-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Adam and or Eve had all the viruses.
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods.
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82:1 - New King James Version
A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.www.biblegateway.com
There is a footnote in the NKJV (one of the reasons I like it) for "gods" here. (Footnote b)
It reads:
Judges; Heb. elohim, lit. mighty ones or gods
It's not referring to actual gods, but of mighty men, judges.
You're in denial here and even your cited footnote states that Elohim means "gods" little "g"
Strong's Concorance likewise defines Elohim as gods:
Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god
Note the dual element in that definition. Elohim refers BOTH to ANY "god" with little "g" and also to the "God" with capital "G" who would like to be seen as top dog among all the other gods.
This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative it wants/needs to peddle to the masses. It's purile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to the existence of multiple gods and to suggest that somehow that just means mighty men. It doesn't fly, not for one second.
Every individual has different concepts of what is right or wrong or just depending on their life experiences and circumstances. What's wrong with that? That's how the world is. It's through our interactions that we learn together and come to appreciate who we all are as individuals and start to understand each other and that in turn evolves everyones notions of right, wrong or just.
No there's mustn't because justice is a subjective concept. If there's a standard then it's an authoritarian imposition on others, one person's subjective view of justice forced upon all. That's not right.
Pathetic. You lack the moral fibre to call out a very simple example of an unacceptable attrocity that occurs daily and you do so because it challenges to the core the intellectual dogma that you have built your life around. Wrong is wrong and if there exists an entity powerful enough to prevent such an attrocity then inaction is equally wicked and wrong. It IS that simple. There is no confusion, no middle ground. This is the area that I mentioned where people who worship despots like Hitler are "all in" mentally and thus make any and all excuse for appalling behaviour.
Yes, it is, it really is.
I don't remotely see the relevance of this question in the context of what I have put to you. What you are alluding to with this question and your subsequent comments regarding it, is that in your immoral mentally "all in" world, it's ok for an innocent kid to be sexually abused provided that LATER ON the guy gets suitable punishment. That's appalling. The innocent child still gets molested and will be psychologically damaged for life.
Not acceptable. There is no grey area here. There are simply people with instinctive moral compasses and compassion who know this is a black and white situation, and then there are people who are so tied to their comfort blanket religious dogma that they compartmentalise such attrocities, pretend they don't really happen and/or that somehow, kids being sexually abused is all part of some super grand master plan of their facile God concept.
The truth is that YOU KNOW in your heart that this is wrong, you KNOW that it doesn't wash with the concept of an all-powerful God or a loving God but your belief system requires you to ignore that inconsistency or make apologies for it. That is self-denial and is I'm afraid incredibly harmful to your own soul and to wider humanity itself. Humanity will never evolve while people cling to this utterly ridiculous religious theological nonsense. Only when we can honestly and sincerely admit that the truth lies elsewhere and we have to find our own way can humanity move forward.
Bunkum
That's it. Nothing more needs to be said. It doesn't need qualifying with caveats and conditions. Intervention, prevention is absolutely paramount. Since it happens, and no intervention occurs we can rationally conclude that the concept of an all-powerful or loving god is pure fiction. That being the case it's entirely reasonable for humaity to individually apraise any other sub-powerful, sub-loving entity that throws his/her/its hat into the ring.
Where there exists any chain of command the "man" at the top MUST always accept responsibility for failure of any part of that chain. That's the basic premise of all such systems. This has to apply to your concept of God. If he creates a sub-standard product that doesn't function or behave in the right way , then I'm afraid HE not the product, is responsible. Again those religiously indoctrinated will continue to make endless excuses for their concept of God in this respect.
Yes men should face the consequences of their actions but this IN NO WAY makes the sexual abuse of innocent children acceptable if there exists the power to prevent it happening at all. Christianity claims it's god is powerful enough, yet it is evident that he either isn't or else is entirely indifferent to children being sexually abused (together with all manner of other unacceptable attrocities).
It's no surprise whatsoever that you refuse to answer the simple question on this topic. Every so-called Christian when confronted with what is a simple moral decision, fails to answer honestly because it drives a stake through their comfortable belief system. It shatters the illusion and that's something most Christians are not ready for. They need the delusion, just as a child needs the delusion of Santa Claus. Meanwhile the rest of society continues to be influenced and shaped by this religious nonsense. That too is unacceptable and needs to stop.
See now you're making excuse upon excuse. You may as well worship Hitler. Human parents are NOT all-powerful, not all-loving in the way that Christianity peddles it's god to be. So NO you can't hold parents responsible if their kids get sexually abused by wicked old men. The parents are not all-powerful, can't be everywhere at once at any time. But allegedly the Christian God can. Yet he sits there doing nothing, indifferent.
The upshot is that the notion of the Christian god is patently false. And as Open Theists I guess you'll come back and say "yes" that's mostly right. You don't believe God is all-powerful or all-knowing so you're just choosing to worship one of many sub-standard gods/entities out there which is your right but such is not for me. I WILL hold ANY ENTITY or ruler to a level of morality and action. I most certianly will not be worshipping any entity that is immoral or impotent.
Last edited:
If you want to know how to swim, go find a swimming teacher and learn to swim
If you want to know how to speak Spanish, go find a Spanish teacher and study Spanish
Why do you think such basic concepts would be any different for learning the science of Alchemy?
Get out there, start reading the 100s of alchemy texts and learn. Best get to it as well because as Jesus starkly warned, if you don't eat/drink the White/Red stones, you have no life in you. The clock is ticking . . . .
Ahh, you just want to keep the secret for yourself.
Yes, I cited the footnote. Did you not catch that bit?
Please pay more attention.
Regarding Psalm 82, as a whole, later in the verse, the same word is used again.
Note what it says about these "gods":
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly,And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless;Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy;Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand;They walk about in darkness;All the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, “You are gods,And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men,And fall like one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth;For You shall inherit all nations.
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82 - New King James Version
A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them...
And to further iterate my point:
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father in Me, and I in Him.”
