Is Lucifer really evil?

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

Your post implies that the world SHOULD NOT be treated like garbage.
That there IS a way that the world SHOULD be treated.
The way things OUGHT to be. An objective standard for not what IS
but rather what SHOULD. In other words: Objective Morality.

If Morality is Relative than your argument that God treats the world
less so than it deserves is ultimately meaningless as right or wrong
simply becomes a difference of opinion.

But I think it is quite clear that you do NOT see God's treatment
of the world as unjust to be merely "your opinion". Rather
you believe it to be OBJECTIVELY morally wrong.
That it is NOT how the world SHOULD be.

But where then is your moral foundation that it is wrong?
Who or What decides what IS right or wrong? Good or Evil?

If you say God is evil because God does not follow His own laws
then you run into the problem of a Just law created by an unjust God.
Now of course an evil person can quite easily DO good deeds so this
may not seem like such a problem upon first glance.
However if God is the author of the objective moral standard
that which you judge God to be evil then what makes the
objective moral standard authored by an evil God not evil itself?

If however you say God is evil because of an objective
moral standard outside of God then what need is there
for God or anyone for that matter to be good anyways?
If we should be good for goodness sake then the question
soon becomes...Why? So we don't harm others?
Why do that? So that we "treat others the way we
want to be treated" but why bother doing so if
we can simply use might to decide how we are treated?
If there is no Law Giver and Law Enforcer and Law Judger
then how can you truly have a law?
What are the CONSEQUENCES to NOT obeying the moral law
if there is no author to the moral law to give, enforce and judge by it?
And if there are no consequences to such an objective morality
outside of God then what good it is to us anyways?

Finally if you say that Objective Morality is what WE decide
is good and what is bad then Objective Morality is just as
corrupt and prone to failure as any other system we create
and again it holds no real meaning. Plus who would "we"
be? The majority? What if the majority said "slavery is good"?
A select minority? What is then the criterion for selection?
And again if one can simply use might to enforce their own
way then why bother with the morality others decided?

So putting it all together...

You say God is evil because God treats the world as garbage.

Thus implying God should NOT treat the world as garbage.

However...

If God is evil and made the moral law that the world should
not be treated as garbage then what makes the moral law
that the world should not be treated as garbage moral?

If God is evil and there is a moral law existing independent of God
that the world should not be treated as garbage then what
need or obligation is there for an Evil God to follow such a moral law
as there would be no real consequence to NOT following the moral law.
And if there is no real consequence then what is the moral law worth?
Furthermore what is the difference between such an "objective"
moral law which has no power in of itself and moral relativism?

Finally if God is evil according to a moral standard we have
created/decided that treating the world as garbage is evil then
again what good are own standards if we cannot enforce them
on ourselves much less on a higher being such as God?

Since Objective Moral Values cannot exist on their own
without being completely useless and arbitrary then
they there must be someone who can and will Justly
1. Give 2. Enforce and 3. Judge by
The Objective Moral Law.

However in order to Justly do these 3 things
the Just Giver, Enforcer and Judge must not
be unjust themselves or else there is no
VALUE to a "just" law by an unjust author.
The value cannot come from outside the source
of authorship as then it cannot be justly enforced
and Judged and the author itself must be Just
to Justly Enforce and Judge a "Just" Law.


If we accept Objective Morality as being true
we must conclude that not only is there a Moral Law Giver
but one who's nature MUST be one of being good and just in of itself.

Therefore an Evil God cannot exist in a world with Objective Morality.

So then if an Evil God cannot exist in a world with Objective Morality
and we live in such world and Objective Morality outside of a Good
God is without meaning then that would mean there is a God who is good.

However this still leaves us with the problem of evil:
Particular why does a Good God murder innocent people?

It does no good to say the people weren't innocent
regardless if they were or not because the fact is
innocent people DO die and an all powerful God
and all knowing God cannot be unaware of this fact.

So has God violated his own law? If God has then God is evil
according to God's own law but then would mean the law
was created by an unjust God making the law itself unjust.

But clearly murder IS wrong and it is just to NOT murder.
So then how does a Good God murder innocent people?

He doesn't. That is if we understand what murder actually is.
God, by definition has never and can never actually commit murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.

Key word here. "Unlawful". Therefore if someone is killed
lawfully. It is NOT murder. So is God's unlawfully killing people?

