• O Hail Ye, almighty loving God…

    Jeremiah 19:

    19 Thus says the Lord, “Go and buy a potter’s earthenware jar, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the [a]senior priests. Then go out to the valley of Ben-hinnom, which is by the entrance of the potsherd gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you, and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Behold I am about to bring a calamity upon this place, at which the ears of everyone that hears of it will tingle. Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned [b]sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My [c]mind; therefore, behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the valley of Slaughter. I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth.I will also make this city a desolation and an object of hissing; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and hiss because of all its [d]disasters. I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them.”’

    So, remind me, this God. He’s all-loving, right?

    Category: Biblical ExegesisGod's Characteristics

    Tags:

    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    One Pingback/Trackback

    • Andy_Schueler

      When it comes to the OT prophets, what surprised me most is not that the Yahweh character comes across as a complete asshole (this was only consistent with the earlier books), what most surprised me is how long-winded, redundant, boring and whiny those damn prophets are.
      I tried to read the Bible cover to cover, but I eventually skipped most of the Psalms and most of the OT prophets – I would really like to know how many christians actually managed to read the Bible completely without skipping the most boring parts.

    • Daydreamer1

      This reminds me of a comment I saw yesterday regarding secularism and Islam. The argument went: Islam and secularism are compatible because Islam has always been secular and modern interpretations are mistakes. The Koran was always accepted by Muslims you see, and when they traveled outside their core lands they found lots of people not following it. Naturally they were following it without any complaint back home since it is true and they were good Muslims, but being enlightened they didn’t just expect everyone else to follow the Koran perfectly so they created the Hadith. So the Hadith is the secular part of Islam; it was first created to give laws and rules to all the non-Muslims who, because Muslims were enlightened and secular, weren’t expected to follow the Koran. So Islam is secular see.

      Well, if thats secular then I don’t really want much to do with it thanks. It also seems to me that if a democracy cannot vote on its laws (including its religious ones) then it isn’t secular, or democratic.

    • John Grove

      Anyone can easily see that the god these Jewish people believed in was made after their own likings.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Anyone can easily see that the god these Jewish people believed in was made after their own likings.

        That happens to be true for all Gods.

    • JohnM

      Omnibenevolence never was a biblical doctrine. It’s just some gibberish that Augustine made up, based on Plato’s writings, which was then made popular by the Catholic church.

      There are many things that God does not love.. Such as people burning their sons, in high places, as burnt offerings to Baal, which is what Jeremiah 19 is all about.

      And anyone who have read the bible, will know, that God often repays the actions of wicked people, with plagues, floods, fire and brimstone.

      • Andy_Schueler

        It’s just some gibberish that Augustine made up, based on Plato’s writings, which was then made popular by the Catholic church.

        1. “Gibberish” doesn´t mean what you think it means. You use the word as a label for claims that you find wrong / stupid – but “gibberish” actually refers to speech that is nonsensical or unintelligible.
        2. I´m aware that Augustine wrote about the problem of evil, but where exactly did you get the notion that he “made up” the notion of omnibenevolence?

        There are many things that God does not love..Such as people burning their sons, in high places, as burnt offerings to Baal, which is what Jeremiah 19 is all about.

        1. “Omnibenevolence” means infinite goodness / benevolence. And infinite goodness does not imply “love” for activities like murder…
        2. While Yahweh seems to deplore children being sacrificed to other Gods, the concept of murdering innocent children in the cruelest ways imaginable seems to appeal to him:
        I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them”

        • JohnM

          Andy said : I´m aware that Augustine wrote about the problem of evil, but where exactly did you get the notion that he “made up” the notion of omnibenevolence?

          I didn’t. I said:

          Omnibenevolence never was a biblical doctrine. It’s just some gibberish that Augustine made up, based on Plato’s writings.

          Which is another way of saying, that Augustine, who was himself a Neoplatonist, introduced pagan concepts, developed by Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and what have you, into Christianity.

          Andy said : “Omnibenevolence” means infinite goodness / benevolence

          Well Jonathan kinda talked an “all-loving” God in the OP… And we can’t blame him, because it is a perfectly valid interpretation…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence
          The word “omnibenevolence” may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities

          • Andy_Schueler

            I didn’t.

            Of course you did.

            I said:

            Omnibenevolence never was a biblical doctrine. It’s just some gibberish that Augustine made up, based on Plato’s writings.

            Translation: “I didn´t say A, I actually said A.”

            Which is another way of saying, that Augustine, who was himself a Neoplatonist, introduced pagan concepts, developed by Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and what have you, into Christianity.

            1. Christianity is nothing but pagan concepts introduced into Judaism.
            2. You said that Omnibenevolence was “made up” by Augustine and “made popular” by the catholic church. And I strongly doubt that because I can´t find any references where Augustine is talking about a “perfectly good” or “all-loving” God.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : I can´t find any references where Augustine is talking about a “perfectly good” or “all-loving” God.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy
              The Augustinian theodicy is a type of Christian theodicy designed to respond to the evidential problem of evil. As such, it attempts to explain the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (or all-powerful and perfectly loving) God amid evidence of evil in the world.

