God hates little black kids

[Graham]

Take god in whatever flavour you like - Yahweh, Alllah, Mother Earth, you name it.

It seems to me that whoever he or she is, he really hates those black kids.

The vast majority of the world's black peole live guess where.

The vast majority of Africa is guess what.

Civil war, famine, AIDS, you name it, Africa's got it in absolute spades (no hideously insensitive racial pun intended).

God really hates those black kids, hey?

Hey all you loving Christians - what does God have against black people? Hey all you "Allah loves wonderous variety" types - why doesn't he love black people?

God, the ultimate clansman :rolleyes:

Graham

[Dancing David]

That is partly why I believe the universe is a chaotic bunch of atoms with no pupose.

Lifegazer says that all those people suffer because it will make god more joyful.

[LuxFerum]

God love them, that is why he is bringing they close to him.

[UnrepentantSinner]

From what I've seen of living conditions in countries like India and Latin America, he's not a big fan of the brown ones either.

[Mercutio]

Based solely on my own life...god must love atheists.

[Wyvern]

Well, my own father would have told you - when he was still alive - that it's because they (those in third world countries - particularly the black and brown people) are Godless savages. So you see, it's their own fault they live under such apalling conditions.
:rm:

All of which is "partly why I believe the universe is a chaotic bunch of atoms with no purpose."

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Graham
Take god in whatever flavour you like - Yahweh, Alllah, Mother Earth, you name it.

...

God, the ultimate clansman :rolleyes:

Graham

You mean Klansman. Clansmen are OK. Bonnie Scotland forever!

What happens, happens. What evil people do, they do.

If there is a God, meaning some entity who willed the universe into existence, then the most obvious explanation is that He simply does not care.

I say there is no God, but either way we are hideously on our own.

The various news organizations try to make it look like the end of civilization every time there is one casualty in Iraq.

Meanwhile, millions die in Africa. The weapons are not high-tech. Machetes and rifles. No "weapons of mass destruction" at all, yet there is mass destruction.

Where is the UN? Supporting "legitimate" governments, of course. :mad:

[calladus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Based solely on my own life...god must love atheists. Hm, now that you mention it, I guess it may be true.

My life was no great shakes as a Christian, but now that I'm a non-believer, things are going swell!

[T'ai Chi]

God probably(?) would also show mirth at risible atheist strawgod embroilments.


It seems to me that whoever he or she is, he really hates those black kids.


Some conjectures: God could have given humans life to begin with and then could have left humanity to themselves and their free will, Good and bad and black and white and young and old, etc., are human concepts, Nature/God/whatever existing does not mean that life has to be easy, painless, or etc., Since atheists believe there is no god, it is really the random godless forces of their materialistic universe that "hate little black kids", There is a difference between permitting and causing.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by calladus
Hm, now that you mention it, I guess it may be true.

My life was no great shakes as a Christian, but now that I'm a non-believer, things are going swell!

Were you one of those hellfire fearing Christians or something?

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There is a difference between permitting and causing.
Yes, but you get jail time for both.

[Graham]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
God probably(?) would also show mirth at risible atheist strawgod embroilments.

Some conjectures: God could have given humans life to begin with and then could have left humanity to themselves and their free will, Good and bad and black and white and young and old, etc., are human concepts, Nature/God/whatever existing does not mean that life has to be easy, painless, or etc., Since atheists believe there is no god, it is really the random godless forces of their materialistic universe that "hate little black kids", There is a difference between permitting and causing.

So many fallacies so little time . . .

1) Where is the "strawgod"? Whichever god you choose, he apparently has it in for one group or another. Thay all appear to have it in for the black population of the world.

As USA has pointed out, he's not that keen on brown people either or yellow if you consider that the majority of the population of China still lives in the middle ages starving and ignorant at the whim of their feudal lords.

I have not constructed any god straw or otherwise. I am merely reflecting on the qualities of those already invented.

2) We could debate all day about whether or not "free will" exists. Assuming it does though, where is the freewill in where you are born or what your skin colour is? Statistically, if you are born black, you are most likely to be born in Africa and are therefore many times more likely to live a short and unpleasant and painful life than if you are born in Europe or the US (or Japan or more "civilised" parts of China or, or, or . . .). Your reference to free will is therefore a red herring.

3) "Since atheists believe there is no god" - that too is open to debate. Personally, I don't feel that I believe in "no god", I just don't believe in "a god". The difference is subtle but important.

4) "it is really the random godless forces of their materialistic universe that "hate little black kids" - Eh, no. Random godless forces are, by definition, random. They don't hate anybody any more than they like or love anybody. They have neither emotions nor intentions.

5) "There is a difference between permitting and causing"

Here's a little experiment for you to try -

Dig a hole in the pavement outside your house, put a bunch of spikes in the bottom and cover it up with netting or something. Now go back in your house and watch until someone falls into the hole and impales themselves on the spikes.

When the police arrive, tell them you didn't cause the person to fall in the hole, you just permitted it.

When you get out on bail, let us know what they said.

Graham

[UnrepentantSinner]

Graham, despite your quote, thank you for again reminding me why I have Tai Chi on iggy.

The fact remains, as Europe grows less Godly, it's standard of living increases. As Africa grows more Godly, it's standard of living declines. As the U.S. continues it's psychotic relationship with an all benificent and simultaneously all vengeful deity economic difficulties really haven't effected the standard of living.

Nothing says a loving deity like starvation and AIDS... unless you count a 700 Club food truck showing up for 3 hours of evangelism and 20 minutes of food distribution.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some conjectures: God could have given humans life to begin with and then could have left humanity to themselves and their free will, Good and bad and black and white and young and old, etc., are human concepts, Nature/God/whatever existing does not mean that life has to be easy, painless, or etc., Since atheists believe there is no god, it is really the random godless forces of their materialistic universe that "hate little black kids", There is a difference between permitting and causing.

So, if there is a God he is essentially useless.

Of course, I always find it amusing that many believers claim that there is suffering in the world because God gave us free will and doesn't interfere in the day to day workings of the world. Yet, at the same time they love to point out the wonderful miracles that are the result of prayer (y'know, the dying kid who defied medical odds by surviving because his parents and relatives prayed for him.) Which is it? If God occasionally helps out people who pray, then he must be held accountable for the deaths of innocent children. You can't have it both ways.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this is what you believe T'ai Chi, as I don't know enough about your own personal philosophies.

However your statement:

it is really the random godless forces of their materialistic universe that "hate little black kids",

Is a massive bit of silliness worthy of Franko.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by KelvinG
If God occasionally helps out people who pray, then he must be held accountable for the deaths of innocent children. You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can, because they have that covered up too: "God works in mysterious ways". See ? :cool:

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by El Greco


Yes you can, because they have that covered up too: "God works in mysterious ways". See ? :cool:

i.e. "God can be a real prick when he wants to be!":p

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

Yes, but you get jail time for both.

Uh, ok, only if you are considering criminal activities here, but you can also consider good things.

If a God exists and creates people with the capability to do harm, and people have free will, that means God should be convicted when that person does harm? I don't think so..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Graham, despite your quote, thank you for again reminding me why I have Tai Chi on iggy.


You can run away from a discussion, that is fine with me. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Graham

So many fallacies so little time . . .


On your side, or mine?


the majority of the population of China still lives in the middle ages starving and ignorant at the whim of their feudal lords.


LOL!!!! Are you for real????!


4) "it is really the random godless forces of their materialistic universe that "hate little black kids" - Eh, no. Random godless forces are, by definition, random. They don't hate anybody any more than they like or love anybody. They have neither emotions nor intentions.


Yeah, but do they cause it all to happen, or not? The world is all material afterall, right?


Dig a hole in the pavement outside your house, put a bunch of spikes in the bottom and cover it up with netting or something. Now go back in your house and watch until someone falls into the hole and impales themselves on the spikes.

When the police arrive, tell them you didn't cause the person to fall in the hole, you just permitted it.


You've only demonstrated that I have free will to choose to do that or not.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Uh, ok, only if you are considering criminal activities here, but you can also consider good things.

