Why is disbelief a sin?

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I certainly agree that people should not be forced to perform services against their better judgment. But I am not aware of such force. I ceratinly heard about doctors who deny to perform abortions, and pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives prescribed by doctors. Are they thrown into jail? Not to my knowledge. Besides, doctors are bound by their Hippocratic oath to perform their services.
I also heard about some fanatics who bomb clinics, and take pride in their actions. Other fanatics who create websites and post names of doctors who perform abortions and openly incite to murder them. When a doctor is killed, their name is displayed with a line drawn across it. These people threaten doctors to kill their children. Did you hear about them, too?
But that is YOUR morality, not mine. If you wish to convince me that your morality should be taken seriously, that it should curtail my freedom, you are under obligation to PROVE beyond any doubt whatsoever, that God exists, and your perception of his commands and wishes are accurate. The mere fact that you (and others) honestly believe so is totally irrelevant. As I said before, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I wish to be respected equally.
Your God does not belong in the legal code, just like Allah does not belong there, Zeus, Jupiter, Zoroaster, Brahma does not belong there - until there is absolute, postive evidence and proof that your God is more than a figment of your imagination.
Here and now are beyond dispute. Eternal life is just as unsupported as God. If someone does not believe in it, they should be allowed to go on their merry way. If they are wrong, it will be God to punishes them, not you and the society. We owe each other respect, tolerance and non-interference - nothing more. That way you can pursue your way to a more satisfying life and I can pursue mine.
Many people complain that they are exposed to the sight of “immoral” behavior, for example homosexual couples. That is called tough luck. No one has the right to be sheltered from things they disapprove of. When I see someone displaying posters and screaming that abortion is a slaughter of “innocent baybees” I feel nauseated, too. But I have no right to be spared seeing such nonsense. They have the right to display those posters and scream their opinion from the street corners. I have the right to look away.

Nietzsche: “God is dead”.
Atheism, denying the existence of God, refuses any objective morality. Relativism dictatorship is established. Final outcome: society’s self-destruction. Current situation: society’s self-destruction in progress.
Atheism in theory: Hobbes, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud. Atheism in practice: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Roe vs. Wade.
“God is dead” just means “man is dead”. “God is dead” just mirrors “man is dead”: “My consciousness (mind) is just the electro-chemical working of my brain, which will cease to function at my death.”, Hitetlen affirms.
So, why this care regarding “morality” and “rights”? You are only a piece of meat: Only an electro-chemical function. No morals, rights, dignity, worth. There is no human nature, nor natural law. What counts is your “opinion”. But, of course, you need someone else to protect you against other “opinions”. So you need the State and you need the Law. But State and Law only as another “opinion”. You need State and Law, buy the State and Law do not need God, because God does not exist. Relativism dictatorship is established.
Truly, the driving force behind atheism is not the denial of God. It is hatred of God.

I feel much closer to animals than to atheists. (Instinct does not diminish animals: would they behave different having reason?).

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

Again you show a lack of understanding caused by emotional instability.

I like your analysis. Are you some kind of a remote psychoanalyst?

Thal59:

The expression “lest they learn good from evil…” is for starts a misquote. Gen 3:21-22. But if one reads the remarks in context, one undertstands that they are not to be taken literally.

Well, no, I did not quote it verbatim, indeed. But the correct version “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” is clear, it needs no special context to explain it. Sheer jealousy, nothing else.

Thal59:

You just keep missing the mark, Hitetlen. Earlier you diverted the focus of the explanation of the fruit to the tree, remember? Now you divert the test from the student to the teacher. God was not testing His knowledge of them, He was testing their obedience to Him.

That is one way to put it, for sure. But that does not help in your analysis. Let’s say that God was just giving them an exam, which he KNEW they will fail. What is the point of an exam, which cannot be passed? So that God can get all high and mighty and punish them along with all their descendants? The price for failing one exam is damnation and death?

As john doran said, and I agree with him, the point is not knowledge, it is obedience. This is the basic teaching of the Bible. It is not love, it is obedience. And in my eyes, you just can’t get any worse than that.

Contrary to whay you said before, I can easily reconcile hard decisions with love. Our need to make those decisions stems from the fact that our means are very limited, sometimes it does take a hard decision to do something. But for God there are no “hard decisions”. Remember, there is this “omnipotence” stuff.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

so you make the assumption that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god. prove it. if you can, you’ll be the first.

