DescentBB

There is no \"good\" or \"evil\". These are simply subjective constructs within human brains. Nothing is inherently good or bad - things just ARE.

Ascribing definitions to things based on nothing but subjective feelings doesn't work; what you think is evil, I think is logical. What I think is evil, you may consider goodness.

Arguing semantics on the web is pointless and stupid.

Tiger's original question about pain is extremely simple to explain: God has nothing to do with it. Creatures must evolve a mechanism to help them survive injury and sickness: pain is the primary mechanism for humans to avoid further damage, and to mend as quickly as possible. If it were not evolutionarily beneficial to experience physical pain, then it wouldn't have made its way into the genome of all humans, because there would be no selective pressure for it.

Mobius wrote:There is no "good" or "evil". These are simply subjective constructs within human brains. Nothing is inherently good or bad - things just ARE.

I take it that you are a great fan of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Mobius has a point. One way for the theists to get out of this jam is to just reject that normative properties like "good" or "evil" are a part of the furniture of this universe. Of course, this would lead to other conclusions that the theists would find unfavorable.

De Rigueur wrote:Due to limitations of the human intellect, I'd say that the class of unprovable beliefs is large -- including metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic beliefs. Religious rationalizations are as good as any other kind of rationalization.

We aren't talking about proofs. We are talking about finding one theory that could be even conceivably true and allow God's attributes to be reconciled with this universe. Proving that it be the right theory need not be necessary!

Besides, I'd generally find your comment to be consistent with a healthy dose of skepticism. But I suspect that you're the type who would say that, although we are not responsible for reconciling God's all-goodness with this universe, we are responsible for believing in God, in fact, believing that a specific God exists, that the God has a specific name, that the God carried out specific events with specific effects with specific people, that the God is made up of a specific X number of persons, and so on. But when it comes to the problem of evil, we say that it is outside our understanding, not because of any epistemological criteria, but because we don't like the conclusions that we come to? All of these ideas about God are in the same class of knowledge, but you reject knowledge of one because it is unfavorable.

I'd be more than happy to suspend all judgment concerning God, but I doubt that this would garner the theists' support either.

Mobius wrote:There is no "good" or "evil". These are simply subjective constructs within human brains. Nothing is inherently good or bad - things just ARE.

In which case, you believe that the difference between Mother Teresa and Osama Ben Ladin is only a matter of opinion, on the same level as if one of them preferred the color blue and the other preferred the color red.

Pedro Alonso Lopez, known as Monster of the Andes, who butchered more than 300 young girls in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, is just as "right" as Albert Schweitzer who dedicated his life to helping those less fortunate. The only difference between them is just an unimportant personal preference, about the same as whether you like pancakes or waffles best.

Do you honestly believe that Mobius?

Foil wrote:Kilarin is arguing that if there is a predisposition to one direction or another, that means they don't really have free will / choice, and I tend to agree.

No, actually, I'm saying the opposite. An alcoholic can be predisposed to want to drink to much, but they still have a free will choice not to.

Jeff250 wrote:I think it makes sense for God to make us more predisposed to do virtuous activity.

According to Christian philosophy, we started with just such a predisposition, and through the choice, of Adam and Eve, we lost it.

Also, according to Christian doctrine, we are offered that same "good" character back again. The big difference is that while Satan is quite happy to tempt us to evil whether we want it or not, God won't override our own free will. We have to choose to let him change our character. He won't do it unless we ask.

Jeff250 wrote:We are talking about finding one theory that could be even conceivably true and allow God's attributes to be reconciled with this universe.

I can see my earlier post was totally ignored.

Kilarin wrote:Also, according to Christian doctrine, we are offered that same "good" character back again. The big difference is that while Satan is quite happy to tempt us to evil whether we want it or not, God won't override our own free will. We have to choose to let him change our character. He won't do it unless we ask.

Yes, we have to choose:

James 1: 12-15: "Happy is the man who meets trial with the unbreakable spirit, for, after he has come through the ordeal, just as the victorious athlete in the games receives the laurel crown, so he will receive as his prize the life which God has promised to those who love him. If in his ordeal a man is temped to sin, he must not say, 'I am being tempted by God.' God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he ever tempt anyone else. Each man is tempted when he is seduced and enticed by his own desire. Then the next thing that happens is that this desire conceives and becomes the mother of sin. And then, when sin is full-grown, it spawns death."

Proverbs 27:11 "Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him who is taunting me."

God actually rejoices when we choose the right path, because this not only allows him to reply to Satan, who made the acuasation that man would not serve God out of love - Job 1:6-12, 2:1-5, but it also allows him to rescue us from the world corrupted by Adam's choice to reject God.

Kilarin wrote:In which case, you believe that the difference between Mother Teresa and Osama Ben Ladin is only a matter of opinion, on the same level as if one of them preferred the color blue and the other preferred the color red.

Pedro Alonso Lopez, known as Monster of the Andes, who butchered more than 300 young girls in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, is just as "right" as Albert Schweitzer who dedicated his life to helping those less fortunate. The only difference between them is just an unimportant personal preference, about the same as whether you like pancakes or waffles best.

Do you honestly believe that Mobius?

Let's be sure to separate the appeal-to-consequences aspect from this question, since we should come to a conclusion based upon what is, not what we want to be.

Even though I'm not Mobius, I'd like to respond as well. If we reject ethical realism, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is still a domain for intersubjective truth and ethical discourse. When we say that what Osama bin Laden does is wrong, this is intersubjectively true by virtue that we all believe it. Moreover, we can still imagine Mother Teresa and Osama bin Laden carrying out ethical discourse.

For example, suppose that Teresa and bin Laden both value piety and happiness, which I suspect is true. Teresa could attempt to convince bin Laden on two fronts. First, she could try to demonstrate that some of the ancillary values that bin Laden has do not really follow from valuing piety and happiness. These values might instead, for example, suggest that we have a greater value for life than what bin Laden embraces.

Second, it's possible that Teresa and bin Laden's disagreement is not really ethical in nature at all. They may simply value the same things but disagree about non-ethical facts. For example, bin Laden might believe that doing X will establish Allah's kingdom, securing life and happiness for all, whereas Teresa may believe that this is not the case. Here, they might value the same things, but simply disagree with facts in a manner that still leaves room for discourse.

