Why would God's ultimate power come with ultimate responsibility?

[Truthseeker]

It's a direct and unavoidable consequence of God's omnipotence and omniscience. You know everything and you do everything, there's no one else to take the credit or the blame, just you and you alone.

I don't consider that a proof of no free will. Are there some experimental results that tell you that?

You quoted the same passage by me in two posts with me saying exactly the same thing. I didn't post two posts saying the same thing. Apparently there's some slight mistake there. I don't think you meant to do that.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's local to my discussion with la belle Trailblazer, and I'm arguing that once it's a given that God is omniscient and omnipotent, it follows that all bucks stop with [him], every single one without exception, the cheering, yawning and booing.

Now that is a clear cut case of "passing the buck."

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a direct and unavoidable consequence of God's omnipotence and omniscience. You know everything and you do everything, there's no one else to take the credit or the blame, just you and you alone.

If you are omnipotent you are all-powerful
If you are omniscient you know everything.

God does not do anything, not anything at all.

Everything that is done in this world is done by humans.

Humans do everything, so there's no one else to take the credit or the blame, just humans and humans alone.

 

[Trailblazer]

The future is as fixed as the past, and like the past is exactly as God wanted it to be when [he] made the universe.

The future does not exist in this world until it becomes the present.
The future is not decided until humans make a decision and act on them and then the future becomes the present.

God knows what the future will be. God does not decide what the future will be.
Humans decide what the future will be by acting in the present, which later becomes the future.
The past, present and future were/are all exactly as humans wanted them to be.

Yes, this hypothetical me gets hit because that's exactly what God planned for him 14 bn years ago.

God knew that man would get hit by a bus because God knows everything, but God did not plan for that man to get hit.

If I pull the trigger and shoot someone's dog ─ no, that's too horrible, someone's cat ─ then I'm responsible. And unlike God, I could claim in mitigation that I didn't know the cat was there. Or that the gun was loaded. Or that I thought it was a savage tiger about to leap at me. Or ...

But the gun was in my care, and I caused it to fire, so at one level or another I won't escape responsibility.

God does not cause anything to happen in this world, humans cause all if it. That is why humans are responsible for everything that happens.

God by contrast has NO excuses, NO mitigations. The entirety of everything good is to [his] credit and [his] alone, and the entirety of everything bad is to [his] discredit and [he] gets 100% of the blame. It goes with being omnipotent and omniscient.

Humans have NO excuses, NO mitigations. The entirety of everything good is to their credit alone, and the entirety of everything bad is to their discredit and humans get 100% of the blame. It goes with having free will to choose and act on choices.

One way or another I've said all that before. Without quoting anyone else, tell me how God,
─ knowing 14 bn years in advance that this little kid will drown in that backyard pool tomorrow
─ as a direct result of the way God made the universe
─ and clearly so foreseen by God before [he] acted
─ and being ever after well aware that in doing so the drowning would happen,
can say [he] wasn't to blame
any more than I can escape blame for discharging a firearm under my control and causing larger or smaller damage.

God is only to blame for what God causes. God is not to blame for what God knows that humans will cause by virtue of their choices and actions.
God does not cause the drowning of little kids and God does not cause people to discharge firearms.
Humans cause these things so humans are responsible for them.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

 

[blü 2]

I don't consider that a proof of no free will. Are there some experimental results that tell you that?

You quoted the same passage by me in two posts with me saying exactly the same thing. I didn't post two posts saying the same thing. Apparently there's some slight mistake there. I don't think you meant to do that.

First, my apologies for any errors in our conversation

Second, I still have a few contacts in tertiary ed, so if you can get God to appear for some tests and to answer some questions honestly, I'll see what we can line up.

But as I've already observed, I see two main approaches to free will, the theological and the scientific. The theological problem arises directly out of a God who's omnipotent and omniscient. Other gods avoid such problems.

However, the scientific approach doesn't point to any way to free will in any absolute terms. We're born with highly evolved brains with highly evolved data assessing and decision-making mechanisms built in, to which we can add instinctive responses which can happen through the smarter parts of the nervous system that aren't the brain. (You probably know that the heart and the gut are largely, though not utterly, independent of the brain in their operations.)

If we need evolved brains performing biochemical and bioelectrical functions, some of great complexity, in order to make decisions, then there's nothing left over to operate "freely" in our decision-making. I can't see any basis for thinking that any elements outside of nature are involved, both because there's no need for them in order to explain what we observe about functioning brains, and because no objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary. We end up having no truly free will either way. We indeed have the conviction that we own our decisions, and I'd say in fact we do, since there's no "I" independently of the brain-body team, which is the "I" for each of us.

The other side of that coin is that I haven't seen anywhere a description as to how an immaterial part of "I" could operate to make decisions independently of the brain, let alone communicate them to the brain and thus act as a supernatural censor. It seems to me that all such notions ─ soul, anima, independent 'consciousness', independent 'conscience' (as distinct from our material brain's instincts about morality) &c ─ are all imaginary.

 

[Trailblazer]

My opinion is based on observable evidence and established logic, and I'm not presenting anything as unquestionable in the face of alternative evidence. Your belief is based on established religion that you can't change or question.

There is no observable evidence of God and there is no established logic about God. There is no alternative evidence because there is no evidence for God, only opinions and beliefs.

My belief is based upon an established religion that I can't change but I can and do question it at times.

It's mainly the existing outside time that is key with most of them. You said yourself that how God operates isn't understandable to us, so attributing the labels that are defined in exclusively human terms doesn't seem compatible. However you think this God operates, I'd suggest you need entirely new terms for it.

I do not understand why existing outside of time would have anything to do with God's attributes. God either has these attributes or God does not have them.

How God operates is not understandable to humans but God's attributes are revealed in scripture. The only basis for a belief in these attributes is scripture. God is otherwise completely unknown to man.