Not the first at all. It has been demolished so many times, that it is not even funny. The omnimax attributes and evil simply cannot be reconciled. The common defense against this is either “God values free will” (a la Plantinga), or “we just cannot know why those bad things are necessary” (Argumentum ad ignorantiam). You yourself said that our free will is not contingent upon being able to make morally relevant decisions, and I agreed with you. So the free will defense is out. The argument from ignorance is a common fallacy.

I usually don’t point to outside references, but you may want to read Rabbi Kuschner’s book “When bad things happen to good people”. I know he is not Catholic, but he is a wise man, and has an interesting opinion about the subject. The book is short, and well written. It was the only apologetic book I read of which I can say: it was intellectually honest.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Atheism, denying the existence of God, refuses any objective morality.

Correct.

doomhammer:

Relativism dictatorship is established.

Incorrect.

doomhammer:

Final outcome: society’s self-destruction. Current situation: society’s self-destruction in progress.

No sign of it. In every age there were people lamenting about decreasing morals: “O tempora, o mores”! They are the ones who cannot accept change and progress, poor suckers.

“God is dead” just means “man is dead”. “God is dead” just mirrors “man is dead”

No, it means we are finally free from superstition. We are very much alive.

“My consciousness (mind) is just the electro-chemical working of my brain, which will cease to function at my death.”, Hitetlen affirms: So, why this care regarding “morality” and “rights”? You are only a piece of meat: Only an electro-chemical function.

Because as long as I live, I live morally - according to my standards: among which is respect for others, and I wish to be treated in the same fashion. You may not be aware of it, but the “golden rule” (which is the basis or my morality) is much more ancient than the Bible.

doomhammer:

No morals, rights, dignity, worth.

Yes, they exist, only they are contingent upon us.

doomhammer:

There is no human nature, nor natural law.

First half incorrect, second half is correct.

doomhammer:

Truly, the driving force behind atheism is not the denial of God. It is hatred of God.

One cannot hate something that does not exist.

doomhammer:

I feel much closer to animals than to atheists. (Instinct does not diminish animals: would they behave different having reason?).

Good for you. I feel much closer to believers than to animals. I accept that believers are fellow human beings, with whom I may disagree on some points, but I respect them nevertheless.

Fortunately for other believers, you are not a representative of their attitude.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

sure, if my child is an adult. and i don’t have to “leave” it anywhere: if he wants it at that point, he’ll get it.

In your previous post you insinuated that you talk about a small child. Now you are switching goal-posts.
john doran:

anyway, why doesn’t it apply to omniscience? i can know something will occur with as much certainty as does an omniscient being - for example, that the proposition “i will die at some time t”, is true. does that mean that i want to die? or that i want my son to die?

Your analogy is incorrect. It is not the omniscience which is important here, it is the omnipotence. You have no power to decide whether you or your child will die or not.

On the other hand, when you have the power to influence an event, and choose not to, then there are only three possibilities:

1. You want the event to happen.
2. You do not want the event not to happen.
3. You don’t care either way.

Since it is a basic assumption that God cares about everything, the third possibility is out. Therefore only two options remain: Either God wanted Adam or Eve to fail, or he did not want them not to fail. (Put in less convoluted fashion: “He did not want them to succeed”.) These two mean essentially the same thing (double negative is positive).

It was within God’s power to ensure that Adam and Eve will pass the test. He did nothing to ensure this. Therefore he either did not care (and if that is the case, then why punish them?) or he wanted them to fail, or he did not want them to succeed. Of course I chose the most poignant option, because that is what I think happened. (Or would have happened, if this were not just a story.)

He most certainly did NOT want them to succeed, otherwise he could have made it certain that they will succeed. This is the basic problem with omnipotence: if an omnipotent being allows something to happen, it is his responsibility, there are no excuses. There can be explanations, of course. I see none forthcoming.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

Well, no, I did not quote it verbatim, indeed. But the correct version “He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” is clear, it needs no special context to explain it. Sheer jealousy, nothing else.