Kilarin wrote:According to Christian philosophy, we started with just such a predisposition, and through the choice, of Adam and Eve, we lost it.

Which again brings us to the problem:
Why is it the good that we are given poor character post-Adam? Explaining descriptively how something came to pass does not explain why it was the good to have come to pass.

Shoku wrote:I can see my earlier post was totally ignored.

That's because it starts out with an assumption that most everyone here already rejects, namely that God would have to restrict our ability to make decisions in order to curtail evil. As was previously illustrated in the thread, this sort of thought originates from the idea that free will is the exact opposite of determinism in that it is the product of some sort of random chance. This leads to the thinking that the best free will is some sort of 50-50 relationship.

However, this thinking should be rejected. Free will is not based on random chance. It is based on our character. In other words, free will is best illustrated when one's choices are consistent with one's character. And it's in this sense that it makes sense to ask, "Why didn't God give us better characters?" (These are the same type of characters that we will allegedly have in heaven.)

Jeff250 wrote:Free will is not based on random chance. It is based on our character. In other words, free will is best illustrated when one's choices are consistent with one's character.

Yay, someone actually listened to me!

Jeff250 wrote:That's because it starts out with an assumption that most everyone here already rejects, namely that God would have to restrict our ability to make decisions in order to curtail evil.

Rejecting a thing does not make it untrue. It just demonstrates your lack of insight.

God did not restrict Adam's ability to make decisions. What he actually did, according the Bible, is establish laws that Adam was to live by.
During the entire Genesis account regarding Adam, the only "restriction" God placed on him was this:

"From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die." Gen 2:16,17

This restriction kept nothing from Adam that he needed. It was God simply saying, "this is not for you, so don't touch it." This command is similar to the type of commands parents give to their children to restrict them from certain "things" that they may deem to be harmful. But this restriction in no way limits the ability to make decisions, for good or for bad; therefore wrong choices are always possible.

God would have needed to retrict Adam's ability to choose to prevent any "wrong" choices - he didn't do that. He just gave him guidlines with which he was to live - but he always had the "choice' to disobey - which is what he did.

So in a very real sense, the restriction from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was a test of Adam's integrity. He didn't need to eat from it. But he willfully chose to disobey God's direct command. Eve was deceived, yet Adam willfully chose to follow her course and reject God's authority. This was a "free will" decision = he knew the consequences. He failed the test of integrity, a test only possible because God did not restrict his ability to make decisions.

God did not make man or angels to be programmed robots. He made them with the ability to make their own decisions. Like any parent, God "rejoices" when his children make the right desicions, and he feels "hurt" when they don't. Prov 27:11, Gen 6:6

The entire issue of rebellion, starting with Satan, was a new concept in the universe - no one had ever willfully chose to disobey God. Think of it, here you have the Almighty creating creatures of all sorts, who would not exist without him. "Does the vessel tell the potter, you did not make me?" No, if the pot is wise. The insinuation that the Maker does not know what is good for his own creation is absurd, and yet that is the question that Satan's rebellion raised, and he led mankind through a deception that triggered a free will decision by Adam to sick with his stupid wife and reject God.

I meant a "restriction" as something like an infringement on our free will, in that it would not be so much a prescriptive rule about what we should do, but a descriptive rule about what we can do. I was commenting on what you were alluding to in your previous post and what you are alluding to now: that God would have to make us "programmed robots" in a way that violated our free will in order to curtail evil. However, it has already been submitted that this need not be necessary. We could retain free will but be given better characters.

Shoku wrote:The insinuation that the Maker does not know what is good for his own creation is absurd

Denying God's omniscience is just one way out of the problem. You could also deny God's all-powerfulness, saying that he does not have the power to carry out the human good. And you could also deny God's all-goodness, saying that God is not completely committed to the human good.

Interestingly, some of the responses I've heard to the problem of evil do implicitly involve denying God's complete commitment to the human good. Consider a response like the following: God wanted it to be a tough choice to follow Him because he wanted to only have followers who "really" wanted to worship Him. Even though this type of response I think is problematic on a number of levels, you'll note that it suggests that God's good here (to be worshiped only by people who "really" want to) might come before humans' good.

Lothar wrote:Yay, someone actually listened to me!

I can't recall what exactly this refers to, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Jeff250 wrote:
Free will is not based on random chance. It is based on our character. In other words, free will is best illustrated when one's choices are consistent with one's character.

Yay, someone actually listened to me!

I can't recall what exactly this refers to, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

I think it's in reference to a couple of previous threads where Lothar explained his view on free will (I think he called it something like "free-deterministic"), which was tied closely to personal character.

Jeff250 wrote:Interestingly, some of the responses I've heard to the problem of evil do implicitly involve denying God's complete commitment to the human good.

True, though I think it depends on what you mean by "the human good". To us, that term typically means something involving lack of evil or pain; but it might mean something else to an omniscient God.

So what about my earlier response (that despite the possibility of evil, God chose free-will becase God values the freedom to truly love)? It does mean God allows the possibility of evil for humanity, but only because "the human good" includes a need for freedom.

Jeff250 wrote:

De Rigueur wrote:Due to limitations of the human intellect, I'd say that the class of unprovable beliefs is large -- including metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic beliefs. Religious rationalizations are as good as any other kind of rationalization.

We aren't talking about proofs.

What you quoted was actually my response to Birdseye who said, "*insert religious rationalization for dogmatic, emotional unprovable belief here*." It was he who referred to proofs.

Jeff250 wrote:We are talking about finding one theory that could be even conceivably true and allow God's attributes to be reconciled with this universe.

I think the crux of the issue (at least with respect to human suffering) is the definition of what counts as good for humans. If humans think their ultimate good is to have a pleasant and prosperous life on earth, and God thinks otherwise, then they will likely question God's goodness.

Jeff250 wrote:But I suspect that you're the type who would say that, although we are not responsible for reconciling God's all-goodness with this universe, we are responsible for believing in God, in fact, believing that a specific God exists, that the God has a specific name, that the God carried out specific events with specific effects with specific people, that the God is made up of a specific X number of persons, and so on.

I do think humans are responsible for their belief choices, but you seem to be drifting into the exclusivist/inclusivist debate.

Jeff250 wrote:All of these ideas about God are in the same class of knowledge, but you reject knowledge of one because it is unfavorable.

