The Futile Arguments Thread

[Stevil]

Obviously.  This also shows your genuine interest in discussing these things.  It's not gibberish to say God is love.  Is it likely that if someone is found to embody beauty (among many others I seem to be partial to Katy Perry ATM) is it then likely that I will say to another person I find beautiful, "I think you're Katy Perry." ?

The difference here is that you would say that Kate Perry is beautiful as opposed to Kate Perry is Beauty.
So in relation to your God is Love, maybe you could say God is loving, or God is all loving (if you must add the "all"). But to my understanding, saying that God is Love is very confusing and I genuinely did not understand hence the questions. I want to understand your perspective, and I feel some phrases that may be common place in Christian circles may be confusing to people outside of those circles, especially me. I feel that I am reasonably intelligent but I can be easily confused too, In such cases, if I want to understand then I ask questions, if I get frustrated I may but out a silly post like my last one, sorry for that, it merely reflected my inability to get my point across.

[AnimatedDirt]

The difference here is that you would say that Kate Perry is beautiful as opposed to Kate Perry is Beauty.
So in relation to your God is Love, maybe you could say God is loving, or God is all loving (if you must add the "all"). But to my understanding, saying that God is Love is very confusing and I genuinely did not understand hence the questions. I want to understand your perspective, and I feel some phrases that may be common place in Christian circles may be confusing to people outside of those circles, especially me. I feel that I am reasonably intelligent but I can be easily confused too, In such cases, if I want to understand then I ask questions, if I get frustrated I may but out a silly post like my last one, sorry for that, it merely reflected my inability to get my point across.

It shouldn't be confusing as in my example.  If I say Katy Perry is the epitomy of beauty, is the most beautiful...she can then be said to embody beauty.  Likewise with God and Love, but even more so.  God defines Love, God is patient, God is kind, God does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth...  God then, is love/embodies what love is.  To then twist this and say that this then allows one to instead of saying, "I love you", to say "I God you", is to completely miss and/or ignore the obvious truth behind the words.

To mention another example, I love cars, especially my favorite car (if I could afford it) is the Porsche GT3.  Now, I can say, "The Porsche GT3 is fast!"  Does this then make the statement, "The Speed of Light is Porsche GT3" correct?  This makes no sense whatsoever and is plain to see that it simply doesn't do "fast" justice in light of (heh) the Speed of Light.  The Porsche is certainly fast for a vehicle.  It embodies what we humans would term fast in a flat pavement-traversing vehicle.  The lines of the Porsche are purposely there to aid in the car moving through the air and the rear wing is there to keep the tires in contact with the surface.  It screams of speed, yet one cannot rightly call the Speed of Light, a Porsche GT3.  It's painfully obvious.

I think this explains the notion that God embodies love.  What about the "IS" part.  If God "IS" love, then it doesn't mean He IS an abstract emotion, but rather His nature is perfectly what love is.  To see God at work is to see love at work.

What about God "killing" many in the OT, how is this love?  God is not only love, like I assume you and I are not only human.  We are also either male or female, father or mother, brother or sister, boss or employee...  Do parents discipline their children?  Is it cruel to spank?  To a certain degree, we might think so today.  (I'm more old-school)  The point is punishment.  There are consequences to every action we do in life.  As a child if we disobey our parents, we may get a spanking or a time out, or get put on restriction, or our car keys taken...  These are learning tools a parent uses so that their child understands what it is to be responsible for one's actions.  Life has consequences.

A friend of my sister-in-law, just Sunday night, was angry with his gf, they had had an argument on the phone.  He hung up and was on his way to her home for who knows what reason.  He was traveling at a high rate of speed, and angry.  I think the paper said above he was driving 100mph or so, he lost control, went off the embankment...and died instantly.  Now, is life cruel?  Life is what it is.  Life cannot be cruel if life simply is.  It cannot be any other.  Likewise, God IS.  He cannot be what He is not.  He is love and so loves and wants His children/creation near Him.  However He is also Righteousness (So good, evil/sin cannot be with Him...see the acct. of Moses in the cleft of the rock).  He is Judge, and so MUST serve as a Righteous Judge and cannot simply excuse sin and sin in His created beings.  If the wages of sin is death, JUSTICE must be served or God is not God who embodies all these traits that make Him God.  God didn't just arbitrarily make death the result of sin...you all seem to think so...if sin cannot live in the presence of Righteousness, then sin dies in the presence of.  Can a flame "live" while it is doused in water?  It's just the properties of fire and water.  If, then, God, in the OT, sent His people to make war and annihilate another people, it was because these people apparently were/did evil and so were on the path to death.  If death is inevitable, what is the "cruelty" in removing life from them.  If the sentence is death, and God must Judge, what is wrong with that?

Why couldn't God simply, then, let the evildoers live out their lives?  I suppose He could've (and did in most cases) except that some were in the path of His will.

If God is so cruel and heartless, why is it that a person, as I've seen George Carlin do, simply say, "God I dare you to smite me now..." and live?  Why is it that His 10 Commands are not upheld to the point that every person, the moment they break one, isn't killed instantly?  God is cruel and kills innocent babies?  In your eyes, it might be cruel, but if innocense dies, can God not right that innocense in His time and so do as He claims able to do, resurrect that baby and give it life...life eternal?

**Now back to Event_Horizon's post...sigh**

[AnimatedDirt]

It's important to understand the difference between a choice and a calculation. A choice is a decision between two somewhat equal things, or two things that each come with their own benefits and costs. A calculation is simply the decision to pick something that is obviously beneficial. The way you use the word "choice" takes away any kind of usable definition since by your standards, you technically choose to eat. Choosing whether or not to eat is not a choice, but a calculation, since you weigh the costs and benefits between eating and not eating. However choosing what to eat on the other hand is indeed a choice. As a calculation to eat means to satiate your hunger, receive energy and nutrients, and aside from a trip to the bathroom in your near future or the minute chance of poisoning, eating is almost entirely beneficial. To not eat means pains of hunger, decreased energy, increase chance of infection, etc. Obviously the costs of not eating far outweigh any possible benefits. That is a calculation, and not a choice.

The choice you have is whether to take the Bible as a true historical collection of books.  You have the choice to take the person of Jesus Christ mentioned in this collection, in the OT, as Messiah, and in the NT Jesus, the Christ.  Your choice is to disregard history and the findings of many archaeologists.  You actively take the side that these books are not authentic.  You have chosen your side on your own and with your own intellect.  You know the consequences of your choice despite whether you believe them to be true or not.  The choice to side against is freely made and duly noted.  No one, I assume, has twisted your arm, mind or threatened you or otherwise has forced you into this choice.  It is the best decision according to your intellect and made as a free entity.  Right?

God doesn't force you or me.  

What you propose in accepting God is not a choice, but a calculation, to pick eternal life with no costs, or eternal torment with no benefits. There is no "choice" because there are no costs and benefits to choose from. So when the Bible says we have the "choice" to accept God and be forever in his servitude, or receive unending unfathomable punishment for not entering into his tyranny, it is not a choice. Nobody chooses to reject God because they know Hell awaits them.

And yet if Hell does await you, you were not ignorant of the fact.  In other words, you chose to disbelieve.
Again, there is NO SERVITUDE.  We are not "servants" to be PAID for duty, but we are the children of and heirs according to His grace...the same grace given to His Son, Christ.  While we will not be made into "gods" as Christ is the Son of God, we will be treated as sons of God.  None will be "in servitude or slavery to" God because all have chosen to serve God.  Huge difference.