            • Andy_Schueler

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence#Etymology

              “Omnibenevolence” appears to have a very casual usage among some Protestant Christian commentators. The earliest record for its use in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is in 1679. The Catholic Church does not appear to use the term “omnibenevolent” in the liturgy or Catechism.

              I´d also like to know how exactly you think Augustine´s views on the problem of evil are different from yours.

            • JohnM

              I don’t have a problem of evil.

              Evil and wickedness in the world, is no great mystery to me. It’s exactly what we should expect to see, based on what we read in the bible. And I don’t wonder about it’s origin. Because the bible explains that as well.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
              – Voltaire

            • The problem is that you don’t really understand the argument. What is the origin of the origin?

              You have a really bizarre (convenient) understanding of causality.

              Again we return to the analogy:

              I create a sentient lifeform in the lab. I design this from scratch. I could have done it otherwise but I choose to do it like this.

              I know this lifeform will escape from my lab and go and murder people in town. I know this utterly. They do this using the mechanisms which I have designed into them. Imagine one of these people they kill is your daughter. And yet, even knowing this destruction they will cause, I decide to create them anyway.

              The police knock at my door. They say it is my fault.

              But, using JohnM’s logic, I deny this, arguing they used their own mechanisms to murder.

              But the police say that I/ designed those mechanisms, knew what they would do, created them anyway, and then let them run amok.

              The police laugh off my defence. They lock me up.

              That’s the end of the mad scientist who created evil beings.

            • Andy_Schueler

              The last time JohnM got this response, his reply was: “LOL, Epic fail analogy!” – let´s see what he tries this time ;-)

            • JohnM

              Asking what’s the origin of the origin, is like asking what was before the beginning.

              Keep in mind that creation was the beginning of time. Before that point, no future, no past.

              God has the ability to predict the future in time, like we can predict the path of a ball in motion.

              But how one predict the future, before time? That’s like predicting the path of a ball, that has not yet been set in motion.

            • Oh dear. You really don’t get it.

              So, you seem, and rightly so, given your position, that we need to posit a first mover.

              However, the first mover has ultimate responsibility. So, given a causal chain (of responsibility), the buck stops with the corporate boss.

            • JohnM

              Well, my father and mother are the cause of me. So if I murder someone, we hold them responsible for my actions? Or we hold me responsible for my own actions?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Well, my father and mother are the cause of me. So if I murder someone, we hold them responsible for my actions?

              Try writing up in which ways this is similar to Jonathan´s thought experiment and in which ways it is not similar.
              Maybe then you´ll see why this reply is moronic.

            • have to concur with Andy. This is about the worst false analogy ever.

              Your parents didn’t design you.
              Your parent’s didn’t ‘create’ you in the same omni way.
              Your parents didn’t have perfect foreknowledge of your future, and create you anyway even knowing how evil you would be.
              Your parents didn’t have omnipotence to be able to stop you at any point of doing that evil.

              etc

              Fail.

            • JohnM

              You can say what you want. It doesn’t change anything.

              We all know, that I’m responsible for my own actions, because I had a choice.

              Causal chains are only relevant in a no free will scenario.

            • Andy_Schueler

              We all know, that I’m responsible for my own actions, because I had a choice.

              Causal chains are only relevant in a no free will scenario.

              Oh, so we could chose to commit evil deeds in heaven? No, right…. we can´t.
              We will have free will in heaven, but no “knowledge of evil”. And Yahweh wanted to create such a world where no evil exists with the Garden of Eden, but an evil snake fucked it up by lying about a completely unnecessary magic tree. And the whole “knowledge of evil” thingy obviouslyworks completely different for the magic snake – it can aquire that knowledge by itself but no one else can because yadda yadda yadda Bible says so yadda yadda yadda.

              Consistency and logic are not your friends.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Oh, so we could chose to commit evil deeds in heaven?

              Well, can you choose to grow wings and fly like birds?

              Andy said : We will have free will in heaven, but no “knowledge of evil”

              You have no knowledge the kind of car that I drive. And therefore you have no free will?

              Andy said : And the whole “knowledge of evil” thingy obviously works completely different for the magic snake – it can aquire that knowledge by itself

              Satan didn’t acquire such knowledge. Satan is the Father of lies.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Satan didn’t acquire such knowledge. Satan is theFather of lies.

              Yahweh´s creation is perfectly good! Especially the “Father of lies” he created who fucked everything up – makes total sense!

            • JohnM

              Gods creation is X.

              The father of lies is Y

              X != Y

            • Andy_Schueler

              Gods creation is X.

              The father of lies is Y

              X != Y

              Ah, so God cannot create a perfect world in principle because any schmock can simply fuck up his creation. So your God might not be evil but rather just completely incompetent.
              That´s of course much better.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Ah, so God cannot create a perfect world in principle…

              Genesis 1:31
              God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning – the sixth day.

              Andy said : ..because any schmock can simply fuck up his creation.

              Again, don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted. Every perfect vase can be destroyed. Every perfect truth can be corrupted.

