Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

Goad hates the witness conditionally: because he is a liar. His lying is the variable that must be present for the hate to exist.
Same with the troublemaker (your second example).
"Esau" is being used to refer to both him and his descendants, the Edomites. Esau did not own mountains in his Genesis account. The hate exists because Esau forfeited his birthright, his spiritual responsibility to his family. The Edomites followed suit and fought against Israel, God's people.
God hates those who choose violence simply because they chose violence. God does not hate a specific group of violent people, but no matter who you are, if you are a violent person, you will be hated on the account of your violence.

Hate needs to be leveled at actions, not at people. If you hate someone for who they are and not for what they do, the hate is sinful.

I was attempting to do this entire reply with just your own quotes. but i can't help but point out that you assume that god doesn't hate the troublemaker forever. I have a bible verse that says otherwise, it also responds to your next point, so i'll post it below.

---

God hates sin and those who follow it because sin is contrary to his existence. If you repent of sin, you are now out of range of the hate that is still being levelled at sin.

Hebrews 10: 26 For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but only the terrifying prospect of Judgment, or raging fire that will consume the enemies.

If you hate someone because they offended you, you are doing wrong because you are not in the position to judge him for what he did. You should also not hold a grudge, because you are levelling your hate at the person now that the sin has long passed. All you have to do is blantantly love your offender.

I'm not sure if you're talking to me now, or if you're just saying this is how it works for everyone, or if you're saying this is how it works according to your interpretation of the bible. The only one that's relevant is the 3rd option, but i'm not sure what you're responding to or if you're bringing up a new point or ...?

I don't think you have contradicted anything, so…
And I wasn't referring to you in that last part.

---

God hates those who choose violence simply because they chose violence. God does not hate a specific group of violent people, but no matter who you are, if you are a violent person, you will be hated on the account of your violence.

God, being omnipotent and omniscient, is capable of solving any imaginable problem without using even a hint of violence both in the sense that he can invent any solution and apply it flawlessly without any possibility of being hindered in any way. Because this is necessarily true, it is also necessarily true that God chooses violence simply because he chooses violence, as there can be no other reason why he would. If this is not true, then his omnipotence and omniscience are both also untrue.

If we agree that human life is sacred, we agree that ending a life without necessity (or consent on the part of the victim) is evil. This means that God is evil. The only way to avoid this is to make a completely unjustified special exception for God, whose rules of right and wrong do not seem to apply to his own behavior.

In the OT, God repays people for what they do, as people repaid other people for what they did. If you killed or attempted to kill another person, it became necessary that you were killed as punishment for what you did. Or is this an unjust law?

Also, if you hate a person because they did something you had complete foreknowledge of and total power (plus complete reluctance) to prevent, if this is, as many Christians insist, all a part of your master plan, your hate is unjustified, because it is your fault as much as it is the perpetrator's. Free will does not abrogate ultimate responsibility.

Free will means that you can do both good or evil without God physically pushing you in either direction. If I do wrong, I am responsible for what I did and deserve punishment for it, but that does not mean that the evil I did thwarts any former plans of God. God knew what I would do beforehand and plans were made to accommodate it, but he did not ask or intend that I did it.
Simply because the government has emergency services for road accident victims and has determined the compensation I owe them does not make it OK if I cause a road accident, although the potential victim will have his health restored because of government planning.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

?
i mean to say the person cannot be separated from his sin, according to the bible if he already knows it's a sin before he commits it. meaning you were just pulling things out of thin air.

i don't really care what the bible says about things like these, but i was just pointing out that you were making baseless assertions.

[Consilius]

I actually decided that I needed to revise my answer and put it in a previous post:
"God CAN do all these things. The reason he doesn't and never will is because it is contradictory to his nature, and, as God, his nature will remain constant because he wills to keep it that way. God WILL NOT make a rock he can't lift because he is all-powerful. God WILL NOT cease to exist because he promises to be with his people, and he WILL NOT lie because he is truth. God WILL NOT change, nor is he under the inclination to do so, because he [isn't human]. That fact in itself will not change, in the same way two plus two will not change to five under any circumstances."

