We didn’t “leave” anywhere; we are born here, not brought by storks.
So basically, your version of God uses people as tools or toys. He wants to us to “fufill our purpose” ( whatever it might be ), and he doesn’t care how much we hurt in the process.
“Thrill rides” don’t hurt. Pain hurts just as much, no matter what happens after. If you are right and God exists, and he could stop the suffering but refuses to, then I hate him utterly. Your God is the God of Malice.
Nice of you to casually dismiss every tragedy, every agony, every lifetime filled with despair and oppression as “no big deal”.
None of had any choice in being born or where; by your own “logic” we have no free will.
My respect, or lack therof, for people is not based on what they believe. My respect is based on what kind of people they are. A Catholic priest who molests children does not have my respect. A snake charmer who doesnt molest children and is a moral person, does have my respect.
Why do I have to believe its Myth or Fairy Tale? Why cant I simply disagree with them without belittling what they believe?
You most certain did imply an either/or situation. Specifically you invoked a hypothetical situation where “I might have it within my power to make sure my small children never fall down but that doesn’t guarentee it’s in there best interest for me to do that.”
That is an either/or situation. Either you can prevent a child falling down, or you can do what is in their best interests. If the hypothetical also allows for guaranteeing what is in their best interests and stoping them from falling down then what is the hypothetical supposed to demonstrate? All it shows is that anyone allowing a child to fall down under these circumstances is an arsehole because he let the child suffer when it wa sin their best interests not to suffer.
That’s as maybe, but we aren’t discussing the nature of suffering, we are discussing the reason for Jesus’ death.
I’m not implying that, I’m saying it outright and repeatedly. And you have yet to actually address the point rather than sliding around it.
I’ll try again. Tell me which of these points you disagree with please.
God is omnipotent.
God is a loving Father to humanity.
A loving Father would not allow a child to suffer for no reason.
An omnipotent Father is not limited by the solutions he may create, except by choice.
If we agree on all those points then there is only one conclusion:
An omnipotent and loving Father would never choose to allow a child to suffer because he (the Father) never needs to allow it. All ends that may be achieved through suffering can be achieved without suffering.
I know you are saying that, but as I have pointed out, you are ducking the issue. A human father is limited in what he may achieve. He is forced to make decisions that result in suffering to achieve a greater good. An omnipotent God is not limited in any way. He never forced to make such decisions. If he does make such decisions then he does so because he chooses for the child to suffer.
I’ve said it several times now: on this issue any comparison to a human father is invalid because human fathers are not omnipotent. Yet you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that point or try to explain why it is incorrect. You are ducking the issue.
No, it wouldn’t, because God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God can create solution where He can make things all nice AND not maintain the purpose, can’t he? Once again you are limiting what God can achieve to either/or choices: EITHER He can make it all nice OR He can maintain the purpose.
That is totally invalid. Your statement above actually speaks to what God COULD make, which also dictates what he COULD NOT make. God is by definition omnipotent. It would not defeat the purpose for God to make it all nice because one of the things God can make is a solution that both maintains the purpose [I}AND* make sit all nice.
A direct question: Do you believe that God is incapable of implementing a solution that both maintains the purpose [I}AND* make sit all nice.
Yes, that is because I am referring to the effects of the choices made by an omnipotent God on the suffering of a mortal physical body.
The problem with this is that it renders Jesus death even more meaningless. His suffering now becomes irrelevant in the long term. Moreover any suffering he alleviated by his actions is equally irrelevant. So we return to square one: why did Jesus bother to suffer? This doesn’t answer the question, it makes the original act even more irrelevant and Jesus even less worthy of worship
I would think so too, because once again we refer to limited human, not omnipotent deities.
If you take the money you have been saving for vacation and give it to the poor, but you can turn around nay time you like and create another bag of money of even greater value then you have sacrificed nothing. If you throw yourself on a grenade when you could have simply teleported the grenade into the heart of the sun then you have sacrificed nothing.
Humans can make a choice to sacrifice because they sometimes need to give up one thing to gain another. But once again you r analogy is flawed because God never needs to give up anything to achieve his aims. God is omnipotent. You really don’t; seem to grasp this simple point. You simply can not compare human actions dictated by necessity to the actions of an omnipotent deity for whom nothing is ever dictated.
Once again, it’s turtles all the way down. Why would an omnipotent God allow the experience pain to become the point of existence? Why not create a solution that makes such an experience unnecessary?
