A solution to the problem of evil or suffering

[The idea]

The claim is: if God is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of people, then God is not good.

The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?
2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?
3. Did you ask for not too much in return from God?
4. Did God accept the offer and then breach the contract?

If you can answer "yes" to all of those questions, then post here your answer to these questions:

1. What does God want you to do?
2. What evidence do you have that God actually entered into an agreement with you?

[clarsct]

Originally posted by The idea
The claim is: if God is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of people, then God is not good.

The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them.
Of COURSE we do. God LOVES us! Could you stand by and watch the ones you love suffer? Remember, God is all-loving, as well.

Take away that assumption.
According to the Bible, we cannot.

1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?
2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?
3. Did you ask for not too much in return from God?
4. Did God accept the offer and then breach the contract?

If you can answer "yes" to all of those questions, then post here your answer to these questions:

1. What does God want you to do?
2. What evidence do you have that God actually entered into an agreement with you?

The rest follows from the original premise. Even so, if one must barter with God for goods and services, what kind of a god can he/she/it be? God is all, and one. One does not make deals with GOD. God does what god sees fit. And from what I can tell, it may be possible that god just doesn't give a damn. Either that, or he/she/it is merely a construct to explain anything we don't understand, and so we don't have to face the unknown alone.

The latter seems rather plausible to me.

[The idea]

Originally posted by clarsct
God LOVES us! Could you stand by and watch the ones you love suffer? Remember, God is all-loving, as well.

Maybe God doesn't love us.

Originally posted by clarsct
According to the Bible, we cannot [take away the assumption that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them].

Either there is no God or what the Bible says about God is true? Are you sure?

[Kiless]

This may be slightly off-topic, but I had a disagreement in a bar with a friend of my mother-in-law. Her claim was that her son's ghost moved objects around her house. I asked some questions about the veracity of this and eventually she agreed that living next to a train line may have had some influence on the movement of items on the mantlepiece but couldn't account for all of them.

I then asked that if there was a definite effort on his part to communicate with her, then wouldn't he try something else - rather than seemingly random movements of objects, which clearly distressed her at times? She said that perhaps there was something that was stopping him from communicating.

About then (argh) I really had to prevent myself from quoting Feste about 'I think his soul is in hell' if he was being stopped from communciating with his mother beyond the grave. I instead told of Houdini's wife and her annual efforts to communicate with Houdini which failed.

(long winded anecdote over)
I agree with clarsct - there is no god that gives a fig about suffering.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by The idea
Either there is no God or what the Bible says about God is true? Are you sure?

I think there's a page missing from the front of the bible:

'This is a work of fiction; any simularlities to entities either alive or dead are purely coincidental.'

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by The idea
The claim is: if God is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of people, then God is not good.

The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?
2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?
3. Did you ask for not too much in return from God?
4. Did God accept the offer and then breach the contract?

If you can answer "yes" to all of those questions, then post here your answer to these questions:

1. What does God want you to do?
2. What evidence do you have that God actually entered into an agreement with you?



The best that you can achieve that way is ruining omnipotence. "God" is willing but unable.

[Beleth]

The claim: if a parent is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of his/her child, then that parent is not good.

The assumption is that children are entitled to expect their parents to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

1. Had you, as a child, actually offered to do something that you could do and that your parents want you to do?
2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?
3. Did you ask for not too much in return from your parents?
4. Did your parents accept the offer and then breach the contract?


(end word replacement analogy)

There is a unilateral contract which a parent enters into when he/she has a child. The simple act of creating a child is proof of acceptance of the offer. It is the parents' responsibilities to take care of the child, or to arrange other conditions whereby the child will be taken care of. Likewise with God.

You can't take away the assumption that we are entitled to expect a good God to put in an effort for us. It's the very essence of what being "good" means in this context. A God that does not fulfill the contract He entered into through the explicit act of the creation of beings able to suffer, is either not good or not able to prevent the suffering.

Question 1 is irrelevant, by the way; our goodness is not in question, only God's.

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by The idea
The claim is: if God is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of people, then God is not good.

No, that's not the argument. God MUST want to prevent suffering BECAUSE he is good.

Unless you actually want to argue that it's better to do nothing than to help? God can't just want to be good, he must want to be the MOST good.

[Kopji]

The opening post implied a solution would be forthcoming.
Did I miss it?

