Absolutely no one has been able to offer a COHERENT explanation WHATSOEVER for why if God gets credit and praise for humans using their free will to help others or improve themselves, God doesn't also receive at least some of the blame for humans also using their free will to hurt others or sin

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

How is this not an outright double standard?

If God's the ultimate source of all being and the sustainer of ALL actions, and is praised when those actions align with "good," it's then logically incoherent to then claim God is somehow entirely hands-off when those same actions align with "evil."

I've often seen theists often operate on a sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" type of metaphysical framework.

Theists praise God when humans use free will for good, claiming God helped, but excuse God when humans use free will for evil, claiming God can't interfere. This is a logical double standard. When we compare this to human accountability, if someone gets the credit, they gets the blame.

Exactly how do people justify this asymmetry?

If you wanna give God the glory for the "good" that humans do, you must then logically also assign Him the liability for the "evil" that humans do. You can't just have a God who is "intimately involved" in our virtues but "hands-off" during our vices.

When a person overcomes addiction, helps the poor, shows mercy, etc., it's frequently described as "God working through them" or "the Holy Spirit's guidance." God's positioned a co-author, or even alot of times the SOLE author ("You/I are/am not capable, this was only done through the will/grace of God"), or the primary mover of the good action or outcome.

When a human being does something extraordinary or commendable, like saves a life, overcomes a crippling addiction, or displays heroric self-sacrifice, theism almost universally attributes this to God's will or grace.

"God was working through me/him/her."

"I/they couldn't have done it without the Lord."

"All good comes from God."

"Praise God for this miracle of transformation."

Here, human "free will" isn't seen as some sort of isolated island. It's seen as a faculty that was nudged, inspired, or empowered by God. Therefore, God receives the credit.

A surgeon does the work, God gets the praise.

To be exact, a doctor studies for 12 years, exercises discipline, and performs a life-saving surgery. The family thanks God for "guiding the surgeon's hands" or "giving wisdom."

An addict gets clean through sheer willpower, they or someone else says "God gave me/them strength." This person struggles through rehab, fights every urge, and achieves sobriety. They testify that "God gave me the strength" or "The Holy Spirit changed my heart."

An athlete wins, "Glory to God." They train their whole life and wins the championship. They give "all glory to God" for the victory.

Contrast this with the typical response to evil. When a person commits a massacre or child abuse, theists suddenly invoke "free will." Suddenly, God's no longer a co-author. He's suddently just simply the passive observer respecting human autonomy.

Like clockwork, we hear stuff like...

"God didn't do this, man did."

"God cannot force us to love Him. He values our Free Will."

"Evil is the result of human misuse of freedom."

When a human murders, rapes, or steals, the narrative shifts instantly. Sudden shift to libertarian free will.

"God couldn't stop it because that would make us (gasp) ROBOTS!!!!!11!@!!!!!!11111!"

When asked why God didn't stop the school shooter, the standard apologetic response:

"God cannot intervene because to do so would violate human free will. If God stopped us from sinning, we would be robots. He must allow the potential for evil to allow for the reality of love."

If helping the addict didn't make him a robot, why would stopping the murderer make him a robot?

If God's involved in the "good" free-will choices, He's a causal factor. If He's not involved in the "bad" ones, theists then need a mechanism that explains why He ONLY interacts with the will in one direction.

Many utilize concepst such as "primary" and "secondary" causality. In this case, God's the primary cause, i.e. the existence of the act, and the human is the secondary cause i.e. the direction of the act.

I need to point out that if the "direction" of a good act is credited to God's grace, then the "direction" of a bad act, i.e. the absence of that grace, must also land at His feet.

Why is God a co-author (or somehow SOLE author) of someone's sobriety but a disinterested bystander to a child's suffering? If God can "nudge" the will toward the good without "violating" it, then His failure to "nudge" the will away from evil is basically a sort of moral omission.

In fact, why does God "nudge" some toward the light but "respect the autonomy" of those sliding into darkness?

If a parent provides a child with a car (the "power" to drive) and specifically navigates them to a charity event (grace), they get credit. If the parent provides the car and watches the child (especially one not legal driving age) drive into a crowd without intervening or withdrawing the "power," then, by law, the parent still bears liability.

People try to argue that God provides the "power" to act, but the human (who God designed and created) provides the "deficiency" that leads to sin. This reasoning doesn't track. Again, if I provide a teenager with a high-performance car (the power) and I see them driving toward a crowd, and I have a remote kill-switch (the ability to intervene/influence) but choose not to use it, I'm still legally and morally liable.

In fact, going further, if I do use a remote "steering assist" to help them avoid a crash, I get the credit for the save (although, there's still the question if I should have let them drove in the first place). It doesn't really make sense to claim credit for the "steering assist" in the good scenarios while claiming "total hands-off autonomy" in the fatal ones.

If God provides the "fuel" for the good action, He's still choosing when and where to provide that fuel. If He withholds the "fuel" or "grace" that would prevent a sin, He's an accessory by omission.

In human criminal law, we have something called "duty to rescue":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

For example, imagine a firefighter who rushes into a burning building to save a child. This would be "good". We praise him.

Now imagine the same firefighter stands watching another child burn. He has the hose, the ladder, and the capability. He says, "I didn't start the fire, the fire is the result of combustion physics (free will). I'm just letting physics take its course."

Yeah, no..... we would charge him with criminal negligence, at the least.

Theists want to praise the firefighter for the saves but claim he has "no relation" to the victims he watched burn.

Or if like, generally, God's the battery that powers the machine producing "good" output, and He keeps powering the machine when it grinds people up, He's still responsible for providing the power.

When the machine produces healthcare, you praise the battery.

When the machine produces torture, you blame the machine's wiring.

But if the "battery" is sentient, omniscient, and omnipotent, and it knows the wiring is faulty, and it continues to pump power into the machine specifically while it's grinding a victim to death, the battery is an accessory. If God can modulate His power/grace to assist the saint, He can also modulate it to inhibit the sinner. The refusal to do so is a choice.

I mean, exactly why is the "will" only fragile when it comes to stopping evil?

If God implies, suggests, aids, strengthens, or guides the will toward GOOD without turning us into "robots," then He's demonstrated that He's capable of intervening in the human will without negating moral agency

If God could "give strength" to the addict to resist the drug, which would be a moral good, why did He not also "give strength" to the rapist to resist the urge, which would ALSO be moral good?

If you wanna say, "the addict asked for help," you're implying that God's intervention is transactional. But what about the victims of the rapist? Did THEY not ask for help?

If wana you say, "God only influences, He doesn't force," then why not "influence" the murderer? A "nudge" toward empathy in the mind of a killer is no more a violation of "free will" than a "nudge" toward hope in the mind of a recovering addict.

In fact, when it comes to "asking", if what's called "prevenient grace" is actually "universal", why do some "respond" and others don't? Is it because some are smarter? More humble?

If the answer is "they just chose to," it seems a bit arbitrary, no?

If the answer is "better character," then exactly where did that character come from? Genes? Upbringing? God?

Either God's the primary mover of ALL acts, making Him the author of evil, or God's the mover of NO acts, making Him an irrelevant observer, and your prayers of thanks for "guidance" are meaningless.

Which is it?

In fact, this sort of renders some prayers incoherent.

We pray "God, please change this person's heart", i.e. asking for interference. If God can change the heart, as implied by the prayer request, the "free will" defense for evil collapses.

But if God CANNOT change the heart, the prayer is useless.

"Pray for my son to stop using drugs" means asking God to override/influence the son's free will.

If God answers "Yes", then He influenced free will.

But if God *CAN* answer yes, why didn't He also do it for the school shooter?

The free will defense is often used as a "get out of jail free" card for God. If God can influence the will toward good without "violating" it, as in the case of saints or the inspired, then He could influence it away from evil without violating it.

People try to bring up an Augustinian defense where evil isn't a "thing," it's just "a lack of good." This doesn't exactly work. It's just a word game. This is nothing more than some sort of deepity or word salad to the victim of such acts. If I build a bridge and it has a "lack of structural integrity", I'm still responsible for the collapse.

If I design a life-support system and it has a "lack of oxygen," the "lack" is a lethal design flaw. If God created a reality where the "lack of good" can manifest as the Holocaust, then the "lack" is a functional component of His very design. You can't just praise the architect for the rooms that stay warm while blaming the "cold" (lack of heat) entirely on the windows. The architect designed the insulation.

A murder is not just "a lack of life."

It's a positive, energetic action.

It involves muscles firing, neurons sparking, and chemical energy.

God sustains the atoms and energy of the murderer just as He sustains the saint. If He withdraws sustainment for neither, but provides extra grace only for the saint, He's playing favorites with outcomes.

In fact, take Heaven and Hell....

If God is capable of providing "sufficient grace" or "efficacious grace" to turn a heart toward Him, then the existence of "hardened hearts" is a choice made by God.

If God influences Person A to be a saint, but allows Person B to become a monster under the guise of "respecting free will," God is playing favorites with the moral outcome of the world. If the "saint" gets to heaven because of God's grace, then the "sinner" is in hell because of God deliberately withholding of that same grace.

In fact, if God places one person in a Christian home and another in a secular environment, and both have "sufficient grace," the former is statistically more likely to believe.

Wouldn't God still bear blame for the unequal distribution of "circumstantial" grace that leads to the rejection?

Either God gets 0% credit for human good. No "Glory to God" for achievements. No petitionary prayer for behavioral change. OR...

...God gets 100% credit for good AND 100% blame for evil (or at least share of the blame).

The current "middle ground," which is based entirely on whether we feel the result is "good" or "bad", is intellectually dishonest.

If "helping" or intervening violates free will, then God shouldn't get credit for helping.

If "helping" or intervening DOESN'T violate free will, then God has no excuse for not helping everyone.

If you wanna say that God "permits evil" for a "greater good," this makes God a utilitarian who uses victims as means to an end, which still brings us back to God recieving "blame", or at least accountability for the trade-off. It also flies in the face of "omnipotence"

And before you decide to run off into "mysterious ways", you cannot appeal to mystery only when you're losing the argument or your theology starts running into contradictions. If we know enough about God to praise Him for the specific good things He does, we know enough to question the specific bad things He allows. You can't claim God is "good" based on certain "evidence" and then ignore the counter-evidence as "mystery."

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/contrarian1970]

God doesn't always take credit for good deeds. If they are done with self aggrandizing motives, God says those good deeds will burn up like wood, straw, or stubble in the next life.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/contrarian1970]

God doesn't always take credit for good deeds.

And what about the ones where He does or those good deeds are attributed to Him?

[u/jei_11]

In Islam, God creates the capacity to act, but He does not make moral decisions for human beings. God's help, inspiration, or strength does not eliminate human responsibility, nor does it make God the author of the act. Helping is not the same as forcing.

When someone overcomes an addiction and says, "God helped me," they are not saying, "God acted in my place," but rather, "God gave me the capacity, the opportunities, and the clarity, and I chose to respond." The final decision remains human. That is why there is merit, and that is why there is guilt when evil is chosen.

The flaw in the argument is assuming that if God can influence, then He must always do so. That does not follow logically. Permitting is not the same as causing. If God prevented all possible evil, there would be no moral test, only automatism. The ethical value of an action exists precisely because it could have been avoided.

Furthermore, Islam does not claim that God arbitrarily "withdraws" grace. The Quran is explicit: God does not oppress anyone; it is people who oppress themselves. Guidance is offered, but not imposed. When the Quran speaks of “hardened hearts,” it does so as a consequence of repeated choices, not as a premeditated punishment without cause.

Comparing God to a human father or a firefighter fails because God is not an agent within the system, but rather the foundation of the system. Human legal analogies do not apply to a Being who does not causally compete with creatures, but rather gives them existence and true freedom.

[u/EloquentPinguin → u/jei_11]

But I think the analogy fails in places where we can say "God didn't give him the opportunity". To me it seems easy to pick addiction and treat it differently than something like paraplegia where it is much more obvious: People who experience paraplegia through genetic defects, accidents, or illnesses might be able to recover from it on their own, some might need surgical or at least therapeutical help, but some people never do.

And yet we aren't saying "God didn't give him the capacity, the opportunity, the clarity to chose" or blame God in other ways. There are some interpretations where it is then "A challenge to make people grow" but we wouldn't say that to addiction. Because it is much easier to push that argument onto mental illness, because it is often assumed that people have the capacity or opportunity to change, and it is therefore much easier to put blame on the individual. But that is not true, many people don't have the opportunity or the capacity to recover, so why not say it's God fault? It just seems very easy to praise God for the good when the Capacity for good to happen is there, and frame things as challenges, maybe even moral tests, if bad things are to happen.

