Argument from evil, restated

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='447944' dateline='1369163155']
I argue (because the bible supports it)
Sin is an act or want to be outside of God's expressed will.
Evil is an intense desire or malicious act of/to sin.

Not all sin is evil but all evil is sin.

But if this is the case, then sin is arbitrary,

How so? Explain.

and the only reason we are destined for damnation is because God wills it.

Again how so?

If that is the case then we are like God's cosmic ant farm.

Uh, no. This realm this world is a proving ground apart from the knowledge of the Glory of God. So that 'we' may have the freedom to choose where we want to spend eternity without the influence of what God has to offer.

then he still has to answer for why: 1. He ever intervened,

Asked and answered in Scripture. God created because it Pleased Him to do so. His intervention was always apart of the plan.

and why when he did, he did so on a purely arbitrary basis (i.e. choosing the Hebrew people as "his people" as opposed to, say, the Egyptians)

Also answered in scripture. The jews were picked because He made a promise to Abraham, for being a righteous man.

and, 2. Why he created beings capable if evil if he, in fact, desires a relationship with those people.

Again answered in the bible.
If there is only God's expressed will then there is no other choice to be had but to be in the expressed will of God. The only 'choice there is, is to sin. As I outlined in my first response evil is the 'proof' of choice. The proof that we truly can stand outside the expressed will of God.

---

I wouldn't say that, he's just telling us what he believes.

I've been down this road with him before. After a while you'll lose patience with him too. He thinks that he gets to re-write his book to make it say what he wants it to say.

It's a good trick if you can get away with it but I won't let him.

I'm a prick.

I haven't rewritten anything sport. The only thing I have done is forced you to look at context that you would otherwise ignore. Your last bit in Mat 5 is a perfect example. You chose to only look at the first part of the message, because it supported your weak argument, but when I looked at the whole contextual message, it changed the whole meaning of the passage you choose to misrepresent.

---

I can't post. My last three messages did not appear