Your conclusions about me are based on pretty slender evidence. If someone here is being epistemically negligent, perhaps it's you.

Foil wrote:True, though I think it depends on what you mean by "the human good". To us, that term typically means something involving lack of evil or pain; but it might mean something else to an omniscient God.

I think we should separate two distinct issues. There's one scenario where God's good i.e. what's good for God might be opposed to the human good i.e. what's good for humans. This is like the explanation I mentioned earlier where God wanted worshiping him to be a tough choice because He wanted to be worshiped only by those who "really" wanted to worship Him. Clearly here there will be some humans along the way that are victim to the toughness of the choice, do not make the right one, and suffer for it, so that God's good can be served. An explanation like this, where God is serving His own good at the price of humans', solves the problem of evil by rejecting God's all-goodness (with respect to humans).

There's another scenario where one might claim that God knows humans' good better than we do. This is what we've been kinda discussing though the entire time, namely by talking about how the good could really be different than how we traditionally conceive it. I think that there's one thing we would all reject though, and it is the notion that any description by God of the human good is as equally plausible as another. Our good is good for a reason, and it is something that we have access to. It cannot be magically decided, even by God, willy-nilly.

Foil wrote: So what about my earlier response (that despite the possibility of evil, God chose free-will becase God values the freedom to truly love)? It does mean God allows the possibility of evil for humanity, but only because "the human good" includes a need for freedom.

I don't see how having the ability to truly love would be in opposition to God giving us better characters. God can truly love, but he does not do evil. Our heavenly selves will truly love, but we will not do evil.

Besides, wouldn't this give rise to an equally terrible new vice, like "true hate," as well?

De Rigueur wrote:Your conclusions about me are based on pretty slender evidence. If someone here is being epistemically negligent, perhaps it's you.

But am I not right at least insofar that you do believe in some things about God without slack (nevermind which things)?

From the early Bible record, we learn that it was not God's purpose for people to suffer or to die. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, died only because they disobeyed God. (Genesis, chapters 2 and 3) When they disobeyed, they were no longer doing God's will. They pulled out from under God's care. In effect, they disconnected themselves from God, \"the source of life.\"—Psalm 36:9.

Like a machine that slows down and stops when disconnected from its power source, their bodies and minds degenerated. As a result, Adam and Eve deteriorated, grew old, and eventually died. What happened then? They went back to where they came from: \"Dust you are and to dust you will return.\" God had warned them that death would be the consequence for disobedience to his laws: \"You will positively die.\"—Genesis 2:17; 3:19.

Not only did our first parents die but all their descendants, the entire human race, have also been subjected to death. Why? Because according to the laws of genetics, children inherit the characteristics of their parents. And what all the children of our first parents inherited was imperfection and death. Romans 5:12 tells us: \"Through one man [Adam, mankind's forefather] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned [by inheriting imperfection, that is, sinful tendencies].\" And since sin, imperfection, and death are the only things people know, some view them as natural and inevitable. Yet, the original humans were created with the capacity and desire to live forever. That is why most people find the prospect that their life will be cut short by death so frustrating.

Why has God allowed humans to have their own way for so long? Why has he allowed suffering to exist all these many centuries? One vital reason is that a very important issue was raised: Who has the right to rule? Should God be the Ruler of humans, or can they rule themselves successfully apart from him?

Humans were created with free will, that is, with the ability to choose. They were not made like robots or like animals, who are guided mainly by instinct. So humans can choose whom they will serve. (Deuteronomy 30:19; 2 Corinthians 3:17) Thus, God's Word counsels: \"Be as free people, and yet holding your freedom, not as a blind for badness, but as slaves of God.\" (1 Peter 2:16) However, while humans have the wonderful gift of free choice, they must accept the consequences of their choice of action.

Our first parents made the wrong choice. They chose the course of independence from God. True, God could have put the first rebellious pair to death immediately after they misused their free will. But that would not have settled the question regarding God's right to rule over humans. Since the first pair wanted independence from God, the question must be answered: Could that course result in a happy, successful life? The only way to find out was to let our first parents and their offspring go their own way, since that was their choice. Time would demonstrate whether humans were created to be successful in ruling themselves independent of their Creator.

The results of thousands of years of human rule show beyond any doubt that it is not in humans to direct their own affairs apart from their Creator. Having tried it, they have only themselves to blame for the catastrophic results. The Bible makes this clear: \"The Rock [God], perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.\"—Deuteronomy 32:4, 5.

Although God has permitted imperfection and suffering for a long time from the human viewpoint, he will not allow bad conditions to go on indefinitely. The Bible tells us that God has a specific time period for allowing these things to happen.

\"For everything there is an appointed time.\" (Ecclesiastes 3:1) When God's allotted time for permitting wickedness and suffering comes to its conclusion, then he will intervene in human affairs. He will bring an end to wickedness and suffering and will fulfill his original purpose to have the earth filled with a perfect, happy human family enjoying total peace and economic security amid Paradise conditions. Proverbs 2:21, 22. Psalm 37:9-11. Psalm 37:34, 37, 38. Proverbs 3:1, 2, 5, 6.

Sniper, I'm not getting how Sin can be passed genetically if it's a spiritual thing like a choice. Also, unless I'm mistaken, souls are created individually by God; they don't \"procreate\" or anything themselves, right? So I'm not sure how that would work with souls either.

Jeff250 wrote:If we reject ethical realism, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is still a domain for intersubjective truth and ethical discourse. When we say that what Osama bin Laden does is wrong, this is intersubjectively true by virtue that we all believe it. Moreover, we can still imagine Mother Teresa and Osama bin Laden carrying out ethical discourse.

Baby and bathwater both go out if you reject that ethics have any reality beyond our own imaginations. Certainly we can imagine Mother Teresa and Osama bin Laden TALKING ABOUT ethics. BUT, if ethics have no external reality, if they are just something we make up, then they can't really have a DISCUSSION. What's to discuss? I like red, you like blue. Perhaps we both like the same shade of purple? But you can't tell me WHY liking red is better than liking blue. There can be no arguments made when there is nothing external to measure against. I can't say "Red is better BECAUSE" unless there is some common external reality about what color is better to measure against. If it's all just a matter of opinion, then the discussion boils down to, "Red is better because I like it better"

Jeff250 wrote:When we say that what Osama bin Laden does is wrong, this is intersubjectively true by virtue that we all believe it.

