Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe question was whether or not the Holocaust was a necessary consequence of human free will. And on this point, your stance was/is contradictory, as I already demonstrated. Now you're just being dense. Seeing in retrospect that the Holocaust resulted from human free will does not mean that the Holocaust was a necessary consequence of human free will. According to your own theory, the only thing that made the Holocaust a necessary occurrence was the fact that your omnipotent God decreed it and acted accordingly. And somehow you feel you have an obligation to worship such a God. Yikes!!!
One is before, one is after. The "story" is straight. It is your understanding that requires the adjustment. Free will makes possible all kinds of actions. In retrospect, we see the Holocaust as the result of some people's free will.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot necessarily. If your God could not have created a world in which that agent would have decided, in full accordance with his own free will, not to act on said objectionable intentions, then your God just ain't omnipotent.
You are suggesting that God should have stopped a free will agent from acting on their intentions.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBlah. Blah. Blah. Isn't this probably exactly what Bob Walker, the Jesus salesman, would say? We're here to discuss industrial lubricants.
The ironic thing with the arguments here is that they place the wrong actions of man on par with the right actions of God. This is clearly not the case. What the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross far outweighs anything man could do to cancel out the works of God. The person of Jesus Christ--- His uniqueness in the universe, His position in all of history--- makes Him the pivotal Person of all time, eternity past and future.
Originally posted by NemesioThe deck is not stacked; it's simply not civil toward absurdities or self-contradictory statements. You are asking God to act directly in all matters (or, at least, in the matters which you determine would minimize pain and suffering on the human side). As already stated in the decree, some action that occurs is the result of God's direct action, other actions from the other agents' direct actions.
Well, then you've stacked the deck. You have created a scenario wherein any modification entails
a violation of free will. But that isn't the case at all, unless you believe that all people have
identical predispositions for behaviors (which we know to be untrue).
Or, we know that debilitating congenital diseases strike in the womb. Unless you feel ...[text shortened]... , your 'god' is a pervert, relishing human suffering as per
his decree.
Nemesio
In the scenario with Hitler, it is a well-documented fact that the man was of no-account and his meteoric rise had nothing to do with his personal talents and/or drives.
The fact that you are allowed to hold any number of heretical positions on the nature and character of God merely reinforces the point.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloAgain, in retrospect we can see the actions of free will agents involved in the Holocaust. Having a free will allows for any (almost) infinite number of actions to occur. Before those actions occur, as far as humans are concerned, nothing is set in stone.
The question was whether or not the Holocaust was a necessary consequence of human free will. And on this point, your stance was/is contradictory, as I already demonstrated. Now you're just being dense. Seeing in retrospect that the Holocaust resulted from human free will does not mean that the Holocaust was a necessary consequence of human free will. ...[text shortened]... cted accordingly. And somehow you feel you have an obligation to worship such a God. Yikes!!!
Hitler was no more forced to his actions than the millions of Germans were forced to their compliance. Nor was the inaction of nations a forced proposition. As far as God is concerned, the entire matter is set in stone, because He already knows the entire history as one whole. Does this force your actions right now? Does this predetermine your future actions? Obviously not.
When speaking of the Holocaust as a necessary result of human free will, it is in retrospect, just as you are speaking of it. Instead of arguing about something which can no longer be affected, why not pick something occuring more contemporarily?
Originally posted by LemonJelloBound by absurdities, you're never going to come to an understanding of the doctrine. I told you as much prior to even posting it, but you and others always objected to Secret Decoder Ring conspiracies and whatnot. Here's the proof. Now you are arguing that God should (could) have made someone as equally perfect to Himself in every respect.
Not necessarily. If your God could not have created a world in which that agent would have decided, in full accordance with his own free will, not to act on said objectionable intentions, then your God just ain't omnipotent.
Can anyone say, "Can God make a rock bigger than He can pick up?"
Originally posted by bbarrWouldn't any predisposition preclude the possibility of complete moral freedom?
Fine. Given your notion of 'character' the point may be rephrased:
It is not incompatible with complete moral freedom that God create us with essences that disposed us to act in ways that would shape our characters so that we would, in general, be more benevolent than we are currently.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHis intended outcome was for moral agents to choose a better morality due to their own free choice, not because they were inclined to do so.
Forget the word 'character'. God is omnipotent. Surely, He could have created a world in which moral agents choose, to at least some greater degree, benevolent acts in accordance with their own free will. Now, why wouldn't He do that?