If a God exists and creates people with the capability to do harm, and people have free will, that means God should be convicted when that person does harm? I don't think so..


Uh, ok, only if you are considering criminal activities here, but you can also consider good things.

Like a father that beats and rapes his little girl but then buts her a new bike after? Does the bike erase the beatings and rape?

If a God exists and creates people with the capability to do harm, and people have free will, that means God should be convicted when that person does harm? I don't think so..

Yes if this being creates a being knowing before “he” creates them that they will do harm to your child yet stands back and does nothing when he kills your child.

If the god knows the killer will kill your child before he creates him and still creates him it is the god that is the true killer not actually the man.

If you use the Christian view of free will and god you must then admit it is illogical as let us again use your child as the one being killed she I would assume had the free will NOT to be killed. What of her free will why is his able to over ride hers. Why would an all powerful being allow such and do nothing and then punish the man for doing what he was “made” to do be cause this God knew it before hand.

In any court the God would be found guilty.

[Igopogo]

I’ll have to wait for the outcome of the story before drawing a final conclusion, but so far it appears that when “the meek inherit the Earth”, they do so as fertilizer.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Based solely on my own life...god must love atheists.


Heh. I agree.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Igopogo
I’ll have to wait for the outcome of the story before drawing a final conclusion, but so far it appears that when “the meek inherit the Earth”, they do so as fertilizer.

The meek always win.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


The meek always win.

That is either very deep................or superficial, frivolous and insincere.........please expand a little.
Peter

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Graham

God, the ultimate clansman :rolleyes:

Graham

As pointed out by our mad arab, that's klansman.

And then you've got clansmen, and of course clanners for all you BT enthusiasts out there (Theodore kurita? You out there?). Makes for lovely phrases like: "Bloody stupid clanners. Fetch me my MadCat."

I should say, go does appear to hate whales, pigeons, and thylacaines with a passion. Poor, poor thylacaines.

I suppose the point of this is that, in view of how the world actually operates, it's hard to posit any anthopamorphic deity whose moral codes are in line with ours without serious apologetic workarounds. Since much of what offends skeptics is the unquestioning positation (?) of an anthropamorphic deity who not only works in line (theroretically, see psalms 137:9) but is the origin of our moral values. This seems ireconcilable with the actual state of the world.

[Mr Clingford]

I agree that a God who appears to heal someone, or give someone a parking space when they want to go shopping, and yet appears to not give a damn about the plight of millions is a screwed up concept. But we are responsible for our own actions; civil war and famine are not unrelated, for instance, and are partly consequences of human action.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I agree that a God who appears to heal someone, or give someone a parking space when they want to go shopping, and yet appears to not give a damn about the plight of millions is a screwed up concept. But we are responsible for our own actions; civil war and famine are not unrelated, for instance, and are partly consequences of human action.

Who's this "we"?

A toddler can barely be held responsible for his or her own actions.

You are holding the starving (and the ones with AIDS, malaria, TB, machete wounds, etc, etc, etc) children of Africa responsible for the actions of their parents, extended family, community, local government, national government and the many and various various international government, corporations and associations that have or had at some point and influence over the development of their society.

Last week my four year old out a penny down the back of the TV and it blew a fuse or something. I didn't punish her because she didn't know any better.

Do you believe that it is right to punish entire generations of equally innocent children for misdeeds that, not only are they too innoccent to understand but which that had absolutely nothing to do with anyway?

Graham

[Mr Clingford]

Please, won't somebody think of the children!

Do you just wish to rant or make some serious points?

Who's this "You"?

No, I am not holding children responsible for what i mentioned - famine and war.

And of course I believe that it is right to punish entire generations of equally innocent children for misdeeds that, not only are they too innoccent to understand but which that had absolutely nothing to do with anyway!! Not

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Please, won't somebody think of the children!

Do you just wish to rant or make some serious points?

Who's this "You"?

No, I am not holding children responsible for what i mentioned - famine and war.

And of course I believe that it is right to punish entire generations of equally innocent children for misdeeds that, not only are they too innoccent to understand but which that had absolutely nothing to do with anyway!! Not

I'm sorry, what exactly was your point then?

But we are responsible for our own actions; civil war and famine are not unrelated, for instance, and are partly consequences of human action.

Now you're saying you don't think "we" are responsible?

Graham

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The meek always win.That is either very deep................or superficial, frivolous and insincere.........please expand a little.You graciously overlooked "stupid".

[Mr Clingford]

Now you're saying you don't think "we" are responsible?
I stated that we have responsibility but that circumstances like the weather affet our actions.

To answer your questionHey all you loving Christians - what does God have against black people? Hey all you "Allah loves wonderous variety" types - why doesn't he love black people?
Nothing. He does

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

I stated that we have responsibility but that circumstances like the weather affet our actions.

Again with the "we". Wo is this "we"? Is it the people actually responsible for the actions in questions or those suffering from their effects? The two are not always the same.

Basically, as far as the starving children of Africa are concerned, a civil war is as much an "Act of God" as a hurricane. They can no more hope to affect the course of one than the other.


To answer your question
Nothing. He does

All available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise. Can you honestly deny this?

Do you have any basis for your statement other than blind faith?

Graham

[Mr Clingford]

Again with the "we". Wo is this "we"? Is it the people actually responsible for the actions in questions or those suffering from their effects? The two are not always the same.
OK. I mean it in the general sense that humans (with the usual exceptions like young children etc) are responsible on the whole for their actions. Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine.
All available evidence would tend to suggest otherwise. Can you honestly deny this?Do you have any basis for your statement other than blind faith?
Hmm, evidence. It depends on your premises. If your definition of "God loves" means that nothing bad happens in the world then of course all available evidence is against that assertion. If you think that the inter-relation between God and the world is more complicated then that evidence is not so obvious.
My 'answers' of course were facetious, like your 'questions'. I myself think that humans are responsible for much more than many Christians believe. I am not sure what practical difference it makes to our lives that I believe that God exists and loves us. My statements are based on rational thought, my own experiences, my own 'prejudices'; it is faith but I would contest the extent of its blindness.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
OK. I mean it in the general sense that humans (with the usual exceptions like young children etc) are responsible on the whole for their actions. Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine.

I grant you that every individual human being is responsible for his or her actions. It would apprear that we are in agreement on this point.

I will even extend that to allow that human beings are to an extent responsible for the actions of those they associate with (be they family members, friends, political parties or whatever).

Where we differ is in the idea that an individual human being is responsible for the actions of other human beings wtih whom he/she has no connection and over whom he/she has no influence.

Do you believe that they are? Clearly, people in the world are suffering as a result of actions not their own and actions they could have done nothing to prevent (in many cases events which took place long before they were born).

Do you believe that they deserve this suffering because other human beings are at least partially responsible for them?

Do you not agree that this seems, at the very least, monstrously unfair?

Hmm, evidence. It depends on your premises. If your definition of "God loves" means that nothing bad happens in the world then of course all available evidence is against that assertion. If you think that the inter-relation between God and the world is more complicated then that evidence is not so obvious.

What evidence is there for any inter-relaction between your God and the world?

Regardless, no definition of "love" that I am familiar with includes allowing the object of that love to suffer terrible cruely and pain when said cruelty and pain is within the lover's power to remove.

You can, of course, respond to that with "ours not to reason why . . ." etc but you will have to forgive me if I consider it selfish of your God to put his divine plan ahead of the suffering of his children.


My 'answers' of course were facetious, like your 'questions'. I myself think that humans are responsible for much more than many Christians believe. I am not sure what practical difference it makes to our lives that I believe that God exists and loves us. My statements are based on rational thought, my own experiences, my own 'prejudices'; it is faith but I would contest the extent of its blindness.

The questions are not facetious, unless you find the world's suffering humorous in some way.

The world is filled with suffering, much of it through absolutely no fault of the victims.

Anyone who posits the existence of an all-powerful god, must allow that said god has the power to remove that suffering and yet doesn't. They must therefore insist that he has some plan that necessitates this suffering or at least permits it to continue.

By worshipping that god, you are subscribing to a plan that you do not understand and cannot see then object of.