You can keep pushing it back forever by saying the experience of pain is the point of existence in a universe created by a God who made the experience of pain the point of existence in a universe created by a God who made…… But it’s turtles all the way down, and you haven’t in any way addressed the issue. Why did God not create a solution where you can get the point without experiencing pian?
But in that case it makes no sense to worship a demigod because he experienced the ramification of fleeting physical suffering. You can’t have your cake and eat it to.
The transient nature of physical reality is a good answer for Hindus or Buddhists. It simply doesn’t work for Christians because Christians are told that the experience of physical suffering by a demigod is of paramount importance and will have ramifications in heaven for eternity. If that experience is transient and with no lasting ramifications as you claim then Christianity is self contradictory.
Well I held on, but you never explained why an omnipotent God was limited to having people get used to him gradually. You never mentioned it again. Care to explain why an omnipotent God has such an obvious flaw?
And why is an omnipotent God limited to a creating a universe in which there had to be something other than spiritual bliss to choose tohave free will? Why couldn’t he create a universe in which there was free will and nothing but spiritual bliss?
If you don’t understand a topic that’s fine. What is not fine is attempting to discuss a topic that you admit you are essentially ignorant of. Saying that you are addressing points other debaters have raised and then admitting after we have waded through your long post that you don’t; comprehend it evening essence is just a pointless waste of time. You haven’t addressed anything and most of your answers rely on a totally invalid analogy between a man and an omnipotent deity.
Premise A: The being defined as “God” is omnipotent. Premise B: The being defined as “God” is benevolent. Premise C: The being defined as “God” does not work against free will.
Situation: A being (Jesus) is tortured and killed. Possible Reason 1: Jesus was killed, because only the death of a “pure” human can defeat death.
Problem: Contradicts Premise A: For the reason to be truthful, God must be constrained by a rule; that “only” in this way death can be defeated. Therefore, this cannot be a correct reason. Also contradicts Premise C: Jesus was not given free will in this choice.
Possible Reason 2: Jesus chose to sacrifice himself, because only in the sacrifice of a “pure” human can defeat death.
Problem: Same as Reason 1. Does not contradict Premise C, however.
Possible Reason 3: Jesus was killed, in order that God can show us that he is willing to sacrifice his own son for the betterment of humankind.
Problem: If we accept Premise A, that of God’s omnipotence, then logically God may create the same effect without death. Thus, by making the choice between “effect without death” and “effect with death”, and choosing the latter, Premise B is contradicted - God would not be acting benevolently. Premise C is also contradicted; Jesus has no free choice.
Possible Reason 4: Jesus chose to sacrifice his life, in order to show us that he is willing to sacrifice himself for the betterment of humankind.
Problem: Premise B is contradicted; God allows his son to die when he is capable of bringing about the same effects without death; thus he is not benevolent.
Any others possible reasons you want me to plug in there?
Jesus freely chose to die even though it wasn’t necessary and God respected that choice.
I don’t think this violates any of your premises, but it does mean the act wasn’t a sacrifice: Some dude wanted to give up his life even though it was totally unnecessary and he could have changed his moind at any time with no negative consequences. That’s not a sacrifice.
It does produce a dilemma insofar as Jesus was an arsehole. He chose to hurt his disciples and family by dying a horrible death when it was totally unnecessary.
It also makes a mocketry of the Christian idea that the death of Christ was of paramount importance to the future of humanity.
No it doesn’t. I trust other people because I have evidence of thir trustworthiness. Christians will all tell you that we need to trust God as a matter of faith. Indeed Thomas was told outright that he should have trusted God with no evidence at all.
But if God isn’t perfect then why should I trust him with no evidence at all?
Omniscience is not possible. Neither is perfection. Just one of man’s fantasies.
Does not in any way prevent the existence of God. Even the Christian God.
I would say that the OT God made all kinds of mistakes. Perfect? Hell no. And far from being omniscient, I don’t think He knew what the hell was going on half the time.
Jesus done a little better. But perfect? No. Omniscient? No.
Trust is trust. Has nothing to do with perfection.
Because that is how the Bible defines him, time and again.
Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted
Psalm 119:91 Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you.
John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;
If you are discusing an entity that can not do all things, whose plans can be thwarted, that is not served by all things and that does not have all things under his power the you are not dicussing God at all. You are discussing something else entrely. God is defined by having power over all things and being able to do all things. Not most things, not some things, but all things.
Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
Must be kinda hard being a Christian and not believing what Jesus said.
