God has all attributes including evil iniquity.

[Greatest I am]

I put my conclusions out here.

Some will agree some not.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

I put my conclusions out here.

Some will agree some not.

Regards
DL

Whist the same source gives contrary results it is time to question the source, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
I do not see a queue of people waiting to agree with you.

[Greatest I am]

I put my conclusions out here.

Some will agree some not.

Regards
DL

Whist the same source gives contrary results it is time to question the source, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
I do not see a queue of people waiting to agree with you.

Those who do not show their level of intelligence.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

I put my conclusions out here.

Some will agree some not.

Regards
DL

Whist the same source gives contrary results it is time to question the source, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
I do not see a queue of people waiting to agree with you.

Those who do not show their level of intelligence.

Regards
DL

Clearly you have a hotline to truth, whereas theologians for millennia are just too stupid to know where in the bible to cherry pick the right passages.
And all the other people, who claim the 'right' interpretation of the bible are also too dumb witted to know what you are on about.
If only they were as smart as you then they would be able to see the simple facts, so plain in your eyes, the character of god.
If only...

[Greatest I am]

Get a life.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

Get a life.

Regards
DL

How amusing. I think it is you that needs to get a life!
You pretend to know the character and mind of god. How sad do you think you look?

[bobevenson]

OK, I guess I'll be the first to comment on the redundant title of this thread. Please name me any iniquity that is not evil.

[Greatest I am]

OK, I guess I'll be the first to comment on the redundant title of this thread. Please name me any iniquity that is not evil.

I was aware of that when I wrote it.

I cannot name any iniquity that is good and only added the word evil because believers say that God only creates good things.

Regards
DL

[bravox]

I cannot name any iniquity that is good and only added the word evil because believers say that God only creates good things.

I think this has been answered millions of times already...

How would God give man free will without allowing for evil? How can people be free to choose if they are not free to make wrong choices?

Some could say that God is not all-powerful given that He is not powerful enough to solve the above conundrum. But what if God is already solving it, by teaching man to choose wisely? It may be taking time, but so did creation.

I'd like to make a comment on cherry picking from scripture: don't we do the same with science? We accept or discard theories based on how they agree or disagree with other theories. The goal of science is to have a body of theories that are in full harmony with each other (we're not there yet).

There is no reason not to cherry pick from the Bible unless you think it is the word of God. Seen as man's attempt to understand God, it is an excelent source of thought.

[chaz wyman]

I cannot name any iniquity that is good and only added the word evil because believers say that God only creates good things.

I think this has been answered millions of times already...

How would God give man free will without allowing for evil? How can people be free to choose if they are not free to make wrong choices?

However the same theologians make the same mistake that to give man free will, is de facto a limitation of god's omnipotence.
Such a god cannot intervene to alter the course of events, so is not all powerful. Noting the 'having your cake and eating it', some theologians such as Calvin demand the doctrine of predetermination.

Some could say that God is not all-powerful given that He is not powerful enough to solve the above conundrum. But what if God is already solving it, by teaching man to choose wisely? It may be taking time, but so did creation.

If god is teaching each man to choose widely then he is altering free will. If god is all powerful then he has to have know who will and how will not heed that teaching even before they were born, and thus in the act of creation knew to whom and whom not he had bestowed salvation.


I'd like to make a comment on cherry picking from scripture: don't we do the same with science? We accept or discard theories based on how they agree or disagree with other theories. The goal of science is to have a body of theories that are in full harmony with each other (we're not there yet).

No, we do not. We select what works and has utility. You have not made a case how this related to the above. ~The book of nature is less forgiving of contradiction.


There is no reason not to cherry pick from the Bible unless you think it is the word of God. Seen as man's attempt to understand God, it is an excelent source of thought.

You might as well choose any book, with far better results. Most are for less contradictory.

[bravox]

However the same theologians make the same mistake that to give man free will, is de facto a limitation of god's omnipotence.

If god is teaching each man to choose widely then he is altering free will.