This makes morality simply a cultural thing. In the 1800's in southern America it was intersubjectively true that black people were inferior to white people. It was an idea that was easily communicated between individuals, and was reproduced under a variety of circumstances. If there is no external reality to right and wrong, then slavery was just as "Right" in the 1800's as Osama is "wrong" today. And Osama is only "wrong" today in the western world. If ethics are just a matter of "majority rules" and culture, then ethics are nothing but an illusion.

Jeff250 wrote:free will is best illustrated when one's choices are consistent with one's character.

Yes, but with a caveat. The choice must be based on WHO we are, not WHAT we are. Allow me to explain.

I think we all agree that choice must not be random to be free will. BUT, if a choice is pre-determined based on what you are, if it is inevitable that given your genetic makeup, combined with when and where you were born, that you would end up in a certain place with a certain brain and that that brain will make a certain choice, then there is nothing "Free" about your will. We can dispose of a bad person because we believe they are defective, but there can be no actual sense of blame or fault because the person is what they were going to be inevitably. They didn't CHOOSE it, they simply ARE that way.

The problem is, the argument breaks down as soon as you try to define what free will really is. What do we mean by a "choice" that isn't random and wasn't inevitable because of what you are? I believe such a choice exists, I can't define it.

Jeff250 wrote:Why is it the good that we are given poor character post-Adam?
...
And it's in this sense that it makes sense to ask, "Why didn't God give us better characters?" (These are the same type of characters that we will allegedly have in heaven.)

I'm not certain it WAS good. I think it was simply the inevitable natural consequence of choosing the wrong side. The "Better Characters" that you are saying we should have come from being in tune with God's will, which means submitting our wills to God. When our first parents chose to step out of God's will, they were choosing to no longer have wills in submission to God. It was the natural consequence of their actions. God could, of course, have stepped in and zapped them so that they were suddenly back in tune with Him, but if He were going to do so, why not just zap them so that they wouldn't sin in the first place? If we are going to have free will, the natural consequences of our choices must be allowed to proceed.

God DOES offer to correct our wills. But, by definition, this involves re-submitting our wills to Him. And He won't force that submission.

Jeff250 wrote:God wanted it to be a tough choice to follow Him because he wanted to only have followers who "really" wanted to worship Him. Even though this type of response I think is problematic on a number of levels, you'll note that it suggests that God's good here (to be worshiped only by people who "really" want to) might come before humans' good.

It's no different than saying a man only wants to marry a woman who "really" loves him. That even if he could force a woman to love him, he wouldn't do so.

Picture an imaginary scenario. A woman is a drug addict and prostitute. A scientist knows that he could straighten this woman out if she were in love with him, AND, because of his area of research, he knows he could force that love with a series of injections and hypnotic therapy (Ok, its a bad science fiction scenario, but it will do)

The question is, would it be GOOD for him to FORCE the woman to love him, even for her own good? Would it even be love?

God doesn't force love. You CAN'T force love, because if its forced, its not love. We get better characters by loving God. The two are inextricably linked. Since you can't force love, you can't force people to have better characters.

Foil wrote:despite the possibility of evil, God chose free-will becase God values the freedom to truly love)? It does mean God allows the possibility of evil for humanity, but only because "the human good" includes a need for freedom.

And that, I think, is exactly the point.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't see how having the ability to truly love would be in opposition to God giving us better characters.

It isn't, just so long as we had a choice, He will not change our characters by force. And the current state of our characters is the inevitable consequence of our first parents action.

Jeff250 wrote:An explanation like this, where God is serving His own good at the price of humans', solves the problem of evil by rejecting God's all-goodness (with respect to humans).
...
There's another scenario where one might claim that God knows humans' good better than we do

Most Christians actually take the view the God's good IS our good. He created us, and therefore attempting to go outside of the purpose he created us for is, inevitably, not good for us.

That leads to some folks saying, as you point out, that the good God created was arbitrary, but:

Jeff250 wrote:Our good is good for a reason, and it is something that we have access to. It cannot be magically decided, even by God, willy-nilly.

And here, Christians would generally agree with you, but we believe this because we believe that God IS love. He chooses according to His character which IS goodness. God is the good of every good.
Have you read Aquinas? I think you would actually enjoy the Summa Contra Gentiles or Summa Theologica. I don't always agree with Aquinas, but he tries to think very logically.

Samuel Dravis wrote:Sniper, I'm not getting how Sin can be passed genetically if it's a spiritual thing like a choice. Also, unless I'm mistaken, souls are created individually by God; they don't "procreate" or anything themselves, right? So I'm not sure how that would work with souls either.

If you do some research (I don't mean that in a derogatory way) on the "soul" when used in the bible, you'll find that the term "soul" refers to the actual human and not to any spiritual being that lives inside us; or to some spirit that passes on when we die.

The Bible tells us that the dead are unconscious; they are in a condition best compared to sleep. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; John 11:11-14) Thus, we need not worry about what happens to us after death, any more than we worry when we see someone sleeping soundly. Jesus spoke of a time when "all those in the memorial tombs" would "come out" to renewed life on a paradise earth.—John 5:28, 29; Luke 23:43.

Therefore, the soul is (again) our physical body. And our physical body's pass our physical imperfections, which in of itself is sin, and with this imperfection comes mistakes - sin.

Jeff250 wrote:But am I not right at least insofar that you do believe in some things about God without slack (nevermind which things)?

I don't claim certainty about any of my beliefs concerning God, if that's what you mean by 'without slack.' I'm aware that I could be fundamentally mistaken about my conception of God. E.g., atheists could be right, but then I don't think it would ultimately matter for me. If, say, bin Laden is right, then I'm probably screwed. But, as Luther said, nevertheless, here I stand. One could ask how it's possible to make a rational decision about an issue for which there is apparently no decisive evidence or arguments. I suspect things like social loyalties have a lot to do with how people make their choices. As for me, I like Jesus.

btw, you said something about God giving us better characters, but what happens if a person doesn't want to have his character changed?

De Rigueur wrote: btw, you said something about God giving us better characters, but what happens if a person doesn't want to have his character changed?

Again. It won't. It's a part of free will. of course your relationship with God won't grow very fast either. Not because you need the character change for growth, but more the attitude of your heart concerning your condition. the change is more the attribute of the relationship not a prerequisite.

