When Will The End-Times Be And How Will We Know?

It doesn't matter how "hypothetical" you make it. Your scenario can not be true if it's self-contradictory. And it is. You can't have an omniscient god who "allows the possibility of evil" but is not responsible for evil. It's having your cake and eating it too. Can't happen.

But in the apologetic hypothetical that I have described (and which would likely be accepted by many evangelicals) it *did* happen. God allowed Lucifer the ability to separate from Him as your kid may decide to separate from you. If you allowed your kid to leave home and build his own nest and if he somehow chose to become an ax murderer and if you magically could know the future and know that he would do it, would it then be your responsibility to prevent it? Discuss.

quote:

---

But in the apologetic hypothetical that I have described (and which would likely be accepted by many evangelicals) it *did* happen.

---

So you’re claiming that God’s foreknowledge is limited?Because you can only have “possibilities” in a meaningful way if God doesn’t know which way Lucifer will go. If God knew in advance that Lucifer would choose evil, then it’s an inevitability, not a mere possibility.

With this god-like knowledge the kid would never have been conceived let alone be born.But, no. Your flavor of god loves him some evil and even eggs Satan on. Go Beelzebub! Raise those boils. Torment these guys over here and when you've done that torment those guys over there.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

And so yet again you run away and refused to answer the questions raised in Message 510.As expected!

Yes. The jury is out on this one. PaulK describes why. I cant accept that God is evil simply for knowing an outcome, but I will go with the idea that God has chosen to have llimits regarding absolute foreknowledge. (with humans, at any rate) We send ourselves to hell by denying Jesus. Hell is simply a place where fallen spirits reside. Ostensibly we would end up there by our own wishes to be as autonomous and rebellious (towards the Holy Spirit, the Living Christ, and the Creator of all seen and unseen) as the fallen hosts are. God merely created a spot where angels could openly and freely oppose Him, deny Him, and mock Him. They seal their own fate by having made these choices. Nobody...human or angelic...is ever sent to hell. They willingly go there.

So are you hypothetically suggesting that the only proper thing for a God to do is create a people who will all succeed? Protecting people from exposure (and overdose of) evil is akin to bubble boy....who is vulnerable to all viruses having lived in a sterile environment.

I only argue that Lucifer *had* to become Satan to fulfill the freedom for humans to rebel. Humans are the ones dealing with the possibility of evil rather than the inevitability of evil.

quote:

---

I only argue that Lucifer *had* to become Satan to fulfill the freedom for humans to rebel.

---

First, unless you argue that God did not know in advance that Satan would fall, your talk of “possibilities” is just an attempt at deception.Second, your point as quoted above doesn’t even make sense. Indeed, unless you deny God’s absolute foreknowledge there is no “freedom to rebel”. If we are locked into following God’s plan it isn’t freedom and no true rebellion is possible.

Why would a loving god make it any other way? That is apparently what he originally intended remember. Garden of Eden etc. Why would a loving god introduce a virus into paradise?Is Heaven a 'sterile environment'?It seems to me that your god is either stupid or evil or both.