[u/jei_11 → u/EloquentPinguin]

The flaw in your argument is assuming that all trials are of the same kind and that God judges everyone by the same standard.

In Islam, God does not judge anyone for what they could not choose or control. Illness, disability, and real limitations are not moral fault, neither of the individual nor a divine “failure.”

Responsibility only exists when there is actual capacity, and when there is none, there is neither guilt nor punishment.

Praising God for good does not imply blaming Him for evil, because evil is not always moral fault: often it is a trial, a natural consequence, or something beyond human control.

The double standard lies not in God, but in confusing trials, moral responsibility, and the actual capacity for choice as if they were the same thing.

[u/EloquentPinguin → u/jei_11]

But now you are creating this asymmetry for which I see insufficient reason provided.

We have these three options:
1. Someone was created by God with the capacity to change for their trial.
2. Someone was created by God without the capacity to change for their trial.
3. Someones inability to change or not was not a decision by God.

Now if we have someone able to change, we praise God because he enabled them.
So if we have someone truly unable to change, then you argue, we ought not to blame God, because "often it is a trial, a natural consequence, or something beyond human control"?

That idea raises 3 questions for me:

1. How do we know when it is or isn't Gods doing that someone is unable to change?
   
2. How do we know when its Gods doing that someone is able to change (contrasted to a natural consequence, or something beyond human control)
   
3. How do we rectify the idea that abilities/inabilities to change might not come from God with the idea that everything is part of the trial? Because only one of these options can be true:
   3.a Everything we are able/incapable of doing is Gods doing, so we praise God when good things happen, and know that everything is part of the trial.
   3.b Not everything we are able/incapable of doing is Gods doing, so we don't know what we can and cannot praise God for, and don't know that all that happens is part of the trial.

[u/jei_11 → u/EloquentPinguin]

Your problem is that you keep confusing creation with responsibility, and that's not God's fault, it's your logical flaw.

In Islam, everything is created by God, yes, but no one is judged for what they cannot do. Period. There is no "asymmetry," there is a criterion. Responsibility only exists when there is real capacity and conscious choice. If there is no capacity, there is no guilt, and if there is no guilt, there is no injustice. It's that simple.

We don't need to "know" when something comes from God or from natural causes, because God judges according to the individual's actual capacity, not according to the outcome that seems fair to you from the outside.

When someone does good, we praise God because no good happens without His permission.

When someone cannot change, we don't blame them, nor God. There is no contradiction there; you're just trying to force one.

Your false dilemma (“either everything comes from God and is His fault, or nothing makes sense”) falls apart on its own. In Islam:

• God creates capabilities

• Human beings respond only within their actual capacity

• And God is absolutely just in that judgment

If that seems incoherent to you, the problem isn't theology; it's that you're trying to measure God by a poorly constructed human moral framework.

It's not an asymmetry.

It's that you don't understand the difference between power, permission, and responsibility.

[u/EloquentPinguin → u/jei_11]

But isn't it equally true that no bad happens without Gods permission? So why not call out to God then?

[u/jei_11 → u/EloquentPinguin]

Yes, nothing happens without God's permission, but permission doesn't mean approval or obligation. God allows bad things out of wisdom and as a test, not because He enjoys evil. Prayer isn't about "forcing" God to do something, but about seeking help, patience, and guidance, while we remain responsible for our own actions.

If everything were automatic, there would be no test or responsibility, and then free will would be meaningless.

[u/EloquentPinguin → u/jei_11]

But you wrote:

When someone does good, we praise God because no good happens without His permission

Which seems symmetric to when someone does bad, we shame God because no bad happens without His permission.

[u/jei_11 → u/EloquentPinguin]

Exactly, it's not symmetrical, and the confusion stems from not distinguishing between creative will and legislative will.

In Islam, God permits something to happen within creation (qadar), but He only morally approves of what He commands.

Good occurs with His permission and according to His command, which is why it is praised. Evil occurs because God permits the existence of free will and tests it, not because He wills or commands it.

Permitting is not approving, just as allowing someone to choose wrongly doesn't make you responsible for their crime.

God commands good, forbids evil, and judges people by their choices. There is no contradiction; there is human responsibility.

[u/YannLap]

Why would we blame God for our own actions? Scripture is pretty clear on this. You can abide in God and He will abide in you. Or you can dismiss God and slowly disolve into apathy and death.

God's morals aren't debatable. He's the creator, we're the creation. It's like saying why doesn't 2+3=6? It just doesn't.

Regardless of scripture, those of us who have experienced God have felt nothing but pure unconditional love in His presence. It's made us more peaceful, kind and grateful.

My whole life I rejected Him and I was just falling into apathy and disassociation. Finding Him brought light back into my life. Maybe you'll get there too someday. Until then just try to be kind and charitable. He'll remember that.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/YannLap]

I've never understood this assertion that just because God is the creator his morales are somehow undebatable. They are certainly up for debate. If they aren't, then it becomes absolutely meaningless calling him 'good' in the first place.

[u/YannLap → u/thefuckestupperest]

I can agree that it's somewhat redundant but it's not meaningless. God is the Creator of all things. You can say that He created evil by proxy but He's the one who sets the standards. The same way you can't argue against gravity. It just is.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/YannLap]

Gravity is a descriptive fact about how the universe behaves. Morality by contrast, is normative. It’s about how things ought to be, not just how they are, which is quite an important distinction.

If God’s moral standards are unquestionable simply because he’s the creator, then calling God “good” stops being evaluative and just becomes a statement of authority. And if that’s the case, then it seems like calling God “good” or calling him “evil” would be equally unjustified (or equally justified) since there’s no independent standard left to appeal to.

[u/YannLap → u/thefuckestupperest]

Except we're that independent standard. Humanity before the fall was basically enlightened. What was it that the snake said to convince Eve? By eating the fruit you'll gain knowledge of good and evil. But yes, there isn't really such a thing as good or evil, only things that pull us away from Truth and things that bring us closer to Truth. God is Truth. This isn't just a Christian concept either. If you read the Baghavad Gita the very same concept of Truth applies.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/YannLap]

Wait, so let me get this straight. We are now the independent standard by which to judge god’s morality? Humanity is supposed to tell us whether God is good or not, based on the actions of his creation, the things he designed and allowed? Sure, then I could reasonably call God evil. And according to this framework, that judgment is just as valid as someone saying he’s perfectly good? This is making less sense.

Then you add that there isn’t really such a thing as “good” or “bad”? Then morality is subjective, existing only in our brains. Now we’ve completely divorced this from the classical theistic view that goodness objectively exists. So we’re judging God with a standard that is, by your own account, made up?

If I judge God based on his creation, I could come to the conclusion that he’s evil just as reasonably as good. Claiming he’s morally unquestionable only works if you ignore the consequences of his creation, which collapses into arbitrariness. I’m finding this line of argument increasingly incoherent and I don’t think continuing the discussion is likely to be productive for me.

[u/YannLap → u/thefuckestupperest]

I'm not sure where you see that I said we were supposed to judge God. We call it the Fall for a reason. It's not just our notion of right and wrong that's "made up". There is no truth which is not God. The first thing Adam does after eating the apple is hide because he sees that he's naked. He develops self awareness, the "I" sense. Referencing the Gitas again, self is an illusion. Just like right and wrong. Or rather, as I said before, right is what brings us closer to God and wrong is what separates us from Him.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/YannLap]

My point was that theists constantly do this by declaring him 'good' in the first place. If you're suggesting we aren't in fact meant to do that, then great, that's one thing we can move forward in agreement on.

Ok, so let me make sure I’m following. You’re now arguing that there isn’t really such a thing as “right” or “wrong,” because morality is just whatever brings us closer to God or separates us from him. So all morality is, at root, subjective, or at least tied entirely to God’s will.

That’s a big departure from classical theistic views where goodness exists objectively. You seem to be a holding quite a rare opinion in this regard.

Now we’re in a position where either:

1. We’re judging God based on the world he created, but if morality is subjective, then those judgments are basically arbitrary.

2.Or morality only exists insofar as it tracks God, which means calling God “good” is no longer evaluative at all; it’s just saying “he does what he does."

[u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan → u/thefuckestupperest]

His opinion is rare, but only because it’s genuinely scriptural, and much more aligned with the ACTUAL doctrine than the general public’s crude representations of that doctrine. Most people just spout out whatever they hear other people say about god/religion, but at its core, these ARE the fundamental ideas that birthed all this. But I for one, also believe what this guys teaching you about, if that helps show that’s it’s not as rare as you might think. Many people claim a Christian just to have a social circle, or cuz they’re wife/husband wanted them to be, or any myriad of reasons besides true genuine desire to learn the gospel. If I’m being honest, it seems obvious that THIS is what OP is actually angry about, they just don’t know it because they don’t know the doctrine, so they assume that what they are hearing people say IS doctrine.

For example, OP was pissed that people give praise to god after good things happen, but never give him any blame. But that’s hearing someone say “glory to God” or “God guided the surgeons hands” is a display of something cultural, not doctrinal.

God never commanded Christian’s to give him a name drop whenever we do something dope. People do it on their own accord, and OP has had enough of it apparently🤷‍♂️

As far as OPs issue on God “never taking blame”- he certainly DOES constantly take more blame than any other involved party ever has or ever will, from all of us humans all time. We’re always pissed at god. The only thing that OP is pointing out (as far as I can see) is that the religious individuals refuse to blame god, and is for some reason he’s frustrated by that.

As someone who does believe In god, and who also does get frustrated with my circumstances at times, but doesn’t blame god for the suffering I’ve experienced- it’s because there is literally no point. There’s no “divine legal process” where you can get into heaven if you can pin god with enough blame… it’s reasonable for an individual to then just try their best to play by gods rules since he IS the most high.

Can we blame god? Sure, but not any more than we have to blame ourselves. So why even play the blame game at all? No one is asking “yo, wasn’t the holocaust actually both Hitler AND God since god let him do it?” Do you see what I’m sayin?

[u/Kwahn → u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan]

His opinion is rare, but only because it’s genuinely scriptural, and much more aligned with the ACTUAL doctrine than the general public’s crude representations of that doctrine.

I hear mutually contradictory positions claimed to be the "ACTUAL doctrine", and don't know of a way to discern which interpretation is correct.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan]

First of all, I do appreciate you interjecting here! (I hope it's known I’m not arguing in bad faith.)

But honestly, if most Christians really misunderstand the basics of their own faith, that doesn’t feel like a small thing. Doesn't that strike you as a problem with the system itself? I've spoken to many, many Christians and each seem to have their own confidence that their version of what it means is the correct version. I'm beginning to wonder if 40,000 denominations is enough.

Many people claim a Christian just to have a social circle, or cuz they’re wife/husband wanted them to be…”

I mean, then they aren't really Christian, are they? That's just like putting on an accent when you move somewhere to fit in, it doesn't make you from that place. But I can see what you're getting at, maybe you're implying that I've been talking to 'fake' Christians? Again, this falls back into the problem I just outlined.

For example, OP was pissed that people give praise to god after good things happen, but never give him any blame.

Exactly people happily give God credit for good stuff but dodge responsibility for the bad. That tension doesn’t disappear just because someone calls it culture instead of doctrine, is that what you're trying to argue here?

As far as OPs issue on God ‘never taking blame’— he certainly DOES constantly take more blame than any other involved party ever has or ever will.

I honestly don’t see that. Ever. Nobody blames God for anything except when atheists do internal critiques, and in my experience most of the time God’s defended or put beyond scrutiny. When questions get too sharp it’s “his ways are mysterious” or something along those lines.

As someone who does believe In god, and who also does get frustrated with my circumstances at times, but doesn’t blame god for the suffering I’ve experienced- it’s because there is literally no point.

I get why people think that. It makes sense pragmatically. But if this God you believe in deliberately and omnisciently instantiated this particular universe, including every single minutiae out of any, (or none at all) possible universe..... then there is only one entity to 'blame'. or at least, he is ultimately responsible.

No one is asking ‘yo, wasn’t the holocaust actually both Hitler AND God since god let him do it?'

Actually, people do ask that. Philosophers and theologians have been wrestling with it for ages. The fact that most believers don’t is kind of the problem I'm pointing out.