That sounds like blind faith to me. No?

Graham

[Dancing David]

I used to have friends who defined god as everything good in human natures, certainly not all powerful , eh?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I used to have friends who defined god as everything good in human natures, certainly not all powerful , eh?

Hi David,

Why use the word "God" to describe that?

It is entirely contrary to the standard use and dictionary definition of the word.

Why noy use a different word, since it's something different that you're talking about. By co-opting an existing word you are promoting confusion, IMO.

Graham

PS _ it occurs to me that the phrase "football is my god" might be what you are intending by your use of the word, meaning - football is something that I worship a as though it were a god or, in your case, the "good" in humanity is something you worship as though it were a god.

Is that right? I still think it's misleading, if so, but I can understand the sentiment.

[Mr Clingford]

Where we differ is in the idea that an individual human being is responsible for the actions of other human beings wtih whom he/she has no connection and over whom he/she has no influence.
But I had just written "Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine" so why did you post the above?
The questions are not facetious, unless you find the world's suffering humorous in some way
You did ask whether God was a clansman!
The world is filled with suffering, much of it through absolutely no fault of the victims
I absolutely agree.
I need to check. The issue of suffering is, indeed, a major issue, perhaps the major issue contending the existence of God. Free will does, I think, go some way in providing a possible reason for lots of stuff happening
What evidence is there for any inter-relaction between your God and the world? None
Surely you are familiar with the old arguments of free will and don't need to rehash them?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

But I had just written "Obviously a 3 year old is not responsible for famine" so why did you post the above?

You did ask whether God was a clansman!

I absolutely agree.
I need to check. The issue of suffering is, indeed, a major issue, perhaps the major issue contending the existence of God. Free will does, I think, go some way in providing a possible reason for lots of stuff happening
None
Surely you are familiar with the old arguments of free will and don't need to rehash them?

I think you are missing my point . . .

The vast majority of the victims of world suffering are not authors of their own misfortune i.e. they can in no way be said to have caused or be responsible for or have any ability to prevent the misfortunes that are affecting them.

Their free will or lack thereof is therefore of absolutely no relevence to the question - it is, as they say, a red herring.

Graham

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford





I absolutely agree.
I need to check. The issue of suffering is, indeed, a major issue, perhaps the major issue contending the existence of God. Free will does, I think, go some way in providing a possible reason for lots of stuff happening

None
Surely you are familiar with the old arguments of free will and don't need to rehash them?

Greetings Mr Clingford.

I hope you are well and happy.
I ask with respect as to your or the Christian belief or view of free will may I ask you to respond with your beliefs/thoughts as to my post to T'ai Chi concerning this topic?

Which can be found just 19 post back.

I look forward to your thoughts.
Be well.

[Mr Clingford]

Free will is relevant - the free will of the rapist, government minister etc

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Free will is relevant - the free will of the rapist, government minister etc


With respect that is not an answer.

Do you mean relative?



If Christian Belief of free will is to be at all relevant then what I ask is very relevant. Please if you will take my post and if you would answer each statement with your thoughts.

I also would not agree if you do mean it is relative.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
[Like a father that beats and rapes his little girl but then buts her a new bike after? Does the bike erase the beatings and rape?I'm not sure what you are saying here.



Yes if this being creates a being knowing before “he” creates them that they will do harm to your child yet stands back and does nothing when he kills your child.

If the god knows the killer will kill your child before he creates him and still creates him it is the god that is the true killer not actually the man.

If you use the Christian view of free will and god you must then admit it is illogical as let us again use your child as the one being killed she I would assume had the free will NOT to be killed. What of her free will why is his able to over ride hers. Why would an all powerful being allow such and do nothing and then punish the man for doing what he was “made” to do be cause this God knew it before hand.

In any court the God would be found guilty. [/B]
The response is that just because God (being outside of time/space etc) knew something would happen does not take away the free will of the individual whose free action it was

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Free will is relevant - the free will of the rapist, government minister etc

Then you are holding individuals responsible for the actions of others. My reasoning for this statement is as follows:

Person A commits action

That action causes an event (directly or indirectly)

That event causes suffering in Person B

Person B has taken the responsibility (i.e. suffered the consequences) of the actions of Person A.

The only flaw in this logic, that I can see, is that I have equated taking responsibility and suffering the consequences and perhaps confused the two in earlier arguments.

It's not a fatal flaw, however, since the fact remains that Person B is suffering for the actions for Person A.
Graham

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I'm not sure what you are saying here.




The response is that just because God (being outside of time/space etc) knew something would happen does not take away the free will of the individual whose free action it was

Greetings


Originally posted by Pahansiri
[Like a father that beats and rapes his little girl but then buts her a new bike after? Does the bike erase the beatings and rape?

I'm not sure what you are saying here.


What I said in that statement was in to the following

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Uh, ok, only if you are considering criminal activities here, but you can also consider good things.

He is saying that if one looks only at “gods bad actions/things” you need give “him” credit for the good things. I believe I demonstrated such logic is illogical.


The response is that just because God (being outside of time/space etc) knew something would happen does not take away the free will of the individual whose free action it was


Of course I respect you believe there is a God so and say it is a belief so there is no need for you to first prove God as would be required if you said it was fact.

As to “ living outside time and space” I would like at some time if you would also to have a conversation about that over used and what I believe simplistic response. What is “ outside time and space” what proof do we have to use this statement to use it as if fact? This would still be a realm of existence and by such who created it for if all things need be created it would need be there before the God. Another time perhaps.

I disagree with the main point of your statement.

If I give a man I know is a killer a gun and he uses it to kill people am I not liable?

If I allow a child rapist and killer to enter your home, give him the keys knowing what he will do am I not liable?

You did not answer as to what of the free will of the child not to wish to be raped and killed?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Graham


Then you are holding individuals responsible for the actions of others. My reasoning for this statement is as follows:

Person A commits action

That action causes an event (directly or indirectly)

That event causes suffering in Person B

Person B has taken the responsibility (i.e. suffered the consequences) of the actions of Person A.

The only flaw in this logic, that I can see, is that I have equated taking responsibility and suffering the consequences and perhaps confused the two in earlier arguments.

It's not a fatal flaw, however, since the fact remains that Person B is suffering for the actions for Person A.
Graham
Yes, I am differentiating between the 2 phrasings. Yes PB is suffering for the actions of PA, but the argument goes that PA's free will would be violated if God intervened

[Mr Clingford]

Of course I respect you believe there is a God so and say it is a belief so there is no need for you to first prove God as would be required if you said it was fact.
Good morning. Of course, I can't prove there is a God!
If I give a man I know is a killer a gun and he uses it to kill people am I not liable? Yes, you do have some responsibilty, but the 2 analogies are not accurate IMO. Humanity has the means to make a gun and/or a plough. I do not see such a causal realtionship between God and humanity in such a direct way as is suggested by them. You are right that it appears nonsense to believe in a God that intervenes or doesn't in a haphazard fashion.
You did not answer as to what of the free will of the child not to wish to be raped and killed? I'm sorry, I am not sure what point you are making there.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

Yes, I am differentiating between the 2 phrasings. Yes PB is suffering for the actions of PA, but the argument goes that PA's free will would be violated if God intervened

This argument is fallacious, IMO, since if PA tries to do something and is prevented, his free will is not affected - only his freedom of action is affected.

In other words he is free to think what he likes and free to try and do what he likes but not free to inflict suffering on PB.

Otherwise, where is PB's free will? He has no choice, no freedom whatsoever.

Why would a loving god grant free will to some but not to others?

Alternatively, do you believe that the free will of PA extends to removing the free willl of PB?

In this scenario, free will is an illusion since it can be negated at any time by the actions of another.

Graham

[Mr Clingford]

I think I mean by free will that God does not dictate our actions as, of course, others impinge on us

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

Good morning. Of course, I can't prove there is a God!
Yes, you do have some responsibilty, but the 2 analogies are not accurate IMO. Humanity has the means to make a gun and/or a plough. I do not see such a causal realtionship between God and humanity in such a direct way as is suggested by them. You are right that it appears nonsense to believe in a God that intervenes or doesn't in a haphazard fashion.
I'm sorry, I am not sure what point you are making there.