De Rigueur wrote:btw, you said something about God giving us better characters, but what happens if a person doesn't want to have his character changed?

Kilarin wrote:Picture an imaginary scenario. A woman is a drug addict and prostitute. A scientist knows that he could straighten this woman out if she were in love with him, AND, because of his area of research, he knows he could force that love with a series of injections and hypnotic therapy

I'm suggesting that God could have given us better wills from the get-go, so God wouldn't have to change anybody's will. They just would have started out good. Still, we might ask a similar question, "What if a person wants to have his or her character changed for the worse?" Well, if their character was good enough, he or she wouldn't be asking this question to begin with! Even so, the answer could be as simple as this: As much as happens when you want your character to change today--essentially nothing. Instead, you've got to put some serious work (or serious neglect) into character before seeing a significant change in one direction or the other.

Sniper wrote:...according to the laws of genetics, children inherit the characteristics of their parents.

The laws of genetics are descriptive laws that describe what generally happens, not prescriptive laws that prescribe what ought to happen. If it is the case that we inherit the sin of our parents, then we can still ask, should it have been the case? Is it the good that this is the case?

Sniper wrote:They were not made like robots or like animals, who are guided mainly by instinct.

Are you guys who keep bringing up "robots" even reading the thread? No one is claiming that God should have made us like robots--just the opposite in fact.

Kilarin wrote:Baby and bathwater both go out if you reject that ethics have any reality beyond our own imaginations. Certainly we can imagine Mother Teresa and Osama bin Laden TALKING ABOUT ethics. BUT, if ethics have no external reality, if they are just something we make up, then they can't really have a DISCUSSION. What's to discuss? I like red, you like blue. Perhaps we both like the same shade of purple? But you can't tell me WHY liking red is better than liking blue. There can be no arguments made when there is nothing external to measure against. I can't say "Red is better BECAUSE" unless there is some common external reality about what color is better to measure against. If it's all just a matter of opinion, then the discussion boils down to, "Red is better because I like it better"

Yes, and why stop there! The colors red and blue themselves have no reality beyond our own imaginations either! Show me objective redness in itself. Show me objective blueness out there in the universe. You can't, so clearly we can have no discussion about them, right? You say the sky is blue. I say the sky is red. And that's as far as we can go, right?

Oh please. We discuss things all the time that have no actual existence in our universe and that only exist in our minds, things like colors, on the same basis that we can do ethics. I'm fairly comfortable calling the sky blue. You should be too. Why not let this be the case with ethics?

Kilarin wrote:This makes morality simply a cultural thing. In the 1800's in southern America it was intersubjectively true that black people were inferior to white people. It was an idea that was easily communicated between individuals, and was reproduced under a variety of circumstances. If there is no external reality to right and wrong, then slavery was just as "Right" in the 1800's as Osama is "wrong" today. And Osama is only "wrong" today in the western world. If ethics are just a matter of "majority rules" and culture, then ethics are nothing but an illusion.

A few points: A belief that black people are inferior to white people isn't an ethical belief. It would be a belief concerning a (false) non-ethical fact. It's unclear that the southerners had all that different of an ethical belief than we do today. Their principal misunderstanding may have been in their knowledge about black people. For example, it would be consistent for a southerner to agree with the ethical belief that no person should be enslaved, but then disagree about the non-ethical fact that blacks were people.

Second, even under ethical subjectivism, ethical beliefs are not just a product of "opinion." They are the product of many different complex phenomena, including opinion.

Finally, our human intuitions have a history for being wrong. We used to, via intuition, think that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, that an object dropped by a person moving relative to the earth would fall straight down, that there existed an ether, etc. And yet our intuitions were wrong in all of these cases. Why couldn't the objective purport of ethics be just another one of these cases?

Kilarin wrote:The "Better Characters" that you are saying we should have come from being in tune with God's will, which means submitting our wills to God.

Yes, you keep introducing new terms and new doctrines, but they only keep deferring the problem. So no one will ever sin in heaven once we have the opportunity to submit our wills in the way that we will be able to in heaven. So why not give us the opportunity to submit our wills like that now? Why not give that to Adam?

Kilarin wrote:It's no different than saying a man only wants to marry a woman who "really" loves him. That even if he could force a woman to love him, he wouldn't do so.

What does "really" mean in the context? How does a person with poor character "really" love God more than a person with fine character?

Kilarin wrote:And here, Christians would generally agree with you, but we believe this because we believe that God IS love. He chooses according to His character which IS goodness. God is the good of every good.

Which is viciously circular. What is the good? God! Why? Because God is all-good! There's nothing enlightening about that at all. It still doesn't ground the good in reason.

All you guys remind me of Job's advisers. If you don't know what that means, you probably shouldn't be postiing to this topic.

If the Bible really is God's word, then the obvious place to look for an anwer to this question is there.

Romans 15:4: \"Everything that was written long ago was written for our instruction.\"

If you want to understand why God permits evil, then you must come to undrstand Him, you must come to understand why the world is the way it is, and the only way to do that in this present world is to read his word and ask him for insight.

Everyone has an opinion. Yet the only way to really understand why anyone does something is to ask them.

The answer to this question is contained in scripture. God knew there would be questions, so he had the answers recorded. We don't have every detail, but we do have enough info for a definitive answer to this question. That answer isn't contained in one verse or even in one book. Gleaning God's personality from what is written takes time, because it takes study of his complete word. God has a complex personality, just like us humans, and that should be of no surprise for he created man in his image - we hold within us the poetential to demonstrate the same qualities possessed by GOD; Love, Power, Wisdom, and Justice, just not to the same degree or capacity. IF you really want an answer to this question, follow God's advice:

\"My son, if you will receive my sayings and treasure my own commandments, so as to pay attention to wisdom with your ear, that you may incline your heart to discernment; if, moreover, you call out for understanding and you give your voice for discernment, if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasure you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand . . . and you will find the very knowledge of God.\" -Proverbs 2: 1 -5

And that, my friends, will never be accomplished on any BB.

Shoku, I understand where you're coming from, but I think that sentiment is used far too often as an excuse for Christians giving up on rational discussion.

Personally, I think there are some good questions being raised here, and if nothing else, it's helped me clarify my own thoughts on the matter.

Foil wrote:Shoku, I understand where you're coming from, but I think that sentiment is used far too often as an excuse for Christians giving up on rational discussion.

