Negative aspects of Christianity rarely talked about, even by atheists

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

Once again, you're shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the wrongdoing.

God creating the ability to make choices does not mean He makes those choices for us.

Jesus Christ is King. He has the sovereign authority to establish the rules, and human beings have the freedom to obey or disobey them.

You claim free will doesn't require the ability to choose evil. Then explain what freedom to reject God's commands would mean if disobedience were impossible.

And you keep blaming God for not preventing the evil that human beings deliberately choose to commit.

Who chose to commit the evil? Who carried it out? Who is responsible for their own conduct?

You can argue that God should have intervened, but that doesn't establish that He made the decision for the wrongdoer.

At what point do you hold human beings accountable for their own actions instead of continually directing the blame toward God?

No I'm placing the causality for the person having a choice in the first pace. Who created the conditions for decisions? Who created the conditions for actions based on those decisions. Who enabled decisions that resulted in wrongdoing in the first place? Well in theism the answer is simple ...God that's not redirection that following the casual chain to it's end point and the first free decision which was gods. This connects to his choice not to intervene, as I mentioned—you’re just as responsible for what you decide not to do as for what you decide to do. If God chooses not to step in and allows evil to prevail, that decision to hold back ultimately leads to evil, regardless of what anyone else decides.  This is simple causality. 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

Once again, you're shifting responsibility away from the person actually committing the wrongdoing.

God creating the ability to make choices does not mean He makes those choices for us.

Jesus Christ is King. He has the sovereign authority to establish the rules, and human beings have the freedom to obey or disobey them.

You claim free will doesn't require the ability to choose evil. Then explain what freedom to reject God's commands would mean if disobedience were impossible.

And you keep blaming God for not preventing the evil that human beings deliberately choose to commit.

Who chose to commit the evil? Who carried it out? Who is responsible for their own conduct?

You can argue that God should have intervened, but that doesn't establish that He made the decision for the wrongdoer.

At what point do you hold human beings accountable for their own actions instead of continually directing the blame toward God?

Once again, the simple fact that he created that ability makes him accountable for decisions, good or bad, period. A simple god could have made humanity in a way where disobedience was impossible, yet it’s inconceivable for humans to act otherwise. He could have made rebellion or evil so absurd that no human would ever choose it, considering humans already find many other things inconceivably absurd on a base level —so why not evil? Furthermore, God doesn’t need to make decisions for anyone; merely allowing decisions in the first place already implies casual responsibility. Who gave him the ability to choose? Who gave him the choice to act on? Whose actions were shaped by the ability to choose? I never said God should or should not; I spoke of results and causality. 

[The Architect Of Fate]

You can't speak of freewill without speaking of causality. You can’t talk about the evil choices of humans without discussing the factors that influenced those decisions in the first place. You can't talk about evil without considering the actions or inactions of good.

[The Grand Nudger]

lol, sovereign authority. Sorry chief, I’m American. Gonna be a hard no on kings.

More academically, this is a counterproductive avenue of apologetics. Insisting that the nature and character of some set of rules is irrelevant on account of authority.

We’re well aware of the real and potential evils of authoritarianism….and of the phenomena of authoritarians blaming everyone else and the housecat for their profligate fuckups.

In a more focused lane…whether or not a god with the power to help made the decision for someone else to do a bad thing is a non issue. It made the decision for itself not to intervene. Like a fireman who decides not to put out a fire and then insists it’s not even his fault that the people inside died….because someone else started it. Is this god a fucking child?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, it's an obligation for us.  Do you believe in a god that is unaccountable to basic moral standards of the kind that we humans are subject to?  If you saw someone being murdered...or even just in trouble... and you could help, but didn't, that would be a moral failure, right?  We have cops and firemen and first responders...all of these folks exist, and we support those systems with our taxes, so that we can help reduce some amount of death and misery.  On a more intimate level our familial bonds are expressed in terms of overlapping webs of obligations and care.  If you permitted evil...that would be a moral failure, no?  We don't say "John watches the kids kick the dog when he's not molesting them, but he's a good provider and it can't be helped".  It does seem a bit strange to throw all of that out the window when we think about a god that is alleged to be or supposed to be a moral exemplar.

I've gotta say....if this whole god business is like that, it would only be a sideline to me whether it existed or not.  I don't see the point in worshipping a moral failure in heaven, and if I wanted to worship a moral failure there's plenty right here on earth.  OFC, the whole idea of gods as moral exemplars may be false.  Maybe they do exist and they're just like us in that regard.  Limited, flawed, compromised.   Maybe gods can't help with this or that thing.  Maybe gods fail to recognize this or that evil.  Maybe they do bad things and allow bad things and ask others to do bad things for them when they have some personal goal in mind, some need or desire.  That'd be a shame, a tragic waste of ability and potential, don't you think?

You argue that humans have a moral obligation to prevent evil.

Does that obligation begin with preventing ourselves from committing evil?

And if individuals are responsible for their own actions, on what grounds do you hold God responsible for the evil they choose to commit?

You argue that humans have a moral obligation to prevent evil.

Doesn't that responsibility begin with controlling our own actions?

Yet you appear to expect Jesus to intervene whenever humans choose to commit evil.

Are you arguing that human beings cannot be trusted to govern their own conduct and therefore require Jesus to supervise and prevent their wrongdoing?

And if so, where does individual responsibility begin and God's responsibility end?

Let me guess, when humans commit evil, it's Jesus' fault?

What's next, “The devil made me do it”?

At what point do human beings become responsible for their own actions?