Was Jesus lying when he said that with God all things are possible, are some things, like omniscience, not possible?
Why is God not allowed to define how things work. If he didnt define how things work, we would not exist at all. He wouldnt be “allowed” to make a “rule” for gravity etc.
How so? How is God capable of bringing about the same effects without death? If you have some genius case of this I would love to hear it. Your argument however has to take into account other premises. God cannot interfere with our free will. Thus he cannot make us good. God cannot just simply forgive us, because then he would be an unjust God. What is your proposed event that could get around both of these premises?
The whole reason for Christ was that he was perfect. If he wasnt, then there is no reason for Christianity. Needless to say I dont agree with this at all.
God is perfectly capable of defining things - I honestly don’t know where you’ve pulled this from. Premise A says yes, God can define how things work. However, Premise A also says that God cannot be constrained by any rule, or law. If he is, he’s not omnipotent.
Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that it is in God’s power to create a rule that he cannot break? Also an impossibility - if he’s omnipotent, he must be able to break any rule.
Please, please, look at the logic of your argument for just one second? God is omnipotent. Ergo, God can do ANYTHING. Thus, he can bring about the same effects by doing whatever the hell he wants to do - he’s omnipotent!
You’d like me to suggest one? Well, I already have done so far in this thread - God comes down from on high, and tells us himself what he wants us to know. Or, he could use his OMNIPOTENT powers and make us know.
Which was Premise C. I do hope you actually read the post.
At no point have I suggested this. What I have suggested, as my mere mortal idea, is that God, being omnipotent and all, MAKES us know. As in, KAZAP! we know it. It is knowledge in our brains. How does this affect free will? We still have the choice of doing what he wants us to or not; we’re simply more informed.
True. And i’ve already agreed to this, earlier in the thread.
Stated above; the coming-down-and-telling-us method, or the making-us-know method. Would you like another? Alright! How about, God makes giant floating orange letters in the sky, spelling out exactly what he wants us to know. No unjustness here, and again, free will isn’t touched upon. In addition, none of these have the side-effect of the torturing and death of Jesus - So i’d say they’d actually be more benevolent, and just, than the “actual” events.
Seriously, all my posts so far have outlined that free will isn’t touched. Please stop bringing up this hackneyed argument of “OMGWTF FREE WILL!!” when it isn’t applicable. Show me an example of where i’ve given an example that would endanger free will, please, then you can use that argument.
Because he is benevolent. If he defines how things work in a manner which causes suffering then he contrdicts premise B.
I don’t follow you. God is allowed to do anything so long as it doesn’t contradict the premises. What premise would gravity contradict excatly?
The same way he brought about the entire universe withot detah: by willing those effects to come into being.
God can do anything remenber. It’s definitional.
God says “Let it be” and it is. And God sees that it is good, and it is good.
How does that event contradict any of the premises stated so far? And God can do this remember, he’s omnipotent. That’s what omnipotent means. It means he can do anything, inlcuding saying ‘Let it be so’ and having it be so.
God is by defintion omnipotent. He can achieve whatever he likes in whatever way he likes.
There is no point asking how God can bring about effect A wihtout also having effect B. It is axiomatic that God can do so. We don’t have to even discuss the way that he does that. We have to accept that he can do so because we accept Premise A as an axiom.
If you don’t reject God’s ability to bring about effect A without also having effect B then that is something that he cannot do. As a result you are saying that he is not omnipotent. You can’t do that.
I don’t think faith has to transcend logic. I use reason and logic to sort through a lot of spiritual concepts. I admit there’s still a lot to understand and I’ve left beliefs I once held behind but I don’t find faith to be illogical. Clinging to a belief in spite of abundant evidence against it seems illogical to me but forming a belief in the possibility of something greater than what we are presently aware of doesn’t seem illogical.
I didn’t say, or didn’t mean to say, that all who believe in some higher power and some greater future believe that faith transcends logic. It’s just that is a standard answer by true believers when they get cornered however.
I’m sorry that was confusing. It was intended for those with an imagination free of malice.
So…no.
Yeah yeah…learn a new song. I’ve heard that one enough. Once again I remind you that this conversation is intended for those with an imagination. Your’s appears to be to infected with your personal bias to play rationally.
I’m comparing it to eternity. I’m also suggesting that we are primarily eternal spiritual beings rather than physical. It’s an exercise in imagination, sp please spare me the righteous indignation from someone who considers the entire race a failure.
Not that we are aware of anyway. I fail to see how my logic indicates no free will.
