How far reaching are God's powers?

[Angrboda]

God has no restrictions. He could certainly make evil choices if He chose to. Again, He is God, and therefore free to do as He pleases. But it's not in His nature to do evil, therefore He doesn't do evil.

Any possible world in which God chooses evil is a world in which he is not God, by definition. So there are only two possibilities: a) worlds where God does not do evil, and b) worlds where God does not exist as God. So God could not choose to do evil and still be God because that would be a logical contradiction. The only possibilities for a good God are not doing evil. He couldn't choose evil. That's simply false. It's a logical impossibility.

[MilesAbbott81]

@MilesAbbott81

Are you at all concerned with the issues our present lack of free will would pose for any assertion that we are, then, deservedly x for our sins?  

Bit like punishing a toaster for making bagels, isn't it?  Are we morally responsible for that which we cannot change, that which we cannot fail to do, that which we cannot fail to be?  Beyond issues of god's moral state, in what way do we possess moral agency or do we possess moral responsibilities in this very specific context if we do not possess a meaningfully free will within said context?

A shorter version - how can we be meaningfully good or bad, in that case?

We can't be meaningfully good or bad; it's not within our power at all. If we are good, it's because God has given us the grace to defy our sin nature; if we are evil, it's simply because we act according to our nature.

And yes, you can make the argument that God is at least partly responsible for the evils we commit, and that He must take into account, at least to some degree, that we can't help but be evil.

And He does. For one, the Scriptures tell us that He does not punish our sins as we deserve (Psalm 103:10). We all, most likely, deserve to die many times over for the evils we've done. Yet we live, as we must, in order to learn. It also helps matters that the evils we commit serve as punishment against those who deserve it.

But that doesn't excuse our sin. Yes, we were made evil, but does that excuse the evil you've done? And here is the key difference between us and God: God allows evil for the greater good, in fact He uses it expressly to do good. Our intentions are not for good, but for evil, and that's why we are unrighteous and God righteous.

I realize that in the end it's difficult to accept because it seems unfair, and to a degree it is, but when you take God's intention into account you must exonerate Him of sin.

---

God has no restrictions. He could certainly make evil choices if He chose to. Again, He is God, and therefore free to do as He pleases. But it's not in His nature to do evil, therefore He doesn't do evil.

Any possible world in which God chooses evil is a world in which he is not God, by definition.  So there are only two possibilities: a) worlds where God does not do evil, and b) worlds where God does not exist as God.  So God could not choose to do evil and still be God because that would be a logical contradiction.  The only possibilities for a good God are not doing evil.  He couldn't choose evil.  That's simply false.  It's a logical impossibility.

No, your premise is incorrect because you say "God chooses evil." God has never chosen evil. He chooses good through evil.

---

That's total nonsense. First, you don't know that. Decond, God that uses Hitler to do good is not good because if he was good he would have found better ways.

Well, obviously you can claim I don't "know" anything at all, that doesn't mean you're correct. You say God would've found better ways, but who are you to say what is the best way? You're a worm, Fake Messiah, compared to God. You're incapable of even telling right from wrong, much less the best way to go about performing an act of salvation. You would be a fake messiah indeed to even try.

And even more good would have come out if there wasn't ww2.

Again, you know this how, exactly? Are you God? We must argue from the premise that God exists and is behind such events as WWII or the argument is pointless, so it's on you to prove somehow that you have a better way of doing things. How would you go about correcting all of the depravity of the Weimar Republic and effecting the rebirth of Israel?

No, you are limited and ignorant because you completely ignore suffering and pain of millions of people just so you can happily worship your deity.

I've never discounted or ignored the suffering and pain of millions of people, but I do find something interesting in people referring to the multitudes God has slain, as though numbers matter.

Numbers don't matter, because we all suffer and die individually. Numbers do not compound the suffering of the individual. Moreover, Christ also suffered and died individually, just as anyone else. So the point becomes moot, really.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can't be meaningfully good or bad; it's not within our power at all. If we are good, it's because God has given us the grace to defy our sin nature; if we are evil, it's simply because we act according to our nature.

And yes, you can make the argument that God is at least partly responsible for the evils we commit, and that He must take into account, at least to some degree, that we can't help but be evil.

I'm unconcerned with whether or not a god is to blame for this or that oddity of human nature.