Bible Gateway passage: John 10:34-38 - New King James Version
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of...
To whom was "You are gods" referring to?
Jesus, who is God, is calling someone else "gods," and says "I am the only true God."
So either Jesus was contradicting Himself, or these "gods" are not actual "gods," but men.
Which is perfectly consistent with what I said above...
This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative you want/need in order to reject what the Bible says.
What I said above stands.
It's puerile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to where God says "I am the only true God" and "besides Me there is no other" and to suggest that God was lying. It doesn't fly, not for one second.
Instead of doing that, perhaps, just maybe, you could try to have an open mind, and consider what the Bible says about these "gods," instead of trying to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative you want/need in order to reject what the Bible says.
Read, please:
If the God of the Bible Is the Only One Who Exists, Then Why Does Scripture Speak of Other Gods?
Apart from the God of the Bible, could other gods possibly exist? Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of other gods? No Other gods Exist
You think God is unjust, but reject an objective standard by which to judge Him.
Do you not see the problem with that?
God exists, therefore an objective standard of right and wrong exists.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The problem with this assertion is that it doesn't take into consideration the nature of God. This is where Euthyphro's Dilemma comes into play.
If God were a unitarian God (ie, if He was only one Person), then your argument would be valid, because there would be no way for Him to know if He was good.
However, the God of the Bible, the one true God, is not unitarian. He is triune. He is one God in three Persons.
The Father testifies of the Son that the Son has never wronged Him. The Son testifies of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit has never wronged Him. And the Holy Spirit testifies the same of the Father.
Thus, God knows that He is good, through the trifold witness of the Trinity. His standard is not subjective, but objective for that reason.
See this thread for a full explanation:
Euthyphro's Dilemma (On God, right and wrong)
rayruiz wrote on 12-27-2003 12:18 AM: Hi Pastor Enyart, I am a member of the CWS Christian chat room and hope I can get you to help us on a subject that came up...? Thanks and that was a great battle royale!! Dear rayruiz, Thanks for asking your question about what many call Euthyphro's...
theologyonline.com
Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.
False.
False.
Objectively?
Or just according to your subjective opinion?
Because you say so?
Because you say so?
Because you say so?
Supra.
No, it really isn't.
Plugging your ears and demanding that it is because you don't like what it means if it isn't, is irrational and intellectually dishonest.
Don't be irrational or intellectually dishonest.
Thankfully, all you have to do, in order to move this conversation forwards, is to simply answer the question.
Your stonewalling against it is telling.
Please answer the question:
Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?
Who said that?
I certainly didn't.
Indeed, that would be appalling, if that is in fact what I said.
Thankfully, that's not what I said.
Yawn.
What is?
God is indeed loving.
But God is not "all-powerful."
So you're arguing against a straw man.
Try arguing against my/our actual position.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you're not arguing against my position, but a straw man.
So you believe in a soul?
Or is this a matter of stolen concept fallacy?
Or maybe what I said is right, and what you're ranting about is what's harmful...
Appeal to the stone. And nonsense in and of itself.
Hilarious.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I'm not seeing the connection between parental intervention/prevention, which parents should do, and preventing crimes from happening on God's part.
Could you perhaps explain the connection for me? What's your reasoning for conflating these two things?
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Why?
News to me.
Because you say so?
I see you never bothered to watch that CSLewisDoodles video I posted.
Would you mind doing that now?
Here's the link again:
No one here is making any excuses, but you.
If the consequences of a person's actions is that someone is harmed as a result, and God intervenes so that the person is not harmed, would that not be preventing men from facing the consequences of their actions?
Of course it's not acceptable. That's different than whether something should be allowed to happen, though.
You seem to be conflating those two things.
Supra.
False dichotomy.
The third option is that He is powerful enough, but recognizes that intervening every time a child is about to be harmed would only strengthen the desire for the abuser to commit such an atrocity.
Which is far worse.
What was the question again? I must have missed it.
Straw man.
Not my position.
You can if they are negligent, or if they allow it to happen.
Who said they were?
I didn't.
You're arguing against a straw man.
He did do something.
He implemented human government to punish and deter criminals from committing such crimes.
To the extent that the government is not a deterrent, to that extent the government is at fault.
But God is not at fault for what the creatures which He made to be free agents do or do not do.
Nor is He at fault for not intervening when the do or do not do something.
False.
Wrong.
Correct.
We believe God has the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible, not the ones ascribed to Him by pagan Greek philosophers.
Huh?
That's nice.
Now, if you could address our position, rather than some straw man you've come up with...
God is neither.
Read, please:
If the God of the Bible Is the Only One Who Exists, Then Why Does Scripture Speak of Other Gods?
Apart from the God of the Bible, could other gods possibly exist? Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of other gods? No Other gods Existwww.blueletterbible.org
How ironic ! You use a citation to try and uphold your belief which itself totally contradicts your belief ! It says:
"Also there is no room in the universe for another God to exist. Scripture says that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present. He is without limits. It would be absurd to believe that two unlimited beings could occupy the same space. If another God did exist, then God would be limited. However the Bible says God has no limitations."
And yet you and your cohorts here argue endlessly that god isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. You seem to want it all ways.
The Bible most certainly refers to the presence of numerous gods. This article explains it well:
The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott
The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. . . . Continue Reading »
www.firstthings.com
The world has for countless years suffered the jostling for position of all these powerful beings, fights, wars, conflicts and the "little people" have suffered the outfall of every one of them. The gods don't care about humans, we are cannon fodder to them. Every one of them believes they have the right to subjugate humanity and use us for their own ends. We are trapped in a planetary prison of their making, a slave work force. None of them are worthy to be worshipped.
Jesus was a man, a remarkable man and an alchemist and one who used that secret and important knowledge wisely and for the good of others. Yet even then, he kept this great thing, the Stone, for himself and his disciples instead of freely giving it to all mankind. After all, if we had it then we too would become like god and of course he doesn't want that as he stated clearly in Genesis.