You seem to be switching on this. You've said that we must have a soul to be able to make moral choices but you're also saying we could make choices even if we didn't have a soul. If the distinction is meant to be the "moral" aspect, you'd need to focus on and explain that.

I am not distinguishing between moral choices and other choices...

I believe that the soul animates the physical body, including the brain and mind, and since all choices originate in the brain and mind, according to my beliefs a soul is necessary to make all our choices, including moral choices.

If no such thing as a soul exists, we would still have a brain and mind that is responsible for all our choices, including our moral choices.

No, a literal definition of faith (as a general concept, not specifically yours) is beliefs without logical reason. That doesn't mean you have no reason at all, only that there is a gap in that reason to your definitive conclusions. We're all guilty of that kind of thing to an extent (because there is so much in day-to-day life that we can't know for certain but need to act on all the same), but religion tends to codify and solidify that.

The definition of faith is not beliefs without logical reason.

The definition of faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Faith in God is a belief and trust in God based on evidence but without total proof.

It might seem illogical to you to believe in God without proof, but it is illogical to me to expect proof of God.

Well not really. If you say you're presenting logical statements, it is on you to demonstrate that logic. I would suggest that it doesn't help you when you're starting with specific predetermined beliefs due to your religion and are thus trying to retroactively fit logic to them.

Religious beliefs are not subject to formal logic because God can never be proven to exist, which means that Prophets/Messengers of God can never be proven to have been sent by God Whether or not a belief is logical, i.e., characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning, is a matter of personal opinion since what seems logical to one person doesn't always seem logical to another.

Yes, but cause-and-effect plus an all-knowing being does.

No, what God knows does not cause anything to happen. Perfect foreknowledge is an attribute of God.
What causes things to happen in this world are human choices and actions. God knows what these will be because God has foreknowledge.

I said it's irrelevant to our discussion. The fact that we based so much on our understanding of how the universe works doesn't mean that understanding is actually correct or that it isn't a valid practical simplification of a much more complex reality.

It also does not mean our understanding is incorrect. It could be correct or incorrect. Why discuss a complex reality that can never be understood?

You don't need to add the complication of "physical reality". It is simply just "that which can be observed". So why couldn't God or "a spiritual world" be observed (and note, that observation isn't necessarily limited to humans)? Aren't there loads of people who claim to have observed some element of the divine or spiritual, including some of the prophets and teachers who formed the basis of your own religion?

I was talking about empirical observation, what we can see with our eyes. Nobody can ever see God or the spiritual world simply because they are not observable from the physical world in which we live. The Prophets and Messengers have never seen God, they only heard God speak through the Holy Spirit.

Your religion does, as do several others (though mostly related ones). Not all religions do and it certainly isn't fundamental to the definition of religion. You are only really talking about your beliefs, not religion as a concept.

That is true. All religions do not describe the spiritual reality which lies beyond the physical reality.

Religion is defined as a structured set of beliefs and practices. The individual beliefs can be proven true (as much as anything can be) and they can certainly be proven false. After all, a lot of different religious beliefs are directly contradictory (occasionally ones from the same religion).

Tell me how religious beliefs can be proven true or false. I believe that any religious beliefs that are contradicted by science (e.g., Jesus rising from the dead, Jesus floating up into the sky) are false, but I cannot prove that is impossible.

And yet you were just saying that God could be (and I think you believe is) "Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient". How do those things not involve behaviour? This is the fundamental contradiction we're talking about here. You define your god as being this amazing being totally beyond the scope of our understanding yet at the same time a practical ruler setting down laws and interacting with people. How can you have both at the same time?

Good, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, Patient are attributes of God, characteristics, but they are not based upon any behaviors.
They describe what God is like according to scriptures.

God's intrinsic nature is totally beyond the scope of our understanding, but we can now what God's attributes are by reading scripture.

Choosing not to do something you could is still exerting control. If you steer your car in to a pedestrian, you are obviously responsible, but if your car is rolling downhill towards a pedestrian and you choose not to break or steer away, you are equally responsible.

God choosing not to act is in accord with God's omnipotence since an omnipotent God only does what He chooses to do.

God is not responsible for not acting in this world because God was never responsible for acting in this world. God put humans in charge of acting in this world. That is why we have a will and a brain.

But God would have created all of the causes of those things knowing exactly how they would pan out. He could have created things in literally any other way and led to anything between subtly and significantly different outcomes.

God has not caused anything to happen just because God has always known it will happen. Humans cause everything to happen.

God did not cause things to happen by creating the world the way He did. The world is like a chess board and humans can move around at will, choosing the plays they will make.

If God had created the world differently, it would simply be like a different chess board with different choices to make.

With an all-powerful and all-knowing God, literally everything that happens did so because he knowingly made it happen. No concept of "free will" changes that, since this God would have created "free will" fully knowing what the consequences of it would be.

God does not make anything happen, not anything.
Literally everything that happens did so because humans make it happen.

God created "free will" fully knowing what the consequences of it would be, but God's knowledge is not the cause of anything that happens.
Humans are the cause.

I don't know whether you missed it earlier, but note that I am distinguishing practical responsibility and moral responsibility here. I'm just saying everything happens because God made it happen, I'm not (yet) taking about any moral judgement on any of those things.

God makes nothing happen, nothing at all.

 

[Truthseeker]

If we need evolved brains performing biochemical and bioelectrical functions, some of great complexity, in order to make decisions, then there's nothing left over to operate "freely" in our decision-making. I can't see any basis for thinking that any elements outside of nature are involved, both because there's no need for them in order to explain what we observe about functioning brains, and because no objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary. We end up having no truly free will either way. We indeed have the conviction that we own our decisions, and I'd say in fact we do, since there's no "I" independently of the brain-body team, which is the "I" for each of us.

The other side of that coin is that I haven't seen anywhere a description as to how an immaterial part of "I" could operate to make decisions independently of the brain, let alone communicate them to the brain and thus act as a supernatural censor. It seems to me that all such notions ─ soul, anima, independent 'consciousness', independent 'conscience' (as distinct from our material brain's instincts about morality) &c ─ are all imaginary.

