God as the Divine Blackmailer

[potwalloper.]

It has been said that the threat of eternal damnation is no different to blackmail - ie coercing people to do things by the use of a threat.

...and as blackmail is a sin then if he is guilty God would be a sinner.

What do you think?

Is god guilty of blackmail and therefore a sinner?

- if yes why do you believe this to be so

- if no then why not?

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Well if it doesn't harm anybody, you'd have a point. Still, I've come to the belief that it can be somewhat disturbing. If some you find some guy saying behind your back many........... 'vulgalarities', some women would get offended.

Then do I understand that if we lust without the lustee knowing it, it is acceptable?99% of the lusts fall in this category.And I also agree that verbally commenting vulgar things on a woman is indecent.It is a legal offense in almost all countries.But if your lustee just knows that you lust her,it wont offend her in anyway.Unless you use socially unacceptable words or behavior.If people get offended for lusting in private,then I dont call that an offense.I am talking about a male lusting in private about a woman and doesnt comment bad on her--whats there for that woman to get offended here?By debating in this forum I might offend a staunch believer and a believer might offend me just by debating.So lets think more about actions causing harm and let us not prevent thoughts.Many of the greatest epics,paintings and literature in the world were created only by lusting.If poets and writers only lusted at their wives we wouldnt have had any epics at all.Human creativity and art will die immeidatly.Does god really want this?

So what they don't know won't hurt them?
Why not apply that morality to other things?

Its like saying why cannot you administer the medicine that cures head ache for cancer also?Various social problems need various medicines.One medicine doesnt cure every single problem my friend.For thoughts that was the solution.If you suggest some other situation, i can tell whether hiding the reality can be a sloution.It is solution in some other cases like hiding a tragic event to a heart patient etc.

That doesn't make it right. You can't just say something is right because the other person is doing the same thing. You wouldn't say 'no lover would mind if her boyfriend secretly has an affair because she is doing the same thing.' and say that makes affairs right.

Why not?Something is wrong only if it is either illegal or Hurts somebody. When an act does neither of these why do you term it a sin?when nobody is bothered about an act,when it actually increases human happiness without hurting anybody why is that a sin?

And I'd also agree with you that temptation of itself isn't really bad. I did quote;

'And God will not let you be tempted beyond more than you can bear.' 1 cor 10: 13

I believe in this case being tempted to do sin. But then why should it be just for that? Why should being tempted to do right be beyond what we could bear, either? If it was, then I guess people wouldn't have much of an option to do otherwise then.

But yes, the temptation isn't bad. I didn't I mean to imply that. When it comes to sin, it is the relenting which affects our actions, which are wrong.

If god will not tempt me beyond what i cannot bear, then lust is not a sin.Then telling lies to save your face isnt a sin.Because there isnt a single man in the world who has not been tempted by this.Surely the fact that billions of humans so far have been tempted by these things would indicate that these temptations are uncontrollable and thus are natural.If you point out jesus hasnt done these things,then I would ask whether he is god or human?If he is human and god,,well we are just human and not god.So this comparision isnt done on a fair grounds.You cant compare god with humans and say be like him.show me one man who hasnt lusted or never told a lie and I will agree that atleast theoritically these temptations are controllable.

what is there for satan to offer so as to tempt him?A way out of suffering on the cross and dying? The entire world worshiping him and no-one not worshipping him?

First of all these are the options which were known to god and which he had fully rejected.Before being born in earth he knew fully well that he need not do this and he after analyzing various options chose the best possible option.One of those options was not at all coming to earth.So once god chose the option of dying on cross,it means that god rejected the option of not dying.If god rejects an option,it means that he did not find it unattractive.

And also god did have an option of making everybody only worship him.But he also did not like that option since as christians say god wanted humans to love him by theor own free will.So this option was also unattractive to god.

So satan offered god the options which were considered by god earlier and rejected because god did not like those options.How do you tempt somebody by offering things which they dont like?

[scorpia]

Then do I understand that if we lust without the lustee knowing it, it is acceptable?99%

Again, this 'what they don't know won't hurt them' attitude.

I am talking about a male lusting in private about a woman and doesnt comment bad on her--whats there for that woman to get offended here?

