27 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyIn the end, he takes away free will anyway despite your useless attempts to dodge that little tidbit. We have no choice in Heaven, so by your own premises we can't "love" God.
What is the loving thing to do? Is it to force us to love? God does not do this because it would not be love if he did. Therefore, we then have a choice.
What about suffering? Is it a loving thing to do to allow suffering? Of coarse God does not want us to suffer yet we do because of sin that we have chosen. Having said that, it would then behoove Go ...[text shortened]... ossibility now does it? Do you suppose that it all should be crystal clear to you as it is God?
Your argument is internally inconsistent.
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyIf we can be free and without sin in Heaven, God could have created us that way from the start (else he wouldn't be omnipotent).
What is the loving thing to do? Is it to force us to love? God does not do this because it would not be love if he did. Therefore, we then have a choice.
What about suffering? Is it a loving thing to do to allow suffering? Of coarse God does not want us to suffer yet we do because of sin that we have chosen. Having said that, it would then behoove Go ...[text shortened]... ossibility now does it? Do you suppose that it all should be crystal clear to you as it is God?
27 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I choose God because I love God now and throughout eternity then where has my choice been violated?
In the end, he takes away free will anyway despite your useless attempts to dodge that little tidbit. We have no choice in Heaven, so by your own premises we can't "love" God.
Your argument is internally inconsistent.
27 Dec 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou are the one claiming that being free does not entail sinning, since you think that is what it is like in Heaven. If it can be that way in Heaven, it could have always been that way.
So how could one say that we had freedom to sin if none had ever done so to begin with?
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWhat I am saying is that God's creation has had the oppurtunity to sin and as evidence of such some of his creation has succumb to sin in some form or fashion. For example, only a third of the heavenly host followed Lucifer. The rest did not fall. However, they all had the oppurtunity to rebel against God. Conversly, mankind as a whole has fallen. However, being born into this state we still have the option once born to rebel or come back to our heavenly Father. Some do and some do not, however, we are given the oppurtunity to do so. Then when we have made our choice, we have made our choice.
You are the one claiming that being free does not entail sinning, since you think that is what it is like in Heaven. If it can be that way in Heaven, it could have always been that way.
My position is that we do not necessarily sin nor do we die in our sins in order to have free will, however, there must be some who do sin as well as die in their sins if creation really had free will to accpet/reject their God to begin with.
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBoy you sure can ramble on and on about stuff that it is at best tangential to my question. Do you mind just answering the question that I actually posed? The question roughly is did your God (in his dismay with us humans) do the right thing by taking a course of action that led to the suffering and death of presumably many, many helpless innocent creatures? I'm asking about the other species that suffered and died during the flood. There are a lot of non-human moral patients out there, whodey! One would think that if your God were really uber-smart and uber-benevolent, he would consider their interests, pain, and suffering to be morally relevant and reason-giving.
Here is my take on the situation. Mankind is the focus of God's creation. Of coarse there will be those who scoff at such a notion and say how dare we place ourselves in such a position of importance. After all, we are but dust and even smaller, in fact, in comparison to the eminsity of the universe. However, consider the Biblical fact that mankind was th e world in order to save the fate of mankind from almost certain destruction in the end?
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think any of that addresses my questions.
Like all things it depends on what and how much power you were
given or had. You run a country and take all of its wealth for your
own the country suffers, you attack or steal from another country
your country will suffer the results of that, you are a parent and you
take all of your wealth to support your drug habit your kids will suffer.
Kelly
28 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhy should death 'lock in' our choice? On earth, according to your theology, we can vacillate between accepting and rejecting God, right? Some could reject him for years, yet accept him in the last year of their life. Others [like me] could accept him for years, yet reject him later on.
What I am saying is that God's creation has had the oppurtunity to sin and as evidence of such some of his creation has succumb to sin in some form or fashion. For example, only a third of the heavenly host followed Lucifer. The rest did not fall. However, they all had the oppurtunity to rebel against God. Conversly, mankind as a whole has fallen. Howeve ...[text shortened]... as die in their sins if creation really had free will to accpet/reject their God to begin with.
I think people have (understandable) trouble comprehending infinity. Let's say our time in the afterlife, in heaven or hell, is 1 million years, and the average earthly lifespan is 100 years (generous, but in your favor). That means, during the first 0.01% of our life, we're allowed to choose, and revise our choice at any time. For the other 99.99%, we're stuck with the last (and not the only!) choice that we have made. Does that seem logical to you?
My position is that we do not necessarily sin nor do we die in our sins in order to have free will, however, there must be some who do sin as well as die in their sins if creation really had free will to accpet/reject their God to begin with.
If the net effect of what you call "free will" is to condemn large numbers of us to permanent spiritual death, what good is it? Is the suffering of the many justified by the love God may share with the few?
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat good is it? The goal is to do away with sin and all those who love it and live by it because God is aware of the suffering that results from it. Sin is but for a season. A very short season in comparison to all eternity.
If the net effect of what you call "free will" is to condemn large numbers of us to permanent spiritual death, what good is it? Is the suffering of the many justified by the love God may share with the few?[/b]
28 Dec 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou continue to look at sin as though it should only directly effect those who are "guilty". This is simply not the case as I have tried to explain. In short, deserving has nothing to do with it. Sin is what it is and that is destructive. We are born into a world of sin and thus subject to its diliterious effects. It may look random to you and half witted but all suffering is traceable to sin, namely the first fall if nothing else.
Boy you sure can ramble on and on about stuff that it is at best tangential to my question. Do you mind just answering the question that I actually posed? The question roughly is did your God (in his dismay with us humans) do the right thing by taking a course of action that led to the suffering and death of presumably many, many helpless innocent creat ...[text shortened]... e would consider their interests, pain, and suffering to be morally relevant and reason-giving.
28 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou keep dodging my straightforward question. In your world of literal accounts, your God supposedly deliberated in a perfect manner, knowing the outcome of his actions, and chose to decimate the world's ecological systems and the interests and lives of many, many human and non-human moral patients. He chose to bring widespread suffering and death on the world. Given that you think humans are the darlings of the cosmic order (the "climax of creation" as you say), it's curious enough that you think God was justified in systematically exterminating so many human beings. Now, I realize you have difficulty extricating yourself from the realm of human affairs for even a second, but I am asking you now about the myriad other species involved. Don't you think some of these creatures are moral patients -- implying that it is not permissible for one to treat them just any old way one pleases? You have not even pretended so far to outline any reasons why God would be justified in decimating the interests and lives of these creatures just because he is a bit miffed about humankind. By your own accounts, his actions demonstrate that -- contrary to what KJ said about the relationship between God and other species being a good one -- God doesn't always treat other species (in addition to humans) with even a modicum of the respect that is appropriate. I mean, apparently he didn't even consider their suffering and deaths to be reason-giving when considering collateral damage of his super-ingenious flood idea.
You continue to look at sin as though it should only directly effect those who are "guilty". This is simply not the case as I have tried to explain. In short, deserving has nothing to do with it. Sin is what it is and that is destructive. We are born into a world of sin and thus subject to its diliterious effects. It may look random to you and half witted but all suffering is traceable to sin, namely the first fall if nothing else.