Movie: "God on Trial"

True. Does someone saying the words "I love you" mean they love you. Or does their loving you mean they love you. Empty words are just that.

As you will. The trouble is that as a blind person (or so the theology goes) you cannot believe in the consequences that will follow in order to be motivated this way or that in your choosing. Besides, what kind of choice would it be to be presented with eternal torment or eternal bliss (although I'm sure theres some or other braveheart out there who'd be dumb enougn.. )And so an alternative set up for choice is involved - namely your desire to be "right" or not. That's an area you can chose about, without having to believe in God's existance.

There is no right answer involved. The choice is yours, whichever it is is right for you.What other repercussions are there?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Enable :to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize.God not acting to prevent doesn't enable. To enable would be to make positive contribution to... Sin is what makes positive contributon to - not God.I know it's a semantic (since without God sustaining the environment in which sin occurs there could be no sin) but it's an important distinction. It means the murderer is culpable, not God.- I'm not dealing with babies/idiots in this thread (given that there's problem sufficient dealing with adults). Given that, who are you talking of as being innocent? 1) We don't know for sure who's lost and who's not in order to comment in any particular case (although I found Stalins daughters account of his last moments: struggling upright to wave his fist at the heavens just before expiring somewhat spine-tingling)2) Basic Christian theology tells you that no one can redeem themselves no matter how long they live. All need the redemption supplied to man by God through his son, Jesus Christ. It also tells you that God wants that none should perish so we might assume that all are given sufficient chance to avail of his offer before they die.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

There would be two tiers of desire involved. Tier 1 is God's desire that we would chose what it is we want. Tier 2 would be God's desire that we choose him. Tier 1 receives priorityWhilst agreeing that God would prefer we choose him, the set up of the choice would focus on ensuring tier 1 operates- Does the above illuminate? The answer that God prefers isn't relevant to the choice offered.- Why is it bad?What isn't revealed at the outset is the fullest consequences for either choice. But consequences are revealed in part in this life. Our choices for evil bring with them negatives (eg: a guilty conscience) and our choices for good bring with them positives (eg: a clear conscience). What does it matter that the fullest of consequences in both directions aren't fully revealed so long as there is a balance offered in the choice offered.Given tier 1 desire, that we make a choice, a choice ending in Hell is as satisfactory to God as is a choice for Heaven. And it should be satisfactory to us to - given that it was balanced and we made it.I wouldn't let the fact of the consequences detract from the uppermost concern - that our will be done. How can someone find their will being done bad? How does God make it more likely if the choice is balanced in both directions.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A least that strawgod has been put to bed- I wouldn't say slaying sinners is benevolent, I'd say it's just. We might disagree on the level of response to wrongdoing but I'm sure we agree that wrongdoing should attract sanctionI'm not sure I see any argument allowing me to conclude malevolent here. All that all men being sinners tells us is that all men are deserving of sanctionNot that that means a man put to death is a man condemned to Hell btw.- God does kill everyone at some point (by omission or commission) but that's probably not what you meant.I don't believe God wants to kill everyone (in the way he wiped out with the flood for example).- I meant it in the just-ness sense. All are worthy of it - whether it fits Gods purposes to take them out of the game now or later notwithstanding. Myself, I can't see a whole lot of difference between living 20 years > Hell and 4 score years > Hell. Fair enough - although I'm not quite sure how anyone could overlook the wrath of the biblical God. Perhaps omni-benevolence is as limited as omni-potence - it can do all that can be done in it's own department but cannot do the logically impossible. For example: making square circles or being merciful to those who refuse mercy.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Make. A verb incidcating "positive activity unto". Activity rather than passivity. And so.. Allows - check
Condones - uncheck
Permits - check
Helps - uncheck
Authorises - uncheck
Enables - uncheckI think the division between "positive assist" and "not preventing" is clear enough.