              It’s flawed logic. Why go there?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Genesis 1:31

              God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning – the sixth day.

              A smart God might have noticed the evil magic snake.

              Again, don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted. Every perfect vase can be destroyed. Every perfect truth can be corrupted.

              So heaven can be corrupted as well and the whole mess with evil magic snakes (or whatever other fantasy creature it will be that fucks up heaven) starts all over again ad infinitum.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : A smart God might have noticed the evil magic snake.

              A smart reader would have asked him/her-self, if there actually were an evil snake to be noticed, at the time.

            • Andy_Schueler

              A smart reader would have asked him/her-self, if there actually were an evil snake to be noticed, at the time.

              So evil magic snake was created at creation day seven [citation needed].

              Again, don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted. Every perfect vase can be destroyed. Every perfect truth can be corrupted.

              So heaven can be corrupted as well and the whole mess with evil magic snakes (or whatever other fantasy creature it will be that fucks up heaven) starts all over again ad infinitum.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : So evil magic snake was created at creation day seven

              Day seven is the day of rest.

              Andy said : starts all over again ad infinitum

              Wouldn’t you need a infinite number of triggers to get an infinite loop?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Day seven is the day of rest.

              A simple, “oh, it appears I was wrong” would have been sufficient.

              Wouldn’t you need a infinite number of triggers to get an infinite loop?

              Again, don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted. Every perfect vase can be destroyed. Every perfect truth can be corrupted.
              — JohnM

            • JohnM

              How many times can you destroy a perfect vase?

              But that’s not the point. The point is, that things does not happen of themselves. You need a trigger in each loop, to have an infinite loop. And as we know from reading the bible, the trigger of the first loop, won’t be part of the second. So what makes you think it’ll loop again?

              A simple, “oh, it appears I was wrong” would have been sufficient.

              Let’s sum up.

              It wasn’t created at day 6, because all creation was good. No evil snakes to be noticed.

              Day seven is the day of rest.

              So, where does that leave us?

            • Andy_Schueler

              But that’s not the point. The point is, that things does not happen of themselves. You need a trigger in each loop, to have an infinite loop. And as we know from reading the bible, the trigger of the first loop, won’t be part of the second. So what makes you think it’ll loop again?

              Again, don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted. Every perfect vase can be destroyed. Every perfect truth can be corrupted.
              — JohnM

              If you now want to modify that to “everything can be destroyed / corrupted if there is a “trigger” for that” – this doesn´t change much because Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to prevent such a “trigger” from occuring – else there would not have been a loop one.

              Let’s sum up.

              It wasn’t created at day 6, because all creation was good. No evil snakes to be noticed.

              So there was no evil entitiy that was able to create said evil magic snake, meaning it must have emerged spontaneously, meaning that Yahweh is unwilling or unable to prevent such things from happening.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Yahweh is either unable or unwilling to prevent such a “trigger” from occuring

              Prevent what? The chance of a perfect vase being destroyed is always there.

              Andy said : else there would not have been a loop one.

              You cannot prevent what is possible. But you can get rid of the vandals, running around smashing perfect vases with baseball bats.

              Andy said : So there was no evil entity that was able to create said evil magic snake

              You don’t create evil. You leave out the good.

              Andy said : meaning it must have emerged spontaneously

              Without a cause? There is always a cause for evil.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You cannot prevent what is possible. But you can get rid of the vandals, running around smashing perfect vases with baseball bats.

              Yahweh was unwilling or unable to do that.

              You don’t create evil. You leave out the good.

              Yahweh was unwilling or unable to prevent that.

              Without a cause? There is always a cause for evil.

              And Yahweh is unwilling or unable to do anything about that.

            • JohnM

              Omnipotency is definde as that which is logically possible.

              You cannot prevent what is possible. You must make it impossible.

              Andy said : Yahweh was unwilling or unable to prevent that.

              How would one prevent someone with free will from leaving out the good part?

            • Andy_Schueler

              You cannot prevent what is possible. You must make it impossible.

              Yahweh was unwilling or unable to do that.

              How would one prevent someone with free will from leaving out the good part?

              Your “solution” was to make it impossible to have “knowledge of evil” – which Yahweh is unwilling or unable to do.

            • JohnM

              Maybe God had a good reason for not making us chairs to sit on?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Maybe the Hulk is stronger than Godzilla?

            • John Grove

              [[don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted]]

              Did god know that it would be corrupted? Yes or No?
              Could god have prevented such corruption to occur? Yes or No?

              Also, Can god be corrupted? Remember, “don’t make the mistake that something which is perfect cannot be corrupted or destroyed.” According to your own rules of logic you have laid down, God can be corrupted.

            • JohnM

              John Grove said :Did god know that it would be corrupted?

              How can one know the future before time was?

              John Grove said : Could god have prevented such corruption to occur?

              Well yeah, he could have made us all chairs to sit on, I guess. But then again, interacting with a chair is not the same as playing with your dog. Something wonderful happens, when the thing that you’re interacting with has a choice to lick you or bit you. And that’s greater than sitting on a chair that has no choice, am I right?

