Is God Good?

[Dave-L]

right.
so why do you persist in trying to remove goodness from God?

you say God causes you to sin, and you say tho God is evil the only reason He can't be called that because there's no court to hold Him to account.
if no court can convict God of the sin you say He engages in, then no court can declare Him innocent either.
so you say, God is not good - because there is no standard by which to call Him good.

you & your rabbi Clark say God is an amoral capricious monster escaping justice only by virtue of being technically unprosecutable.
what in the world makes you think this is sound theology lol?? why in the world would you say this out of one corner of your mouth and quote Proverbs 1:7 out of the other? you not see how that verse destroys your rabbi's argument?

You judge God by your standards, not by his.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

God created Adam sinless. But when God gave him a law, he wanted to sin more than anything.

But that emanated from Adam, not God pouring evil into his heart and forcing him to sin.

 

[Dave-L]

Instead of accusing God (as Satan) be like a child. He loves to talk to children..,who know how to just shut up and listen.

This doesn't address why al the temptation in the garden.

 

[Dave-L]

You tell me. This contradicts James 1:13.

So God is wrong? Or, you don't understand?

 

[reneweddaybyday]

I have no interest in arguing.

Who's arguing?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

So God is wrong? Or, you don't understand?

Nope. I’m not the one accusing God of being evil, you are, my friend.

 

[Dave-L]

But that emanated from Adam, not God pouring evil into his heart and forcing him to sin.

What if God just brought the evil out by giving him a Law?

 

[Dave-L]

What makes you say this?

free will is a saved will that cannot sin.

 

[Dave-L]

Nope. I’m not the one accusing God of being evil, you are, my friend.

You think he's evil if I'm right.

 

[Dave-L]

Who's arguing?

who is stalking here?

 

[posthuman]

This is not an answer.

au contraire! it sure is.

let me spell it out for you --
suppose i give you this proof:

suppose A is true​

if A, then B. ​

therefore B​

and you reply by pointing out that A is not true, therefore the conclusion B is invalid.
you have certainly answered my proof.

Clark posits that God is the author of evil and of confusion. that's his "A"
that's false.
all i have to do in order to show that it is false, and i have done so. i don't even need to deal with the second line of the proof ((A → B)) because the foundation of using it has been shown to be wrong.

 

[kaylagrl]

You judge God by your standards, not by his.

So you are saying God created people, causes them to sin, then sends them to hell for it? What kind of cruel,hateful God is that?! It's like the mean kid who uses the magnifying glass to burn ants. Why bother create at all? Was He bored? Likes drama? What kind of god is that?!

 

[Dave-L]

So you are saying God created people, causes them to sin, then sends them to hell for it? What kind of cruel,hateful God is that?! It's like the mean kid who uses the magnifying glass to burn ants. Why bother create at all? Was He bored? Likes drama? What kind of god is that?!

So you hate God and worship an idol if I'm right?

 

[Dave-L]

au contraire! it sure is.

let me spell it out for you --
suppose i give you this proof:

suppose A is true​

if A, then B. ​

therefore B​

and you reply by pointing out that A is not true, therefore the conclusion B is invalid.
you have certainly answered my proof.

Clark posits that God is the author of evil and of confusion. that's his "A"
that's false.
all i have to do in order to show that it is false, and i have done so. i don't even need to deal with the second line of the proof ((A → B)) because the foundation of using it has been shown to be wrong.

I don't think you grasp the topic.

 

[John146]

So you are saying God created people, causes them to sin, then sends them to hell for it? What kind of cruel,hateful God is that?! It's like the mean kid who uses the magnifying glass to burn ants. Why bother create at all? Was He bored? Likes drama? What kind of god is that?!

Yes, and then came to earth to die for the sins that He Himself caused.🤦‍♂️

 

[kaylagrl]

Yes, and then came to earth to die for the sins that He Himself caused.🤦‍♂️

It's insane!! smh

 

[posthuman]

au contraire! it sure is.

let me spell it out for you --
suppose i give you this proof:

suppose A is true​

if A, then B. ​

therefore B​

and you reply by pointing out that A is not true, therefore the conclusion B is invalid.
you have certainly answered my proof.

Clark posits that God is the author of evil and of confusion. that's his "A"
that's false.
all i have to do in order to show that it is false, and i have done so. i don't even need to deal with the second line of the proof ((A → B)) because the foundation of using it has been shown to be wrong.

i'll even give you an example of the structure to help you see:

suppose 2 is odd.​

then all numbers of form 2·n for n ∈ ℤ are also odd​

therefore there are no even numbers.
​

did i just prove all integers are odd?
no -- my assumptions were false. line 2 is valid, but it doesn't apply because line 1 is invalid - so line 3 is fallacious.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

You think he's evil if I'm right.

He is not evil. There is no darkness in Him at all[1 John 1:5].

 

[kaylagrl]

So you hate God and worship an idol if I'm right?

And you worship a god that is evil, complicit in all manner of cruelty, murder, rape, abortion, molesting, Holocausting.... if I'M right. Pardon my unlady like response, that's one he** of a god you've created for yourself.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

i'll even give you an example of the structure to help you see:

suppose 2 is odd.​

then all numbers of form 2·n for n ∈ ℤ are also odd​

therefore there are no even numbers. ​

​

did i just prove all integers are odd?
no -- my assumptions were false. line 2 is valid, but it doesn't apply because line 1 is invalid - so line 3 is fallacious.

Please, no speaking in tongues in this thread. K?