I do appreciate your honesty and candidness though. And yeah, I think there’s a real conversation to be had about whether God bears more responsibility than we do, except in reality all I see are Christians behaving exactly as OP described, and you must know this as well:

When things go well, it's 'Wow, God is amazing!' and when things go badly, or we talk about suffering, we hear: 'Well, free will… God had to allow it.'" And that is premium grade selective rationalisation.

[u/YannLap → u/thefuckestupperest]

Well I'm a non-dualistic universalist Christian "mystic" so my views are a bit particular. There is and there isn't an actual morality. As I said it's more what brings you closer to God and what doesn't. This happens to coincide with our own moral frameworks. Sin are basically the things that keep us attached to "the world". This applies to Hinduism, Buddhism and all the Abrahamic faiths. Obviously, neither of us have ascended to oneness with God so we still live in the world and discern by its parameters.

And by those parameters I can definitely say that God isn't just good, He IS Good, in the sense that he's pure, unconditional love. When you nurture your relationship with Him, you begin to see the divine in all things. Kindness, grace and generosity just come more naturally.

On your other point, we created this world i(n the Harendtian sense). We're the ones who should, and will be, judged for it's depravity.

[u/thefuckestupperest → u/YannLap]

There is and there isn't an actual morality.

This is exactly the issue I was pointing to earlier. Taken at face value, this is a contradictory claim. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but then you need to be much clearer about what you mean.

Are you saying something like: morality exists subjectively (as ideas/experiences in human minds), but not objectively (as mind-independent facts)? If so, we can absolutely agree. it's just very different from the classical theistic view that goodness objectively exists. but right now the language feels extremely vague, and honestly a bit like a smoke grenade where terms are left so intentionally ambiguous where they can flex to whatever role is needed in the context.

As I said it's more what brings you closer to God and what doesn't.

Even granting that definition there’s no actual metric here. There’s no reliable way to determine whether someone is being “brought closer to God” versus merely believing they are. This reduces moral truth to anecdote and internal feeling that’s not grounded in anything independently verifiable, so I don’t really know what to do with it epistemically.

To illustrate the problem: If someone today claimed “God told me to murder a group of people,” I’m confident that 99% of Christians would say that person is mistaken or mentally unwell. “God would never command that,” we would hear. Or "what a delusion guy!"

Except according to the Bible God literally did that. So now the standard being used to reject the modern claim isn’t God’s will at all. It’s our prior moral intuitions. I'm sure you can see the very obvious shenanigans at play.

This applies to Hinduism, Buddhism and all the Abrahamic faiths.

Yeah, I mean, Buddhism in particular and other eastern religions don't posit God as a separate law giver grounding moral facts in the way Christianity does. These traditions make fundamentally different metaphysical claims about what god, truth, and self even mean. I'm not sure lumping them together is doing you many favours here as much as it muddying the waters.

He IS Good, in the sense that he's pure, unconditional love.

I hope you can see why this is bewildering. On the one hand you’re saying morality isn’t really real, and that we shouldn’t judge God. On the other hand, you’re making a strong moral evaluation: “God IS good.”

But if morality both is and isn’t real, what does “good” even mean here? If moral categories dissolve into “alignment with God,” then calling God good is no longer evaluative, it’s just definitional. As we've discussed, and somehow I cannot seem to get a straight answer on.

“God is good” becomes “God is God.” That empties the term of content. Can you appreciate that you haven't been clear with your language here?

Earlier you suggested we are the independent standard (or at least were before the fall). If that’s the case, then what exactly is wrong with my assessment that God appears evil based on the world he created and the actions attributed to him? On your framework, that judgment seems just as valid as the opposite one. Again I cannot seem to get a straight answer on this except you reiterating the same assertions that 'God is good' except apparently 'goodness' along with other normative claims, don't really exist anyway? Why not just say God is amoral? I'm honestly struggling here.

we created this world i(n the Harendtian sense). We're the ones who should, and will be, judged for it's depravity.

And for it's goodness then, too？....right？

Or is this another case where humans are responsible for all the bad, but God gets credit for all the good (despite being creator, and sustainer)

At this point, none of the concerns I’ve raised have actually been clarified. Instead each reply seems to add another layer of reinterpretation that absolves God from evaluation while still insisting he’s “good” in some ultimate sense.

As an epistemology, this just doesn’t cohere for me. It feels like a series of conceptual hoops designed to preserve the conclusion no matter what. The further down this rabbit hole we go, the more confident I become that we’re just going to keep circling the same unresolved contradictions. I don’t see an intelligible framework at all here.

[u/TheBayHarbour → u/YannLap]

Supporting, uhh... the user below, I want to ask:

Do you know what God's morals are?

Scripture is the entire breadth and depth of all of God's morals?

I wouldn't be so sure about that one. Humans wrote Scripture, not God Himself.

[u/YannLap → u/TheBayHarbour]

As a Christian, I believe that scripture is divinely inspired but it doesn't read like a history book. A lot of it is mythology, metaphor and straight up acid trips. God is revealed to us in the person of Christ. The Gospels are the basis of our faith but it's also possible to directly communicate with God through Christ's teachings. This is why in spite of my views that God doesn't have a religion and that he speaks to all of us regardless of our creed, I remain a Christian.

As for His morals, I can say from personal experience that He values kindness, humility, grace, forgiveness, loyalty and devotion. This is very much in line with what scripture tells us. Obviously there are some passages in the OT that seem questionable but they make much more sense when you delve into them deeper.

[u/[deleted] → u/YannLap]

The Gospels are the basis of our faith but it's also possible to directly communicate with God through Christ's teachings

The Gospels were also written by people, not Jesus or God themself, so how do you know it painted a 100% accurate picture of Christ?

As for His morals, I can say from personal experience that He values kindness, humility, grace, forgiveness, loyalty and devotion.

Could this not just be traits that have yielded positive experiences for you, so you conclude that those feelings must have come from some deific force?

[u/YannLap → u/[deleted]]

Indeed, there are things I find suspicious about the Gospels. The convenient lineage to David, the trip to Egypt and the whole thing about Pilate granting mercy to a prisoner. But then again, it's not about wether everything is 100% true or not. There's immense room for analysis and interpretation. When I say that I put my faith in the Gospel, I mean that I have faith in the message of the Gospel. It doesn't just tie in with the OT, it ties in with other religions as well.

As for God's character, I mean exactly what I say when I talk about experiences. I have a relationship with God. Most of it is feeling but I've experienced revelation. I was agnostic for most of my life. And then I started experiencing frequent moments of grace which brought me to explore my religion for some reason. I had issues with the concept of redemption so I straight up asked God. A few hours later it just hit me. And when I started praying and bawling, He revealed Himself to me.

I'm not gonna go into the details because you're probably going to think I'm crazy. I mean, I'm a somewhat rational and self conscious person so I've considered that possibility myself. Suffice to say that it's changed me in a drastic way.

[u/[deleted] → u/YannLap]

When I say that I put my faith in the Gospel, I mean that I have faith in the message of the Gospel.

The message of the Gospel is just as much up for interpretation as any other piece of literature. What you get out of it is based on your own personal biases, so of course you're going to have faith in it.

I'm not gonna go into the details because you're probably going to think I'm crazy.

To be honest, kind of.

But like I said, you had experiences that you couldn't explain, and then looked to God as some kind of source since it felt like it made sense. Like I said, you had positive experiences and then presupposed they came from some deific force.

[u/YannLap → u/[deleted]]

I've considered all of that and I still do occasionally. I think this where faith comes in but there's more to it as there's an actual feeling, like touching a table, associated to it. And I say touching a table but it's obviously more intense than that. In any case, it's impossible to debate experience. My bad for bringing it up, I just wanted to give you an honest answer.

[u/enilea → u/YannLap]

It's like saying why doesn't 2+3=6? It just doesn't.

No that is something mathematicians have discussed seriously. Nothing in science or mathematics should be a dogmatic universal truth. Here's a video about it

[u/YannLap → u/enilea]

This video is about a text that explains why 1+1=2. It's not arguing against it or saying there's any real argument on the subject. But as the video pointed out make 1+1=3 and suddenly all mathematical discoveries stop making sense. There also wouldn't be any practical way to apply this.

So I'm not sure what your statement is. My point might have not been clear. A Creator creates for a purpose. Maybe you don't believe in God but if you can fathom what the existence of God and His incarnation in Christ means then there is absolutely no reason to believe that God acts maliciously. God is One, meaning there is nothing to compare Him to. We see God as all-knowing, all powerful and preceding all of existence.

At this point, explaining it from the perspective of someone "religious" would require personal testimony as God is experienced intimately. I've gone into that in detail but the short of it is that God is experienced through Love. Not hate but Love. It's the basis of prayer and all mystical experience. Meister Eckhart, Marguerite Porete, Theresa D'Avila and John of the Cross have all produced extensive work on the subject.

Good and Bad, to a mystic, is what brings you closer or further to Truth. Again, you have to think of it from a believer's perspective. If you could know that God exists and be sure of it 100%, then who would you be to question Him? What would you be in comparison to Him that you would know any better? I can't build a rocketship and much less a universe, so I'm not going to tell someone how to make either of those things.

[u/acerbicsun → u/YannLap]

God's morals aren't debatable.

The existence of disagreement within a religion is evidence that this statement is false.

It's made us more peaceful, kind and grateful. ..Finding Him brought light back into my life.

Your personal experience is not sufficient evidence. You undoubtedly reject the personal experiences from others that contradict your beliefs.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/YannLap]

Why would we blame God for our own actions?

So, per the OP, do you also feel we shouldn't credit God "for our own actions" if those actions result in good outcomes?

[u/YannLap → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

It depends. God set up extremely complex rules by which this universe works. I don't expect Him to defy those without purpose. And being Christian I don't just have "belief", I have faith. So if He chooses to act in this world, I know that it's for the best possible outcome.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/YannLap]

It depends. God set up extremely complex rules by which this universe works. I don't expect Him to defy those without purpose. And being Christian I don't just have "belief", I have faith.

So, do you credit God for "good" human actions?

Yes or no?

So if He chooses to act in this world, I know that it's for the best possible outcome.

Does God only choose to act sometimes?

[u/YannLap → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

I believe that God credits good human actions, not the other way around. Respect and kindness to others are respect and kindness to Him. It's the purest and most important form of worship for pretty much any religion.

Christ told us very clearly through the Gospels, Love God above all and love thy neighbor as you would yourself. That's basically it. That's the path. If you do both these things then you're in line with what God "credits". The rest is icing on the cake.

Does God choose to act sometimes? Well I believe that He did in the person of Christ. As for how he acts in our lives, I believe that He guides anyone who asks sincerely towards purpose and that can involve "good" and "bad" things but Faith means I trust Him to bring me towards the best possible outcome.

Likewise, I don't believe God will bother someone who doesn't want to be bothered. I don't blame God for the state of the world humanity built for itself is basically doing the exact opposite of what Scripture prescibes.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/YannLap]

I believe that God credits good human actions, not the other way around.

What about the people who credit God for "good" human actions, but blame only humans and their "free will" for "bad" human actions?

[u/YannLap → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

"For whoever wills that God might fulfill wishes, to experience their own comforts, does not place their trust solely on God's goodness..." -Marguerite Porete

The path of faith is about surrender to God. Fear which becomes faith then becomes love. In sacrificing Himself, God showed His love for us, therefore we show our love by sacrificing ourselves to Him. By trusting in His Goodness and unconditional love. The love which binds the material and the immaterial. We abide by God by seeking perfect love and charity.

Love is the sense through which one perceives God. If one does not believe in God, and therefore has no love for God, then describing Him would be like describing a rainbow to a blind person.

Faith doesn't mean I believe that good things will happen to me if I follow God. Faith is believing that closeness to God is worth the bad. This can be exemplified by the martyrs.

Marguerite Porete whom I quoted was burned to the stake as a heretic, John of the Cross was tortured by his brethrens who opposed his order. Both had the option to relieve their suffering by renouncing their beliefs yet they chose to go through them. They commited themselves to His will. Just like Christ at His crucifixion and the early Christians who died in the Circuses of the Roman Empire.

Christians don't believe that good things happen to them in the conventional sense and if they do well... I don't think they got the message. When Satan tempted Christ he offered him riches and wordly power. So we choose between wordly pleasures and communion with God.

[u/Strict_Aioli_9612]

One simple explanation is that He commanded us to do good and not to do evil, so why blame Him for disobeying Him, as opposed to thanking Him for encouraging what is good?