              John Grove said : Also, can God be corrupted?

              Ezekiel 20:9
              But for the sake of my name, I brought them out of Egypt. I did it to keep my name from being profaned in the eyes of the nations among whom they lived and in whose sight I had revealed myself to the Israelites.

              For the sake of his holy name… What would have happened, if God had not kept his word?

            • Andy_Schueler

              How can one know the future before time was?

              You have already demonstrated that you are too stupid to understand the answer to that.

            • John Grove

              Remember JohnM, “don’t make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted.” Isn’t that what you said?

            • JohnM

              How do you guys get form “Things can be corrupted” to “And therefore God created the world corrupted”. That’s pretty weird. That things can be corrupted, says nothing about what the world was first like.

            • John Grove

              I didn’t say god created the world corrupted. As Jonathan has told you, you are missing the arguments. He actualized a world out of infinite possibilities. If god is omnipotent and all loving, he could have actualized a world with no corruption and no sin and much less gratuitous suffering.

              He didn’t. He knew that his creation would fall. He knew there would be sin. So, the fact that you fail to address this only shows your cognitive dissonance and invincible ignorance. Seriously, people like you scare me. You have such a degree of brainwashing that I think that in all sincerity, there is absolutely no hope for you. You are too deluded to even face the arguments honestly. You won’t even admit there are problems on your side to face. Nothing cannot be explained away by your side stepping.

              Stephen Law describes you well in his book on bullshit.

            • JohnM

              John Grove : I didn’t say god created the world corrupted.

              But did you read the quote about how the bible tells us that it was created?

              John Grove : he could have actualized a world with no corruption

              He did, according to the bible.

              He knew there would be sin

              Says who?

            • John Grove

              So, God, according to you didn’t know there would be sin? Is this what you are defending?

            • JohnM

              John Grove said : He knew there would be sin

              Says who?

            • John Grove

              So you concede that god could have made a world without corruption but chose not to. You admit that god could have prevented the corruption from occurring but didn’t. You make the atheist point for us. Either god is impotent or evil.

            • JohnM

              John Grove said : So you concede that god could have made a world without corruption but chose not to.

              Genesis 1:31
              God saw all that he had made, and it was very good

            • John Grove

              JohnM,
              You just like wasting people’s time don’t you? Come on, for once be honest. You do huh? Admit it.

            • John Grove

              [[Gods creation is X.]]

              And Satan is encompassed in X. Thus, God created Satan.

            • JohnM

              John Grove said : God created Satan.

              Great. And what’s next? “Once saved always saved” is supported by the bible?

            • John Grove

              Only if you think the atonement actually paid the price for the sins of his elect. But, I forgot, you seem to think you can be held by god based on what you do, not what god did. BTW, you also seem to think that a person can seek god, despite the verse that says, “There is none that seek after God”. You also seem to think a dead person can somehow understand spiritual things, despite the fact the Bible says that a natural man cannot do this. You seem to think you can, in effect, ELECT themselves.

            • John Grove

              [[You can say what you want. It doesn’t change anything.]]

              Isn’t this an admission to invincible ignorance? Like a child putting their fingers in their ears screaming, “I’m not listening!”

            • “You can say what you want. It doesn’t change anything.

              We all know, that I’m responsible for my own actions, because I had a choice.

              Causal chains are only relevant in a no free will scenario.”

              John, you are missing the point. This has NOTHING to do with whether free will exists or not, per se. It has EVERYTHING to do with the doctrine of omniscience. If God knows all counterfactuals and actualises a particular world, out of an infinite choice of worlds, and to do so DESIGNS everything which brings about such chosen actualisations, then he is ultimately responsible for the outcome.

              Until we get yourself out of this mess, the rest of your ruminations are irrelevant.

              After all, other theologians realise this. They either ignore it, as most do (imagining there must be SOME answer, but not being able to properly give one) or they invent new theologies.

              This is PRECISELY why open theism was devised.

              Unless you ascribe to open theism, your theology requires you to accept God as responsible for all sin.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

            • JohnM

              Jonathan said : you are missing the point. This has NOTHING to do with whether free will exists or not, per se. It has EVERYTHING to do with the doctrine of omniscience.

              I completely understand omniscience in time. Knowing the future before time was… That part I find really weird. That’s like attempting to predict the path of a ball, before it is in motion.

              Jonathan said : If God knows all counterfactuals and actualises a particular world, out of an infinite choice of worlds

              You and I are actualising this particular world, though our choices, right now.

              Jonathan said : and to do so DESIGNS everything which brings about such chosen actualisations

              One thing is design. Another thing is application.

              If a car crashes because I’m drunk. We don’t blame the car designer. We blame me.

              Jonathan said : then he is ultimately responsible for the outcome

              In a free will scenario, people are responsible for their own choices. And no one else.

              We only have ourselves to blame, for your own actions.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I completely understand omniscience in time. Knowing the future before time was… That part I find really weird. That’s like attempting to predict the path of a ball, before it is in motion.

