Godless Dave

Three birds, if Lucy was a virgin. He only has to find 71 more.

G B Mayes

Christians commonly believe that all babies that die before the age of accountability go to Heaven.
This fits roughly under the heading of the last shall be first.

Doc58: Yes, I believe the above.

I love Him. I do not understand why He would so order things, but I accept that He has the right to do so. If one flatly denies the existence of God it is a moot point. If "How do you feel about such a random God?" is a way of saying "I can't believe in any God that does not meet my sense of fairness", it is a dangerous position. If God exists, He does not go away because a creature is not happy with the creator.

The real question is not "Why does God
condemn so many to Hell and save only a few". The question is "Why does He save any?" None deserve salvation.

G B Mayes

Yes, the creator of the universe has the absolute right to determine the rules. The pot has no justification to tell the potter, "I'm not happy with what you're doing here. I should be larger, stronger. By the way, I see those shards on the floor. What right did you have to break them? My goodness I would be a better potter than you."
The potter puts the pot on the shelf and the pot calls to the darkness, "There is no potter! I am master of my destiny. I called myself into existence. No, rather bits of clay randomly came together to form me. Yeah, that's the ticket"

Godless Dave

G B, if such a god did exist I would reject him. I don't owe someone gratitude just because he or she created the universe, and I definitely don't owe them worship.

However, the Christian god's alleged attributes are not the reason for my atheism. I don't believe in benevolent gods either.

free12thinker

So let me get this straight. Because he created us, it's his way or the highway? And you find such an arrangement fair? Explain how you find it fair? Because, you do realize, that in the midst of creating us, he created imperfect poeple (at least by his standards). Follow the logic if you care to:

I equate this to parents who have kids and keep them on a short leash. Well I have a daughter, but never will I be arrogant enough to assume that just because my wife and I brought her into this world, she should have to follow my every rule. And by the way, my daughter is not the pot to my potter. She has a mind. She has ambitions. We all do.

It would even appear that we have intelligence. Women have ambitions and goals beyond pro-creation and knitting. Their SAT scores certainly make them eligible for higher scale jobs than those alloted by the creator. Did he create them, with such intelligence, only to ask them to sit back and watch?

And homosexuals have sexual tendencies. Are they granted by their creator, who in turn said that these tendencies will not be tolerated? And why aren't they tolerated? Or better yet, why were they given such tendencies. Or did the devil give them such tendencies. Is it sinful because it does not lead to pro-creation? Does that mean that only sex with pro-creation is tolerated? There's a million other questions just like this.

But bottom line: I'll wait for your justification in stating that the creator can have complete control, even as they whom he/she created were created with a mind and ambitions. If there is a God and he has complete control, and we are made to follow or pay the price, against reason and logic adapted by humanity and our own minds and free will, than he indeed is the "Evil Master of Puppets". Give them great minds and watch as they fumble my wishes. HA HA HA HA

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

doc58

GB Mayes,
I really appreciate the fact that you honestly and directly answered my question. Most Christians
are unwilling to confront the stark horribleness of their beliefs and admit them openly. Oh and thanks for not using the free will argument. AT least you are consistent in your Calvinism in not believing in free will.

Your divine prerogative argument is a great way to shut off all discussion because if you believe it, it allows you to see God as someone who can rightly do the most horrendous of things which is exactly what he does in the Bible.

By divine prerogative God, in the O.T.,
1) Makes a law that an unmarried women must marry her rapist.
2) Says that a women may need to produce evidence of virginity to save her life even though no such thing exists.
3) God says that a person will receive no punishment for beating a slave so that he is bedridden for days since the slave is only property.
4) Creates light and plants before the sun.
5) Commands genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide and allows rape of captured women.
6) Says a women with uterine cancer(causing irregular bleeding) is an outcast sinner who must constantly bring sin offerings for because of the bleeding.
7) Says that poeple with congenital defects cannot go to church(temple) even though He caused the defect.
8) Says a brother must have sex with his deceased siblings wife.
This only scratches the surface.
Must really make you feel good to worship a God who exercises His prerogatvies in this way.


