It's intrinsic in his nature. Not created. I guess you mean this: I answered it with this: "Would it not be tyrannical for, say, you to simply deny someone the ability to live just because you know in advance that he wouldn't except your ways?" I know you were. I was hinting at the fact that you missed the point
If God simply stopped all sinful acts from taking place, this would 1) be tyrannical and 2) would nagate our ability to choose to follow His ways, since we'd simply be forced to. You tell me. If a person knows a future child will choose to disobey him, yet he still desides to have her, does it mean that he will be responsible for the child's acts of disobedience? Of course not, the parent provided the potential, the child made it actual.
And you say that I simplify? Contrary to what a lot of theist will tell you, there is little if any similarity between a child parent relationship and one between a mortal man and the divine entity behind his creation. We are not talking about simple disobedience. God doesn't just know the future like some kind of prophet or pychic(sp), He is there in past, present and future. What do you consider to be more tyrannical: Denying man the possibility of eternal torture and eternal seperation from god. Or Creating a man, knowing beyond all doubt he will be eternally seperated from god and suffer eternal torture. Either way, god seems inheirently(sp) tryannical to me.
Yes, and you did in more then one way. Granted, but we're not talking about the emotional attachment between individuals. The relationship between my mother and me, is also different from any other parent-child relationship, but this isn't the matter at hand is it? Shane, you're making habbit of confusing the matter. The matter at hand is one of a knowing-acting relationship. You've said that if God knows a creature will sin, yet He still chooses to create that creature, then God is the cause (which God actually is the cause, but, as pointed out earlier, there are different types of causes), since He has choosen to act. Now the knowing-acting relalationship remains the same with the parent who knows a child will be disobedient, yet still chooses to act. There's no difference, the relationship remains the same. This draws no meaningful distinction... A simple act of disobedience and a complex(?) act of disobedience, is still disobedience. If ones responsible, one's responsible irregardless of the complexity or simplicity. Don't confuse the matter Shane... The first. In the first case God denies a person's existence solely because He knows that person won't "bow the knee" to Him. In the second case God knows the person won't "bow the knee" to Him and that he will ultimately deny Him, but God doesn't deny him his choice. This is not tyrannical. Ok good, were getting somewhere. You say that both acts would seem tyrannical to you. Now, does this mean that a parent is now a tyrant since she knows a child will disobey her, yet she still chooses to have him? Is my mother now a tyrant?
Jatom: Nope. Dude, I enjoyed our last debate and even admitted that we see more eye-to-eye than I at first thought.... but... A parent who knows a child will be disobedient, yet decides to have a child, and a God who would send all would-be unrepentant 'sinners' to hell (eternal AGONY) --simply for not being able to make sense of and believe His system is completely different...... the scope and magnitude of the consequences are so vastly different that I don't think it's fair to compare the two. This 'God' to me seems implausible--completely unbelieveable. according to Christianity the unbeliever will suffer an eternity in Hell... no parent bringing a child into the world expects that consequence upon a disobedient child...
I understand your point, I really do, but my original post said that "there's no difference, the relationship remains the same." " Relationship" refering to the knowing-acting relationship, and this does remain the same. Second, I think it's incorrect to say God "sends" someone to hell. It's the person's choice. If he choices to reject God, why should he be forced to life out an eternity praising Him? If he rejects God, and God is the only source of all goodness, then what would seperation from His goodness entail?
Jatom, I think that the question is, why would god create a person he knows is just going to end up suffering inhell for all eternity? It wouldn't be denying him the right to live if god didn't create him, because denying him the right to live means that he was already living and was about to lose his life. Nonexistance is not living... I can draw two conclusions from it all. Either it doesn't make sense because the christian idea of god was created by man and is fallible. or God is a sadistic jerk. Likes to see people suffer.
Or people are so blind that they can't see the truth if it was right infront of their face. The fact is people choose to deny God and you know that! Right now you have the power to accept Jesus as your personal savior and therefore be saved from this eternal damnation but you refuse.... and that is your choice. What is there to lose by becoming a follower of Jesus. If there is an eternity, then a nonbeliever is screwed but if there isn't a believer is good either way. But why take the chance that there isn't? Remember life is mist. Eternity is forever....
There are plenty more religions out there than christianity, so there could be plenty to lose. And it didn't answer my question at all. Stop skirting around somehting you can't answer. If you don't know than don't respond. Or respond saying you dont know. I don't deny that christians believe in free will. My question was pretty simple. Even though it is only a few posts back, I will paste it here: "I think that the question is, why would god create a person he knows is just going to end up suffering inhell for all eternity? It wouldn't be denying him the right to live if god didn't create him, because denying him the right to live means that he was already living and was about to lose his life. Nonexistance is not living... I can draw two conclusions from it all. Either it doesn't make sense because the christian idea of god was created by man and is fallible. or God is a sadistic jerk. Likes to see people suffer." Excuse me for not liking the idea of a god that creates people knowing that they are going to suffer in hell for eternity.
JesusdiedforU, I'd like to have a discussion with a person of intelligence. So If you could stay out of this forum I think we'd all appreciate it. Jatom and I are doing nicely without your help.
Which leads me back to my original question to Jatom. Is it not cruel and tyrannical for a god (especially a benevolent god) to create an individual man or woman, knowing for a fact that this person will end up in hell forever?
the fact is, for me, that I am a "nonbeliever" not out of rebellion or hate for Christianity's God, or because I think there is something to "lose", rather I am a non-Christian simply because I CAN'T be a believer. I can't wrap my brain around the Christian concepts and contradictions where God is concerned. It just makes no sense. I don't know how someone can go about forcing themselves to believe something that truly doesn't make sense to them... if that sends me a life of eternal hell, I guess that's just the way its gonna be, I really cant help it. But I don't actually believe that's what will happen.