All a rational response. No I haven't seen a description of how an immaterial part of "I" could operate to make decision independently of the brain, but my view is not so simple. In my view the physical and the immaterial are entangled together. There is no absolute free will, it is constrained by our physical brain, and our environment, our experiences that affect us. I myself have a brain that shapes a lot of how I am. I am autistic to some degree, have attention deficit to some degree, have generalized anxiety to some degree, all of which arise from the material world and perhaps experience.

i don't believe that our physical brain explains why we have sensation of consciousness, and there are some brain scientists, some not, that wonder about this. It is a controversial subject among philosophers and neurologists

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

In philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consciousness is to explain why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.[1][2] It is contrasted with the "easy problems" of explaining why and how physical systems give a (healthy) human being the ability to discriminate, to integrate information, and to perform behavioral functions such as watching, listening, speaking (including generating an utterance that appears to refer to personal behaviour or belief), and so forth.[1] The easy problems are amenable to functional explanation: that is, explanations that are mechanistic or behavioral, as each physical system can be explained (at least in principle) purely by reference to the "structure and dynamics" that underpin the phenomenon.[3][4][1]....

The existence of the hard problem is disputed. It has been accepted by some philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[11] Colin McGinn,[12] and Ned Block[13] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[14] Giulio Tononi,[15][16] and Christof Koch.[15][16] On the other hand, its existence is denied by other philosophers of mind, such as Daniel Dennett,[17] Massimo Pigliucci,[18] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[19] and Keith Frankish,[20] and by cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[21] Bernard Baars,[22] Anil Seth,[23] and Antonio Damasio.[24] Clinical neurologist and skeptic Steven Novella has dismissed it as "the hard non-problem".[25] According to a 2020 PhilPapers survey, a majority (62.42%) of the philosophers surveyed said they believed that the hard problem is a genuine problem, while 29.72% said that it does not exist.[26]

Overview[edit]​

David Chalmers first formulated the hard problem in his paper "Facing up to the problem of consciousness" (1995)[3] and expanded upon it in The Conscious Mind (1996). His works provoked comment. Some, such as David Lewis and Steven Pinker, have praised Chalmers for his argumentative rigour and "impeccable clarity".[27] Pinker later said, in 2018, "In the end I still think that the hard problem is a meaningful conceptual problem, but agree with Dennett that it is not a meaningful scientific problem. No one will ever get a grant to study whether you are a zombie or whether the same Captain Kirk walks on the deck of the Enterprise and the surface of Zakdorn. And I agree with several other philosophers that it may be futile to hope for a solution at all, precisely because it is a conceptual problem, or, more accurately, a problem with our concepts."[28] Daniel Dennett and Patricia Churchland, among others, believe that the hard problem is best seen as a collection of easy problems that will be solved through further analysis of the brain and behaviour.[29][30]

Consciousness is an ambiguous term. It can be used to mean self consciousness, awareness, the state of being awake, and so on. Chalmers uses Thomas Nagel's definition of consciousness: the feeling of what it is like to be something. Consciousness, in this sense, is synonymous with experience.[31][27]

I don't know why the wikipedia there doesn't cite the neurologists percentages that believe that the hard problem or don't believe. Anyway I see whether there is "the hard problem" is important because of my point of view that consciousness is the result of the interaction between the brain and the soul, which I believe in because of the Baha'i Teachings. Animals, too, seem to have consciousness, though we can't get into their heads and experience what they are experiencing.

I encourage you to read the whole wikipedia article about this. Anyway, do you see my bringing this up as relevant as to the existence of free will? I do, because this problem shows to me the possibility in the philosophical and neurological world of whether the soul exists, though in the spirit of being honest people like Chalmers themselves don't posit the existence of the soul as an explanation for this problem.

 

[Trailblazer]

All a rational response. No I haven't seen a description of how an immaterial part of "I" could operate to make decision independently of the brain, but my view is not so simple. In my view the physical and the immaterial are entangled together. There is no absolute free will, it is constrained by our physical brain, and our environment, our experiences that affect us. I myself have a brain that shapes a lot of how I am. I am autistic to some degree, have attention deficit to some degree, have generalized anxiety to some degree, all of which arise from the material world and perhaps experience.

I agree. There is no absolute free will since free will is circumscribed by many factors.

I believe we have a will and we make choices based upon our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances - everything that goes into making us the person we are. All of these factors are the reasons why we choose one thing or another at any point in time.

How free our choices vary with the situation. Certainly, what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not do anything.

I have dysthymia and anxiety so I am not "free" to do whatever I want to do. I would like to take a trip and visit Ken in Kansas, a man I met on a dating site, but I have too much anxiety to do that. Even though I have plenty of money and could easily afford to go, I would worry about leaving the cats with a pet sitter.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm arguing that once it's a given that God is omniscient and omnipotent, it follows that all bucks stop with [him], every single one without exception, the cheering, yawning and booing.

Unless the omnipotent God passed the baton to humans.
You don't think an omnipotent God can choose to do that?
If God cannot choose to do that [give men free will to act on his own behalf] then God is not omnipotent.

 

[Nimos]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

It doesn't naturally follow that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

If we put it into perspective, you could have a flower in your window which is 100% dependent on whether you take care of it or not. From the plant perspective, you have the ultimate power, yet we might throw out plants or flowers without even giving it a single thought.

For God, this would be equally true. It all hangs on whether God is what we say he is, all good from our own understanding of what good is.

But ultimately it would be fair for the plant to think that whoever is supposed to take care of it, is to blame for not doing so. And the same could be said when humans blame God, even if our understanding of good is wrong.

But neither humans or God is bound to any responsibility, beyond what we think we are.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't naturally follow that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

It's about time you showed up, Mr. Logic.
I agree with what you said, since I am Mrs. Logic.

What this man was saying is that God has ultimate power so God is ultimately responsible for everything.
I adamantly disagree with that because it is completely illogical.