I had already explained this verse, and once again, in a spirit of contempt for God, you can only see it as an excuse to judge and ridicule God. Your intellect cannot see the clearest truth because your emotional hatred of God will not allow it. Now, you may think that I am acting like a “remote psychoanalyst.” But I can assure you it is not necessary; your psychology is like a neon sign on a dark night. It analyzes and proclaims itself from afar. Even the most psychologically obtuse individual can see it.

Hitetlen:

That is one way to put it, for sure. But that does not help in your analysis. Let’s say that God was just giving them an exam, which he KNEW they will fail. What is the point of an exam, which cannot be passed? So that God can get all high and mighty and punish them along with all their descendants? The price for failing one exam is damnation and death?

At least I can say you are consistent where your faulty analysis is concerned. Whether or not God knew they would fail cannot be proven. Regardless of that, you again move the focus from student to teacher. Adam and Eve could have passed the test, or they could have failed.

Hitetlen, do you not even know what the purpose of a test is?

The purpose of a test is not in any way to either validate or discredit the teacher, as you keep trying to do, it is to show the student what they have learned and what they have not. To make it clear to the student where they are strong and where they are weak, where they succeed and where they fail.

Hitetlen:

As john doran said, and I agree with him, the point is not knowledge, it is obedience. This is the basic teaching of the Bible. It is not love, it is obedience. And in my eyes, you just can’t get any worse than that.

How does taking the words of another poster out of context support your perspective? He says Obedience not Knowledge, you say Obedience not Love. Once again, you misconstrue a simple point and then condemn it. Or has it not ocurred to you that we are most obedient to those whom we most love? Are you not the perfect example? Since you do not love God you are not obedient to Him.

Yet somehow, and it evades me entirely, you feel that if you spend a lifetime hating God, denying Him, ridiculing Him, and disobeying Him, it would be unjust of God to reward you with damnation. And this comes from a man who has just rebuked the bible for teaching obedience and not love; you who have neither love nor obedience. Once again, you are as wrong as the day is long. The bible does not teach obedience over love, it teaches obedience through love.

Hitetlen:

Contrary to whay you said before, I can easily reconcile hard decisions with love. Our need to make those decisions stems from the fact that our means are very limited, sometimes it does take a hard decision to do something. But for God there are no “hard decisions”. Remember, there is this “omnipotence” stuff.

You believe being omnipotent makes decisions easy? If you were Ceasar or Pharoah you would be omnipotent where the rule of your subjects was concerned. You may have total power of life and death over all persons. But if you found it necessary to condemn to death an old friend, the decision would be easy?

So far, just in this recent post of yours, you have shown that you do not understand the purpose of a test, you have errantly decided the bible teaches obedience without love, and you have erred in believing that being “all-powerful” would somehow make all decisions easy.

Hitetlen, it seems that every time you take one step forward, you take three steps backwards. But that’s Ok since you never go in the right direction anyway.

Thal59

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Not the first at all. It has been demolished so many times, that it is not even funny. The omnimax attributes and evil simply cannot be reconciled.

sigh. ok - give me your references.

keep in mind, i’m talking about deductive refutations of the compossibility of evil with an “omnimax” god, not the currently popular (indeed currently the only) argument from (im)probability.

Hitetlen:

I usually don’t point to outside references, but you may want to read Rabbi Kuschner’s book “When bad things happen to good people”. I know he is not Catholic, but he is a wise man, and has an interesting opinion about the subject. The book is short, and well written. It was the only apologetic book I read of which I can say: it was intellectually honest.

he is not a philosopher or a logician - that is a book on theodicy.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

In your previous post you insinuated that you talk about a small child. Now you are switching goal-posts.

i was using an analogy…

Hitetlen:

On the other hand, when you have the power to influence an event, and choose not to, then there are only three possibilities:

1. You want the event to happen.
2. You do not want the event not to happen.
3. You don’t care either way.

maybe, if you have the power to alter the event. but omnipotence does not enable the actualizing of logically impossible states of affairs, and it is logically impossible that someone have been both free to choose to do X and that she have been caused to do X.

which means, of course, that an omnipotent god can’t make anyone choose anything.

Hitetlen:

It was within God’s power to ensure that Adam and Eve will pass the test.

wrong.