To quote very early Steve Martin (like early SNL, late 70's if even that late): "Well EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE MEEEEEEEEEEE!"That sounds just like the rubbish that the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, would say during their religious discrimination pogrom of circa 1991.I personally suffered under Boy Scouts of America, Inc, religious discrimination circa 1991. They were supposed to be absolutely nonsectarian and yet they arbitrarily imposed sectarian standards for allowing membership. Earlier around 1985 they had implemented a new standard requiring belief in a Supreme Being which they claimed somehow made them more "absolutely nonsectarian".It didn't! Immediately a Unitarian Scout striking for Life was expelled for not believing in a Supreme Being. Hundreds of letters of protest cause BSA, Inc, to reverse its decision and Chief Scout Exec Ben Love (remember that name!) explained to the nation that that "belief in a Supreme Being" was a mistake and would not be repeated. Problem solved, ... or was it?Ever hear of Scout's Honor? Well Chief Scout Exec Ben Love, the highest rank in BSA, Inc, clearly had no honor whatsoever. In 1991, he abruptly turned around and used that same "mistake" (according to him himself) to justify expelling many members from Scouting. IOW, rabid religious discrimination.In my own case, I had researched the BSA Bylaws and Rules and Regulations, Advancement Requirements, etc; ie, their officially published policies. I was able to satisfy myself that my being an atheist did not violate the membership requirements. But then suddenly BSA was expelling members for religious reasons all over the place. So I went to CompuServe to see just what the hell was going on! Not only was everything BSA was doing a total bloody mess, but BSA had a spy operating on CompuServe who printed out huge folders of message transcripts to submit in federal court as evidence.I was expelled with no recourse -- sure, we had the "right" of a board review and to appear before that board, but the board met and deliberated long before I was ever informed of any such meeting. In my letter of expulsion, they "had determined that [I] could not do my 'Duty to God'." That is a very interesting point as per officially published BSA policy.OK, BSA does have very definite policies regarding religion. First, they had added "A Scout is Reverent", which does not appear in the original Scout Law and also not in many if not most Scouting organizations -- that one appears to peculiar to the American variant. Furthermore, that Law only specifies that you perform your religious duties according to the teachings of your religion and to respect the beliefs of others. (Rather ironic since the BSA leadership was doing the exact opposite) Second, they have acknowledged from the very beginning that, since they are themselves not experts on all religion, then they must always defer to each member's own religious leader in the decision of whether that member has done his "Duty to God" in accordance with that religion. I should also add that BSA even forbids itself, through their own officially published policy, not only from not specifying what any member's own "Duty to God" must be, but even from even defining what 'God' must mean. Remember that one now even as you are remembering their new-fangled requirement which defined "God" as "a Supreme Being" -- which is the exact opposite of being absolutely non-sectarian Has the scent of hypocrisy started wafting in yet?My minister, UU, wrote a letter to BSA certifying in writing that I do indeed perform my "Duty to God" in accordance with Unitarianism. Which is what is required by officially published BSA policy. BSA ignored his letter. So he wrote a second letter to the same effect. Also ignored. Then BSA arbitrarily decided in completely disregard for my own minister's letters as required by officially published BSA policy, that I couldn't do my "Duty to God" in accordance with my religion.I never had any chance to address the problem with them except through a single phone call. When I was informed of the CompuServe spy and then was told that my case was being reviewed, I called the Council Exec myself to see what was going on -- you see, they were planning on eliminating me behind my back as they had done to everybody else -- next time you call somebody a "Boy Scout", that could have an entirely different meaning now. My attempts to discuss the issue with him led to me having to ask him for the BSA's official definition of "God" -- timeline-wise, I didn't learn about their bogus "Supreme Being" definition until later through my UU minister in documents regarding the Paul Trout case. Here is what it devolved to:

• "So how do you officially define 'God'?"
• "'God' is whatever you say it is."
• "So then 'God' could be that tree."
• "No, it couldn't. "
• "So how do you officially define 'God'?"
• "'God' is whatever you say it is."
• "So then 'God' could be that tree."
• "No, it couldn't. "
• "So how do you officially define 'God'?"
• "'God' is whatever you say it is."
• "So then 'God' could be that tree."
• "No, it couldn't. "
• etc

