Evil, calamity, what does it matter? The words can be lumped together. It still doesn't answer the argument. If that verse in Isaiah didn't exist, it's still God's universe, and he's still wholly responsible for it.

(May 22, 2013 at 2:21 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I am asking to see the statement great and wise one. Show me where I said God did not create evil.

Rather than search for it you may simply deny ever making such a silly claim. Actually, G-C has jumped in and made it again but I'll let you speak for yourself. You usually come up with some useless drivel without G-C's help.

That's just it minnie, I did not say what you claimed I said. Even the OP cleared me of making such a claim. I think you've confused yourself, and imposed a statement made by someone else onto me. Because I have absolutly no problem with a God who creates or allows for evil if scripture supports it.

I love the sin/evil/calamity shuffle.

ca·lam·i·ty
/kəˈlamitē/
Noun
An event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster.
Disaster and distress.
Synonyms
disaster - misfortune - catastrophe - distress - plague

so...."My god didn't create homosexuality or adultery, he created disaster, misfortune, catastrophe, distress....plague". Awesome, good for god? Personally, I would have gone with more lesbians, more lust and fewer lesions.....but that's just me.

(May 21, 2013 at 5:48 pm)Praetorian Wrote: But John, you're missing the point. God didn't need to create anyone. You're talking about a being that's described as having limitless traits of power and goodness and then giving him a completely human trait like the yearning for deep relationships. Then you're saying, he's willing to kill and torture for all eternity those of his creations who don't quite meet his expectations. Where's the goodness? Where's the understanding?

The cosmic first date idea doesn't matter; he's supposed to be entirely good. If he's entirely good, he can put up with a sub-optimal partner for all eternity. Don't forget that he made us sub-optimal.

You contradict yourself. If you think judgment is not good, then you're incorrect to say that god's described as having limitless goodness.

(May 21, 2013 at 11:17 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken and morality is a physical object or force which can be measured, then every moral order transcends physical reality to whatever degree, so that takes care of that.

Whatever transcends physical reality is by definition non-physical. Does this put you on record as advocating belief in non-physical aspects of reality? That's a rather tenuous position for the godless.

(May 21, 2013 at 11:17 pm)Ryantology Wrote: ...every disaster has a moral implication and every one of them is, to some greater or lesser extent, that god's fault, for either allowing it to happen...If life is a gift, it should never be taken away. Otherwise, it's not a gift at all. If you take back gifts, without reason or warning, you're an asshole.

You forget that God offers you eternal life, which is better than bodily life. You have to be a complete fool to reject His love. Yes there is pain in this life, but it is turned to good when we help each other and take comfort in His Promise.

---

(May 22, 2013 at 2:54 am)Praetorian Wrote: Evil, calamity, what does it matter? The words can be lumped together.

Which is why the argument fails, as explained earlier. If you refuse to make important distinctions, then you cannot learn and will persist in your error.

---

(May 22, 2013 at 12:44 am)Drich Wrote: By who standards do you presume to judge the acts of God as 'bad things?'

By his own of course. Godless butt-babies cannot resist trying to put themselves on God's throne.

(May 22, 2013 at 8:32 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You forget that God offers you eternal life, which is better than bodily life. You have to be a complete fool to reject His love. Yes there is pain in this life, but it is turned to good when we help each other and take comfort in His Promise.

Lets see how far this one goes. The measure of ones foolishness with regards to acceptance and return of love is an issue of the offer on the table? Are you willing to stand by this one - knowing that I'm about to conjure up some horrid scenarios? Or is this something that only applies in the case of god? Special passes for special friends, sort of thing?

(May 22, 2013 at 2:54 am)Praetorian Wrote: Evil, calamity, what does it matter? The words can be lumped together. It still doesn't answer the argument. If that verse in Isaiah didn't exist, it's still God's universe, and he's still wholly responsible for it.

If the verse in Isaiah did not exist, you would have nothing to say about God creating evil, and in actuality you still do not, evil and calamity are two very different things. I can lump many different words together, but that in no way means they would convey the same meaning or message.
I believe through the scriptures and reasoning that God did not create evil, Lucifer brought evil into existence by living outside the will of God. This makes Lucifer responsible for the evil in the creation. I could plant and grow a beautiful garden, which I'm responsible for and then some crazy comes along with a truck and drives through the garden and mess it up. The resulting mess is not my fault or responsibility, my responsibility is to put the garden back together to it's former beauty, this is the same for God's creation, this is why Christ gave His life, so the creation would eventually be restored to it's original beauty.

Do you remember that scene in Watchmen where the Comedian shoots the pregnant woman in the stomach? Dr. Manhattan asks how he could do such a thing. The Comedian responds that he had the power to stop him and didn't, therefore he shares the blame.

Your argument makes sense if you're a human, limited in your power and incapable of stopping a truck. If you had the power to stop him from ruining your garden in the first place without any effort whatsoever, then you are just as much to blame for the conduct of the ants in your garden as your friend is.

I know this argument is causing you cognitive dissonance because you keep making excuse after excuse for God's failings, then twist your understanding of a single very vague, very insignificant verse in Isaiah just enough so that it doesn't conflict with what you believe. It's astounding to us atheists that you can't see this happening.

My whole point is, you shouldn't have to go in these circles in the first place. If there really was an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god, these problems would never exist. None of the arguments I've made would apply to a god who has human limitations, which Yahweh certainly seems to, but that's certainly not how he's portrayed and I doubt that's what you believe.

My conclusion is, either God is both good and bad with human needs and emotions, or he is the way he is because he was constructed by people, for people. Which do you think is more likely?

(May 22, 2013 at 3:04 pm)Praetorian Wrote: Do you remember that scene in Watchmen where the Comedian shoots the pregnant woman in the stomach? Dr. Manhattan asks how he could do such a thing. The Comedian responds that he had the power to stop him and didn't, therefore he shares the blame.

Your argument makes sense if you're a human, limited in your power and incapable of stopping a truck. If you had the power to stop him from ruining your garden in the first place without any effort whatsoever, then you are just as much to blame for the conduct of the ants in your garden as your friend is.

I know this argument is causing you cognitive dissonance because you keep making excuse after excuse for God's failings, then twist your understanding of a single very vague, very insignificant verse in Isaiah just enough so that it doesn't conflict with what you believe. It's astounding to us atheists that you can't see this happening.

My whole point is, you shouldn't have to go in these circles in the first place. If there really was an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god, these problems would never exist. None of the arguments I've made would apply to a god who has human limitations, which Yahweh certainly seems to, but that's certainly not how he's portrayed and I doubt that's what you believe.

My conclusion is, either God is both good and bad with human needs and emotions, or he is the way he is because he was constructed by people, for people. Which do you think is more likely?

God's limitation to interfere was and is free will, which He imposed on Himself. He couldn't stop Lucifer because he would have called God an unloving tyrant, a being only able to keep His creation through power and everyone would turn from Him if it wasn't for His controlling power that allowed no one to make decisions for themselves. Unhappy is creation, no matter what God would do, so why not let the evil Lucifer brought into creation run it's coarse and then be dealt with by God. It cost Him the perfect life of the Christ, the greatest part of the creation He so loves, no He didn't sacrifice anything, but in the end creation would see what evil really does and will be glad God put an end to it. Yes God could have put a stop to Lucifer but, it would have in the end cost Him the respect of His creation and Lucifer would have been lost forever either way.

In your analogy, can Dr. Manhattan raise the woman and her child into eternal bliss?