luvluv

Golliath:

I've been through this hash with most of the people in this discussion which is why I didn't explicitly make this case.

Short version: If freedom is a virtue in and of itself, then any other virtue, in order to be held in it's highest possible form, must be chosen freely.

In other words if omnibenevolence means the maximization of goodness, then God cannot use force as a means to bring about virtue since virtues created thusly would, by definition, be less good than virtues chosen freely. So if God is interested in producing the most possible good, we would expect a world in which free moral choice was possible.

So if I can be stopped from striking you not out of my own restraint or out of agape-love, but merely by the force of your prayer, then it would be impossible for me to reach my highest good in such a world.

Something like that...

Goliath

luvluv,

First of all, before even backing up your quoted assertion, could you explain exactly what it means for one world to have a greater amount of good than another world? How do you know that this relation is a partial ordering instead of a linear ordering? How do you know there is such a thing as a world that has a maximum amount of good?

Sincerely,

Goliath

lpetrich

A classic item of apologist "reasoning" is that there is no such thing as guilt by omission, though these Defenders of the Faith seldom make it explicit.

This is because an omnipotent entity would be responsible for EVERYTHING that happens, by omission as well as by commission.

Fatherphil, Magus55, Spurly, Radorth, etc., consider this scenario:

You are driving along and you hit a small child. You get put on trial for negligent homicide and you offer the defense that you are completely innocent, since you had not changed you car's speed or direction as you approached that child.

Would any sensible court of law take that defense seriously?

winstonjen

If you consider the "Passive crimes aren't crimes" view to be true, I suppose they would.

lpetrich

Radorth:
... it's the old "A good God would have zapped them" argument. I've already ponted out that, taken to it's logical implication, this argument requires God to be a policeman waith 10,000 arms or some kind of zap guns reaching all over the world and solving every problem we choose to create.

What Radorth describes is not impossible for an entity that allegedly has a plan for each individual human being -- 6 billion plans that he has to juggle! And since the God of the Bible is described as punishing various sinners in this world, Radorth's scenario is not as absurd as he tries to make it out to be.

And do we choose to create bad weather or earthquakes or floods or fires or plague organisms? Does Radorth think that all the SARS victims woke up one day and said, "I think I want to become sick with SARS"? And if someone sadistically rapes and murders his daughter, will he conclude that his daughter brought it on herself and that god allowed it to happen for whatever perverse reason?

Yes, he could do that, but you see, it does not achieve his goal, which is a kingdom of willing servants he can trust implicitly.

An omnipotent being who needs servants? Pardon me while I laugh.

We are indebted to one commentator (Christian?) who said he would rather have ten willing soldiers under his command than a hundred conscripts.

Pointless.

Do you want a world full of people motivated by love and righteousness, or just let them be unrighteousness and control them with fear?

Why not make people completely virtuous?

And where does it end? Should he zap women on their way to abortion clinics? Should he give mild shock treatments to women porn shp owners until the close up.

Or reprogramming them so they won't be interested in getting abortions or running porn shops.

As to the free-will defense, would Radorth smugly refuse to keep some loser from raping his daughter, on the ground that it would be wrong to deprive her rapist of Free Will?

lpetrich

Radorth:
Or that he doesn't work miracles for people who would rebell anyway, or let people make bad choices and expect God to bail them out.

Like become a victim of things that are not your fault?

Radorth, if someone was raping your daughter, would you smugly conclude that your daughter, and only your daughter, was to blame?

But I suppose you think he should let you drink all you want, and just replace your liver on demand.

Or give us an alcohol-proof liver. Which ought not to be impossible for an omnipotent being.

Simply consider how the Islamic Paradise features wine without adverse side effects.

lpetrich

Yes, I've seen "A Nice Place To Visit." It's about a street criminal who gets shot by a cop and who ends up in a very nice place where he gets a fancy car, is able to pick up every woman he hits on, gets to win all the card games.

After a while, he starts getting bored, and he asks Pip, the place's caretaker, what it is like in that "other place".

To which Pip responds:

You ARE in that "other place"!!!

Which makes one wonder if Heaven can really exist.

winstonjen

Well, given that the Almighty has decided (in his great wisdom) not to intervene, who is lowly Rad to usurp his god's "Grand Plan (TM)"?

schu

My question, which goes to the OP, hasn't been close to being answered. That there are other passages that say other things seems unimportant in the face of this being an absolute statement made by JC himself.

"ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER YOU SHALL ASK IN PRAYER, BELIEVING, YOU SHALL RECEIVE." (MATTHEW 21:22)

Do xians just get to choose whichever statements they like regardless of absolute statements like this? Can they ignore what you don't like in favor of other passages that they like better? What do you do about conflicting statements? Doesn't JC's statements take precedence over those of say Paul or others?

Radorth states that more xian prayers are answered than those of atheists. Well, if the Bible is correct, and this passage is correct, than all of the xian's prayers should be answered, not just MORE. If this passage is true, everyone, xian who didn't receive what they ask for in prayer should consider themselves unbelievers. If the passage is correct, it shouldn't matter if the prayer was a child being raped or one asking for candy. The statement is not qualified except that the prayer must believe.

Just because xians feel that this absolute statement is true shouldn't have any effect on the results of prayer unless the statement IS NOT true. In which case why would anyone have faith that anything else JC said was true.

MrDarwin

luvluv, thank you for trying to inject some calm levelheadedness into the discussion, but this is not about the PoE. My question was (1) whether Christians--most, some, or all--believe that God answers every prayer (or at least sincere prayers by believers). I've seen more than one Christian assert this, but I'd like some explanation and discussion, or at least qualification. My question was also (2) whether any Christians believe God answered the specific prayers of Lesley Ann Downey. Radorth, to his credit, gave a direct answer: no. And luvluv, it sounds like you're answering "no" also. Most other Christians avoid answering the question entirely. And my final question was (3) whether Lesley Ann--or any other Christian, for that matter--might be damned for losing his or her faith on having the perception (rightly or wrongly) that a sincere prayer was not answered.