And He does. For one, the Scriptures tell us that He does not punish our sins as we deserve (Psalm 103:10). We all, most likely, deserve to die many times over for the evils we've done. Yet we live, as we must, in order to learn. It also helps matters that the evils we commit serve as punishment against those who deserve it.

These are the sorts of things I was wondering.

If we can't be meaningfully good or evil, then how can we deserve anything?  How do we learn, and what use would learning be?  What evil we commit, and what is being punished in others through us?

None of this is cogent outside of a meaningful ability to do or be good or evil.  

But that doesn't excuse our sin. Yes, we were made evil, but does that excuse the evil you've done? And here is the key difference between us and God: God allows evil for the greater good, in fact He uses it expressly to do good. Our intentions are not for good, but for evil, and that's why we are unrighteous and God righteous.

If a toaster is made to toast that explains it's toasting.  Here again I'm unconcerned with gods, so whatever greater good they might be able to do is irrelevant to me and to human beings, who are not capable of doing any meaningful good.  

I realize that in the end it's difficult to accept because it seems unfair, and to a degree it is, but when you take God's intention into account you must exonerate Him of sin.

It doesn't seem unfair, it is unfair - but so what.  The universe may not be fair - and in point of fact, it's your contention that a god is unfair in precisely this way. Fairness, then, is no moral rule.

(god can't be bad - either god is not god, or being unfair is not bad)

As ever, I'm interested in the human angle.  How can I take a gods intention into account and exonerate it of sin?  Am I in the possession of a competent moral agency and an amoral commitment to some unspecified fairness...but simultaneously unequipped with any free will to use it? 

Is this an accurate description of your own experience?  Do you find yourself cognizant of the difference between good and evil, in a fair manner, but unable to choose anything other than evil?

[Peebothuhlu]

Yes, you atheists and agnostics always seem to bring this up as your ultimate argument for why God can't possibly exist, or why if He does then He is evil. Did you not read the article I linked to? Here it is again: https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings...f-evil.htm

Since I'm doubting you or others will actually take the time to read it, then I'll explain why babies and children suffer terribly.

They suffer terribly because of sin. Parents can bring terrible consequences upon their children, and as the Lord makes clear, He brings suffering upon the children to the 3rd and 4th generations, until the last pennies are paid for that sin.

Yes, it's tragic, and it's often a horrifying and terrifying thing to behold. It's also a reason why you should fear the Lord.

Some will say, well if God is merciful and good, then why allow such things to happen? We're not here to "eat, drink, and be merry." We're here to learn the difference between good and evil, and to learn to choose the good. That doesn't happen easily. We must suffer the consequences of our sins in order to be saved. That is simply how this process of salvation works. It's the cross; crucifixion. It's agony, but necessary agony.

I will add that often, the deaths of children are mercy. There are enormous numbers of people unfit to be parents, under whom a child is surely going to be raised to be truly wicked. The more wicked a child is, the greater its suffering through the cross is going to be. Have you ever tried to correct a spoiled child, for instance? It's a nightmare. I should know, having been one myself. I wish I'd been aborted, honestly, and raised in a household that enforced discipline. Salvation is easier for those fortunate enough to have grown up in such an environment.

No one likes to hear all of this, but it's the truth. You'll hate me and God for it, at the unfairness of it, but keep in mind that all is well that ends well. No one suffers forever; God saves all eventually, whether in this life or the next. But suffering is a necessary part of the plan...no way to get around it.

Those claiming that "accepting Christ" and that simply asking for forgiveness of sins is the way of salvation are deluded. The cross is the only way.

One last thing I will mention. If you think it's unfair for the innocent to suffer, then consider that Jesus Christ, Who was as innocent as they come, willingly laid down His life and suffered perhaps the most horrible possible way to die. He has partaken of this suffering just as we have. The people who deserve the blame are the ones committing the sins: us.

*Reads reply*

Okay, so some bad things happening to 'Not bad people' is/are becuase of "Sin".

Okay, cool.

Please explain what this 'Sin' is. Its nature. Its form. Its method of efficacy. How do we detect its passing through reality?

I mean... 'It' (This sin) has to pass from place to place and/or person to person or even from time&place to diffrent time and place, right?