To answer we must go further into what it means to murder.
Murder is unlawful killing. So what then is killing?

Killing means that you cause the death of someone.
But how does one cause death? By taking away their life.

Killing is the lawful taking of life.
Murder is the unlawful taking of life.

But what makes one lawful and the other not?

1. Situation
2. Authority

1. Situation--If someone tries to murder (read: unlawfully kill you)
you have the right to lawfully kill them. That is self defense.

2. Authority--An executioner has the authority (or rather the state does)
to kill criminals. Authority means you are in a position to decide such things.

God certainly can and does take life. But God also has the
Authority to do so. Even in the case of innocents dying.
Why? Because if God exists then we were made by God
and thus we belong to God. So then how can God
steal life that belonged to God in the first place?

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by Akatsuki_Fighter

@ Vivi (catchy username, btw)

About your last response to me, I'm not just using "God says" stuff and I'm not saying we should believe something because "it is written" or whatever, but if it checks out, then it does have merit. I myself don't know if we would have had as much understanding without that happening, but we were not mindless or blindly following God. God hardly kept us in the dark. He shared the world with Adam and Eve and gave them authority. He also let them clearly know what the fruit was and what the consequences were. "The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. But the Lord God warned him, 'You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden--except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die" (Genesis 2:15-17).
Here's a verse that says Satan's a killer: "For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

Where does it say God committed the first murder. Cain committed the first murder against his brother Abel, the first kids of Adam and Eve. Yeah, God killed people. If you've read my previous responses (I know I'm not very good at making them short n' sweet, sorry), I don't know much of anything about the Old Testament. I've been reading the New more than Old, but it's about time I read the Old too. But I am still aware of the bloody history contained in its pages. I've also said before that I understand some of why God killed people, specifically Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood, but I got nothin' for anything else, especially the cases that you mentioned, Vivi. I still trust that God is a just God, though, and I will search for an answer, cause like you said Vivi, killing unjustly and making a law against it is just plain hypocritical and wrong.

Still, though, the title "narcissist" should be given to Luci, not God. Luci had much favor with God, but he lusted for power and he found disgust with God's creation called "humans" (and this was before we even sinned). Lucifer's also the one who should be branded "ruthless." For one, the reason for Lucifer's rebellion was as mentioned above and the Bible has many other passages that describe Satan, one of them being as a bloodthirsty lion that seeks his prey. He hates humans and does everything in his power to ruin the lives of people and secure their future in Hell, a place that was only meant for him.

You also said that Luci gave us a gift by providing us with knowledge, but that's not the case. Satan also knew the consequences of eating the fruit and tried convincing them to eat because he wanted us to die. It was not meant as a gift, it was a trap. Knowing evil didn't provide us with "true capacity for moral judgement" because we can hardly decide that for ourselves! First of all, even though we can overcome it, our nature is sin. We do not have full control over whether we choose to be good or bad. (I'm not talking "fate" crap, I mean that we do bad things everyday more easily than good and sometimes we don't even realize it or think twice about it.) Satan's shackled us to himself with sin; he convinces us we're free, but we're not. If we don't have 100% freedom over our moral decisions, I'd hardly call that capacity for judgement. Not to mention that humans disagree sooooo much on what's right or wrong. Just look at our messed up "justice system" or the debate on abortion (murder or not) or the people that walk by others in need every day without a gesture of kindness. This is a world Satan tricked us into created, and now not only do we have to suffer his crap but the consequences of our decisions as well. God on the other hand is trying to fix it and save us. Not like the self righteous "you're worthless without me" crap, but the "I understand you messed up; I just wantchya back" kinda deal.

Bah. Was hoping I'd make this shorter than the others... Oh well, sorry for giving you a novel guys. -_-

I'm under the impression you are a Christian when I make my response (correct me if I'm wrong). I made this response to someone a while back. It doesn't directly address your points but it does relate to the topic at hand...

