How far reaching are God's powers?

[MilesAbbott81]

I think it's coherent to think of God as being righteous.

Quite the opposite, actually. Why is it that those who want to be ruled under a dictatorship see nothing but good in it?

That is the flesh speaking. You see God as dictator because you want to rule on His throne. It's YOU who are the true dictator, the tyrant who says "my way or the highway." God allows you to do this for a time, so that you can see your way is the path to hell, that it's wrong and will only bring you misery.

I won't say it isn't true that God is a dictator. He is. But "dictator" on its own doesn't necessarily imply evil. You seem to think it does. God eventually dictates to all that you will follow His ways, but not because He is forcing you to. That isn't the correct way to look at it. You will bend the knee because you will eventually realize that He deserves to be worshiped, and that His ways should always be followed, because He is righteous.

The flesh rails against this, seeing itself as having intrinsic value and deserved authority. It has neither.

[Silver]

That is the flesh speaking. You see God as dictator because you want to rule on His throne.

Please, if this is the beginning of your nonsensical speech, I did not have to read the rest. Which I did not.

Try something other than irrational servitude, and then you might be taken seriously.

[Angrboda]

As for your other question, I'm not familiar with Plantinga's free will defense, so I'm afraid I can't thoroughly answer, except to say that free will is an illusion, and that we all behave badly except by the grace of God, so we are automatically all immoral and can't even make a decision to be anything other than that. We're rotten to the core. I don't see how the argument can be applied to God.

That's rather interesting. I must ask how that squares with our being made in the image of God if he possesses such a fundamental attribute as free will and we don't?

It applies because God can't sin. It would seem a consequence of Plantinga's argument then that God's choices have no moral significance, including Christ's sacrifice. Do you see it now?

[MilesAbbott81]

That is the flesh speaking. You see God as dictator because you want to rule on His throne.

Please, if this is the beginning of your nonsensical speech, I did not have to read the rest. Which I did not.

Try something other than irrational servitude, and then you might be taken seriously.

You merely prove my point, Eleven. You are so violently opposed to the concept of "servitude" that you're unwilling even to read a small post of mine. Now who is the irrational one, again?

---

As for your other question, I'm not familiar with Plantinga's free will defense, so I'm afraid I can't thoroughly answer, except to say that free will is an illusion, and that we all behave badly except by the grace of God, so we are automatically all immoral and can't even make a decision to be anything other than that. We're rotten to the core. I don't see how the argument can be applied to God.

That's rather interesting.  I must ask how that squares with our being made in the image of God if he possesses such a fundamental attribute as free will and we don't?

It applies because God can't sin.  It would seem a consequence of Plantinga's argument then that God's choices have no moral significance, including Christ's sacrifice.  Do you see it now?

Yes, you do make an interesting point, one I've often wondered at myself. If God can't sin, then why must we? Why can't He just make us like Himself, inherently knowing the difference between good and evil and able to choose good?

The answer I believe I've been given is that no one is like God. That's something we must accept at some point, even though we'd prefer it weren't the case. It would be great to be like God, but there can only be one God.

Because of this, it seems to me that this process He is putting us through must be the only way to be made in His image. If there were an easier way to accomplish the same thing, do you not think He would prefer to avoid the misery? After all, do you think anyone wants to be crucified?

Also, consider Who God is, and how gravely serious a thing it is to be made in His image...it's no wonder David said he was "fearfully and wonderfully made."

[Fake Messiah]

MilesAbbott81, people are simply trying to test your claim that God is good. And your explanation that God does evil for good makes no sense or that he gives babies cancer for good that we don't understand is nothing more than a logical fallacy by which you can make anyone be good; like Hitler was a good guy because he killed all those millions of people for good that we don't yet understand.

[MilesAbbott81]

That's rather interesting.  I must ask how that squares with our being made in the image of God if he possesses such a fundamental attribute as free will and we don't?

It applies because God can't sin.  It would seem a consequence of Plantinga's argument then that God's choices have no moral significance, including Christ's sacrifice.  Do you see it now?

I realize now that I may not have answered you clearly/correctly. Just because we don't have free will now doesn't mean we will never have free will. Once we are One with Jesus Christ, our will is free, being aligned with His will, which is free.

And I'm not sure about how Plantinga's argument is framed. Does he apply his moral choices of significance to God the same as human beings? If so, why? We're not the same as God, not in the same boat at all, really. Two completely different situations I think.

---

MilesAbbott81, people are simply trying to test your claim that God is good. And your explanation that God does evil for good makes no sense or that he gives babies cancer for good that we don't understand is nothing more than a logical fallacy by which you can make anyone be good; like Hitler was a good guy because he killed all those millions  of people for good that we don't yet understand.

Are you really so simple-minded that you can't make a distinction between Hitler and God, one being a mere man and the other the omnipotent Creator of the universe?

God uses evil to punish evil, and to punish evil is to do good. God used Hitler to punish those who deserved it - not deserved from Hitler's perspective but from God's. God subsequently destroyed Hitler for what He did to the Jews with the Allied powers, because Hitler had evil intentions and was therefore in sin. 

Much good came out of World War 2, even if it's difficult to see considering the level of carnage. But that's the problem with the limited perspective of the impenitent and ignorant sinner. You can only see the negative because that's all you want to see. You want God to be the villain because you want to serve yourself, not Him.