If you would tell these things to her face, and she isn't disturbed, then yes, it wouldn't be so bad. But if you do tell these things to her face, and she is offended then it would be offensive. As for thinking it in private.... although it is illegal to say some of these things to her face, at least it would be honest and not doing things behind her back. And if you keep it private, she WILL find out, people always do.

So lets think more about actions causing harm and let us not prevent thoughts

Well hey that's true too, but it is my God's morality you are questioning. if you want me to drop this topic, sure.

Many of the greatest epics,paintings and literature in the world were created only by lusting.If poets and writers only lusted at their wives we wouldnt have had any epics at all

There is also a lot of paintings, epics, etc about war and killing, yet I'd expect some people here to believe all war is wrong, and all killing is wrong.

Its like saying why cannot you administer the medicine that cures head ache for cancer also?Various social problems need various medicines.One medicine doesnt cure every single problem my friend.For

Erm........ who in the what now??

i can tell whether hiding the reality can be a sloution.It is solution in some other cases like hiding a tragic event to a heart patient etc.

But you would tell this person eventually, of course.
All in all, you don't hide things behind people's back, it's pretty dishonest......... and you don't do things in private because 'what they don't know won't hurt them.', because.......... well...... that's just WRONG. I don't need a bible to figure that out out. Although maybe his can be discussed in the ethics forum.....

Why not?Something is wrong only if it is either illegal or Hurts somebody

Because what you don't know won't hurt you, and it's not illegal, then it should be fine to go ahead and spread bad rumours about you. There are many other things that would fit this description of not being wrong yet are still wrong anyway.

when nobody is bothered about an act, when it actually increases human happiness without hurting anybody why is that a sin?

What? Affairs hurt people!!! It betrays trust. And evening it out by doing the same thing, though it may make each other feel better, isn't the best option.....

They don't care only because they do the same thing. If somebody steals something, and to even it out the person who had something stolen steals something else back, and neither cares because they are even, does this make stealing right?

If your friend steals your girlfriend, and to even it out, you nick off with his, although you are both even, you still nicked off with his girlfriend.

If you think about abusing a woman (and this is wrong for sure) and you say 'it's alright to think about abusing her because she thinks the same of others, so this is even.' does that make such a thought right?

Because there isnt a single man in the world who has not been tempted by this.

No.........

.Surely the fact that billions of humans so far have been tempted by these things would indicate that these temptations are uncontrollable and thus are natural.

The temptation itself is not a problem. it's giving in to it that is. I'm not talking about the possibility to not feel temptation in the first place, I'm talking about the the possibility to not do what it says. It's like this little devil on your shoulder......... it may say 'go ahead, lie and save face.', and this may not be wrong...... but going ahead and doing it is wrong.

So satan offered god the options which were considered by god earlier and rejected because god did not like those options.How do you tempt somebody by offering things which they dont like?

So because he considered it before, and rejected it, doesn't mean he won't consider it again?
You can go on about his ominescence here..... but that would be a moot point since it was Jesus as a human and he was living a human life at the time which tends to change your perception a bit.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Again, this 'what they don't know won't hurt them' attitude.

It is not only "what they dont know wont hurt them" but also "what is LEGAL and they dont know"'''''In all the examples you have used you have mentioned illegal acts.I said clearly "legal acts which dont hurt anybody unless they know it"...If an act is legal, and if it doesnt hurt you unless you know it--whats wrong in it?

If you would tell these things to her face, and she isn't disturbed, then yes, it wouldn't be so bad. But if you do tell these things to her face, and she is offended then it would be offensive. As for thinking it in private.... although it is illegal to say some of these things to her face, at least it would be honest and not doing things behind her back. And if you keep it private, she WILL find out, people always do.

Your logic is "To think about other person I should obtain her permission".Should I ask somebody "can I lust on you?" or "can I fantasize on you tonight?"--And being honest means not breaking a word or a legal contract.It is action.Not thought.And how will the woman find out if i fantasize on her?She will find out only if i tell it to her face--which is illegal and punishable under law or if i talk in my sleep.And she wouldnt know what i talk in my sleep unless she is nearby where i sleep.

So lets think more about actions causing harm and let us not prevent thoughts
Well hey that's true too, but it is my God's morality you are questioning. if you want me to drop this topic, sure.

This is a forum where even the existence of god is questioned.Arent we here to question everything?So what is the big deal in saying "You are questioning god.." , "You are questioning morals of god" etc. I am just questioning and not abusing god in any way.so why do you want to drop this topic?