"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
How nice!!!! We mustn't be allowed to live forever and enjoy that natural priviledge just as the gods do. This isn't love. This is despotism.
No I imagine you don't. The connection is love. Love demands that action is taken. And the ability/power demands that action is taken.
A loving parent would take immediate action to prevent a child from being sexually abused. If they had the ability/power to do so.
A loving god by the same token would take immediate action likewise if it had the ability/power.
I'm very confortable if your defense is that the Christian god is impotent. But on that basis I see no reason to take any notice of an impotent being much less an un-loving one.
The so-called "free will" argument is about as lame as they come and has always been cited by cowardly Christians to explain away all the appalling attrocities of the world which their god sits idly by watching and allowing. There is no free will. You don't have free will and neither do I.
The true definition of free will is that you can "will" something and that thing happens, materialises, manifests. Humans are not permitted to do this, yet the gods enjoy this natural ability. Of course the Stone would give a human that ability which is doubtless why the gods seek to keep it from humanity. We are prisoners held captive on a prison planet. Had you free will you could, with a moments thought, will yourself onto a different planet in the universe, create your own planet, do anything you desired. Please don't try appealing to the cowardly free-will nonsense, it's an absurdity.
For God to intervene he would first have to know that the crime is about to be committed. According to your Open Theist position god is an impotent un-knowing sub-standard entity so discussion about how he/she/it might prevent an attrocity from occurring is pointless surely. If we instead debate the defacto Christian position of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omni-present entity then we CAN discuss it but we inevitably arrive at the same conclusion which is that this god cannot possibly be BOTH all-powerful and all-loving for love demands that action is taken (just as with the parents) and action can only be taken if there is power and ability to take it.
So you iterate your thoroughly awful immoral position. You suggest that sexual abuse of children SHOULD be allowed to happen. How disgusting.
This makes no sense at all. If a powerful god intervened then it would strike abject fear in the perpetrator who would know that he can't get away with his actions. Even if he tried to do it again, he would meet the same obstruction by god. He would soon realise that he simply can not do what he wants to do.
False. Any god IS TOTALLY responsible and accountable for those in his chain of command. If he doesn't manage his chain of command adequately then he is at fault. Regardless, punishment of perpetrators and deterence is a world away from actual prevention which is what is needed in regards to some forms of attrocity. Your god doesn't prevent such attrocity. He sits by and watches those things happen. What happens to the perpetrator is immaterial. It's what happens to the victim that is the problem. Innocent children should be protected by those with the power to do so. Your god very clearly doesn't have such power, nor it seems the love to induce any action.
You believe he isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. That being the case he's just one of many gods and all therefore have a case, all should be assessed in their own right.
I already told you that Christianity is not a monolithic group.
It doesn't mean that two Christians who believe differently on some things can't agree on other things.
No, I don't agree with that part of the article.
But instead of focusing on the part that I do agree with, and with the point that I was making, you had to waste both of our times trying to mock me for citing an article that partially disagrees with me.
Surely you can be a bit more gracious than that, no?
Now that that's out of the way, can you address the point I was making, which is that God repeatedly states He is the only true God, and that other gods don't actually exist, except as concepts, which the article does indeed affirm?
The Bible most certainly refers to the presence of numerous gods. This article explains it well:
The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott
The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. . . . Continue Reading »
None of that contradicts what God said.
Yes, people worship "gods." They are mentioned throughout the scriptures. I'm not denying that.
What I'm saying is that they don't ontologically exist.
They ("gods," not men or angels (fallen or otherwise)) are just concepts, figments of men's imagination, intended to fill the God-shaped void in men's hearts.
What God was warring against in Exodus against the Egyptians was not "gods," as though Ra, et al, were actual beings, but rather He was warring against the concepts of the gods that men had created, to show that He was the one true God, and that those "gods" had no real power.
Stone and wood idols are not gods. They're just stone and wood idols, worshipped as gods.
Do you see the point I'm making?
Rather, those gods don't exist.
God does.
The battle that has been raging is certainly a spiritual one. But it's not between God and other ontological beings, but instead between God and men who have rejected Him, such as yourself, who have made gods in their own image to worship in place of the one true God.
He was God.
He became flesh and dwelt among us.
So, when you reject the One who is life itself, you expect to receive life?
Don't you think that's backwards?
Or do you think that people shouldn't face the consequences of their actions?
What if that power has been delegated to someone?
Indeed.
So you expect God to intervene instead of the parents of the child? Instead of the government?
Also, should none of them intervene, do you think that the criminal will just simply get away with their crime, and never be punished for it?
Question: Does pain serve a purpose? (And yes, I expect an answer to this question.)
Because again, we come back to the question I asked above, which was "Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?"
Who said God is impotent?
I certainly did not.
I simply said "He does not have all power," or more precisely, "He is not omnipotent."
Good thing that's not what I said, then, isn't it?
Start with the premise that God is love, and work from there.
Yet it quite nicely answers your entire position.
So let's reason it out, see if we can't find any problems with it with regards to it answering your position.
If God created men with free will, what then?
And if you're wrong? Then what?
No, that's not the definition of "free will."
"Free will" is redundant. ("Libertarian free will" doubly so.)
A will is just the ability to choose.
It doesn't mean that whatever choice is made, that it will somehow come about. It just means that a choice is possible.
If there is no alternative to choose from, then it is not possible to exercise one's will.
Thus, if you do not have the ability to choose otherwise, then you do not have a will.
Supra. That's not what a will is.
False. Straw man.
God is male.
He refers to Himself as such in His word.
Do not call God "female" or "it" again on this board. You will receive a warning for blasphemy.
Wrong.
Especially since you're trying to knock down a straw man.
If you just want to rail against a straw man, you can do that on other forums.
But this is an Open Theist board. You're arguing against an Open Theist, who rejects the classical (read: Greek) attributes of "omni-"s and "im-"s.
God is free, and He created man to be free, thus your argument doesn't apply to our position.
Except that's not what I believe.
Why should I defend a belief that I don't hold to?
Not what I said.
God allows it to happen.
