you do need to be actively involved in a local Church. Half the New Testament was not written to individual believers, but to the local churches meeting together on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) in each city. We are told not to forsake the meeting together of the saints.

However, we are not called to be in bad churches with false teachings. We are especially not called to be in church’s that pursue friendship with the world and embrace all that is worldly.

Get yourself into a good church. They do exist.
[/quote]

Thank you JPBear!
Here is something for me and everybody.
Are you looking for God?

 Some people know there is a God.  They just know.  They are aware of a calling, a presence, a special something about God that is in them.  They want Him.  They know they need to be connected to Him.  
 Are you like that?  Is there a longing in your heart?  Is there a soft but regular desire to be fulfilled, to be completed in a way that only being with God can accomplish?  I know that feeling.  I know it well.
 As a child, I always knew that God existed.  There was always a quality in my heart that desired Him, that "knew" He was there, that he was out there somewhere.  I can't explain it.  It was something I was born with.  I needed God.  I knew that I wouldn't be complete unless I was with Him and loving Him.  I'm glad I've found Him, or should I say, I'm glad he found me.
  Those who are looking for God know the echo in their hearts of God's voice calling them.  They know it.  They feel it.  It is there.  It is soft, yet persistent.  It is gentle, yet constant.  It echoes and draws us to Him, to find Him, to know Him, to touch Him. 
  Sometimes, we realize that everything in the world is ultimately meaningless unless we do what He wants, unless we are in His will.  We can gain money and possession, but they don't satisfy.  We know that when we die, it will all fall away and mean nothing.  That is why we look up to the heavens.  That is why we hear the voice of God calling us.  Do you hear it?  Do you feel its presence?
  Are you looking for God?  Is what you have in your life fulfilling, or do you feel empty.  If these words resonate with you, then you need to encounter God by encountering Jesus.  He is the good Shepherd of love and forgiveness.  Jesus said, ?My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand," (John 10:27-28).
 Did you get what Jesus said?  He said that His sheep hear HIS voice and they follow Him.  Is He calling to you?  Do you hear his voice in your heart?
 Do you want forgiveness of sins?  Jesus forgives sins (Matt. 9:1-7; Luke 5:20; 7:48).
 Do you want to know God?  Jesus reveals God (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22).
 Do you want to have joy and peace?  Jesus gives them (John 15:11, John 14:27).

 You won't find God in man made religions like Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.  You only find God through Jesus who said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me," (John 14:6).  Trust Him.  After all, He raised people from the dead, performed great miracles, died, and rose from the dead Himself.  Who else has done that?

Matt Slick

209

[quote]Professor X wrote:

How does man have control over God’s free will? [/quote]

I meant man having control over his own, i.e. man’s free will. By definition, God wouldn’t have control over it anymore, although he could probably influence it, e.g. through persuasion.

[quote]
How would an Omnipotent being be unable to regain “omnipotence”? He would never lose it. [/quote]

If an omnipotent being decided to lose Its own omnipotence, I’m sure It could do so. Once omnipotence is gone, would It have the means to get it back on Its own?

210

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

How does man have control over God’s free will?

I meant man having control over his own, i.e. man’s free will. By definition, God wouldn’t have control over it anymore, although he could probably influence it, e.g. through persuasion.[/quote]

If the point is to see what man does with FREE WILL, why would God do anything more than present himself and step back?

[quote]
How would an Omnipotent being be unable to regain “omnipotence”? He would never lose it.

If an omnipotent being decided to lose Its own omnipotence, I’m sure It could do so. Once omnipotence is gone, would It have the means to get it back on Its own?[/quote]

If it was OMNIPOTENT it could. The problem here is man trying to limit God in some way. A true omnipotent being could express or repress as much power as it wanted. It could choose to step back or control every aspect. Only someone trying to put restraints on the concept of God would think of things as if God should manually control all things at all times. That would be…only if God wanted to. The point is CHOICE, not control.