The atheist man I cited in the OP was not saying that God lives up to His responsibilities. He does not think that. Rather, like many atheists he thinks that God is shirking His responsibilities like a deadbeat dad.

If we put it into perspective, you could have a flower in your window which is 100% dependent on whether you take care of it or not. From the plant perspective, you have the ultimate power, yet we might throw out plants or flowers without even giving it a single thought.

That is what this man is saying that God does. God should be taking care of humans but he falling down on the job.

For God, this would be equally true. It all hangs on whether God is what we say he is, all good from our own understanding of what good is.

It is questionable whether a good God is responsible to take care of humans, so even if God is not doing that that doesn't mean God is not good.

What happens is that some people anthropomorphize God so they think God is responsible for taking care of humans as if we are God's children, but we are not God's children because God has no children. If we are adults, God has provided everything we need in order to take care of ourselves. If we are children we have parents to take care of us.

But ultimately it would be fair for the plant to think that whoever is supposed to take care of it, is to blame for not doing so. And the same could be said when humans blame God, even if our understanding of good is wrong.

Of course we should only blame God if God is responsible for taking care of us, as some people believe.
Why would God be responsible for taking care of humans?

But neither humans or God is bound to any responsibility, beyond what we think we are.

God has no responsibilities towards humans, but humans have responsibilities of our own, things we are responsible for, and we have responsibilities towards other humans.

 

[Nimos]

It's about time you showed up, Mr. Logic.
I agree with what you said, since I am Mrs. Logic.

What this man was saying is that God has ultimate power so God is ultimately responsible for everything.

It is slightly different with God given his properties. God knows and can do everything at once without any effort, it also means that he can intervene whenever he chooses.

Whereas humans have flaws, plants can die because we forget to water them, or we haven't cared to obtain enough knowledge to take care of them.

So it is not wrong that God is ultimately responsible especially because he has no flaws like we do. But again, whether he chooses to be responsible is solely up to him.

The atheist man I cited in the OP was not saying that God lives up to His responsibilities. He does not think that. Rather, like many atheists he thinks that God is shirking His responsibilities like a deadbeat dad.

Again, this comes down to who is deciding whether to be responsible or not. We choose that ourselves and that includes God. As I said it is fair for us to blame God for not being responsible, but purely because we look at it from our perspective. How many children haven't been told to not step or chop off the heads of flowers? We chop down trees to put in our fireplace etc. without thinking about it or we might smack a fly simply because it annoys us.

But again this is connected to whether God is all good as people define it. But simply looking at it from a general perspective without any assumptions, he is only responsible in the event he chooses to be.

That is what this man is saying that God does. God should be taking care of humans but he falling down on the job.

As just written above. He doesn't have to if he chooses not to. But clearly, this person you are talking to is looking at it from a human perspective.

It is questionable whether a good God is responsible to take care of humans, so even if God is not doing that that doesn't mean God is not good.

What happens is that some people anthropomorphize God so they think God is responsible for taking care of humans as if we are God's children, but we are not God's children because God has no children. If we are adults, God has provided everything we need in order to take care of ourselves. If we are children we have parents to take care of us.

If we assume that God is all good from our definition of it, then God is responsible.

If we use the example with the plant. If its understanding of a human's role is that it should give it water and take care of it nonstop and then the human doesn't do it, then the human from the plant's perspective is 100% responsible for its misery.

But what if the plant's assumption about what humans are supposed to do is wrong?

So he is not wrong in what he is saying if the assumption that God is supposed to take care of us is true. This leads to issues, because if the assumption is wrong, then clearly the bible or the interpretation of the bible/God is wrong, but if it is true, then God is responsible for it.

Of course we should only blame God if God is responsible for taking care of us, as some people believe.
Why would God be responsible for taking care of humans?

That is a discussion you would need to have with other religious people, as atheists for the most part would probably be more interested in talking about the existence of God first, before trying to explain his motives . But this would ultimately lead to the issue just stated above, both things (nature of God vs Bible) can't be true.

God has no responsibilities towards humans, but humans have responsibilities of our own, things we are responsible for, and we have responsibilities towards other humans.

But only because we choose to and since we are affected by morality, which responsibility is ultimately a part of. But if you wanted to not take care of your cats and they all died, nothing would happen. Sure you might be punished by certain laws, but these are human inventions, they are not universal rules or anything for how to be responsible.
Nature is probably the closest thing to a universal influencer than anything else, because of the moral system we are bound to that can make us feel bad when we do something immoral, and since we don't like feeling bad we tend to avoid it. But nature as an "ultimate power" is not going to punish us for being immoral, as it doesn't seem to have a moral system it self.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is slightly different with God given his properties. God knows and can do everything at once without any effort, it also means that he can intervene whenever he chooses.

Whereas humans have flaws, plants can die because we forget to water them, or we haven't cared to obtain enough knowledge to take care of them.

So it is not wrong that God is ultimately responsible especially because he has no flaws like we do.

So, what I hear you saying is that since God knows everything and can do everything at once without any effort, that means that he can intervene whenever He chooses, and because God can do everything, it is not wrong that God is ultimately responsible for doing everything that we think He should do? Should God do what we want God to do just because He can?

But again, whether he chooses to be responsible is solely up to him.

Why would God be responsible for doing everything just because God can do everything?
What I am asking is this: What is it that makes God responsible?

Again, this comes down to who is deciding whether to be responsible or not. We choose that ourselves and that includes God.

Yes, just like we decide what to be responsible for, God decided what to be responsible for. What is right about humans telling God what He should be responsible for?

As I said it is fair for us to blame God for not being responsible, but purely because we look at it from our perspective.

It is true that some people blame God for not being responsible, but purely because they look at it from their own perspective.
Is God really responsible for what some people believe that God is responsible for?

But again this is connected to whether God is all good as people define it. But simply looking at it from a general perspective without any assumptions, he is only responsible in the event he chooses to be.