That's different than saying it SHOULD be allowed to happen. The explanation of this is what I've been trying to get to, but you refuse to allow us to continue to that point, because you're hung up on the (false) belief that God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient."
It only makes no sense from within your own paradigm of beliefs.
Try looking at things from outside your paradigm for a moment.
Would it though?
There are many miracles recorded in the Bible, instances where God directly intervened in the circumstances on earth.
If you were to look at them from a bird's eye view, you would find that most of them (not all, to be sure, but most) resulted in unbelief, a rejection of God, or the hardening of one's heart. Generally speaking, when someone is confronted with the truth, men typically resent it.
Let me demonstrate.
| Confronted By Truth Why would miracles lead to unbelief? Consider this. Ten-year-old Norman bickers with his 12-year-old brother Jack. "We'll probably have left over spaghetti for lunch." Jack says, "No we won't. There's none left, it's all gone. We finished it last night." Norman: No, there's some leftovers. Jack: You're wrong, it's all gone. Norman: No, there's leftovers. Jack: Nope. We finished it. Norman: Did not. Jack: Did too. I saw mom put the rest in the garbage disposal. Norman: Do you like being wrong? Jack: I'm not wrong. You're wrong. Norman: All right, I'll just go in there and prove it. Norman comes out of the house with a serving bowl half filled with leftover spaghetti. He shows it to his brother. Question: Is Jack happy that he now knows the truth? Answer: No. Actually, Jack is angry. Why? Norman proved him wrong! People do not like the truth shoved into their faces. Jack may now know that there is leftover spaghetti but he resents his brother for proving the point. These boys quarreled over a minor issue. What is the reaction when the issue becomes more significant? Often the more serious the issue, the more a man resents those who prove him wrong. Evangelism sees the ultimate application of this principle. He who rejects God is not typically eager for correction. When someone's heart is hardened against God, a miracle shoves the truth in his face. His mind cannot deny God but his heart can resist. Thus countless witnesses of the miraculous have refused to acquiesce. |
(quoted from https://kgov.com/miracles)
So the answer is no, it wouldn't strike fear into the perpetrator.
It would make Him angry that he was shown to be wrong.
And if God is trying to form a relationship with that person, do you think that would be productive? Or counterproductive?
So he should not face the consequences of his choices and actions?
Is not facing the consequences of one's choices a good or bad thing?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Sorry, but that's not how this works, especially if God gave men the ability to choose (ie, a will).
If God gave man a will (again, "free will" is redundant; if it isn't free, it isn't a will), then He cannot be held accountable for the actions of man, because man is a free agent, able to choose on his own.
If God did not give man a will (ie, made men robots only capable of doing that which God programmed them to do (as Calvinism teaches)), then ONLY God is to be blamed for whatever actions men take.
You cannot have it both ways.
Either God gave man a will, and he uses it to disobey God, and is therefore accountable for his actions and God is not, because He did not cause the man to do those things, or God did not give man a will, and he is therefore not accountable, but God is, because God DID cause man to do those things.
In other words, the only way God is accountable for the actions of men is if God caused men to do the things they do.
If He did not cause men to do things, then He is not and cannot be held accountable for their actions, because He is not the one who caused those actions.
On the contrary, it is not possible to completely prevent people from committing crimes.
That's a myth perpetrated by leftists.
No matter what method you come up with, someone will find a way to do that which is against the law.
The best way to prevent crime is not to make it so that people cannot commit a crime (which only results in the endless multiplication of laws), but to make it so that people do not WANT to commit crimes, ie, deterrence.
Your rejection of God is in part a result of your nation's (presuming you aren't American, as some of your vocabulary indicates, and even if you are, America is also under condemnation of this as well) rejection of Biblical principles of governance, such as forcing restitution upon thieves, flogging those guilty of assault, and putting to death those who are convicted of capital crimes such as rape and murder.
To the extent that a government does not apply those punishments, to that extent crime becomes rampant.
To the extent that a government implements those punishments, to that extent, crime is reduced (but never completely eliminated).
To put it simply: If criminals were punished according to how God requires, then such crimes as in the example you gave prior would be virtually nonexistent, and any instances where they would occur, the criminals would be dealt with swiftly, further deterring crime.
And even if it were possible, it's still not possible to control people's thoughts, one, because humans have wills of their own, and two, because laws "thought crimes" cannot be enforced justly.
Also, not all sin is crime, but all (actual) crime is sin (ie, things that violate God's standard of justice), because God (through Paul) said to submit to one's government, for they are his ministers to bring wrath upon those who practice evil (Romans 13).
He commands that governments bring wrath upon the wicked. How is that "sitting by and watching those things happen"?
And do you think He won't EVER do anything about them?
So you don't think that having a guarantee of something happening to the perpetrator would have any effect on what he wills to do?
If the victim is not made whole, do you think that's a problem?
Should they be protected by those who have been given the responsibility to do so?
It's "God." Not "god."
Or perhaps there's a reason He doesn't use that power the way you think He should use it.
Or, He has, and men refuse to obey Him...
Correct.
Incorrect.
False.
False, as the cited article explains. The other gods are not remotely concepts, nor are they humans or angels.
Putting your own false interpretation on it equtes to denial. The Bible mentions "gods" plural in numerous places. Not humans, not angels, not made-up fictitious concepts but other gods.
As you so delight in saying . . . . "saying so does not make it true"
Made-up hogwash. Just your personal machination needed to bolster up a fractured intellectual position.
That "god" was a despotic jealous violent entity guilty of all manner of horrific actions including:
- genocide
- murder of women and children
- murder of babies
- murder of as yet unborn babies
- ethnic cleansing
and much more
In Christian terms, man is commanded "Thou shalt not kill" whilst the entity they worship kills with abject abandonment including women, children, babies as per above. As I said elsewhere, you might just as well worship Hitler. "Do as I say not as I do" are the trademark tennets of tyrants and dictators.