God has the physical capability to sin. The reason this sounds absurd is because we know the Christian God to NOT sin. That is because his omnibenevolent nature does not change. God refuses to change because of the responsibility he has to humanity not to change because he is their God.
In the same way, God WILL NOT clone himself because the universe is under his control alone, and needs to remain so so that only the events he ordains occur because of the responsibility he has to the created universe.

First of all, I would like to applaud you for revising your answer. It shows that you are willing to rethink a position when faced with enough of a challenge.

Now, going with the rock theme...

So God can technically create a rock he cannot life. So let's say he does create one. Forget about reasons again. Let's just say he did it. What becomes of God in this scenario?

On one hand, his omnipotence allows him to create a rock he cannot lift. On the other hand, if the rock is immovable by God himself, he was never omnipotent to begin with even though he created it. This is paradoxical. It is a fallacy in the idea of omnipotence. I am telling you, omnipotence is illogical. No such thing can exist.

Congratulations. You've made me do a lot of thinking. My head hurts.
To make a rock bigger than himself, God would have to create this rock and make it heavy by an authority higher than himself, which cannot be called upon because it does not exist. This authority would be God. Therefore, the rock can not exist.
God can not make something that can not exist. Such a creature would be illogical. The illogical cannot come from a being that is logical. Or else the being would be illogical and would cease to exist.
God cannot make himself not to exist because that would be self-contradictory, and, since God is truth, he cannot contradict himself. Also illogical and non-existent.
Something that does not exist cannot be done.

---

?
i mean to say the person cannot be separated from his sin, according to the bible if he already knows it's a sin before he commits it. meaning you were just pulling things out of thin air.

i don't really care what the bible says about things like these, but i was just pointing out that you were making baseless assertions.

As long as the person is sinning, God's anger will fall on him, and the sinner will only have Hell to look forward to.
It's like insurance coverage. Christ died so that he could redeem whoever followed him. Those who refuse to follow him can not be redeemed because they are holding themselves back. There is no redemption for them on account of their sin, the sin they choose to remain in.
When the sinner repents, he gets Christ's sacrifice all over again and he can look forward to being with God. God's anger remains on all those who continue to sin because they are sinning.

[Ryantology]

Free will means that you can do both good or evil without God physically pushing you in either direction. If I do wrong, I am responsible for what I did and deserve punishment for it, but that does not mean that the evil I did thwarts any former plans of God. God knew what I would do beforehand and plans were made to accommodate it, but he did not ask or intend that I did it.

As God knows what will happen and possesses unlimited ability to stop it, he must share in the responsibility of every event. Christians do not make free will exceptions for good things Christians do. It is a virtually-universal trait among Christians to attribute acts of human goodness or fortune to God's goodness and grace. Why should God get any credit for positive results of free will if he is assigned no blame for the negative results? Either both apply or none, if you are going to appeal to free will when assigning responsibility. Otherwise, it is an unjustified exception for your god.

Simply because the government has emergency services for road accident victims and has determined the compensation I owe them does not make it OK if I cause a road accident, although the potential victim will have his health restored because of government planning.

Governments are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, therefore it would not make sense to assign to them omni-responsibility.

To make a rock bigger than himself, God would have to create this rock and make it heavy by an authority higher than himself, which cannot be called upon because it does not exist. This authority would be God. Therefore, the rock can not exist. God can not make something that can not exist. Such a creature would be illogical. The illogical cannot come from a being that is logical. Or else the being would be illogical and would cease to exist.

The term 'omnipotence' implies no limits of any kind, but if God must act within the rules of logic, then there are rules even he cannot circumvent and it is incorrect to think of him as all-powerful or even a supreme authority. I would think that if God was the prime mover of all existence, then the rules of logic should be his invention and as malleable to him as any other aspect of his creation.