211

[quote]BRONIUS wrote:
Does atheism really teach freedom? No. It teaches bondage for its adherents and for those who disagree with it.[/quote]

Huh? Where did that come from? Is there a Book of Atheism that I’m not familiar with that teaches atheists?

Seriously. Because last time I checked atheism didn’t really teach anything. It is simply the doctrine that there is no deity. One simple theorem. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.

212

[quote]hspder wrote:
BRONIUS wrote:
Does atheism really teach freedom? No. It teaches bondage for its adherents and for those who disagree with it.

Huh? Where did that come from? Is there a Book of Atheism that I’m not familiar with that teaches atheists?

Seriously. Because last time I checked atheism didn’t really teach anything. It is simply the doctrine that there is no deity. One simple theorem. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]

I think you are correct hspder. But, I also think that as a human being you do serve someone or something, even if it is an ideal.

In other words, I don’t think anyone is as “free” as they may first believe they are. Even if they are free from worshipping a higher power.

Don’t you agree?

213

[quote]ZEB wrote:
In other words, I don’t think anyone is as “free” as they may first believe they are. Even if they are free from worshipping a higher power.[/quote]

Sure, freedom is in great part an illusion (The Matrix metaphors come to mind again…) but that’s very different from saying atheists live in bondage, or, rather, they, specifically because they are atheists, live in bondage any more than a theist.

214

[quote]Professor X wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

How does man have control over God’s free will?

I meant man having control over his own, i.e. man’s free will. By definition, God wouldn’t have control over it anymore, although he could probably influence it, e.g. through persuasion.

If the point is to see what man does with FREE WILL, why would God do anything more than present himself and step back?[/quote]

If that was the point, I agree, that’s exactly what He would do.

[quote]
How would an Omnipotent being be unable to regain “omnipotence”? He would never lose it.

If an omnipotent being decided to lose Its own omnipotence, I’m sure It could do so. Once omnipotence is gone, would It have the means to get it back on Its own?

If it was OMNIPOTENT it could. The problem here is man trying to limit God in some way. A true omnipotent being could express or repress as much power as it wanted. It could choose to step back or control every aspect. Only someone trying to put restraints on the concept of God would think of things as if God should manually control all things at all times. That would be…only if God wanted to. The point is CHOICE, not control. [/quote]

So what you are saying is that God didn’t actually limit Himself, that is His omnipotence, but rather chooses not to express it in the case of man’s free will and Lucifer’s dominion over evil although He could whenever he wanted to do so.

While that answers my question with regard to omnipotence, at the same time, it shifts the apparent incoherency to the aspect of omnibenevolence, i.e. the property of being absolutely and inherently good. God chooses to see His creation suffer, chooses to curse His creatures although He simply could make a change for the better, etc. Even if you assume that evil, suffering and pain exist only in “this world”, the question still remains, assuming that God is omnipotent, why does it exist at all?

215

[quote]michael2507 wrote:

While that answers my question with regard to omnipotence, at the same time, it shifts the apparent incoherency to the aspect of omnibenevolence, i.e. the property of being absolutely and inherently good. God chooses to see His creation suffer, chooses to curse His creatures although He simply could make a change for the better, etc. Even if you assume that evil, suffering and pain exist only in “this world”, the question still remains, assuming that God is omnipotent, why does it exist at all?[/quote]

In order for us to exist. According to the Bible, man couldn’t live in a world without suffering. Temptation was easily accepted and the rights to that existance were lost. That is why I brought up that part from The Matrix. It is the only movie I can think of that attacked that exact delimma head on as blatantly as it did. Man, with the ability to choose, can not exist without pain or a negative aspect to life. It seems to need it in order for the ability to choose to be present.

That means, when you ask why it exists…it exists because we aren’t robots and were given the ability to choose. Without it, we wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t be here to be asking the question in the first place.