What would make God good, if God did what people believe He is responsible for?
Do you understand the problem with that way of thinking?

If God is only responsible in the event He chooses to be, why can't people just accept God's choices?

As just written above. He doesn't have to if he chooses not to. But clearly, this person you are talking to is looking at it from a human perspective.

Yes, you are correct about that. This person was not looking at it from God's perspective.

If we assume that God is all good from our definition of it, then God is responsible.

If we use the example with the plant. If its understanding of a human's role is that it should give it water and take care of it nonstop and then the human doesn't do it, then the human from the plant's perspective is 100% responsible for its misery.

But what if the plant's assumption about what humans are supposed to do is wrong?

So he is not wrong in what he is saying if the assumption that God is supposed to take care of us is true. This leads to issues, because if the assumption is wrong, then clearly the bible or the interpretation of the bible/God is wrong, but if it is true, then God is responsible for it.

So do you think that the Bible says that God is responsible to take care of us? Responsible to do what exactly?

That is a discussion you would need to have with other religious people, as atheists for the most part would probably be more interested in talking about the existence of God first, before trying to explain his motives . But this would ultimately lead to the issue just stated above, both things (nature of God vs Bible) can't be true.

What do you think the nature of God is and why is that contradictory to the Bible?

But only because we choose to and since we are affected by morality, which responsibility is ultimately a part of. But if you wanted to not take care of your cats and they all died, nothing would happen. Sure you might be punished by certain laws, but these are human inventions, they are not universal rules or anything for how to be responsible.
Nature is probably the closest thing to a universal influencer than anything else, because of the moral system we are bound to that can make us feel bad when we do something immoral, and since we don't like feeling bad we tend to avoid it. But nature as an "ultimate power" is not going to punish us for being immoral, as it doesn't seem to have a moral system it self.

I understand the point you are making. Humans are affected by morality and that is why we feel responsible for other people or for animals ,or even plants and the environment, but God is not bound by morality so God does not feel responsible for anything. God is also not accountable to humans, who could call God to account? Some people try to hold God accountable but they cannot force an omnipotent God to account for anything He does nor fails to do.

 

[Nimos]

So, what I hear you saying is that since God knows everything and can do everything at once without any effort, that means that he can intervene whenever He chooses, and because God can do everything, it is not wrong that God is ultimately responsible for doing everything that we think He should do? Should God do what we want God to do just because He can?

This is where it gets a little confusing. Because it solely depends on the attributes given to God. Which is something that is not given to humans, which is that God is said to be all good.

In the normal understanding, this would mean that God can't do anything evil. So one could make the argument that if you can do something without any effort and no investment, God doesn't have to neglect anything in order to do something else. Yet for whatever reason he doesn't do it. Which seems to cause some issues.

If God is all good, then why would he allow something evil/bad to happen? The only logical answer to this, if we have to maintain that God is all good, seems to be that our understanding of what good is, is wrong. This casts doubt on how anyone can claim to know God if we can't even get the concept of good and evil right.

The alternative is that God is not all good, in which case the bible is wrong on that, which also comes with a lot of issues, why would Jesus say that God is the only one that is good if that is not true?

God compared to humans can't hide behind flaws. As I said humans can forget things, don't want to put in the effort of how to take care of a certain plant correctly, or there might simply be outside things that can cause the death of the plant. None of this would apply to God, if the plant dies, the only logical explanation is that God allowed it and that it for some reason must have been good.

So given these amazing powers, he is ultimately responsible from our perspective.

Why would God be responsible for doing everything just because God can do everything?
What I am asking is this: What is it that makes God responsible?

God chooses whether he wants to be responsible or not. Again the problem is in the attributes assigned to him, which makes him contractive to the concept of being good. If he has unlimited power, why would you not choose to be responsible?

Think about your cats, you have chosen to have them and would you even consider not taking responsibility for them? And now take into account that you are flawed compared to God and you have to put in a lot of effort as well doing this, yet you do it. It seems illogical that God who has none of these issues, wouldn't take responsibility. Now I assume you would refer to free will, but again taking responsibility for the cats doesn't mean that you suppress or remove their free will.

It is true that some people blame God for not being responsible, but purely because they look at it from their own perspective.
Is God really responsible for what some people believe that God is responsible for?

Those who believe in God can only look at it from their perspective and assume that what is written is right. As an atheist, I would say that God, given his attributes would be responsible and I can't see how one could make excuses for this. Except if one admitted that our understanding of God is completely wrong, but then the whole idea falls apart Im obviously on the other side of the table in this discussion, so again probably better to ask another believer to justify this.

What would make God good, if God did what people believe He is responsible for?
Do you understand the problem with that way of thinking?

If God is only responsible in the event He chooses to be, why can't people just accept God's choices?

Again, this loops back to his attributes, if God is all good, then there is no room for evil or anything other than good. Nothing would make God good, he is already good and can't be anything else.

To the last part, "If God is only responsible in the event He chooses to be, why can't people just accept God's choices?":

Imagine all your cats got sick and started to die a painful death, why can you just accept that this is what God wants and he is all good, what is wrong with you?

The issue, is how can God allow suffering, in this case to your cats, when they have done nothing wrong yet for some odd reason you have to justify that God is good? Now extend this to someone with a dying child etc.

There are close to no good answers to these questions, the best is probably that "God works in mysterious ways" which translated to plain English means "I have absolutely no clue".

Yes, you are correct about that. This person was not looking at it from God's perspective.

But again, this kind of assumes that our understanding of the concept of "good" is wrong.

So do you think that the Bible says that God is responsible to take care of us? Responsible to do what exactly?

This is probably not what you would expect. But it very much depends on whether you are talking about the old testament or the new one. Looking at the old one, God is responsible and cares about the Jews (Israelites) and no one else. The New Testament is slightly more open and talks about spreading the word, but honestly seems rather disconnected from the Old Testament, both in content and writing style. God is basically not to be found in the New Testament, except through Jesus. Whereas in the Old Testament, he is extremely active and involved with things or said in another way, he is the main character.