As for angels, the phrase "made in God's image" really is something the Bible does that I find humorous, it is a beautiful statement and it makes me feel wonderful about myself but it means nothing. How on earth is something made "out" of God's image. God is all encompassing how can he make something different from himself, he is the ultimate model the only thing he can do is downgrade other models to be less like him. God is supposed to be the ultimate representation of good the only things he can logically create are things which are less "good" than he is. I am completely ignoring the glaring fact that there is no evidence for angels other than hearsay but the entire concept of them is nonsensical. God uses them for messengers, loyal subjects, and warrior's against Satan's army, yet he can talk directly to humans whenever he wants, he already understands better than angels (and humans) how great he is, and he is omnipotent meaning he has no need for an army. This is why people sometimes equate the Bible to a fairy tale because of the poetic language used to describe concepts which upon further inspection make no sense

The idea of angels (at least how they are explained in the Bible) makes absolutely no sense. They serve no purpose unless you are reading the Bible for literary purposes in which they add conflict to the plot.

But in direct response to your points. Allow me to say I wholeheartedly disagree with almost everything you've stated.

First of all, show me in the Bible where Satan has actually killed someone. Not poetic language describing him as the destroyer or the "bloodthirsty lion." I want scripture giving dates and locations, because we have plenty of those for God. You can't just claim that all sin is his doing ergo he's responsible for those who die as a result of sin.

BUT..........................

If you want to play the causality game you will always lose thanks to the omniscience paradox. If Satan's temptation of Eve is responsible for all the sin in the world, than God's creation of Satan makes him the one responsible. God knew Adam and Eve would fall for Satan's trick. He knew that Satan would fall from heaven. And he knew of all the suffering that would ensue.

Of course this is around the time where most Christians will toy with the argument of free will and say something like perfect vs permissive will, which breaks down upon inspection, except for from highly trained theologians which I doubt will be participating in this debate and whom I'm not educated enough to debate with).

You talked about narcissism earlier and this may sound like the ultimate form of irony but the way I hear and read the creation story, God does sound like the narcissist. Like I mentioned earlier the sole purpose of the angels were to sing praises unto him. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being need to hear who omniscient and omnipotent he is? On top of that the story of Lucifer's jealousy is equally ridiculous.

How is Lucifer jealous of humanity's free will if he also has free will???

He was able to choose to leave heaven when he wanted, that sounds like freedom to me. Once again the purpose of angels and consequentially humans, in this creation story escapes me.

@mr.sticky005

Spam once and the forum will be annoyed.
Spam twice and warnings will be deployed

LOLOLOL jk. Your posts will take a lot more time for me to respond to. They seem pretty interesting though. I don't agree with several of the premises you gave as to why God cannot be evil, even if I'm not sure I believe in an objective morality.

[JLI2infinity]

Since Objective Moral Values cannot exist on their own
without being completely useless and arbitrary then
they there must be someone who can and will Justly
1. Give 2. Enforce and 3. Judge by
The Objective Moral Law.

Ok *cracks fingers* And Here We Go #JokerVoice

"Since Objective Moral Values cannot exist on their own
without being completely useless and arbitrary"

Whoa whoa whoa there. You just took a big step from not being able to completely enforce our own moral laws to them being worthless. Just because we can't control every human being at every given moment (apparently neither can God, or he just says he doesn't want to) doesn't mean we don't enforce these values. And just because they cannot be enforced 100% of the time does not make them any less "objective." This reminds me of that utopia thread where it seemed like everyone was looking at humanity in black and white and I felt like the only one using grayscale.

It sounds strange enough but objective decisions rely on subjective positions. If a person's subjective outlook changes, than the objective judgment shifts. Objective doesn't mean immovable and it sounds like you are using the two interchangeably.

Objective may be defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" but when it comes to being a moral arbitrator that just means not giving one party's views disproportionate weight over the others's in response to the situation.

However in order to Justly do these 3 things
the Just Giver, Enforcer and Judge must not
be unjust themselves or else there is no
VALUE to a "just" law by an unjust author.
The value cannot come from outside the source
of authorship as then it cannot be justly enforced
and Judged and the author itself must be Just
to Justly Enforce and Judge a "Just" Law.

Second of all, I don't agree with the premise that there is no value in a "just" law from an unjust author. One of the most well known facts about Satan was that he knew scripture better than most humans did. If this "Evil God" did exist it's VERY plausible that he understands better than all of us what is good, right, and just. He could even give us every detail but if we take stances like the one you are suggesting, chances are we wouldn't even follow it, and we'd be doing exactly what he wants.

Moreover the value of the law wouldn't be coming from outside the source, but directly from it. By the mere fact that he is the antithesis of good, we know that the things he despises are the things we should value.

