You don't understand Christianity at all, do you?
If any of us were perfect and could live a life without sin, we wouldn't need the gift of salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. I'm sure she did some awful things before she was saved, most of us did. Having recently accepted Jesus, she should now be trying to live as close to sin free as she can, in the best way she understands it. I think that's what she's doing.
It's not her place, as a Christian, to force you or anyone else, accept her faith or live by her values. Her only obligation to others is to love them and share the good news, that they can make their own choice.
Sounds like a pretty shitty God if you have to spend every second of your life repenting for your sins, just in case he "comes like a thief in the night."
Anyways, if God is omniscient then I had no choice in the first place. He created me knowing I would not believe and then sends me to hell because of it. What a dick.
Good lord, you have no idea what he means, do you?
Yeah, I've never heard a convincing argument for an all creating, omniscient god that includes eternal damnation where that god is not evil.
Westboro Baptist Church also believe 1+1=2.I don't get it either.
If any of us were perfect and could live a life without sin, we wouldn't need the gift of salvation that comes from Jesus Christ.
Yeah, I've never heard a convincing argument for an all creating, omniscient god that includes eternal damnation where that god is not evil.
<shrug> Depends on how narrowly you wish to define your terms. Many religions have some variant of Hell. Would you not count Gnosticism at all? How about Avici or the Narakas in the Buddhist faiths, or for that matter anyone who doesn't achieve mosksha/nirvana in the Hinduism/Jainism faiths and endures endless rebirth cycles? Or the Greek Tartarus? Or how about those who fall off The Chinvat Bridge of Zoroastrianism into the House of Lies? The Aztec Mitclan doesn't seem like a party either.
His point is, how could an entity that creates conscience life and torture it for billions of years be anything other than evil? That is just about as evil as you can get.
It again depends on your conception of Hell. If fire and brimstone then yes. If you're more inclined to believe instead that "God gives us what we want most," then the C.S. Lewis or Dante version where "the doors of hell are locked on the inside" is probably more appropriate. Heck, we see living versions of people voluntarily choosing a hellish life here on Earth because they are unwilling to change, so it's not a stretch that if you believe in an afterlife that you could continue to choose that path.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Hard to see why that would matter. Choosing to create something you know with certainty will endure endless torment, regardless of its source, is an evil act.
The real problem is the combination of omniscience and omnipotence. With those together and the world as it is, there's no way I can see were god is not evil.
This quote sums it up well:
This analogy fails because a parent is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.The unwanted/suffering person is the "logic" you use to support abortions. It's dumb on its face and certainly doesn't scale all the way up to God. I don't know why you think God would need to be a helicopter parent and save us from our bad choices else he's evil. Do you think the parents of people who commit mass murder or other atrocities are evil also, or that their child autonomously chose their own deeds?
The unwanted/suffering person is the "logic" you use to support abortions. It's dumb on its face and certainly doesn't scale all the way up to God. I don't know why you think God would need to be a helicopter parent and save us from our bad choices else he's evil. Do you think the parents of people who commit mass murder or other atrocities are evil also, or that their child autonomously chose their own deeds?
Just heard a quick interview with her Lawyer. He kept trying to deviate from the question, she swore an oath to uphold the law. He tried to divert that the state hasn't approved gay marriage but wouldn't answer what the supreme courts ruling was. I don't know who the reporter was but she did well, she wasn't combative but she also didn't allow him the get away with stupid statements like the supreme court said it needed the states to approve gay marriage.
Hard to see why that would matter. Choosing to create something you know with certainty will endure endless torment, regardless of its source, is an evil act.
The real problem is the combination of omniscience and omnipotence. With those together and the world as it is, there's no way I can see were god is not evil.
This quote sums it up well:
I keep seeing her suppororters arguing that same sex marriage wasn't legalized in the state. The USSC ruled that the laws of the state can not exclude same sex couples. There is no specific law needed for gay couples. If the state has laws pertaining to marriage and the issuance of licenses they apply to everyone, gay or straight.
Its about faith. Everything doesn't need to be understood, analog vs digital.
Asking questions like that are thought provoking and interesting to ponder but it doesn't change faith. The point is to learn not think about odd questions like can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? Its a paradox and thinking about an answer doesn't provide much but it is a funny carlin joke.
You clearly do not understand his/the argument. A being that knew all the consequences of something before taking an action is clearly responsible for those consequences. Even if the action involved the creation of other beings with Free Will. That Creator being would already know the result of its' action, blaming the created Free Will beings does not absolve the creator from its' initial foreknowledge of its' action. The "evil" of the created exists because the creator created the evil as well.
The unwanted/suffering person is the "logic" you use to support abortions. It's dumb on its face and certainly doesn't scale all the way up to God.
I don't know why you think God would need to be a helicopter parent and save us from our bad choices else he's evil.
Do you think the parents of people who commit mass murder or other atrocities are evil also, or that their child autonomously chose their own deeds?
By their reasoning, when Chicago's gun laws were invalidated by the SCOTUS in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it was still unlawful to own a gun in the Chicago until a law making gun-ownership legal was passed.Just heard a quick interview with her Lawyer. He kept trying to deviate from the question, she swore an oath to uphold the law. He tried to divert that the state hasn't approved gay marriage but wouldn't answer what the supreme courts ruling was. I don't know who the reporter was but she did well, she wasn't combative but she also didn't allow him the get away with stupid statements like the supreme court said it needed the states to approve gay marriage.
It's most certainly not dumb on its face. If there is no suffering, then I don't care much. This is in fact the exact opposite. I also see no reason it would not scale up to god, can you explain why it wouldn't?
I didn't say he needed to save us from our bad choices, I said that if he has perfect knowledge and unlimited power then purposefully creating someone who will live a life of eternal torment is malicious and evil.
Parents don't have perfect knowledge or unlimited power so what you're saying is meaningless.
Okay, this discussion is becoming very off-topic to the original OP so I'll post one more response at leave it at that, especially since I'm not trying to convert anyone or really have a dog in this fight.
As to whether I understand his argument, yes I do but still believe those who ask it are thinking in the same narrow terms that the religionists do. For example, can an "omnipotent" being create a paradox situation (e.g. the rock so heavy he can't lift it), or is his omnipotence bound (perhaps voluntarily) by the framework of rationality of his prior actions? If so, having created gravity in the first instance it would be a logical contradiction for that omnipotent being to contradict it later, or perhaps he would simply create a new reality to reconcile the contradiction.
As for how omnipotence plays into the question of evil being discussed, again maybe how we're defining "omnipotence" is incorrect. Perhaps it's not foreknowledge of every event from beginning of time to end, but rather foreknowledge of every possible future state and the recursive future states after that. Think the quantum supposition from the Schroedingers Cat thought experiment - until observation the reality doesn't exist. Now imagine "omnipotence" as a being who could foresee the potential outcomes of the first quantum state, then be aware of the future suppositions in each resulting potential reality, and so forth. So thus omnipotence would effectively be awareness of every possible infinite reality from every decision ever made, a.k.a. a being who had awareness of all the Many Worlds
Sure it does. It helps explain why the existence of such a being is not logical and why you shouldn't waste your time trying to live by whatever you think his rules are, or worshiping him, or scaring your children with the thoughts of eternal damnation, etc... There's so many more productive things we could be doing as a society if we didn't have to deal with this nonsense.
But I agree, it is all about faith. Although I'm not sure why so many people see "believing without evidence" as a virtue.