              JohnM, seriously, you are too stupid to discuss this – the basics of classical mechanics are taught in 9th-10th grade, and you don´t even understand the most rudimentary concepts related to it (seriously, how the fuck did you pass high school?).

            • John Grove

              Andy, you took the words right out of my keyboard.

            • Andy_Schueler

              We already had a “Creationist logic 101” series thanks to JohnM. I guess it´s time for “Creationist physics 101” ;-).

              Creationist physics 101:
              Classical mechanics does NOT apply to stationary objects! Physicists might have used the corresponding equations for three centuries already and they might be the foundation for many engineering fields, but they do not, I repeat, they do NOT work!

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Classical mechanics does NOT apply to stationary objects!

              Stationary objects?! Weren’t we predicting the path of a ball in motion?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Yes, and a certain fucktard said “And how can you tell all those things, from a ball that isn’t moving?”

            • JohnM

              That was in relation to a future throw of a ball, by me, which you had no knowledge of how I would throw. That’s the key you see.. You need knowledge of the future, to predict the future. You’re only able to predict the path of the future throw, if you have info about how I’ll throw in the future.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You can calculate the motion of EVERY conceivable ball thrown in EVERY conceivable way under ALL conceivable initial conditions.
              And if you would exist outside time (as Yahweh allegedly did before he created time) – you could do these calculations as well for ALL conceivable universes, BEFORE they come into existence.
              Yahweh either has omniscience, or he doesn´t. If he has omniscience, he knows how every conceivable universe will turn out BEFORE he creates it.

              Moron.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : If he has omniscience, he knows how every conceivable universe will turn out BEFORE he creates it.

              You’re still lost in determinism.

              Andy said :You can calculate the motion of EVERY conceivable ball thrown in EVERY conceivable way under ALL conceivable initial conditions.

              Knowing all possible options, is one thing.

              Knowing how it will actually play out, is another.

              Andy said : you could do these calculations as well for ALL conceivable universes, BEFORE they come into existence.

              That would be an infinite number of options. If one had to calculate an infinite number of options, when would one be done?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Either Yahweh has omniscience or he doesn´t.
              Pick one answer and stick to it you dishonest asshole.

            • JohnM

              It depends on, what you mean by omniscience. I don’t subscribe to the doctrine of Omniscience as such. I only subscribe to the bible verses that speaks about the abilities of God.

            • Andy_Schueler

              So your God is not only unable to create a perfect world, he wouldn´t even know how it could look like because he cannot predict how his creation would behave.

              And in one fell swoop, you just refuted every single assertion you previously made in this thread.

              How about you try making up your mind before spewing your idiocy? Would save everyone else a lot of time.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : So your God is not only unable to create a perfect world

              What do you mean, unable? The bible states the completely opposite. That what God created was indeed good and perfect. How many times do I have to quote Genesis for you to actually get it?

            • Andy_Schueler

              What do you mean, unable? The bible states the completely opposite. That what created was indeed good and perfect. How many times do I have to quote Genesis for you to actually get it?

              How many times do I have to tell you that quoting the Bible doesn´t magically remove the contradictions in your ridiculous belief system?

            • JohnM

              Andy said : quoting the Bible doesn´t magically remove the contradictions

              Genesis 1:31
              God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning – the sixth day.

              That’s what the bible says. And that contradicts with what?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Andy: If he has omniscience, he knows how every conceivable universe will turn out BEFORE he creates it.

              JohnM: You’re still lost in determinism.

              You just claimed that God cannot predict how a universe created by him will behave. Meaning that he cannot create a world that is perfectly good (or perfectly anything or specific in ANY way) because he doesn´t know the consequences of his creative acts.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : You just claimed that God cannot predict how a universe created by him will behave.

              No, I did not. I said : You’re still lost in determinism.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You don´t seem to know what any of those words you throw around mean.

            • JohnM

              You only calculate how a universe will behave, in a no free will causal chain. If your creations have free will, it’s impossible to calculate, how it will turn out. Because the universe will be shaped by free will choices.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You just claimed that God cannot predict how a universe created by him will behave. Meaning that he cannot create a world that is perfectly good (or perfectly anything or specific in ANY way) because he doesn´t know the consequences of his creative acts.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : You just claimed that God cannot predict how a universe created by him will behave

              I did not use the word predict. I used the word calculate.

              And calculating is only one method of how we attempt to predict the future. I wonder if there are more? Some which are even unknown to us maybe?

              Andy said : Meaning that he cannot create a world that is perfectly good

              A perfectly good world, would be one that is good, at the point of creation. You don’t need any future knowledge for that. You only need knowledge about what is good.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I did not use the word predict. I used the word calculate.

              Idiot.

              A perfectly good world, would be one that is good, at the point of creation. You don’t need any future knowledge for that. You only need knowledge about what is good.

