If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?

[fr0d0]

So you are evil because you gave the dog freedom to choose to do evil.

You already have other pets. A stick insect. A lizard, and a gold fish. The reason you love your dog is that it shows it's love for you. As a loving person, you need love reciprocated. That's why you made the dog.

If you didn't allow your dog a choice to do bad, then it couldn't have a choice to do good either. It wouldn't be able to love.

This isn't a selfish game your playing. You give your dog the ability to be like you. Sure he has to suffer the consequences if he does bad stuff just like any other dog. He might even die rejecting love. Such is your love for him though, you arrange it so your dog has as long as it takes to work out that you really do love him. And that all he can do is love you back.

It's a regular tear jerker ain't it? :p

[Rahul]

And if that dog dies before it starts loving me I will see his hairy butt in eternal torment. He thought he knew pain before he died. Wait till I show him real pain.

Love you, Poochy!

[pineapplebunnybounce]

As a loving person, you need love reciprocated.

You don't quite understand love if you think that reciprocation is required.

Sure he has to suffer the consequences if he does bad stuff just like any other dog. He might even die rejecting love. Such is your love for him though, you arrange it so your dog has as long as it takes to work out that you really do love him. And that all he can do is love you back.

That is twisted. I really wouldn't say that it's done out of love, unless god's version of love is different from human's version of love.

You give the dog free will to choose as he likes only to make him suffer until he chooses the one thing you approve of. And if he deviates, back to suffering.

It's like saying you're all for freedom but if someone exercises their freedom, no no no, you belong in hell.

The only difference between not having the freedom to choose and having the "freedom" your god grants is the suffering. In the first option there is none, in the second there's infinite suffering. This is supposing that in the first scenario people wouldn't even realize what they're missing.

[fr0d0]

You give the dog free will to choose as he likes only to make him suffer until he chooses the one thing you approve of. And if he deviates, back to suffering.

The dog has to face reality just like every other dog. You can't make an exception for him or he'd lose the choice.

You don't give him any approval. You give him your love when he takes it. You love him regardless. He chooses if he wants it or not. Observers might wonder how the dog could refuse such a golden ticket. There's nowt as strange as dogs.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The dog has to face reality just like every other dog.

Yes he does. But nothing is forcing me to create such a twisted reality.

You can't make an exception for him or he'd lose the choice.

He really doesn't. I buy a new toy for my dog when I see something I think he'd like. He often plays with it for a bit to placate me then go back to his favourite ball that has been torn apart and sewed together countless of times. He rarely ever picks the new toy over his favourite (which someone else bought for him). See, after rejecting my offer, he still gets to choose. It isn't mutually exclusive unless I refuse to play with him every time he brings his old ball to me. Then the only way he gets to play is to pick the new toy. Then I would be the one who took away his choice to play with his old toy with me and replaced that choice with sitting alone with his old toy looking sad.

You give him your love when he takes it. You love him regardless.

???? You always love him but you pretend otherwise if he doesn't reciprocate? childish much?

He chooses if he wants it or not.

Yes he does.

Observers might wonder how the dog could refuse such a golden ticket.

They may. That's their free will.

[fr0d0]

Your dog gets to choose between two good actions pineapple? That's very confusing. I think I might even call it evil. You propose 2 gods. You and one other. Your dog gets to choose between you, and escape justice. He can be bad in one if your eyes and the one who buys his affection let's him continue in evil.

Sounds like your proposal fails.

"I always love him" yes. He chooses to reject that, and choose evil. If he couldn't choose, he couldn't love. Being responsible/ culpable for your action is the opposite of childishness.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

you lost me.

i did not say anything about good/bad choices, merely preference of one choice over the other. i don't think my dog is bad if he doesn't love me. his old toy isn't another 'god' he chooses over me, i thought it was the rejection of my toy that we were talking about. because the christian god doesn't let you go free if you merely reject his claim of existence, you don't need to pick a god over him, the mere disbelief of him is sufficient. So I really wasn't talking about picking other gods over the christian god. it is the disbelief that i think you equated to rejecting his love for us, if i'm mistaken then I apologize.

And you are using the word evil in a way that I've never seen before. If someone offers to buy me strawberry ice cream and I say: do you mind if I have chocolate instead? If he then says: no, you're evil for not wanting strawberry.

Does that make him just?

[Foxaèr]

you lost me.

It is not your fault. Fraudo likes to confuse others with word salad that barely even resembles the topic being discussed.

[fr0d0]

Maelstrom : head in the sand man

[Rahul]

Maelstrom : head in the sand man

Hah! Even his sayings are based on myths.

That's too rich.