Again you presume your case made without so much a lifting a finger to make it.- I'm not sure I understand your argument. If this is an accurate report of what took place then there is nothing anti-semitic about it. If you're suggesting it isn't accurate reporting and that words are put in mouths then you need to support that position - since the anti-semitic claim is made by you.There is no Christian defence presented as such. Just a Christian awaiting a prosecution case.- To unravel:1) God placed conditions "don't eat or else"2) God doesn't have to ask our permission to set conditions. He owns us and can set any condition he likes.3) His one true route isn't in any way affected by the fact that blind men can't see it. You see, it's his job to save us, not ours.- If measuring yourself according to the Biblical standard? Surely not! As if that alters anything. Yet you wouldn't hope God stops you committing the sins you'll commit today. Wherein the problem perhaps: your less that complete appreciation of holiness. So let me illustrate: as far as God is concerned, you and Hitler are like two grains of sand on the beach with you pointing out that you're ever so much closer to the moon (if closeness to it reflected your level of goodness) than Hitler.You might not like it but that's the position.- Start cranking up the desire level until the "simply not right" restraint is overcome.I'm not saying there aren't other things that will stop us doing wrong, I'm saying that the buck stops, if it is ever going to stop, at suffering.- But God wants to punish wrongdoing. It's a function of holiness - something which he cannot change about himself. Solutions that involve God making square circles and the like aren't solutions. Punishment satisfies Gods wrath and it is his satisfaction that should be uppermost in your mind.- To forgive means to pay the cost of the offence yourself. God offers to do that in Christ. If that is rejected then there is no need to revisit it. To do so would be to discount a persons sovereign choice: the one they have already made.- The rules aren't either arbitrary or obscure. Everyone ever born has a conscience (a knowledge of good and evil). And everyone ever born has access to the exact same set of rules.I'd note that we are eternal creatures, living in a bubble within an eternal realm, who sin against other eternal creatures and an eternal God. What basis is there for supposing punishment being carried out in any other currency?- Gods intention for man is that man become children of God. Of like order. That is lofty intent indeed. One aspect of that is the primacy of personhood (hence God's dim view on a person taking anothers life). It's a sign of the heights a person can be lifted to that they can be allowed to sink into such depravity.- You would agree that your belief wouldn't alter things if they are indeed true?- Did you notice my saying "in so far as it is commandeered.." If you take the arguments as they are applied to the Jewish god in the film and criticise the biblical God with same then you're at crossed purposes.You're mixing up your gods.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Okay, Okay! God enables murder in the non-contributory sense of the word. He doesn't enable in the positive contributory sense of the word.And? It's a matter of focus. Infants and idiots are usually wheeled out to circumvent the justness of sin (i.e. your sin) being punished. If we ever get around to agreement on that issue then by all means we can have a look a babies and idiots.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The first half of what you quote sees me state a theological position. Man blind = he cannot see in order to evaluate. That blindness stems from the Fall so any choice set up by God subsequent to that needs to take account of mans blindness. It's not so much intentional as necessitated - given the situation 'as God finds it'.As it happens, the part-veiling of the consequences of choice (positive and negative) results in it being an (arguably) balanced choice. If more knowledge of repercussions was to be given then he'd have to have ensured that didn't skew the balanced nature of the choice.I'm inclined to assume God, in working with the situation as he found it post-Fall, intended that there be balance .. above all else.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I dunno.To the degree you strip away a free choice you reduce our humanity. Perhaps the free-est of choices x only 10% people saved gives a greater overall happiness level than a-less-free-choice x 50% saved - the latter folks humanity having been diluted in qualitative worth in the process.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Much ado, CF. Your only-benevolent angle can be laid to one side now.- A just God is one who ensures justice is done at some point (I would have thought). I don't see it as unjust to allow free will to express itself. What people would prefer is neither here nor there. The issue is God and his being just. If he decides to balance the scales in one fell swoop at the end of all history then what of it? Why would anyone point a gun at someone anymore? They might as well just shake their fist. Hasn't this solutiion effectively manacled up the will by removing any means of expression (unto evil)?- Perhaps. But in the context of a debate forum the usual approach is to support your position with reasoned argumentation.Malevolent = spiteful. Killing all isn't necessarily motivated by spite (or any other negative thing).Your turn.- Ditto above.- I don't mean this as a slight CF but you sound like you're either irritated or weary of debate. The above is patent nonsense in the face of intelligent discussion on the subject on both sides.My suspicion is that you are using a definition of omni-benevolence which means only-benevolence (in the same way as folk often use omni-potence to mean God can do simply anything at all)I'd imagine the actuality of the debate involves something slightly more nuanced - such as hating evil being good (something many can agree with)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Of course.- But God does consult us. Now it might not be in the manner you yourself would demand but no matter - as long as it is (and can be shown to be finally) our will which does the deciding.The mechanism appears to be pretty simple in fact.1) We are equipped with a knowledge of good and evil (our believing or not in that as stemming from God being irrelevant)2) We respond to it's promptings all day every day - in word, thought and deed. We clearly can't choose not to respond.3) Our will-expression is placed into a rolling-algorithm (as it were) which outputs the result finally: saved or no. The algorithm doesn't affect the fact that our will is determines the final result.4) The result: saved/unsaved is a reflection of what it is we have loved - or better said, to what we have clung to at the point of the fat lady singing (which may before the point of death but not after). "Our clinging to" is an outworking of will expression.-ps: Sorry for leaving our other discussion to one side for the moment - I've gotten a bit tied up here.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What more does he need? As you might expect, he acts according to his character so he won't do certain things and will do other things. One of those characteristics is goodness - which means even the nasty things are aimed at achieving good purposes - including:- discipline
- punishment
- restraining evildoing
- growth
- warning
- salvationAll these things are good things to my mind.- Er.. no. Sorry about the sentence's brevity.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Then you haven't grasped what a fuller knowledge of the environment of Heaven and the environment of Hell would do to the average unbelievers choice. They wouldn't be an unbeliever for one..- Eliminate free choice and you eliminate the person. Which means there is no point in making the person. But if there is no person to speak of you can't say it's better for the person that they never exist (other than as a figure of speech). There would be no person for it to be better for.It would seem the definition of a person requires the level of free choice we have. Limit that and we might be like dogs or something. There's enough of them already probably.