216

[quote]Professor X wrote:
michael2507 wrote:

While that answers my question with regard to omnipotence, at the same time, it shifts the apparent incoherency to the aspect of omnibenevolence, i.e. the property of being absolutely and inherently good. God chooses to see His creation suffer, chooses to curse His creatures although He simply could make a change for the better, etc. Even if you assume that evil, suffering and pain exist only in “this world”, the question still remains, assuming that God is omnipotent, why does it exist at all?

In order for us to exist. According to the Bible, man couldn’t live in a world without suffering. Temptation was easily accepted and the rights to that existance were lost. That is why I brought up that part from The Matrix. It is the only movie I can think of that attacked that exact delimma head on as blatantly as it did. Man, with the ability to choose, can not exist without pain or a negative aspect to life. It seems to need it in order for the ability to choose to be present.

That means, when you ask why it exists…it exists because we aren’t robots and were given the ability to choose. Without it, we wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t be here to be asking the question in the first place.[/quote]

I see. So basically, the evil that results from the exertion of free will can be seen as the price of human freedom. The value of freedom lies therein, that it enables us to make choices, most of all moral choices, choices to create moral good and conversely moral evil. The ability to choose is necessary in order for us to be “human”, a creation in God’s own image.

But what about disease, disasters, etc.? The suffering created here is not the result of the exertion of free will, at least in most cases. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be possible for an omnipotent being to grant the ability to choose freely, yet inhibit negative consequences, e.g. the subsequent suffering and pain? Granted, when there is no possibility of negative consequences, it could be put into question if a choice could still be considered a moral choice.

Lastly, on a related note, there still remains the issue of the jealous God, repenting His act of creation, experiencing grief, cursing His own creatures although it must have been obvious to Him as an omniscient being that the gift of free will would have the said consequences.

217

[quote]michael2507 wrote:

But what about disease, disasters, etc.? The suffering created here is not the result of the exertion of free will, at least in most cases. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be possible for an omnipotent being to grant the ability to choose freely, yet inhibit negative consequences, e.g. the subsequent suffering and pain? Granted, when there is no possibility of negative consequences, it could be put into question if a choice could still be considered a moral choice.[/quote]

How could there be a moral choice between right and wrong if Good was the shining choice in all circumstances and there was no alternative negative side that balanced it equally?

[quote]
Lastly, on a related note, there still remains the issue of the jealous God, repenting His act of creation, experiencing grief, cursing His own creatures although it must have been obvious to Him as an omniscient being that the gift of free will would have the said consequences.[/quote]

Or perhaps man has chosen to explain God’s actions by assigning him more “human” feelings so that he can be understood in any way at all.

If your goal was for the MAJORITY to understand the simplest workings of a very complex state of affairs…you would go about this by jumping into some advanced abstract philosophy that most won’t even understand?

218

[quote]Professor X wrote:
michael2507 wrote:

While that answers my question with regard to omnipotence, at the same time, it shifts the apparent incoherency to the aspect of omnibenevolence, i.e. the property of being absolutely and inherently good. God chooses to see His creation suffer, chooses to curse His creatures although He simply could make a change for the better, etc. Even if you assume that evil, suffering and pain exist only in “this world”, the question still remains, assuming that God is omnipotent, why does it exist at all?

In order for us to exist. According to the Bible, man couldn’t live in a world without suffering. Temptation was easily accepted and the rights to that existance were lost. That is why I brought up that part from The Matrix. It is the only movie I can think of that attacked that exact delimma head on as blatantly as it did. Man, with the ability to choose, can not exist without pain or a negative aspect to life. It seems to need it in order for the ability to choose to be present.

That means, when you ask why it exists…it exists because we aren’t robots and were given the ability to choose. Without it, we wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t be here to be asking the question in the first place.[/quote]

That was great!

219

[quote]Professor X wrote:
michael2507 wrote:

But what about disease, disasters, etc.? The suffering created here is not the result of the exertion of free will, at least in most cases. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be possible for an omnipotent being to grant the ability to choose freely, yet inhibit negative consequences, e.g. the subsequent suffering and pain? Granted, when there is no possibility of negative consequences, it could be put into question if a choice could still be considered a moral choice.