Hitetlen:

He most certainly did NOT want them to succeed, otherwise he could have made it certain that they will succeed.

wrong: he wanted them to choose to do the right thing freely, which he could not have done with certainty.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

The best bumper sticker about abortion read: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” That pretty much sums it up.

right. that’s right up there with “Against rape and murder? Then don’t commit them”.

Hitetlen:

The laws you complain about DO NOT restrict your liberty. The laws you want to create DO restrict my liberty. That is the fundamental difference.

laws against rape restrict the liberty of rapists, and laws against murder restrict the liberty of murderers; it’s just that those liberties are morally (and politically and legally) irrelevant.

it is the very point of laws to restrict one’s freedom to do certain things. like the murdering of one’s unborn child.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

keep in mind, i’m talking about deductive refutations of the compossibility of evil with an “omnimax” god, not the currently popular (indeed currently the only) argument from (im)probability.

In order to use a deductive proof, we have to agree on a few definitions (or axioms), otherwise we would be talking past each other:

1. Omniscient: knows everything that can be known.
2. Omnipotent: able do everything that is logically possible.
3. Omnibenevolent: does not allow unnecessary pain and suffering. If there are two possible ways to achieve a desirable goal, and one of them entails less pain and suffering than the other, then this being will not use or allow to use the one which causes more pain and suffering than the other (does not allow suboptimal solutions). Furthermore, it must be proven that the end and the means form a justifiable sequence. In other words: “the end justifies the means” type of argument is not acceptable.
4. Pain and suffering: physical pain or mental anguish. Contrary to the preceding three concepts these are simple, everyday words.

I know you like more convoluted definitions, but I like the KISS principle and suggest these as a starting point.

One more remark: arguments from ignorance are not allowed. Neither of us can argue that just because we are unaware of something, it can be ruled possible and be taken seriously.

(This last requirement excludes arguments like this:
Atheist: Omniscience is incompatible with free will, because God’s foreknowledge determines the one and only outcome.
Theist: How does it determine? How does knowledge predetermine the outcome?
Atheist: Oh, some magical and unknowable manner, which we are not aware of and cannot ever understand, but somehow it does. It is not impossible that it does, so it must be taken seriously.
Theist: Are you pulling my leg? Why should I take such a crazy idea seriously? If you cannot tell me exactly what ways and means are used to disallow freedom just because the outcome is pre-known, I will call your argument bogus and you are guilty of “argumentum ad ignorantiam”.
Atheist shuts up in shame.)
john doran:

he is not a philosopher or a logician - that is a book on theodicy.

Sure, but he was refreshingly honest, which is the highest praise I can bestow on anyone.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

maybe, if you have the power to alter the event. but omnipotence does not enable the actualizing of logically impossible states of affairs, and it is logically impossible that someone have been both free to choose to do X and that she have been caused to do X.

That is not good enough. There are infinitely many things we can want to perform, but the laws of physics prevent us from succeeding - and that has no bearing on our free will in the least. I can attempt to fly like a bird, and I would even succeed for a short while. God does not have to force them not to transgress the command, he could just have made them unwilling to do so. As you yourself said, the existence of free will in general is not contingent upon the restrictions placed upon it in specific instances. And the possible built-in unwillingness would be sufficient.
john doran:

which means, of course, that an omnipotent god can’t make anyone choose anything.

He certainly could have covered the whole tree with stinking and unwashable manure, make it totally disgusting, and then the free will would have been left intact, but they would have lost the inclination to touch it.
john doran:

wrong: he wanted them to choose to do the right thing freely, which he could not have done with certainty.

And what was he doing? Waiting for a miracle to invalidate his omniscience?

Since he knew in advance that they will fail, he could just have spared the whole charade, and kick them off from the Garden without any test. But he wanted to pose as a “just” being, who gave them a test to perform, which he knew they will fail. If it is not too much trouble, tell me, how could they have freely refused to eat the fruit, if God already knew that they will eat it. Be specific about it. Tell me about the physics involved.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

You believe being omnipotent makes decisions easy? If you were Ceasar or Pharoah you would be omnipotent where the rule of your subjects was concerned. You may have total power of life and death over all persons. But if you found it necessary to condemn to death an old friend, the decision would be easy?

With omnipotence it would not be necessary. Why would it? With omnipotence I could eliminate death, open up the universe for exploration, make all the planets habitable, get away with diseases, make sure that no wildfires occur. Create abundant resources to eliminate hunger, give the sick ones the medication they need. I would not hesitate and change all the sociopaths to become loving people, get rid of the instinct to commit murder and rape. And the list could go on and on.