Yeah, I just got glazed over as I read all these posts and that similarity to Job's advisors hit me.

Although Paul was discussing other things, he diverged (as he often does) for awhile in his letter to the Romans, saying:

" . . .There is further proof to be added to this. Rebecca had two children, and our ancestor Issac was the father of both. Before they were even born, and before they had done anything good or bad, she was told: 'The older will be the servant of the younger.' This was to ensure that the choice between them, involved in the purpose of God, might be permanently based, not on any human achievement, but simply on God's call. This is exactly what the scripture says: 'I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.'
"What then are we to conclude? Are we to say that this is injustice on the part of God? God forbid! He says to Moses; 'I will have mercy on whom I choose to have mercy, and I will have pity on whom I choose to have pity.' So then everything depends, not on man's will, or effort, but on God's pity. Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I have brought you on to the stage of history for the sole purpose of making you the object of the demonstration of my power, and so that the story of what I have done may be told all over the world.' So then, if God wills to show mercy on anyone, he does so; and if God wills to make anyone more stubborn than ever, he does so.
"If that is so, you may well argue, why does God blame me? Obviously no one can resist what God wills. I might well ask you, my friend, who are you to answer God back? Surely you would not give the created the right to say to the creator: 'Why did you make me like this?' Has the potter not the right to do what he likes with the clay? Has he not a perfect right to make out of the same lump one article which is designed for the drawing-room, and one which is designed for the kitchen? God must have wished to demonstrate his wrath and to display his power. In spite of that he bore very patiently with the men and women he had created, men and women who deserved nothing but his wrath and who were fit for nothing but destruction. What if it was for the sake of the men and women whom he had created to be the objects of his pity, the men and women he had prepared for glory before they ever came into the world, that he held his hand, because he wanted to show them the wealth of that glory of his, which he had always intended for them?"

I know it's long winded, but that's the way Paul writes. The point being, God took advantage of the sin that cropped up in his creation. Sin wasn't his intention, but once it showed itself, He chose to use the situation to magnify is own position - which isn't at all unreasonable - it is his creation after all. And even though all those affected deserve nothing but destruction, He also chose to show pity upon Adam's offspring, and bring some of them (those who would honor his position, recognizing they owe everything to him) into the life he had intended for Adam and Eve.

As I said before:

Pain is a result of man's disobedience. God's love has allowed man time to prove if he really needs God. God's love also allows those who recognize that they do need him, to return to him and recieve his blessing.

It is important to recognize that a precedent is being established. God was slandered by Satan. Man's existence was allowed to continue to prove Satan a liar, and to prove God's rightful position as ruler of all creation. As is stated by God though the prophet Ezekiel 70 times: "And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah."

Again, if all you're doing is explaining the way God made things instead of explaining the way God ought to have made things (and demonstrating how this indeed does correspond to our reality), then you're not responding to the questions at hand.

With that said, I do take some issue here at Paul's slight of hand likening human beings to clay. His analogy seems quite negligent, since he fails to account for the very properties in human beings out of which arise the obligation to treat them differently than clay (ability to feel pleasure and pain, emotion, autonomy, etc. for starters). If your claim here is that God can and should do anything he wants to us because he created us, then you are out of tune with something really important, but also you've still failed to demonstrate how God is all good vis-a-vis the human good. (And this is important, because if we do resign to an all-good God meaning just that the God does whatever it wants to its creation, then what really is the significance or meaning in that? An all-good God as opposed to what?) If your intention wasn't to justify God's actions like that, to show that God's actions were consistent with that he ought to have done, then all you were doing is showing what God does or did do, which again fails to respond to the questions at hand, which concern what God ought to do.

If I understand your questions correctly, I see where you're coming from. Many of the arguments here are coming down to the general statement, \"That's the way God made us and/or the universe\", but you're asking \"Why did God do it that way\"? I really appreciate that, as it delves deeper into the question, requiring me to ponder a bit more on the nature of God.

In some ways, I want to just fall back on the position that \"good = whatever God does\", which is a valid stance, but admittedly a bit of a cop-out.

I think there are a couple of things that I try to consider, when looking to reconcile my view of God as \"all-good\":
1. God's goodness is a result of God's love for mankind.
2. My perception of good (i.e. prosperity, comfort, etc.) is not necessarily God's good.
3. God's love implies a greater value on free will than human comfort.

This comes back, then, to your earlier statement (paraphrased): \"God ought to have created humanity with more tendency toward kindness, but still given us free will. After all, God is omnipotent.\"

It's an excellent question, but honestly I'm not sure I can give an answer that will satisfy you. My answer boils down to pointing out that any built-in tendency toward something takes away from free will, that there is a sort of 'inverse relationship' between the two. Of course, that just leads to subjective judgements about the relative strengths of free-will and built-in tendency, something like (forgive the math in my analogy):

\"We've established that it can't be both, so which one is best:
100% free-will, 0% built-in nature?
0% free-will, 100% built-in nature?
50%-50%?
40%-60%?
Some other relative weight?\"

For me personally, it all goes back to my #3 above, that God puts the most value on free will. How much? I don't know... but I think whatever the balance is, it must reflect God's love for us.

Shoku wrote:If you want to understand why God permits evil, then you must come to undrstand Him, you must come to understand why the world is the way it is, and the only way to do that in this present world is to read his word and ask him for insight.

I did that for years. He never answered me and He never left me any signs. What I find amusing is the fact that people really believe in the words "free will" as if God gave them and they imply that they know the difference between the free will given by God, and the free will you would normally get if you lived in a world with no God.
What is the difference?

Bee

Good question!

I don't believe there is a difference, at least in terms of the free-will itself. In both cases, humans can choose to intentionally cause each other vast amounts of pain and anguish, or intentionally help one another.

The difference to me is that the former (free-will given by God) comes out of a love that is so committed to the freedom to return it, that it's willing to allow the pain that comes with such freedom.

Granted, sometimes it's really difficult to accept, especially when I'm in the midst of a painful time in my life. But for me it certainly seems better than believing that there is no reason at all for free will (the latter, a world with no God).

░

Would it be advisable to split this thread where my \"Free Will\" comment was introduced? I don't want to off topic this one like I did.

Bee

Foil wrote:100% free-will, 0% built-in nature?
0% free-will, 100% built-in nature?
50%-50%?
40%-60%?
Some other relative weight?"