What do you think the nature of God is and why is that contradictory to the Bible?

God is a God with a big "G" in the Old Testament, the amount of people he kills is extreme including the Jews, and he punishes them a lot. He is easily angry, makes mistakes, and regrets things, he is clearly not all-knowing or all-good, he is simply right and all-powerful because he is the only "true" God, to put it into perspective, God actually wants to kill Moses in the old testament because he does something that pisses him off, which a lot of people are not aware of.
Again in the New Testament, God is barely visible or intervening as in the old one. And has a completely different nature here, in fact, so different that you wouldn't assume it was the same God.
So to me, it depends on which part of the bible you read.

I understand the point you are making. Humans are affected by morality and that is why we feel responsible for other people or for animals ,or even plants and the environment, but God is not bound by morality so God does not feel responsible for anything. God is also not accountable to humans, who could call God to account? Some people try to hold God accountable but they cannot force an omnipotent God to account for anything He does nor fails to do.

Whether God is bound by morality I think is a good question. Because one would assume that morality flows from him so to speak, he is morality. But he must also be aware of it, to pass judgment and therefore also himself be bound by it and obviously according to the bible he does take responsibility in the sense that those people he likes go to heaven or get saved, and those that don't go to "hell". From his perspective that would count as being responsible, I guess.

 

[CG Didymus]

Again in the New Testament, God is barely visible or intervening as in the old one. And has a completely different nature here, in fact, so different that you wouldn't assume it was the same God.
So to me, it depends on which part of the bible you read.

That's a pretty important point... What the Christians call the "Bible" adds in the New Testament. The Jewish part of the Bible is very different from the NT. Like you say, God in each is very different.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is where it gets a little confusing. Because it solely depends on the attributes given to God. Which is something that is not given to humans, which is that God is said to be all good.

In the normal understanding, this would mean that God can't do anything evil. So one could make the argument that if you can do something without any effort and no investment, God doesn't have to neglect anything in order to do something else. Yet for whatever reason he doesn't do it. Which seems to cause some issues.

God doesn't have to neglect anything in order to do something else but God is not neglecting to do x if God is not responsible to do x.

If God is all good, then why would he allow something evil/bad to happen? The only logical answer to this, if we have to maintain that God is all good, seems to be that our understanding of what good is, is wrong. This casts doubt on how anyone can claim to know God if we can't even get the concept of good and evil right.

The logical answer to that is that God chooses not to interfere with human free will choices, and that is why God allows evil/bad to happen.
Turning that around, why would an all good God intervene and stop people from making evil/bad choices? The usual atheist answer is because God is all-powerful so God could do that, but that is not a logical reason for God to do it. God could also eliminate every thing from the face of the earth in a split second but God does not do that. In short, having the power to do x is not a reason why God should do x.

The alternative is that God is not all good, in which case the bible is wrong on that, which also comes with a lot of issues, why would Jesus say that God is the only one that is good if that is not true?

The alternative is that God is not only all good, God is also all-knowing and all-wise, so God knows what is best for humans. That means that evil and bad serve a purpose even though good humans don't like that they exist.

God compared to humans can't hide behind flaws. As I said humans can forget things, don't want to put in the effort of how to take care of a certain plant correctly, or there might simply be outside things that can cause the death of the plant. None of this would apply to God, if the plant dies, the only logical explanation is that God allowed it and that it for some reason must have been good.

So given these amazing powers, he is ultimately responsible from our perspective.

In a sense you are right. God is responsible for all death since God does not stop them from happening although He could.
But then we have to look at the reason why death has to exist on earth, so new life can be born. Isn't new life considered good?

God chooses whether he wants to be responsible or not. Again the problem is in the attributes assigned to him, which makes him contractive to the concept of being good. If he has unlimited power, why would you not choose to be responsible?

God is responsible for what He chooses to be responsible for but just because God has unlimited power why would God want to be responsible for everything? That makes no sense to me. If God was responsible for everything that would take responsibility away from humans, and that is one reason God doesn't want to be responsible for everything. Even a human ruler who has all power to rule delegates tasks to those beneath him.

Think about your cats, you have chosen to have them and would you even consider not taking responsibility for them? And now take into account that you are flawed compared to God and you have to put in a lot of effort as well doing this, yet you do it. It seems illogical that God who has none of these issues, wouldn't take responsibility. Now I assume you would refer to free will, but again taking responsibility for the cats doesn't mean that you suppress or remove their free will.

I chose to have cats just as my parents chose to have children, so I am responsible for my cats just as my parents were responsible for me when I was a child. God created the universe so God is responsible to maintain it but God did not bring humans into this world so God is not responsible for taking care us us.

I am not saying that if God took responsibility for humans that would take our free will away from us. I am saying that God is not responsible for what we choose to do. As humans with a will and a brain and all the natural resources in the world God created, we are responsible for ourselves.

Those who believe in God can only look at it from their perspective and assume that what is written is right. As an atheist, I would say that God, given his attributes would be responsible and I can't see how one could make excuses for this. Except if one admitted that our understanding of God is completely wrong, but then the whole idea falls apart Im obviously on the other side of the table in this discussion, so again probably better to ask another believer to justify this.

But the attributes of God do not make God responsible for taking care of humans.
With all due respect I think your understanding of God is wrong, and that is why the whole idea falls apart.

Again, this loops back to his attributes, if God is all good, then there is no room for evil or anything other than good. Nothing would make God good, he is already good and can't be anything else.

If God is all good then God is never evil, but that doesn't mean that God does not 'permit evil' in humans, but that does not make God evil.

To the last part, "If God is only responsible in the event He chooses to be, why can't people just accept God's choices?":

Imagine all your cats got sick and started to die a painful death, why can you just accept that this is what God wants and he is all good, what is wrong with you?