Correct, but this is NOT what the Bible refers to when referring to Elohim
No, you're simply trying to sweep under the carpet the inconvenient words of the Bible as they don't follow the required narrative as indeed all Christians do.
Saying so doesn't make it true
You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Life (the true universal source) is no-ones to give or take away. It exists, it is in everything. It is free. All should have access to that source. I reject any entity that would obstruct the flow of that life energy from humans. I reject any entity that imprisons humans on a planet or anywhere else and seeks to make them his slaves.
Worshipping tyrants is backwards. Refusing to critical think is backwards.
Delegation = the chain of command as already highlighted
Where there is chain of commmand the top dog is always responsible for the chain even if one part of that chain falters. You can disagree all you like since it doesn't fit your narrative but it remains the case.
In terms of YOUR imagined god, no, I can see why he doesn't intervene, why he can't intervene for as you point out he's not omnipotent, only some degree of potent which makes him rather disappointing and dubious as a god TBH. There are likely aliens out there in the galaxy somewhere who are more powerful than humans, more advanced, more intelligent. Yet despite this I would never refer to them as "God" or gods.
You're focussed on the perpetrator not the victim. Speaks volumes.
Deflection from the salient issue which you keep dodging.
You're trying all manner of ridiculous angles to try and actually justify the sexual abuse of innocent children. Are you seriously suggesting that the pain suffered (both physical and long term-psychological) of a 5 yr old child is in someway a good or beneficial thing to suffer?!!! Man that's so very sick.
You're back on the perpetrator again not the victim. Appalling.
If he's not omnipotent then he could not have created the universe. If he's not omnipotent then by very definition there must exist elsewhere someone or something that IS Omnipotent. Where does that leave your god?
Why should anyone begin with your personal premise for a god?
As already stated your god according to the OT engaged in genocide, mass murder of women, children, babies, unborn babies, ethnic cleansing and much more. Such are not acts of love.
He didn't. God isn't what you describe, simple as.
Humans don't have free will. They have space to exercise some limited will within a very limited environment. They are denied the ability to manifest using will, which is an ability described of the Biblical god. Biblically speaking god said "let there be light" and there was light, just like that. Can the same be said of humans? Nope. We're denied this kind of will.
I'm not wrong. It's perfecetly testable. Try to will something to happen. It doesn't. So you don't have any real free will. Any choices you believe you have are extremely limited and fixed, all within a totally rigged game.
Saying so doesn't make it true
Silly semantics. A will is the ability to manifest a reality by choice. You and I do not have that ability.
Wrong, that's precisely what it means. Choices are limitations. If I let you choose between A or B then I am denying you C and D ad-infinitum.
We are in a rigged environment, deliberately denied access to the vital universal life force so that we die early.
Free will means there are no restrictions whatsoever. Not finite choices but no restrictions whatsoever. Humans are denied this but Biblically speaking your God enjoys that ability, freedom, privilege and doesn't want anyone else having it.
Wrong as explained above. Limited choices means no free will.
That's your belief which you are entitled to. It's not mine.
The Bible refers to a male god certainly.
I may choose to believe whatever I wish, thank you. If you want to shell out infractions to people who don't share your beliefs then you just show yourself to be intolerant of other's views, opinions and beliefs. Such has caused bloody wars throughout history. I will believe what I will.
Understood. You believe in a god that is only partially potent and partially knowing. Your choice.
I believe in something that is the true source of all things, that has no beginning or end, that pervades every living thing, which is not material (natively) but which can be wrapped in material elements and which can not be destroyed. In this respect I guess you could say it is omnipotent for nothing can destroy it and everything that lives is a manifestation of that immortal thing.
Which is understandable if according to your belief system he is only potent to some degree and not omnipotent. He can't be everywhere all the time in your Open Theist framework. Either that or he just doesn't care that the sexual abuse of children happens. Either way it paints a really poor picture of your chosen deity. Not one I would personally want to be following and worshipping.
The statement "God allows it to happen" by definition suggests that he is capable of preventing it for otherwise he would not be allowing it to happen, it would be happening regardless of God. So the issue of power is actually irrelevant in the debate. If you assert that God deliberately allows innocent children to be sexually abused then the issue is one of morals and lack of love and concern. He's happy for such attrocities to go ahead. Again this doesn't paint a good picture of someone worth worshipping. Each to their own of course, it takes all sorts.
You refuse to do this so why should I?
A powerful entity doing things on Earth doesn't represent miracles. If aliens appeared and did things on Earth that too would not be a miracle.
No that's not true. When Jesus healed people, cured the blind man, the leper, fed the 5 thousand, raised Lazarus etc etc (i.e. the things deemed "miracles" by those without the knowledge to understand how Jesus was doing it) the people revered him and followed him around all over the place.
Ha, supra. Take this forum for example !!
Equally he who has been religiousy indoctrinated from childhood is not typically eager to let go of that false comfort blanket and be corrected with reality.
Yet again focussed on the perpetrator not the victim. It really is sick. Let's flip this.
If God is trying to form a relationship with an innocent young child, how would "allowing them" to be sexually abused be productive? Please I'm all ears go ahead . . . . .
God didn't, simple as. Biblically speaking He does not want humans being like him, doesn't want them being able to live forever as he does, didn't want them to have the kind of knowedge he has. We don't have free will simple as. We're caged and very limited. Any choices we have are generally Hobson's choice.
I don't care if it's Calvinism or not but yes that would be true. The creator must take responsibility for his creation(s). Not doing so is self-denial on his part.
He didn't
The very concept of "obeying" and "disobeying" highlights emphatically that there is no free-will, only dictatorship, tyranny. Thanks for making that clear.
Yup this, again, Biblically speaking. Remember I don't believe the literal Bible interpretation.
Which he did, and does via various means including limiting the choices, rigging the environment and circumstances and so on.
If you're not omnipotent I agree. But then we're back to the concept of a rather lame limited partially potent partially knowing entity which I can't see any reason for humans to worship.
If there is law, then choices are limited and hence there is no free will. Does your God live within laws? Nope. See the difference?
