Movie: "God on Trial"

He made us in order that he might do what we want with us from the options offered. Those options lie at the extremes: cleaved to God (without whom we cannot live) or separated from God (without whom we cannot live) You are free to continue on the path you are born into: criticising, hating, rejecting God (and others and yourself). And free to start anew in the manner he intended you for.It's true that there is a lmiited number of choices presented you but since it consists of the very best and the very worst of existances you can appreciate the honour bestowed you.You truly are in the top percentile of created beings when it comes to the potential offered you. You could be thankful for that honour at least.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

So you settled for anger instead maybe. A lower* tier expression of will but an expression of will all the same. If you willed to ramp that up to murder then there was nothing (except your will) stopping you. Free will means you can do it if you want to. It doesn't mean there won't be any consequences for your doing it. If you choose to weigh up the consequences and decide against then that too is a free expression of your will.God finds mind bullets murderous btw. The same heart that shoots those would shoot live bullets were there a chance of getting away without negative consequences. It's the thought* that counts - there's hardly merit in your motivation for not murdering being the fact you might get caught.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Factually wrong:He made us in order that he might do what WE want with us.There is no 'should' about your being grateful. If you don't believe there is no 'should' about being thankful to someone you have no reason to be thankful to. If you are a believer you should be grateful for his having saved you from the consequences of your sin and the fact that blissful eternal life has already started.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed. Whatever his purpose was in making us is his to determine. Our basis sense of ownership rights tells us that.- This 'royal we' allied to "should" is problematic. It implies (and is derived from) a moral dimension. If your moral compass is calibrated correctly (let's say for arguments sake mine is as a Christian) then the 'should/should not' line is clear for me to see and work in relation to. I should do ... because I've signed up for it.If your moral compass is wonky - let's say for arguments sake your's is as an unbeliever - then you should still do what your moral compass says - it's just that it might not be what you should do (in an absolute sense.I don't think someone should be thankful/non critical just for being here. If, for example, it was known that God's purpose for me was eg: only to harm me then I'd spend all the time I could telling him what a git he is - since that is what my moral compass informs me to do.- I wouldn't let the fact I've been thrown a fiew bones divert me from the larger negative picture if that was my view. 'Should' implies a moral dimension - it's for you to weigh up what you should do with the moral equipping you've got.Should you refer what you should do to what God says you should do? Since he's given you a choice in that matter then clearly not necessarily.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

God doesn't create people with the intention of them living in agony for a spell, anymore than he creates them with the intention of them living in agony for all eternity.Creating them knowing what will occur (through the mechanism of omniscience*) isn't the same as creating them with the intention that what will occur, will occur.*assuming the mechanism of omscience isn't deterministic.-The offer of salvation balances up the fact that some will spend eternity in torment - the opportunity to criticise God on this score is neutralised and as a result shouldn't be done (shouldn't in the 'shouldn't be irrational' sense I mean, not shouldn't in the moral sense.)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Not the most auspicious of starts..Welcome to EvC julzabro

It's not 'seems preferable' to another. It is factually preferable to another. In which case the utter skewedness of the choice destroys the notion of free choice*Would you say the choice to eat fresh fillet steak and the choice to eat a rotting fillet steak is a free choice.? I wouldn't. You might get someone to freely choose to eat the rotten - but only by addition of some or other skewing attraction, such as a large sum of money.- Good. A core aspect of personhood is (in this context) moral free will. Indeed it does. And in the case of something like an animal I'd consider the infliction of same unjust.The will being the seat of the person and the personhood being respected (even at the cost of it choosing to be confined in misery) salves my concern.The issue is whether the choice is a fair one and as far as I am concerned, the offer is a truly balanced one - what is to be desired (good or evil) has it's full fruit veiled on both sides of the equation. I don't believe (not do I think it arguable) that you can increase the knowledge of full fruit on both sides without upsetting that balance.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Perhaps we can move on by calling it a free balanced choice? One which is presented in such a way so as not to skew the result by virtue of the desireability offered this way or that.- Assuming I knew his free choice wasn't being unbalanced by eg: mental illness (which I assume it would be in this case), then hopefully I wouldn't interfere. What right have I to interfere with the free, balanced choice of another? Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's probably because you'dve the idea in the back of your mind that the guy was a sandwich short of a picnic. I mean what possible other reason could someone have for sticking an ice-pick in their leg.In answering I'm assuming the choice is actually true and balanced (by what, I do not know). And whilst that might not appear obvious to you, the position is at least rationally grounded: where does the right to interfere come from.- Hopefully a not too worn wolf Thanks for the good-natured discussion too.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

There's a difference creating and knowing bad things will occur and creating with the intention that bad things will occur. Either the future is open (my suggestion) or it's closed (the deterministic view).You're supposing it's the latter of necessity.You need to think of examples where rightful ownership is at play. Not terrorists with guns.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is a very longwinded way of re-stating the basis for your holding the account anti-semetic. You don't believe it - or whole swathes of the gospel accounts - are an accurate historical statement of what occurred. Ergo - anti-semetic.I, on the other hand, do believe it's an accurate account of what took place. Hence not anti-semetic. How would you propose moving past such a stalemate?-On second thoughts, let's not bother. A brief glance down the rest of your post gives a sense of the spirit of the discussion as you'd seem to want to partake of it. I've no appetitie for weaving through your patent annoyance/frustration/anger myself.Over and out on this one Granny.