Yes, you do have some responsibilty, but the 2 analogies are not accurate IMO.

they are very much the same perhaps as to the man giving the gun to a known killer knowing he would kill would have far less responsibility then a all powerful god as the man is just a man and the God would be “perfect”

To say a man would have ‘some responsibility” for giving a killer a gun when he knew he would use it to kill is and I do not mean you disrespect, silly and I believe said only to try to support your belief.

I believe and I may be wrong if That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would not then say he had “some responsibility”. That is what I believe.

To sat a all knowing all powerful being would have no responsibility when he knew before creating a being that this being would rape, torture and kill your child, I find illogical.

You avoid answering my question as to the free will of the child not to be rape, torture and killed.

This also brings up if you will the Adam and Eve myth .

A all knowing God tells 2 people not to do something he knew they would ( note he does not tell them about the other tree that would bring them lasting peace and freedom but just this tree). He knows full well ahead of time they will eat the fruit but tells them he would kill them if they did ( he lied here as he did not kill them).

He then allows someone he if all powerful would have full control over to tempt and confuse them into eating the apple. Knowing full well they would do so.

He then does nothing to the person who tempts them, gets mad at them for what he knew they would do and them punishes all generations after that who had nothing to do with it.

Sad, that is not a loving father.

Lets look at the same story this way.

You as a father have a child at 18 , you sit this child at the table and he is hungry. You tell him to sit there and do not move. You then place his very favorite candy bar right in front of him and say don’t eat it or I will kill you.

You already know he would eat it as you can see into the future.

You then allow in the room a pedophile you have complete control over and you know this pedophile will in time convince the child to eat the candy.

You burst into the room and punish him with a life time of beatings you also have more children over the years the youngest you have many years later when you are 70. Each of these children you also beat for the oldest eating the canndy.

Does this sound logical? Like the actions of a loving all-powerful father?
Who is blame, the child or you for setting him up.

Why punish the children that had nothing to do with the incident?




Humanity has the means to make a gun and/or a plough.

Yes and to your belief God would have known what would be made and how it would be used and in the cases where it would be used to harm innocents.


I do not see such a causal realtionship between God and humanity in such a direct way as is suggested by them.

With respect I find that sad.

I'm sorry, I am not sure what point you are making there.

I said You did not answer as to what of the free will of the child not to wish to be raped and killed?

It is simple really. What of the free will of the child not to be raped and killed?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
I think I mean by free will that God does not dictate our actions as, of course, others impinge on us

But I have free will not to be killed, I choose not to be killed as the killer choose to kill me. Are you saying only killers have free will as to your Gods plan?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

To say a man would have ‘some responsibility” for giving a killer a gun when he knew he would use it to kill is and I do not mean you disrespect, silly and I believe said only to try to support your belief.Would you explain why it is silly

I believe and I may be wrong if That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would not then say he had “some responsibility”. That is what I believe.

To sat a all knowing all powerful being would have no responsibility when he knew before creating a being that this being would rape, torture and kill your child, I find illogical.I suggest again that God being outside of time knowing something does not take away free will

Yes and to your belief God would have known what would be made and how it would be used and in the cases where it would be used to harm innocents.

With respect I find that sad.



I said You did not answer as to what of the free will of the child not to wish to be raped and killed?

It is simple really. What of the free will of the child not to be raped and killed?
Lots of points! First in regard to your last, perhaps you would define what you mean by "free will"?

Re the Adam and Eve myth. I do not believe in the kind of God you have posited (even though other Christians may believe it, I do not). I am not a literalist with regard to the Bible.
God has created a universe in which he does not interfere with the choices of sentient beings. The consequences of that are that people, therefore, are able to harm others. Would you like to live in a world where you were not free?

[Mr Clingford]

It is simple really. What of the free will of the child not to be raped and killed?It is not affected by God but by humanity

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford Would you explain why it is silly


I believe I did and also believe it is self-evident but I will again explain why I believe it is silly. First allow me to again post what I said last time.



Originally posted by Pahansiri

To say a man would have ‘some responsibility” for giving a killer a gun when he knew he would use it to kill is and I do not mean you disrespect, silly and I believe said only to try to support your belief. Would you explain why it is silly


If you Mr Clingford give to a known mentally unstable killer a gun which you know fully he will use to kill another person or person then do nothing to stop this act you are MORE then or have more then just ‘some responsibility” you are a premeditated accessory to FIRST degree murder. I spoke to a lawyer friend about just such a scenario he informed me your actions would fall under FIRST degree murder as your actions were premeditated. You would face more charges then even the shooter.


Originally posted by Pahansiri
I believe and I may be wrong if That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would not then say he had “some responsibility”. That is what I believe.

Why do you not respond to this? I ask again IF That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would still then say he had only “some responsibility”?

Please be honest and answer.



Originally posted by Pahansiri
To sat a all knowing all powerful being would have no responsibility when he knew before creating a being that this being would rape, torture and kill your child, I find illogical.



You responded. I suggest again that God being outside of time knowing something does not take away free will

Allow me to first start with words by David Brooks "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

For your statement to be at all relavent or carry any weight you must
1st Prove god
2nd prove “he” lives outside of time and space and prove this outside time and space
3rd explain why this god is limited due to being outside time and space. Why is it relevant where this being is? If all powerful it does not matter if “he” is outside time and space or standing right beside you.

Lets look what is known and add a touch of belief . IF your God exists no matter where “he” lives he created a being knowing full will this being will rape, torture and kill many causing suffering to countless. He does nothing to stop or fix this being to stop this. As for before he creates this being the right thing to do what a loving father would do is fix him ( an all powerful being would have no problem doing this) as God knew he would do this and the causes and conditions in this being life that would be a driving cause and or the illness he had that was again not his fault or something he asked for. This killer was not born choosing to kill people when he was older.

Your God is 100% at fault.

Think logically and not emotionally, wanting God to exist and be what you want to believe it is.

Pahansiri wrote: Yes and to your belief God would have known what would be made and how it would be used and in the cases where it would be used to harm innocents.

With respect I find that sad.



I said You did not answer as to what of the free will of the child not to wish to be raped and killed?

It is simple really. What of the free will of the child not to be raped and killed?[/quote]



You responded:



Lots of points!

Yes and sadly you avoided most of them



First in regard to your last, perhaps you would define what you mean by "free will"?

Sure even with the fact you have refused to respond directly to that point after I have now asked it several times. I have shown you the respect of answering each point you make and answer your every question, why will you not do the same?

We are using for the purpose of this conversation the Christian view of free will and you know that.

My very first post to you said this: Greetings Mr Clingford.

I hope you are well and happy.
I ask with respect as to your or the Christian belief or view of free will may I ask


I will ask again what of the free will desire to live and be happy and not be raped, the free will desire of her parents, grandparents entire family and friends all of their free will and desire to have live safe and happy is less important to your God then the free will and desire of this one man to rape and kill her and effect so many?



Re the Adam and Eve myth. I do not believe in the kind of God you have posited (even though other Christians may believe it, I do not). I am not a literalist with regard to the Bible.

OK I respect that. What do you base your personal Christian belief on? I know the Bibles very well and can post for hours untold atrocities perpetrated by God or for him under his direction, Killings of man woman and babies, sleeping with prostitute sisters and having children with them on and on. Countless contradictions etc. Do you just pick and choose what you do and do not believe?

I do not wish to or mean to disrespect you or what you choose to believe but you have offered to debate and offered up what you believe and the nature of a discussion board is to discuses.

God has created a universe in which he does not interfere with the choices of sentient beings.





I respect that as a statement of belief. I respect you believe that but again as we are in a discussion board and this what you offer as a response to my post I must ask you prove this or support it with logical conclusion not just simply make statements.

1- Prove God – You have said you can not and that is very respectable as many will not admit that.
2- Then prove he created the universe or anything.
3- Prove “he’ does not interfere with the choices of sentient beings.

The fact is if you make a cake using all chocolate ingredients you can not be shocked or angry at the cake when it is not vanilla. You knew what is going to be.