If we accept Objective Morality as being true
we must conclude that not only is there a Moral Law Giver
but one who's nature MUST be one of being good and just in of itself.

Therefore an Evil God cannot exist in a world with Objective Morality.

Like I said before I don't necessarily believe in an objective morality but for the purpose of debate I have accepted that premise as true. However, your other premises leading to why an Evil God cannot exist, I have refuted. Therefore your subsequent arguments and conclusions do not work until you have provided a response, since they hinge on these two major points you presented earlier.

[Shisko Shi]

That is right Sticky, How can you have a sould, when it was never yours in the first place. It wasn't We arrived on this planete with God.

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

^ That just blew my mind, that was a good argument. But like I said. Death is not really what we think it is, Think bleach, When they die they become spirits and can go to the SS. THat is somewhat how it is with us. When we die we become enternal, so it is like becoming what Ichigo does to become a Soul Reaper minus the powers and Zanpakuto. ect.

Yeah, it will be pretty epic. But there's also another diff: unlike Soul Society, we won't be constantly attacked by demons and other spiritual entities lol

Edit: That's some good stuff, Mr. Sticky. But I also want to bring to your attention (if it isn't already) that God will revenge the unrepented sins committed against innocents (and everybody, really). So it's not that God turns a blind eye; he promises evil will be repayed.

Edit @ Shisko: Well, our souls may belong to God, but he still allows us our own lives to live. Basically I mean: even though he could, he treats us as family, rather than possessions. (Don't know if you were actually thinking that way, but I at least wanted to make sure. You are a treasure, man.)

Edit @ JLI2's first post: Yes, God made us in his image, and yes, he can't make anything perfect like he is (aka "less good"), but why would making us in his image necessarily mean "perfection". It simply means we are a reflection of himself. He wanted to create a being with his qualities. Also, there is a purpose for angels. You imply that God has the understanding and power to deem any being other than himself unnecessary, and you're right, but God ain't lookin' to flex his muscles at us. He created angels and humans because he wanted something to love and something to love him back. You also said you don't see evidence of angels past hearsay, but you said yourself "God uses them for messengers, loyal subjects, and warriors," and the Bible has many accounts of angels acting in this manner. So how is it only by hearsay? But still, why would an almighty God use angels? Because he likes to share with his creations the making of history. He gives each and every human and angel purpose and meaning and occasionally allows them to be a force that shakes and changes the world in the name of love. See, God doesn't just act rationally and efficiently, he also acts lovingly. As for the poetry thing, you're right, it is poetic. But who ever said the truth couldn't be poetic? It's not only beautifully written, but I'm pretty sure it'll hold the attention of a reader better than a cold, objective report. And of course it's important to not let pretty words trick you into believing idiocy, but even under critical inspection, the Bible checks out. In fact, even debate can be somewhat poetic when done by "seasoned warriors".

You said you wanted detailed scripture about Satan's evil and murderous actions. Well, I'd have to search for some, but one I can think of off the top of my head is the book of Job. The beginning details a conversation between God and Lucifer where Lucifer attempts to convince God that without his blessings, Job, a faithful servant of God, would curse and forsake Him. Lucifer wages this to God and asks him to allow him (Lucifer) to harm Job. God agrees under one condition: that Lucifer not kill Job. Actually, Lucifer kills everyone in Job's family except Job himself. I know you asked for locations and dates, but that'd be useless since there'd be no way to validate the information, unlike entire cities destroyed by overbearing armies or whatever. When it comes to showing Satan's true nature besides biblical account, just look at the world and see where good or evil originates. Observe the differences in the words, actions, and lives of those who serve God vs those who serve Satan and evil. I'm not saying that honest Christians don't screw up too or that non-Christians are evil, I just mean to observe people according to their lifestyles. I'll address the rest later. It's already 3 a.m. here and I'm tired. (Please don't post anymore for me until I can fully respond. It's getting to be kinda overwhelming, haha.)

[Shisko Shi]

Ok guys I get it I made a bad point >_>

lol you all know what I mean, YOu die you are stil lin your spirit with out a shell this time. But beinmg a sould reaper would be kick butty lol

[BMC1994]

Originally Posted by Shisko Shi

No he didn't lie. We are never supposed to die, the fruit allowed sin into our lives that is like a plague that is what killes us over time.