Which is to demonstrate that 'omnipotence' can never exist, logically. It would mean that God is just a great deal more powerful than we are.

[Consilius]

If God is good, then good should go to God. Chrisitans perform good acts and claim that God helped them. God draws people closer to himself by prompting good from them. Evil is willful deviation from good, and from God. God does not prompt sin out of anybody, because that is contrary to him. Why would God make people do evil if he is good?

The rules of logic are all that there is. The illogical is not a realm of limitless possibilities, because the illogical does not exist. What exists is all that there is. We can dream of the illogical, but the illogical cannot be done because it is not real.
To say that there are rules that cannot be circumvented would imply there is a higher authority than God, which is illogical in this case and therefore nonexistent. Omnipotence means that one can do anything, or all there is TO do. If there is something that cannot be done because it does not exist, then it does not constitute an uncrossable limit, because that would mean there would have to be something on the other side.

[The Grand Nudger]

The rules of logic are all that there is. The illogical is not a realm of limitless possibilities, because the illogical does not exist. What exists is all that there is. We can dream of the illogical, but the illogical cannot be done because it is not real.

To say that there are rules that cannot be circumvented would imply there is a higher authority than God, which is illogical in this case and therefore nonexistent. Omnipotence means that one can do anything, or all there is TO do. If there is something that cannot be done because it does not exist, then it does not constitute an uncrossable limit, because that would mean there would have to be something on the other side.

The ital coexisting with the bolded in one mind is whats causing this trainwreck. So which sword would you rather fall on, that the rules of logic are all that is, that the illogical is not real - or that "god" is not subject to those rules and that the "rules of logic" are, ultimately, meaningless in the face of said "god"?

I myself don't suffer any sort of "willful deviation from good", nor do I need any prompting from your fairy to do good. Trying to tighten the "good/god" circle will only elicit laughs from me. Why would "god" doing contradictory things or having contradictory attributes be a problem, logic holds no authority over "god" (unless it does after all).

If refusing to be a party to your disgusting little redemption story is what lands a guy in the eternal slammer, so be it. This doesn't paint "god" in a very flattering light in any case.

[Ryantology]

If God is good, then good should go to God. Chrisitans perform good acts and claim that God helped them. God draws people closer to himself by prompting good from them. Evil is willful deviation from good, and from God. God does not prompt sin out of anybody, because that is contrary to him. Why would God make people do evil if he is good?

I really do not understand the justification for assuming that God is good. Just because the Bible says so? That is not good enough for me. Many of God's actions strike me as evil, as no amount of power, knowledge, or alleged 'righteousness' justifies killing people as he is said to have done.

Whether or not God is good, he still made it so that evil is possible. As evil can only happen by design, God is still responsible for it. One can also blame God for creating the conditions which most frequently inspire acts of evil, such as giving us a planet with limited resources.

The rules of logic are all that there is. The illogical is not a realm of limitless possibilities, because the illogical does not exist. What exists is all that there is. We can dream of the illogical, but the illogical cannot be done because it is not real.
To say that there are rules that cannot be circumvented would imply there is a higher authority than God, which is illogical in this case and therefore nonexistent. Omnipotence means that one can do anything, or all there is TO do. If there is something that cannot be done because it does not exist, then it does not constitute an uncrossable limit, because that would mean there would have to be something on the other side.

If God is subject to any limits or must follow any rules, it is illogical to to state that God is the ultimate authority. Why not worship the concept of logic if even God has to answer to it? Logic has no higher set of rules to answer to.

[Esquilax]

The rules of logic are all that there is. The illogical is not a realm of limitless possibilities, because the illogical does not exist. What exists is all that there is. We can dream of the illogical, but the illogical cannot be done because it is not real.

You know what else wasn't real, at one point? The universe, according to creation accounts. Saying that things that aren't real can't be done precludes any act of creation because there was a point in the beginning where none of it existed.