[clarsct]

Originally posted by The idea
Maybe God doesn't love us.
Then we are not discussing the Christian version of God. *shrug* I see no evidence one way or the other, but a malicious and hateful god seems more reasonable, by results.


Either there is no God or what the Bible says about God is true? Are you sure?

Not sure at all! But is the book right or wrong? It's THE book, inspired in translation by the Hand of God himself. So is God RIGHT or WRONG?

(Listening to 'Sympathy for the Devil" while posting..)

'Tell me baby, what's my name..'

[Ossai]

I’m with Kopji, still waiting on that solution.

Ossai

[The idea]

Originally posted by Beleth
The claim: if a parent is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of his/her child, then that parent is not good.

The assumption is that children are entitled to expect their parents to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

[...]
(end word replacement analogy)

There is a unilateral contract which a parent enters into when he/she has a child. The simple act of creating a child is proof of acceptance of the offer. It is the parents' responsibilities to take care of the child, or to arrange other conditions whereby the child will be taken care of. Likewise with God.
[...]
A God that does not fulfill the contract He entered into through the explicit act of the creation of beings able to suffer [...]

What contract did God enter into? You seem to be arguing that a God who allows suffering is guilty of wrongdoing and the wrongdoing is the original act of creation. Nothing can actually be done to change the past. However, do you think it would be better if there were no universe and if there had never been a universe?

If people who have offspring are only responsible for taking care of their offspring in childhood, then why is there an onus on God to prevent adults from suffering? If people know that their offspring will become adults and that those adults may then suffer, then shouldn't you be making an accusation against any people who produce offspring?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by The idea
The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.


Why take away that assumption?

Are you suggesting the love of God , and that it responds to the requests ( prayer ) of believers, is not at the core of Christian teachings?

If you take away that assumption, what is left?


Indeed. Some of us have figured it out..

[jmercer]

God and suffering discussions are unavoidable, I guess. But for some reason, I've yet to see anyone point out the obvious.

According to Christianity, God walked among us 2000 years ago in the flesh. He provided miracles and signs to show He was God to those who were willing to see. He didn't cure everyone. In fact, He only cured a few of physical ailments, including leprosy and blindness. He didn't feed the world; instead, He fed a few thousands on fish and loaves of bread.

In fact, when you look closely at it, God (as Jesus) didn't do a lot of things He could have done - and apparently, He chose not to do those things deliberately. He basically did what He had to do in order to establish His bonafides to a select few... and no more than that.

And - assuming that Jesus was the incarnation of the Judaic God - He didn't do a helluva lot for humanity prior to his little excursion, either. Let's see... He permitted temptation to reach us and then kicked us out of Eden; He destroyed all sorts of cities, people and children that happened to offend him one way or another; He killed the entire world at one point, except for a handful of humans and animals on a boat; He let His "chosen people" suffer as slaves for centuries, then slaughtered every first-born in one of the most populous middle-eastern cities in existence... after which he had his "chosen people" wander in the desert for 40 years.

Then there was John the Bapist - who for his services, had his head handed to him. Literally. And all of the disciples met violent, terrible deaths... not to mention all the martyrs and most of the Saints who followed him so diligently.

Membership sure has it's privileges, doesn't it? :D

So why - with all of this history - do people still insist that God will "help" them?

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by jmercer
God and suffering discussions are unavoidable, I guess. But for some reason, I've yet to see anyone point out the obvious.

According to Christianity, God walked among us 2000 years ago in the flesh. He provided miracles and signs to show He was God to those who were willing to see. He didn't cure everyone. In fact, He only cured a few of physical ailments, including leprosy and blindness. He didn't feed the world; instead, He fed a few thousands on fish and loaves of bread.

In fact, when you look closely at it, God (as Jesus) didn't do a lot of things He could have done - and apparently, He chose not to do those things deliberately. He basically did what He had to do in order to establish His bonafides to a select few... and no more than that.

And - assuming that Jesus was the incarnation of the Judaic God - He didn't do a helluva lot for humanity prior to his little excursion, either. Let's see... He permitted temptation to reach us and then kicked us out of Eden; He destroyed all sorts of cities, people and children that happened to offend him one way or another; He killed the entire world at one point, except for a handful of humans and animals on a boat; He let His "chosen people" suffer as slaves for centuries, then slaughtered every first-born in one of the most populous middle-eastern cities in existence... after which he had his "chosen people" wander in the desert for 40 years.