              This idiotic garbage, which you just made up out of thin air, is not even a coherent idea. You simply redefine the word “good” into something completely meaningless. “Good at the point of creation” means “good” at t=0 and only t=0 – meaning that nothing could have happened yet and without any event happening, “goodness” (or lack thereof) cannot be evaluated because nothing has happened that could be classified as “good” or “not good”.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : This idiotic garbage, which you just made up out of thin air

              No, it’s common knowledge.. If you want to evaluate if something is “good”, you look at it as it was intended or in its current state.. A car for example. You evaluate a car based on what it drives like, when it’s new and just finished “created”. You don’t evaluate a car, based on how it drives, after having been in a crash or been standing around rusting in the rain for 20 years. That’s not what the designer, designed it to be. And therefore it’s not a valid way of evaluating the design.

              If you want to talk about if the creation was good or not, you have to look at it
              as it was, just after the creation process had finished.

              Andy said : meaning that nothing could have happened yet and without any event happening, “goodness” (or lack thereof) cannot be evaluated

              Good or bad are not defined by time or events.. Rape didn’t become bad after a while. It didn’t start out good and then went bad. It always has been bad.

              Creation was good. And then changed into something bad. Not because the status of what is good and bad change. But because what was created, was transformed into something else, at the fall.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, it’s common knowledge.. If you want to evaluate if something is “good”, you look at it as it was intended or in its current state.. A car for example. You evaluate a car based on what it drives like

              Now try actually reading my comment and maybe then you´ll realize why this reply is moronic. I strongly doubt it though.

            • Man, John has entered new levels of ridiculous here:

              “No, it’s common knowledge.. If you want to evaluate if something is “good”, you look at it as it was intended or in its current state.. A car for example. You evaluate a car based on what it drives like”

              So it’s about intention… but then he claims it is about actuality (what it drives like).

              He has completely contradicted his own argument in one short, crappy paragraph.

            • JohnM

              When it comes to design it is about intention.. Like what environment is this car designed for? Is it intended to drive in the arctic? Then it would be bad, if it wasn’t good at that.. If it was intended to drive on as a normal family car, then it may not matter how it performs in arctic conditions.

              Taking a shopping cart from a supermarket, dragging it out into a desert, and then pointing out that it’s horrible to drag around in a desert, makes little sense, at it was never intended to be dragged around in a desert. It was intended to be dragged around in a supermarket, and therefore one has to test it there, to evaluate the design.

            • “Creation was good. And then changed into something bad. Not because the status of what is good and bad change. But because what was created, was transformed into something else, at the fall.”

              so it was because what was created. But who created these things? Who designed personality dynamics and temptation? I know I certainly didn’t. God designed EVERYTHING. There was NOTHING but GOD before this. So what part of creation do I have ULTIMATE responsibility for?

            • JohnM

              Jonathan : God designed EVERYTHING

              Not according to the bible. Satan is the Father of lies, not God.

            • Who is the Father of Satan? ho designed him,?> Who is sovereign? Who is omnipotent?

            • JohnM

              Satan has no father.

              Satan is the former creation of God, which was know as Lucifer.

              Ezekiel 28 : 14 – 17
              You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
              for so I ordained you.
              You were on the holy mount of God;
              you walked among the fiery stones.
              You were blameless in your ways
              from the day you were created
              till wickedness was found in you.
              Through your widespread trade
              you were filled with violence,
              and you sinned.
              So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
              and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
              from among the fiery stones.
              Your heart became proud
              on account of your beauty,
              and you corrupted your wisdom
              because of your splendor.

              1) You were… Meaning: is no more.

              2) Who corrupted his wisdom? Who made him what he is now?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Ah, so now Satan is the “former creation of God” and no longer “created by Lucifer, through mutations”.
              But who gives a fuck – you are making this shit up as you go along anyway.

            • JohnM

              It’s rather funny that you first have no problem connect what we read in this verse, with something that I’ve previously said.. Suddenly you understand what my earlier statements hinted at.. And right after, you go on to say, that I’m making it all up..

            • Andy_Schueler

              So now Lucifer and Satan are two different beings again and Lucifer is an evil bioengineer? Cool. What about Dragons and Batman?
              The angels that followed Lucifer also should undergo a transformation like the Mordor Elbs turning to Orcs – people love that shit.
              Also, could you recommend a Dungeons&Dragons build for a Lucifer character? I was thinking about a Solar as base and adding some levels as Blackguard (or maybe Sorcerer?)

            • JohnM

              Why are you even talking about bioengineering?

              It’s clear from the text, that what’s being talked about, is not a biological being, but a spiritual being. A Cherub is a high-ranking angel.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Why are you even talking about bioengineering?

              It’s clear from the text, that what’s being talked about, is not a biological being, but a spiritual being. A Cherub is a high-ranking angel.

              Because you said that Lucifer created Satan “through mutations”.
              But it´s your story – so Lucifer is now more of a wizard than an engineer?
              Alright, so we use a Cherub as base and add 20 levels of Sorcerer? (or should he be more powerful?)
              Also, wouldn´t it make more sense to use a Seraph as base instead of a Cherub? I mean, he should be at least as powerful as Michael (or even better, let Michael join him! That would be a great plot twist).

            • JohnM

              That’s just you being single-minded.