Humans - Thou shalt not kill
God - Kills with free abandon, women, children, babies, unborn babies and so on
False, stupidly false.
If you can prevent a crime from happening then that's obviously the best way. Laws don't prevent crimes happening as you've already pointed out. It requires some physical tangible barrier or obstruction which would be possible with an omnipotent being but obviously not with a sub-standard deity. Note also that the word "crime" is subjective. Who gets to decide what is a crime and what is not? The universe doesn't have such concepts.
No my rejection of YOUR particular flavour of God and really any of the Christian notions of god is the result of critical thinking and a subsequent search for truth in other directions. Essentially a maturing of the self both spiritually and mentally, letting go programmed indoctrination and moving forward, evolving.
You're describing a dictatorship again, tyranny. Not free will. If we have true will then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or "requires".
It's easily possible to control people's thoughts, hearts and minds. The human condition is a weak and vulnerable one. Religions, Companies and all manner of groups and people use well known psychological techniques to control people's hearts, thoughts and minds and have been doing so for 1000s of years.
See earlier re: chain of command
And yet again . . . focussing on the perpetrator not the victim. Whatever happens to a perpetrator doesn't in any way change the suffering and hurt of the victim.
I think it's a problem that there is a victim at all.
Those you refer to are not potent or omnipotent. They are just human. So by definition THEY can't protect an innocent child all of the time. That being the case it is a flawed concept to suggest that a god gives them such responsibility. It doesn't wash I'm afraid. Unless of course god is an idiot which I assume you are not suggesting.
People form relationships when others behave in ways that are agreeable to them. When people behave very much against your own standards of behaviour then relationships are not formed. It's a simple concept. Tyrants on the other hand don't care what you think or believe they simply want you to do what they say or else.
Again "obey" = no free choice, no free will, tyranny, dictatorship
Last edited:
That's nice.
Yes, and sometimes those uses of "gods" plural are referring to angels or men.
Indeed. Hence the rest of my argument.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
*"God"
God is not cruel, despite your accusations to that effect.
God is indeed a jealous God.
If you think God is "violent" in the Old Testament, wait until you read the New Testament!
Horrific only to those who are on the receiving end of His actions.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the LIVING God.
God has every right to bring His creation from the first stage of its existence into the next, because He is the Creator of that creation. He has inherent rights over His creation.
Supra.
If "God brings His creation from one stage of existence to the next" is all you have against Him, that's not much of an accusation.
Wrong.
If you'd like me to go into the details as to why this is wrong, I will, but suffice it to say that the Bible does not say "You shall not kill."
What it says is "You shall not murder."
If it said "You shall not kill," then a few verses later, God would have contradicted Himself when He said to put criminals guilty of capital crimes to death.
No.
God does not "kill with abject abandonment."
I guarantee you, if you look at the context, whenever God commands Israel to destroy a nation, usually there's a very good reason for it.
I warned you about this earlier.
"Do as I say and not as I do" applies correctly when the difference between the one saying it and the one it is being said to is God and man, respectively.
God has the right to say that. Man does not.
It's not?
You never answered my question from earlier.
In Psalm 82:6, whom is God referring to, when He calls them "gods"?
Says the one sweeping under the carpet the inconvenient words of the Bible as they don't follow your required narrative:
Bring out the blind people who have eyes,And the deaf who have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together,And let the people be assembled.Who among them can declare this,And show us former things?Let them bring out their witnesses, that they may be justified;Or let them hear and say, “It is truth.” “You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,“And My servant whom I have chosen,That you may know and believe Me,And understand that I am He.Before Me there was no God formed,Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord,And besides Me there is no savior. I have declared and saved,I have proclaimed,And there was no foreign god among you;Therefore you are My witnesses,”Says the Lord, “that I am God. Indeed before the day was, I am He;And there is no one who can deliver out of My hand;I work, and who will reverse it?”
Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 43:8-13 - New King James Version
Bring out the blind people who have eyes, And the deaf who have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, And let the people be assembled. Who among them can declare this, And show us former things? Let them bring out their witnesses, that they may be justified; Or let them hear and say...
Right back at'cha!
No idea what you're talking about.
God is life. Without Him, there is no life.
Sounds like pantheism.
Indeed, life is a free gift.
Why do you reject the free gift God offers?
Because you say so?
What if those humans did something that warrants taking away that life?
God doesn't do that.
God isn't a tyrant.
Indeed. So stop refusing to think critically.
Delegating a task means to entrust it to another person.
If that person fails the task, why would you hold the one delegating the task responsible for the failure?
Sure, you could say that man has failed the task God has given him, but then, that's literally what the Bible says, now, isn't it?
Which is exactly the point.
God expected man to obey Him, and man failed.
God is not responsible for that failure. MAN IS, because MAN is the one assigned the task of obeying.
So a father who raised his son to the best of his ability, who gives him every opportunity to be successful in life, is at fault when his son becomes a criminal?
In what world does that make sense?
It's called tough love.
The reason God does not always intervene (because sometimes He does) is that He wants us to experience the full weight and consequences of our sin. If God stepped in every two minutes, and stopped whatever was happening, we wouldn't experience the full weight and consequences of our sin, and the world's sin, and the fallenness around us.
I'm pretty sure I asked you before, but I don't think I got an answer.
SoT, does pain have value?
Aliens don't exist, but that's a topic for another discussion.
Part of bringing justice to the victim is dealing with the perpetrator, no?
Making the victim whole, as much as possible, is that not the goal? To do so, the perpetrator must be punished, to bring closure to the victim.
You can't just ignore the perpetrator and focus on the victim. Dealing with the perpetrator and dealing with the vitim go hand-in-hand.
Ah, here it is, the question I asked, but didn't get an answer to.
There is a reason for me asking you that, SoT, I'm trying to make you think.
If pain serves no purpose, then you are fully justified in this particular belief.
But pain DOES serve a purpose.
in fact, so much so, that if someone cannot feel pain, it's actually dangerous for him.
