omnibenevolent

Once again, I ask you review all that I wrote before you respond. As I said, since evil exists, it always existed. Good exists then good always existed. Designing anything would include that these obstacles are there because they are always there. Before man was even created, Evil was always there.

And as I explained, God is in us, so he is going through all our pain as well. Since this is a philosophical discussion, we can compare with those "in love" now. Just like the parent knows that the world isn't a safe place filled with roses, yet we create a child. The best we can do as parents is to try our best to influence our children to do what we believe is right. In the end, the choice to follow our lead is solely theirs.

The good thing is, even when we still fall, God has paid the final price so man doesn't have to be judged.

In order for God to give man true free will, he must not intervene. He can still hate the game "SIN", knowing that there is nothing he can do to take that "game" away and still give man "free will".

I think you guys just skimmed through all I wrote without any thought. Are you guys arguing because you want to or are you really "objectively" discussing the issue?

The moment Christ died on the cross, sin lost all its teeth. Sin still exists, but it cannot be judged anymore. Man, the moment they leave this body, is washed and perfect in God's eyes.

 

Here's a question for the Biblical scholars in the house, What's the difference between immaculate conception and adultry? Was Joseph empowered with free will in this situation and was the act actually a sin according to religious doctrine?

 

In trying to understand why you posted this picture?

 

It's hot.

Sly is monobenevolent. He's only nice to his penis.

 

I would read this debate to give you the answers. It puts this argument to rest. If you would like me to summarize it for you I can.

http://www.debate.org/debates/Immaculate-Conception-Bible-Patristics/1/

 

Actually it depends on how you look at it. If you look at time on Earth and eternity, it's but a small scale to the reality. If the first Born are in Heaven, through God's grace, then it's a very "KIND" thing.

 

Again, you are looking at one action and not the concept of Sin. God's wrath is on Sin, not man. And God's grace frees man from the burden of Sin. If he lets us go, even though it is justified penalty, like you said "Laws aren't a deterrent but a penalty befitting certain crimes"

 

I wasn't questioning "Christian" atrocities vs. others, I was questioning something that you would describe as an atrocity if done by man, that the bible says was commanded by God.

 

Yeah, you repeat this a lot and I still don't think it makes sense in the context of an omnipotent god. Or do you believe that god is not omnipotent?

Disagree, but we've been over this.

I think you struggle to put together coherent arguments and then get upset when people point out the inconsistencies. You tend to just repeat things ad nauseam, as if just saying something makes it true. Sin is required for love. Why? Because sin is always there and god loves us. Why didn't god design a system without sin? Because sin is always there. That type of thing is really not the basis for real philosophical discussion, no matter how many times you accuse people who disagree with you of "not reading" or "not understanding" or "arguing just to argue." You should consider that maybe you don't really put out arguments that are coherent enough to understand.

 

But as I keep saying over and over again, the command wasn't against man, it was against sin. This was before Christ's redemption of grace, and all those that suffered are with God.

As I said, if you get to perfection, does it really matter how you got there once you are free from death?

 

Um why don't you read what I said please...

Disagreement noted... You don't have to like my answer.

Really? Or maybe your refusal to read and actually openly think about what I said could be the culprit? If I said "God must give up the powers to make him omnipotent or omniscience to give free will", then reply "Or do you believe that God is not omnipotent?" sums it all up right there.

 

who's making god give up powers? Why MUST he do anything, and be under constraint?

 

You're very confused. If god "gave up" those powers, that means it had those powers to begin with and it was a choice to give them up. Which means that while it was omnipotent (and omniscient), it could have designed a much better system. I've already explained how free will and no sin are compatible, but you basically hand-waved it away in a different thread.

My question of whether you think god is omnipotent was in regards to prior to it "giving up" those powers. Because omnipotence doesn't work with "sin is just a pre-existing force against which god is helpless."

Basically, your "philosophy" doesn't really make sense at any level. But you, are of course, welcome to it.

 

Um yeah... Like I also said "Knowing that he couldn't create us to live a sinless life". As you are just taking a bit of the entire philosophical concept to work in your attempt of fallacy. I don't think you are confused. I just think you are just refusing to read with an open mind. And that is why you think I'm confused.

Can humanity give up their life for the ones they love, even if they know that it isn't good? A person in a terrible relationship (abuse, violence, whatever) still chooses to love the person that hurts them. That debunks your statement "Your" philosophy" doesn't really make sense at any level. Sure you can be outside the box and say things like "Why the hell does that abused person stay in such a disastrous relationship?", but that love is still there, regardless if you believe its love or not.