There is also a lot of paintings, epics, etc about war and killing, yet I'd expect some people here to believe all war is wrong, and all killing is wrong.

Ya,there are epics on war,but always these epics and paintings give a message of dont kill.They show killing with an intention of giving a message.."dont kill".If an epic or painting says "kill others" it will be saidistic and it wont be considered as an epic.

If there is no war and killing there will be other forms of epics like on love and on nature.But if there is no lust--simply there wont be human race at all.There wont be any single piece of literature to boast about.There wont be anything.world will become a desert.

All in all, you don't hide things behind people's back, it's pretty dishonest......... and you don't do things in private because 'what they don't know won't hurt them.', because.......... well...... that's just WRONG. I don't need a bible to figure that out out. Although maybe his can be discussed in the ethics forum.....

"Thoughts should correspond to action.." So if I think differently and act differently am I being dishonest?If I think "this woman should be killed" in anger,,then am i being dishonestful if I dont kill her?Doing exactly the same thing as you think....humanly impossible.

Because what you don't know won't hurt you, and it's not illegal, then it should be fine to go ahead and spread bad rumours about you. There are many other things that would fit this description of not being wrong yet are still wrong anyway. .....

spreading rumours is illegal and punishable under law.And i said if an act is LEGAL and doesnt hurt anybody unless they know it you can do it.So your anology falls under the illegality cause and thus doesnt make this law invalid.

If your friend steals your girlfriend, and to even it out, you nick off with his, although you are both even, you still nicked off with his girlfriend.

If you think about abusing a woman (and this is wrong for sure) and you say 'it's alright to think about abusing her because she thinks the same of others, so this is even.' does that make such a thought right?Because there isnt a single man in the world who has not been tempted by this.

Hey i also spoke about illegality of an act.Stealing a girl is illegal.Please think of some other example.And my friend,,,thoughts are different from action.Thougt cannot be a crime under any law.There isnt a single government which has outlawed thought as crime.Only in the novel "1984" by george orwell a fascist government outlaws thoughts and dubs it as "thought crime" and punishes people for "thought crime".Please dont equate gods justice system with that justice system.(1984 is an epic.please read it to know more about "thought crime"It is availaible free online)

If thought is a crime then even jesus is a sinner.Because when satan offered him something jesus surely must have refused that offer after thinking about what satan offered.If jesus did not think about what satan offered,then there is no meaning in saying "jesus resisted temptation".So thought is not a crime.

.
The temptation itself is not a problem. it's giving in to it that is. I'm not talking about the possibility to not feel temptation in the first place, I'm talking about the the possibility to not do what it says. It's like this little devil on your shoulder......... it may say 'go ahead, lie and save face.', and this may not be wrong...... but going ahead and doing it is wrong.

when everybody gives into certain temptations--is that temptation a sin?It isnt.when so far not a single man hasnt given up to that temptation surely that must be a reasonable temptation.And i saw no devil on my shoulders when i lied to save my face.And you say "going ahead and doing it is wrong"--but you havent given any valid reason for why it is wrong.You feel it is wrong because god said it was wrong.But I am asking why god said its wrong?we are debating "why god said it was wrong.."you say "telling lies is wrong"--i am asking "why telling lies which are not illegal and hurts nobody are wrong?"

So because he considered it before, and rejected it, doesn't mean he won't consider it again?
You can go on about his ominescence here..... but that would be a moot point since it was Jesus as a human and he was living a human life at the time which tends to change your perception a bit.

So you mean that god will backtrack and will change his decisions--this casts a doubt on his decision making skills.And do you mean that jesus was just human and did not possess any divine skills?Then how did he cure all those sick people and perform those mircales?Surely he must have retained those divine powers to do these miracles.

[scorpia]

If an act is legal, and if it doesnt hurt you unless you know it--whats wrong in it?

Because not knowing it doesn't stop it from hurting you I posted thistopic in the ethics forum

Isnt it funny when you say "To think about other person I should obtain her permission".Should I ask somebody "can I lust on you?" or "can I fantasize on you tonight?"--how funny can this get?

Funny? Yeah.... because the answer is going to be no, isn't it?

Or maybe a girl has to ask every male 'Can you not have sexual fantasies on me?' Is that what you'd prefer them having to do?