At what point does god become responsible for his? OFC I would expect a good god or a good person to intervene in horrific circumstances when they could. We do…..but god apparently does not and you’re telling me has fewer or lesser moral obligations than we do? Why, because free will? We don’t seem to think the free will of a shooter matters when we stop them shooting or that stopping them from shooting prevents them from freely willing to do it.

Recall when I mentioned to you pages ago that you would feel compelled to engage in apologetics…but that the simple act of doing so would only demonstrate my claim to be true? Here we are.

Any attempt to excuse a moral failure ( yours, mine, a child’s, a gods) acknowledges that a moral failure has occurred. We’re just negotiating over how much moral failure we’ll accept, and from whom. I accept moral failure and more moral failure from children because they’re learning. Because I understand that they are less developed, knowledgeable, and capable than me, or most adults. I’m accept less from myself, and would accept even less from someone or something even more developed, capable, and potent than me. Is the god you believe in more like that…or more like a child?

[Sheldon]

Sheldon:

So if you consider the outcome good, the deity you imagine gets the praise, but if it's bad it just gets a shrug of the shoulders, even though nothing bad can happen without this deity permitting it first. That sounds less like a cogent rationale, and more like confirmation bias to me. Of course you are free to set any subjective moral standard you wish, it's just an absurd contradiction to then insist this deity is morally perfect.

1) God is morally perfect, and starting with this statement, you haven't even considered the "logical conclusion" of you're position, you stopped at the conclusion that settles with your feelings.

2) Do you believe human beings possess the autonomy, intelligence and moral judgment to govern their own behaviour and take responsibility for their actions?

3) Or must they be continually restrained by a higher authority because they cannot be trusted to exercise that freedom responsibly?

4) If your position is that every wrongful action must be prevented whenever someone has the power to prevent it, then why stop at divine intervention? Why not make lifelong restraints mandatory for everyone to eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing?

5) You cannot simply transfer responsibility for a person's actions to someone else because that person had the power to intervene.

6) The person making the decision remains responsible for that decision.

7) So establish your position: Are you demanding that God prevent every evil human action, or only certain actions? If only certain ones, what principle determines when intervention becomes obligatory?

1) When anyone can offer anything beyond that bare claim, I'll be happy to consider it, until then you might as well be telling me what mermaids smell like. 
2) Yes, though I lean towards moral subjectivism, and relativism. 
3) I don't know what you mean by "higher authority", but humans enact laws and I believe this is expedient for societal cohesion. 
4) That's a misrepresentation, and this is obviously a false equivalence, since evolved apes don't possess omniscience or omnipotence. 
5) Straw man, I made no such claim, and another false equivalence as we are not discussing evolved apes, and yet they have a higher moral standard than the deity you have imagined and is depicted in the bible. Any human who tortured a baby to death, or committed genocide, would be considered evil by a pretty broad consensus.   
6) That's not what you said earlier, you said "nothing happens without the knowledge and permission" of the deity you believe exists. 
7) You seem a little confused, but it is irrational to imagine an atheist makes any demands of a deity. I merely pointed out contradictions in theistic beliefs and claims.

Nothing you posted seems to have addressed the point I made in my post that you quoted? It was about your confirmation bias, in thanking a god for outcomes you view as favourable, but denying it is in any way culpable for outcomes that are "bad", and this is even after you said "nothing happens without the sovereign knowledge and permission of god". 

So when a child is raped it could not happen, indeed would not have happened according to your claim, if god hadn't permitted it, so it's absurd to pretend such a deity would not be morally culpable, a human definitely would. Why you're pretending this means the deity would be solely culpable isn't clear, just as it's not clear why you think I am saying this is the case, rather then pointing out the obvious logical inference from your claims.

[Sheldon]

Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

God creating the ability to make choices does not mean He makes those choices for us.

So if I open a door to allow a paedophile to go into a room with a child in it, knowing what will happen, you'd not consider me at all culpable for the result? Even if nothing that happened could have happened without my "sovereign knowledge and permission"?

I simply don't believe you can't see the double standard that you're expressing here.

[Sheldon]

Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

And you keep blaming God for not preventing the evil that human beings deliberately choose to commit.

Well suffering is ubiquitous, it's not all manmade, and you believe a deity created it, and has full knowledge of what will happen and it can't happen without its permission. 

Answer me a simple question is there any circumstances when it's morally acceptable to torture a baby to death?

As your deity is depicted as doing in the bible, never mind a global genocide.

[Sheldon]

Ultimately, if God creates choices, then he is inherently responsible for all of them, including the evil ones. It’s even more troubling when free will doesn’t logically require the capacity to make evil choices. If God chooses not to stop evil, he bears responsibility for that decision and the success of evil.

At what point do you hold human beings accountable for their own actions instead of continually directing the blame toward God?

Why would you assume those are mutually exclusive, also atheists don't blame deities for anything, that's axiomatic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Silas Vane

At what point do you hold human beings accountable for their own actions instead of continually directing the blame toward God?

Under a system putatively governed by a maximally creative Being, there’s no one to blame but that being. Consider:

God created the universe.

‘Universe’ is sensibly defined as ‘all things that exist and the spaces between those things.’

A choice is a thing.

The outcome of a choice is a thing.

Under a God system, there can be no free will, because free will would involve things (choices/outcomes) not created by God.

Since we are constrained, definitionally, to act only in those ways created by God, we are blameless.

Blaming humans for their actions only works under a non-theistic worldview.

Ta da.

Boru