Can you reasonably give me a scenario, where I would have to condemn an old friend to death? And there would be no alternative? Come on, just one example which would trump this omnipotence.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Good for you. I feel much closer to believers than to animals. I accept that believers are fellow human beings, with whom I may disagree on some points, but I respect them nevertheless.Fortunately for other believers, you are not a representative of their attitude.

Probably I’m anticipating eternal life (being the present life so short I need to anticipate the true life after this one): it’s going to be full of animals in heaven, but certainly there are not going to be atheist unbelievers.

To make a long story short: the hate of God glues all the links of this chain: atheism, relativism, Darwinism, materialism, subjectivism, indifferentism. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. But would be naïve to think that the atheistic rule “without God there is no absolute truth and thus no universal moral standard of conduct” applies mainly to individuals. Its devastating effects are clearly shown when applied to State and Law. It is not just a coincidence that the bloodiest century in human history (the XXth. century, so far) is also the century of the social triumph of atheism. And from this social and political point of view also “disbelief is a sin”. Attempts to build an atheistic morality always end in totalitarianism and genocide. No matter the disguise.
I want also to point out that the fight against relativism did not start with Christianity. There you have the tremendous battle (and example) of Socrates against Sophists. And how Socrates was condemned to death because teaching the Truth.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Probably I’m anticipating eternal life (being the present life so short I need to anticipate the true life after this one): it’s going to be full of animals in heaven, but certainly there are not going to be atheist unbelievers.

You hope. I don’t think there is a heaven, but if there is, I think it will be filled with those who dare to use their mind and question the dogma you believe in - in other word: the atheists who nevertheless displayed love, caring and benevolence toward their fellow humans - and do NOT expect to be rewarded in the next life, and don’t do good things because they are commanded to do them. They just behave correctly because they want to. That is true moral behavior, without reward and without coercion.

This is the shortcoming of the religious “morality”: you are commanded by God to do certain things. If you would think that God commanded you to go and slaughter children, you would do it - because God commanded you. And God (according to the Bible) commanded just that, and topped it off with the command that the virgins should be kept for sexual slavery. Do you dare to deny it? If that is your morality, I don’t want it.

doomhammer:

To make a long story short: the hate of God glues all the links of this chain: atheism, relativism, Darwinism, materialism, subjectivism, indifferentism.

Looks like that I repeat in vain, but maybe eventually you will understand: one cannot hate what one does not believe in. Guess what, I don’t hate the Easter Bunny either.

 

[montanaman]

Guess what, I don’t hate the Easter Bunny either.

Nonsense. Your anti-Easter bunny agenda has been quite clear for some time now.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

At least I can say you are consistent where your faulty analysis is concerned. Whether or not God knew they would fail cannot be proven.

Aha, so God is not omnisicent any more?

Thal59:

Regardless of that, you again move the focus from student to teacher. Adam and Eve could have passed the test, or they could have failed.

Hitetlen, do you not even know what the purpose of a test is?

The purpose of a test is not in any way to either validate or discredit the teacher, as you keep trying to do, it is to show the student what they have learned and what they have not. To make it clear to the student where they are strong and where they are weak, where they succeed and where they fail.

My friend, since I was a math professor for 15 years of my life, I certainly know what is the purpose of tests. Indeed for a good teacher, it is as important to learn the students’ shortcomings as it is show them where they need improvement. No question about that.

But your presentation of God shows something totally different: ONE test, one failure, no second chances (and don’t even mention Jesus, who came thousands of years later) and the result is being expelled from the “school”, and the ground is cursed under their feet. Is this your idea of a “good” teacher?

Thal59:

Yet somehow, and it evades me entirely, you feel that if you spend a lifetime hating God, denying Him, ridiculing Him, and disobeying Him, it would be unjust of God to reward you with damnation.