And being honest means not breaking a word or a legal contract.It is action.Not thought.

being honest can mean being open as well

so why do you want to drop this topic?

I thought that waswhat you wanted

If there is no war and killing there will be other forms of epics like on love and on nature.But if there is no lust--simply there wont be human race at all.There wont be any single piece of literature to boast about.There wont be anything.world will become a desert.

But there would be people who make love by..... well.... making love.

.."dont kill".If an epic or painting says "kill others" it will be saidistic and it wont be considered as an epic.

And there has been many an story I have seen saying 'don't have an affair.', and 'don't drool over women who would probably slap you in the face if they noticed.' If an epic said otherwise it would be wrong and wont be considered as an epic.

If I think "this woman should be killed" in anger,,then am i being dishonestful if I dont kill her?Doing exactly the same thing as you think....humanly impossible.

No.... You don't kill... but it would be better if you at least admitted it, rather than not saying anything, wouldn't it? You wouldn't want someone secretly wanting to kill you behind your back, now, wouldn't you?

spreading rumours is illegal and punishable under law

Oh goody..... I can sue some people

By doing an act i might please one and hurt another.By not doing an act i will please one and hurt another.Finally if i bother about hurting others i cannot even breathe.

But think... if you cheat on a woman, is it more likely not to hurt them or hurt them? If you masturbate over a woman behind their back would it most likely flatter them or offend them? If they find out? It's the latter in both cases.

Stealing a girl is illegal

And I hear having an affair is illegal too.
But you get the idea??? You just don't excuse your actions by assuming the other person does the same thing and makes you even.

How would you feel if a person of the same sex lusted over you because he assumed you were gay? Or if someone was gay how would they feel if someone of the opposite sex wanted them? How would you feel if a relative had the hots for you because he thought you were into incest? Doesn't anything of the sort disturb you?

when so far not a single man hasnt given up to that temptation surely that must be areasonable temptation.

But there ARE men that have not given into the temptaion to lie or lust

And do you mean that jesus was just human and did not possess any divine skills?

He was a human, with 'divine skills', and he was God who could change his mind now he has experienced what living as a human is like

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

If an act is legal, and if it doesnt hurt you unless you know it--whats wrong in it?
Because not knowing it doesn't stop it from hurting you
Or maybe a girl has to ask every male 'Can you not have sexual fantasies on me?' Is that what you'd prefer them having to do?

Girls dont mind men fanatsizing on them.Its obvious from the fact that they too fantasize and also wear dresses which are meant for showing their body parts and make them look attractive to men.They wear make up only to make them appear more seductive and sexy and they wont mind men fantasizing on them.Girls who dont like it wear purquah and stay inside houses.And its impossible to fatasize on women who wear purquahs.

and even of women do mind men fanatasizing on them, in spite of them fantasizing on them,--its not the correct thing.Because it means that girls are being hypocritical and also they have to learn to live by the rules of the world.And they also should understand that men fantasizing on thjem has various advantages like 1.their lovers can pick them up only by fantasizing
and it reduces the chances of rapes.And next it isnt illegal.So your argument loses ground on the fact that
1.women dont mind men fantasizing (they also fantasize on men.THis i will explain further)
2.Even if they mind they are wrong in their objection
3.fantasizing is actually good for mens health and reduces risk for women like being raped.If fanatsizing isnt there men can only satisfy thjeir desires by having sex.surely women dont want this risk?

being honest can mean being open as well

If being honest harms everybody concerned why do you want honesty?Surely an act that harms all concerned is bad.when nobody can be open,,it simply isnt possible,,you want people to be open.If i tell some girl i fantasize on you, it will end up in me being murdered.If somebody tells this to some presidents daughter it might even create world wars.So you want people to talk whatever they feel and create all sort of problems in the world?

No.... You don't kill... but it would be better if you at least admitted it, rather than not saying anything, wouldn't it? You wouldn't want someone secretly wanting to kill you behind your back, now, wouldn't you?

what?should a student admit to his professors who give him bad grades that he wanted to kill them but he wont do so?he will be considered as a mad man and they too will be paranoid for the rest of their lives.What benefit comes from this?He will earn their wrath,they will then want tio kill him and confess it and where does this end?surely me confessing all my thoughts to them and they confessing in turn will kill relationships and trigger so many unpleasent consequences.Imagine daily 100 men coming and confessing to a girl that i fantasized on you yesterday and describing that in detail.Is this what god wants?And actually somebody thinking "oh this guy doesnt deserve to live" doesnt make thjem killers.Everyone at some point of time think about others like it and all know it.Nopbody bothers about it anyway.

spreading rumours is illegal and punishable under law
Oh goody..... I can sue some people

well if you dont know it,spreading malicious rumours is indeed illegal.