Then there was John the Bapist - who for his services, had his head handed to him. Literally. And all of the disciples met violent, terrible deaths... not to mention all the martyrs and most of the Saints who followed him so diligently.

Membership sure has it's privileges, doesn't it? :D

So why - with all of this history - do people still insist that God will "help" them?


Stockholm?


Mosquito

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Stockholm?


Mosquito

Uhh...?

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by jmercer
Uhh...?

Stockholm syndrome. (Or is that Helsinki syndrome?)


Mosquito (It makes about as much sense as anything, I think)

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by The idea
The claim is: if God is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of people, then God is not good.

The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?
2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?
3. Did you ask for not too much in return from God?
4. Did God accept the offer and then breach the contract?

If you can answer "yes" to all of those questions, then post here your answer to these questions:

1. What does God want you to do?
2. What evidence do you have that God actually entered into an agreement with you?

The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

This is what youre getting at, right??

This is a challenge not a riddle, right??

edited for speling

ALSO 700! whoop de doooo! :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Stockholm syndrome. (Or is that Helsinki syndrome?)


Mosquito (It makes about as much sense as anything, I think)

Damn... that rings a bell, but I can't remember anything about it. Can you point me somewhere to jog my memory? Or give a brief synopsis?

Thanks :)

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by jmercer
Damn... that rings a bell, but I can't remember anything about it. Can you point me somewhere to jog my memory? Or give a brief synopsis?

Thanks :)


I googled these:

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=469
http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/trauma/stockhol.htm

Since I don't speak psychology I don't know how good these are, my search was simply http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&q=stockholm+syndrome&lr= in case you want more info. If I have grossly misunderstood something, take it out on somebody else ;)


Somebody on the board (or in ScienceMedicineEtc) could probably give a better understanding of the phenomenon than I can.


Mosquito

[jmercer]

Hey, thanks - now I remember the Stockholm Syndrome... apt and appropriate, and probably more true than we think... Thanks. :)

[Robin]

Originally posted by The idea
Maybe God doesn't love us.


Either there is no God or what the Bible says about God is true? Are you sure?
Oh dear, another of those "guess what kind of God I am talking about" arguments.

If God is a complete bastard then there is no problem of evil. The problem of evil concerns the contradiction between God's goodness and the undeserved suffering that exists in the world.

And no, the assumption is not that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them, that is not the point at all. (Although even if it was "what have you done for Me lately?" is hardly a satisfactory answer).

If God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe then God did these things in the first place.

So the question is not "why doesn't God help a little child who is suffering from cancer?", but "why did God inflict cancer on the child?"

[Beleth]

Originally posted by The idea
What contract did God enter into?The one I mentioned in my first post here.
You seem to be arguing that a God who allows suffering is guilty of wrongdoing and the wrongdoing is the original act of creation.No, I am arguing that a God who allows wrongdoing is guilty of breach of contract.

Nothing can actually be done to change the past.Not even by an omnipotent God?

However, do you think it would be better if there were no universe and if there had never been a universe?False dilemma. I think that it would have been better if there was no such thing as suffering in the universe.

If people who have offspring are only responsible for taking care of their offspring in childhood, then why is there an onus on God to prevent adults from suffering?You are misinterpreting my analogy. A parent is only responsible for his/her children until they reach the age of majority and move out of the house. There is no similar line of demarcation for when we cease to be God's children. If God is omnipotent, then by definition there is no "out of the house" for us to move to.

If people know that their offspring will become adults and that those adults may then suffer, then shouldn't you be making an accusation against any people who produce offspring? No, because the parents are not omnipotent. Who is responsible for the suffering of the adults?

[Ossai]

The idea
What contract did God enter into? The same type of contract two people enter into when they have a baby.

You seem to be arguing that a God who allows suffering is guilty of wrongdoing and the wrongdoing is the original act of creation. Nothing can actually be done to change the past. You’re proposing a non-omnipotent god. That would solve the problem right there.

However, do you think it would be better if there were no universe and if there had never been a universe? I don’t know ask me in a hundred years when I’m dead and have a basis for comparison. I know I won’t last a hundred years but it’s a nice number and will give me a few years of non-existence so I can compare it to life.

If people who have offspring are only responsible for taking care of their offspring in childhood, then why is there an onus on God to prevent adults from suffering? Keep the analogy going here don’t drop it in the middle. Once a baby grows up it becomes an adult. What you are saying is that once people become gods – wait – hasn’t happened yet. God is still the responsible party.