Somehow I am not getting through. I do NOT hate God. I do NOT believe God exists. How many times do I have to repeat it? Now suppose I am wrong, and God exists. Even if he took offense at my disbelief, which I cannot believe, he would not punish anyone with eternal damnation for a short, temporal deed, especially since he knows that he never gave adequate reason to believe in his existence. Contrary to your assertion, this is the definition of justice.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I do NOT believe God exists. How many times do I have to repeat it? Now suppose I am wrong, and God exists. Even if he took offense at my disbelief, which I cannot believe, he would not punish anyone with eternal damnation for a short, temporal deed, especially since he knows that he never gave adequate reason to believe in his existence. Contrary to your assertion, this is the definition of justice.

Council of Valence: “in the damnation of those who are lost, evil merits precede the just judgment of God”. Those who perish, perish through their own demerits: so do not blame God for your hell, you have none to blame but yourself.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

…the atheists who nevertheless displayed love, caring and benevolence toward their fellow humans - and do NOT expect to be rewarded in the next life, and don’t do good things because they are commanded to do them. They just behave correctly because they want to. That is true moral behavior, without reward and without coercion.This is the shortcoming of the religious “morality”: you are commanded by God to do certain things.

Is there “true moral behavior” in following what I consider my own standard of conduct?
Is there “true moral behavior” in following my own always changeable particular opinions of what is wrong and right?
Is there any merit in following rules I establish, that can I abolish or change to the opposite whenever I want?
If there is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes, you have no merit and your “true moral behavior” is a bluff.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Is there “true moral behavior” in following what I consider my own standard of conduct?

There can be; it depends what your standard of conduct is. If it means the mindless following of what you think God ordered, then no.

doomhammer:

Is there “true moral behavior” in following my own always changeable particular opinions of what is wrong and right?

Maybe yours keep changing, mine does not.

doomhammer:

Is there any merit in following rules I establish, that can I abolish or change to the opposite whenever I want?

If I want it, I can change it, but that does not mean that I will change it wantonly. You will change it whenever someone can convince you that God speaks through his mouth.

doomhammer:

If there is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes, you have no merit and your “true moral behavior” is a bluff.

Just because you don’t understand it, it does not mean a bluff.

You did not answer my question:** if God commanded you to go and slaughter children, would you do it?**

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

With omnipotence it would not be necessary. Why would it? With omnipotence I could eliminate death, open up the universe for exploration, make all the planets habitable, get away with diseases, make sure that no wildfires occur. Create abundant resources to eliminate hunger, give the sick ones the medication they need. I would not hesitate and change all the sociopaths to become loving people, get rid of the instinct to commit murder and rape. And the list could go on and on.

Can you reasonably give me a scenario, where I would have to condemn an old friend to death? And there would be no alternative? Come on, just one example which would trump this omnipotence.

Blue text: All of these things will happen… in the second life. But in your examination of being omnipotent, you have overlooked all of the other attributes of God including His divine dignity, justice, and wisdom. If God did everyhting you suggest here, it would remove total free will. This is especially evident in your suggestion that… “I would not hesitate and change all the sociopaths to become loving people…” In other words, if I were omnipotent, I would not hesitate to change people from what they have chosen to be, to what I think they should be. If you did all of this, everyone and everything would be like a puppet on a string. They would have no love for you, since you would obviously use your omnipotent power to turn hate, or at least indifference, into a burning love for you. But, of course, this would be no love at all. What you would have succeeded in doing was use your omnipotence to make yourself inconsequential in relation to your creation. You would be a God without a purpose, without love, without honor, without anything of worth; and so too would your creation. You would have made a very poor God.

Red text: To answer the text in red, I must momentarily go back to the phrase in blue where you describe rape and murder as an instinct. Rape and murder is not instinctive as killing might be to an animal. They are the product of evil. Of course, I am sure that if you do not believe in God, you certainly also do not believe in Satan. But it is Satan that gives you the example you asked for in the text I highlighted in red.

Lucifer was once very beloved of God, occupying the most powerful position in heaven; second only to God Himself. Lucifer, of his own free will, decided he wanted to replace God. The evil of his rebellion though was not limited to himself as one-third of the heavenly host rebelled with him. Here is an example of when you would have to condemn an old friend to death; when he rebells against you and would seek to destroy you - if that were possible.

Of course, you could just forgive the offense, take away Lucifer’s greed and aspirations, and force his followers to love you artificially since they don’t love you sincerely. But if you do that, you again become inconsequential.

Congratulations, you become the God of puppets; which is no God at all.

Thal59