[Fake Messiah]

God uses evil to punish evil, and to punish evil is to do good. God used Hitler to punish those who deserved it - not deserved from Hitler's perspective but from God's.

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.

Much good came out of World War 2

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

But that's the problem with the limited perspective of the impenitent and ignorant sinner. You can only see the negative because that's all you want to see.

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.

[Angrboda]

That's rather interesting.  I must ask how that squares with our being made in the image of God if he possesses such a fundamental attribute as free will and we don't?

It applies because God can't sin.  It would seem a consequence of Plantinga's argument then that God's choices have no moral significance, including Christ's sacrifice.  Do you see it now?

I realize now that I may not have answered you clearly/correctly. Just because we don't have free will now doesn't mean we will never have free will. Once we are One with Jesus Christ, our will is free, being aligned with His will, which is free.

And I'm not sure about how Plantinga's argument is framed. Does he apply his moral choices of significance to God the same as human beings? If so, why? We're not the same as God, not in the same boat at all, really. Two completely different situations I think.

What might God’s reason be for allowing evil and suffering to occur? Alvin Plantinga (1974, 1977) has offered the most famous contemporary philosophical response to this question. He suggests the following as a possible morally sufficient reason:

"(MSR1) God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds."

(MSR1) claims that God allows some evils to occur that are smaller in value than a greater good to which they are intimately connected. If God eliminated the evil, he would have to eliminate the greater good as well. God is pictured as being in a situation much like that of Mrs. Jones: she allowed a small evil (the pain of a needle) to be inflicted upon her child because that pain was necessary for bringing about a greater good (immunization against polio). Before we try to decide whether (MSR1) can justify God in allowing evil and suffering to occur, some of its key terms need to be explained.

To begin with, (MSR1) presupposes the view of free will known as “libertarianism”:

"(22) Libertarianism [is] the view that a person is free with respect to a given action if and only if that person is both free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing that action; in other words, that person is not determined to perform or refrain from that action by any prior causal forces."

Although the term “libertarianism” isn’t exactly a household name, the view it expresses is commonly taken to be the average person’s view of free will. It is the view that causal determinism is false, that—unlike robots or other machines—we can make choices that are genuinely free.

According to Plantinga, libertarian free will is a morally significant kind of free will. An action is morally significant just when it is appropriate to evaluate that action from a moral perspective (for example, by ascribing moral praise or blame). Persons have morally significant free will if they are able to perform actions that are morally significant. Imagine a possible world where God creates creatures with a very limited kind of freedom. Suppose that the persons in this world can only choose good options and are incapable of choosing bad options. So, if one of them were faced with three possible courses of action—two of which were morally good and one of which was morally bad—this person would not be free with respect to the morally bad option. That is, that person would not be able to choose any bad option even if they wanted to. Our hypothetical person does, however, have complete freedom to decide which of the two good courses of action to take. Plantinga would deny that any such person has morally significant free will. People in this world always perform morally good actions, but they deserve no credit for doing so. It is impossible for them to do wrong. So, when they do perform right actions, they should not be praised. It would be ridiculous to give moral praise to a robot for putting your soda can in the recycle bin rather than the trash can, if that is what it was programmed to do. Given the program running inside the robot and its exposure to an empty soda can, it’s going to take the can to the recycle bin. It has no choice about the matter. Similarly, the people in the possible world under consideration have no choice about being good. Since they are pre-programmed to be good, they deserve no praise for it.

(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Plantinga didn't apply his concept to God, but it would seem to follow that if a human is not worthy of moral praise or blame if the only choices available to them are morally good ones, that God is therefore not deserving of moral praise or blame for his actions either, as God is restricted to only making good choices as well. If that's true, then God is punishing people for not acknowledging the value of Christ's sacrifice when, in fact, Christ's sacrifice has no moral value. It would be like punishing people from not praising a thermostat for turning on the heat. God's punishing us would be immoral, which is inconsistent with a good God.

[The Grand Nudger]

@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?

[MilesAbbott81]

Plantinga didn't apply his concept to God, but it would seem to follow that if a human is not worthy of moral praise or blame if the only choices available to them are morally good ones, that God is therefore not deserving of moral praise or blame for his actions either, as God is restricted to only making good choices as well.  If that's true, then God is punishing people for not acknowledging the value of Christ's sacrifice when, in fact, Christ's sacrifice has no moral value.  It would be like punishing people from not praising a thermostat for turning on the heat.  God's punishing us would be immoral, which is inconsistent with a good God.

I did read your entire post, just pasting this part to cut down on size.

Plantinga's concept is completely reasonable from a carnal perspective, but it fails to take into account the sin nature, which prevents us from being able to choose good. That is why we don't have free will. We're capable of choosing good if God provides the grace to do so, which He often does even for the impenitent sinner, but our default is to do evil.

People are likely to argue this point, because we often look at the "good" we've done through a biased lens, one that wants to see oneself as good in nature instead of the unbiased lens that sees the sin nature. The Lord has revealed to me that many things I've done and thought were good were actually evil, something I couldn't realize until given the grace to do so.

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.

I think the issue with your argument is that you see God as a concept and not as a person. He is a person, with emotions and thoughts, not some robot programmed to do or not to do things. One can't really apply the same arguments and theories to Him in the same way we can apply them to ourselves, though, because we're the ones being worked on (made in His image), not Him. He isn't going through a process, He is performing the process. It's a simple distinction but relevant.