As a father. You have a child and from day one you shape him by beating him every day, raping him, showing him porn and beating his mother while you made him watch. You shaped him you allowed him to take drugs etc.

Yes later he does all the same things, have you no responsibility and just say “ hey I have no control it is his free will”. No you created him.

He made choices but many were conditioned by what you made him to be and allow to be.



The consequences of that are that people, therefore, are able to harm others. Would you like to live in a world where you were not free?

How was it a world where the little girl was free? She was not free to not be beaten, not free not to be raped, not free not to be not killed. and none of her friends and family were free from the suffering this mans free will choices.

Free?

And we are not free as to your belief if we choose not to believe in your God no matter how we live our life we get punished? That is loving?

That is a childish ego filled self centered little spoiled child not an all powerful being.

It is not free will when someone stands over you with a bat and tells you that you are free to do anything you want as long as it is what HE wants you to do.

Tell people who were or are now still slaves they life in a free worlds. People wrongly accused who are in jails in some countries in jails that are living hells. Free world?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
It is not affected by God but by humanity

Who created humanity knowing what they would be?

You still refuse to answer, what of her free will?

It is totaly affected by your god if such is true.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings again.

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

I believe I did and also believe it is self-evident but I will again explain why I believe it is silly. First allow me to again post what I said last time.



Originally posted by Pahansiri

To say a man would have ‘some responsibility” for giving a killer a gun when he knew he would use it to kill is and I do not mean you disrespect, silly and I believe said only to try to support your belief. Would you explain why it is silly


If you Mr Clingford give to a known mentally unstable killer a gun which you know fully he will use to kill another person or person then do nothing to stop this act you are MORE then or have more then just ‘some responsibility” you are a premeditated accessory to FIRST degree murder. I spoke to a lawyer friend about just such a scenario he informed me your actions would fall under FIRST degree murder as your actions were premeditated. You would face more charges then even the shooter.


Originally posted by Pahansiri
I believe and I may be wrong if That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would not then say he had “some responsibility”. That is what I believe.

Why do you not respond to this? I ask again IF That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would still then say he had only “some responsibility”?

Please be honest and answer.

Would you explain why you think your analogies are accurate because I do not think they are and since you are the one putting them forward the onus is on you to explain them.
My phrase "some responsibility" holds because i was using "some" in the sense of "undefined amount"



Originally posted by Pahansiri
To sat a all knowing all powerful being would have no responsibility when he knew before creating a being that this being would rape, torture and kill your child, I find illogical.



You responded.

Allow me to first start with words by David Brooks "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks ...

For your statement to be at all relavent or carry any weight you must
1st Prove god
2nd prove “he” lives outside of time and space and prove this outside time and space
3rd explain why this god is limited due to being outside time and space. Why is it relevant where this being is? If all powerful it does not matter if “he” is outside time and space or standing right beside you.

Lets look what is known and add a touch of belief . IF your God exists no matter where “he” lives he created a being knowing full will this being will rape, torture and kill many causing suffering to countless. He does nothing to stop or fix this being to stop this. As for before he creates this being the right thing to do what a loving father would do is fix him but that would violate the man's free will and therefore this example doesn't work ( an all powerful being would have no problem doing this) as God knew he would do this and the causes and conditions in this being life that would be a driving cause and or the illness he had that was again not his fault or something he asked for. This killer was not born choosing to kill people when he was older.

Your God is 100% at fault.

Think logically and not emotionally, wanting God to exist and be what you want to believe it is.

Pahansiri wrote: Yes and to your belief God would have known what would be made and how it would be used and in the cases where it would be used to harm innocents.

With respect I find that sad.



I said You did not answer as to what of the free will of the child not to wish to be raped and killed?

It is simple really. What of the free will of the child not to be raped and killed?


You responded:

Yes and sadly you avoided most of them

Sure even with the fact you have refused to respond directly to that point after I have now asked it several times. I have shown you the respect of answering each point you make and answer your every question, why will you not do the same?

We are using for the purpose of this conversation the Christian view of free will and you know that.

My very first post to you said this: Greetings Mr Clingford.

I hope you are well and happy.
I ask with respect as to your or the Christian belief or view of free will may I ask


I will ask again what of the free will desire to live and be happy and not be raped, the free will desire of her parents, grandparents entire family and friends all of their free will and desire to have live safe and happy is less important to your God then the free will and desire of this one man to rape and kill her and effect so many?
I think that i have answered this already. Although God does not violate a human's free will, other humans may do so




OK I respect that. What do you base your personal Christian belief on? I know the Bibles very well and can post for hours untold atrocities perpetrated by God or for him under his direction, Killings of man woman and babies, sleeping with prostitute sisters and having children with them on and on. Countless contradictions etc. Do you just pick and choose what you do and do not believe?

I do not wish to or mean to disrespect you or what you choose to believe but you have offered to debate and offered up what you believe and the nature of a discussion board is to discuses. My beliefs are based on experience, thought and study.







I respect that as a statement of belief. I respect you believe that but again as we are in a discussion board and this what you offer as a response to my post I must ask you prove this or support it with logical conclusion not just simply make statements.

1- Prove God – You have said you can not and that is very respectable as many will not admit that.
2- Then prove he created the universe or anything.
3- Prove “he’ does not interfere with the choices of sentient beings.Of course I cannot prove points 2 or 3


As a father. You have a child and from day one you shape him by beating him every day, raping him, showing him porn and beating his mother while you made him watch. You shaped him you allowed him to take drugs etc.

Yes later he does all the same things, have you no responsibility and just say “ hey I have no control it is his free will”. No you created him.

He made choices but many were conditioned by what you made him to be and allow to be.

Would you prove that your analogy is accurate; I do not believe the above to be so



How was it a world where the little girl was free? She was not free to not be beaten, not free not to be raped, not free not to be not killed. and none of her friends and family were free from the suffering this mans free will choices.

Free?But in talking about this you have moved away from God and free will

And we are not free as to your belief if we choose not to believe in your God no matter how we live our life we get punished? That is loving?

That is a childish ego filled self centered little spoiled child not an all powerful being.

It is not free will when someone stands over you with a bat and tells you that you are free to do anything you want as long as it is what HE wants you to do.

Tell people who were or are now still slaves they life in a free worlds. People wrongly accused who are in jails in some countries in jails that are living hells. Free world? Simply, I do not believe that "you will go to hell etc" because you do not profess a faith; I do not believe in this God.
If I have missed some points you want addressing I apologise - it is just that i am not too experienced in using this type of board and I am afraid that the posts will get too long and unwieldy

[SFB]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
My phrase "some responsibility" holds because i was using "some" in the sense of "undefined amount"

An "undefined amount" could be all, none, or any amount in between!

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by SFB


An "undefined amount" could be all, none, or any amount in between!
Well, between 1 and 100, say, not 0 to 100. I was being careful!

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Mr Clingford, may I say you are a fine dancer.

Do you answer any questions? All I find is you asking me to explain what I say over and over and showing you great respect, the respect you have not shown me I have done so.

You say My phrase "some responsibility" holds because i was using "some" in the sense of "undefined amount"

This is of course just a dance, you seek now to dance around what you said and still not answer my simple question. That being this one I have asked over and over asking you with respect to answer.


if That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would not then say he had “some responsibility”. That is what I believe.

Why do you not respond to this? I ask again IF That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would still then say he had only “some responsibility”?

Using your “new” 1-100 scale PLEASE be respectful and adult and answer.

Would you explain why you think your analogies are accurate because I do not think they are and since you are the one putting them forward the onus is on you to explain them.

I have explained fully and in several ways my analogies it is you my friend who is not being honest. This is sad but expected.

but that would violate the man's free will and therefore this example doesn't work

No what does not work as I have demonstrated as others have is the Christian version of free will because from my examples it is clear the child, her parents, family and friends have no free will and the killer has full free will. Not a very good system and not one expected from a “perfect” being.

The questions you failed to address in the last section were the following,

1st Prove god
2nd prove “he” lives outside of time and space and prove this outside time and space
3rd explain why this god is limited due to being outside time and space. Why is it relevant where this being is? If all powerful it does not matter if “he” is outside time and space or standing right beside you.