There's a rare condition called CIPA ("Congenital Insensitivity to Pain and Anhydrosis") that is extremely dangerous because the person who has this condition CANNOT FEEL PAIN.
They have to take a thermometer with them into the shower or whenever they interact with hot or cold surfaces, because of the potential that they might harm their bodies. The lack of the ability to feel pain that you seem to idolize is in fact extremely dangerous for someone who lacks it.
So no, my question is not just "distraction." There's a salient point behind it, one that you are trying your darndest to avoid acknowledging.
No one here, least of all myself, is trying to justify the sexual abuse of children.
Does pain have value? Yes. Therefore, lacking the ability to feel pain would be dangerous, no?
No one is suggesting that.
What I asked is if pain has VALUE.
God can, however, use that pain for good.
Do you see the difference?
What man intends for evil, God can use it for good.
Supra.
At the point of creation, God was omnipotent, because He, being the only entity in existence, had all power.
However, He has delegated some of that power to His creation.
Why?
The same place He's always been.
You are arguing against the God of the Bible.
Don't you think that it would be a good idea to know what the Bible says about Him BEFORE you try to refute His existence?
Seems only rational to me.
Otherwise, you're just arguing against a straw man, a boogeyman that you've created simply for the purpose of knocking it down, so as to claim victory against your opponent.
Don't do that.
He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. . . . And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16 - New King James Version
He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
Supra.
Is it an act of love to put a serial rapist to death, so that he can no longer harm his victims?
How about for the victim?
Is it loving to the victim to punish a criminal for his crime?
The Bible demonstrates that it is, and I agree.
So you can't answer the hypothetical?
Or you're not willing to?
If God created man with a will that is free, what does that do to your argument?
If you can't answer this, you should take some time to think about the answer.
If you refuse to answer this, you're being intellectually dishonest, and refusing to be objective when it comes to your own beliefs, and your beliefs are clouding your vision.
Then why, in your day to day life, do you act as though you do?
"Free will is not a superpower." - some theologian whom I don't remember the name of
Look, no one is arguing that people have unlimited capability.
That's just not what a "will" is.
Again, a will is the ability to choose.
A will is not "I want to fly," therefore I sprout wings and start flapping.
A will is, "I refuse to to option A, and instead choose option B."
And even if someone is presented with only option A, an entity with a will can always choose to refrain from choosing option A.
Your above qualification applies to my definition of "will."
But in case you still had doubts:
Definition of WILL
—used to express futurity; —used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal; —used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction… See the full definition
Which isn't what "will" means, anyways.
Yes, God did not create man to be equal to Himself.
Why is that a problem?
So what?
The problem is that that's not what will means, as I showed you above.
Your argument is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow.
Just because we can't do anything and everything, doesn't mean we don't have a will.
You're making the argument "all cars are red," and I'm showing you a blue car. That doesn't mean that MOST cars aren't red, nor does it mean that most cars are blue. It just means that not all cars are red.
Does that make sense?
Supra.
It matters.
No, it's not.
Again, here is the definition of "will."
Definition of WILL
—used to express futurity; —used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal; —used to express a command, exhortation, or injunction… See the full definition
If you are tied to a chair, hands and feet bound to it, completely immobilized, then you can will all you want to get up and leave, but your restraints prohibit you from doing so.
You don't lack a will. You simply lack the ability to enact your will, in that situation.
The problem is that you're conflating the two. Don't do that.
Supra.
Supra.
Not quite.
Choices are possibilities.
If something is not possible, then you are not free to do it. It doesn't mean you are not willing to do it.
I can will that when I jump off a cliff, that I will sprout wings and start flying, but it won't change the fact that I will fall to my death.
Yet I still chose to jump off a cliff and try to sprout wings.
Ergo, a will.
So what? I still have a choice, to choose either A or , and even to refrain from choosing.
That's a will.
No, we're not.
God offers you the free gift of life. You refuse to take it. A choice.
He wills that you have the option.
You will to not take the option.
False.
Not possible.
You are not God, stop desiring to be Him.
The sooner you do, the better off you will be.
Humans are denied this because humans are not God.
Such is an aspect of His existence, not a trait God can give to His creation.
Is not the freedom to rebel against Him not enough for you?
I suppose I know your answer to that question already. No, it's not.
You would, given the opportunity, put God to death to justify your wicked desires.
It's a good thing God DIDN'T give you such capability.
Supra.
No, it's how God describes Himself.
No one is saying you can't.
Rule 3, Rule 7, Rule 9.
If you can't abide by the rules of this board, you will be removed from it.
Remember, you are a GUEST here, on a mainline CHRISTIAN board.
Show some respect, or leave.
Calling God "she" or "it" is blasphemy, according to mainline Christianity.
Sounds like a bunch of new-age hooey.
God can be anywhere He wants to be.
And that's not "omnipotence." That's "omnipresence."
Do not be deceived God is not mocked.
Again, the problem is that you assume pain cannot have any value. It has TREMENDOUS value, and can be used for a purpose.
It tells people, hey, something is wrong here, and needs to be fixed!
If God were to step in, and prevent things from happening which cause pain, then no one would know that something is wrong. They therefore wouldn't know that there is a solution to their pain, even if the solution isn't immediate.
And some love is worth much pain.
Please watch the following interview between a friend of mine, Dominic Enyart, and Dr. Leighton Flowers. Much if not most of what they discussed is directly relevant to this discussion, particularly on the reason for suffering and why God allows certain things to happen.
Yes, it's an hour and a half long (if you listen at 2x speed, it's only 40-45 minutes). But since you're temp-banned for now, you should have plenty of time to watch it while you wait for your ban to expire.
Please use your time wisely.
Have you ever considered that God is just as frustrated as you are when an innocent child is harmed?
I bet you didn't.
Yet the Bible is FULL of examples where God is frustrated with the things men do, when all they have to do is trust, honor, and obey Him, and they would not be suffering!
You've created a straw man, one that does not accurately represent the God of the Bible.
God is not happy for such atrocities to occur.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain, "Pain is God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world."
