If this is an honest question, I would love to reply honestly. I am using the concept of "free will", which would mean a decision without force. So God does have the power to control our will without constraint, but that isn't true "free will". So I believe that in order for him to give mankind true "free will" then he cannot use the powers that make him omniscience or omnipotent. Basically giving up "his free will" for mankind.
As Crowtrobot said "That is subjective" and it isn't "Absolute" as you are claiming. And my subjective thinking is all will be in Heaven and live a blissful perfect life. And my subjective thinking values eternity at a much greater value than a few years.
so god isn't omniscient and omnipotent any longer then? He created man and gave that up, you're saying?
I would say "yes" and this is only my logic. He may be potent and science in all other things, but can't when it comes to man's free will.
Yeah, but that's not true (back when it was omnipotent, before you speculate that he gave up his powers). Omnipotence means it gets to set the rules. If you believe that god was never omnipotent, then your guesses are at least coherent, if not particularly more compelling than anyone making guesses.
That makes sense... It's a very good argument. But before I reply, I really need to focus. I'm really busy at work now, so I can't give you my full attention. I will try and answer as best I can later.
I doubt when you think to yourself that the Holocaust was evil you're mentally checking qualifiers like "was it or was it not commanded by God against sin?" or "was it before or after the resurrection?"
I suppose you're right. If you're adolph hitler, genocide isn't such a bad thing. But it's not benevolent.
My qualifiers hold no difference in the end crow... As you have said before, all are very subjective and it's relation to what is actually good. But as I wrote, if God actually sacrificed what makes him God and paid the price for all man, regardless of who you and I deem fit to reach Heaven, that only gives me reason that those qualifiers are beyond social reasoning. God before or after resurrection isn't a qualifier for love when all go to Heaven.
For you maybe, but as crowtrobot explained, it's only subjective. And as I explained, if all reach Heaven, then the point on how mankind reach Heaven is irrelevant. And it still doesn't lessen the value of an eternity in perfection regardless of what "works" man did to get there. Or even how God loved man enough to give them eternal peace unconditionally.
Philosophical reasoning is "man making guesses", just as one would guess what is truly moral. Or to go even further "what reasoning would God have to love us". Morality is a perception, which any philosophical understanding of its value is a guess. So using this as some argument is a blanket statement on anything we debate is valued as moral. So as I explain what I truly believe is "good" is exactly what Dawkins or Harris argue what could be moral. Does there have to be an absolute answer? The answer that God gives us unconditional love? No and that's why we discuss. Your response doesn't disprove or prove God's love. It's not anymore right or wrong. It's just a concept we can all discuss.
So let's summarize what I believe is what is my qualifier for God's omni benevolent. It seems this discussion took a left turn and we are losing sight on, what I believe, is true God's goodness. God's unconditional love. The last couple pages of discussion hasn't proved or disproven that love. It just went on some moral tangent on why would God kill or allow suffering as a reason to disqualify love. That's a very slippery slope. That would mean we can disqualify any one of us from being in love. Even a small example can weaken the concept of love. Anyone posting in this forum knowing their wife, child or family needs our attention right now could be a subjective outliner. All the arguments above would give same warrant to any one of them that they haven't been in love because they haven't done the "subjective outliners" to prove their love is real.
Again, I think you're defining omnipotence according to your own understanding, and assuming that it is the only one. Your argument is similar to that which generates the "Can an omnipotent God create a rock so large that He can't lift it?" paradox. The very nature of the question presupposes an impossibility, and then impugns God's omnipotence in the face of the logical fallacy. You appear to be saying that IF God is omnipotent, then He should have been able to create a universe in which humans have free will AND sin did not exist. Mags is (or seems to be) saying that God could have created a universe with no sin, but then humans would have no free will; and that creating a universe with free will NECESSITATES opening up the possibility of sin, because our will wouldn't truly be free if we didn't have the latitude to make choices that are at odds with His. If I've misrepresented either position, please let me know.
So he creates beings that are capable of a certain range of behaviors. But then to punish them for it with eternal hellfire if they don't believe he incarnated as his own son and was tortured to death for our "sins"?
I think you should read the entire thread before you ask me this question. I don't think no man is going to be punished for all eternity.
Quick question: would I be correct in assuming that you view the story of Adam and Eve as solely allegorical rather than historical?
I would say I'm agnostic with those stories, same with Noah. I think God would have the power to create life like Adam and Eve, but the logical side of me finds it hard to believe.
The only reason I ask is that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and "tree of life" aspects of that story are incompatible with your philosophy. By this I mean, God supposedly kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden after they ate of the ToKoGaE to prevent them from eating of the ToL. Based on that, it is reasonable to suggest that had he wanted Adam and Eve to remain sinless, he could have kicked them out of the garden prior to eating the forbidden fruit, thus preserving their innocence. Just a thought...
I use "tree of knowledge", "Adam and Eve", or even "Noah" as more of "symbolism", like metaphors used in poetry to explain a feeling. Maybe that's why those that use these "stories" against me really holds no weight. It could have easily not physically happening. That part of the Bible doesn't give me any proof that God loves or hates me.