Lets look what is known and add a touch of belief . IF your God exists no matter where “he” lives he created a being knowing full will this being will rape, torture and kill many causing suffering to countless. He does nothing to stop or fix this being to stop this. As for before he creates this being the right thing to do what a loving father would do is fix him

I think that i have answered this already. Although God does not violate a human's free will, other humans may do so


A 22 word “response” to a 348 word section?

The truth is my friend you have answered nothing. You say things like “ God lives outside of time and space and can not effect man” I pointed out he would not be all powerful then would he? Your response was silence.

I pointed out that could not be an answer unless you could prove “outside time and space” and asked why it limited “his’ power your response was silence. I ask how you have knowledge of these “facts”?? I assume silence will follow.

As I pointed out yes your God does violate mans free will because he knowingly creates and allows a man to rape and kill that little girl. He is the maker and has full knowledge of what this man will do. This girl and or her parents pray every night to keep her safe yet it is also clear your God does not answer prayers.

So much for

Matthew Chapter 21:
22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Or John 14:12-14
You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.’”


For just 2 examples.

Perhaps the killer placed his request in prayer to be able to rape and kill the young girl first? A first come first serve thing?


Questions and points you did not answer in that section are too many to again post and would be fruitless to do so.


My beliefs are based on experience, thought and study.

OK I respect that can you elaborate?


Of course I cannot prove points 2 or 3

Or 1. But again I say I very much respect you admit that so many will not. This is why I have allowed myself to become frustrated with your refusal to answer points and or questions. From my seeing you admit you could not prove God etc I allowed myself to assume you would conduct a mutually respectful debate as friends.

I have been a bit harsh in this response and for that I am sorry, I allowed myself to become frustrated, that is not your fault as you can not “make me” anything unless I allow it.

I posted: As a father. You have a child and from day one you shape him by beating him every day, raping him, showing him porn and beating his mother while you made him watch. You shaped him you allowed him to take drugs etc.

Yes later he does all the same things, have you no responsibility and just say “ hey I have no control it is his free will”. No you created him.

He made choices but many were conditioned by what you made him to be and allow to be.

You “responded” and that is too generous of a word lol Would you prove that your analogy is accurate; I do not believe the above to be so

What do you mean prove my analogy is accurate? It is an analogy and rather then respectfully answer my questions ( if a sentence has a ? at the end it is a question and the respectful thing is to answer what is asked) you just keep posting meaningless questions that avoid answering. Sad.



I have explained over and over, it is clear no matter what I say you will not respond.

Let me post again what I said :

As a father. You have a child and from day one you shape him by beating him every day, raping him, showing him porn and beating his mother while you made him watch. You shaped him you allowed him to take drugs etc.

Yes later he does all the same things, have you no responsibility and just say “ hey I have no control it is his free will”. No you created him.

He made choices but many were conditioned by what you made him to be and allow to be.

A God the is the creator of all is the same but to a far greater extent then the father I have demonstrated above. The father above shaped this child and had a good idea of how he would turn out, your God created this killer KNOWING full well what he would do to others and their free will and did nothing.

Please take a giant leap forward in respect and be the person I believe you clearly are and answer this as to the father I explained.

Is that father responsible at all l when that child does harmful things to himself and others?

I wrote How was it a world where the little girl was free? She was not free to not be beaten, not free not to be raped, not free not to be not killed. and none of her friends and family were free from the suffering this mans free will choices.

Free? And we are not free as to your belief if we choose not to believe in your God no matter how we live our life we get punished? That is loving?

That is a childish ego filled self centered little spoiled child not an all powerful being.

It is not free will when someone stands over you with a bat and tells you that you are free to do anything you want as long as it is what HE wants you to do.

Tell people who were or are now still slaves they life in a free worlds. People wrongly accused who are in jails in some countries in jails that are living hells. Free world?


In response to you say the following in a past post.: The consequences of that are that people, therefore, are able to harm others. Would you like to live in a world where you were not free?

And now you respond to what I said with the following????

But in talking about this you have moved away from God and free will

My sweet friend what are you talking about?? How is that in any relevant to what I said???

Other then you used this statement to completely again avoid the respectful thing and answer
1- I am not moving away from what I do not believe in “God”
2- I am not in that statement of mine moving from free will as you see it.

Are you saying it is the will of people to be slaves? Starve ( 24000 to death each day) become ill from countless death and pain inducing things? Etc etc

You asked Would you like to live in a world where you were not free?

I have demonstrated many do not and in reality there is no such thing as total freedom so really no one is “free”.

I do not expect this conversation will improve and is fruitless..And so I bid you farewell and wish that you be always well and happy.

[Mr Clingford]

Hello
if That man gave this killer a gun knowing it would be used to kill your wife and children you would not then say he had “some responsibility”. That is what I believe.This analogy would only be accurate, though, if God physically put the gun in the killer's hand. As you nicely pointed out in law the supplier has a huge amount to answer for. This is complicated stuff and I am finding it difficult to put into words my thought processes so please be patient. I think your analogy is too simplistic and misses out some crucial steps for it to properly reflect the relationship between God and humanity and it is here that I think the analogy is not accurate.
I have explained fully and in several ways my analogies it is you my friend who is not being honest. This is sad but expected.You are being rude here. You do not know me and are making assumptions about what I believeNo what does not work as I have demonstrated as others have is the Christian version of free will because from my examples it is clear the child, her parents, family and friends have no free will and the killer has full free will. Not a very good system and not one expected from a “perfect” beingThere seems to be some misunderstanding of "free will". God does not restrict people's choicesfrom my examples it is clear the child, her parents, family and friends have no free will and the killer has full free willBut it is not God that is restricting their choices. Now I am puzzled because it appears to me that you are not taking on board this point and we are talking at cross-purposes somewhatThe truth is my friend you have answered nothing. You say things like “ God lives outside of time and space and can not effect man” I pointed out he would not be all powerful then would he? Your response was silence. Come on this is such an old strawman do you really want the old rehash of the "if God is omnipotent etc etc", surely you have heard cogent replies to them. If not I will try and supply some. You describe God as "perfect". But in what senses are you using the term. I am very careful in using it because I do not find it helpful in my understanding of God because it does not lead v far.You say things like “ God lives outside of time and space and can not effect man” I pointed out he would not be all powerful then would he? These problems may stem somewhat from a Platonic notion of God as an a perfect embodiment of the Platonic Forms which for me are an unhelpful model of God. I see ideas of God as a creative personality, in a sense as a parent, more helpful.Lets look what is known and add a touch of belief . IF your God exists no matter where “he” lives he created a being knowing full will this being will rape, torture and kill many causing suffering to countless. He does nothing to stop or fix this being to stop this. As for before he creates this being the right thing to do what a loving father would do is fix him Yes, for me this is the crux of the free will issue. God has reated sentient beings with the ability to make decisions for themselves and has chosen not to restrict their choices. The results are us, for better and worse. The upside is creatures that can be magnificently loving and the downside is that we can be horrible. If I am feeling down about life i can think that God might have made the wrong choice because of man's inhumanity to man. But if God is trully not going to restrict our choices then those are the consequences. I do think, though, that most would prefer not to be a robot.

You bring in the idea of prayer. I do not understand prayer, how it may work or not; I think it is a complicated issue. You quote 2 Bible verses and I completely agree that taken on their own they utterly fail, God does not answer prayer. i think that God has some sort of "higher principles" such as not violating free will and wishing humans to become adult and mature, responsible beings, that might affect the relationship between him and the worldPerhaps the killer placed his request in prayer to be able to rape and kill the young girl first? A first come first serve thing? OK. I understand that you are frustrated, but I am not deliberately (most of the time!) trying to be awkward. This statement is very emotionally loaded and offensive.