But think... if you cheat on a woman, is it more likely not to hurt them or hurt them? If you masturbate over a woman behind their back would it most likely flatter them or offend them? If they find out? It's the latter in both cases.

How do my fantasizing on women means cheating them?women dont if men masturbate on them because they too do the same thing.If a legal act harms nobody it isnt a sin.when i say this you quote affairs,which are illegal.I talk about LEGAL acts that harm none.How are they sin?please come up with examples.

And I hear having an affair is illegal too.
But you get the idea??? You just don't excuse your actions by assuming the other person does the same thing and makes you even.

i am not talking about illegal acts friend.affairs are illegal and unethical too since you break a contract.I will repeat my stand once again--doing a
LEGAL act which affects nobody is not a sin---

to counter this you always quote illegal acts as examples.can you quote some legal acts,which harm nobody as examples for being sin,please?

How would you feel if a person of the same sex lusted over you because he assumed you were gay? Or if someone was gay how would they feel if someone of the opposite sex wanted them? How would you feel if a relative had the hots for you because he thought you were into incest? Doesn't anything of the sort disturb you?

i wont mind anyone lusting on me.I dont say this for argument sake,but i fully accept the rights for gays to be gays.Maybe you consider this bad since you have a mindset that considers being homo is bad.But for me a man fanatsizing on me and woman fantasizing on me doesnt matter.

But there ARE men that have not given into the temptaion to lie or lust

please give their names.who are those great men?please.i am eager to know their names.

He was a human, with 'divine skills', and he was God who could change his mind now he has experienced what living as a human is like

so he was human with divine skills.So please do not compare him with us humans who dont have divine skills and say he was perfect,he did not lust so you also dont lust.you are comparing two different categories here.

and god being human doesnt make him to change his mind,does it?God,while he was not human made a perfect plan and he came and executed it while he was a human.and when he has divine powers he is not human--not human like us--he is something different.So whats the big deal in refusing an option which he already had rejected?

[scorpia]

he did not lust so you also dont lust

Yet there are many times I do not lust. But then Jesus was still so much better

and god being human doesnt make him to change his mind,does it?

It gives him experience on what being a human is like, gives him a different perception. Why else was he tempted in that desert then?

and when he has divine powers he is not human--not human like us--he is something different

But God came down as a human. That was half the point. He was a human like you and me (although he could perform some nifty miracles) even in the bible you could see he really was a human; he needed food and friends, he got lonely and tired.....he got angry and dissapointed.... and he was tempted..... he experienced what we experience, to understand us better.

And I'd expect an argment on his 'omnipotence having him already knowing these things.'; Knowing is not the same as experiencing for yourself.

[potwalloper.]

Scorpia wrote

Quote:
Mothers are not omniscient - once again an invalid comparison.

But they know for certian that they die. And you seem to accuse God of being a killer because out of his ominecense he knew people would die.

Everyone will die - the one certainty in life.

This is not about prevention of death but the creation of a situation which you know about in advance that causes the behaviour of others and then threatening them with punishment for this.

Sorry but the mother analogy simply doesn't wash.

Quote:
So now you have contradicted yourself - sorry but you appear to be shifting from the position of it is possible not have sin (the desert island scenario) to everyone is a sinner

Because everyone chooses sin

Aaaaaaaaargh!!!!!

If everyone is predisposed to choose sin then sin is a fait accompli and a predisposition. Hello - is there anyone there?

Quote:
Ah if only life were so simple. Ignoring the time travel paradox for a moment, if I failed to kill him I would be directly culpable for the deaths of ten million people

Fine then

At last we agree that failure to act when you have knowledge makes you culpable. God is therefore culpable for the actions of those he created.

Quote:
And this means what exactly? That she was certain that her child would die of a disease and yet brought it into the world anyway? Thanks mum (she would be culpable in that scenario).

Then she is culpable?
Then so is every mother for being certain that their child would die eventually, whether from disease, famine, or whatever. So again, maybe everyone should stop reproducing.

