What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Harry Nevis]

What does God lack that his need for people with free will overrides any harm that may result? God can't foresee which people will choose to be evil and refrain from making them, thereby not violating the free will of any people he does allow to exist? It isn't logically impossible for people to only freely choose good...so an omnipotent God should be able to manage to come up with a world where that's the case, and an omnibenevolent God would want to. [1]

What about natural evil? God can't make planets that don't have earthquakes and tsunamis? [2]

So that wasn't the devil in the Garden, just your run-of-the-mill talking snake? They don't have to make us sin, if we're worse off because of them and God is able to destroy them or confine them away from us, God is morally obliged to do so. We're innocent of their creation, that's on God. Of course if God isn't actually all that benevolent, that's not a consideration. [3] 

Believing in demons and the devil having any power at all in our world is inconsistent with believing in the God of theodicy. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe in devils and demons. Do you think the free will of evil spirits is an important consideration for God? [4]

1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end. 

2. I posted this awhile back in response to a similar question:

First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to a) refrain from preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
  a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.
  b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
  c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)

3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything. 

4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.

You're a loon.

[Minimalist]

Forget perfect.

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

Hey, it's your invention.  You could make him dance the tarantella naked while eating a BLT if you wanted.  That's the great thing about imaginary friends.  They always see things your way!

[Brian37]

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

Hey, it's your invention.  You could make him dance the tarantella naked while eating a BLT if you wanted.  That's the great thing about imaginary friends.  They always see things your way!

My imaginary friend gave me Angelina Jolie,  now while you can't see her he did give me my right hand and boy is it fun pretending we are making love. WHAT'S THAT MINN? You don't believe me? You are such a stick in the mud.

[GrandizerII]

1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end.

No, you don't get to decide burden of proof lies on atheists when you haven't demonstrated that it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time and, more importantly, that libertarian free will is even logically possible.

First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

As God, he is responsible for allowing natural disasters to happen.

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment.

They tend to cause a lot of harm to people as well.

When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

You really think people have complete freedom to move out of harm's way? I don't.

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

Save people, of course. Why hurt at all? There's no point to it that I can think of.

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to a) refrain from preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

Provided he actually does exist, God is always welcome to explain to us why he behaves in such neglectful ways. If he has the power to stop suffering, and he is supposed to be a loving God, then why not act like a powerful and loving God?

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.

I would argue instead that naturalism is increases the likelihood that a loving God does not exist, and that Christian doctrine merely rationalizes why human suffering as a result of natural disasters is allowed by a loving God.

a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.

So may a wonderful divine experience that does not involve being harmed by natural disasters.

b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).

Why does it even have to be this way anyway? God, if you're out there, answer please?

3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything.

No God, no sin. And even if God, we don't necessarily choose to sin. And it's not like we necessarily create temptations ourselves.
 

4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.

And you know all this, how?

[SteveII]

1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end.

No, you don't get to decide burden of proof lies on atheists when you haven't demonstrated that it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time and, more importantly, that libertarian free will is even logically possible.

First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

As God, he is responsible for allowing natural disasters to happen.

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment.

They tend to cause a lot of harm to people as well.

When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

You really think people have complete freedom to move out of harm's way? I don't.

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

Save people, of course. Why hurt at all? There's no point to it that I can think of.

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to a) refrain from preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

Provided he actually does exist, God is always welcome to explain to us why he behaves in such neglectful ways. If he has the power to stop suffering, and he is supposed to be a loving God, then why not act like a powerful and loving God?

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.

I would argue instead that naturalism is increases the likelihood that a loving God does not exist, and that Christian doctrine merely rationalizes why human suffering as a result of natural disasters is allowed by a loving God.

a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.

So may a wonderful divine experience that does not involve being harmed by natural disasters.

b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).

Why does it even have to be this way anyway? God, if you're out there, answer please?

3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything.

No God, no sin. And even if God, we don't necessarily choose to sin. And it's not like we necessarily create temptations ourselves.
 

4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.

And you know all this, how?

I'm not doing the one line at a time thing. 

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.  

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism. 

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there. 

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will. 

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant. 

4. That is what I believe based on study and experience. Do I know this to be true. No.

[Pat Mustard]

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

Suddenly and without warning, Vorlon's heresy detector explodes !!!

[Brian37]

No, you don't get to decide burden of proof lies on atheists when you haven't demonstrated that it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time and, more importantly, that libertarian free will is even logically possible.


As God, he is responsible for allowing natural disasters to happen.


They tend to cause a lot of harm to people as well.


You really think people have complete freedom to move out of harm's way? I don't.


Save people, of course. Why hurt at all? There's no point to it that I can think of.


Provided he actually does exist, God is always welcome to explain to us why he behaves in such neglectful ways. If he has the power to stop suffering, and he is supposed to be a loving God, then why not act like a powerful and loving God?


I would argue instead that naturalism is increases the likelihood that a loving God does not exist, and that Christian doctrine merely rationalizes why human suffering as a result of natural disasters is allowed by a loving God.


So may a wonderful divine experience that does not involve being harmed by natural disasters.


Why does it even have to be this way anyway? God, if you're out there, answer please?


No God, no sin. And even if God, we don't necessarily choose to sin. And it's not like we necessarily create temptations ourselves.
 

And you know all this, how?

I'm not doing the one line at a time thing. 

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.  

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism. 

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there. 

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will. 

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant. 

4. That is what I believe based on study and experience. Do I know this to be true. No.

1. The burden of proof is on you to prove Allah does not exist. Still make sense to you?
2. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Yahweh does not exist. Still make sense to you?
3. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Buddha is not the seat of human wisdom. Still make sense to you?
4. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Hindu Creator God Brahama does not exist. Still make sense to you?