If god is all powerful then he has to have know who will and how will not heed that teaching even before they were born, and thus in the act of creation knew to whom and whom not he had bestowed salvation.

It is obvious to anyone that our understanding of God is not perfect. Or, rather, as an atheist would put it, theology as a whole doesn't make any sense.

I will not dispute that. I will only add that our understanding of nature is not perfect either. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all. It is useful, practical, pragmatic, but it completely lacks any foundation. It's turtles all the way.

There is one fact though, that atheism conveniently sweeps under the rug: we can't possibly find justification for moral behaviour in nature. Morality is either a fiction in our minds, in which case we are free to dismiss it, or some form of supernatural law of the universe we obey without knowing its origin.

Problem is, it is not acceptable to prove that morality is an illusion. No one can be compelled, by any rational argument, to deny the notion of good and evil. And if you accept that, the logical consequence is that goodness was defined even before we were created, that it is an attribute of reality itself.

How we sort out the implications of that intellectual choice is really up to our mental capacity. The fact itself cannot be changed.

[chaz wyman]

However the same theologians make the same mistake that to give man free will, is de facto a limitation of god's omnipotence.

If god is teaching each man to choose widely then he is altering free will.

If god is all powerful then he has to have know who will and how will not heed that teaching even before they were born, and thus in the act of creation knew to whom and whom not he had bestowed salvation.

It is obvious to anyone that our understanding of God is not perfect. Or, rather, as an atheist would put it, theology as a whole doesn't make any sense.

I will not dispute that.



I will only add that our understanding of nature is not perfect either. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all. It is useful, practical, pragmatic, but it completely lacks any foundation. It's turtles all the way.

No one is saying that our understanding of nature is perfect, but that does not support the proposition that god is in any way meaningful.


There is one fact though, that atheism conveniently sweeps under the rug: we can't possibly find justification for moral behaviour in nature.

Yes we can.

Morality is either a fiction in our minds, in which case we are free to dismiss it, or some form of supernatural law of the universe we obey without knowing its origin.

Morality is a human artifact, but the underlying reasons that such a move to behave ethically is easily understood in terms of nature.
Just because some evolutionists lack the imagination does not mean that morality has to come from god - which does not account for the facts of morality in any way.

Problem is, it is not acceptable to prove that morality is an illusion. No one can be compelled, by any rational argument, to deny the notion of good and evil. And if you accept that, the logical consequence is that goodness was defined even before we were created, that it is an attribute of reality itself.

Good is that which pleaseth man, evil that which pleaseth him not.
One man's evil is the good of another.
These are not facts of nature but facts of culture, and human contingency.

How we sort out the implications of that intellectual choice is really up to our mental capacity. The fact itself cannot be changed.

Eh? What "FACT" is it that you claim is unchangeable, exactly?

[bravox]

Morality is a human artifact

That is what Adolf Hitler claimed. And we all know where that line of thinking ends up.

[John]

Morality is a human artifact

That is what Adolf Hitler claimed. And we all know where that line of thinking ends up.

Godwinned.

If your only argument against the argument that morality is culturally constructed is saying Hitler believed it it suggests you haven't thought about it enough as it's a complex question that lacks consensus.

[bravox]

If your only argument against the argument that morality is culturally constructed is saying Hitler believed it

Hitler has nothing to do with it. The argument is that, even if we prove we have no basis to behave morally, we will still do.

Just look at the idea of survival. We have concluded that we are genetically programmed to survive, and that the universe doesn't care if we survive or not, nature is blind and indifferent to us. The logical conclusion is that we are slave to our genes, that we should stay alive if we are enjoying it, and commit suicide if not.

Does that make any sense? We don't believe our own theories about ourselves so how can they possibly be true?

it suggests you haven't thought about it enough as it's a complex question that lacks consensus.

I have thought about it more than you can imagine, and I realized that we won't believe any possible theory about morality, except one that implies we can't possibly escape punishment if we act immorally. Oh, by the way, such a theory already exists.