What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[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.