              There’s nothing wrong with using the word “mutation”, as I did.

              http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutation
              Mutation : a change or alteration, as in form or nature.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Dude, you have to take writing classes if you want to finish your story – “mutation” is too much associated with Biology. Use “transformation” instead.
              So what about the Lucifer build? Do you still insist on using a Cherub as base or do you agree that Seraph makes more sense? And is 20 levels of Sorcerer ok? (we could also turn him into a more sneaky character by adding 10 levels of thief and ten of sorcerer, but he won´t be able to fight very well then).

            • Ha ha ha ha ha. I am GENUINELY laughing out loud here. I really really am. This is fricking HILARIOUS. This is my new worst argument EVER seen on the internet. John has totally backed himself into a hole.

              John. Answer this once and for all.

              Does God know future events (ie all counterfactuals)?

              In other words, can God predict what sort of world would eventuate?

              If God knew the world he actualised was to be perfect (up tot he point it became imperfect), then what would suddenly stop him knowing of its imperfect eventuality?

              Of course, using the ontological argument, I can conceive a greater being than this. Your argument is so incoherent, John.

            • JohnM

              Jonathan said : Does God know future events?

              God has knowledge about the future, according to the bible.

              Jonathan said : In other words, can God predict what sort of world would eventuate?

              I’m talking about the period between creation and this point in time. Predicting the future before time, is a whole different matter.

              Jonathan said : If God knew the world he actualised was to be perfect (up to the point it became imperfect), then what would suddenly stop him knowing of its imperfect eventuality?

              We can only speculate about that. But personally I find the idea of predicting the future before time was created, really really weird.

              Jonathan said : Of course, using the ontological argument, I can conceive a greater being than this. Your argument is so incoherent, John.

              What are you talking about? I haven’t even been using the ontological argument. Heh.

              Furthermore, reaching a consensus on what’s greater, is a minefield. I myself would consider a God who held everyone accountable for their actions, and thereby served ultimate justice, a greater God. But I imagine that you would consider a god who let everyone get away with it, a greater god. And so the ontological argument has a habit of deteriorating into a jungle of silly personal subjective options about what is greater.

            • John Grove

              [[ If your creations have free will, it’s impossible to calculate, how it will turn out.]]

              Than how can prophecy or revelation have any legitimacy to it?

            • JohnM

              I said that it’s impossible to calculate the future in a free will scenario.

              I didn’t say, that it’s impossible to predict or know the future, in a free will scenario.

            • John Grove

              If God cannot calculate the future than how can he predict it?

            • JohnM

              That’s a topic that one can speculate about for a very long time.

              And why should we even expect to be able to understand, how God can do such things?

              That would be like a newborn baby expecting to be able to grasp the thoughts of Albert Einstein.

            • John Grove

              It cannot be explained because it is simply nonsensical. I am hoping you can at least begin to see the impotence of your position.

            • No, we blame the entity who:
              designed drink and drunkenness
              designed and created the world in which this would appeal to humans
              designed and created the world in which he knew that you would become drunk and do that
              designed and created the world in which injuries and death were possible
              and so on.

              Do you believe God has foreknowledge of all of our decisions?

              Because if so, then my previous analogy is totally relevant. God created us in the precise knowledge of what we would do. He designed and created the environment in which we would do this. He actualised us over and above any other possible world.

              And then he blames US when we do X, Y and Z after having the FULL KNOWLEDGE we would do this BEFORE CREATING US.

              You have monumentally failed in answering this conundrum. It makes it look like you have no answer (a much more honest and acceptable answer) and are trying to cover it up with poor argument and red herring.

            • John Grove

              Well said Johnny, well said.

            • JohnM

              Jonathan : No, we blame the entity who: designed drink and drunkenness

              God did not design drunkenness.

              Drunkenness comes from abuse of alcohol. It’s our invention.

              Jonathan : designed and created the world in which this would appeal to humans

              Drunkenness appeals to humans? No way.

              We are all disgusted at drunk people pukeing everywhere. We look down on them with pity, because they can’t even tie their own shoes. There’s nothing appealing about drunkenness. It’s associated with bad breath and doing stupid things.

              Jonathan : designed and created the world in which he knew that you would become drunk and do that

              I still don’t understand this idea of knowing the future before time was.

              Jonathan : designed and created the world in which injuries and death were..

              Romans 5:12
              Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

              Jonathan : Do you believe God has foreknowledge of all of our decisions?

              Omniscience in time, makes perfect sense to me. Just like we can predict the path of moving targets.

              Knowing the future before time was… Not so much.

              Jonathan : God created us in the precise knowledge of what we would do. He designed and created the environment in which we would do this. He actualised us over and above any other possible world.

              You’re not living in the garden of Eden. You’re not living the life that God intended. And you’re not the creation that God made. You are a product of the fall.

            • John Grove

              [[It’s our invention.]]

              Read Isaiah 25:6

              “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine, the best of meats and the finest of wines.”

            • JohnM

              There’s nothing wrong with drinking wine.

              Drunkenness comes from abusing wine.