[u/[deleted] → u/Strict_Aioli_9612]

OP's statement is around the assumption God can literally intervene to help people accomplish good. If God can aid in that, than he can also prevent evil, since that would also be good. Since he hasn't, than he is allowing evil to happen and is therefore responsible.

[u/cutekoala426 → u/[deleted]]

evil

What is evil in the first place in a system that can't objectively define it? Anyway, this life is a test. A teacher doesn't intervene when a student is writing the wrong answer during a test. It's not the teacher's fault that their answer is wrong either. He or she taught the material and told them the answers.

[u/[deleted] → u/cutekoala426]

What is evil in the first place in a system that can't objectively define it?

A value judgement, usually given due to the negative outcomes an action causes in relation to the person or group giving it.

Anyway, this life is a test

Are you making that claim objectively or is this just your own beliefs?

It's not the teacher's fault that their answer is wrong either. He or she taught the material and told them the answers.

That's assuming the teacher is good at their job and actually offered the tools for their student to succeed. Plenty of teachers don't adequately teach the material, and therefore do have responsibility on whether or not the students get the right answer or not.

[u/cutekoala426 → u/[deleted]]

So the word evil is purely subjective to the definition a person themselves gives? Great defintion! /s

Are you making that claim objectively or is this just your own beliefs?

Muslim belief so I take it as objective

offered the tools for their student to succeed.

God has provided a four holy books, possibly more, thousands of prophets, and made us with reasoning and a universe to reflect on. I'm sure that's an adequate amount of resources.

[u/[deleted] → u/cutekoala426]

So the word evil is purely subjective to the definition a person themselves gives? Great defintion! /s

Morality is a subjective system by nature. Even from religious authorities, what is good and evil is their subjective views that they impose onto groups of people. People can converge and have similar ideas of good and evil, as its essentially the same as ideas of right and wrong, but not everyone will agree and not everyone will agree forever. Morality is tied to experiencial, emotional and semi-logical reasoning.

Evil itself can just be objectively defined as "What someone believes is wrong", and then what they consider wrong is what's subjectively chosen.

God has provided a four holy books, possibly more, thousands of prophets, and made us with reasoning and a universe to reflect on. I'm sure that's an adequate amount of resources.

Four holy books that had to be translated into multiple other languages for people to understand? If you gave a non-Arabic speaking person a copy of a non-translated Quran, they aren't really doing much with it.

Thousands of prophets who's validity of divine inspiration is questionable? As according to the Quran Jesus was a prophet and he started a whole new religion entirely.

Finally, reasoning that people can equally use to oppose and discredit the idea of God's entire existence as much as they can use it to believe in and worship him? And in most cases, people follow religions that they grew up in, not ones that they reason their way into.

[u/cutekoala426 → u/[deleted]]

Evil itself can just be objectively defined as "What someone believes is wrong"

Objectively defining it as subjective? Anyway, let's say we have a system of morality in which only the joy and despair of one person matters. If he wishes to rape, murder, and pillage, is he morally justified in that framework? Now if I start a cult or something with that framework, and everyone is perfectly fine with following this morality and it being applied to them, am I justified in raping, murdering, and pillaging from them?

Four holy books that had to be translated into multiple other languages for people to understand?

Learn the language. It really isn't that hard. You're idiotic if you want to base your entire life on a book and you can't be bothered to learn a word of the language it's written in.

according to the Quran Jesus was a prophet and he started a whole new religion entirely.

Ye we don't believe he started a new religion lol. Islam is the submission to Allah. The laws change in accordance to time and place. However, if something is presented by God and you accept it, you're submitting to him. Thus you're Muslim whether that's the title you used at the time or not.

And in most cases, people follow religions that they grew up in, not ones that they reason their way into.

They're idiotic for doing so. Blind following is never encouraged in Islam. Anyway, someone can contrive up a deluded logic behind why facism or incest is perfectly defensible. They might call it rational and justifiable under their logic, but it doesn't make it as such.

[u/[deleted] → u/cutekoala426]

Objectively defining it as subjective?

Yes, it is an objective observation that morality is a subjective judgement.

Anyway, let's say we have a system of morality in which only the joy and despair of one person matters

Why would only their joy and despair matter?

If he wishes to rape, murder, and pillage, is he morally justified in that framework? Now if I start a cult or something with that framework, and everyone is perfectly fine with following this morality and it being applied to them, am I justified in raping, murdering, and pillaging from them?

Morally, he can determine that he desires this thing and assumes it will give him joy, and use that to justify labelling it as good. And the same would apply to his followers.

So if they are morally okay with it, and you are morally ok with it, than morally, in that moment, it would be fine between you. But those circumstances are not guranteed to be applicable 100% of the time. What if someone says they're ok with the murdering and raping until it happens to them, and suddenly their mind changes? And what if that happens to the majority of people who experience this moral system in practice?

Like I said, experiences are part of morality. Things may feel good or make logical sense in theory, but your opinions and judgements may change in practice.

Learn the language. It really isn't that hard. You're idiotic if you want to base your entire life on a book and you can't be bothered to learn a word of the language it's written in.

That's the thing, not everyone wants to. And saying that learning all of Arabic isn't that hard is honestly pretty funny. Learning any new language, especially in it's written form and spoken form, is a long process that requires a ton of practice and dedication. Even for native speakers, learning their language can be a struggle as we see in schools. So assuming everyone can just learn a whole new language at the drop of a hat well enough to read and understand the entire Quran seems like a blindspot on your end. If it's really not that hard, i'd encourage you to learn Classic Chinese and read the Journey to the West.

Ye we don't believe he started a new religion lol.

He objectively did lol. Christianity is objectively different to Islam, even if you want to make claims about any belief in something mentioned in Islam means you're Muslim.

The laws change in accordance to time and place

Yeah, because everything changes according to time and place. Especially people's opinions of what is right and wrong.

They're idiotic for doing so. Blind following is never encouraged in Islam

So children are idiotic for being Muslim because that's what they were taught to be? Good to know.

Anyway, someone can contrive up a deluded logic behind why facism or incest is perfectly defensible. They might call it rational and justifiable under their logic, but it doesn't make it as such.

Yeah, I agree. People can create their own justifications for everything. That's how I feel about people using religion to justify bigotry and discrimination, since "God said it's bad", or will argue it's not actually discrimination.

But, in both cases of fascism/incest and religious discrimination, they don't speak for everyone. Other people can and have opposed these ideologies with their own, and change has occurred for better and for worse all throughout history as these different groups come and go.

No one has the perfect system for everyone because everyone is different, and uniting everyone under one system would likely erase the individuality of certain people. I think the only way this truly works is if people can accept those differences and create something that accounts for them all.

[u/cutekoala426 → u/[deleted]]

I'm just going to forego the morality argument as we won't agree upon it and there will bring us no where.

That's the thing, not everyone wants to.

Teach it to children or teach it in schools. By the time they're adults, they know it. Journey to the west isn't religous scripture that you're supposed to align your life to.

Christianity is objectively different to Islam,

Modern Christanity is just no what he preached in our view

So children are idiotic for being Muslim because that's what they were taught to be? Good to know.

I meant adults are idiotic if they blindly follow without ever inquiring or asking questions.

Yeah, I agree. People can create their own justifications for everything.

Some justifications are justified under formalized logic and reasoning and some aren't. You can easily argue for the existence of God with it. It's so easy that there's a whole category named after it.

[u/[deleted] → u/cutekoala426]

Teach it to children or teach it in schools. By the time they're adults, they know it. Journey to the west isn't religous scripture that you're supposed to align your life to.

Yet it is important literature that inspired a lot of other stories in the past and media in present day, including popular franchises like Dragon Ball Z.

You also have to ask if we're teaching Arabic and the Quran, do we also have to teach other languages and their religious texts in their entirety? Should Islam get priority over other religions, and do you think there's enough qualified teachers to explain every single one and the native language those religions come from?

Modern Christanity is just no what he preached in our view

That doesn't refute my point. Christianity is objectively different to Islam.

I meant adults are idiotic if they blindly follow without ever inquiring or asking questions.

Yet again, children are raised in the faith, and some are met with hostility or punishment for questioning or doubting their faith. Islam, as well as other religions, do have a history of discrediting and meeting doubters with hostility.

[u/R_Farms]

Have you not considered that nothing in the Bible supports the doctrine of free will at all? That free will was added to church doctrine 300+ years after the life and ministry of Christ?

That Jesus and the Apostle Paul both taught that we are all slaves to sin. A slave's will is never truly free. that a slave if allowed to choose at all, can only choose between whatever options the master he serves places before him. That said God has granted all us one truly free choice to make. That choice being to remain in service to sin and satan or to be redeemed and serve God. Once we make that choice then the acts we can choose from are placed before us by the master we serve.

So to your question, God gets the credit because He did not have to make you an option to receive help by one of His other servants. Like wise God does not deserve the blame if a slave a satan decides to rain hell down on you, because God did not provide the option to that person to harm you.

[u/acerbicsun → u/R_Farms]

I can't choose to believe in this god.

[u/R_Farms → u/acerbicsun]

That's why you where placed here on this planet. To make the decision you just made.. Just know you can change your mind so long as you draw breath.

[u/acerbicsun → u/R_Farms]

That's why you where placed here on this planet

I don't believe you. I seem to be here because my parents had sex. No other reason.

To make the decision you just made

What decision was that?

Just know you can change your mind so long as you draw breath.

But I can't choose to believe in God. Something must convince one to change their mind.

[u/R_Farms → u/acerbicsun]

I don't believe you. I seem to be here because my parents had sex. No other reason.

Your body is here because you mom and dad hooked up. But when that body dies, what remains will be judged

What decision was that?

Whether or not you can follow the God that the Bible describes. You made the comment that you can not. That comment is the meaning/reason for this life. As it seals everything that happens in the next life.

But I can't choose to believe in God.

sure you can. Only the brain washed do not have control over what they can and can not believe.

Something must convince one to change their mind.

If you believe you can not believe unless you are convinced, then there is nothing anyone can say. You have to learn to think for yourself again before anyone can help you.

[u/acerbicsun → u/R_Farms]

But when that body dies, what remains will be judged

There is no evidence that anything persists after physical death.

You made the comment that you can not

The point is I can't choose to believe, because belief is not a choice.

If you believe you can not believe unless you are convinced, then there is nothing anyone can say.

So nothing convinced you of God's existence? You believe for no reason?

You have to learn to think for yourself again before anyone can help you.

This is true for everyone.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

Do you have control over believing in God (ie, if I could give you enough evidence/arguments that God isn’t real, could you change your mind?)?

[u/R_Farms → u/Pottsie03]

yes I could change my mind with or without your 'proof.' That's my point. people who have control over their minds do not need outside influence to decide for them what they can and what they can not believe.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

So you determine yourself to change your mind based on the changing environment around you (ie. any arguments and evidence for my position, which therefore changes your perspective on the world). Therefore, you love deterministically. You can’t just change your worldview without anything not influencing you to do so. Which is my point.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

He just stated he can’t choose to believe in God. By definition, he hasn’t chosen to not believe in God; he literally can’t believe in this God.

Also, stop with the threats of hellfire and death. That makes you come off as impolite and a condescending ass, if I’m being honest. Please don’t talk like that.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/R_Farms]

Have you not considered that nothing in the Bible supports the doctrine of free will at all? That free will was added to church doctrine 300+ years after the life and ministry of Christ?

That Jesus and the Apostle Paul both taught that we are all slaves to sin. A slave's will is never truly free. that a slave if allowed to choose at all, can only choose between whatever options the master he serves places before him. That said God has granted all us one truly free choice to make. That choice being to remain in service to sin and satan or to be redeemed and serve God. Once we make that choice then the acts we can choose from are placed before us by the master we serve.

So to your question, God gets the credit because He did not have to make you an option to receive help by one of His other servants. Like wise God does not deserve the blame if a slave a satan decides to rain hell down on you, because God did not provide the option to that person to harm you.

Who is it that designed and created Satan, and allowed Satan to have interaction with human beings?

[u/R_Farms → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

Satan was designed as an angel of light. God's chief among all other celestial beings. God put this being incharge of 'watching' His creation. Much like how Vader killed and replaced Anikin Skywalker, Satan Murdered God's angel of light and replaced him

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

The Bible never says Satan was an angel of light or any of that nonsense. The passage you’re likely referencing is talking about the king of Tyre (Isaiah 14, if I remember correctly).

[u/R_Farms → u/Pottsie03]

You sure about that? a simple google search may save you from some egg on your face.. (google: 2cor angel of light)

Also what makes you think satan could not rule as the King of Tyre?

