What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[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?