Dreampt up. How very Irish sounding*.- Okay. A baseless choice. A reasonless choice. Commonly known as a guess. It's balanced in the sense that there is nothing on either side to make you swing this or that way. And you are free to make it.Thus a free, balanced guess-choice. Not quite the kind of choice under discussion though.- If I tell you that box A contains delicious food and box B contains rotten food then I have destroyed the balanced aspect of what was previously, for all intents and purposes, a guess.And have produced a free, unbalanced push-choice-We can see from the above that there are varieties around the word choice. What we're considering in the case of God is a choice that is free, contains information on both sides - something to attract this way and something to attract that way. In balanced fashion.We're not considering something that is guaranteed to have any sane person choose this way over that - everytime. Nor something that's the equivilent of pinning a tail on a donkey.-*It doesn't appear that you could spell dreamt as dreampt by accident. If so no offence - it's just that that's the way it's spoken in Oireland.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

IF the Jews killed Christ (per gospel account) THEN Paul is merely developing that same factual theme. You're back to belief vs. unbelief regarding the historicity of the account. Paul vs. you this time. You've not moved your argument forward one jot.

quote:

---

2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
1 Thessalonians 2;14-16

---

Assuming Paul is basing his writing on fact, where's the hate-speech?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

They are indeed. It's just that your argument appears to be built on a version of benevolence suggestive of only-benevolence, i.e. wrath and benevolence are mutually exclusive.Now I haven't delved into it much, but since the biblical God is clearly wrathful, I seriously doubt that your version of benevolence is the utilised in theodicies involving the biblical God.- The choice to do evil needs to terminate in deed in order for that choice to be properly and fully registered as such. It's one thing to decide to murder a child and to make your way to it's room with that intent - it's quite another to stick a knife in it's chest.The cops might get there first. So too might the decision to murder be averted on the sight of the gurgling, smiling child. No, no, choice must be actioned in order to be fully expressed.(Our legal systems recognise this btw. The penalties for murder being other than those applying to conspiracy to murder.)-

quote:

---

Because that's not justice.

---

I'll await your response to the need for free will to be actioned.- The free will of those who do evil can be interfered with. The cops might come (and God might be the source of the reason they come). The bible makes clear that God does intervene in wordly affairs - but that's not the same as him being required to intervene to prevent all evil all the time.There is a larger purpose at play here, larger than whether good people die young. That purpose is the issue of each individuals salvation. Free will expressed unto evil - as well as good - can be utilised by God as a lever in that purpose.We see this in the story of Joseph. What his brothers intended for evil, God worked to good in positioning Joseph at the head of Pharoahs government. Positioned thus, to come Israels aid in time of famine. An example of evil used for a larger good.- I would agree that God produces harm. I wouldn't agree that God produces evil (spitefulness, that other definition of malevolent, being evil).You're back to figuring out how God killing folk is evil.- Sorry Crashfrog - I misunderstood. What I intended to describe as "nonsense" was the notion that Christians involved in the theodicy debate didn't know their bibles. They do and they are aware (and wouldn't simply dismiss) the wrath of God. Therefore their understanding of the concept of God's benevolence would not be the only-benevolent view seemingly propagated by you.-As for this? It's worse here! I'd warrant that a tad more than 60% of (predominantly Catholic) Ireland would answer "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" when asked what the gospel is.Christianity branched into Christendom early on. It's not new news.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It's not a guess but it isn't exactly a balanced choice of positive/negatives either. I can't suppose a normal individual would chose living for a week on sugar (much as I love Jelly Beans myself).Would it suit things to suppose the person has a humdinger of a sweet tooth? Something that would sway the balance more towards the sugar - so that the positives and negatives are truly balanced? Okay (although I don't suppose you'd have to lace it with anything to acheive stomach cramps if a weeks survival is the task at hand)- Assuming* we've balanced the original wholesome/junkfood choice (eg: with the addition of the sweettooth) then I'd tell the person about this hidden downside. The hidden downside attachs to only one of the options, effectively skewing the choice out of balance.A free unbalanced choice, like a free, balanced guess, limits true freewill expression and so I consider it my moral duty to intervene.-*if we don't assume the choice balanced prior to the addition of the poison element then adding poison only makes it more unbalanced.Edited by iano, : No reason given.