Mothers have no control over the genetic composition or behavioural presispositions of their offspring and as such this is, once again, an overly simplistic and invalid comparison. God has control. God has knowledge. Mothers don't....

Quote:
But I didn't create them in the first place with the certain knowledge that they would make that choice. God did by virtue of his omniscience and as such is culpable by the very act of informed creation. Sorry but you can't use the "your choice" argument when I knew every choice you would make and created you anyway.

And why would your knowledge of whatever I choose make it any less of a choice? Unless you find some way to alter my brain, it's still going to be my choice.

Because of the very way in which you were created in the first place. A large amount of behaviour is due to nature rather than nurture and as such by creating you with certain predispositions god gave you a propensity to sin. As such he is culpable. You have no choice as to your inherited traits - god did...

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

Yet there are many times I do not lust. But then Jesus was still so much better

That was because he was god.If I am like god,then I am god.But I am not.I am human.So is it fair to compare me with god and expect me to have the standards of god?

It gives him experience on what being a human is like, gives him a different perception. Why else was he tempted in that desert then?

Do you really think he did not have that "different perception" earlier?Are you doubting the "all knowing ability" of god?Is there anything which he "has to learn?"comon,dont doubt the all knowing ability of god.

But God came down as a human. That was half the point. He was a human like you and me (although he could perform some nifty miracles) even in the bible you could see he really was a human; he needed food and friends, he got lonely and tired.....he got angry and dissapointed.... and he was tempted..... he experienced what we experience, to understand us better.

And I'd expect an argment on his 'omnipotence having him already knowing these things.'; Knowing is not the same as experiencing for yourself.

So he did not have that "knowledge that comes through experience" earlier?That means his knowledge was not complete earlier.That means he did not understand us better earlier?How was he human like you and me?when you say he has divine powers it immediatly removes the human nature from him.Even though he had some human triats,he wasnt human--atleast was not human like us.He was semi human and semi god.

[scorpia]

This is not about prevention of death but the creation of a situation which you know about in advance that causes the behaviour of others and then threatening them with punishment for this.

The last part of the quote is moot. God created sinners, yes.. but he doesnt punish them for sinning.

But if mankind is certain to fall, and God knew that.. So then why did he bother trying to stop them? If he knew for certain that Adam and Eve would eat that apple, he shouldn't have bothered saying 'Do not eat this.' (And I really doubt him not saying that would have got Adam and Eve to avoid eating it). He tried to disuade them, even though either way they would eat it. But he never forced them not to.

You may think some things are bad.. alcohol or smoking they may even be harmful to health. But when it comes to someone you care about, youre not going to remove that option from them, even if it is harmful. You dont spend your entire life trying to hide the existence of alcohol from them. They will find out eventually. You may as well present it to them and say although these may harm you, Ill let you have the option and choose for yourself. Its their body, their choice.

your mother analogy doesnt wash

Mothers are just as certain that their child will rebel as much as die.

I was trying to refer to this analogy where some guy asked Didnt the Lord foresee that mankind would become corrupt?;

Imagine a guy who's a father. He loves his son, and when the son was born, the man was really happy. But some stranger one day asks him one day; "Why were you so happy when your son was born? You know one day he's going to die."
But the father, although troubled, answered. "Yes. But when my son was born, I was so happy, I didn't think of the future."
Maybe this father regretted that his son would die. In the end, it might have turned out that his son did die before him, and the father might then regret that he had ever had a son, because of all the pain he's going through. Might of been better not to have had a son in the first place. Yes, he would have felt regret.

But he has a child! Hes happy! He knew his creation may do wrong, but that didnt prevent the execution of his beneficent purpose to create them. Not only that.. God did not only see mankinds fall. But mankinds rising again. Isnt that reason enough to hope, and not give up on creation?

Aaaaaaaaargh!!!!!

Do try not to get angry potwalloper.

If everyone is predisposed to choose sin then sin is a fait accompli and a predisposition.

I was not referring to any Jansenism. I was TALKING everyone being a sinner.. we are predisposed to temptation, which of itself isnt bad although everyone is tempted to sin, everyone does, out of choice, not because sin is impossible to resist. You can fight all sin. A person may do so for a certain length of time, and not sin. But they eventually do sin. Out of choice. Its like an addiction.. A doctor may see you are addicted to something and offer you a way out, but when you love what you are addicted to so much, would you be willing to give it up? So it is with sin.. there is a way out, but youre not willing to give it up. Thats what Im talking about. So while it is possible for a person not to sin, everyones a sinner because while everyones addicted no-one wants to take that first step out.