He wants nothing more than to ease the suffering of the innocent, but because He is committed to the good of His creation, He does not.
Except that's not what the Bible teaches.
It's exactly what I've BEEN doing, SoT!
I've been showing you why your system doesn't work from within your own system.
It doesn't help that every time I make a salient point, you dismiss it as though I'm not addressing the point of contention, when in reality I am!
Feeding five thousand people with just five loaves of bread and two fish isn't a miracle?
Turning water directly into wine, and not the stuff that the host would bring out once his guests were drunk, but the GOOD wine, isn't a miracle?
Healing the lame, giving sight to the blind, even raising people from the dead, those aren't miracles?
How about casting out an unclean spirit?
Healing lepers? Stilling a storm? Curing a paralytic?
Aliens don't exist. Don't appeal to fiction.
1) You don't seem to understand what a miracle is.
A miracle is not doing something that can't be explained by the technology of the time.
A miracle is doing something that violates the very laws of reality.
Raising someone from the dead is not possible, according to the laws of reality. But God can, because He is the One who created man, the One who designed him. It's a simple matter for God to bring someone back to life, especially at someone's request.
And particularly regarding raising someone from the dead, the only one who claims to have raised Himself from the dead is Jesus Christ, which proves that He is God.
2) Do you think that most of the people who followed Jesus, followed Him because of how amazing He was? OR were they just following Him because they wanted to be fed and entertained?
That assumes that reality is in conflict with his beliefs.
Something that, to you, I have demonstrated over and over and over again.
Supra.
Supra, re: pain.
Supra.
Theistic Determinism (such as Calvinism) is false.
Therefore, God is not responsible for the actions of the free moral agents He created.
To assert that He should is arrogance.
False.
This is what happens when you have incorrect definitions for words.
Again, a will is the ability to choose.
You can choose to obey.
You can choose to disobey.
(There is no in-between, by the way, due to the law of non-contradiction.)
That is, by definition, what it means to have a will.
And if it's not free, it's not a will. Thus "free-will" is redundant.
To paraphrase A. W. Tozer: "God in His sovereignty has decided not which choice we'll make but that we'd be free to make it. Another God less-than sovereign would be afraid to grant His creatures that kind of choice."
Granting that kind of choice is what makes evil possible, and the pain that comes with that.
That seems to be a price worth paying, according to what we see in scripture, and, again, overwhelmingly, God's response is that He doesn't like that pain, and that such pain could have been avoided!
See the Tozer paraphrase above.
Man, being free, is thus responsible for his own choices, not God.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
He is worthy because 1) He is our Creator, and 2) because He loves us, and demonstrated His love for us, by going to the cross, and then raising Himself up on the third day.
He is worthy because He is who He says He is, always.
He is worthy because no other being, thing, pursuit, or pleasure is worthy of the place He inhabits on the throne of existence, besides Himself.
Limited choices doesn't mean no will.
You always have the option to refuse the option given.
If you did not have the option to refuse, then you do not have a will.
God is bound by His righteous character.
Wrong. Supra.
Supra.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Only if the goal is to simply stop a crime from happening.
But if the goal is something greater, then you can't just say "just stop the crime."
For example, police will often go undercover within drug cartels, ignoring the common drug dealing in order to catch the big fish.
In the same way, God allows sin and pain because His goal is to bring people back into a relationship with Him, and the best way to do that is, as stated above, for people to experience the full weight and consequences of sin, why, because ONLY HE can save men from their sin.
Physical barriers or obstructions can be worked around.
And again, God intervening in every bad thing happening would prevent people from experiencing the weight and consequences of sin. Supra.
God does, because He is Love.
Then by what measure do you condemn God?
False.
Rejection of God is simply throwing a temper-tantrum because God isn't how you imagined Him.
Yawn, more new-age nonsense.
I'm not, actually.
God commands us not to sin, and He gives us the ability not to sin.
He commands us to punish criminals a certain way, and gives us the ability not to.
He wants us to love Him and each other, yet gave humans the ability to hate.
A tyrant wouldn't give you such freedom.
God is not a dictator nor a tyrant.
Is God a Cruel Tyrant?
Is God a “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser” as Richard Dawkins claims? Is the God of Scripture a cruel dictator or is there a fuller picture that’s being ignored?
livingwaters.com
If it's not free, it's not a will.
Right, that's the ability to choose otherwise.
A tyrant wouldn't give you that ability. He would force you to do what he wants, regardless of what you choose.
God gave you the ability to reject Him.
You are free, and able, and do, reject Him.
And come Judgement Day, you will not be sent to the lake of fire because of any good or evil thing you've done, but because He will honor your rejection of Him, and send you to live apart from Him, where you'll never have to see Him or those who love Him again.
I strongly urge you to reconsider.
For God, sure.
But does He?
The answer is a resounding NO!
To do so would violate not only man's will, but His own righteous character, as He is committed to the good of humanity.
In some respects yes, and others no.
But none of which preclude men from having a will.
Supra.
Supra.
False.
Punishing a woman's rapist by putting the rapist to death would bring closure to the woman, and while it wouldn't undo the rape, it would prevent the criminal from ever committing that crime again.
I assert, the reason you think there is no justice in this world is because your nation does not put criminals who have committed capital crimes to death.
Such is the full weight and consequence of man's sin.
The answer is not to demand why there is pain, but to look to the one who is able and willing to heal you of it.
So what?
Should they therefore not be protected by them?
Again, so what?
Moving the goalposts.
Should the innocent be protected by those who are given the responsibility to do so?
Why?
Again, why?
God is definitely not an idiot.
Sure, but I don't see how this is relevant to what I said, which was, as I've explained thoroughly in this post, indicating that there is a reason for not using His power the way you demand He use it.
Is someone who will honor your desire to be apart from Him, and thus send you away to live apart from Him, a tyrant?
False.
You have the option to disobey.
You'll face the consequences of course, but you're still free to do so.
That's not tyranny.
God is not a dictator.