This post is already becoming long so I will end it here. You have asked me lots of questions and i will respond to them shortly, but I need to do some grocery shopping now

[Mr Clingford]

A God the is the creator of all is the same but to a far greater extent then the father I have demonstrated above. The father above shaped this child and had a good idea of how he would turn out, your God created this killer KNOWING full well what he would do to others and their free will and did nothing. But God does not shape us - he does not affect us in the ways that your analogous father does; this is why I think all your analogies are falseIs that father responsible at all l when that child does harmful things to himself and others? Yes, the human father is responsible, but the relationship between 1. God and creation and 2. Human fathers and offspring are not exactly the same.

I agree with the points of their analogies but I think they break down on relation to God and creation.

Respectfully, I do not think the last part of your post is to do with free will; instead it is to do with other senses of "free". I think you and me understand the phrase "free will" in different ways because much of that last part does not, it appears to me, follow.Are you saying it is the will of people to be slaves? Starve ( 24000 to death each day) become ill from countless death and pain inducing things? Etc etc Eh? i genuinely do not see where this is coming from. Help me out here

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

This analogy would only be accurate, though, if God physically put the gun in the killer's hand. As you nicely pointed out in law the supplier has a huge amount to answer for. This is complicated stuff and I am finding it difficult to put into words my thought processes so please be patient. I think your analogy is too simplistic and misses out some crucial steps for it to properly reflect the relationship between God and humanity and it is here that I think the analogy is not accurate.

If I could step back into the discussion, I agree with you that the "gun" analogy is too simplistic.

If anything, the religious hypotheses is more like God gave the world lampstands, knowng that some people would use them to light the darkness but others would use them to bash each other's heads in.

However, the analogy is useful on another level, IMO:

A supplier of goods can only be held responsible for damage caused by his products if (a) he could/should have known that such a use was possible and, if so, (b) he did everything reasonably within his power to prevent his goods being used to cause the damage.

An example of point (b) would be a gun vendor carrying out a background check on a customer.

In the case of God, I think you have conceded (a) - that he knows/knew what humanity would do but how do you think he fares on (b)?

Graham

[Mr Clingford]

More reflection; here's a statement from my mind groping through its synapses:
God does have responsibility for the whole system that is the universe and free will, but that does not make God responsible for individuals nor take away from the responsibilty of the individual for their actions

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
More reflection; here's a statement from my mind groping through its synapses:
God does have responsibility for the whole system that is the universe and free will, but that does not make God responsible for individuals nor take away from the responsibilty of the individual for their actions

Kind of like a school principal?

[Mr Clingford]

Kind of like a school principal?
LOL. Have you had a school principle that created a universe (rather than be too full of themselves to think that they are capable!)?

[Mr Clingford]

Whoops! principal, notprinciple

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

LOL. Have you had a school principle that created a universe (rather than be too full of themselves to think that they are capable!)?

I meant in the sense that the principal is responsible for the whole school and everyone in it but if, for example, a child was to steal from another child, it would be the child who was held responsible rather than the principal.

Graham

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Graham


If I could step back into the discussion, I agree with you that the "gun" analogy is too simplistic.

If anything, the religious hypotheses is more like God gave the world lampstands, knowng that some people would use them to light the darkness but others would use them to bash each other's heads in.

However, the analogy is useful on another level, IMO:

A supplier of goods can only be held responsible for damage caused by his products if (a) he could/should have known that such a use was possible and, if so, (b) he did everything reasonably within his power to prevent his goods being used to cause the damage.

An example of point (b) would be a gun vendor carrying out a background check on a customer.

In the case of God, I think you have conceded (a) - that he knows/knew what humanity would do but how do you think he fares on (b)?

Graham

Greetings Graham.

If I could step back into the discussion, I agree with you that the "gun" analogy is too simplistic

I respect your opinion but must disagree.

IMO the man who gives the gun to a known killer with full knowledge of what this killer will do with i.e. kill little Sara would IMO have even less liability then an all powerful all knowing creator being.

A father who stood by and watched his child murdered, doing nothing to save her when in reality he has full power to do so. A father that so strictly adheres to “his” plan of “free will” watches as the child’s free will is superceded, stolen.

A God/creator would know before had fully what would happen and as I pointed out the causes and conditions that would in great part drive this man to do this. Just a right turn rather then left for example would have stopped the suffering or illness this man suffered becoming a large catalyst as to harming others.

The fact is the God did give this man the “gun” he was the gun. The gun was simply an instrument he happened to use to inflect the death, forget say he beat her to death and the other man told him where she lived and which door was open.

If anything, the religious hypotheses is more like God gave the world lampstands, knowng that some people would use them to light the darkness but others would use them to bash each other's heads in.

but in addition “he” knew before hand who would use them for light and who would use them to harm others yet did nothing. Under the free will model of Christianity only people who will harm have free will or have a “better free will plan”.



However, the analogy is useful on another level, IMO:

A supplier of goods can only be held responsible for damage caused by his products if (a) he could/should have known that such a use was possible and, if so, (b) he did everything reasonably within his power to prevent his goods being used to cause the damage.

In the God case he created the good and user of the goods and in most if not all cases the goods and user are the same. If a manufacture produces something that can only be used to harm others or the only purpose of this item is to harm others. He knows who, when and how it will be used to harm others is he not at 100% fault and liability.


Be well.

[Graham]

Pahansiri,

I understand what you are saying and agree with you for the most part.

This is your order of events, as I see it:

1) God creates man

2) God releases man into the world

3) Some time later, man murders other man.

Now God, being omnicognicent (sp?) knew that this would happen at step (1). Therefore, we argue that he is responsible when it happens, since he created man such that (3).

The Free Will hypotheses, however, suggests not one but two further steps:

1A) God grants man free will

and

2A) Man makes a decsion

Step (2A) is critical because it means that man decided to murder not that man was created to murder.

Therefore god is not responsible since man could have decided otherwise.

That, at least is my understanding of the argument but perhaps I am misrepresenting it.

IMO, there are numerous flaws with this, many of which we have discussed already.

Graham

[Pahansiri]

Allow me an example I use in death penalty debates. This relates to one of my points Mr Clingford ignored and relates to the killer and causes and conditions. It relates greatly to “sin” we as Buddhist do not believe in sin, we believe in Karma the law of cause and effect, intentional actions. We know all actions have a reaction.

The problem with the Christian belief in sin is it is greatly based in a ego consumed God ego which is impossible in perfection as is anger, vengeance and thought to include a few. Also it is blind judgment that considers not causes and conditions.

When I speak to someone who believes in the death penalty I ask them this.

I have heard the case of a man ( a true story) who is in prison in a non death penalty state. He, tortured, raped and killed several woman in the most hideous way.

I ask would you execute him?

The response is always a resounding yes. Of course most cases these people are also anti abortion like the Pres who at the speech for the ban on partial birth abortion said “ the government has NO right to end the life or any person ALL life has a purpose and is special” . Words I agree with but of course the hypocrisy is he as governor executed more people then any governor and desires a national death penalty and not let us forget the war.

Anyway.

I ask them to please allow me to tell the rest of the story.


This man, the killer was kidnapped at age 5. He was used in child porn movies raped and beaten on film and daily for all his childhood. He was forced on drugs and became quickly addicted.

This little boy became what he was shown and instructed.

Did he still have free will as to his actions and a responsibility of course. Did he have a free will as to not having to live such a life? No A free will as to what he would become ? Not really as he also did not have a free will be to a child happy and safe as he and his parents desired.

BY Christian belief for the most part but not by all he will have to suffer in “hell” for all time for this just as he has suffered all his life for what he did not ask for.

May I add before I forget he comes up for parole every now and then and this is how I learned of his story. At his hearings he asks never to be allowed to walk free again because he wishes not to harm anyone but knows if free he will.

I will ask what I have asked in yet another way or offer it really as I have great respect for Mr Clingford as I do for all but as I have said as to this topic anyway our conversation is over as for me it is clear he will not respond in kind as I have. But that is just my opinion.



What if the father of that boy allowed him to be kidnapped knowing full well what was to happen and come? He could have protected him and who he would harm later but did nothing.

May you and all be well and happy.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
What if the father of that boy allowed him to be kidnapped knowing full well what was to happen and come? He could have protected him and who he would harm later but did nothing.

May you and all be well and happy. [/B]

But don't forget that for your analogy to apply, the father of the boy would also have to be the father of the murderer.