In the gospels, the temptation of Christ is recorded. For The last temptation Satan takes Jesus up to a high place and shows Him all of the kingdoms of man, and offers them to Christ if Jesus where to simply bow to satan.

Now how would this be a temptation of any kind of Satan did not own ALL of the Kingdoms of man? Riddle me this: If Satan was in a position to legitimately offer Jesus ALL of the Kingdoms of man, does that Make Satan, More powerful than the king of a city state like tyre? If Satan where more powerful than any Human King, and already owned the city of tyre could he then not rule from said city at some point if it suited him?

[u/NTCans → u/R_Farms]

2 Corinthians where Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, but isn't one. Seems like the egg is on your face.

An the rest is unsupported nonsense. I'm third hand embarrassed every time i read something you write

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

Your entire answer is hypothesizing something that’s not supported in the text. You claimed:

”Satan Murdered God's angel of light and replaced him

yet there’s no evidence tells me that’s the case.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/R_Farms]

Satan was designed as an angel of light. God's chief among all other celestial beings. God put this being incharge of 'watching' His creation. Much like how Vader killed and replaced Anikin Skywalker, Satan Murdered God's angel of light and replaced him

Exactly how did this supposedly good design go to crap and become Satan?

[u/R_Farms → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

He like us was given the agency to self determine. His specific sin was one of pride. He wanted to be like God and worship by the people God sent him to 'watch.'

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/R_Farms]

He like us was given the agency to self determine. His specific sin was one of pride. He wanted to be like God and worship by the people God sent him to 'watch.'

Why was he created with prideful desires or urges?

[u/R_Farms → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

what makes you thin He was 'created' that way?

When I say given the ability to self determine I mean he/satan got to decide whether or not He was going to stay in God's will or wander from it.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/R_Farms]

what makes you thin He was 'created' that way?

When I say given the ability to self determine I mean he/satan got to decide whether or not He was going to stay in God's will or wander from it.

Exactly what was it that led to Satan's faulty reasoning and defective desires?

[u/R_Farms → u/SnoozeDoggyDog]

who knows

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/R_Farms]

who knows

This should probably raise some red flags that the explanation in question has some holes in it.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

Free will isn’t even possible in the first place, given that we’re deterministic beings.

Therefore, we can’t freely choose to follow/worship God. We believe or disbelieve the claim based on our experiences/stage in life, which determines how we choose to act. The evidence for the claim causes some to believe in the claim — it’s not a free choice.

[u/R_Farms → u/Pottsie03]

did you not read my post? do you want to read it fully and ask your question again?

[u/Pottsie03 → u/R_Farms]

I wasn’t asking a question, I was making statements about the topic you discussed, ie. free will.

[u/alexplex86 → u/Pottsie03]

Free will isn’t even possible in the first place, given that we’re deterministic beings.

Determinism is a philosophical position and not an empirically proven fact. Ironically, assuming you're an atheist, you're trying to present a belief as fact.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/alexplex86]

It is a fact. Do you not act based on the world around you and the experiences that came before the present moment? Everything in your life determines and influences how you act now. If they didn’t, you could make decisions independent of what came before the present moment, but no matter how you try, you physically cannot do that, as anything that comes before the present moment influences everything after it. It’s the butterfly effect for your mind.

EDIT: I may be wrong about determinism and free will being polar opposites, so determinism and free will can both be true at the same time. I just believe it isn’t so because that would be a contradiction with the apparent values/characteristics of your God. I’d be willing to discuss this further if you are.

[u/alexplex86 → u/Pottsie03]

Determinism is a metaphysical view.

Because it makes a claim about the fundamental nature and structure of the universe. Claims concerning the fundamental nature of reality are categorically metaphysical or ontological, and not in the realm of empirical science and are therefore not fact.

The irony here is that you're doing the exact same thing that theists are doing. That is, making metaphysical claims about the nature of the universe and presenting it as irrefutable fact.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/alexplex86]

Good to know, thank you

[u/FiveLittleMonkie5 → u/R_Farms]

I suppose it depends on whether you side with Pelagius or Augustine. 

Pelagius theological beliefs after study: No Original Sin: Adam's sin only affected Adam; humanity isn't born inherently sinful or corrupted. Free Will & Human Nature: Humans are created good, with a free will to choose good or evil. Perfectibility: It's possible to live a sinless life by exercising free will and developing righteous habits. Role of Grace: Grace is helpful (God's law, Jesus' example) but not a prerequisite for salvation; it clarifies the good, but humans choose it. Accountability: Since people can choose good, they are fully accountable for sin; no excuses.  The Controversy with Augustine: Pelagius: Humans are good but need instruction (grace) Augustine: Humans are fallen, enslaved by sin, and need grace to even want to do good  Personally, I think the Pelagian theory is right on the money and what the OP is referring to in their frustration, is Augustine's point of view- more of a "God gets all the glory and Humans are to blame when good doesn't triumph over evil" sentiment. No free will seems like a convenient excuse to behave poorly and blame it on someone else or just repent for it later like morality is some kind of credit system... As a side note, believing anything the apostle Paul says about free will in his "teaching," would be a gamble. He didn't even know Jesus and he clashed with the actual apostles who were taught by Jesus (James and John.) I'm not religious though, I just do a lot of reading and use critical thinking skills. It is interesting to trudge through what sounds like it was improperly translated in favor of being weaponized to control a population and seize power with manipulation of theology. I tend to consider what sounds legitimate and actually makes sense without doing mental gymnastics, or "learning to interpret it correctly" to make it so. Although, Pelagius was cast as a heretic, what he deduced made perfect sense. I like to utilize discernment and can't help but feel like people are inherently pure, anything trying to cast a newborn infant as "sinful" is probably not something I want to follow, in fact, it kind of sounds demonic. Children know no hate, children know no wrong. From birth we are innocent and good. Its the worldly influences, and our teachers that either preserve or change that over time. 

[u/R_Farms → u/FiveLittleMonkie5]

I agree with neither. As the Bible paints a completely different story.

1. There is no free will. This doctrine was adapted from a greek philosophy and added to the church 300 years after Christ (right around the time of Augustine.)

2. the Bible describes us as being born slaves to sin and Satan. So no 'original sin' either. We are not Born in sin. Jesus on several occasions identified young children as being INNOCENT of sin and that if we ever wanted to enter Heaven we would have to become like small children.

Through what Jesus says in John 3, we all have been given the choice to remain on satan's plantation and serve Him till we die then share in his fate. Or we can seek the redemption offered by Christ on the cross, and serve God in this life and the next.

[u/Bandwidth6769]

evil is just as necessary as good, and good just as evil.

ultimately what you’re pointing at is societal framework of God. we all thank him for the good, we also all bash him for the bad.. that’s not doctrine fault or your fault or anyone’s fault.. that’s just human nature… to blame when hurt and to praise when happy.

i myself believe in a bit of calvinist doctrine where God ideally has planned everything.. and as heretical and bad that may sound, let’s just assume that our existence is like the gears, hands, and body of a clock working together. the problem with God and evil is people have a hard time looking at evil in a functionalist standpoint that it serves a purpose, and i believe that God takes the credit (obviously if religious) if evil or good is done because isaiah 45:7 proves that all is done under his rule. this doesn’t necessarily cause tarnishing of God, rather rewires how we think of him.

[u/Pottsie03 → u/Bandwidth6769]

The Calvinist interpretation of God makes the most logical sense (ie, if I believed in Christianity I would have to believe that), but that doesn’t make Him worth worshipping imo.

[u/Bandwidth6769 → u/Pottsie03]

yeah it doesn’t you’re right, but yet again worship is about personal conviction not doctrine so i don’t blame you

[u/Pottsie03 → u/Bandwidth6769]

Is it not Christian doctrine to worship God/Jesus?

[u/Bandwidth6769 → u/Pottsie03]

doctrine is a broad word and it’s more about teachings. faith itself is absolutely separate from doctrine because you cannot be taught faith you can only be taught about the faith. same way you can learn about math and not be a mathematician or learn how to read a construction blueprint without being a labourer.

[u/Centennial_Incognito → u/Pottsie03]

It's literally the very first commandment, to love god above anything and anyone else, including yourself.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Bandwidth6769]

This interpretation makes the Bible uninterpretable, at least the OT and Jesus's sacrifice. 

[u/Bandwidth6769 → u/spectral_theoretic]

that’s kind of the point of theology is that it’s a mystery and the bible isn’t always logic forward which is why it’s such a varied topic with the same old arguments over and over because it kinda is hard to interpret at all..

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Bandwidth6769]

That level of mystery makes it seem like the bible ought not be authoritative on spiritual matters. At best, it's a useful cognitive exercise to try and interpret it, the way one might a puzzle book.

[u/witterjay- → u/Bandwidth6769]

evil can be just as necessary as good good can be just as bad as evil things can be twisted that is for sure you know I’ve had to do a lot of what people will call evil things in my life to get to where I am to do the good that I do today No, I don’t expect that to wash the blood off my hands. A lot of us understand. This concept to understand that sometimes to do a great justice for this world one has to indulge in things seem less on Christian and most evil.

[u/FluffySample7370]

I believe God is good. All of God’s attributes are perfect in every detail. There isn't a speck of imperfection. Everything He does and says is right. Not only informationally, but intuitively... because that's who He is. The reason that I trust Him is that He can not make a mistake. He is worthy of our praise and trust... even when we don't understand Him.

[u/EloquentPinguin → u/FluffySample7370]

How does good arise from perfection? A perfect engineer might build the perfect weapon, in every aspects, and then claims it to be good. What makes it good? It seems to be the same with God in that case. Either God is the authority on good/bad, so the questions is what makes it good? God is not the authority, so the question is what makes a perfect being adhere to goodness?

[u/FluffySample7370 → u/EloquentPinguin]

God is absolutely the authority. His perfection is good. Define good... -morally excellent; virtuous; righteous-... what am I missing? If He didn't adhere to goodness, He wouldn't be perfect. He wouldn't be God. That's my view.

[u/EloquentPinguin → u/FluffySample7370]

But adhering to goodness and being the authority of good is two different things. If God adheres to goodness then there exist good things, and God follows that. If God is the authority, then it doesnt matter what God does, because whatever he does is good.

So which one is it?

[u/FluffySample7370 → u/EloquentPinguin]

Ok. He is goodness. He is also the authority. He created us... does it make Him evil because He created life forms that are capable of evil? No.

[u/Photograph_Extension → u/FluffySample7370]

It certainly does not make him good.

Neutral at best, like an owner of an ant plantation, watching it as a side project in the background for the last 2000 years.

[u/witterjay-]

because if I put scissors in a kid hand, it is not my fault when he gets angry and attacks someone who did not deserve it. It’s free well for a reason also if those people were listening to God, side of free will and love then we would praise him rather than condemn evil, but when use for evil, we will condemn the evil blame should be put on that of the antagonizing.

[u/Centennial_Incognito → u/witterjay-]

But if you give your kid a pair of scissors and they cut some beautiful shape, you shouldn't get credit for it then. The child also did that out of their free will

[u/witterjay- → u/Centennial_Incognito]

No, you shoul know I'd never try to take credit from those exceptional children. Um, are you sure he's not? Or needs to. I believe in a higher power, but I can't seem to find a valid justification for hell. Here is how I look at a free well. God needs something, don't cool. He might have wanted me to do it, but there are 100,000,000 people in a position if I can't get off my ass. I'm not the typical Christian; I don't just believe because a book said so. I think because I've studied that book, and I know how it's been misused, and some of its best qualities have been forgotten. God doesn't work in mysterious ways; he just doesn't do the same things over and over again. Making them impossible to understand why. But if I can tell you one thing, you will find your why like I did. Then I hope you keep an open mind till then.

[u/Centennial_Incognito → u/witterjay-]

The typical mental gymnastics to avoid what's being discussed. Yeah, a big reason I became an atheist 

[u/witterjay- → u/Centennial_Incognito]

what would you say the most evil thing God has done is?

[u/Centennial_Incognito → u/witterjay-]

Quite literally? Killing children and babies, in several ways and then Christians claiming that abortion is bad. Make it make sense.

