Summations Only

Let me suggest that your position is a bit silly. We agree that the entire idea of omnipotence, where that word includes being able to perform logical inconsistencies is silly. But then you go on to say that God not having a silly trait is also silly.God cannot control the will of a being and yet claim that the being has free will. Yet God could still exert such control. That's no limitation at all.

I call that the Bart Simpson Defence: "I could do that but I don't wanna."I could fly to the moon but I don't wanna.That's just the sort of empty claim that an alien overlord would make.

If the claim is actually empty, yes.

How would you test it?

Testing may not be possible. But hypothetically speaking, the way I would evaluate such claims would be along the following lines.1) does the rational given for restraint make sense?
2) has the rule of restraint ever been broken?
3) can I see a downside of not practicing restraint?
4) is the restraint part of a logical package that seems consistent?
5) is the constraint consistent with my view of God's nature.I'm not convinced that God is the least bit interested in micromanaging minutiae on earth. Being the creator of the solar system and even of life itself does not imply any such ability. There are of course those who insist on a God designs every butterfly and snowflake and maintains the planets in their orbits.But more importantly, I don't see an obligation on God's part to step in and save us from ourselves. I find it completely curious that non-believers insist on such an obligation.

Because that's what was taught in religious schools and from the pulpit and as far as I'm aware, still is. Hence all this thanking god nonsense.

Are there religions that conspicuously preach of God's "obligations"?I know plenty of believers who believe God will help them, but none who believe He has to.Jon

As for Yahweh, aren't there covenants, old and new?Hasn't he made certain promises?Covenants and promises suggest obligations.

Yes they do. But of course normally in a contract situation we would expect that the parties bind themselves only after making a promise. They are not obligated to enter a contract. I cannot write a U owe Me, and expect you to pay it.

Christianity does it all the time. Be good and you'll go to heaven. It's a deal, if you're saying that this God is not obliged to keep his part of the bargain, that's not the message shouted from the pulpit and a lot of people are going to be very disapointed.

A couple of problems here.
For one thing, you perceive the concept of God subjectively while I perceive Him objectively.The other issue is what christianity teaches. Basically, its all about allowing relationship with the object(ive) which is Jesus Christ.The only thing I can do is to represent the objective...so talk to me.

You can't have an objective God Phat because you have absolutely no evidence of a God's existence - you can only have a subjective belief. If it was objective, it wouldn't be a belief, it would be a fact.

Curiously enough, that's not the kind of promise people are talking about here, because they cannot point to people who should be in heaven but are not. People are complaining that bad things exist in the world.

If only those promises that God makes that can be proven to be honoured are allowed into this discussion, it's going to be an extremely short discussion.No matter; a promise is a promise regardless of outcome - proven or otherwise, it places an obligation on the promiser.

In fact, that's one of the more popular "proofs" that God exists. If course your view of God's nature will be conisitent with your view of God's nature. Apparently the multitudinous references in the Bible the "God the Father" have escaped your notice. Or don't you think fathers have obligations to their children?