Ossai

[Beerina]

Originally posted by The idea
The claim is: if God is able but unwilling to relieve suffering of people, then God is not good.

The assumption is that people are entitled to expect God to put in an effort for them. Take away that assumption.

Why? He created this sh*thole existance. While it might be in the nature of an infinitely powerful and good being to create lesser ones, it does not follow one puts them in a universe where they can hurt and rape torture and murder each other.

On that alone I reject any moral authority of said god, whether it exists or not. Anyhoo...

1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?

A. How do I know what god wants me to do? All I see are silly ancient stories and books that should be rejected based on their goofy surface.

B. Were I to determine such, why should I lift a finger to do something that god could do infinitely easily?

2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?

Nope. It isn't my job to force myself into feeling sincere.

3. Did you ask for not too much in return from God?

If I had asked something, it would be to end this idiotic plane of existence.


4. Did God accept the offer and then breach the contract?

No. God has been an ass from day one. It's a "breach" if creating beings and putting them into a reality where they can hurt and punch and cut and kill each other is a breach of ethical behavior.

From all this one may conclude that "god", if it exists, has no relationship to a caring, loving, and kind entity. Your own Bible points this out.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by The idea
1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?


What about this question? ? ?

If The Idea can come back I think this is what he wants answered. . . but Im not sure

so far everyones avoiding it. :)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Beleth
No, I am arguing that a God who allows wrongdoing is guilty of breach of contract.
Sorry, I meant "... a God who allows suffering ..."

I wanted to fix that before anyone responded to the original, goofy, statement.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by The idea
1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do? Originally posted by Kitty Chan
What about this question? ? ?

If The Idea can come back I think this is what he wants answered. . . but Im not sure

so far everyones avoiding it. :) If by "God" he means "Yahweh", then yes, I have. From what I understand, Yahweh wants me to not kill anyone, and I have done so.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Beleth
Originally posted by Kitty Chan
What about this question? ? ?

If The Idea can come back I think this is what he wants answered. . . but Im not sure

so far everyones avoiding it. :) If by "God" he means "Yahweh", then yes, I have. From what I understand, Yahweh wants me to not kill anyone, and I have done so. [/QUOTE]

Hmm begs questions but should wait on The Idea.

But its seems not a direct answer to the original question, seems something else.

This is why we need clarification.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
But its seems not a direct answer to the original question, seems something else.

This is why we need clarification.
I agree. One does not "offer" to do something that you know someone "wants" you to do.

God: "Could you pass the peas, please?"
Human: "Can I pass you the peas?"
God: "Huh? Sure... I guess... (weirdo.)"

[Robin]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
What about this question? ? ?
======================
Originally posted by The idea
1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do?
======================
If The Idea can come back I think this is what he wants answered. . . but Im not sure

so far everyones avoiding it. :)
Not avoiding it, I showed it is nothing to do with the problem of evil.

Say I knock a man down and he says "help me up". I reply "what have you done for me lately?". That is the essence of the OP.

My refusal to help the man up is irrelevant since I am judged by my original attack on him.

Similarly if God chooses to inflict cancer on an innocent child, the problem is how do we reconcile that with God's goodness? (God is regarded as omnipotent and omniscient so nothing happens without it being part of God's plan).

The fact that God does not help the child after having inflicted the disease, or what services a child might be able to render to an omnipotent God in return for that help are irrelevant issues.

If pressed for an answer I would say "no, but then I have not asked for God's help, but if God wants me to do something I am available for epiphanies Tuesdays and Thursdays at 4:00 - 4:30 pm"

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by The idea
1. Have you actually offered to do something that you can do and that God wants you to do? .
2. Were you able to persuade yourself that your offer was sincere?
3. Did you ask for not too much in return from God?
4. Did God accept the offer and then breach the contract?



Idea

I take this as you are looking for a specific, or a for instance this happened. Not a discussion in general.

Example

1. I saw a homeless person and took them to my house and offered them a place to stay.

2. I truly wanted them to have a better life and wanted to help

3. Only want the sastification that I helped

4. They robbed me blind, and kicked the dog. Why didnt God protect me cause I was helping and doing the "right" thing.

Is this the sort of thing youre after ????

just wondering.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Beleth
One does not "offer" to do something that you know someone "wants" you to do.