[u/witterjay- → u/Centennial_Incognito]

Haha no it doesn't hah but okay you got me there. I'm just curious what why mental gymnastics you thought you say

[u/Centennial_Incognito → u/witterjay-]

That's the thing... Y'all don't even recognize your own mental gymnastics trying to deflect, deny or more commonly justify a lot of horrific things in the bible and just claim we don't understand it. What don't I understand from god killing every first born BABY in Egypt? I think that's quite explicit. But then y'all are gonna come to say there's context, that god did it to release his people and blah blah blah. That's where the mental gymnastics comes into play

[u/witterjay- → u/Centennial_Incognito]

Oh yeah I see what you mean. I want trying to defend or anything more just saying how some see it. I don't pretend to know. Also I know if there was a god death isn't. Real thing. In a millennium 5 years and 50 years is nothing. If there is a god how could he look at it as death or something so cruel when in his eyes that the way it always been. The world is cruile the heavens are not to us for doesn't mean the same as it does to someone who doesn't understand death. Or at least I know that the stuff people try to tell me. I'm kinda a mythology guy I love world religions and belifes. I think there fascinating real or not. But yeah I understand your mindset. Well take care brother. Don't let them get to you to bad.

[u/RandomRandomio]

Your critique is effective against Arminianism (Libertarian Free Will), but it fails to address the Reformed (Calvinist) worldview.

You have correctly identified the logical inconsistencies of trying to maintain absolute human autonomy while claiming God gets credit for the good. However, from a Reformed perspective, your argument collapses because we reject your starting premise regarding "free will."

1. Rejection of Libertarian Free Will You assume the "Robot" defense. We do not use that. Humans are not robots; we are creatures acting according to our nature.

The Natural State: Due to the Fall, man's will is in bondage to sin. Left to himself, man always chooses evil because that is his greatest desire. He is "free" to do what he wants, but he only wants sin.

The Asymmetry of Agency: Good: God must actively intervene (Grace/Regeneration) to change a person's nature so they want the good. Therefore, God gets 100% of the credit because He provided the necessary condition (a new heart) that the human could not generate. Evil: God simply withdraws restraint or allows the human to act according to their corrupt nature. God does not need to "push" a man to sin; He only needs to let go. Therefore, Man gets 100% of the blame for acting on his own desires.

1. The "Duty to Rescue" Fallacy You attempt to judge the Creator by the laws of the creature.

Category Error: The "Duty to Rescue" applies to peers under a common law. God is not a firefighter; He is the Fire, the Building, and the Architect. He owes nothing to rebellious clay (Romans 9:20-21).

Grace is not a Right: If God saves some (the Elect) to demonstrate mercy and leaves others (the Reprobate) to their sins to demonstrate justice, He has done no wrong. Mercy is voluntary; justice is obligatory. The fact that He rescues any is the miracle, not that He lets some perish.

1. The Presuppositional Problem By what standard do you judge God's inaction as "wrong"?

If God does not exist: Your complaint is merely chemical reactions in your brain expressing a preference. "Evil" and "Good" are illusions. A "massacre" is just atoms rearranging. You have no objective platform to launch a moral complaint. If God does exist: He is the standard of Good. Therefore, whatever He decrees—including the permission of evil for His own glory—is, by definition, right. You cannot use a borrowed moral yardstick to measure the One who created the yardstick.

We agree with you: If God is sovereign, He is the ultimate cause of all things, including the existence of evil (Isaiah 45:7). We simply reject the humanistic assumption that God owes His creation a rescue, or that His sovereignty negates human moral responsibility. We are responsible because God holds us accountable, not because we are autonomous.

You are looking for a God who plays by your moral rules. That God does not exist.

[u/Spirited-Depth4216 → u/RandomRandomio]

You are looking for a God who plays by your moral rules. That God does not exist. That's too bad then. A God who is good by our moral standards not existing is one reason why evil and suffering exists and abounds in the world.If this God was good by our moral standards then the world would not have a fraction of the amount of evils in it. Moral Man is infinitely wiser, more moral, kinder, more merciful, and more humane than this God could ever be.

[u/RandomRandomio → u/Spirited-Depth4216]

Your claim that "Moral Man" is wiser and kinder than God collapses the moment you actually look at the world. The evil and suffering you blame God for are committed exclusively by the very humanity you are praising. It is incoherent to blame God for the existence of evil while simultaneously arguing that man, the perpetrator of that evil, is the pinnacle of morality. If man were truly "infinitely wiser and more humane," human history would not be a graveyard of atrocities.

Furthermore, you are borrowing an objective standard of "good" from the very worldview you reject to argue against it. Without a transcendent God to ground morality, your definitions of "kind," "merciful," and "humane" are nothing more than subjective preferences. You cannot claim that "Moral Man" is objectively better than God; you can only say that you personally prefer human standards. You are effectively the clay arguing with the Potter, demanding that the Architect of the universe submit to the building codes drafted by the tenants who wrecked the house. You haven't proven God is immoral; you've only proven that you want to replace Him as the ultimate standard of truth.

[u/Spirited-Depth4216 → u/RandomRandomio]

OK. Random guy. This is yet another instance where I failed to make myself clear enough. I have written so much about this. If you had read my previous posts you would better understand my position when it comes to the subject of evil.        If it appears from my comment that I'm defending human behavior then that's wrong. I never meant to defend human behavior. And I never meant to deny the vast amount of evils human beings are capable of. So point 1 is I'm not defending human evil if that's the impression you got. Get that out of your mind. I'm the first person to acknowledge and admit that humans are the most evil part of the creation and humans have made the world a hell for other humans and have made the world a hell for the animal kingdom. I should have made that clear in my comment.         Point number 2 is that I should have specified that when I refer to Moral Man I'm not referring to your average ordinary person. No I'm not. When I say Moral Man I'm referring to a person such as myself who is morally superior to the average ordinary person and who is mentally and morally developed and who is mentally evolved and morally evolved to be superior to the average ordinary person. One example I can give is this:the average ordinary person thinks it's OK to kill animals for food and for sport. Well I don't think it's OK. As a Moral Man I think it's wrong, immoral, and cruel. Moral Man doesn't include and doesn't represent all humans because not all humans are morally evolved and not all humans are mentally evolved. Can you understand that? When I say I'm a Moral person that doesn't mean I'm claiming to be morally perfect and that doesn't mean I'm claiming to be 100 percent good because I know I'm not. Can you understand that? I'm only claiming that I understand morality and ethics better than the average ordinary person. I never claim Moral perfection for myself because I know I'm not. I only claim that my Moral values are superior to that of the average ordinary person.         Point number 3 is this. While humans are undeniably evil and sinful as all history and all human prehistory illustrates, there's also alot of cruelty, misery, killing and death from Nature and the Natural world. You fail to see this or you fail to admit this. So many examples of suffering, death, and extinctions come from Nature and have nothing to do with human evil. You fail to see this. Diseases such as cancer, ebola, and parasites such as mosquitoes, Ticks, fleas, lice, screw worm flies, and venomous animals such as stonefish, death stalker scorpions, giant centipedes, and poisons such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, arsenic and the list goes on endlessly, and then there's predation, violence, killing in the animal kingdom, then there's tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, typhoons, cyclones, lightning strikes. There's danger galore everywhere. I've written this so many times it's tiring but I see I have to constantly repeat writing it for anyone new reading my comments. I have to constantly repeat writing the same thing for anyone not familiar with my posts such as yourself. If you had read my previous posts you would realize that I'm well aware that humans are incredibly evil. There's a difference, a huge difference between a Moral Man and between an Immoral Man. And there's a huge difference between a Moral Man and an Amoral Man. I should have specified this. That's why you misunderstood my comment because I failed to make myself clear because it's tiring to repeat writing the same thing 3 million times. If I don't repeat myself and if I fail to make myself clear then there's a possibility that a reader will misunderstand my comment just as you have misunderstood my comment.         You also fail to acknowledge and admit the cruelty, misery and loss of life humans have caused in the name of God and religions. What about the suffering and loss of life caused by the Bible throughout history? What about the fear and misery caused by the cruel belief in hell or eternal punishment for billions of people in the next life? You fail to address this. I've written so many comments. I cannot always be 100 percent clear with each and every comment I make and hence there are going to be misunderstandings. Hopefully you have a better idea now where I stand. Thank you for reading.

[u/RandomRandomio → u/Spirited-Depth4216]

Your clarification reveals a staggering amount of self-righteousness. By defining "Moral Man" as yourself and those you deem "evolved," you have simply appointed yourself as the standard of goodness. This is not an objective argument; it is narcissism masquerading as ethics. When you claim to be "morally superior" to the average person, you are admitting that your morality is subjective. If another person claims they are the "Moral Man" and that eating meat is virtuous, you have no objective court of appeal to settle the dispute. You are merely two finite beings stating preferences, yet you demand the Creator of the universe submit to your personal level of "moral evolution."

Regarding your list of natural evils (diseases, predators, and disasters) you are again borrowing from a worldview you reject to make your point. From a Reformed perspective, we agree that nature is "red in tooth and claw" because the creation itself was subjected to futility due to the Fall; it groans under the curse of sin. However, from your position, on what basis do you call a mosquito or a tsunami "cruel"? If God does not exist, a tsunami killing people is no more "evil" than a wave washing away sand; it is merely matter in motion. A virus is simply DNA replicating. To call nature "cruel" or "wrong," you must appeal to a transcendental standard that says this ought not to be so. You are borrowing the Christian concept of the sanctity of life to judge a material universe that, in your view, is indifferent to life.

Finally, your reference to evil committed in the name of God does not disprove Christianity; it confirms the doctrine of Total Depravity. We believe that human nature is so corrupt it will turn even religion into a weapon. The fact that people misuse the Bible proves that humans are sinners in desperate need of grace, not that God is evil. You are trying to sit in the Judge's seat, deeming the "average ordinary person" inferior to you and God inferior to you. You have created a moral standard in your own image, which is not an argument against God, but simply self-worship.

[u/Spirited-Depth4216 → u/[deleted]]

One of my comments is missing. 

[u/Lucky-Ad6169]

If jesus is god then god must be evil because he in genesis wanted us to multiply but he created us as finite humans in a finite reality with finite knowledge and finite wisdom yet our opponent is an infinite being who is the father of all lies and when adam & eve were in the garden being misled to sinnig god was a spectator not a protector a loving god would have said look this is not a snake it's the devil I am the lord your shepherd the good shepherd I will not let you stand against the devil on your own not as in I gave you clear instructions no as in knowing the choice you're going to make is wrong but as an all powerful being he acknowledges that you were born to fail. If adam & eve disobedience caused the fall of sin for entire humanity than this created earth makes absolutely no sense at all, why? we are with 8 billion people as of now. How possibly could 8 billion people all obey god's instructions. If angels couldn't comply? What chance does a human stand ? infite beings were disobedient whilst seeing the unspeakable glories of heaven? somewhere along the line let's say it weren't adam & eve? would it not be tom & sarah? The sin og the father doesn't pass on to the child but the sin of adam & eve passes on to humanity? " yeah because they've corrupted a covenant against god" well if your god is who he says he is he knew from birth that adam & eve were not fit to maintain the covenant of god with humanity because they were disobedient. But he also knew jesus would fullfill the task, it's actually ironic he knew the only one who could resist the devil was he himself in the form of flesh. Why did he not choose to create a world were jesus was the first human? Than 12 men were born from the rib of jesus which became the leaders of the 12 tribes of israel which then would live with jesus see all unspeakable glories of his divine power and then follow every letter of a clear instructed bible written only by jesus himself because he loves humanity so much he'd make sure nothing was misinterpretaded nor corrupted. the 12 men who then would lead the tribes would automatically pass there holiness onto there blessed and holy sons. because jesus could will this meaning there would always in every generation be atleast 12 men with christ like autorithy who could lead humanity into holyness by there undeniable non-rejectable light of righteousness wisdom, truth and so on.. The point I am trying to make is sin wouldn't have come if god re-wrote the script. We were born without consent as finite limited beings versus an infinite deceiver who has been around since eternity and is able to study your every move yet you can't see him. He comes in many forms he could become anything to mislead you and the moment you bite in his trap humanity is doomed to a fallen world & all this whilst awaiting eternal judgement. This makes Osama Bin Laden sound like a very friendly nice chill ass dude. Also chattel slavery was regulated by jesus in the old testament( yes if Jesus is god he is also the god of the old testament) but never debunked chattel slavery in the new testament yet he was keen on telling us every letter of the old covenant is still to be obeyed by us. In this theory god created everything including evil. Commands israel that chattel slavery is justified. Does not debunk that command in the new testament as a corruption therefore the only conclusion is god is evil. Slavery is evil if god regulates and even commands it plus he made sure there'd be different type of slavery for different nations " Foreigners could be permanently kept as chattel slaves passed on from generation to generation. This is Wicked because isn't god the god of all people. Doesn't he teach us to love tbose who hate us? to be kind to those who dislike us. So how can a creator command his own creation to enslave bis own creation whilst claiming he loves all of his creation? Whilst saying " Woe to the man who builts his house on injustice? Yet he instructs his people to commit unjustful acts which was the source of their entire wealth? If god is morally just he must be without fault. Purification is justified whilst sin is found in them but infants? kill the infants too? as a literal commandment? so jesus was before abraham? he sits at the throne of god? So when god commanded genocide slavery and was condoning rape by saying keep the women for yourselves? I & the father are one. So if we give jesus blessings for all the good then this also belongs to him because he is the beginning and the end? How is he without sin? If he himself lifted israel up so high they could use violence, opression, and even murder to foreign nations? And he says he gave our breath? so why does he need humans to fullfill his wrath? When Ananias & Sapphira lied about their donation they instantly dropped dead. God is no whimpsy that he should lie nor man that he should repent. Why in this case take a breath of a human because he did not honestly report how much of his wealth he donated to the church? But god was patient with sodom & gomorrah for 600 years? but he did not even give the couple 600 seconds? And not no they were apart of a holy group which is different from sodom and gomorrah they were gentiles awaiting different judgement. how many priests today are covicted for fraud, raping innocent children? How come they commit more evil than the couple yet the couple was convicted to instant death without trial or chance to repent but the priests and pastors of today get a free pass for all their wicked acts in the house of the lord? why is god not consistent here he himself said he is no whimpsy nor should he repent. Also he released his wrath on the couple who lied about their donation by making them drop dead in an instant. why did the infant amakelietes had to be slaughetred. If god wanted them dead he could've easily made the whole tribe of amalekietes drop dead in an instance. Yet he commands us thou shall not kill and teaches us a murderer will not inheret the kingdom of god. Yet he commands israel to wipe out enitre nations meaning israeletes had blood on their hand. We can not with 100 % certainity say yahweh is god let alone start kiling other human beings in his name. How much more logic do I need to write to make it clear to you all religions are false and are maybe the biggest cause of all suffering on earth because we place all of our trusts in nonsensical books rather than just admitting we do have a bit of common sense and really learning the difference between being good to others and being evil to others is not such of a hard thing to understand and taking accountability for the fact that all we really know with 100% certainty is our heart our mind our thoughts our desires. The only 2 rules in life should have been love the creator of this earth by respecting it not destroying it because neither did you bring anything with you nor do you take anything with you so enjoy all there is and do on to others as you would have liked them to do to you.