How could there be a moral choice between right and wrong if Good was the shining choice in all circumstances and there was no alternative negative side that balanced it equally? [/quote]

In the latter constellation mentioned above, there would be a choice between good and evil. God would allow evil choices, only inhibit their evil consequences. There would be a negative side, i.e. the choice of moral evil, only the results wouldn’t manifest in suffering. Though, as I stated myself, freedom of choice without freedom to inflict the pursuant consequences would probably be problematic with regard to moral choices.

As for disease and disaster, there often is nobody who chooses at all. For example, there is neither a good or an evil moral choice necessary to cause the birth of a disabled child who will suffer under the consequences of its ailment. In this case, there is suffering which cannot be attributed to the exertion of free will. That was the point I was trying to make.

I believe that this is the case. I also recall a poster writing on this thread something along the lines of: All we know of God is what we have the potential to know and all we can do is try and understand what God wants us to know of himself as revealed in the Bible. As the human mind definitely is capable of grasping more abstract concepts which would provide a much more coherent picture, why would God present himself in a seemingly suboptimal way, though?[/quote]

[quote]
If your goal was for the MAJORITY to understand the simplest workings of a very complex state of affairs…you would go about this by jumping into some advanced abstract philosophy that most won’t even understand?[/quote]

Well, my goal here is to sort out specific issues that strike me as apparent incoherencies with significant implications, nothing more. I’m trying to find a possible logical and coherent way of explaining these things. I guess that’s the reason why I’m addressing these selective aspects the way I am.

Anyway, thanks to all for the responses so far.

220

[quote]michael2507 wrote:

In the latter constellation mentioned above, there would be a choice between good and evil. God would allow evil choices, only inhibit their evil consequences. There would be a negative side, i.e. the choice of moral evil, only the results wouldn’t manifest in suffering. Though, as I stated myself, freedom of choice without freedom to inflict the pursuant consequences would probably be problematic with regard to moral choices.[/quote]

Exactly, which is why it wouldn’t make sense. Good acts come with good feelings and very often, good consequences. Without being balanced by “bad consequences” the good choice would always be the logical route to take. Let’s not even get into how some “bad acts” might have good consequences and some good acts might have bad ones.

[quote]
As for disease and disaster, there often is nobody who chooses at all. For example, there is neither a good or an evil moral choice necessary to cause the birth of a disabled child who will suffer under the consequences of its ailment. In this case, there is suffering which cannot be attributed to the exertion of free will. That was the point I was trying to make.[/quote]

The Tsunami disaster was an indescribable negative occurance. That much human suffering from one natural disaster is often hard to put into words. I think it is natural to ask why things happen. Why did my Grandmother have to die the way she did. She helped a lot of people in her life time…most of all me. Why did she have to suffer? One thing I can tell you, is that I work harder and live harder because of it. I know I won’t live forever and that nothing is guaranteed. In my honest view, if a man lives well in spite of the negative, there isn’t anything much better. I have also seen some very negative things in my life. Maybe it helps me appreciate the positive that much more.

[quote]
I believe that this is the case. I also recall a poster writing on this thread something along the lines of: All we know of God is what we have the potential to know and all we can do is try and understand what God wants us to know of himself as revealed in the Bible. As the human mind definitely is capable of grasping more abstract concepts which would provide a much more coherent picture, why would God present himself in a seemingly suboptimal way, though?[/quote]

In all honesty, do you get the impression that the majority of the people in the world are deep thinkers? Do the majority come across as “highly intelligent” to you? Is that even necessary to understand the value of human life?

[quote]
Well, my goal here is to sort out specific issues that strike me as apparent incoherencies with significant implications, nothing more. I’m trying to find a possible logical and coherent way of explaining these things. I guess that’s the reason why I’m addressing these selective aspects the way I am.

Anyway, thanks to all for the responses so far.[/quote]

I think we did pretty good. Don’t you?