Damn - I knew it!

One big piece that you have excluded is that I don't have the power and controll in creation that god has. God has the ability to have exactly what he desires. It would seem to me that if he wanted a different outcome, then he could have had it.

Little playmates. LOL, that was cute.

Why didn't you respond to the point that god has the choice and we don't. That is where you analogy breaks down. Seems pretty convenient that you just overlooked that point.

DMV, the logic is still sound. Rugby has the CHOICE to not procreate and hence have a daughter. He did it anyway. So did he do it with a DESIRE for her to die? or a desire to have a child? Did God create man with a desire to be betrayed? or a desire to create something beautiful? It does not follow that if someone knows a result will occur that that result was the only motivation. If there are multiple possibilities of motivators then you would have to show how only one of these is viable.
-Shaun

Thank you Shaun, that was the point exactly.

Whether one is omnipotent or not is immaterial. The flaw in the original post, and the same flaw that I carried through my analogy is that you have not shown that - as your thread title states: "God wants to be betrayed...." is the only possible reason for Him to create Adam even knowing that Adam would be disobedient. That is the flaw in your logic.

David, you must read careful and without preconceived opinion.

In Gen.1 all was "created" by Godbut nothing was "formed" as of yet. In Gen 2 that which was created by God in Gen. 1 was "formed" by [b] Lord God[/].

Man in the image of God was created and formed. Not Adam but Man was created and formed. Woman was taken from Man to be the 'womb of man' in the image of God. No, not the ovaries but the mind of Man in which God is created, because, without the formation of God creation cannot be conceived to exist. Hence we create God and our ability to create God is visible in our procreation of Man . . . who is God even while under oblivion of the same.

Adam was created in Gen 3. and not until Man ate from the tree of knowledge. Hence Adam where are you (as if God did not know where Adam was, but the first re-cognition of the ego was made here). Adam was never 'formed', has therefore no existence of "being" and can therefore be raptured or crucified as well as insulted and charmed into existence (aroused) wherefore it is an illusion.

The plan of salvation was created in Gen 1 whith the first six days leading to the seventh in the beginning of Gen.2 which is the day on which evening did not folow the day and is where we come full circle with the Light that was created in Gen.1 on the first day (alpha and the omega). This means that we went from Light into oblivion and back to Light without oblivion (night).

This way was paved into the method in Gen. 2 10-14 where the river divides into two, and returns to be one in the end. The first two are pleasure and pain, the third is awakening and the fourth is realization. The Eu-phrates indicates 'bright-mind.'

Amos

If so, then the point was fatally flawed.

BWAHAHAHAAA!! Whether you're all-powerful or not doesn't matter.

In the context of a discussion of free will and predestination, what kind of bullshit is that??

It may not be the only possible explanation; I don't know. But what God may have wanted is irrelevant. The following facts remain:

1. God knew Adam would fail.
2. God created Adam anyhow.
3. Therefore, God decided that the birth of an entire race of immortal souls, the vast majority of which who would go to hell, was better than not to create them.

The humanitarian viewpoint, on the other hand, is that it would have been better for God to never, ever create Adam in the first place, rather than to create someone that you knew for a certainty would create a race of people, most of whom would spend an eternity in punishment.

Of course, this ignores the fact that Adam and Eve could not possibly have known that disobeying God was wrong - and therefore, any punishment placed on them is deliberately unfair.

OK, lets suppose that my logic is not correct. This however would require that god got something he didn't want. The outcome was different than he expected. Hmmm, are you willing to say that about the allknowing, all powerful god? Was he wrong about what was going to happen, was he powerless to stop it?

God gets what he wants. Do you want to argue with that?

Oh, now I see!

Like when a doctor has to give a small child a shot. Any doctor worth his salt knows that the shot could be made totally painless to the child.

1. The medicine/immunization could be given orally;
2. The doctor could use a topical anesthetic to deaden the area;
3. The doctor could use a general anesthetic to put the child to sleep first;
4. The doctor could apply a tourniquet to the area until the location is numb.

A medical tech could probably think of more, but these four demonstrate the point that the doctor could, if he chose, make the shot completely painless.

Since most doctors simply give the child a shot with no more preparation than an alcohol swipe, it is logical to believe that the only reason the doctor gives children shots is to hurt them and make them cry.

Should we now arrest all doctors for child abuse?

Rugby, you have an interesting way of avoiding the points of my post and going off on some tangent. Again, you analogy is not even close. You can't compare the abilities of a doctor to that of god. If that doctor chose to be insensitive to the child, then yes, he decided that pain for the child was ok.

Again, I ask you to argue with this if you can, if the following statement holds, then the original point of this thread is true.

God gets what he wants....

Om and DMV. No the outcome was not unexpected. Om first. Your Conclusion could also be read like this.

"3. Therefore, God decided that the birth of an entire race of immortal souls, some of whom would be with Him in heaven, was better than not to create them." (I changed souls to hell, to souls to heaven)

Your idea of humanitarian depends on your meta-ethical value system. If you work this out normatively you would probably be a hedonist. But even so you would find it difficult to provide for me one shred of rational defense for measurement of the pleasure of heaven versus the pain of hell. (which I happen to believe might simply be oblivion in the end,...thrown into the lake of fire for the second death refers to death of the soul. But of course Christ talks about eternal punishment, so (shrug).

I don't know your definition of humanitarian and upon what foundation you base it. So I'll leave that for you to respond. And Om, no it does NOT matter if God is omnipotent, as both the father having the child and God had the CHOICE to partake in the action analyzed. I'm guessing you don't understand the Free will argument? Maybe you should check up on that and get back to us regarding God's omnipotence.

DMV. No, God did not want betrayal. He tolerated it because He wanted people to co-exist with Him. He wanted to have relationships with humans. This cannot be done without a will on our part. With will comes the option of choosing that relationship or not. He was willing for those who would choose Him to be betrayed by those who would not. And those who did not choose Him received the consequences of such in the form of eternal separation from Him (what I actually believe the pain of Hell to be). Basically it's simple just desserts. They did not want to have a relationship with Him, He cannot force them to, without removing that which makes it a relationship and not ownership, and so they receive that lack of relationship for eternity.

And AGAIN the analogy is sound. The doctor inflicts the pain because he is doing long-term good for the child. And YES the doctor has the choice, as well as God had the choice to not make us.

One more thing Om, Non-existence cannot be measured against pain and pleasure. They have no relation, therefore your conclusion is illogical, even were I to accept your definition of humanitarian.
-Shaun