1. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    30 Sep '07 20:56
    Is there anything that God could do, or let happen, whose negative consequences, from a human perspsctive, would be so bad, that His perfect goodness would be legitimately called into question?
  2. Joined
    05 Apr '04
    Moves
    37874
    30 Sep '07 20:57
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Is there anything that God could do, or let happen, whose negative consequences, from a human perspsctive, would be so bad, that His perfect goodness would be legitimately called into question?
    He'd have to exist first, for the question to be valid
  3. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    30 Sep '07 21:05
    Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
    He'd have to exist first, for the question to be valid
    No, only for it to be sound. Ask Dr. Scribbles.
  4. Joined
    28 Aug '07
    Moves
    3178
    30 Sep '07 21:32
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Is there anything that God could do, or let happen, whose negative consequences, from a human perspsctive, would be so bad, that His perfect goodness would be legitimately called into question?
    It already happened.
    But christians have allways the "god has mysterious ways" or "we can't understand god's purposes".
  5. Standard memberagryson
    AGW Hitman
    http://xkcd.com/386/
    Joined
    23 Feb '07
    Moves
    7113
    30 Sep '07 21:33
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Is there anything that God could do, or let happen, whose negative consequences, from a human perspsctive, would be so bad, that His perfect goodness would be legitimately called into question?
    The circular argumentation used by those who believe in God would say no because then he would not be all-loving, but by that token he would neither be all-powerful. Seems he's put himself in a bit of a bind.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    01 Oct '07 01:24
    Originally posted by agryson
    The circular argumentation used by those who believe in God would say no because then he would not be all-loving, but by that token he would neither be all-powerful. Seems he's put himself in a bit of a bind.
    So to be all loving one must be all controlling? Perhaps you want him to control you? Now thats what I call love!!
  7. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    01 Oct '07 02:01
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Is there anything that God could do, or let happen, whose negative consequences, from a human perspsctive, would be so bad, that His perfect goodness would be legitimately called into question?
    If he existed, yes.
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    01 Oct '07 02:021 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    So to be all loving one must be all controlling? Perhaps you want him to control you? Now thats what I call love!!
    I think of it like tackling a loved one when the automatic fire starts in a drive by. That's forcing the person, and it's love.

    It seems to me that Christians are obligated to let their children die to bullets, drowning, electricity, whatever rather than protect them, since "controlling others" is supposedly so awful in Christianity.

    Are you familiar with the story of God hardening the Pharoah's heart? Clearly he will control people on occasion. I guess free will is not THAT important to him.

    (Examples - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/hardened.html)
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    01 Oct '07 02:35
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I think of it like tackling a loved one when the automatic fire starts in a drive by. That's forcing the person, and it's love.

    It seems to me that Christians are obligated to let their children die to bullets, drowning, electricity, whatever rather than protect them, since "controlling others" is supposedly so awful in Christianity.

    Are you fa ...[text shortened]... AT important to him.

    (Examples - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/hardened.html)
    No doubt, not controlling others is a messy business. In fact, love is a messy proposition. Don't tell me you have never been hurt....or are you the heart breaker?

    As far as Pharoah goes, he had already made his decision when he continued to force the Israelites to be slaves. God was simply making an example of him openly.
  10. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    01 Oct '07 03:104 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    No doubt, not controlling others is a messy business. In fact, love is a messy proposition. Don't tell me you have never been hurt....or are you the heart breaker?

    As far as Pharoah goes, he had already made his decision when he continued to force the Israelites to be slaves. God was simply making an example of him openly.
    That's not what the Bible says (for the most part) according to the translations I've seen. How did you come to this interpretation? According to Exodus, God forced Pharoah not to let the Israelites go by hardening his heart.

    1 Samuel 6:6 seems to agree with you, but Exodus in many places does not.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    01 Oct '07 03:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    That's not what the Bible says (for the most part) according to the translations I've seen. How did you come to this interpretation? According to Exodus, God forced Pharoah not to let the Israelites go by hardening his heart.

    1 Samuel 6:6 seems to agree with you, but Exodus in many places does not.
    What I am saying is that the Pharoah did not want the Israelites to go free. Why should he? They were free labor. You might say that God was simply forcing him to uphold his own free will despite the plagues.
  12. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    01 Oct '07 05:28
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am saying is that the Pharoah did not want the Israelites to go free. Why should he? They were free labor. You might say that God was simply forcing him to uphold his own free will despite the plagues.
    Why would God need to force him to do that which he was already going to do anyway?
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    01 Oct '07 05:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am saying is that the Pharoah did not want the Israelites to go free. Why should he? They were free labor. You might say that God was simply forcing him to uphold his own free will despite the plagues.
    whodey: forcing him to uphold his own free will

    LMAO!
  14. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    01 Oct '07 05:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am saying is that the Pharoah did not want the Israelites to go free. Why should he? They were free labor. You might say that God was simply forcing him to uphold his own free will despite the plagues.
    How do you know what he wanted? The situation is far more complex than free labor vs lack of free labor. There's conscience, advisors, propaganda, persuasion, lust and all kinds of other factors that can influence an individual. You can't just assume that anyone would feel a certain way simply because they want free labor.
  15. Subscriberduecer
    anybody seen my
    underpants??
    Joined
    01 Sep '06
    Moves
    56453
    01 Oct '07 14:58
    perhaps if Pharoah had let the Isrealites go on the first asking, the people of Egypt would have attacked them as they fled, instead the plagues were visited on them, thus breaking their spirit and making it safe for them to leave.
Back to Top