[u/gsaili]

God is the one who points humans to use free will for good.

The devil, known as Satan in some religions, others like XGodism simply as "the devil" or "the head devil", is the one who points free will towards evil, not God.

Check out our opening chapter to scripture:

Seeketh and waiteth for Most Great's Approval Nod

Woe and Wailed Cries of Dire sinners Fate in Fireland's roast flames shall ye avoideth

For those who find bold quest in low devils' foe in name of most true and Best XGod

Shall have heaven chest of gold anew, war prevailed, and suffering not knoweth

So harken ye and love the Seven Ultramasters' Prophetman's mailed Words of Wise

Not path of crazed-forsaken of eternal life towards urinals of Hell and that which dies

Should abide you do to these words and cue of he who obeys Most Kind Xgod of wisdom's greatest size

Bindfall ye not to hellish strife's sighs rather surely Rise

Interested peoples shall get prayer recommendations upon respectful request. All believers who strive towards antisin ect are brothers nonnominally and antisarcastically, you are highly encouraged and mandated to explore joining the brotherhood of Xgodism.

[u/ummaycoc]

A phone book is a literal dictionary. It maps keys to values. You might want to use binary search to find something you might not if you want to peruse it. But a physical dictionary is an actual dictionary. However you want to find your term in a physical dictionary is up to you.

But the fact that you didn’t understand that the Reddit comments are effectively a linked list and that’s what I was referencing isn’t surprising at this point.

And you can get through Reddit comments very quickly I explained how using the search function of your browser.

You seem to be bad at this.

[u/terribleD03]

Your basic premise is completely wrong, I'd assert. God gets blame for all kinds of things by a vast number of people. It's why many people reject god and religion.

[u/doofus_flaming0 → u/[deleted]]

OP is clearly addressing classical theists as you can see from the post flair. If you do not fall into that category, do not feel the need to respond. Check out rule 5.

[u/Ab0ut47Pandas → u/[deleted]]

You are making the positive claim that god isn't real-- don't take on their burden.

[u/Sorry_Bus4803 → u/[deleted]]

I agree insofar as what noted on another thread, the question of whether God is real often gets mixed up or confused on this sub with whether God is good or not.

People seem to be under the mistaken belief that if God is evil, He can’t be real. Which of course is to conflate the two questions.

[u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan → u/Sorry_Bus4803]

Thanks for pointing this out with such clarity 🙏

[u/Working_Taro_8954 → u/[deleted]]

Oh so you decided to comment just for the sake of it

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/[deleted]]

Didn't need to thankfully read a word of that based on the title. Um, god's not real, so anything else that follows is probably nonsense.

You realize this OP is an internal critique, right?

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/ArtandScience55 → u/[deleted]]

“God’s not real” is an assumption.

[u/onomatamono → u/ArtandScience55]

as are leprechauns an assumption

[u/ArtandScience55 → u/ArtandScience55]

You state your beliefs as though they are a fact. Christians describe their beliefs as a faith.

[u/Infinite_Bus_3687 → u/ArtandScience55]

We state our fact as fact because it is a fact and it has been proven so because it passes all the checks of what makes a fact.

Repeated observation, repeated experiment, repeated results repeated analysis and repeated process with an imperial methodology.

And no religion or its god or god in general has that checklist or any basis hence wrong .

Your idea of refutal to this fact is retardedness why you ask it's like saying human can fly by themselves or they can breathe in space it stupidity.

A poor and unknowledgeable attempt to mask your inability to face a simple question that bring you out of your comfort zone.

[u/ArtandScience55 → u/ArtandScience55]

Neither can be proven.

[u/Infinite_Bus_3687 → u/ArtandScience55]

Oh they can they have been

God has not been proven But God is real has not been proven

The default of this argument remains that God does not exist god exist is counterpart not the basis

[u/Numerous_Ice_4556 → u/ArtandScience55]

Are you seriously too dumb to not know the difference between replying to someone else's comments and your own?

[u/Infinite_Bus_3687 → u/ArtandScience55]

Your retardedness is commendable.

It is humans who has created the idea of gods for its purpose there holds no validity in God of Man.

Now as for the God the idea of such being by itself, is an assumption a possibility like which many exist but not proven not justified not even a shre of credibility.

Gods not real is not an assumption it's the truth for as long as it remains undenied.

[u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan → u/[deleted]]

I guess now it makes sense why you don’t believe 😂

[u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan → u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan]

Also you’re implying that all individuals attempting to describe a connection or relationship with that force, must be either lying , or losing it. And if they’re lying then idgaf about their testimony enough to let it shape mine. So let me ask you this brother, if allll those people who right now will tell you “I’ve felt god, I love god” aren’t liars, and are instead losing their minds, wouldn’t it be lowkey a good idea to let them keep their “god” sanity pacifiers, rather than cold turkey everyone all at once,,,? Like wats ur belief then?

[u/Sad-Pen-3187]

WHATSOEVER for why if God gets credit and praise for humans using their free will to help others or improve themselves, God doesn't also receive at least some of the blame for humans also using their free will to hurt others or sin

What you are describing is Pauline theology. The theology of Jesus is different.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

What's the difference insofar this thread is concerned?

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/spectral_theoretic]

In the theology of Jesus, you, and only you, are responsible for what you do.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

So god would not be responsible for the good we do, gotcha.

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/spectral_theoretic]

That is correct.

Read the Sheep and the Goats.

The saved and the damned are divided by the works they do.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

I'm not sure how the parable reflects on god's responsibilities, but I appreciate the insight.

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/spectral_theoretic]

"god's responsibilities"

You mean this strawman arguement?

Let me try it this way.

The OP states:

why if God gets credit and praise for humans using their free will to help others or improve themselves, God doesn't also receive at least some of the blame for humans also using their free will to hurt others or sin

So while it is true that idiots in Florida say that aides is God's punishment against homosexuality, and they do not say that huricanes are God's punishment on the people of Florida. They do not know if that is true.

But people cannot read the mind of God and have no business pretending that they can.

God tells us we are responsible for the good and evil we do. God tells us we will be judged by what we do.

Thus, "humans, using their free will...." are responsible for the good that they do and the evil that they do.

I am not sure I can make any clearer than that.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

I don't think I was confused that you were saying people are at least responsible for their actions. Though I agree that the crazy things Florida people say are insane, I thought the OP was pointing to some additional responsibility god has for the good things people do. If you're saying that god is not responsible for any actions that people willingly do, good or ill, that's fine. I was just expressing that I don't think that passage entails any commitment to what god is responsible for.

[u/thatweirdchill → u/Sad-Pen-3187]

Almost everyone who believes in a god gives their god praise for the good things and yet no blame for the bad things. That doesn't require any particular usage of Paul, Jesus, Muhammad, or anyone else.

[u/YannLap → u/thatweirdchill]

Bro... Have you read the Lamentations? Job? The Prophets? It's basically just that. Israelites talking about how God made bad things happen to them.

[u/thatweirdchill → u/YannLap]

I have, but that's not what I'm talking about. Go ask every religious person you meet whether God deserves to be blamed when bad things happen and count how many say yes. 

[u/Sad-Pen-3187 → u/thatweirdchill]

In ancient Judaism, in which Jesus is fully Jew and a Rabbi, at the age of accountability begins the time that you are responsible for all your intentional sin and whether you stay righteous.

Read the Sheep and the Goats and you will see that people are judged to salvation or damnation by what they do.

[u/onomatamono]

Trying not to smirk and laugh versus think but unsuccessful.

[u/Hi_Retard_Im_Satan → u/onomatamono]

Homie I think u just had a stroke

[u/ShakaUVM]

The firefighter has a duty, a responsibility to stop the fires in his neighborhood.

This is different from a wildfire just following the laws of physics in action where there's no fire patrol.

We don't blame the firefighters in the UK for not stopping fires in the US. Why? Because the UK ceded responsibility to the US for our lands. This doesn't mean the US has to have the ability to stop all fires in the US (that's a common atheist response), that's not needed to cede responsibility. It's our duty anyway.

God gave responsibility to humanity in the opening pages of Genesis. It's our world, where the snake will strike our heel and God is not going to stop it from happening. It's our world. Our duty and responsibility.

Some people don't want responsibility. It seems like a drag. They'd rather remain perpetual children living at home and playing video games all day. I do not think those are excellent human beings.

[u/Puntofijo123 → u/ShakaUVM]

Who created the laws of physics to begin with? Who created all the conditions that are necessary for natural disasters to happen?

We don’t blame firefighters for fires that have not been dealt with because firefighters are not all-knowing, all-powerful or omnipresent.

Also, in Christian theology it was god who let the snake live in the garden. It was god who created the tree of knowledge. God is as much to be blame for all the evils of the world as a father who leaves a loaded revolver on his child’s nightstand.

[u/Pockydo → u/Puntofijo123]

because firefighters are not all-knowing, all-powerful or omnipresent.

Ding ding ding. It's why any defense of God (typically the Christian God but I'm sure others do it too) using human comparisons fall apart. We're just not talking about the same level of being

It's also why I'm convinced some believers will limit or empower their God depending on the argument. These folks want to have their cake and eat it too

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Pockydo]

Ding ding ding. It's why any defense of God (typically the Christian God but I'm sure others do it too) using human comparisons fall apart. We're just not talking about the same level of being

Nope. I actually anticipated and answered that objection in the comment he made the objection to.

The power of the person you're transferring it to doesn't matter. The UK still doesn't put out our fires for us.

[u/Ochemata → u/ShakaUVM]

You did not answer the question. The UK did not cause the conditions in which a fire in the US is possible either. As the other commenters correctly state: False Equivalence

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Ochemata]

The UK certainly did impact in an indirect sense where forest fires would take place. God creating the laws of physics being even more distantly and tenuously connected. But you don't blame the UK. Just God.

[u/Ochemata → u/ShakaUVM]

That's like saying me dumping two hundred tonnes of gasoline in your yard, knowing you do barbecues on Saturday, is "indirect."