God: "Could you pass the peas, please?"
Human: "Can I pass you the peas?"
God: "Huh? Sure... I guess... (weirdo.)"
How about this:

Waiter: "Would you like some peas?"
Diner: "Yes, but don't expect me to pay."
Waiter: "Huh? (weirdo.)"

[The idea]

Originally posted by Robin
Similarly if God chooses to inflict cancer on an innocent child, the problem is how do we reconcile that with God's goodness? (God is regarded as omnipotent and omniscient so nothing happens without it being part of God's plan).

If you murder someone, then you can blame God because God must have somehow caused you to do it since nothing happens without it being part of God's plan?

Do you actually believe that, every time a child gets cancer, the cause is the miraculous intervention of God?

[Robin]

Originally posted by The idea
If you murder someone, then you can blame God because God must have somehow caused you to do it since nothing happens without it being part of God's plan?
I can understand that actions by humans are governed by free will, however that is irrelevant
Do you actually believe that, every time a child gets cancer, the cause is the miraculous intervention of God?
No, but if there is an omnipotent, omniscient author of the universe then we can assume that something like cancer was a planned event rather than a mistake. It cannot be justified by any free will argument.

If a child gets cancer then God - if omnipotent and omniscient - meant that to happen, for whatever reason. That is the problem of evil.

That God does nothing about it, or requires the child to somehow render service before he will help, that is another matter, but the key issue is why did God design the universe in such a way to create such suffering for innocents?

[Kitty Chan]

He didnt create it for suffering it was good then became corrupted, now its gotta be put back to good again.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
He didnt create it for suffering it was good then became corrupted, now its gotta be put back to good again.

And the 'plan' for putting it back to good again is................................................ .................................................. .................................................. ......?

[Ossai]

The idea
If you murder someone, then you can blame God because God must have somehow caused you to do it since nothing happens without it being part of God's plan?

Do you actually believe that, every time a child gets cancer, the cause is the miraculous intervention of God? Actually it depends on which type of god you posit. But for the standard Christian one, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent then yes ever time something happens it is directly caused by god whether that be you killing your neighbor or a child developing cancer. Once you have an omnipotent entity (omniscience and omni- being a part of) free will is meaningless and nothing more than an illusion.

Kitty Chan
He didnt create it for suffering it was good then became corrupted, now its gotta be put back to good again. I know this is belief so I’m not even going to bother asking for evidence. But where do you get that god created the world good? Even in the bible only one small garden was good, all god had to do was kick them out. Which means the rest of the world, also created by god, was definitely not good.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai

Kitty Chan
I know this is belief so I’m not even going to bother asking for evidence. But where do you get that god created the world good? Even in the bible only one small garden was good, all god had to do was kick them out. Which means the rest of the world, also created by god, was definitely not good.

Ossai [/B]

Ossai and kuroyume0161

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . .And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, very good.


Italics highlite that, is was not Just the garden, it was [i]everything that was created, heaven and earth.


Bold highlite is that, all was declared good.


The plan got sidetracked when a third of the angels decided for a different route, this changed the original plan. Now its gotta go forward through a different route itself. Were just in the middle of it all right now.

I guess God could toast the third of the angels and set it right again, oh wait that is the plan ;)


Dont get hung up on timing theres a reason the bible says Gods timing is not ours. I think the young creationists or whatever they are called should consider that too. When science figures the earth is old its probably right. Rome wasnt built in a day either.

:) have a good weekend



edited for punctuation

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . .And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, very good.

Italics highlite that, is was not Just the garden, it was [I]everything that was created, heaven and earth.

Bold highlite is that, all was declared good. Even the rest of the world that wasn’t part of the garden? Even the other people that god hadn’t created (those that Cain took a wife from).
The plan got sidetracked when a third of the angels decided for a different route, this changed the original plan. Now its gotta go forward through a different route itself. Were just in the middle of it all right now. How did the angels decide for a different route? No where have I ever read that angels have freewill (or even the illusion of freewill). So again the responsibility falls squarely into god’s lap.

I guess God could toast the third of the angels and set it right again, oh wait that is the plan This is an attempt to pass the blame. Teflon god strikes again.
Again with the standard Christian god (omni-), the angels could not have rebelled any more than people could have disobeyed.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
Even the rest of the world that wasn’t part of the garden? Even the other people that god hadn’t created (those that Cain took a wife from).