How do we detect it moving about in reality? Just pointing to a tumour and going 'That's sin' doesn't work. The cancer is the result of the sin. The after effect. How do we detect the sin as it begins to interact with the body and before it causes the cancer?

*Note: You'll be aware that I'm not at the moment asking you to expand or elaborate on your previous claims of 'Omnipotence'. I'd rather keep things uncluttred for the moment.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[MilesAbbott81]

I'm unconcerned with whether or not a god is to blame for this or that oddity of human nature.

Is that so? That isn't the impression I am getting from the rest of your response.

These are the sorts of things I was wondering.

If we can't be meaningfully good or evil, then how can we deserve anything?  How do we learn, and what use would learning be?  What evil we commit, and what is being punished in others through us?

None of this is cogent outside of a meaningful ability to do or be good or evil.  

I never said we can't be meaningfully good or evil. I do say that we can't be meaningfully good except by God's grace, and that we can't help but be evil due to our nature, also except by His grace.

Consider this: when you go to school, does the teacher treat you fairly, or according to your need, assuming he or she is a decent teacher? Likely not fairly, but according to your need, however it needs to be in order for you to learn. So God does the same. He is our teacher, and He tests us rigorously. It's not fun and it's not "fair," but it works.

Your problem, I believe, isn't with the process but with the nullification of your agency. Obviously one can learn not to do evil from suffering the consequences of that evil, whether it's in his nature or not to do it. Who says God doesn't provide grace once you've learned your lesson? The problem is that sinners are stubborn, and often must be taught the same lesson many times before it sinks in.

Another problem is that we wish to be good, sometimes more than anything, above all else. And while it seems a lofty goal, it simply isn't possible. You can't become good, you can only walk in God's righteousness once you've been given the grace. And that grace can't be earned.

If a toaster is made to toast that explains it's toasting.  Here again I'm unconcerned with gods, so whatever greater good they might be able to do is irrelevant to me and to human beings, who are not capable of doing any meaningful good.

  

True, insofar as you remain unconcerned, if I'm understanding you correctly. It should be relevant, however, because one should always be concerned with the greater good. That's called loving your neighbor as yourself.

It doesn't seem unfair, it is unfair - but so what.  The universe may not be fair - and in point of fact, it's your contention that a god is unfair in precisely this way.  Fairness, then, is no moral rule.

(god can't be bad - either god is not god, or being unfair is not bad)

As ever, I'm interested in the human angle.  How can I take a gods intention into account and exonerate it of sin?  Am I in the possession of a competent moral agency and an amoral commitment to some unspecified fairness...but simultaneously unequipped with any free will to use it?   

Is this an accurate description of your own experience?  Do you find yourself cognizant of the difference between good and evil, in a fair manner, but unable to choose anything other than evil?

Well, perhaps I never should have said that it's unfair to a degree. I'm not sure I like the word "fair," because life only seems unfair from the carnal perspective. When one takes into account that God wipes away every tear in the end, then there will be no complaints about how "unfair" things have seemed. The suffering passes away, eventually.

If God having all the power is unfair, and us having no choice unfair, then we must realize it's unfair for a good reason.

---

*Reads reply*

Okay, so some bad things happening to 'Not bad people' is/are becuase of "Sin".

Okay, cool.

Please explain what this 'Sin' is. Its nature. Its form. Its method of efficacy. How do we detect its passing through reality?

I mean... 'It' (This sin) has to pass from place to place and/or person to person or even from time&place to diffrent time and place, right?

How do we detect it moving about in reality? Just pointing to a tumour and going 'That's sin' doesn't work. The cancer is the result of the sin. The after effect. How do we detect the sin as it begins to interact with the body and before it causes the cancer?

*Note: You'll be aware that I'm not at the moment asking you to expand or elaborate on your previous claims of 'Omnipotence'. I'd rather keep things uncluttred for the moment.

Cheers.

Not at work.

The definition of sin is simple. Read the ten commandments, or the two commandments Jesus condensed them into (Love God, love your neighbor as yourself). Sin is the opposite of those.

If you want to prevent cancer, then don't sin.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you want to prevent cancer, then don't sin.

Are you seriously contending that bone cancer in children is the result of MY sins?

Boru

[MilesAbbott81]

If you want to prevent cancer, then don't sin.

Are you seriously contending that bone cancer in children is the result of MY sins?