To say that there are rules that cannot be circumvented would imply there is a higher authority than God, which is illogical in this case and therefore nonexistent. Omnipotence means that one can do anything, or all there is TO do. If there is something that cannot be done because it does not exist, then it does not constitute an uncrossable limit, because that would mean there would have to be something on the other side.

So, when god creates a person out of dirt, and the dirt out of nothing, he wasn't creating things that don't exist?

[evenheathen]

So, when god creates a person out of dirt, and the dirt out of nothing, he wasn't creating things that don't exist?

But that's illogical. Wait, god can't be illogical. Shit, can he? No, he's perfect, so of course not.......but it's still not logical. Consilius, can you clear this up for me?

God can not make something that can not exist. Such a creature would be illogical. The illogical cannot come from a being that is logical. Or else the being would be illogical and would cease to exist.
God cannot make himself not to exist because that would be self-contradictory, and, since God is truth, he cannot contradict himself. Also illogical and non-existent.
Something that does not exist cannot be done.

[Consilius]

If God is good, then good should go to God. Chrisitans perform good acts and claim that God helped them. God draws people closer to himself by prompting good from them. Evil is willful deviation from good, and from God. God does not prompt sin out of anybody, because that is contrary to him. Why would God make people do evil if he is good?

I really do not understand the justification for assuming that God is good. Just because the Bible says so? That is not good enough for me. Many of God's actions strike me as evil, as no amount of power, knowledge, or alleged 'righteousness' justifies killing people as he is said to have done.

Whether or not God is good, he still made it so that evil is possible. As evil can only happen by design, God is still responsible for it. One can also blame God for creating the conditions which most frequently inspire acts of evil, such as giving us a planet with limited resources.

The rules of logic are all that there is. The illogical is not a realm of limitless possibilities, because the illogical does not exist. What exists is all that there is. We can dream of the illogical, but the illogical cannot be done because it is not real.
To say that there are rules that cannot be circumvented would imply there is a higher authority than God, which is illogical in this case and therefore nonexistent. Omnipotence means that one can do anything, or all there is TO do. If there is something that cannot be done because it does not exist, then it does not constitute an uncrossable limit, because that would mean there would have to be something on the other side.

If God is subject to any limits or must follow any rules, it is illogical to to state that God is the ultimate authority. Why not worship the concept of logic if even God has to answer to it? Logic has no higher set of rules to answer to.

Evil is the absence of good. Where God isn't, there is evil. Evil is not an entity. And it is no more his fault that one fell to temptation than it is the government's fault I stole an unlocked car. Or a teacher's fault that I failed an exam. Because all temptation is is a test of character. If you failed it, it means you need to improve, something some students choose to do and others don't.
All that there IS is logic. IT is the ultimate authority. God is invisible, eternal, logic.

---

The rules of logic are all that there is. The illogical is not a realm of limitless possibilities, because the illogical does not exist. What exists is all that there is. We can dream of the illogical, but the illogical cannot be done because it is not real.

You know what else wasn't real, at one point? The universe, according to creation accounts. Saying that things that aren't real can't be done precludes any act of creation because there was a point in the beginning where none of it existed.

To say that there are rules that cannot be circumvented would imply there is a higher authority than God, which is illogical in this case and therefore nonexistent. Omnipotence means that one can do anything, or all there is TO do. If there is something that cannot be done because it does not exist, then it does not constitute an uncrossable limit, because that would mean there would have to be something on the other side.

So, when god creates a person out of dirt, and the dirt out of nothing, he wasn't creating things that don't exist?

Creation is when something that does not exist is brought into existence. It is the channel by which the nonexistent begins to exist. God has the authority to truly make logical things that don't exist real. The illogical can never be made to exist, but the logical can be made to exist.
Simply because something is not real does not mean that it cannot logically be made to be real. Both the illogical and the logical didn't exist at one point. The logical came to exist from being a CONCEPT, but the illogical never will exist except as a concept.