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

This is BEFORE Adam he came after, created everything and it was good.

How did the angels decide for a different route? No where have I ever read that angels have freewill (or even the illusion of freewill). So again the responsibility falls squarely into god’s lap. This is an attempt to pass the blame. Teflon god strikes again.
Again with the standard Christian god (omni-), the angels could not have rebelled any more than people could have disobeyed.

Lucifier decided he would be like the Most High and choose to follow this course and convinced 1 third to follow him. Freewill.

He also tried to tempt Christ by saying throw yourself down from this height and I will make you like me.

Christ said do not tempt your Lord your God. Christ chose at that point, freewill.

And not the only time Christ was tempted there were others including the people yelling if your the Son of God come off the cross. He chose not too, more freewill.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

This is BEFORE Adam he came after, created everything and it was good. So god creates everything except people and declares it good then creates people and doesn’t call them good. Therefore if people weren’t good then god created a deliberate imperfection – man.

Lucifier decided he would be like the Most High and choose to follow this course and convinced 1 third to follow him. Freewill. God isn’t omni- then. Which would go a long ways to solving the problem of evil. Why not just start with this instead of running in circles?

He also tried to tempt Christ by saying throw yourself down from this height and I will make you like me.

Christ said do not tempt your Lord your God. Christ chose at that point, freewill. If you’re going with the common Christian concept of the trinity then Jesus would in fact have freewill since he is god (i.e. omni-). What you are missing is that people as well as angels cannot go against the will of god because freewill invalidates omnipotence. Omnipotence and freewill are mutually exclusive.

Ossai

[Beleth]

Originally posted by The idea
How about this:

Waiter: "Would you like some peas?"
Diner: "Yes, but don't expect me to pay."
Waiter: "Huh? (weirdo.)" A waiter does not love his customers.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
Kitty Chan
So god creates everything except people and declares it good then creates people and doesn’t call them good. Therefore if people weren’t good then god created a deliberate imperfection – man.

God isn’t omni- then. Which would go a long ways to solving the problem of evil. Why not just start with this instead of running in circles?

If you’re going with the common Christian concept of the trinity then Jesus would in fact have freewill since he is god (i.e. omni-). What you are missing is that people as well as angels cannot go against the will of god because freewill invalidates omnipotence. Omnipotence and freewill are mutually exclusive.

Ossai

yes Ossai the people were declared good as well. No imperfection thats what was lost in the fall when they followed lucifer, they lost perfection. God simply did not create imperfection, period.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Can a parent impose their will on a child? no, a child will go their own way, decide how they chose, even couples, coworkers, friends, it happens everyday. Even old saying's like you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink" indicate this.

So, like I pointed out earlier Christ was tempted BECAUSE He has freewill too. Thats the point He DIDNT have to chose to do what He did, He could have came down off the cross, jumped from the height, anytime He could have changed His mind.

And God wouldnt stop Him. NOT couldnt stop Him, wouldnt because He gave the freewill and He has to honour that.

Because He gave Jesus the same choice the same freewill angels and we have. This is why Jesus is honoured by God by God giving Him the power. Jesus could have gone the other way and joined Lucifier, it wasnt a lack of trying on Lucifiers part, but a strength on Christs.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Can a parent impose their will on a child? no, You don’t have children do you? Neither do I, thank Trojan, but I do have two nephews under 3. Parents routinely impose their will on their children, especially the younger ones.

yes Ossai the people were declared good as well. No imperfection thats what was lost in the fall when they followed lucifer, they lost perfection. God simply did not create imperfection, period. Depends on whether you’re still positing a Christian omni- god.

And God wouldnt stop Him. NOT couldnt stop Him, wouldnt because He gave the freewill and He has to honour that. So is Jesus another god? The standard trinity declares Jesus merely an aspect of god.

Apparently you didn’t catch it so I’ll repeat what I said earlier. Omnipotence and freewill are mutually exclusive.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Ossai
[b]Kitty Chan
You don’t have children do you? Neither do I, thank Trojan, but I do have two nephews under 3. Parents routinely impose their will on their children, especially the younger ones.

Yes I have a son who is addhd challange, I could say black and hell say white, I can no more impose my will on him then I can lift a bridge. Younger ones listen somewhat but quickly develop their own ideas fast. We are all fiercly independent.