Now ask yourself, would a just God do that? Theists have given themselves an illusion of superiority here because they say their God is Love, so anything that God does is Love, or Just, or Good. That causes a problem because it covers up any ethical analysis of God's action. I can best think to describe it this way: The Blorjak is all good, all just, all loving, and any action it takes is all good, all just, and all loving. The Blorjak kills everyone it sees, so therefore killing everyone you see is all good, all just, and all loving.

Produce ancient texts alluding to a god named, Blorjak and millions of followers from ancient times through today.  I'll then give your rediculous assertion some thought.

Theists have gotten themselves in a position to justify every action of God, even if it is completely evil because they see God as good, and anything he does is good. They then differentiate between mankind's ethics, and the divine ethics as a excuse which prevents them from actually looking at God's actions. That is mighty convenient for them.The ethics we have on this Earth aren't perfect, but if you look at the good they've done since the European enlightenment, then the message is clear: biblical ethics are completely false, and the God who supposedly inspired them is not just.

This is a long point and as I mentioned I had already written it out and lost it.  Probably for the best since long posts aren't always read through.  Suffice to say the point is much like this:

Are you a parent?  If not then you may not FULLY understand this.  Parents love their children, would you agree?  Yet many, I'd almost suggest all, but we know that's not true, or the vast majority of parents use some sort of discipline to guide their child(ren).  Would you say spanking is cruel?  I don't necessarily.  I'd say some spankings are a good attn-getter and fully make the point to small children when they act out deserving of a spanking.  (I'm not talking about a beating of which I got many as a child).  However, even those beatings that I feel were excessive, did make the impact they were supposed to make.  I am probably a better person today as a direct result of those actions of discipline, including the beatings.  I don't condone that style, but I do condone spankings up to a certain age...I digress.  The point being...is such a parent cruel if the child does not see the possibilities of allowing certain actions?  Must the child FULLY understand the reason for a spanking to gain the knowledge that whatever the action done to warrant a spanking could bring the child harm?  Must the child FULLY understand it?  Is it right then, to spank a child that has a habit of ignoring their parent when called?  This could have quick, drastic, painful, and deadly ramifications if the child does not learn to heed the "STOP!" from the parent.  Think of a child that hasn't been taught to immediately stop when the parent says to and instead ignores and keeps walking haphazardly into traffic.  2 ton metal vehicle striking 60 lb child = Child dead or badly hurt.

Is it wrong then, if the JUDGE that must drop the gavel on such people and give them their choice of death over life be anything other than righteous judgment?  If God is Omni~, then He knows each person and their choices as they progress through life.

What about the "innocent".  Well, let's say God, by the smiting of these peoples has given a death sentence to innocent babies.  Is not this God, able to reanimate the dead, able to then reanimate this innocent child and give the gift of everlasting life?  Of what consequence was the taking of life on this earth, as we know it, with all of life's "cruelty", so bad if He is able to give something better?

Bad?  Not necessarily "bad", but something against God.  One can make a "bad" choice in planting a tree in the summer, however it is not sinful to do so.  God did not "have to".  God did BECAUSE He is Love.

Now onto your specifics.

He cursed mankind forever because he is love? You'll have to pardon my skepticism because that is some strong medicine to swallow.[/quote]
You said medicine?  Isn't medicine for the betterment of something/someone?
While God did utter the curse, the curse was not arbitrary but a direct consequence of going against God and "KNOWING" evil.  Like the analogy of a child, must the child KNOW AND FULLY UNDERTAND the meaning behind every rule a parent puts forth for their own good?

Once again...what payment?  There is no payment.  NONE whatsoever.  You can pay tribute and still never be saved.  There's no payment.

Christian dogma proclaims that if you don't thank Jesus for dying for you then you'll go to hell. You owe Jesus for what he did, even though you didn't ask him to do it, and even though you probably did nothing wrong in the first place. I can only see that kind of behavior done by the mafia. Which goes into my next point.

You can just as easily thank Jesus and in the next breath say, "...but no thank you."  You don't owe anyone anything unless you feel obligated to them for something they did for you.  Have you seen the movie, "As Good As It Gets" with Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt?  If not, it's a great movie.  Anyway, the point in short is that Melvin likes Carol, but he's a jerk and is difficult.  He finds she is part of his daily regimen.  To keep her from quiting and thus losing his favorite waitress, he decides to pay for her son's medical expenses.  She has not been able to afford proper care for her son.  His act, forces her to overlook her dislike of him and see him for the person he is...generous to her need.  Not necessarily the same for God, but the point being that her gratitude is not forced, in fact it flows almost freely as he is a difficult man full of OCD traits that alienate him from most people.  She wasn't forced into "serving" him, but felt compelled for what he did for her and her son.  It was not "labor" to do so, but done out of joy.

There is no "servitude" as is in your context a slave wanting to get out.

God did not decree humans have sin.  Humans chose of their own freewill.  Unless one has the choice, then freewill doesn't exist and so true love does not exist either.  (true love for God)

You should check the discussion defendor and I had. Apparently sin only needs to be the ability to do something wrong, not actually doing something wrong. Since sin can only exist if we have free will, and God gave us free will, it means that God gave us sin. Think of it this way. I go to your house and burn it down. While it's burning, I race inside and save you. After I get you outside, I then demand you pay me ten thousand dollars for me getting me shirt dirty while I rescued you. If you think that's wrong, then I must direct your attention to Christianity.

God gave us eyes, did he also blind us to the beauty of this world?  He gave us/created light.  Did he put us in darkness?  God created Man perfect.  Without sin.  The Man was given the knowledge of evil, but wasn't given the KNOWLEDGE of evil.  Man, like a child, did not understand the full ramifiactions of sin.  Man understood death, but didn't understand total and eternal separation from God by the power of sin.

God did not "come to our house".  God created a perfect being.  God gave this being rules that just ARE, they weren't arbitrary or "made up".  As water douses fire or fire dries water, so evil kills.  It just, by nature IS that way.  God cannot change what He is.  If Good exists, then by default so does Evil.  To remove evil is to create robots that while on the surface seem to be free, really, without the choice to choose against God, are really not free and cannot then love out of their own choice.

God makes man with free will, knowing he will break orders for the get-go, then punishes Adam and Even and all their descendants for the rest of time. God removes that sin by rescuing mankind by the use of himself/Jesus, and then says if you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you will be sent to eternal punishment. Yeah, that sounds fair. All you need is an objective analysis to see God is running a scam, and everything is a set up.

There is no eternal punishment.  The punishment is for eternity.  DEATH.   You're supposedly some literary expert, yet you cannot tell the difference between something BEING punished for eternity and a punishment that is for eternity?  I find that hard to understand.  The punishment is death.  The punishment is not agonizing pain for eternity.  Once and for all, keep this out of the argument since it is not even remotely correct.

The fact is that you are not looking at it objectively or else you would see that freewill is not the cause of sin, PRIDE is the cause of sin.  Selfishness, the need to please self first.

What kind of pride does a baby have? But a baby is born with original sin, oh never mind, even Christians can't decide between themselves as to what sin actually is...

Every Christian knows what sin is.  Every Christian knows the root of all Evil.  Have two mortal humans ever given birth to one immortal child?  So then you should understand the reason no baby is really "innocent" of sin.

I agree...humanly speaking.  However there is not one person that can say they are without a "bad" deed...a deed against God's will.