The fuit was a test. And we fail.

Why are we punished for the incompetence of our supposed ancestor.

If we are going by that logic wouldnt god be the one to blame.

[Souret]

^ that theory is Augustine only you can't base arguements on one philosopher when so many have studied this area.

[BMC1994]

Whos augistine?

[The Second Pornkage]

Originally Posted by BMC1994

Whos augistine?

St. Augustine was a famous Christian thinker/writer. He made a lot of writings about beliefs in Catholicism. Of course, I'm sure he did other things, but that's as far as my knowledge takes me on this one

[Souret]

Originally Posted by BMC1994

Whos augistine?

Only one on the three most important philosophers studying the theory of evil. Personally I can't stand his theodicies.

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Originally Posted by BMC1994

Why are we punished for the incompetence of our supposed ancestor.

If we are going by that logic wouldnt god be the one to blame.

No, we shouldn't blame God, because the severity of sin is just that heavy. We weren't punished just because one man sinned, but because that one man's sin released the curse of sin upon the rest of the world, causing us all to sin. Sin is a disease, and it has infected us all.

[BMC1994]

Cant god cure it? Its not like every human who ever existed after A and E has eaten the apple.

[Souret]

Apparently we carry the sin of the munchies in our blood so we deserve the punnishment of suffering therefore god lets people suffer and choses to safe a lucky few :P

[The Second Pornkage]

Originally Posted by BMC1994

Cant god cure it? Its not like every human who ever existed after A and E has eaten the apple.

Well, according to Catholic beliefs (which I'll mostly discuss since I am a Catholic), people are born with that original sin inside of them, but through choosing to accept God and wanting to follow the example of being "good," (i.e. getting Baptized) we get rid of that. Sin still exists, but the shadow of that original sin disappears through Baptism according to Catholicism's religious teaching.

[konoha chimp]

Now I'm no catholic so please don't question me on this but my opinion put simply would be he's evil but a necessary evil at least I think he is..

(Just throwing in my 2 cents there)

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by Akatsuki_Fighter

No, we shouldn't blame God, because the severity of sin is just that heavy. We weren't punished just because one man sinned, but because that one man's sin released the curse of sin upon the rest of the world, causing us all to sin. Sin is a disease, and it has infected us all.

Right it's not daddy's fault that he turned on the gas stove and gave a two year old matches. It's the kid's fault, lock him up for arson, he obviously knew what he was doing >.>

You can't dodge the causality argument with an omniscient creator, I'm sorry. He knew it would happen and set it in motion. He has no right to be upset at how it turned out.

The concept of God having emotions makes no sense whatsoever, emotions are a response to a situation, usually a situation that we only play a part of and are not fully aware of the outcome. It makes no sense for God to create a situation fully aware that it won't work, and then become furious that it doesn't work, that is expected of a child but psychopathic in an adult. It's like turning on a stove, burning your hand, getting mad at the stove for burning your hand, and then offering to help the stove to stop hurting you by turning it off. Then saying "That stove is an awful creation, good thing I am so benevolent that I stopped it from making me feel bad."

You said to wait before responding to your other post, but I'm not letting this one go.

[Akatsuki_Fighter]

Alright, I respect that, JL. (Btw, what do you prefer to go by?) But why do you say it doesn't make sense God would have emotion? That just shows how little we know about him and what characteristics we project upon him without knowing him through the Bible and having a relationship with him. God does have emotion, but it doesn't cloud his judgement. Humans may become misguided due to emotion, but that's because of the Fall and it's false to say that God is the same.

Speaking of emotion, God loves us. He was upset at what we did, but we literally unleashed sin upon ourselves. It was not an act of childish anger. If he wanted to make us burn for our disobedience, then he would have left us alone or destroyed us. And he definitely wouldn't have sent his Son to take the punishment for OUR mistakes so that we wouldn't take the blame. Did I mention that God substituted himself to take the blame for something we did to ourselves? There is no argument that we were aware of the consequences. He told Adam and Eve what would happen and even when they sinned he still stayed with us. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel still had a relationship with God, but over human history we have slowly been cutting our ties with him. What I mean is, God has been here with us every step of the way so we could make a full recovery and be reconciled to him. Considering all that, it's easy to see that God has no intention of snuffing us out, like your stove example; he intends to keep the flame going even if it hurts him for a while before we are finally completely delivered from our sin. He's so benevolent that he thinks we're worth it anyway! Even if he knew we'd choose to disobey him, he loved us enough to wanna make us anyway and set in motion his plan to bring us into an even tighter family than when we were originally created. A plan he's had all along.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by JLI2infinity

