Originally posted by FreakyKBHLOL! You really have no idea what you're talking about. You've claimed that the greatest good is God's pleasure, and that everything that happens is necessary for the greater good, and that everything that happens is brought about by God's decree. So, the holocaust was both brought about by the decree and was done so for God's pleasure.
You are mistaking decree (which certifies all that is to occur) with predestination.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrLIS (laughing inside, silently. Don't you think it's superfluous to insert these cliche acronyms? They add nothing to the argument, for if the idiocy of post were evident, it kinda stands on its own, IMHO)!
LOL! You really have no idea what you're talking about. You've claimed that the greatest good is God's pleasure, and that everything that happens is necessary for the greater good, and that everything that happens is brought about by God's decree. So, the holocaust was both brought about by the decree and was done so for God's pleasure.
I'll say it again, as it (apparently) bears repeating: the decree is informed by God's omniscience. The decree does not force any action on the part of the participants; the decree is the declaration of God's knowledge of the participants' actions. He knew then how you would think now, and the decree includes that actuality.
Even the wrath of man will praise God.
EDIT: From the second post of this thread:
Many things that occur are results of angelic or human free will acting contrary to God’s desires. He nevertheless decided or willed that these things would take place. Thus, He makes our volition truly free. How He could do this without compromising His perfect essence is the story of the righteousness and justice of God.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAs a simple example, your silly God could have simply created 'free will agents' who possess more benevolent characters.
[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]
Really? Is benevolent character not developed by means of exercising this "benevolence" -- by choosing benevolence above malevolence until it becomes a preference (the option to choose the alternative still always available; just not opted for)?
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseIf a person is to determine substantively his own actions (really, compatibilist free will is the only type of free will that makes sense here or anywhere), then there is a character that informs and predisposes his deliberations. What you are talking about may simply be the manifestation of character, intentions, and motivations, which in practice may be inferred by others through observation of his actions. In some sense, it is not really clear how one may systematically exercise or choose 'benevolence' through his own determination in the manner you describe if he is not predisposed toward such actions in part through what is taken to be a sufficiently 'benevolent' character.
Is benevolent character not developed by means of exercising this "benevolence" -- by choosing benevolence above malevolence until it becomes a preference
At any rate, whether this greater predisposition toward benevolence is merely conferred or sufficiently 'developed' is rather irrelevant isn't it? At the end of the day, Freaky's God is omnipotent. In either case, He could have simply created moral agents who are to a greater extent predisposed toward benevolent acts -- and this is perfectly compatible with the existence of free will.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSure, not all pain and suffering is bad. For example, some of it helps to mould character. But much of it is bad, particularly when extreme, needless, and random. Do I have to give obvious examples?
You are assuming too much here.
[b]pain and suffering experienced bysubsequent humans.
Assumption 1: pain and suffering is bad.
Assumption 2: p/s by humans is bad.
God didn't have to do this; but He did.
Assumption 1: other free will agents could exist without Him having done so.
Without God making the introduction of imperfection This is not a balance thing, a yin/yang thing. The glory of the Lord will fill the universe.
It's true that God didn't have to be one who set up the scenario whereby, if Adam freely sinned, imperfection was introduced into the world. It could, for example, have been the act of a lesser deity. But God, being omnipotent, would clearly be responsible for the existence of that lesser deity too, and fpr his creation; or if another meta-deity created that deity, then for that meta-deity; and so on. So, God would not escape ultimate responsibility. He would be creating lesser deities whose free will would permit the possibility of them causing pain and suffering, not all of which yielded countervailing goods. So my point still stands.
Note too that I was just assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Genesis story was literally true, simply because I thought you believed it was; I was then exploring some problematic implications of your beliefs. So I'm surprised to learn that you think it might not have been God who turned Adam out of the Garden of Eden, but rather some other agent. Which other agent, exactly, did you have in mind?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWould you say that suffering is necessary to build character?
Sure, not all pain and suffering is bad. For example, some of it helps to mould character. But much of it is bad, particularly when extreme, needless, and random. Do I have to give obvious examples?
Would you say that, for an omnipotent being, suffering is the only way in which character can
be bestowed upon an agent?
Nemesio
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeDo I have to give obvious examples?
Sure, not all pain and suffering is bad. For example, some of it helps to mould character. But much of it is bad, particularly when extreme, needless, and random. Do I have to give obvious examples?
It's true that God didn't have to be one who set up the scenario whereby, if Adam freely sinned, imperfection was introduced into the world. It could, fo ...[text shortened]... arden of Eden, but rather some other agent. Which other agent, exactly, did you have in mind?
You could try. Others have consistently harkened upon 'needless' suffering, but when pressed for examples--- with support, no doubt--- they have all fallen silent. What standard will you use to support your examples of needless suffering?
Note too that I was just assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Genesis story was literally true, simply because I thought you believed it was...
I do.
you think it might not have been God who turned Adam out of the Garden of Eden, but rather some other agent...
Adam's actions forced God to turn him out of the Garden.
Originally posted by NemesioI don't think it was a poor choice of words, really. Two free will agents, God and Adam. Adam's decisions forced some type of response from God. God, necessarily required to remain intact, must honor His own righteousness. What the righteousness of God demands, the justice of God executes. All thoughts and actions require a response from God.
Interesting how Adam controls God's actions (forced).
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you feel that the death of one fewer person in the Holocaust would have meant a diminishing
Others have consistently harkened upon 'needless' suffering, but when pressed for examples--- with support, no doubt--- they have all fallen silent. What standard will you use to support your examples of needless suffering?
of God's pleasure, then I suppose you would assert that there is no such thing as needless suffering,
but one could conclude that your god is a jerk.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf I can make your god do something, then I have control over him.
I don't think it was a poor choice of words, really. Two free will agents, God and Adam. Adam's decisions forced some type of response from God. God, necessarily required to remain intact, must honor His own righteousness. What the righteousness of God demands, the justice of God executes. All thoughts and actions require a response from God.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf you had read the doctrine of the divine decree, you would know how idiotic your assertion sounds. Not only is your assertion without support, you have yet to offer even one possible scenario wherein suffering could be avoided. So much for your faithfulness, eh?
Not be a barbaric jerk whose idea of a glory is the unnecessary suffering of his created beings.
Of course, such a god doesn't exist, so I'm just fantasizing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe doctrine of the divine decree is stupid and contadictory. In comparison to it, no assertion is 'idiotic'. Also, your accusing anyone of lack of 'support' is just plain comical. Go back and read your mound of arbitrary, unsupported assertions.
If you had read the doctrine of the divine decree, you would know how idiotic your assertion sounds. Not only is your assertion without support, you have yet to offer even one possible scenario wherein suffering could be avoided. So much for your faithfulness, eh?