At last we agree that failure to act when you have knowledge makes you culpable. God is therefore culpable for the actions of those he created.

But there are still some times when that acting is worse.

If someone came from the future and said that your son would commit murder, no matter what you do, you of course wouldnt kill your son. But you have foreknowledge that if you dont you will be responsible for another death. What would a parent do in such a situation? What would God do, when he is faced to choose between the responsibility for his creations sins and his love for his creation? At least by letting the criminal son live you have a chance to know your son and love him while he is free and not yet going to face judgement.. And there is hope for that sons release.

Mothers have no control over the genetic composition or behavioural presispositions of their offspring and as such this is, once again, an overly simplistic and invalid comparison. God has control. God has knowledge. Mothers don't....

Yes they do. Mothers have knowledge that their children will die eventually. They also know that their child will rebel. They also have control by not reproducing, the same same with God, who may also not create. But when a mother has a child I should expect that they should accept that their children will rebel at some point, or misbehave.

Because of the very way in which you were created in the first place. A large amount of behaviour is due to nature rather than nurture and as such by creating you with certain predispositions god gave you a propensity to sin.

Since when is sin mankinds only nature? Werent we also created with morality, and caring for others? Dont we also have a propensity to do good?

And on Gods knowledge affecting free will. He may have knowledge, but that knowledge doesnt affect us.. we make the choices in the first place, and God lets you choose your own future. He may have knowledge, but that knowledge wont affect anything unless he interferes. Just like me watching a pot of noodles boil but not touching it, just watching it, wont affect the boiling pot itself. It will be the same if I didnt watch.

There were some times when he did interfere, but at those times, with his plagues and warnings, it was a matter of dissuading people from doing wrong. He may have shepherded that future somewhat, but he didnt force it. He told people to do things, he warned, etc, but it was openly, and each time people had a chance to say no.

Do you really think he did not have that "different perception" earlier?Are you doubting the "all knowing ability" of god?Is there anything which he "has to learn?"comon,dont doubt the all knowing ability of god.

I already said;

And I'd expect an argument on his 'omnipotence having him already knowing these things.'; Knowing is not the same as experiencing for yourself.

So he did not have that "knowledge that comes through experience" earlier?That means his knowledge was not complete earlier.That means he did not understand us better earlier? .

Well it says in the bible; For this reason he had been made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 3:17-18

I guess thats where he got that knowledge that comes through experience

How was he human like you and me?when you say he has divine powers it immediatly removes the human nature from him.Even though he had some human triats,he wasnt human--atleast was not human like us.He was semi human and semi god

What about the disciples then? They performed miracles as well. They were still human. Some people have the ability to do many things that are usually miraculous. They are still human.

Who knows.... maybe Jesus simply had a scientific method to his miracles that people in the future would discover how to do. At this time even we are much more powerful than we used to be, but are no less human.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

The last part of the quote is moot. God created sinners, yes.. but he doesnt punish them for sinning.But if mankind is certain to fall, and God knew that.. So then why did he bother trying to stop them? You may think some things are bad.. alcohol or smoking they may even be harmful to health. But when it comes to someone you care about, youre not going to remove that option from them, even if it is harmful. You dont spend your entire life trying to hide the existence of alcohol from them. They will find out eventually. You may as well present it to them and say although these may harm you, Ill let you have the option and choose for yourself. Its their body, their choice. .

Imagine me putting my 17 year old son in a room with a beautiful blonde and saying "if you touch her it is sin.But i leave both of you in the same room.If you touch her you will be burnt in hell.If you even fantasize on her you will be burnt.But you have an option of not touching her also.You can touch her and escape hell by accepting me as your father...."

Imagine a guy who's a father. He loves his son, and when the son was born, the man was really happy. But some stranger one day asks him one day; "Why were you so happy when your son was born? You know one day he's going to die."
But the father, although troubled, answered. "Yes. But when my son was born, I was so happy, I didn't think of the future."
Maybe this father regretted that his son would die. In the end, it might have turned out that his son did die before him, and the father might then regret that he had ever had a son, because of all the pain he's going through. Might of been better not to have had a son in the first place. Yes, he would have felt regret.