Have you ever considered the idea that maybe God's will as you think of it is completely arbitrary? I mean, if God is really a timeless being, then why are all the ethics of the Old Testament seemingly out of the bronze age from which it was written? Where is any kind of transcendent knowledge? Why doesn't the Bible say anything about human rights, the ethical principal that the western world has been successful from?

Again, you are speaking from total and complete ignorance.  This above proves that you have not even read the Bible, but picked and chosen exerpts that substanciate your "intellectual" ideas and beliefs or disbeliefs.  There are many...almost too many to list, transcendent knowledge from these texts.  I will not attempt to list them.  Since you have read and studied the Bible and have full access to the web, they are even easier to find.

That's a pretty cynical view of humanity. I could never understand the doublethink of Christianity that proclaims that we are God's most treasured creation, and yet we all deserve punishment for the aspects that God designed us with.

In this current state, we are not as He created.  Notice Genesis and the words of God that make the difference.  See Genesis 3:22

It was conceived in sin, it was conceieved by two sinful creatures, from the moment of birth the baby is only concerned for self.

Well now you're just getting into Christian philosophy here, and moving further away from God being unjust. If you want to believe that pride is wrong, and that self interest is wrong, then I can't stop you, but that is your opinion. However if you really had a problem with self interest and selfishness then why sir are you on the power grid?

Are you suggesting that being on the power grid is sinful or of self-interest or prideful?  There's a good chance I'm ignorant to your point.  You may have to explain.

This has to do with choice vs calculation. If you walk into a car dealership and the salesmen says you have the option of buying the car or leaving the store and being cut in half by a guillotine then is that really a choice? As for the government side of things, that doesn't apply, since when you are born into a country you 1 are instantly allowed to participate in the process of government, and 2 you can opt out of living in that area without repercussions. God does not allow people to participate in the divine process, making the power go completely one way, and God does not allow you to opt out of the religion without punishment. As far as I can tell, the U.S. government is more just than God. And damn, I don't know how I feel about that statement. Scary...

You again mistake the analogy in that you make your subjects to understand what a car is and what "cut in half by a guillotine" means.
Adam and Eve both knew it was against God to do so...what they lacked was the knowledge of what doing so would mean.  Thus they simply disobeyed their "parent" and consequences that come to children, came.  In this context, though, the consequences were far deeper than simply feeling heat by playing with fire.  They were cast out of Eden because now they understood Evil...death...separation from God...the wages of sin.  However as we've discussed, God is Judge and MUST be righteous as that IS HIS NATURE that He cannot change as you cannot change being human and all the unchangeable traits that go with being human.

Not so. God made you and demanded that you follow his laws otherwise you would be punished. God is the master, and you are the slave that must follow him or get whipped. Follow his orders well enough and you might just get to be a house servant. And I'll stop there with the slavery reference, since it would make me feel pretty uncomfortable to continue.

Quite wrong.  You haven't and you're living...aren't you?  Follow well enough?  Again, you are so ignorant to what the Bible says and claims and so it is probably best you quite pulling false ideas such as "well/good enough" out as a weapon.  It's not even close and warrants no real response since your apparent claim on another thread of having studied the Bible, knowing the exact characterization of God in the OT vs NT, cannot be truthful if you make this elementary mistake.

**This is all I have time for ATM...maybe later, but more than likely tomorrow.    I don't have time to search for mistakes...  **

[defendor]

Except... One can ask a stranger about his intention when he stands at one's doorstep. One can not necessarilly ask someone one has only heard of the same. As such, god would have to reveal himself, at least in part, in order for proof to be had as to who, if any, among the believers is/are right, yes..?  

I don't understand what you're saying, I would love to answer, but I don't think I'm understanding what you're meaning by this

[Cecilie]

Except... One can ask a stranger about his intention when he stands at one's doorstep. One can not necessarilly ask someone one has only heard of the same. As such, god would have to reveal himself, at least in part, in order for proof to be had as to who, if any, among the believers is/are right, yes..?  

[defendor]

I noticed you're from Norway ha, thats pretty sweet, I'm actually norwegian descent ha

I am also a big fan of Norwegian Black Metal

[Cecilie]

People, I'm trying really hard here to not change the subject. Because I always do that...

[Event_Horizon]

Oh boy, here we go.

Your first paragraph you state I have a choice to choose God or not. You're right in the context of the physical universe, since I have the choice, and have indeed chosen to reject the idea of God. That however is not what I'm arguing. Christian dogma says that we have the "choice" between unending pain, or unending life. As I said is not a choice. God doesn't force me to do anything I don't want because I don't believe in God, and for me he doesn't exist, while the person who does accept God is not allowed a choice, because in their world, the choices are between life and torture.

And yet if Hell does await you, you were not ignorant of the fact.  In other words, you chose to disbelieve.

I do choose to disbelieve. Now ask yourself, would I really take that path if I indeed knew that hell existed? I am essentially betting my entire afterlife here with extreme confidence against your assertions.

Again, there is NO SERVITUDE.  We are not "servants" to be PAID for duty, but we are the children of and heirs according to His grace...

Yet only if you do what he says.

the same grace given to His Son, Christ.

But Jesus is God, so we was never given grace, God already had grace.

While we will not be made into "gods" as Christ is the Son of God, we will be treated as sons of God.  None will be "in servitude or slavery to" God because all have chosen to serve God.  Huge difference.

Did you ever choose to be a Christian, or did your parents and church teach it all to you? Have to ever been an atheist before? Well in a sense you were until they imposed God on you. I can probably safely assume that you never had a choice to accept or reject God. You were probably given God, and you simply chose to keep it. You did not make the choice yourself. If anyone has expressed their choice, it is the Christian who became the atheist, or the atheist who became the Christian. I have chosen my path, but I seriously doubt you have. If you'll pardon me, I don't wish to offend, but if you were anything like me when I believed then what you have is like battered women syndrome. You will justify everything bad in God's laws and in his followers because you know if you can just act right and not screw up that he'll finally let you into his grace.

Produce ancient texts alluding to a god named, Blorjak and millions of followers from ancient times through today.  I'll then give your rediculous assertion some thought.

Oh boy. Well first you miss the point entirely of what I was alluding to, and secondly to defend it with three logical fallacies: an appeal to tradition, an appeal to belief, and an appeal to popularity. All in one sentence no less.

Would you say spanking is cruel?

My opinion is yes.

I'd say some spankings are a good attn-getter and fully make the point to small children when they act out deserving of a spanking.

The primary problem with that logic is that you assume the mind of someone else. You assume that they "get it" through physical punishment, where as in actuality you cannot know that the message is received through pain.

The point being...is such a parent cruel if the child does not see the possibilities of allowing certain actions?

Yes they are absolutely cruel. If a child does not understand the nature of what they did wrong, then they will not understand why they are being punished.

Must the child FULLY understand the reason for a spanking to gain the knowledge that whatever the action done to warrant a spanking could bring the child harm? Must the child FULLY understand it?

Yes. Absolutely. If the child does not understand what they did wrong, then you are essentially beating the child for no reason, no matter what they did. You would not do the same thing to an animal.

Is it right then, to spank a child that has a habit of ignoring their parent when called?

If the child again doesn't understand, then the spanking will do nothing but cause them unnecessary pain. We do not punish those who lack the intellectual capacity to understand right and wrong.

This could have quick, drastic, painful, and deadly ramifications if the child does not learn to heed the "STOP!" from the parent.