              To claim that God created drunkenness, because he created wine, is like arguing that I caused a death, because I bought a car, that someone stole and drove reckless with.

            • Andy_Schueler

              To claim that God created drunkenness, because he created wine

              Actually, humans cultivated wine grapes already thousands of years before your Yahweh fairy tale starts, but who gives a fuck about such details.

            • JohnM

              I think it’s a good thing, that rational atheists doesn’t concern themselves with the burden of proof, of their claims.

            • Andy_Schueler

              We have science, you have this:
              http://mattcbr.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/break-the-cycle.jpg

              And again, stop using commas for fucks sake – you are too stupid to use them properly.

            • JohnM

              Appeal to Authority Fallacy, 4tw

            • Andy_Schueler

              At least half a year now and you still don´t understand what an argument from authority is? Respect, that secures you a very high spot in the list of dumbest people on this planet.

            • Andy_Schueler

              …makes perfect sense to me…

              This is the key part, what makes “perfect sense” to you happens to be either completely wrong or completely inconsistent (i.e. not even wrong).

            • Andy_Schueler

              Asking what’s the origin of the origin, is like asking what was before the beginning.

              “Origin” = “Origin of evil”. Not “Origin of everything”.

              God has the ability to predict the future in time, like we can predict the path of a ball in motion.

              But how one predict the future, before time? That’s like predicting path of a ball, that has not yet been set in motion.

              Watch me predict the path of a ball that hasn´t been thrown yet:
              v = a*t + v0
              r = r0 + v *t – 0.5 * a * t^2
              r=position; v=velocity; t=time; a=acceleration.
              Yet another thing that anyone who paid attention in school can do, yet Yahweh (or rather the Bronze Age goat herders who claimed to speak for him) can´t.

            • JohnM

              Watch me predict the path of a ball that hasn´t been thrown yet:
              v = a*t + v0
              r = r0 + v *t – 0.5 * a * t^2
              r=position; v=velocity; t=time; a=acceleration.

              And how can you tell all those things, from a ball that isn’t moving?

            • Andy_Schueler

              And how can you tell all those things, from a ball that isn’t moving?

              By putting it´s position and velocity at t=0 (i.e. before it is thrown) into the respective equations. Don´t they teach physics where you live?

            • JohnM

              It has no direction ( it’s a round ball ). No vertical elevation. No movement. And the time is unknown, for obvious reasons.

            • Andy_Schueler

              It has no direction ( it’s a round ball ).

              Hint: the word “velocity” is not a synonym for “direction”, it´s the vector describing speed and direction of movement of an object. Hint2: “velocity” can be 0, that would correspond to a stationary object.

              No vertical elevation.

              Wtf???

              No movement.

              So velocity is 0.

              And the time is unknown, for obvious reasons.

              First of all, you are changing the goalposts because you originally claimed “That’s like predicting path of a ball, that has not yet been set in motion.” – which is idiotic.
              Now you shift the goalposts to, “you couldn´t calculate that if the universe where in a state where time doesn´t exist” – which is still wrong, if I would exist outside of time (as Yahweh must if he indeed created time), then I still would be able predict the movement of every conceivable ball (that is big enough and slow enough to still be covered by classical mechanics) thrown in all conceivable ways from all conceivable initial states – even “before” time exists.

              This is one of those moments where your mind reminds me of this:
              http://img.math-fail.com/wp-content/uploads/fractal_wrongness.jpg

            • JohnM

              Andy said : the word “velocity” is not a synonym for “direction”

              Direction vector?

              Andy said : So velocity is 0

              Then you’re not predicting the future path.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Direction vector?

              No, direction and speed vector.

              Then you’re not predicting the future path.

              You are even too dumb for the most rudimentary physics. Amazing.

            • John Grove

              JohnM says, “But how one predict the future, before time?”

              Indeed, how can a temporal god decide to create anything in a state with no time? This alone throws a monkey wrench into the whole god postulate.

            • JohnM

              I’m not really following your logic.. You’re asking how a temporal god created time. Well if there were no time, how could something be temporal?

      • John Grove

        Here is my two cents. The bible does say that ‘God is love’, but it doesn’t say that God is ALL love as JohnM correctly points out, he appears to hate unrighteousness and sin. Or so he says. But when we judge his actions, they seem to tell us another story.

        Andy correctly states that the definition of the word means infinite goodness and does not imply “love” for things like murder. Andy and Johnny are effectively pointing out that the behavior of this “god” does not coincide with infinite goodness by virtue of what he commands. And this is clear to anybody with eyes to see.

        • Andy_Schueler

          …that the behavior of this “god” does not coincide with infinite goodness…

          Yup, not even finite goodness ;-)

    • John Grove

      Does the taste of your foot in your mouth ever bother you JohnM? Does
      the constant taste of toe jam ever cause you to try and hone your
      thinking abilities? Or has the lint and residue of body oil and sweat,
      and dirt that accumulates between your toes become an acquired taste
      that you simply enjoy? Just asking…

    • Pingback: The Problem of evil and creating evil sentient beings | A Tippling Philosopher()