Finally I summed it up as "So 'God" is defined by your own particular personal religious beliefs and nobody else's." Though that is not what was actually said, which was more like: "So you're expelling me simply because my own religious beliefs don't agree completely with your own personal beliefs?" And he basically said, "Yep!", and ended the conversation. So I was expelled because I didn't measure up to an individual BSA pro's own personal religious beliefs? How much more narrowly sectarian could it ever get than that? 
Getting back to the lead-in, each letter of expulsion that I know of includes the wording of "we are not excluding them, but rather they are excluding themselves". Uh, no, to the best of my knowledge I met all the membership requirements, even ones that they were violating at will. Furthermore, BSA lawyers would repeat that same stupid claim of "they are excluding themselves." So then, I guess it's one of my buttons that you just pressed.How did they all deny Jesus? Simply by not converting? But when we see so many negative qualities attributed to "true Christians" can you wonder why we turn our backs to such a negative religion? Why would anybody want to convert to such a negative and destructive religion?But were they "denying Jesus", or were they denying Christianity? Basically, the entire religion mess is about definitions and how your enemies can redefine what you believe in order to turn it against you.So then, God & Co. could follow BSA's lead and lie and cheat all they want to and violate their own sacred rules in order to exert their own arbitrary bigoted will, then what chance would anybody have? As per the BSA model, many of those who "denied Jesus" had actually accepted him but the formulation was not "just so" (eg, maybe the wrong number of fingers used in the blessing). The problem is that they are arbitrarily and summarily judged and damned with no defense and no appeal.Like I said, I've been through that kind of BS with BSA: "you have damned yourself to Hell for making the wrong religious decision" and "you are excluding yourself by having failed to meet the high standards of Scouting".Are we getting a square and fair deal from God? Or is he yet another hypocrite like the BSA?

Once again you simply demonstrate that you refuse to even understand what others are saying.The issue is not whether or not God has foreknowledge but rather with what a God that does have foreknowledge does; about Gods behavior.And throwing in the idea "that God has chosen to have limits regarding absolute foreknowledge. (with humans, at any rate) simply makes that God willfully negligent".So, as expected you once again close your mind, leave it at the door, stick your fingers in your ears and chant Nah Nah Nah.AbE:The issue Phat is a God that has foreknowledge or refuses to use foreknowledge capabilities that then creates a human that will end up damned.In either case, that God is simply evil.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

No. I’m suggesting the only proper thing for a God to do is to appear in public, admit it’s a charlatan, a fake, a carnie, and then disintegrate back into the void never to torment us again. But since it doesn’t exist we have the commission to spread the word to all the world ourselves.Let the word go forth unto the city and unto the mountain and unto the valley. Let all rejoice with the herald’s glade tidings and let all lift up their voices and celebrate saying, “Gods do not exist.” Therefore go and spread the knowledge to all nations, freeing their minds of the yolk of superstition baptizing them in the name of the science and of the facts and of the reality of the universe as we have come to know it. Rejoice, O Mankind, the age of reality has arrived. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Then it isn't a "hypothetical". It's a fantasy. Yes. Obviously. How can you not understand that? If you know something bad is going to happen and you do nothing to prevent it, you are evil. Period.

Let’s say that somebody makes a time bomb.They plant it in a railway station, set to go off at rush hour. They have planned well and know exactly how to evade security and place the bomb where it will not be found before it explodes and cause carnage.Are they responsible? Should we put blame on the bomb for detonating as it was designed and intended to do? On the travellers for being at the station? On security for not spotting the bomb in time? Perhaps the last might not be completely stupid, but even so primary responsibility has to go with the person who made and set and planted the bomb.If you’re prepared to go off into fantasy we could make the bomb have an AI - that wants to detonate when the clock says so (much like the film Dark Star. It has a choice but still it would on,y be acting as it was designed and intended to act. The responsibility, again, lies with the person who made it and set it.And this really is analogous to the situation being considered. God made Lucifer in the full knowledge that by making Lucifer as he did, Lucifer would inevitably Fall with everything that would come with that. God could have made Lucifer differently, so he would have chosen otherwise. Because God created Lucifer in the full knowledge of everything Lucifer would do God made all those choices first, Lucifer’s choices are all the choices that God chose for him. Lucifer is just God’s puppet and so God - who made all the real choices - is responsible for Lucifer’s actions. Lucifer has no more agency than the bomb.