 Go work on disproving all those other claims you don't buy first, then get back to me when you have convinced all the followers of all the other religions you got it right and they got it wrong.

If you are not willing to do that then like they, all you are arguing is the same thing they argue, "I like what I believe".

[Mister Agenda]

1. I don't want to argue the Problem of Evil Argument again. It will come down to that while it is broadly logically possible (that is a term with a specific meaning) that God could make a world where people freely chose good all the time, it may not be actually possible (free will and all). Since the burden of proof is on the atheist, the argument is not successful in the end. 

Take it up with the swathes of your fellow theists who define omnipotence as being able to do anything logically possible (at least). If you are happy to trim down God's omnipotence, I fully support you.

2. I posted this awhile back in response to a similar question:

First, I would say that an omnibenevolent God would not cause natural disasters. So, are we to conclude that when events at the beginning were set in motion with our physical laws that God was therefore the remote cause of all future natural disasters?

What is a natural disaster? There is nothing inherently evil about a continental plate shift or a weather pattern developing. In fact, each of those events probably have positive natural effects for the environment. When humans suffer as a result, you are making a claim of what "ought not be". Additionally, people have the freedom to move in and out of harms way. How is is that God is responsible for human choices of when and where to be?

God would only be responsible for the consequences of natural disasters if God could foresee them. When humans suffer as a result, it ought not to be if there is an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient being in charge. Care to point out the place where humans can live where there's never a natural disaster they can't see coming in time to move out of the way?

So really you are making the claim that God should not permit suffering as a result of natural disaster and it is illogical that an omnibenevolent God would do so. What "ought not be" "ought not be permitted". I am confused on a particular point: do you think God should prevent all natural "disasters", just those that harm people, or miraculously save people during such an event?

My opinion on what God's method of preventing suffering should be seems entirely irrelevant to whether a theodic God should do so. The 'problem of evil' only exists in light of proposed beings who could and would prevent it.

1. Being extremely limited in big picture knowledge, why do you think we can determine both what "ought not be" and what "ought not be permitted? God being omniscient (part of the definition) would see a big picture that we could in no way understand. You would have to prove that God did not have morally sufficient reasons to a) refrain from preventing a natural disaster or b) supernaturally intervening during one.

If we can't tell whether the actions of a being are immoral, we can't tell if they're moral either. There's no evidence of God's supposed goodness, just old records of people saying that God said that God is good. Which is exactly what an evil God would say. If we can't use our judgment to differentiate between omnibenevolence and omnimalevolence; it's a joke to pretend to know God is good. Everything that happens that is not a result of our free will is just as well explained by God being evil. Why is there good? Because evil God knows we will suffer more if we know goodness is possible. If you don't have to prove God has morally sufficient reasons, I certainly don't have to prove God doesn't.

2. Christian doctrine increases probability that God allows human suffering as a result of natural disasters.
  a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. A natural disaster may increase that knowledge.

Not if you're dead.

  b) God's knowledge includes the greatest eternal good (the maximum number of people freely choosing salvation from an eternal perspective).
  c) Man's knowledge of God is considered an incommensurable good (and end in itself)

If man's knowledge of God is an immeasurable good and God is theodic, the piss poor state of man's knowledge of God is an amazing failure on the part of God, who could impart that good and refuses to do so.

3. We choose to sin. Your reasoning that we aren't responsible for creating the temptation would apply to everything.

So since we're tempted by ice cream, God is justified in throwing evil spirits into the mix? 

4. I don't believe demons have any causal effect on the physical world unless we invite them in by playing around with spiritual things best avoided (witchcraft, etc.). They do seem to be able to have an effect on our immaterial soul.

Thanks for answering my question, I appreciate it.

[brewer]

I'm not doing the one line at a time thing. 

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.  

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism. 

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there. 

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will. 

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant. 

4. That is what I believe based on study and experience. Do I know this to be true. No.

Internet atheist, thanks for the laugh. You're an internet christian, ha, ha, HAH! If you claim to be in real life then you're a hypocrite for making the "internet atheist" claim. 

Still pimping your fantasy I see.

Here is the thing (yeah, watching reruns of Monk).

Your god (and tell me if I'm wrong) is all knowing, from second to second, omniscient, nothing can be other than foreseen. For a human, or anything else, even it's self (god), to do other than what your god has foreseen would unmake him as omniscient. Therefore no human free will, quite frankly, no god free will. Oh, ho, wait a minute, not naturalism, lack of fantasy delusion. The only reason for god not acting is lack of free will, on it's part or any other. It is as constrained by it's all knowing as are humans according to you belief. 

Hold on, wait for it, the made up fantasy has a rebuttal in the works. They always do. Go ahead, rationalize and justify away. It's the same modus operandi as an addict. Trust me, I know.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Our God grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. As far as I'm concerned any God that is powerful enough to raise the dead is sufficiently capable of releasing me from my personal shame and despair.  That is why I trust Him with my life. I love Him because He loved me first.

I don't know that there is a God and that he grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. If there is a God who loves us, then I would expect him to demonstrate this love in a manner that is consistent with how we normally view love. I cannot reasonably consider it divine love when God allows all sorts of evils and sufferings to occur in this world. I can understand minor sufferings being consistent with a loving God, but not major evils and sufferings.

Sounds reasonable in the abstract. All I'm asking is for you to look at it from within the scope of your everyday experience. For whatever reason, there is pain and suffering in my life. I don't know why and I'm not sure it matters. What I do know is that I don't trust me to lift myself out of my own troubles all by myself. I've tried willpower and it didn't work. YMMV but sometimes it's more effective to surrender and call on someone strong enough to deliver me. Maybe it's not clear how His love works for the entire world. I only know how His love works for me.