Since I have a degree in psychology I can tell you that punishment is not a good way to learn. Reinforcement is multiple times more affective. Your analogy however falls apart in relation to God, because God can prevent anything bad that happens to his creatures. A child that wants to touch a hot stove can be spanked before getting to it, not understanding why they had pain inflicted on them but preventing more harmful injury. The parent could let the child touch the stove and feel for themselves the pain. Or the parent can move the child away from the stove,preventing injury. But God didn't do that. He allowed the child to touch the stove, and then spanked the child afterward as well, as if being burned wasn't enough. God had the power to remove the tree from the garden, or to prevent Adam and Eve from getting the fruit, or he could have simply intervened before they had the chance to eat it. Instead of stopping Adam and Eve as they were about to "touch the stove" he did something worse, let it happen, and then punished all of mankind forever.

What about the "innocent".  Well, let's say God, by the smiting of these peoples has given a death sentence to innocent babies.  Is not this God, able to reanimate the dead, able to then reanimate this innocent child and give the gift of everlasting life?  Of what consequence was the taking of life on this earth, as we know it, with all of life's "cruelty", so bad if He is able to give something better?

Um, dude, God is all powerful, he doesn't have to sacrifice anybody. Again this is like battered women syndrome, justifying all the bad in the world because you know he's really really good. If this is the work of an all good God then I'm not impressed in the least. There should be no evil in the world if God were indeed all powerful, all willing, and only capable of good. The evidence of evil in the world shows me that your God does not exist, for if he did, evil would not exist. Now I expect a paragraph and a half of your justification and overused arguments on the existence of evil, so save it. I've heard them all before, and they've been debunked before. God doesn't need to use evil because God can make whatever he wants without evil. Any reason you give is a shallow excuse for your beliefs to remain consistent.

While God did utter the curse, the curse was not arbitrary but a direct consequence of going against God and "KNOWING" evil.  Like the analogy of a child, must the child KNOW AND FULLY UNDERTAND the meaning behind every rule a parent puts forth for their own good?

YES!

You don't owe anyone anything unless you feel obligated to them for something they did for you.

Not according to Christianity.

His act, forces her to overlook her dislike of him and see him for the person he is...generous to her need.  Not necessarily the same for God, but the point being that her gratitude is not forced, in fact it flows almost freely as he is a difficult man full of OCD traits that alienate him from most people.  She wasn't forced into "serving" him, but felt compelled for what he did for her and her son.  It was not "labor" to do so, but done out of joy.

The analogy does not fit, because she isn't going to hell if she doesn't appreciate him. Maybe if Christians didn't say I was going to hell because I don't accept Jesus then maybe I would give you a little credit. You are leaving key pieces out of your dogma that slants your view in a positive light.

Again, according to the Bible, I am faced with the "choice" of thanking Jesus for his good deed, or going to eternal torment. That is not a choice!

God gave us eyes, did he also blind us to the beauty of this world?

He did. Have you ever seen the cosmos in the ultraviolet?

The Man was given the knowledge of evil, but wasn't given the KNOWLEDGE of evil.  Man, like a child, did not understand the full ramifiactions of sin.

And yet the "just" God punished those who didn't understand evil, good, knowledge and death. Not only that but God punished their children, and their children, and their children's children, and all their descendants for the rest of eternity. The "just" God made humans with free will, and decided to almost completely eradicate them from the planet, save a man and his family. God saw all of this coming, and yet he acted like a total blithering idiot when it happened.

God did not "come to our house".  God created a perfect being.  God gave this being rules that just ARE, they weren't arbitrary or "made up".  As water douses fire or fire dries water, so evil kills.  It just, by nature IS that way.  God cannot change what He is.  If Good exists, then by default so does Evil.  To remove evil is to create robots that while on the surface seem to be free, really, without the choice to choose against God, are really not free and cannot then love out of their own choice.

Oh please, save it. If you ever wondered why atheists get frustrated and call religious people deluded, this is it. When theists are backed into a corner, they begin proselytizing, making up absurd analogies to try to explain away the big bad logic, and use infantile words like omni and infinite. I mean, the absurdity of the statement that water douses fire and fire dries water is completely ridiculous since water is just a molecule and fire is simple a chemical reaction. Dirt actually douses fire better, and water can even make fire stronger! And might I show the logical inconsistencies when you say that God cannot change what he is. I thought he was all powerful, now you say he doesn't have the power to change himself? What. Complete. Nonsense. Then you assert that God in his all loving wisdom decides to introduce evil in the world to give is the "choice" of love. That is sadistic.

There is no eternal punishment.  The punishment is for eternity.  DEATH.   You're supposedly some literary expert, yet you cannot tell the difference between something BEING punished for eternity and a punishment that is for eternity?

I know the difference, and I know what you said, but your fellow Christians disagree with you. Others seem to think that there is torment and punishment, and you say different. So at least one of you is wrong. But let's take your case. If the "punishment" for not believing in God is non existence, then what kind of punishment is that? That's not very good punishment because nobody can learn their lesson or understand what they did wrong. Nobody can experience non existence because they don't exist! There is no punishment or torment which causes the punishment then becomes meaningless. So there you go, either way it's unjust.

Every Christian knows what sin is.  Every Christian knows the root of all Evil.  Have two mortal humans ever given birth to one immortal child?  So then you should understand the reason no baby is really "innocent" of sin.

But aren't those humans also immortal? And isn't every child a gift from God? You don't need to argue against my point, because your own religion argues against yours.

This above proves that you have not even read the Bible, but picked and chosen exerpts that substanciate your "intellectual" ideas and beliefs or disbeliefs.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

In this current state, we are not as He created.  Notice Genesis and the words of God that make the difference.  See Genesis 3:22

God could have stopped the ride whenever he wanted to. But didn't. God lets this world exist because he wants it to exist. And if he doesn't like it, he has the ability to change it in any form and manner he chooses. We don't need evil to feel love because God can make us conscious of love all the time, and never tire from it. There is no reason to think that God couldn't make this world into heaven without the need for death and sickness and conflict. Obviously all the evil in the world doesn't bother him since he can erase it at once and replace it with something better.

So what's he waiting for? What's with the wait? I mean you could justify the actions of an invisible unknowable being till the end of time, but judging by how the universe works, and the claims of what God is by theists, it is obvious that their God simply does not exist.

Are you suggesting that being on the power grid is sinful or of self-interest or prideful?  There's a good chance I'm ignorant to your point.  You may have to explain.

Absolutely everything you do is in your own self interest, including breathing. Every animal on the face of the planet exists for its own self interest. If self interest were really the mark of evil, then this world is nothing but evil, and if God created this world, then he made it evil from the very beginning.

Adam and Eve both knew it was against God to do so...what they lacked was the knowledge of what doing so would mean. Thus they simply disobeyed their "parent" and consequences that come to children, came.

And their children, and their children, and their children, and their children, and their children, and their children. You see how this begins to look excessive? If God were indeed all loving and just he would only need to punish Adam and Eve, and not every innocent person down the line. Would you punish your grand children because at one time their mom or dad touched the kitchen stove? Nope.

However as we've discussed, God is Judge and MUST be righteous as that IS HIS NATURE

And that's what I meant by the Blorjak. You were told that God is just, and that everything he does is just, so you will find any kind of excuse or justification to keep God just. Just as the Blorjak is good even when it kills everything it sees, God is just even when he is unjust. If God kills billions of innocent people, you will justify their guilt. If God obliterates the planet, you will justify the destruction. If a baby is born with a horrible disease, you will justify that too. You're trying to defend a maniac by saying all the slaying and evil is really for the greater good.

