As I have already stated, I agree, my points don’t make God not omnipotent, exactly. However, if God has the power to do moral acts, why doesn’t he do so?
Because it is his good pleasure not to. He has reasons – just, wise and totally free reasons. Just because we don’t them (and indeed, no creature knows them: not Job nor Paul), it doesn’t follow that God is unjust.
ich:
By your logic that morality is conditional (which I agree with), you would be calling God a hypocrite for allowing evil to achieve good even though he condemns things like ABC, which do just that.
God has a right that creatures do not have, since he is the author of creation. We cannot take life, but, since he is the author of life, he can give it or take it at his pleasure, etc. So there is no parity here between us and him.
But my point was directed more to the permitting – not the causing – of evil. And God is not bound to hold all creatures in a state of perfection, otherwise sin would never occur. So, he allows some creatures to defect of themselves, and draws forth greater good by this allowance.
ich:
1B) Jesus said, “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Clearly, God IS bound to do so.
How so?
ich:
He has no right to make creatures that can do evil and then proceed to condemn them to hell for doing such evil, knowing fully well that he has the ability to stop evil.
Your objection would have force if God made creatures that had no power to fulfill his commands. But he has given them such power, by sufficient grace, and therefore the evil which flows from them they are responsible for.
ich:
I cannot be blamed for the deaths of the people in Tucson weeks ago, because I had no foreknowledge of this event, nor the power to stop it. God has both qualities.
Just because evil will occur unless God intervenes does not mean God is bound to intervene.
ich:
1C) Since when is complexity equal to goodness?
I did not use the word “complexity.” I spoke of a “multitude of effects,” all of which are good, which would be lacking were there no evil. There would be no patience of martyrs, for instance, unless there were persecutors. That does not mean that God causes the persecutors, but it does mean he permits them so that effects which would otherwise be absent will be present (such as his justice and righteous anger towards wickedness.)
ich:
You agree that fallen angels had complete knowledge of right and wrong, yet they still did evil. Why didn’t God give humans this kind of free will?
He did. Adam sinned in full knowledge. Ignorance followed on the sin, sin did not follow on ignorance.
Can you honestly say you’ve never experienced this thing yourself? Have you never done something you knew was wrong?
But faith was required for angels as well, though it was not “blind” (and neither is ours.) All creatures require faith in order to be drawn above themselves to heaven, because the object of faith is God and is above the power of any created intelligence.
ich:
2B) You mistake “evidence” for “proof”.
You assume proof has to be subjectively compelling to be objectively evident. If I was skeptical enough, you could not “prove” to me that you exist in this fashion. In other words, proof can be real and there, even if it does not subjectively convince you.
ich:
Even if such proof existed, the fact that it is “clouded” by sin is a testament to God’s apathy. He has a moral obligation to make his existence clearer if he wills all humans to go to heaven.
I disagree with the view that God efficaciously wills all souls to go to heaven, or else they would. God certainly infallibly and sweetly draws some souls – the elect – to heaven, but others he allows (and does not cause) them to go astray.
ich:
2C) A human (a finite creature) cannot commit an offense of infinite magnitude, especially considering we humans haven’t been given clear moral instructions.
You’ve never knowingly sinned? I’ve never maintained that a human goes to hell except for knowingly sinning.
ich:
If you use the “clouded by sin” argument again, it fails, because it is beyond unfair to make the descendants of the first humans suffer for their folly. God even admits to punishing people for the sins of their parents, as you can see in the quote in my profile.
“Punishment” is used in various ways, and it does not always indicate something penal. It can mean something medicinal. All humans, being implicated in original sin since Adam was our first principle, are deprived of original justice and are subject to death (neither of these things lead necessarily to Hell, though they may), but no human is punished penally for the sins of another.
Read here for more on this:
newadvent.org/summa/2087.htm#article8
The best book I’ve read on the subject of original sin and guilt can be found here and read online for free:
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b110991;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=21;num=1
ich:
Besides, don’t you acknowledge the fact that some people commit greater evil than others? Why should both Hitler and Gandhi (sp?) endure the same eternal punishment?
I’ve never maintained that Gandhi goes to hell. No one – not a wise pagan or a good atheist – is good outside of God’s grace and influence. Thus, if someone leads a good life, it is not in some way indepedent of God, but due to God (perhaps secretly and unknowingly to them) working in their souls.