Ok *cracks fingers* And Here We Go #JokerVoice

"Since Objective Moral Values cannot exist on their own
without being completely useless and arbitrary"

Whoa whoa whoa there. You just took a big step from not being able to completely enforce our own moral laws to them being worthless. Just because we can't control every human being at every given moment (apparently neither can God, or he just says he doesn't want to) doesn't mean we don't enforce these values. And just because they cannot be enforced 100% of the time does not make them any less "objective." This reminds me of that utopia thread where it seemed like everyone was looking at humanity in black and white and I felt like the only one using grayscale.



It sounds strange enough but objective decisions rely on subjective positions. If a person's subjective outlook changes, than the objective judgment shifts. Objective doesn't mean immovable and it sounds like you are using the two interchangeably.

Objective may be defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" but when it comes to being a moral arbitrator that just means not giving one party's views disproportionate weight over the others's in response to the situation.


That isn't why objective moral values that exist on their own
would be arbitrary and useless. It's not a matter of us not
being able to fully enforce the law. Even if we COULD
completely enforce our own moral law or at least a moral
law that exists outside of God then it is still without meaning
and if it is without meaning it is ultimately useless as a moral law.
This is because a moral law that we create can never truly
be objective because sooner or later it all comes down to might makes right. If morality is a social construct then it is all just a complicated
popularity contest where the winner makes the rules.
Objective moral law that exists on it's own is useless because
it then becomes something that is just sorta there.
There's nothing to back it up. It exists in a vacuum.





Second of all, I don't agree with the premise that there is no value in a "just" law from an unjust author. One of the most well known facts about Satan was that he knew scripture better than most humans did. If this "Evil God" did exist it's VERY plausible that he understands better than all of us what is good, right, and just. He could even give us every detail but if we take stances like the one you are suggesting, chances are we wouldn't even follow it, and we'd be doing exactly what he wants.

Moreover the value of the law wouldn't be coming from outside the source, but directly from it. By the mere fact that he is the antithesis of good, we know that the things he despises are the things we should value.

Having complete knowledge of the moral law wouldn't make it
morally sound. If the moral law comes from an Evil God then
how are we to know that the moral law itself is good?
Or for that matter how are we to know the Evil God is
evil in the first place? An Evil God cannot be the antithesis
of it's own moral law. Sure it can be hypocritical and not
follow it's own rules but how are we to know the rules
it make aren't what is "evil" and the Evil God is actually
in a very strange way---Hypocritically Good.
It's an endless paradox:
Evil God makes Good Law.
Good Law comes from Evil God
If Evil God then why Law Good?

At this point you might try saying that the Law is Good because
it is just Good of it's own merit. But then that would just be going
back to a moral law that exists on it's own and there's no real
reason to follow it. It's just sorta there.

If Law Not Good then Law Evil
If Law Evil then why God Evil?

In other words if the source of the law is God and God is Evil
then how can the law which is from evil be good?
But if there is no reason to think the law is good then
what reason is there to think the God is evil?




Like I said before I don't necessarily believe in an objective morality but for the purpose of debate I have accepted that premise as true. However, your other premises leading to why an Evil God cannot exist, I have refuted. Therefore your subsequent arguments and conclusions do not work until you have provided a response, since they hinge on these two major points you presented earlier.

You haven't yet refuted my points.


reply in green

[JLI2infinity]

Originally Posted by Akatsuki_Fighter

Alright, I respect that, JL. (Btw, what do you prefer to go by?) But why do you say it doesn't make sense God would have emotion? That just shows how little we know about him and what characteristics we project upon him without knowing him through the Bible and having a relationship with him. God does have emotion, but it doesn't cloud his judgement. Humans may become misguided due to emotion, but that's because of the Fall and it's false to say that God is the same.

I hope you understand why I bolded, underlined, and blew up what you said. Because it is EXTREMELY ironic, considering that what you just warned against is a requirement for Christianity. Oh I see you amended your statement by saying that the Bible happens to have it right.