For me personally, it all goes back to my #3 above, that God puts the most value on free will. How much? I don't know... but I think whatever the balance is, it must reflect God's love for us.

Some problems with this (that I've mostly already iterated in other posts):
1. If free will is the antithesis of our actions corresponding character, then what is it even? And why would we want this?
2. According to Christian tradition, there are counter-examples to this, i.e. people who had free will and perfect characters, like God, Jesus, our heavenly selves, etc. Certainly we don't mean to say that any of these people would be better off by having less perfect characters.
3. And according to this model, we might be hesitant to improve our character, fearing that it will impair our free will, since it might make us more predisposed to do the right action. If having more free will is better than having better characters, then we would be better off seeking a mean between free will and good character rather than constantly striving to improve our character and dispose ourselves to choose the right thing.

Jeff250 wrote:then you're not responding to the questions at hand.

The question that started this topic:

"If God is loving, why is there so much pain in His creation?"

That is the question my posts address.

Jeff250 wrote:but also you've still failed to demonstrate how God is all good vis-a-vis the human good. (And this is important, because if we do resign to an all-good God meaning just that the God does whatever it wants to its creation, then what really is the significance or meaning in that? An all-good God as opposed to what?) If your intention wasn't to justify God's actions like that, to show that God's actions were consistent with that he ought to have done, then all you were doing is showing what God does or did do, which again fails to respond to the questions at hand, which concern what God ought to do.

What God ought to do is exactly what he did do.

You fail to recognize a very improtant point. From a Biblical perspective all men are wicked and deserve nothing but death.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:23

"The wages sin pays is death."
Romans 6:23

So if God wants to kill a few here and there he has every right to do so. The statement; 'I will have mercy on whom I choose to have mercy, and I will have pity on whom I choose to have pity.' demonstrates that out of a corrupt society, God can select some to show favor, even though none of us deserve it.

Because of Adam leading his family into an existence void of a relationship with God (remember, he rejected God's authority), our lives are a gift from God, because God could have annihilated Adam and Eve without allowing them to have children.

The fact that Satan, Adam, and a host of angels, turned away from God, tells us alot about God and about how he made us. God wanted both angels and humans to be creatures created in his image, having the ability to be self-directed, and who would demonstrate the same qualities he himself possesses.

To make this possible, those creatures must have the ability to gather information, analyze it, and then choose a course to take to achieve a goal. Independant thought is essential for this to succeed on the level God intended. Because of this the possiblity always existed for these creatures to consider life without God's oversight. Until Satan took action against God, no one had ever done so - who would - you'd have to be stupid to challenge the Almighty. But Satan must have gotten a glimpse of a possibility, based on what he knew about God, and so took a chance at rebellion. Satan never challenged God's power - that really would have been stupid. He challenged God's truthfullness, and the willingness of God's creatures to honor him just out of love. Hoping mankind would reject God once Adam was on his own, Satan devised a plan and executed it, deceiving Eve, and causing Adam to abandon his relationship with God Almighty- in effect making Satan his God.

Satan is the ruler of the world, the God of this system of things. This is made evident by the fact that he was able to offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. They are his, and his alone. That's why Jesus said HIS kingdom was no part of this world.

So here we are, a society alienated from God because of the actions of our forefather - Adam founded human civilization AFTER he was ejected from the garden - and under the wicked influence of Satan and his demons. That is why there is evil in the world - not becuase of anything God did, but because of an independant, willful choice on the part of Adam.

Shoku wrote:So if God wants to kill a few here and there he has every right to do so.

This sort of thinking stems from Paul's incorrect notion that human beings are nothing more than clay. Humans are autonomous, emotional, and thinking creatures capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Creating such creatures does not give you the right to own them.

This includes any attempt to obfuscate your ownership of them, by giving them imperfect characters but then holding them perfectly to your arbitrary standards, dictating that any, even inevitable, divergence from these standards is punishable by death, for both themselves and their posterity, and then claiming that killing them isn't really killing--in fact, not killing them sooner was actually a gift--instead of calling killing exactly what it is--cruelty, evil, and murder. That much is fairly transparent.

Besides, trying to demonstrate that what God does is within his prerogative isn't satisfactory for answering the problem of evil. An all-good God shouldn't be just held to doing no evil but also held for failing to do good. A sin of omission is still a sin, even for an all-good God, especially for an all-good God.

Shoku, I have to agree with Jeff250 to some extent here.

You're correct in saying God is omnipotent, but pointing out God's ability is not an answer to the question \"Why?\"

I've heard a number of Christians say this before, but I honestly think it's a very poor justification to use power as a reason for good. In fact, it's more than a little disturbing to me as a Christian to see the \"might is right\" argument attributed to God!

Jeff250 wrote: Creating such creatures does not give you the right to own them. . . .

Anyone in this world who creates anything on their own has a right to own what they created – why would God not have that right just because his creation is far beyond what any of us puny humans can create?

Genesis 2:7: “And the LORD God proceeded to form the man out of the dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.”

Acts 17:24,25,28: “The God that made the world and all the things in it . . . gives to all persons life and breath and all things. For by him we have life and move and exit.”

You create it, you own it, and you also have the right to determine how it should be used. In God's case, he not only has the right to determine how we use the life he gave us, he also has the right to take away that life if we do not use it in accordance with his guidelines. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you know any Edomites today?

Genesis 2:17: “As for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

Genesis 3:6 “consequently the woman saw that the tree's fruit was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it.”

Genesis 3:17,19: “To Adam he said: ' . . . In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.'”

Romans 5:12, 17: “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men . . . by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king through that one.”

(Note: Adam was made from “dust” and was to return to “dust,” which is probably why Paul made reference to “clay” when talking about God's right to show mercy to whomever he wants.)

God set boundaries that Adam crossed. Adam knew the consequences but disobeyed anyway.

The result is as stated by King Solomon: “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so their is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place. They have all come from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.” Ecclesiastes 3:19,20.

Jeff250 wrote:Besides, trying to demonstrate that what God does is within his prerogative isn't satisfactory for answering the problem of evil.

I agree. That's not the point I was making.

Foil wrote:In fact, it's more than a little disturbing to me as a Christian to see the "might is right" argument attributed to God!

You've also missed the point here. I never said, "Might makes right."