Again, you are so ignorant to what the Bible says and claims and so it is probably best you quite pulling false ideas such as "well/good enough" out as a weapon.

Quite the contrary. You only understand of what you've been told in the Bible. Whatever church or religious organization you grew up in has primed you to see what you want to see, to disregard the bad in the Bible as out of context, or metaphor, while keeping the good intact. God is just because you want him to be just, not because the actions he's done or the world he's made is just. So shocked are you and defendor on the nature of your servitude that you can't even see what they've done to you. The Bible says that God gave you an ultimatum to follow his commands or face punishment. That is slavery. God cursed mankind when they were merely infants, unaware of their action, and he cursed them for the rest of eternity. God destroyed the world once already because he didn't like his own creation and expressed regret for even making it. Jesus was sent as a human sacrifice to himself to wash away the sin that God caused in the first place. And another ultimatum was made: accept Jesus or face punishment. The popular vision of punishment is eternal torture, while your vision of punishment is simply not existing. The former is infinitely unjust, while the later is not punishment at all.

It's not even close and warrants no real response since your apparent claim on another thread of having studied the Bible, knowing the exact characterization of God in the OT vs NT, cannot be truthful if you make this elementary mistake.

Still a little angry about that I see. But you see that was literature, this isn't. Big difference.

[Event_Horizon]

Now, is life cruel?  Life is what it is.  Life cannot be cruel if life simply is.  It cannot be any other.  Likewise, God IS.

So then by your logic God can also be cruel. He is not only good but he is also evil, which means his actions are not good or evil, they just simply, are. This flies in the face of the idea that God is good when you say God is. To say he is not capable of evil also makes him not omnipotent, because you assert that he does not have the power to perform unjust acts.

He is Judge, and so MUST serve as a Righteous Judge and cannot simply excuse sin and sin in His created beings.

But that sin was inflicted BY him in the first place. If sin is simply the ability to perform an immoral action, and free will grants that ability, and free will is granted by God, then God granted us that sin. He did it on purpose. It's all a set up. Everybody freak out!

Can a flame "live" while it is doused in water?

Actually it can. When metal gets heated high enough, you can cause a fire by spraying it with water since the heat of the metal separates the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the water molecule, which are both highly flammable and explosive elements. You see, science makes the universe all that more interesting. So much for the shallow (excuse the pun) fire/water God analogies.

If death is inevitable, what is the "cruelty" in removing life from them.  If the sentence is death, and God must Judge, what is wrong with that?

Because you make it so people cannot redeem themselves. If you will eventually die anyways, does that give anyone the right to kill you?

I suppose He could've (and did in most cases) except that some were in the path of His will.

*sigh* If God is all good, and all powerful, then he can fashion a plan that causes nobody to get killed. The easy answer to this problem is that God just doesn't exist. He doesn't.

If God is so cruel and heartless, why is it that a person, as I've seen George Carlin do, simply say, "God I dare you to smite me now..." and live?

Because there is no God to smite him. The evidence is there, the logic follows... I can even run my own little experiment here. Wait a minute. Yep, I'm still around.

In your eyes, it might be cruel, but if innocense dies, can God not right that innocense in His time and so do as He claims able to do, resurrect that baby and give it life...life eternal?

But you can only ASSUME that God gives life eternal. God doesn't need to give eternal life because he can stop it from happening in the first place.

[AnimatedDirt]

[Event_Horizon]

You don't seem too sure of yourself if in the above you say, "...have indeed chosen to reject the idea of God." and now you state, "...betting my entire afterlife here with extreme confidence..."  Isn't confidence enough?  It's much like the scene in "A Few Good Men" where Lt. Galloway(?) says, "Your honor, we strenuously object."  Comedic.  With your own fingers and out of your own mind you have made a choice between belief and disbelief, a choice of eternal death and eternal life.  Twice!  And you say there is no choice?

It may seem so, but the issue goes deeper. For me there is a choice, because God does not exist, and therefore any punishment is only a figment of imagination. That means the costs and benefits are largely relateable. That is not the issue. The issue is what the Christian dogma states. For someone to actually believes there is a heaven and a hell, then there is no choice, since as I said before, it is the choice of buying the car or taking the guillotine.

For Christians, God gives the so called "choice", in that you can obey him and serve him, and you will be rewarded, or you do not and you will be punished. To say that is indeed a choice is like saying you have the "choice" to eat, since technically you can. However I made the distinction between a choice and a calculation. The calculation is simply a formula that your brain follows, pointing to the "correct" answer. Any time you are given a "choice" and there is an obvious "correct" answer, then it really isn't a choice and is simply a calculation. To the Christian, accepting God and rejecting hell is not a choice, and is a calculation.

Maybe this example would be a better distinction. Years ago when I was in high school, we would learn about the world religions while I was in my history class. By that time I wasn't an atheist, I was more of an agnostic, though I didn't really use the term well enough. I defined myself as "someone who does not accept or reject the existence of God." While in that history class the religion of Buddhism really appealed to me. If I had decided to join that religion/philosophy at the time, it would have been a choice, because I could weigh the benefits of my agnosticism and the benefits of Buddhism. However change the scenario a bit. If I had remained Catholic, as I was when I was younger, accepting or rejecting God would not have been a choice, because heaven and hell were real possibilities in my mind. The benefits of heaven were infinite, and hell had none, so I if I had decided to stay, it would have been simply a calculation and not a choice. It was only when I realized that heaven and hell were not real places, and the benefits/costs were not real, could I then choose to go somewhere else.

I have the choice...I rejected the choice completely for quite some time.  I never claimed Atheism.  Worse, I hated God.

Indeed, I can tell you weren't an atheist. An atheist does not hate that which does not exist, if you'll pardon the double negative. So you were conflicted, that is natural, and you're right that everyone has a different religious experience. However only when you truly understand the alternatives can you make a choice.

What's more rediculous, pulling a god name out of a hat and making assertions of this god when there is zero proof, or standing on well documented proof of (at least) a belief in a God alluded to in some ancient texts?

It is ridiculous, but that was not my point. Go back and reread it.

If so, I assume then you sat your child down and made them aware of every single instance that they were doing wrong and it was explained to them entirely to the point that when the talk ended, you knew, absolutely, that this 1 or 2 year old child understood you.  OR...heh...you may be the type of parent (if a parent at all) that says to your child who is acting up, "Little Timmy...Dear sweet little Timmy.  We don't hit other children, it's just not nice."

Your parenting is seriously out of date. Try the stages of moral development. It's not enough for them to know it's wrong, but WHY it's wrong. Spanking doesn't convey understanding. But that is going way beyond the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Interesting.  So when a child does the deed a second time, we should explain it again...and again...and again...and again?  Not me.  I've almost raised two.

If they understood why it was wrong in the first place, they wouldn't do it again, and again, and again.

You have history's argument against you and "psychology".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Wait...are you for spanking or not?  What's this about spanking a child before it gets to the stove?  I agree, just that your previous words don't.  Which is it?

Parents don't need to spank, and God doesn't need to either. God can do whatever he wants, and if he's all loving, then he has no capacity to do harm to the things he loves. He could make the stove disappear so the infant doesn't get burned, or he can make the stove instantly cold. God doesn't need to resort to punishment if he were what you say he is, and yet doublethink allows you to have it both ways.

What spanking?  God did allow the child to get burned, I don't argue that at all.  But what spanking?  They got burned...THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE.  The "wages of sin is death".  God didn't spank them on top of this.  Where do you read/see a beating?