But he has a child! Hes happy! He knew his creation may do wrong, but that didnt prevent the execution of his beneficent purpose to create them. Not only that.. God did not only see mankinds fall. But mankinds rising again. Isnt that reason enough to hope, and not give up on creation?

But the father doesnt have any power to stop his son from dying.If the father has the power to prevent his son from dying he will do it.many fathers and mothers have sacrificed their lives to save their children's.So if god is atleast half as good as my father is,what prevents him from stoping me from death?My father wouldnt care whether i am a sinner or not.If he has the power to save me,he will save me.So why doesnt god,who has the power to prevent my death,doesnt do so?

I was not referring to any Jansenism. I was TALKING everyone being a sinner.. we are predisposed to temptation, which of itself isnt bad although everyone is tempted to sin, everyone does, out of choice, not because sin is impossible to resist. You can fight all sin. A person may do so for a certain length of time, and not sin. But they eventually do sin. Out of choice. Its like an addiction.. A doctor may see you are addicted to something and offer you a way out, but when you love what you are addicted to so much, would you be willing to give it up? So it is with sin.. there is a way out, but youre not willing to give it up. Thats what Im talking about. So while it is possible for a person not to sin, everyones a sinner because while everyones addicted no-one wants to take that first step out.

That means its impossible not to sin.when billions of people repeat the same thing,its useless to even say that "they can but they dont".And if the doctor is real good one,he will cure the patient from addiction.Addiction victims are helpless.They cannot help themselves.They are totally gone cases.So you who have the omnipotent power should save them.If everybody is a sinner,then nothing is sin.

If someone came from the future and said that your son would commit murder, no matter what you do, you of course wouldnt kill your son.

But if i have the omnipoetence of god to prevent my sons murder i will do it.I will defenitely prevent his murder and save the victim.I wont be a mute spectator.

What would God do, when he is faced to choose between the responsibility for his creations sins and his love for his creation?.

apart from responsibility god also has power.use the power.Use it.

Yes they do. Mothers have knowledge that their children will die eventually. They also know that their child will rebel. They also have control by not reproducing, the same same with God, who may also not create. But when a mother has a child I should expect that they should accept that their children will rebel at some point, or misbehave. ?.

But if my mother had the power to prevent my evil deeds and to cure me of my "sins" she will defenitely do it.If she knows that i will kill somebody at age 30 and if she wants she can stop it,she will defenitely stop it.She wont be a mute witness to my sins.

Since when is sin mankinds only nature? Werent we also created with morality, and caring for others? Dont we also have a propensity to do good??.

no kid has any "sin" gene or "morality gene" its all taught by its parents and environment.Unfortunately that environment has a bias towards sin and thus the kid growing up in a bad environment learns sin-not by choice,but by factors beyind its control.

There were some times when he did interfere, but at those times, with his plagues and warnings, it was a matter of dissuading people from doing wrong. He may have shepherded that future somewhat, but he didnt force it. He told people to do things, he warned, etc, but it was openly, and each time people had a chance to say no.

and always the decision was "yes" and god knew it earlier.and he still gives that choice to hear more "yes"he pretty well knows he will alwyas hear an "yes" but he still wants to hear more "yes" to sins.

Well it says in the bible; For this reason he had been made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Hebrews 3:17-18.

Friend, bible might say so many things.I am only asking explanations about them.Experience is always done to build knowledge.People who dont have knowledge on that subject only will experiment.If a scientist knows that mixing H2 and O1 will create water he wont experiment it.
when god has the knowledge why experimnet to get knowledge is the question.For this you answer as he wanted to experience to "understand people betetr"...did he not have that understanding earlier??/is the question.

What about the disciples then? They performed miracles as well. They were still human. Some people have the ability to do many things that are usually miraculous. They are still human.

Who knows.... maybe Jesus simply had a scientific method to his miracles that people in the future would discover how to do. At this time even we are much more powerful than we used to be, but are no less human.

do you mean that jesus and his disciples were of the same stature?comon.the dsiciples performed miracles by the power of jesus.But jesus performed miracles by his own power,did he not?Or do you mean to say that jesus was as human as you and me?

If a mircale is scientific,it isnt a miracle at all.So that argument is out of context.