Over the last 25 years almost all my cats have gotten sick and many died a painful death. I only have one older cat left from litters we raised.
I used to get really angry at God and blame God, and even my vet said it was very unusual for anyone to lose as many cats as we did in succession.

It took years and years, but I finally stopped blaming God. One reason I had blamed God is because my older brother told me that God was punishing me by killing my cats and I believed him. I later realized that was not true, but it took a long time to undo the damage he did. So much for his interpretation of the Baha'i Writings, it only goes to show how much damage religion can do when people misinterpret scriptures.

The issue, is how can God allow suffering, in this case to your cats, when they have done nothing wrong yet for some odd reason you have to justify that God is good? Now extend this to someone with a dying child etc.

There are close to no good answers to these questions, the best is probably that "God works in mysterious ways" which translated to plain English means "I have absolutely no clue".

I do not have an answer for why a good God allows so much suffering. That is a great mystery.
No, there are no good answers to these questions, although religious people will throw you the apologetic that suffering is good for people because it helps them grow spiritually. They will even go so far as to say that animals don't suffer. All this translated to plain English means "I have absolutely no clue so I will make something up to protect my God' s reputation."

But again, this kind of assumes that our understanding of the concept of "good" is wrong.

Yes, I think this is the case.

This is probably not what you would expect. But it very much depends on whether you are talking about the old testament or the new one. Looking at the old one, God is responsible and cares about the Jews (Israelites) and no one else. The New Testament is slightly more open and talks about spreading the word, but honestly seems rather disconnected from the Old Testament, both in content and writing style. God is basically not to be found in the New Testament, except through Jesus. Whereas in the Old Testament, he is extremely active and involved with things or said in another way, he is the main character.

So, God was taking care of the Jews in the Old Testament and taking care of the Christians in the New Testament.

God is a God with a big "G" in the Old Testament, the amount of people he kills is extreme including the Jews, and he punishes them a lot. He is easily angry, makes mistakes, and regrets things, he is clearly not all-knowing or all-good, he is simply right and all-powerful because he is the only "true" God, to put it into perspective, God actually wants to kill Moses in the old testament because he does something that pisses him off, which a lot of people are not aware of.
Again in the New Testament, God is barely visible or intervening as in the old one. And has a completely different nature here, in fact, so different that you wouldn't assume it was the same God.
So to me, it depends on which part of the bible you read.

Yes, we definitely have a different depiction of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament. An angry wrathful punishing God gets all loving in the New Testament. Then God does an about face in the Qur'an and gets angry again, and then God gets all-loving in the Baha'i Writings although He still has wrath for some things people do.

Whether God is bound by morality I think is a good question. Because one would assume that morality flows from him so to speak, he is morality. But he must also be aware of it, to pass judgment and therefore also himself be bound by it and obviously according to the bible he does take responsibility in the sense that those people he likes go to heaven or get saved, and those that don't go to "hell". From his perspective that would count as being responsible, I guess.

Yes, morality flows from God to humans and God judges humans accordingly. I do not believe that God is 'responsible' for sending anyone to heaven or hell, I believe we determine where we will end up by the choices that we make.

 

[Nimos]

The logical answer to that is that God chooses not to interfere with human free will choices, and that is why God allows evil/bad to happen.
Turning that around, why would an all good God intervene and stop people from making evil/bad choices? The usual atheist answer is because God is all-powerful so God could do that, but that is not a logical reason for God to do it. God could also eliminate every thing from the face of the earth in a split second but God does not do that. In short, having the power to do x is not a reason why God should do x.

The free will argument doesn't hold up I think.

Imagine a scenario like this:

An innocent man (Person A) is about to get shot by a criminal. (Person B)

Person A didn't have a free will choice here, yet "evil" is about to happen to him.

God doesn't want to interfere with free will, so won't stop Person B, which means that Person A is now killed. So the conclusion must be that God allowed evil to win.

This seems contradictory to God being all good. Also, God doesn't have to remove free will, just evil.

If God removed Person B, Person A could still go around doing whatever they wanted to using their free will.
This means that the free will argument only seems to be an excuse for evil.

The alternative is that God is not only all good, God is also all-knowing and all-wise, so God knows what is best for humans. That means that evil and bad serve a purpose even though good humans don't like that they exist.

In fact, this might be true again it depends on the testament I think. God in the OT does say this:

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

Whereas Jesus says that God is the only one that is good.

Mark 10:18
18 - And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

However, there is nothing (as far as I know) where Jesus as such states that God didn't create evil. So he isn't contradictive to what God is saying, he simply doesn't touch on it.
But again, God in the OT is a God with a big G, so he spent a lot of time making sure that everyone knows that he is the best so to speak.

In a sense you are right. God is responsible for all death since God does not stop them from happening although He could.
But then we have to look at the reason why death has to exist on earth, so new life can be born. Isn't new life considered good?

I don't think this argument holds water, simply because if new life was considered good, then God might as well create the new Earth as spoken about in Revelation, and simply get rid of "Death". But then again, I don't think "death" as such is depicted as being equal to being an evil thing in the bible. I think if it was, Satan would probably kill a lot more than he does in the stories, but it is not a huge focus point. It's not like you have a lot of stories where Satan goes around and does evil things and kills people etc. The most obvious one is the story of Job and his children. But this is done basically with permission from God. God is a real arrogant *******/psychopath in this story, just looking on as Satan does what he pleases as that is what the "bet" is about, which is pointless because God knows the outcome. The purpose of the story is very clear, but it doesn't put God in the best light.

God is responsible for what He chooses to be responsible for but just because God has unlimited power why would God want to be responsible for everything? That makes no sense to me. If God was responsible for everything that would take responsibility away from humans, and that is one reason God doesn't want to be responsible for everything. Even a human ruler who has all power to rule delegates tasks to those beneath him.

Again, it depends on the testament.

God in the OT, doesn't give a rats *** about anyone except the Jews. He is also not infallible.

