Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf man has suffered more, then you god is a monster.
As God has paid the ultimate cost, has suffered beyond all others, I think it matters.
If your god has suffered more, then you god is a masochist.
Your god, in its infinite capacities, could have avoided this in a variety
of fashions; in my own finitude can create better scenarios for both
parties involved. Yet, unnecessary human suffering abounds and your
god, too, suffers. Sounds awfully dumb.
The position you're advocating is hardly worthy of consideration.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioName one scenario which could have brought about the intended results.
If man has suffered more, then you god is a monster.
If your god has suffered more, then you god is a masochist.
Your god, in its infinite capacities, could have avoided this in a variety
of fashions; in my own finitude can create better scenarios for both
parties involved. Yet, unnecessary human suffering abounds and your
god, too, suffers. Soun ...[text shortened]... s awfully dumb.
The position you're advocating is hardly worthy of consideration.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, if the intended result was that everyone should suffer, then your god did an excellent job.
Name one scenario which could have brought about the intended results.
Taking his super-duper nature seriously for a moment though, if it was not his intention to create a world in which everyone suffers (perhaps him most of all), then he really messed up.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, it was a necessary consequence of God's decreeing that it occur. Pay attention to your own metaphysics.
The Holocaust was a necessary consequence of free will agents. Would you have God only allow those things which agree with His character? In that case, no one would have been created.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe Holocaust was a necessary consequence of free will agents.
The Holocaust was a necessary consequence of free will agents. Would you have God only allow those things which agree with His character? In that case, no one would have been created.
This is absolutely false. One thing (of many things) that you simply fail to grasp is that the existence of free will does not in any way, shape, or form necessitate these evils. As a simple example, your silly God could have simply created 'free will agents' who possess more benevolent characters.
Originally posted by telerionAgain, it is a natural consequence that in creating gods, some would choose against the creator, simply out of arrogance. The argument that God made them do the same is countered by one main Person, namely, Jesus Christ. It is repeatedly countered by every believer, and more emphatically by those who reach spiritual maturity.
Well, if the intended result was that everyone should suffer, then your god did an excellent job.
Taking his super-duper nature seriously for a moment though, if it was not his intention to create a world in which everyone suffers (perhaps him most of all), then he really messed up.
Could God have created gods who would not choose against Him? That sounds an awful lot like no choice at all. Then the argument could be made that God is afraid to create anyone with an actual free choice.
If, in allowing for suffering to occur, He shoulders the overwhelming burden, who is qualified to charge Him with a foul?
Originally posted by LemonJelloFree will does not necessitate anything, one way or another. It makes it possible, however.
[b]The Holocaust was a necessary consequence of free will agents.
This is absolutely false. One thing (of many things) that you simply fail to grasp is that the existence of free will does not in any way, shape, or form necessitate these evils. As a simple example, your silly God could have simply created 'free will agents' who possess more benevolent characters.[/b]
Again, it is a natural consequence that in creating gods, some would choose against the creator, simply out of arrogance.
So why did God create arrogance?
Could God have created gods who would not choose against Him? That sounds an awful lot like no choice at all. Then the argument could be made that God is afraid to create anyone with an actual free choice.
But this would mean simply that God preferred to make a world with lots of suffering rather than one in which some might question his courage.
There's this tendency by those defending against the problem from unnecessary pain and suffering to "pass the buck." It wasn't God's fault it was (insert something that God chose to create while knowing full-well the consequence his action).
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionBack again to perfect creating imperfect. In creating anything outside of the Godhead, there necessarily exists the possibility for something other than perfect. When in the Garden, man enjoyed a perfect relationship with God, proving that it is possible for such a relationship to exist and be sustained.
[b]Again, it is a natural consequence that in creating gods, some would choose against the creator, simply out of arrogance.
So why did God create arrogance?
Could God have created gods who would not choose against Him? That sounds an awful lot like no choice at all. Then the argument could be made that God is afraid to create anyone with an ert something that God chose to create while knowing full-well the consequence his action).[/b]
But what were the requirements? Man's dependency upon God. Once man determined to go it alone, the perfect relationship ended. Did man have to chose against God? No, although the possibility existed from the moment of his creation.
God preferred to bring about the only condition which would result in His intended end: sharing His glory with many sons. Although many gods chose their own path, some gods do not. It was for them that He gave this opportunity.
Originally posted by NemesioI've been neither vague or obscure in defining His intended results. His glory and pleasure are His intended results, which include the exercise of the volition of free will creatures.
You are being vague again. What are the 'intended results' to which
you obscurely refer?
Nemesio