Depends on whether you’re still positing a Christian omni- god.So is Jesus another god? The standard trinity declares Jesus merely an aspect of god.



Of course the God of the bible blessed trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost, none else is what Im talking about.

Jesus is son whom agreed with the Father because he agreed with the Father the Father will honour Him. Yea hes sorta a aspect in that they are in agreeance completely. But share same power, because Christ was granted it.

I didnt miss the omni freewill thing. they are not exclusive. Ive spoken about the relationship of things. I said earlier"And God wouldnt stop Him. NOT couldnt stop Him, wouldnt because He gave the freewill and He has to honour that."

That is your answer to this exclusive thing. It isnt for what you suppose, if you look at what I said there is reasons for the way it is.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Beleth
A parent is only responsible for his/her children until they reach the age of majority and move out of the house. There is no similar line of demarcation for when we cease to be God's children.

You don't carry this far enough. A parent is only *legally* responsible until the child leaves. There are, however, both a moral and emotional interest that continue beyond the end of the legal responsibility. Parents who truly love their children maintain these interests. Since the Son of God taught Us to pray to Our Father, it would seem that even God sees His relationship with Us via the metaphor of the family.

So, now we are faced with a divine Parent who claims to be compassionate and interested, yet neglects his earthly children and refuses assistance which he is capable of giving.

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
Of course the God of the bible blessed trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost, none else is what Im talking about.

Jesus is son whom agreed with the Father because he agreed with the Father the Father will honour Him. Yea hes sorta a aspect in that they are in agreeance completely. But share same power, because Christ was granted it.
From a logical standpoint this whole statement is contradictorily. Jesus is supposed to be god. God doesn’t disagree with god. Jesus has the same power as god because he agrees with god – this kind of throws the whole kybosh on being tempted by Satan.

I didnt miss the omni freewill thing. they are not exclusive. Sorry, but omnipotence and freewill are exclusive. No matter how many times you declare it otherwise it remains so.

Ive spoken about the relationship of things. I said earlier"And God wouldnt stop Him. NOT couldnt stop Him, wouldnt because He gave the freewill and He has to honour that.� Logically this doesn’t hold up. God gave Jesus freewill, but Jesus is god so had it all along.
Or to paraphrase you:
And god wouldn’t stop god. NOT couldn’t stop god, wouldn’t because god gave the freewill [to god] and god has to honour that.

Ossai

[Kitty Chan]

Ossai (et el)

You say God doesnt disagree with God that is true at this point, but Jesus is honoured with the rights of God because of what happened. (They are separate, the Son inherited the Fathers Name.) So the accurate way to put it is Jesus doesnt disagree with His Father so His Father gave Him every right the Father has.

But when Jesus came He did not HAVE to agree, He could have chosen not to, Thats why satan was tempting Jesus. It was satans big chance to win Him over, for the two of them to go against God. He offered to give Christ the world, to give up the cross, to reject God, but no matter what he tossed out Christ resisted it. So, no kybosh on being tempted by Satan. Satans very good at what he does.

As for Christ knowing what may happen He had to think about the possibility of what else could happen, if He went with satan. And satan, he knows what will happen in the end and it doesnt stop him from tempting Gods Son or ever giving up on his ambition. Knowing whats on the path does not stop one from going down it.

:)

[Ossai]

Kitty Chan
You say God doesnt disagree with God that is true at this point, but Jesus is honoured with the rights of God because of what happened. (They are separate, the Son inherited the Fathers Name.) So the accurate way to put it is Jesus doesnt disagree with His Father so His Father gave Him every right the Father has. Jesus is another god and you’re going with a polytheistic christian viewpoint, correct? From the rest of your post I’d say ‘yes’.

But when Jesus came He did not HAVE to agree, He could have chosen not to, That’s why Satan was tempting Jesus. Again, Jesus is a god and knows when he dies that he’ll go straight to heaven. Since the afterlife bit is covered and Jesus is a god how could Satan have tempted him at all? To put it in comparison, could you be tempted by an ant? Satan had nothing to tempt Jesus with, not power, no offer of immortality, no super strength, etc, because Jesus being a god already had access to all of that. So what was Satan supposedly tempting Jesus with – his company?

Ossai

[Elind]

Originally posted by The idea
If I can tie my shoelaces and avoid walking into walls, I figure that I'm already half-way to success.

To success at what?

:p