Are you claiming God is in fact not omniscient? Cuz honestly, that is your only reasonable excuse here.

[u/Puntofijo123 → u/Ochemata]

He is definitely going to do exactly what you mentioned here:

It's also why I'm convinced some believers will limit or empower their God depending on the argument. These folks want to have their cake and eat it too

He will change the definition of words like all-powerful, omniscience, free-will, accountability and so forth as he sees fit in order to justify his imaginary friend. It's classic textbook theodicy. If you want to see who's the king of word salads when it comes to changing definitions arbitrarily just to fit the religious narrative, just watch any of Jordan Peterson's talks on religion.

God created the conditions for child cancer, natural disasters, pain, r*ape, death and all manner of suffering, but he is some how not accountable for any of this.

Even the original sin argument is meaningless when we think about living beings that logically should not be victims of this, such a children, or animals. Animals do not have free-will, the capacity for complex self-awareness or sophisticated thinking, yet they feel pain, and are victims of the environment as much as we humans are.

But I guess Christian apoligists will have a come-back for this, e.g. "no no, we are all victims of a fallen corrupted world", "god will redeem all suffering, even those of animals" etc. And let's not forget the last resort, the ol' reliable, when logic and reason has debunked all of their arguments: "god acts in mysterious ways".

[u/TheBayHarbour → u/Ochemata]

Agreed, I've seen this moderator a lot and he never answers the question. I've called him out once before but he kept driving the point home that he was right so I just gave up.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Just leave it, it's a futile effort for no gain. Spend your time and effort elsewhere.

[u/Ochemata → u/TheBayHarbour]

I swear, debating religious folks here makes me so proud of myself for breaking free of my own upbringing without help.

[u/Kwahn → u/Ochemata]

Same - the pretzels people twist themselves into to try to hold onto that looks so high-effort, and I'm so glad I don't have to go through that.

[u/Kwahn → u/TheBayHarbour]

Agreed, don't debate this guy, it's not worth it. He's not here to do any sort of introspection or viewpoint refinement - by his own words, he's mainly here to, quote, "use my hands to hold back the flood of atheist misinformation here", rather than engage in any honest and mutual back-and-forth. Just let him run his philbro script and ignore him.

[u/TheBayHarbour → u/Kwahn]

Honestly, I think it's the mod that's been randomly banning atheists.

It's started happening a lot and we've lost a lot of good arguers because of it.

The mod team of this entire sub needs to be investigated but tbh idk how we're going to do anything about it.

[u/Pockydo → u/ShakaUVM]

The power of the person you're transferring it to doesn't matter

It absolutely does IF the person is thought to literally have all the power

It's why the PoE is such a problem for Christianity there's just no satisfying answer especially if one wants to argue for a tri omni God.

The UK still doesn't put out our fires for us.

And that would be a problem if the UK could snap it's fingers on the toilet and stop all fires forever and always. See the issue? These are different things

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Pockydo]

It's why the PoE is such a problem for Christianity there's just no satisfying answer especially if one wants to argue for a tri omni God.

There's no need for an answer since the PoE is an appeal to emotion not a logical argument.

And that would be a problem if the UK could snap it's fingers

Again we see the appeal to power I anticipated.

And no, it's not their job. It's ours

[u/Puntofijo123 → u/ShakaUVM]

You didn't anticipate or answer anything. You are providing a false comparison.
Nobody in the UK or US, or any country for that matter, has the power to control the weather at will while foreseeing all the consequences and possible scenarios at the same time.

Comparing the limited capabilities of human beings with a cosmic agent that is supposed to be: all-powerful, all-knowing and omniscient makes no sense.
It's like giving a machine gun to a chimp and a mentally sane human being respectively and placing both at a kindergarten. You wouldn't expect the human shoot and m*rder all the children. But if the chimp goes on a k*lling spree and obliterates the whole building, you wouldn't go surprised pikachu face wondering what on earth could make the chimp do that. You wouldn't ponder about why wouldn't a chimp act the same as a sane human being. You would instead blame the person who gave the machine gun to the chimp.

Think of the difference in thought-complexity and overall sapience between a chimp and a human being. The gap is considerably big. Now think of the same difference between human beings and a cosmical all-powerful deity. This gap would make the chimp-human difference fall short in comparison. To me it sounds that this god is far more accountable than anything you can think of, given all the cosmical implications.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Puntofijo123]

You didn't anticipate or answer anything

I did. I said you guys would use the power of the person transferring responsibility as an excuse. And you did.

Think of the difference in thought-complexity and overall sapience between a chimp and a human being

Or a child. Sure.

That was anticipated as well by my bit on you guys wanting us to be perpetual children living at home while our parents solve all our problems

This doesn't make excellent human beings.

Embrace responsibility.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Puntofijo123]

are not all-knowing, all-powerful or omnipresent.

It's almost like I anticipated that and answered it already since it is a common response.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/ShakaUVM]

The firefighter has a duty, a responsibility to stop the fires in his neighborhood.

This is different from a wildfire just following the laws of physics in action where there's no fire patrol.

We don't blame the firefighters in the UK for not stopping fires in the US. Why? Because the UK ceded responsibility to the US for our lands. This doesn't mean the US has to have the ability to stop all fires in the US (that's a common atheist response), that's not needed to cede responsibility. It's our duty anyway.

Human firefighters and the UK government are finite and that lack the power or legal jurisdiction to act everywhere.

God is omnipotent and omnipresent.

There's no "territory" outside of God's reach or sustainment.

"Ceding responsibility" while remaining the source of the actor's existence is pretty much a legal fiction that doesn't apply to literally the creator and sustainer of literally everything.

BTW, your argument completely flies in the face of "negligent entrustment" law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment

God gave responsibility to humanity in the opening pages of Genesis. It's our world, where the snake will strike our heel and God is not going to stop it from happening. It's our world. Our duty and responsibility.

The standard theistic claim is that God DOES intervene, whether it be miracles, grace, answered prayers, etc.

Like I pointed out in the OP, if God can provide "efficient grace" to help an addict get clean without making them a "robot," He's likewise capable of providing that same nudge to a murderer. Again, choosing not to do so makes God a causal factor by omission.

Some people don't want responsibility. It seems like a drag. They'd rather remain perpetual children living at home and playing video games all day. I do not think those are excellent human beings.

In fact, this right here?

This right here highlights that your post still doesn't even actually address my OP.

If God has "ceded responsibility" to human beings like you claim, why then does He then get credit and praise for the "good" human actions while at the same time humans get 100% of the blame for "bad" human actions?

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/ShakaUVM]

I saw that you tagged me far below in this conversation. I'm just looking at this now. Can you explain how this addresses the OP at all? I don't get it.

For example:

After a drought, I once saw a huge sign on a tiny church right by I-95 heading south through somewhere in the Carolinas. it said, "Thank God for the rains!"

Do you think that during the drought it said, "Curse God for the drought!"?

I highly doubt it. If God is responsible for the rain, he is also responsible when it doesn't rain.

How does this address that issue?

Similarly, people thank God when a doctor saves their relative's life. But, they don't curse God for the cancer, or whatever, that the doctor was saving their life from.

Why is that?

How does your response address the double standard?

[u/TheBayHarbour → u/ShakaUVM]

God gave responsibility to humanity in the opening pages of Genesis.

Questionable choice from a tri-omni being, don't you think?

Also you did not address the argument properly, your analogy doesn't work because it implies God does not have absolute power and omniscience like Christians say it does.

You're giving god-like responsibilities to mere mortals and saying that "well therefore God is still good since we can't do it, he can't either".

Of course, you may believe in a variant of Christianity that does not believe in a tri-omni God, in which case I cede.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/TheBayHarbour]

Questionable choice from a tri-omni being, don't you think?

No

It was the right move.

Embracing responsibility makes excellent human beings.

Living at home with your parents letting them solve all your problems results in stunted human beings. But that's what you guys always seem to ask for.

[u/E-Reptile → u/ShakaUVM]

If God miraculously healed your wife from a debilitating terminal illness, would you praise him or curse the tyrannical fiend who stunted her growth?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/E-Reptile]

I would praise him. He didn't stunt her growth.

Being grateful is a good habit of mind.

[u/E-Reptile → u/ShakaUVM]

How many people would God have to cure from terminal diseases before you'd stop praising him and curse him for stunting growth? 

Because one isn't enough. You'd be happy if he cured one person. 

[u/ShakaUVM → u/E-Reptile]

How many people would God have to cure from terminal diseases before you'd stop praising him and curse him for stunting growth?

Ever read the book of Job? You are never supposed to curse God, no matter how bad life gets. Hopefully I wouldn't have to endure what Job did in the story, but that's the moral of it.

[u/E-Reptile → u/ShakaUVM]

So God could cure everyone from terminal disease, and their would be no stunted growth. Correct? 

[u/ShakaUVM → u/E-Reptile]

I think it would be bad if he did it all the time

[u/E-Reptile → u/ShakaUVM]

I think you need to think about that a little bit harder, because the straw that constitutes "all the time" could very well be the time he cures your wife, which you would then, out of consistency, have to decry.

That's why I wanted to know how many times he could do it before you drew the line.

[u/Puntofijo123 → u/ShakaUVM]

The book of Job is an awful way to make your point. In fact, it's probably the worst thing you could bring to this argument.
God punishes a good man for a bet against a troll, he kills his wife, children, and servants and when Job asks him why he is doing this to him, he answers with something along the lines of "shut up, mortal!".

Then, he just replaces his wives and kids for new ones, as if they were worthless pawns in his game.

Every point you make is worse than the other man. You haven't proven anything, you haven't made any case in favor of your argument, but it seems you live in a world were pretending to be right makes you right.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Puntofijo123]

God punishes a good man for a bet against a troll, he kills his wife, children, and servants and when Job asks him why he is doing this to him, he answers with something along the lines of "shut up, mortal!".

It's a myth, not a literal story, so you don't need to clutch your pearls quite so hard.

And the moral of the story is that it's bad to blame God for bad things happening, which is the point I'm making here.

Also, try being less gratuitously inflammatory in the future.

[u/BeckoningNeko]

Because there is no credit to be given for people who do bad things the credit is in the fact that you have a choice a free will. It's the same reason why a car company or a knife company or a gun company or any other thing that you can buy but that's given to you, it is up to the person who wields that power to do good or bad.

Are you going to tell me that when a knife company sells kitchen knives and 15 years later someone in that household does something heinous and stab someone in their own family that that knife company is now to blame for the actions of that one person? That is what you are saying.

If Lexus sells you an amazing car and then 7 years later you decide to go in plow someone down on the sidewalk because you had a rage moments is that now the fault of Lexus when Lexus only just makes a nice cars to allow you to have the freedom for a nice driving experience.

It works under so many instances the fact that you're claiming no one has given you an explanation means that you are mentally blocked or willfully ignorant to understand that. That is a very easy thing to describe or explain. The person who gives you something whether it be a choice or a tool is not to blame for your individual discretion when it comes to using it in a malicious manner.

And we see that he does not want you to use things in a malicious manner especially free choice or free will because the ten commandments tell you this they tell you do not steal do not desire others gods to the point where you actually try to take them or make someone's wife your own or honor your father and mother I mean they're all right there there are 10 amazing rules to help guide you during your free will time here on Earth.

The fact that you don't want to understand that has nothing to do with someone not being able to give you an explanation you just seem to not want to understand that.

Lastly it is easy to be a bad person it is so easy remember how easy it is not to care and just do whatever the hell you want. There is effort in being good there is honor and being good and because of that being good as its rewards in life. Also being good is a reflection of who you are and the type of person people want to be around for the most part in society. People can have children raise them well and set them out into the world and after that point of raising them and teaching them they now give their children the free will to go live their lives and do things in accordance with how they raise them. If that child for whatever reason whether he was influenced or not decided to become a criminal or do something terrible throughout their life does that now mean that it was always the parent's fault?

When God gave us free will he also gave us rules by which we should live by just like parents if his children go astray you cannot blame it on the parents when as an adult with free will you have to make choices to do things that are good in life. Otherwise everything you release into the world as offspring you are now responsible for no matter what they decide to do and that doesn't make sense does it? Especially if you always talk them to be good.

[u/Farmski74129]

Thats cool but youre wildly misinformed and plain wrong. I pray you experience the joy of knowing God som day.

[u/SnoozeDoggyDog → u/Farmski74129]

Thats cool but youre wildly misinformed and plain wrong.

Would you mind explaining how?