He would also be unable to save the boy without impinging on a basic and inalienable (some would argue) right of the murderer - the right make his own decisions.

Needless to say, from the father's perspective, no abstract right is worth the suffering his son was forced to go through.

From a god's perspective, however, it is not necessarily so cut and dry.

Understand I am playing devil's advocate here.

Graham

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Graham
Pahansiri,

I understand what you are saying and agree with you for the most part.

This is your order of events, as I see it:

1) God creates man

2) God releases man into the world

3) Some time later, man murders other man.

Now God, being omnicognicent (sp?) knew that this would happen at step (1). Therefore, we argue that he is responsible when it happens, since he created man such that (3).

The Free Will hypotheses, however, suggests not one but two further steps:

1A) God grants man free will

and

2A) Man makes a decsion

Step (2A) is critical because it means that man decided to murder not that man was created to murder.

Therefore god is not responsible since man could have decided otherwise.

That, at least is my understanding of the argument but perhaps I am misrepresenting it.

IMO, there are numerous flaws with this, many of which we have discussed already.

Graham


Greetings again Graham






I understand what you are saying and that hypotheses, however for me it falls short and is illogical and simply not what a plan of a “all powerful all knowing being” in that

1- It allows for an “evil” being to always over ride the free will of a being only wishing to be safe and happy. This is poor planning
2- Is it really a choice if it does not consider causes and conditions like I outline below or say an organic illness which removes all or most real reason or ability to decide?


What of that what of a person who has a very severe illness, say Schizophrenia. He has no access to meds and kills. Is it his free will to kill and what of the free will of his victims?





Therefore god is not responsible since man could have decided otherwise.

That is simplistic thinking and does not look at all causes and conditions the Schizophrenia is a prime example.

That, at least is my understanding of the argument but perhaps I am misrepresenting it.

I believe you have it right as to how many see it.

IMO, there are numerous flaws with this, many of which we have discussed already.

I agree and as I have pointed out I respect the beliefs of all that do not harm others and there rights to believe as they will. This is a discussion board and I am offering my thoughts and mean no one disrespect.

[Pahansiri]

But don't forget that for your analogy to apply, the father of the boy would also have to be the father of the murderer.

That as I pointed out is true, it is clear he killed people what I offer is causes and conditions that helped drive this. If the boy is never kidnapped but raise in love and respect chances are he is not what he becomes. Yet as to Christian belief God knew this sweet child would be taken, beat, raped, used drugged and later kill others yet did nothing.

The boy had no free will as to being taken as a child or what happened to him.

Is a true loving father/God one that stands by and watches his child suffer when he has full power to stop it?

Our friend Mr Clingford has said his God is a loving God who loves us, what love did he show this child?

What kind of father allows some children to be born into a life of love and safety and some not, some born into a family that can give food and some not?


He would also be unable to save the boy without impinging on a basic and inalienable (some would argue) right of the murderer - the right make his own decisions.

What of the rights of the father, child, mother, grand parents etc. This is one of the great flaws of this belief which were true is so poorly conceive such a being has no right to be calls all knowing or powerful.

Needless to say, from the father's perspective, no abstract right is worth the suffering his son was forced to go through.

Such is the love of a real father. Sad a human with all it’s flaws has a greater love then a perfect being.

From a god's perspective, however, it is not necessarily so cut and dry.

I will repeat Sad a human with all it’s flaws has a greater love then a perfect being.


Understand I am playing devil's advocate here.

yes my friend I understand.

[Graham]

Poor planning indeed. To stray from the topic slightly, that is what amazes me about the "argument from design".

Things are clearly so far from perfect that it amazes me that anyone could thing they were created so by a perfect being.

Even My four year old daughter comes up with better ideas than god apparently had.

Perhaps he was having an "off" day?

Graham

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Graham
Poor planning indeed. To stray from the topic slightly, that is what amazes me about the "argument from design".

Things are clearly so far from perfect that it amazes me that anyone could thing they were created so by a perfect being.

Even My four year old daughter comes up with better ideas than god apparently had.

Perhaps he was having an "off" day?

Graham

You may be right.

Keep that little sweet beauty safe not allowing someone to kill her because you do not wish to violate his free will.

I am sure yoiu teace her to have loving kindness, respect and compassion for her self and all living things, little else matters and all other things fall in place from there.

[Pahansiri]

Mr Clingford.

I just read your bio and see you like Weight training. I train elite and professional athletes for a living. I am a sports nutritionist, Strength & conditioning coach. I competed on a high level in several sports and was a national body building champion and pro.

If you would like feel free to pm me if you would like one of my training routines I would be happy to send one back to you.

2 weeks ago I was in NYC for the Bodybuilding world championships. One of my clients a light heavy won the world title the athlete that was 3rd in that class was from England the middle weight that won the middles and the overall was also from England they both looked great, England send a large team.

Be well.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Based solely on my own life...god must love atheists.

I have to agree with this one. Of course what god has against my car, I can't figure!! :D

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Graham
Pahansiri,

I understand what you are saying and agree with you for the most part.

This is your order of events, as I see it:

1) God creates man

2) God releases man into the world

3) Some time later, man murders other man.

Now God, being omnicognicent (sp?) knew that this would happen at step (1). Therefore, we argue that he is responsible when it happens, since he created man such that (3).

The Free Will hypotheses, however, suggests not one but two further steps:

1A) God grants man free will

and

2A) Man makes a decsion

Step (2A) is critical because it means that man decided to murder not that man was created to murder.

Therefore god is not responsible since man could have decided otherwise.

That, at least is my understanding of the argument but perhaps I am misrepresenting it.

IMO, there are numerous flaws with this, many of which we have discussed already.

Graham


Hello Graham

You forgot step 0

0.- God decides the initial setup of the universe among infinity of them.


This step makes step 2A non relevant. That was god's decision, not man decision.


Regards

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Graham
Poor planning indeed. To stray from the topic slightly, that is what amazes me about the "argument from design".

Things are clearly so far from perfect that it amazes me that anyone could thing they were created so by a perfect being.

Even My four year old daughter comes up with better ideas than god apparently had.

Perhaps he was having an "off" day?

Graham

Your daughter hasn't created any universes lately though. I'd say God has 1-up'd her there.

[Mr Clingford]

How about the free will argument something along the lines of

1 God creates the universe / Big Bang kicks off

2 On this planet through evolution sentient beings develop with the ability to make moral choices

[Graham]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale



Hello Graham

You forgot step 0

0.- God decides the initial setup of the universe among infinity of them.


This step makes step 2A non relevant. That was god's decision, not man decision.


Regards

The premise is that man is allowed to make a decision at any given choice.

The universe god chose to create would only present a series of options in this scenario.

Therefore your step 0 does not affect 2A.

No?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Your daughter hasn't created any universes lately though. I'd say God has 1-up'd her there.

You'd be surprised what she gets up to . . .

Regardless, you would not expect a four year old human to work on the same scale as an omnipotent being.

Scaling their relative arenas, she is vastly superior to him.

Graham

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Your daughter hasn't created any universes lately though. I'd say God has 1-up'd her there.

We can prove his daughter exists and makes many cute things. We have no proof God, yours or anyone’s exists nor if does created anything.

I say you are wrong as to I'd say God has 1-up'd her there.

unless you have some facts you have been holding back?

I would say Graham's daughter 1 God-0

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
How about the free will argument something along the lines of

1 God creates the universe / Big Bang kicks off

2 On this planet through evolution sentient beings develop with the ability to make moral choices

Ok, what would be your facts as to this?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Ok, what would be your facts as to this?
It is a hypothetical, as is much of this kind of discussion, that is why I called it an argument. And you know that not a great deal can be proved

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford

It is a hypothetical, as is much of this kind of discussion, that is why I called it an argument. And you know that not a great deal can be proved

Very true and I respect you and your beliefs. For me, if I say something that is a belief I say it is a belief and not a statment of fact but that is just how I post and does not make it "right" or wrong etc.

What I know for certain is there is certainty much I do not know.

Have a great day and be well and happy.