These are very obvious examples:

Genesis 3:8-9
8 - And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 - But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”

This doesn't make sense for an all-knowing God, why on Earth would they try to hide and God ask "Where are you?" It also at least makes it more believable why the snake could deceive Eve, because God wouldn't have known. Obviously, as the bible changes, to the God Christians like today, he becomes all these things, like all-knowing etc.

Genesis 6:6
6 - And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Again, completely unthinkable that the "modern" God could regret anything. Because that means that he screwed up, to begin with.

So it would make sense that God wouldn't be responsible for everything based on the OT, but only for whatever he chooses to be. The problem is how he changes over time. The God in the OT especially in the beginning is very different from later on. As I said in the other post, they appear very much like different God(s).

The issues comes when you have to integrate these "extreme" powers God gets in the NT. And as you know the most common way to around it, is that a lot of these OT stories are simply that, stories.

There isn't a clear indication of where it is merely stories and where they are considered factual, as with a lot of other things in the bible it causes some issues:

Luke 3:23-38
23 - Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 - the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 - the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26 - the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27 - the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28 - the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29 - the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30 - the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31 - the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 - the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33 - the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34 - the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 - the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36 - the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 - the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 - the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Which in this list are made up? So how exactly does one reach the conclusion that some of it is merely stories?

If God is all good then God is never evil, but that doesn't mean that God does not 'permit evil' in humans, but that does not make God evil.

If we go with the verse above, that God created evil. It is true, God doesn't have to be evil to have created it. But it still seems weird why he would create it, if he doesn't like it? It is basically like setting fire to your own house and complaining that it is burning

It took years and years, but I finally stopped blaming God. One reason I had blamed God is because my older brother told me that God was punishing me by killing my cats and I believed him.

Nothing to add really, I think this is just yet another example of the huge issues with religious beliefs. I have heard a lot of stories along this line.

So, God was taking care of the Jews in the Old Testament and taking care of the Christians in the New Testament.

Not really.

The Christians came after Jesus, Jesus also only cared about the Jews. Paulus is probably the one who "turned" God into the Christian version we know today more than anyone else. He was the one who wanted to spread the word, based on what Jesus commanded after the resurrection if I recall correctly.

And it is also at this point the whole "Follow the law vs Accepting Jesus" starts. Jesus is very clear about this, in my opinion, that you should follow the law. It is Paulus who makes the argument that you are saved through Jesus, despite Jesus clearly stating that you are not.

Matthew 5:17-19
17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 - For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 - Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 - “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 - On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 - And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

The will of God is the law.

Yes, we definitely have a different depiction of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament. An angry wrathful punishing God gets all loving in the New Testament.

No, that is a misunderstanding as well.
You have to remember that God does what is best for humans (Jews), even in the OT, he is their God to help them. So I think its wrong to assume that God has "bad" intentions, etc. Clearly, he was considered good in general. But again, our understanding of good is not the same as ancient people. I would be shocked to learn that the ancient Jews for instance thought the law was bad or evil etc. It wouldn't make sense if they thought that. Also Jesus is there to fulfill the law as quoted above. Because the Pharisees etc. are corrupting and exploiting it. That is basically what Jesus focuses on or in relation to that in the NT, until he is crucified.

God doesn't become loving in that sense, it is more about blaming humans for everything wrong. It is our fault for all of it, it is where we see "Sin" etc. get into the picture, and where God becomes blameless for it, Jesus being crucified etc. I would say.

 

[Truthseeker]

The free will argument doesn't hold up I think.

Imagine a scenario like this:

An innocent man (Person A) is about to get shot by a criminal. (Person B)

Person A didn't have a free will choice here, yet "evil" is about to happen to him.

God doesn't want to interfere with free will, so won't stop Person B, which means that Person A is now killed. So the conclusion must be that God allowed evil to win.

This seems contradictory to God being all good. Also, God doesn't have to remove free will, just evil.

If God removed Person B, Person A could still go around doing whatever they wanted to using their free will.
This means that the free will argument only seems to be an excuse for evil.

People aren't born evil, they become evil through their choices, and if we don't have choices we can't become good through our efforts. I don't know about you, but it is a victory if I become a better person over time. There is no victory if I am automatically good. What is there to feel any satisfaction about, in that case? God is good to allow us to make our own choices to become better. I realize that some don't make the right efforts and choices, but that is not God's responsibility.

 

[Nimos]

People aren't born evil, they become evil through their choices, and if we don't have choices we can't become good through our efforts. I don't know about you, but it is a victory if I become a better person over time. There is no victory if I am automatically good. What is there to feel any satisfaction about, in that case? God is good to allow us to make our own choices to become better. I realize that some don't make the right efforts and choices, but that is not God's responsibility.

So throughout your life, have you ever looked at yourself as being evil? (Obviously, this is a loose definition)

For myself, yes I have done things that I regret, but never stuff where I would refer to myself as evil. So in general I would say I am a fairly good person.

Besides that this doesn't make sense to me:

"People aren't born evil"
"God is good to allow us to make our own choices to become better."

Why would be need to become better if nothing was wrong, to begin with?

 

[Truthseeker]

So throughout your life, have you ever looked at yourself as being evil? (Obviously, this is a loose definition)

For myself, yes I have done things that I regret, but never stuff where I would refer to myself as evil. So in general I would say I am a fairly good person.

Besides that this doesn't make sense to me:

"People aren't born evil"
"God is good to allow us to make our own choices to become better."

Why would be need to become better if nothing was wrong, to begin with?

You think we think in black and white apparently. We are all shades of gray. If it looked like I was looking at it that way, I don't think that way. i am not a Christian that believes we are born in sin. We have a noble nature that seeks to rise above the material plane of existence. We are a combination of the spiritual and the material. it is the interface between the spiritual and the material where free will comes from, and free will is constrained. It is hard to rise to the spiritual plane.

Anyway, I don't know if I understand what you are asking. You have always been hard for me to understand. Not because of stupidity on my part, but because we think is such different ways.