Adam and Eve "touching the stove" consisted of them eating of the fruit and becoming aware of good and evil. The spanking came when God cursed them. You seem to think "touching the stove" was God punishing them, but that's not the case. The man was cursed to work the fields and the woman was cursed with painful childbirth. Read your book.

Maybe I should drop using the Omni~ thing.  Obviously we both define omni~ differently.  You say, and I suppose the definition IS, the ability to do ANYTHING.  In that sense, God is not omni~.  Let's say God can do what He sets out to do.

The problem with a lot of these religious discussions is that a lot of the qualities of God are assumed and not defined. Since nobody here has defined God, I must go on the understanding of Christian doctrine.

I believe like you, God can end suffering.  The problem I see, is to end suffering is to end this world as we know it.  If God knows the end from the beginning, then there must be a reason we don't understand why suffering continues.  That's my explanation.  I acknowledge my ignorance on the things beyond my comprehension.

The way I see it, if the Bible claims that God set up the universe, and is incapable of evil, and loves us all more than anyone ever could, and could see everything in advance, then there is no excuse for the world we live in today. God has been the computer programmer from the beginning, and he could change everything in an instant, and make a world multitudes better, but yet he doesn't. For theists they conclude that they cannot explain it, or if they do they try to tackle the problem by providing justifications for an evil world. I see their assertions, and then I see the world, finally concluding that the God simply doesn't exist. The evidence of the world around me corroborates the hypothesis.

For example this world with good and evil is consistent if there was a good God and an evil God fighting each other in a cosmic battle, as Zoroastrianism says. Or it would be consistent if a God certainly wasn't good, and just made the universe and sat back and let it unfold. However when you have a God that is nothing but good and has the power to grant his own wishes, then the world would not have evil. If you can conceptualize a genie to magically make the world without evil, then God could conceptually do it too.

Fair enough.  You've heard it all, but you reject it by choice.  So then to make sure "you've heard it all and has been debunked", please relay the argument for me.  Let's make sure you "KNOW" it.  I'll save it if you really do know it.

It's not my argument to relay. The theists have the burden of proof, and they provide the arguments as to how their all good and powerful God can exist with this universe. Their answers to the problem of evil have been debunked in the past. One of my favorites is the problem of good, in which every argument a theist makes for a good God can also be used for an evil God.

Turn the theists argument around, and their logic can be used for the problem of good in a universe created by an evil God.

[youtube:3bbx1pav]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWvA6ir_NdM[/youtube:3bbx1pav]

Really.  Since you know, please also relay to me what I bring to the salvation table as "worthy" of saving?

That would simply take too much time, and I would not say it nearly as well as the wonderful Stephen Fry.

[youtube:3bbx1pav]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q715ty5hLt4[/youtube:3bbx1pav]

"Hell" isn't left out of even this analogy, you simple dismiss it as inconsequential to the plot and thus the analogy.

You leave hell out of the analogy because it goes against your point. You either consciously or unconsciously left it out because you have a bias towards your doctrine. You cannot accept that God or Jesus is unjust, so you paint the picture in your mind of what you mean to say, which is not an objective analysis. Hell is relevant to the debate, since hell is the consequence for not accepting Jesus. It is saying that if you do not accept the nice thing that someone did for you that you would be punished.

More ignorance.  Point to the place in scripture that God/Jesus requires a "thanks" from you.  Talk about assertions...

You must accept Jesus as your savior. What do you think it means?

What is your point.  Seeing in ultraviolet changes nothing.

It does. It debunks your assertion. You say God gave us eyes to see, and yet we are blind to the vast majority of the spectrum.

When a child is told not to touch fire because it's hot, you're saying they don't understand between hot and cold?  Silly.  All kids, by the time they have this curiosity have taken baths and have felt cold, warm, and hot water.  Hot is not an unknown.  It's simply not understood in connection to a flame or a stove.

*sigh* More inaccurate analogies. You know when a person really understands the workings of an idea when they can construct a good analogy. If a child doesn't understand what hot and cold means, then they won't know to touch something hot. Since Adam and Eve didn't know what death was, they didn't know not to eat the fruit. It was a vocabulary word that they had never heard before, and so didn't understand the consequences. So not only were they given that knowledge and mortality as a consequence, but God punished them by cursing them.

Not for the rest of eternity...but for a finite time.  A speck of time, really, in the scheme of the cosmos...right?

How does cosmic time make it any unjust? God punished the human race for thousands of years when the rest of humanity didn't do anything wrong.

Fire and water at odds is bad analogy?

Yes, duh.

Since when is omi and infinite "infantile"?  Are you suggesting infants understand omni and infinity?

No, but it seems you don't have the desire to understand my points. Saying the word infinite and thinking it's some kind of stamp of insight is infantile, and childish, like a child saying they win with infinity plus one, or infinity times infinity. The human brain cannot grasp the concept of infinity, so when you use it, I know you can't really know what you're talking about.

Yet we as a society seem to think the death penalty is the ultimate payment for crimes deserving such.  You then are not arguing against me, but against your fellow man.  If it's unjust, then I suppose torture is.  This is the logical conclusion of your point.

As a conservative I see the death penalty is government sanctioned murder. It is not justice. Torture too us unjust. God, a supposedly loving God, has done both.

Humans immortal?  Name one.  

AnimatedDirt: "Every Christian knows what sin is. Every Christian knows the root of all Evil. Have two mortal humans ever given birth to one immortal child? So then you should understand the reason no baby is really "innocent" of sin."

So what exactly did you mean there?

What do you make of your gift from the cosmos?

I'm not indebted to a creator or owe anyone my life, so I'll make the best life I can for myself.

You fail to see that my faith...

Confirmation bias. Doesn't matter how many books you've read or how strong your faith is. It means you cannot look objectively at your religion because you're stuck inside it.

To remove suffering is to say a free agent cannot choose good over evil and so must be MADE to choose good and so it is no longer a choice.  Please reread your words just above to see that even you acknowledge this.

Who is to say we need suffering in order to choose? That seems like something made up to explain suffering itself.

Also the Bible says we have free will, and that we don't have free will:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/free.html

Interesting.  Did every creature create ITSELF out of self-interest?  It couldn't.  If anything it was out of the self-interest for survival of the "parents" that brought the new creature.  The creature's self-interest began only at birth...and God suggests, from conception.  

If God doesn't like self-interest, then why did he make a world with nothing but self-interest?

So let's say God did punish only Adam and Eve.  What then?  Give me the better solution and avenue to take.

Well first, God being omniscient and seeing it happen before the beginning of the universe, he could have put the tree on top of the highest mountain, or anywhere on Australia, or the Americas, or Antarctica, or even just made the tree smell like rancid meat. He could have encased the fruit in a nut, or had given it spines, or made the fruit unreachable or covered with insects. Any number of things he could have done to prevent it in the first place.

Then he could have stopped Adam and Eve as they were about to eat the fruit. Or he could have prevented the snake from talking, or put the snake on another continent. He could have destroyed the snake before it spoke.

If none of that worked, he could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve because they didn't know what death meant. Or at the very least, not cursed them for their actions. Or even if he did curse them, he could have cursed ONLY them.

Look at those solutions. Any one of them could have prevented it - all typed out in less that five minutes. And I'm not even God.

You say, remove the tree as a temptation?  Ok.  But to "hide" evil is to be dishonest.  God IS.  If God IS, then evil exists no matter what He does.

Well then God is not all powerful, since he cannot get rid of evil.