That being said, I fervently believe in a "moral law" which clearly dictates to the individual what the "gold standard" of morality is -- some people call it conscience; a clear directive which defines our moral choice but also leaves it largely uninfluenced. Isn't this some form of predisposition you may ask? Yes, I would agree. This is the least amount possible -- man should be capable of discerning between good and evil.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou mean God's definition of moral perfection necessarily differs from yours or mine? At any rate, how am I supposed to define some concept from an imaginary perspective? You said that your God is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent. How exacly am I supposed to interpret that, if not by interpreting it as entailing that your God is not morally perfect? What did you mean to say? That He is callous?
But you have not demonstrated why having a slightly more benevolent character would preclude complete moral freedom. Jesus, for example, had a more benevolent character than he could have had in some alternate world. Does that mean that Jesus did not have complete moral freedom?
[b]Define moral perfection from God's perspective.
You mean God ...[text shortened]... ntailing that your God is not morally perfect? What did you mean to say? That He is callous?[/b]
I defined exactly to what extent God is "benevolent". You seem to wanna dictate benevolent action from a momental, spatial perspective to an eternal, transcendent Being -- easier said than done. Since there is a start to this universe, there will also be an end, where complete justice will be served and evil destroyed.
Ergo, God will deal with evil, only in His time, not yours.
Originally posted by Halitose
His intended outcome was for moral agents whose morality was self determined, not preprogrammed or nudged towards a certain end.
That being said, I fervently believe in a "moral law" which clearly dictates to the individual what the "gold standard" of morality is -- some people call it conscience; a clear directive which defines our moral choice but als ...[text shortened]... is the least amount possible -- man should be capable of discerning between good and evil.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are asking God to act directly in all matters (or, at least, in the matters which you determine would minimize pain and suffering on the human side).
According to you, God acts directly in matters all the time -- inflicting
pain and inconvenience on some, blessing strength, will and charisma
on others. Certainly, if God is willing to do so occasionally, there is a
compelling cases that He should do it for the Holocaust? And yet,
He didn't.
Did God interfere with the free will of Egyptians in abetting the flight
out of Egypt? Did He interfere with the free will of Job or Jonah in
inflicting catastophe upon them? Did He interfere with free will of
Lazarus by raising him from the dead? Did He interfere with the free
will of Zachary by striking him mute?
In the scenario with Hitler, it is a well-documented fact that the man was of no-account and his meteoric rise had nothing to do with his personal talents and/or drives.
This is crap. Are you suggesting that if Hitler had been mute or
deformed or killed at age 5 by a mysterious disease, the Holocaust
would have happened? Yes, a number of unfortunate circumstances
allowed Hitler to become that which he became, but without Hitler,
those circumstances would have yielded different results, to be sure.
Your claim that Hitler 'had nothing to do with' the Holocaust is just
outrageous; without him, it would not have happened.
So, I ask again: why do you see it as reasonable for God to interact
and influence people in some cases (recorded by the Bible) and yet
He would not (subtly) act to prevent the atrocity that was the Holocaust?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan the people in heaven sin? Can the angels in heaven sin?
Bound by absurdities, you're never going to come to an understanding of the doctrine. I told you as much prior to even posting it, but you and others always objected to Secret Decoder Ring conspiracies and whatnot. Here's the proof. Now you are arguing that God should (could) have made someone as equally perfect to Himself in every respect.
Can anyone say, "Can God make a rock bigger than He can pick up?"
Do the people in heaven and angels have free will?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAccording to you, God acts directly in matters all the time
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You are asking God to act directly in all matters (or, at least, in the matters which you determine would minimize pain and suffering on the human side).
According to you, God acts directly in matters all the time -- inflicting
pain and inconvenience on some, blessing strength, will and charisma
on others. ...[text shortened]... and yet
He would not (subtly) act to prevent the atrocity that was the Holocaust?
Nemesio[/b]
Really? Never has this been posited by me. Read the doctrine again. There you will see that God sometimes acts directly, sometimes indirectly. At other times, other agents are the direct force of action. Not once have I ever asserted that God acts directly all the time.
And yet, He didn't.
Your standard is better, it is assumed.
without Hitler
Without Hitler, as though his person was the pivot, as opposed to his position. This is crap. Hitler was demon possessed. Any unbeliever can be demon possessed, regardless of talents or ambitions. Without the demon possession, Hitler would have died in obscurity, as was his station in life.
As for the rest of your argument, you are either conceding what has been established or you are arguing it. Which is it going to be?