God's intent was for man to live forever, something unique among all the creatures on the earth. He set limits on what Adam could do, and Adam stepped outside those limits.

Unlike human institutions, God never goes back on his word. “For the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways,” is the utterance of the LORD God. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts . . . so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results . . .” Isaiah 55: 8 -11

God said Adam would die if he ate from the tree at the center of the garden, and he can't go back on his word. Adam died, and brought death to us all.

God created everything to fit perfectly in it's specified position within creation. Adam and Eve were to establish the human family and become the caretakers of the Earth. They would always have had everything they needed – God abundantly supplied everything– and he did that in a way that would make life not only everlasting, but also enjoyable – how many different kinds of fruit are there? How many different colors can you see? How many different smells are there? God made the Earth to be man's home, and he gave Adam instructions to spread the garden (paradise) throughout the earth, knowing the satisfaction that would have brought the human family – helping to create paradise would have been awesome!

But although God's intensions for man were born out of love for his creation, love is not the only quality God possesses. All his qualities balance each other perfectly. God's quality of justice demanded that Adam suffer the consequences of his actions. The consequences were to die, “In the day that you eat from it,” (the tree at the center of the garden). And yet Adam did not die that very same literal “day.” Adam lived for many years and had many children. We know from other scriptures that a “day” to God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one “day.” So in this sense, Adam did die during the time period God considers a “day.” This demonstrates God's love. He allowed Adam to continue so mankind could still spread over the earth, and establish a human presence in the world. This not only fulfilled God's decree for Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth, but it was also essential for the accusations heaped upon God by Satan to be invalidated, something I have already noted in my earlier posts.

And this last issue, invalidating Satan's accusations, is one of the main reasons why God kept mankind in existence.

Example: If your neighbor accused you of sodomizing your own son, what would you do? Your initial reaction might be to go over to your neighbor's house and beat him to a pulp. God's power could definitely have squashed Satan into nothingness – but would that have really settled the issue? If you beat up your neighbor, you might feel better, but that action would probably just make your situation worse. In God's case, he could have been accused of eliminating an opposing view like a dictator who eliminates the opposition to secure his own position. That would have produced even more antagonism and done nothing to really settle the issue. Instead of beating your neighbor, the smart thing to do would be to gather evidence in your favor (medical testimony, eye-witnesses, etc.), and take your neighbor to court for slander. God's justice demands that Satan be given a chance to prove his accusations. As difficult as that has made our existence – it is essential that God be vindicated. God's vindication is more important than anything. This was made evident by the model prayer Jesus gave his disciples: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name (let your name be sanctified),” is the first thing we are to pray for. If God is not justified, and cleared of the slander that has soiled his name, then everything else is for nothing.

Most humans do not practice some sort of disciplinary activity everyday that would actually cause their perspective to see the brighter side of life in the first place.

Take for instance a gardener, The gardener tends a calm peaceful field and watches as the plants he/she nourishes grows and eventually harvests reaping benefits he/she put work and labor, sweat and tears into for the sole joy of being able to see his/her results of that work.

The gardener enjoyed the labor because he/she had hope of seeing results for it in the longer run.

Now i want you to picture something different, Instead of the gardener, Who had an open heart to be patient and watch the results of the work imagine someone who has hardened their heart and set themselves to keep a narrow mind, Such as one wrapped up in the passion of religion, politics or whatever you may concieve.

This person who is set in their ways is not open to respect anothers point of view on life and therefore will not and CAN not be happy with their life unless they carry out certain things to cause their mind comfort and joy.

Who do YOU think was right, The gardener or the one who had so much pride that they could not see past their own opinions and values?

That is the main reason why osama bin laden is perfectly happy to kill as many as he has too, because he believes what he is doing is right.

The difference between what the world percieves is \"right\" or \"wrong\" or \"good\" or \"evil\" is the amount of open mindedness one has to others beliefs and the amount of respect one can maintain to keep a balanced life themselves.

Shoku wrote:Anyone in this world who creates anything on their own has a right to own what they created – why would God not have that right just because his creation is far beyond what any of us puny humans can create?

Not so--I anticipate humans creating life capable of feeling pleasure and pain, emotion, and autonomy within my lifetime, at which point this investigation will cease being a silly thought experiment. To what extent are we going to have the right to torture, murder, and destroy this life? Here is where your notion that right and wrong stem from the arbitrary dictates of whoever created oneself will fall on its face.

Besides, one has to wonder where this moral obligation to follow God-given dictates in and of itself comes from. We can't say that it comes from God's dictates, unless we're willing to assent to begging the question being valid reasoning. Of course, this is partially where your idea that everyone has the right to do what they want with what they've created might come to the rescue. This right exists in and of itself, outside of any framework of right and wrong being what God's dictates. Of course, if we're willing to acknowledge that all persons, including God, have this one right, to do what they want with what they've created, why not allow them to have other rights as well? Would the existence of a right not to be tortured be too far-fetched to you? It seems to me that once you acknowledge that one right exists in and of itself for all autonomous persons, then you're opening the door to having to acknowledge others, especially more intuitive ones.

Oh and by the way, I'm curious. This has been bugging me for a while. If God is all-good, then demonstrate to me a God, let's call him Fred, that isn't all-good. What could evil Fred possibly evilly do that wouldn't really just be within the purview of his right by creation?

Shoku wrote:God's intent was for man to live forever

In what sense can we honestly say this is true? Giving humans imperfect characters but holding them perfectly to arbitrary dictates with deviation punishable by death--does this seem consistent with a God that intended for man to live forever? What we he thinking? Did he really think that creating humans with less than 100% characters would actually follow his dictates 100%? Is he that shortsighted? He would have to be, wouldn't he?

Jeff250 wrote:

In what sense can we honestly say this is true? Giving humans imperfect characters but holding them perfectly to arbitrary dictates with deviation punishable by death--does this seem consistent with a God that intended for man to live forever? What we he thinking? Did he really think that creating humans with less than 100% characters would actually follow his dictates 100%? Is he that shortsighted? He would have to be, wouldn't he?

Because in said beggining we were created without knowledge of right or wrong so we wouldnt have commited the crimes we are now capable of because we have the knowledge of good and evil.

The tree of knowledge was the word that the serpent gave to eve after she became lustful to learn good and evil.

Sounds like a character flaw if you ask me.