So either God allows evil in the world, making him not all good, or God cannot remove evil, making him not all powerful. Logical paradox.

So what is the best way to teach a child that fire burns and what that EXACTLY means?

If God can make man out of dirt and woman out of his rib, and the universe in six days, then he can give them the knowledge of death. This really isn't that hard...

Does a bit of pain make the child wiser with a small burn, maybe a small scar?

Or understanding could prevent the pain in the first place.

God kills?  It is only sin that brings death.  God may hasten the death (I'm not even sure I agree with this), but ultimately it is sin that kills, not God.

You're changing the use of the word kill arbitrarily. You disregard the meaning as we understand it, and how it's written in the Bible. If killing is as you say it is, then "thou shall not kill" is pretty useless. You can't use the word in opposite ways at the same time.

It's silly to ignore the "bad".  You assert God as the originator of "bad", but ignore (at least the claim) that the "bad" is from another source.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Seems evil comes from God. An all good God wouldn't create evil. So... yeah. You know at least polytheism had logically consistent Gods.

Please reread the reply above about the tiny blip that mankind is.

Your blip argument is called a red herring.

God cursed?  Not at all.  Sin did.  Evil did.  Man chose all by himself to be cursed by evil and sin.

Genesis 3:16-19 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God cursed mankind after they ate the fruit. The fruit made them realize they were naked, but it was God's curse that caused them to suffer. That curse was passed on to every following human. God did it. Read your story.

God did not cause Adam and Eve to sin.  Evil did that.  Adam and Eve chose their path.  THEY doomed humanity after them...influenced by evil.  Evil is the root, humans simply watered it.

And evil was allowed by God in the first place. Then evil not only took over humans, but God multiplied their suffering with a curse. That makes him unjust.

We are discussing the same thing except on the other thread you claim to be studied, yet here (as there) you exhibit no knowledge whatsoever.   You claim to "know" about literature, yet fail to realize that while one can discuss the apparent conundrums of excerpts in a certain piece of literature, it is the whole of the piece that brings light to those excerpts.

[/quote]

Oh please, not this again. You're wrong and you can't understand why.

[defendor]

I didn't read the whole thing, I apologize but I noticed these 2 points

And evil was allowed by God in the first place. Then evil not only took over humans, but God multiplied their suffering with a curse. That makes him unjust.

God said, if you do this, something will happen.  If you eat from this tree, you will surely die.  Cause and effect.  We can sit now and point back as to say "why didn't god let Adam and Eve eat that fruit? how stupid.  God must hate people who think for themselves."  No. They had an entire Garden to play in, they didn't need that one tree.  Let alone, the implications of defining Good and evil for themselves, and playing the role of God.  Not too uncommon today haha

But they completely disobeyed God's one rule.  They couldn't even obey one simple rule.  It wasn't even "don't climb in that tree", or "don't touch it", let alone "Don't get in a 50 yard radius cuz I planted mines".  It was don't eat of this one trees fruit.  God, according to his word, had every right to kill them then and there, for that was the punishment.  Disobeying an infinite God finitely is unworthy of finite life. But he didn't kill them, he let them live, Grace. They have punishment, but not unjustly. For it is non justice that they live, and slight justice they are cursed.  There is no injustice.

Oh please, not this again. You're wrong and you can't understand why.

Why is he wrong?  If he is wrong, then he is not in accordance with a set standard of truth.  If there is no standard of truth, he could not be counted as wrong. Isn't he just seeing the world through his own perspective? I can understand disagreements, but this statement is making a claim to truth that has not been identified (for he cannot be wrong without violating a standard of truth)

At least as I am aware of.  I didn't read the entire passages, so I could be completely wrong  

[AnimatedDirt]

I'm going to address this point for now...whew...I'm tired of reading and replying to our long posts.

Well first, God being omniscient and seeing it happen before the beginning of the universe, he could have put the tree on top of the highest mountain, or anywhere on Australia, or the Americas, or Antarctica, or even just made the tree smell like rancid meat. He could have encased the fruit in a nut, or had given it spines, or made the fruit unreachable or covered with insects. Any number of things he could have done to prevent it in the first place.

You are so right.  Consider for a moment, that to do so would be to lie.  Good and Evil are SIMPLE choices.  There is no difficulty in choosing Evil (I hope you're understanding that when I say Evil, I mean anything that is opposed to good...do unto others...it's better to give than receive...laying aside self and thinking instead of others) It's very simple to think of self first.  To then hide and make the tree difficult to reach is to lie and so suggest to a thinking mind, "What is God hiding from me?"  The stove exists in your house.  Hot scalding water is a sink away, cars are driving up and down the street outside your home...danger surrounds us.  Danger/Evil does not live on a mountain somewhere that is inaccesible.  Sometimes your own family brings danger and death.  So then Evil is not something that is hidden or made up.  Evil is a fact that God cannot remove IF IT IS FREEWILL and by it, true love that He desires. (He can't remove it at all if He defines/embodies Good)

Then he could have stopped Adam and Eve as they were about to eat the fruit. Or he could have prevented the snake from talking, or put the snake on another continent. He could have destroyed the snake before it spoke.

These are pretty amazing concepts considering the society I live in, the U.S. (I'm not sure where you live) seems to uphold freedom to eat as you please, freedom of speech, freedom to live where you wish, right to life and liberty, true justice...all these concepts of freedom that, to my knowledge having been around this forum a little bit now, from the Atheistic understanding of life, came as a result of natural understanding of the best manner in which a society thrives and that of personal rights.  Are you suggesting God stifle our human rights?  Are you suggesting He shut the mouth and kill that which speaks against Him?  Are you suggesting the government take these rights of our in order to "protect" us???  If God did as you suggest, you wouldn't be here...and that would be unfair and tyranical.  But somehow in your wisdom, this is your remedy and solution...Really???  

If none of that worked, he could have simply forgiven Adam and Eve because they didn't know what death meant. Or at the very least, not cursed them for their actions. Or even if he did curse them, he could have cursed ONLY them.

He did forgive them.  People are forgiven all the time.  The death penalty "forgives" a person for crimes that bring the death penalty.  The thing you seem to be against is JUSTICE.  If justice demands punishment, and I must assume you agree, then justice for going against God is you can't be with God.  If God is the only thing that brings life, then you must live without that ability.  (again, these are things that God is by nature...if you understand this being things that He cannot go against/change)

Again I'll tell you, God did not curse Adam and Eve.  They cursed themselves through sin.  God simply told them what the curse is...ultimately death.  The God didn't choose, "Oh lets see, uh...Yes!...The ground will bring forth thorns and be difficult to cultivate...and...OH!  Eve, I declare pain in childbirth..."  These are things that didn't exist APART from Evil, but do when Evil is allowed in.  Death and pain.  (I will say, the concept of death was known to Adam and Eve, because Evil did already exist prior to them being created.  That, and plants being fruitful...seasonal plants.  Death was understood, but not understood that it could happen to a human.  God simply put them in a place that was free from the effects of Evil.}

Look at those solutions. Any one of them could have prevented it - all typed out in less that five minutes. And I'm not even God.

...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...you think that by removing what we term today as basic "unalienable rights" is to create a utopia where everyone cannot speak their mind, eat whatever they wish, or a land without true justice.  By these ideas, you would support the idea that a person can go around and murder whomever he/she wishes, and be forgiven...to do it again tomorrow and again the next day, and the next...

Yes, you certainly showed us your ability to think things through in 5 minutes much better than God.