GB, Suppose there is a God and a heaven and hell just as you say.
I certainly don't want to go to hell and would prefer to spend eternity in heaven with God and loved ones. I lived a Christain life for over 40 years and enjoyed it. Don't mind it a bit. I always enjoyed the singing and worship. The problem is that through reading the Bible and studying the Bible I find myself without belief. I prayed that God wouldn't let it happen. I wanted to continue to believe. But here I stand without belief. You say that my only hope is for God to cause me to have faith. Its ok with me if He does except that I don't believe he is there.
I cannot force myself to believe anymore than I can choose to believe in Zeus. Now you believe in a GOd who could easily cause me to have faith. Why won't he in my case?
I am not angry or mad at anybody or any God who I don't even think is there, I don't "sin" more since I lost my faith. So what do I do. Pray the unbelievers prayer? OK, done. Seek God? Ok, done although you believe Romans when it says I can't. You say I am self deceiving? Ok, I don't want to be. Only your God can stop it. Why won't He?

Atticus_Finch

You are not being logical. You assert that foreknowledge requires dictation of a script. That is not logical. One could know what is going to happen without causing it to happen.

Regards,

Finch

Koyaanisqatsi

How? We're not talking about a lucky guess, we're talking about the foreknowledge of every single possible thought and combination thereof from millions of people that all have free will to act independently (and therefore, without God's knowledge)?

How could God possibly know "everything" without either having programmed it to begin with or being subordinate to something "higher" than himself?

Who is being illogical?

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Kenny

No. <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle2.html" target="_blank">Here’s another one</a>. Craig’s Middle knowledge position holds that God created the world in such a way that insures circumstances will arise so that all who can be saved are saved. All those who do not receive the Gospel would not have under any possible circumstances. This means that God would have insured that Lucy had either heard the Gospel at some prior time or prevented the accident. Might this amount to God’s interfering with the truck driver’s freewill?, maybe – there’s nothing in the Bible that indicates that God doesn’t interfere with human freedom from time to time in order to accomplish higher purposes, in fact, it says the opposite – but not necessarily. I’m sure there are a number of ways the accident could be prevented (making the truck driver trip earlier in the day so he’s 2 seconds later than he would have been, making his truck stall, etc.). If the accident occurs, then it is because Lucy would not have responded to the Gospel anyway. Note: I’m not saying I agree with this position – it’s just another possibility.

Actually, both Calvinists and Armenians who hold to classical omnipotence and omniscience believe that God allows certain evils so that higher goods might result. They just differ on what those higher goods are. Freewill advocates argue that freewill is a high enough value to justify God’s not interfering with it in a number of situations where evil results (but not necessarily all situations – sometimes there might still be greater values that override preservation of freewill). Calvinists believe those values have to do with God’s sovereign purposes in history and His purposes in election (and, perhaps, freewill factors in as well – Calvinism does not have to mean the rejection of all meaningful conceptions of freewill).

This person was engaging in speculation which is unwarranted, and, I would add, Biblically forbidden (see Duet. 29:29).

All Christian denominations which hold to classical omniscience and omnipotence must, if they are logically consistent, acknowledge that in some sense God pre-ordained all things given that God created the world knowing how everything would turn out. The debate lies in the details of just exactly what causal role God played, and how exactly God’s foreknowledge relates to the world. In any event, we are simply back to the classical problem of evil at this point, and the response is that God allows certain evils so that greater goods might result.
Most Calvinists would deny that God chooses “arbitrarily” and that there was a good reason why He chose as he did. That reason is simply unknown to us as humans and had nothing to do with individual choice or merit.

Whether Calvinism or Armenian theology is true, I know that I am a sinner saved by God’s grace, that I justly deserved eternal punishment, and that God mercifully, out of His freely bestowed love and compassion for me, without owing me a thing, chose to rescue me from this state through the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf, and that He has changed my heart and life as a result. The only appropriate, only natural response, is that I love Him in return and give Him my life, not to get anywhere or score brownie points in the hope of obtaining salvation (because it’s already guaranteed), but out of sheer gratitude for what He has done for me.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

Actually, I am a compatiblist. I believe in freewill, but not in a sense that is incompatible with determinism. However, I don’t think your argument shows that a libertarian notion of freewill is incompatible with classical omniscience. A middle knowledge position, like the one espoused by Craig in the article I linked to above, holds that God can know future contingencies. In other words, what free creatures will do determines what God foreknows, not the other way around. Here’s another interesting article from Craig on this position where he links philosophical discussions concerning the possibility of time travel to the issue of divine foreknowledge.

<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tachyons.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tachyons.html</a>

God Bless,
Kenny

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>