Boru

Perhaps. It certainly could be, if you are the parent, and it certainly isn't the result of obedience to God.

[Peebothuhlu]

[quote pid='2008729' dateline='1605116248']
The definition of sin is simple. Read the ten commandments, or the two commandments Jesus condensed them into (Love God, love your neighbor as yourself). Sin is the opposite of those.

If you want to prevent cancer, then don't sin.
[/quote]

That doesn't answer the 'How' of sin moving through reality.

Given your reply of "Don't sin and cancer won't spread." Again I ask you how the sin moves from the person doing the 'Sin' and to some one else who receives the sin which then goes on to cause cancer?

Not at work.

[The Grand Nudger]

These are the sorts of things I was wondering.

If we can't be meaningfully good or evil, then how can we deserve anything?  How do we learn, and what use would learning be?  What evil we commit, and what is being punished in others through us?

None of this is cogent outside of a meaningful ability to do or be good or evil.  

I never said we can't be meaningfully good or evil. I do say that we can't be meaningfully good except by God's grace, and that we can't help but be evil due to our nature, also except by His grace.

I've been asking you how we can be good or evil outside of the possession of a meaningfully free will.  

Consider this: when you go to school, does the teacher treat you fairly, or according to your need, assuming he or she is a decent teacher? Likely not fairly, but according to your need, however it needs to be in order for you to learn. So God does the same. He is our teacher, and He tests us rigorously. It's not fun and it's not "fair," but it works.

Keep telling you I'm not worried about the teacher.  I'm wondering about the student.  You suggested that I could exonerate a god if I took it's intentions into account.  If that would be the good thing to do, and I can't do the good thing - then I couldn't do that.

Your problem, I believe, isn't with the process but with the nullification of your agency. Obviously one can learn not to do evil from suffering the consequences of that evil, whether it's in his nature or not to do it. Who says God doesn't provide grace once you've learned your lesson? The problem is that sinners are stubborn, and often must be taught the same lesson many times before it sinks in.

Another problem is that we wish to be good, sometimes more than anything, above all else. And while it seems a lofty goal, it simply isn't possible. You can't become good, you can only walk in God's righteousness once you've been given the grace. And that grace can't be earned.

That wouldn't be my problem, that would be a problem with the concepts as described.   I can't choose good, I cant learn from evil, I do or don't get grace.  How can I learn a lesson, even if I was taught the lesson a billion times - if learning the lesson were the good thing to do...and I'm incapable of good?

True, insofar as you remain unconcerned, if I'm understanding you correctly. It should be relevant, however, because one should always be concerned with the greater good. That's called loving your neighbor as yourself.

If one should always be concerned for the greater good - then I would be incapable of being concerned for the greater good - as I'm incapable of good.  

Well, perhaps I never should have said that it's unfair to a degree. I'm not sure I like the word "fair," because life only seems unfair from the carnal perspective. When one takes into account that God wipes away every tear in the end, then there will be no complaints about how "unfair" things have seemed. The suffering passes away, eventually.

If God having all the power is unfair, and us having no choice unfair, then we must realize it's unfair for a good reason.

Would it have mattered whether you did or didn't say it?  You tell me that a god wipes away every tear like it has a moral debt.  

Things that can do good or evil may be able to accrue moral debt, and they may be able to satisfy that moral debt - this is rather unlike a thing with no free will, don't you think?  If we are a thing with no free will, in what way do we possess a moral agency, and how can we employ it?

[Fake Messiah]

You say God would've found better ways, but who are you to say what is the best way?

It's simple logic: just as good humans, good gods don't do evil. Bad gods do evil, incompetent gods do evil, gods with limited powers do evil.

And this is why you are in an abusive relationship with God.

Again, you know this how, exactly?

Because I don't ignore suffering of other people like you do so I can see it would have been better if all those millions of people didn't suffer and/ or died.

so it's on you to prove somehow that you have a better way of doing things.

I am not an omnipotent God (nobody is, but hey) who can even stop wars and holocausts and create perfect things and beings. So God could have stopped the ww2, or killed Hitler or just make better people.

we all suffer and die individually.

And that's why God is not good (doesn't exist) because he could have created a world without all that suffering. Unless he is not omnipotent or is evil or just doesn't exist.