[Event_Horizon]

To then hide and make the tree difficult to reach is to lie and so suggest to a thinking mind, "What is God hiding from me?"

How is it lying at all? Adam and Eve did not need to choose to be good or evil, since they were born without sin, and yet had free will. An all good being made them, therefore Adam and Eve had no evil since they were directly made from God who could not have made them with evil. The idea of original sin comes from the tree itself, and God had no reason to put the tree within reaching distance. There is no lying in keeping the tree away, or having no tree at all because God intended for the tree never to be eaten. To allow the tree within reach means that God wanted to tempt mankind with it. That means that all God wanted was a test to see if humans would pick good or evil, and that is sadistic. In the mindset of a God that can only do good, there are infinite alternatives to what has been stated. You as a theist in your opinion see it as completely plausible, but if you had any kind of objective analysis you would see the absurdity. If you had never heard of the Bible and found it in a used book store, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about and you'd toss the book aside.

We are talking about an all powerful God, who desires a world of perfect harmony and goodness. Now this God has the power to make the world, and he does, and you're saying he built evil into the world as a default because he wanted us to choose between him and evil? First that is a logical impossibility, because a God that can do nothing but good can ONLY make a world without evil. The logical impossibility comes form attributing omnipotence to him. If God can only do good, then he does not have the power to do evil and thus not omnipotent. If God has the power to do both good and evil, then he is not all good. That is a logical paradox.

Are you suggesting God stifle our human rights?  Are you suggesting He shut the mouth and kill that which speaks against Him?  Are you suggesting the government take these rights of our in order to "protect" us???  If God did as you suggest, you wouldn't be here...and that would be unfair and tyranical.  But somehow in your wisdom, this is your remedy and solution...Really???  

A resounding yes: God stifles human rights. God does not value human rights because in the Bible he destroyed the rights of humans all throughout the Old Testament. God commands to kill the blasphemer and the nonbeliever.

Also, your response had little to do with my original point. God, being a tyrant already, could choose any manner of ways to prevent Adam and Eve from getting to the fruit. You instead focus on government... That is a red herring. My point is that God, being all good, with the power to grant his own wishes, could do whatever he wanted to make a perfect world, and yet he didn't. Why? One reason could be convoluted logic of the theist. The other much more simple, and the correct one, that involves no logical paradoxes, is that the God you describe does not exist.

Let's be scientific about it. Let's look at the facts of the observable and testable world and then draw conclusions. We see a world that contains certain qualities. We cannot attribute good and evil to these things until we know what good and evil is. Judging by the world itself we just see actions, but for the sake of argument let's just assume that we can attribute good and evil to these actions based subjectively by our own standards. We can indeed say that we see a world that contains good, evil, and neutral actions. Since we are trying to answer the question of God, we have to construct hypotheses in relation to God(s). So what kind of hypothesis can we draw from the evidence within the world itself? Well first is the null hypothesis (there is no God), which is consistent with the evidence. Seeing that there is both good and evil, there might be two Gods, one that is good and another that is evil, and they are responsible for good and evil. That is logically consistent with the evidence. Another is an all powerful God that is completely neutral, who is neither good nor evil, and permits both. That is also logically consistent with the evidence. From the evidence we can think of an all good God that doesn't have omnipotence. We can also think of an all evil God that has no omnipotence. We can think of a neutral God with no omnipotence. All of them are logically possible within our world.

The problem with your hypothesis of an all powerful God who is also all good, is that the evidence doesn't support it. A God with the characteristics of being all good and all powerful would simply make the world all good, however the world and therefore the evidence not only does not support this, but runs contrary to it. If I have to decide between reality or belief, I'll go with reality, because reality always wins.

The death penalty "forgives" a person for crimes that bring the death penalty.

Not the case in the least. "Forgiveness" is an action of the victim, and the state is not the victim. Victims can be unforgiving when there is no death penalty, and victims can be forgiving when there is death penalty. Forgiveness and capital punishment are mutually exclusive. Not all justice demands punishment, but all justice demands compensation.

You say that the "punishment" is simply not being with God, and in that a sense that particular example is reasonable if God were not to punish them for not believing or telling his believers to punish the nonbelievers. If people accept God get to be with him, and people who don't accept God don't, then indeed it is a choice. However you differ from the majority of Christians and contemporary Christian doctrine which explains that people who don't accept God aren't just separated from him, but are tortured forever in Hell. As I said that is not a choice but a calculation. If I said be my best friend and come to my resort, or don't be my best friend and stay at home, then that would be a choice. However if I said be my friend and come to a resort, or don't be my friend and you'll be beaten senseless, that it not a choice.

Where our points to not match up is the effect of this rejection of God. By your personal theology, that rejection is nothing, but the contemporary viewpoint is that the rejection is eternal torture. How do you explain this discrepancy?

Again I'll tell you, God did not curse Adam and Eve.  They cursed themselves through sin.  God simply told them what the curse is...ultimately death.

16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Your assertion is simply not correct.

That, and plants being fruitful...seasonal plants.  Death was understood, but not understood that it could happen to a human.  God simply put them in a place that was free from the effects of Evil.

Your claim that Adam and Eve knew the meaning of Death is only an assumption. Please support your statement with evidence.

...and because you don't understand the concept of freewill, truth, inability to lie, justice, love...

Talk about an ad hominem attack. I do know what free will and truth and justice and love is, and I get fucking pissed when someone says that atheists don't know what those things are.

[Event_Horizon]

God said, if you do this, something will happen.  If you eat from this tree, you will surely die.  Cause and effect.

If you examine what God said of the tree, and what the serpent said of the tree, then what God said afterwards, it is evidenced in the text that God was lying and the serpent was telling the truth. God said don't eat of the tree or they'd die on that day. The serpent said they would gain knowledge and be as Gods. After they ate the fruit, they did not die (showing that God lied), and God said that they had gained the knowledge like the Gods, showing that the serpent was right. God lied once to Adam and Eve, and the serpent told the truth twice.

My point is, is that God made the tree to be eaten, and he intended for Adam and Eve to eat it because he saw it happening before the universe had even been made. Had his real intention been NOT to curse humanity, and not to allow his creations to sin, then he wouldn't have done it.

They couldn't even obey one simple rule.

A rule only has impact if it is understood. Adam and Even had never seen death, they didn't know what the concept was, because God said just as they had been created to not eat of the tree or they would die. Because they didn't know what the consequence was, they didn't understand the severity of the ruling.

What if I told you to NEVER of the pie of knowledge, because you do, you sill surely kerigas.

Obviously that command holds no weight because you do not know the definition of the word and therefore do not know the weight of the consequences

God, according to his word, had every right to kill them then and there, for that was the punishment.  Disobeying an infinite God finitely is unworthy of finite life. But he didn't kill them, he let them live, Grace.

No, he didn't let them live. You and AnimatedDirt both think that God just let them out of the garden with no punishment, but God did punish them by making birth painful for women and man to till the soil. The curse was not the consequence of the fruit but God punishing them. Not only that but God extended that punishment to the unborn children. Now this is what I don't get. Many oppose abortion because a baby is innocent, and many of those people are religions (but not all), but those religious people seem to think that God is supposedly justified in cursing of millions/billions of babies throughout history just because they are the descendants of Adam and Eve?

Why is he wrong?  If he is wrong, then he is not in accordance with a set standard of truth.

That goes back to a thread AnimatedDirt and I going for a while. His response to me here referred back to that other topic, during which had I informed him why he was mistaken on a specific point. When I said he was wrong I didn't mean for that to apply here to this discussion.