We’re just as guilty and blameworthy for what we choose not to do as for what we choose to do. If you don’t choose to stop evil, you’ve caused it by the merit of not having stopped it, allowing it to succeed. This isn’t judgment; it’s causation. I also refer back to my earlier point about God being the creator of free will and his responsibility for creating choice in the first place rendering him automatically responsible for all choices good or bad. 

Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

(October 16, 2026 at 2:10 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 14, 2026 at 8:06 am)Silas Vane Wrote: What makes preventing evil an obligation for God, rather than a choice He has the power to make?

Quote:[quote pid='2259461' dateline='1791979581']
Silas Vane Wrote:

As a Christian, if someone survives despite an operation going badly, I can thank God for their survival 

So if you consider the outcome good, the deity you imagine gets the praise, but if it's bad it just gets a shrug of the shoulders, even though nothing bad can happen without this deity permitting it first. That sounds less like a cogent rationale, and more like confirmation bias to me. Of course you are free to set any subjective moral standard you wish, it's just an absurd contradiction to then insist this deity is morally perfect.
[/quote]

God is morally perfect, and starting with this statement, you haven't even considered the "logical conclusion" of you're position, you stopped at the conclusion that settles with your feelings.

So let's follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Do you believe human beings possess the autonomy, intelligence and moral judgment to govern their own behaviour and take responsibility for their actions?

Or must they be continually restrained by a higher authority because they cannot be trusted to exercise that freedom responsibly?

If your position is that every wrongful action must be prevented whenever someone has the power to prevent it, then why stop at divine intervention? Why not make lifelong restraints mandatory for everyone to eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing?

You cannot simply transfer responsibility for a person's actions to someone else because that person had the power to intervene.

The person making the decision remains responsible for that decision.

So establish your position: Are you demanding that God prevent every evil human action, or only certain actions? If only certain ones, what principle determines when intervention becomes obligatory?

(October 17, 2026 at 9:59 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: We’re just as guilty and blameworthy for what we choose not to do as for what we choose to do. If you don’t choose to stop evil, you’ve caused it by the merit of not having stopped it, allowing it to succeed. This isn’t judgment; it’s causation. I also refer back to my earlier point about God being the creator of free will and his responsibility for creating choice in the first place rendering him automatically responsible for all choices good or bad. 

You keep shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the evil.

Who made the decision? Who carried out the action? Who committed the wrongdoing?

Jesus Christ is King. He establishes the rules, and human beings have the freedom to obey or reject them.

Yet your argument continually redirects blame toward God because He didn't prevent someone else's actions.

Why should the person who chose to commit evil escape responsibility simply because someone else had the power to stop them?

And if you agree that the individual remains responsible, then explain why God's refusal to intervene makes Him the cause of that individual's decision.

(October 17, 2026 at 10:06 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

Once again, you're shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the wrongdoing.

God creating the ability to make choices does not mean He makes those choices for us.

Jesus Christ is King. He has the sovereign authority to establish the rules, and human beings have the freedom to obey or disobey them.

You claim free will doesn't require the ability to choose evil. Then explain what freedom to reject God's commands would mean if disobedience were impossible.

And you keep blaming God for not preventing the evil that human beings deliberately choose to commit.

Who chose to commit the evil? Who carried it out? Who is responsible for their own conduct?

You can argue that God should have intervened, but that doesn't establish that He made the decision for the wrongdoer.

At what point do you hold human beings accountable for their own actions instead of continually directing the blame toward God?

(October 17, 2026 at 10:17 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 17, 2026 at 9:59 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: We’re just as guilty and blameworthy for what we choose not to do as for what we choose to do. If you don’t choose to stop evil, you’ve caused it by the merit of not having stopped it, allowing it to succeed. This isn’t judgment; it’s causation. I also refer back to my earlier point about God being the creator of free will and his responsibility for creating choice in the first place rendering him automatically responsible for all choices good or bad. 

You keep shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the evil.

Who made the decision? Who carried out the action? Who committed the wrongdoing?

Jesus Christ is King. He establishes the rules, and human beings have the freedom to obey or reject them.

Yet your argument continually redirects blame toward God because He didn't prevent someone else's actions.

Why should the person who chose to commit evil escape responsibility simply because someone else had the power to stop them?

And if you agree that the individual remains responsible, then explain why God's refusal to intervene makes Him the cause of that individual's decision.

FSM is King. Xhe establishes the rules, and human beings have the freedom to obey or reject them.

Please be respectful. RAmen

The very fact that a being has an ability to do good, to prevent bad things from happening, yet watches it happen without intervention means the individual has zero conscience or interest in its creation. Almost as though the individual doesn't exist at all.

Silas Vane Wrote:You keep shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the evil.

Not all evil comes from individuals. There is natural evil like floods, earthquakes, fires, volcano eruptions, and epidemics that kill millions of people, which god could have prevented. Not preventing those evils makes god evil.

Silas Vane Wrote:And if you agree that the individual remains responsible, then explain why God's refusal to intervene makes Him the cause of that individual's decision.

In this scenario, God also created this person, and he could have created him not to do evil. He could have created Charles Whitman without the brain tumor that made him kill numerous people. He could have created Vladimir Putin not to be a psychopath who kills people. And also, god could have easily prevented them just before they started with their murderous rampage.

Moving

(October 17, 2026 at 10:24 am)Kitan Etos Wrote: The very fact that a being has an ability to do good, to prevent bad things from happening, yet watches it happen without intervention means the individual has zero conscience or interest in its creation. Almost as though the individual doesn't exist at all.

(October 17, 2026 at 10:28 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Silas Vane Wrote:You keep shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the evil.

Not all evil comes from individuals. There is natural evil like floods, earthquakes, fires, volcano eruptions, and epidemics that kill millions of people, which god could have prevented. Not preventing those evils makes god evil.

Silas Vane Wrote:And if you agree that the individual remains responsible, then explain why God's refusal to intervene makes Him the cause of that individual's decision.

In this scenario, God also created this person, and he could have created him not to do evil. He could have created Charles Whitman without the brain tumor that made him kill numerous people. He could have created Vladimir Putin not to be a psychopath who kills people. And also, god could have easily prevented them just before they started with their murderous rampage.

Not to mention setting up a system in which, unless you pick the right faith, you suffer forever.