You misunderstood my point. It wasn't to say that emotion clouds his judgment but to explain that emotion is illogical for an omniscient, immaterial, timeless being. Emotions are our responses to the situation at hand. They require uptake of a specific set of stimuli and our brain's processing of those stimuli. Because God understands, experiences, and processes those stimuli infinitely it makes no sense that he can have set emotional responses.

For example, God knows event X will occur, God was the primary cause for event X's occurrence, therefore it is illogical for God to be angry at event X's outcome. That was the purpose of my gas stove analogies.

It seems some of the members have taken a liking to calling me Infinity, or when they address me @JLI2

Speaking of emotion, God loves us.

I'm sure you know that with certainty. Because God couldn't hate us, that wouldn't fit everyone's worldview Mr. stick is at least outlining philosophical arguments for his just got you are giving statements that require blind faith.

He was upset at what we did, but we literally unleashed sin upon ourselves.

We, I don't remember eating from any forbidden fruit in the Land Before Time. Sorry, I mean the Garden of Eden. I also seem to remember a certain God who created the fruit in the first place, and created the snake that tempted Eve into eating the fruit.

It was not an act of childish anger. If he wanted to make us burn for our disobedience, then he would have left us alone or destroyed us.

He's done that before. Or did your forget the whole flooding incident. And yes killing thousands of kids because their parents don't live the lifestyle you approve of isn't childish at all, it's cruel and psychopathic. But it's cool because they all went to heaven I'm assuming.

Of course, beaming them all up there would've probably made more sense than drowning them. Or perhaps a supernatural pardon would've been in order, but hey letting their lungs slowly fill with water was probably the way to go.

And he definitely wouldn't have sent his Son to take the punishment for OUR mistakes so that we wouldn't take the blame.

Yeah sending your son to suffer for you sounds like the real selfless thing to do. Human sacrifice was absolutely necessary in this scenario. Just giving us forgiveness doesn't leave the same taste in our mouths. A gore fest is in order. Then 2000 years later a man named Mel Gibson can help reenact it all in HD.

Did I mention that God substituted himself to take the blame for something we did to ourselves? There is no argument that we were aware of the consequences. He told Adam and Eve what would happen and even when they sinned he still stayed with us.

I'm sure it takes a tremendous toll on the omnipotent being to spend some time with us. He must be pooped maybe he should rest some more. Being all powerful must take a lot of work. Have I mentioned that the Christian God must have known all of this was going to happen before he set it in motion so again it's not that impressive that he's cleaning it up.

Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel still had a relationship with God, but over human history we have slowly been cutting our ties with him. What I mean is, God has been here with us every step of the way so we could make a full recovery and be reconciled to him.

Yes, because thousands of years ago he was splitting seas and summoning fish to swallow men whole. Now he comes to us in vague symbols, through the words of other people free to our own interpretation, and sometimes as a voice in our head that no one else can hear, conveniently with the advent of recording technology. I always loved the story of doubting Thomas in church. Everyone would use him as a parable for skepticism as if our situation is anything close to his. If a man is feeding thousands of people with a kid's leftover lunch and rises from the dead to show you the holes in his wrist and you still doubt him. You're an idiot. The disciples lives aren't even comparable to our own if the gospel is true.

Considering all that, it's easy to see that God has no intention of snuffing us out, like your stove example; he intends to keep the flame going even if it hurts him for a while before we are finally completely delivered from our sin. He's so benevolent that he thinks we're worth it anyway! Even if he knew we'd choose to disobey him, he loved us enough to wanna make us anyway and set in motion his plan to bring us into an even tighter family than when we were originally created. A plan he's had all along

Like I said before beautiful poetic language. But it's a plot full of holes. I obviously won't be able to convince you over the internet. I actually haven't had a religious debate in months (outside of this forum). Just like coming to Christianity (unless you were indoctrinated in it like many children are), leaving Christianity is a personal journey. A very gradual one at that. As I read over this I know there's a lot of sarcasm and biting humor. Understand that this is not directed at you personally but at the points you are using to justify your claim. You may consider them one in the same but they aren't. I have heard these arguments many times from parents, family, and church leaders in almost the exact same words. There are 100 ways to pick them apart.

Often times once you encounter someone to debate you like this in person you realize this and you seem pretty intelligent, I'll assume you'll follow the next step which will be studying philosophical arguments similar to what mr. sticky seems to have done.