Proverbs 16:4

[Kayenneh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8hefESt7c

[Strongbad]

---

Logic dictates nothing can fall outside of my assertion. Either refute it or qut replying.

Not according to any Law of Logic that I am aware of.

Here is a quote taken directly from one of your posts.

How about "televisions" - they're nouns and things! Does the verse mean that God created televisions?

Notice the part in bold where you flat out state God did not create televisions with a rhetorical question.

And my point is that obviously an ancient text (such as the verse which is the subject of this thread - though you wouldn't know it reading your posts) cannot be referring to televisions - notice my underline. The fact that God does not create televisions is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I assert that if God created everything, and something exists, then he is either directly or indirectly responsible for it such as televisions or evil.

And until you have justified your assertion by demonstrating that your trichotomy includes every logical possibility, I see no reason to take it seriously. The obvious counterexample would be God Himself, who exists (arguendo), but God is not "responsible" for His own existence.

---

[Faith No More]

Logic dictates nothing can fall outside of my assertion. Either refute it or qut replying.

Not according to any Law of Logic that I am aware of.

If A created everything and B exists, then A created B. If you can't understand that then you have no business discussing this.

And my point is that obviously an ancient text (such as the verse which is the subject of this thread - though you wouldn't know it reading your posts) cannot be referring to televisions - notice my underline. The fact that God does not create televisions is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The ancient text in discussion says God created everything so whether or not God created televisions is very relevant.

And until you have justified your assertion by demonstrating that your trichotomy includes every logical possibility, I see no reason to take it seriously.

Again, I can't make it any clearer than I have.

The obvious counterexample would be God Himself, who exists (arguendo), but God is not "responsible" for His own existence.

The assertion has nothing to do with God's responsibility for his own existence but it has to do with his responsibility for evil so I'm not even sure why you posted this sentence.

[Nimzo]

If A created everything and B exists, then A created B.

Firstly, that is not a Law of Logic, but a syllogism. Secondly, it is a non-sequitur because you are equivocating "things" and "things that exist". The text (at least our ye olde King James Version) does not say God created all things that exist. It says God created "all things". Since evil is not a "thing", but a moral property, you will need to search a bit harder for your elusive Law of Logic.

The ancient text in discussion says God created everything so whether or not God created televisions is very relevant.

We are discussing your post's relevance to mine - not your post's relevance to the text.

Again, I can't make it any clearer than I have.

It is rationality that is the issue, not clarity.

The assertion has nothing to do with God's responsibility for his own existence but it has to do with his responsibility for evil so I'm not even sure why you posted this sentence.

I was providing a counterexample to your assertion that "if God created everything, and something exists, then he is either directly or indirectly responsible for it". I am applying your asserted principle to the case of God's existence, which I am quite free to do to show its absurdity.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Why does the God of the Bible require learning Hebrew

Oddly, all that shit was written in Greek.

---

Proverbs was originally written in Hebrew their Toots.

---

---

I think that it is very interesting that Jesus did not write a bbok of His own. He did not need to.

Ficitional characters cannot write books of their own....they exist inside other books.

---

Jesus is a fictional character now? You really are a radical individual aren't you?

---

---

In Romans, Paul suggests that God made two pots. One was to be filled and used for righteous things and the other was to be filled with wickedness and to be ultimately destroyed.

But why even create a "wicked" pot just to destroy it? See, this is what's so stupid about Christian beliefs about God. There was never any need to create evil people and then create Hell to torture them for eternity. Why not just create good people in Heaven to kiss God's ass for eternity?

---

Simple. God is both loving and just. The only way He could demonstrate this using His creation is to demonstrate His justice by giving rebellious creatures their just punishments and giving other rebellious creatures grace by having His son atone for their sins. Makes sense to me.

[Darwinian]

The only way He could demonstrate this using His creation is to demonstrate His justice by giving rebellious creatures their just punishments and giving other rebellious creatures grace by having His son atone for their sins. Makes sense to me.

The only way? I thought he was omnipotent

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Why not create a document that is accessible to all including doubters?

Indeed.To me that is a powerful argument against the claim of sacred texts being revealed truths.

If such texts were divinely inspired universal truths they would be expressed simply and clearly without ambiguity.

Instead there are the arrogant claims of biblical scholars,priests and their institutions that they are crucial interpreters of and intercedents with God(s)

---

I am not sure by which logical basis you think that inspired texts need to be written only at a simple level. The book of John is amazingly simple and yet has beautifully written underlying complexity to it. I think you are erroneously assuming that all people contain the moral ability to come to Christ, so a lot of people who "should" have come to Christ didn't just because they didn't understand the text. I believe this is a false assumption. We see in scripture that there were people who witnessed Jesus raise a dead man to life and yet didn't believe he was the Messiah. Why is this? Is it because they didn’t have enough proof? Of course not, it's because apart from the saving grace of God man is unable to come to Christ (John 6). Jesus also said the reason he spoke in parables was to hide the truth from those whom God didn't want to reveal His kingdom (Mark 4). So I do not think scripture backs up your assumptions here.

---

---

The only way He could demonstrate this using His creation is to demonstrate His justice by giving rebellious creatures their just punishments and giving other rebellious creatures grace by having His son atone for their sins. Makes sense to me.

The only way? I thought he was omnipotent

---

*cringes at your misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of omnipotence* Logically speaking, if He created all good creatures this would not demonstrate His justice. If He had created and judged all wicked creatures this would not show is love. So the only logical way to demonstrate both with His creation (which is still consistent with the definition of omnipotence) is to do a combination of both, which He did.

[everythingafter]

Why not just create good people in Heaven to kiss God's ass for eternity?

Ahh there you go thinking again, Thomas. Remember he already created a being to kiss his ass: angels. I guess that just wasn't enough for him, so he had to create humans of whom he would demand they heap more praises on to himself, only to foreknow that millions of us would ultimately wind up in hell for not believing or for being born in other nations where Christianity is not prevalent.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Why not just create good people in Heaven to kiss God's ass for eternity?

Ahh there you go thinking again, Thomas. Remember he already created a being to kiss his ass: angels. I guess that just wasn't enough for him, so he had to create humans of whom he would demand they heap more praises on to himself, only to foreknow that millions of us would ultimately wind up in hell for not believing or for being born in other nations where Christianity is not prevalent.

---

Why do you assume that just because you don't understand why God does something a certain way it automatically makes it unjust, or proves he is not real? I don't see the logic in that at all my friend.

[tackattack]

Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


God created all things. God created me. God created evil. God created sin. God created me knowing I (and everyone) would sin. Then God sends me to hell. Fair?

I would like to hear the Christian opinion of, when looking at this verse, how me (or anyone) going to hell would be justified.

I agree God created all things, including the opportunity to sin, you and the devil and angels, etc.

Look up the work maaneh (it goes where things for himself is) and would be better translated in context like this
:The LORD hath made all things to give account unto Him: yea, even the wicked....

Which happens to fit the rest of the verses surrounding it about taking account on the judgement day.

Cherry pick much?