Assuming God is good and NOT evil.

How does God deal with this example:

You have people who have free will, they can choose how they want to act.

So for example lets say Chris torments Angela for years. Chris does not believe in God, Angela does Believe in God. Chris is an evil person and Angela is a good person for the sake of the argument.

A. How does God make up for the fact that Angela got tormented for years, lets say Angela will not forgive God for not stepping in and doing something.

B. Even if he knows that Angela, who is a good person, will not forgive him, in fact distance herself from him, why does he not do anything to help her?

This is a Q I often ask myself?
I find it hard to believe that if
I were the creator of mankind and
I made man in my image and
I am good, why then would Chris be evil?
Unless I (God) am evil too?

I can get on board with God being evil in fact I solely believe that if God is real then he can ONLY ever be a Monster!

To describe him any other way would be pure illogical.

So why would we as humans want to worship such an entity? We don't worship Satan do we, Owh wait some people do, they are obviously a crazy cult. That might be it, right there. This whole time I've been thinking that religious people are good people believing in divinity and a good God. It might just be that they are in fact a follower of an idiotic cult, dressed up to be more then it actually is! (This paragraph is just a rant.)

What makes say Christianity different though to say some Satanic cult? Can't help but wonder if there are any differences.

I have many more examples but lets see if I can get any logical answers from people way smarter and way more in touch with God.

I guess you throw away hole cards AA too since it is supposed to be the best hand, but it doesn't win all the time. So something is wrong with it too, right? Could it be that a benevolent force helps us out only part of the time, but expects us to handle the other times? Does it make sense to refuse that benevolent force because it doesn't help 100% of the time?

No nothing with AA hand, I don't throw it away because I know it will win ~88% of the time.

Your analogy is not acceptable, because God does not compare to AA, I wish he did, I wish he even was as good as JJ, that way we'd at least have some equity in our lives! Safe to say God is more like 72o!!!!

Count your blessings. At least you have a seat at the table and some chips. And even 72 wins some of the time.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I'm curious as to how much research you've done on the question of Satanic cults. One might think that this wondering could be resolved by actually doing research on the matter instead of speculating emptily on the question.

You failed to even answer the questions!

Also, so you agree with me then that God is evil, the worst hand!

Hey Aaron, how are you today. Figured it wouldn't take you long to find my thread.

What research have I done on cults. Not much! Other than that I know people join a cult and behave weird! Follow it's rules, (much like Christianity) and don't listen to outsiders whether they talk logic or not.

But the question is not whether I have done research, the Q is are they similar?

Is Christianity a cult dressed up as something special?

I'm doing well. How are you?

Well, there's your problem.

One might find the answer to this question by doing research. You might not want to be so proud of your ignorance.

You would first have to come to some sort of sense of the definition of a cult. Then you would have to take a look at the characteristics of Christianity and determine whether it meets that definition.

This isn't complicated.

Running terrible in life, love and finance! **** my life, I might just start believing in God just so I will get some pity from the big guy. Is that how it works?

That's true, I could research and find all the answers myself but then posting on this forum would be pointless. I wouldn't get the answers from others and frankly I'd rather get a different prospective form several people, I find that better.

I have some understanding of a cult and you can't deny the similarities of the 2 can you?

People do research and then debate their findings all the time. I don't see why you think it would be pointless.

If you did research on the internet, you ought to be able to find different perspectives from several people. I don't know what the problem is.

I can agree that you have "some" understanding of a cult. However, you haven't actually articulated that understanding in a meaningful way, so I'm not entirely sure how to answer the question.

And just because *you* have "some" understanding of a cult does not in any way suggest that your understanding is relevant relative to other understandings of the term. If you want to define your own terms, that's fine, but then it's really just you asserting stuff and not actually being engaged in the intellectual content of the conversation.

If it were the case that Christianity were not a cult, what would be different for you?

I think Christianity is a cult, do you disagree? You should at least have something to back up your claim that it is not a cult.

I agree that you think Christianity is a cult.

This is called shifting the burden of proof. You make an assertion and then tell everyone else to prove you wrong. Instead, since you are the one making the claim, you ought to be demonstrating why you think you're right.

You can begin by clearly laying out what you think a cult is, and then justifying your concept as being similar to other concepts of a cult.

LOL.


Well Theists do that all the time, especially when they are the ones claiming God is real. They ask me to prove them wrong all the time.

You are right though, If I claim something I should be the one proving why I think it is so.

The part you picked from my initial OP was the part that was part of my rant. I should not of included that paragraph, we might as well forget about it.

I see you still haven't answered my questions from my OP. Should God not be held responsible for his actions?

You don't really have a clear question. It's all kind of just a ramble.

Yeah, sorry about that! Not having the best of days/months/years/my whole life!!!

But this:

How does God deal with this example:

You have people who have free will, they can choose how they want to act.

So for example lets say Chris torments Angela for years. Chris does not believe in God, Angela does Believe in God. Chris is an evil person and Angela is a good person for the sake of the argument.

A. How does God make up for the fact that Angela got tormented for years, lets say Angela will not forgive God for not stepping in and doing something.

B. Even if he knows that Angela, who is a good person, will not forgive him, in fact distance herself from him, why does he not do anything to help her?

What do you mean by "How does God deal with this example"?

What is God "making up" in part A? Is the role of God to be some sort of moral equalizer on the universe?

To answer part B, one must first come to some sort of understanding of God's motive for action. What are you proposing?

To finish Supermario's story: Angela gets with friends and family who tell her to stick up for herself. She gets the courage to tell Chris, the bully, to stop harassing her. She confronts gets Chris and says "I'm am a human being who is deserving of full respect, not an animal.I will no longer tolerate you bad behavior. You will cease your bullying. I am contacting your superior, your family, and outside authorities about you. Until I get assurances for my protection I will seek out safe space away from you." Chris is then lectured by a significant person about proper civility and moral behavior with other. He told to get counseling for his own personal issues. He changes his ways and gets along better with people and is happier. Both Angela and Chris become better people and are better off. They decide to thank God for it.

OP needs to read the book of Job.

Not saying I subscribe to the view of God espoused there, but the book addresses all the profound questions regarding God and his intentions as perceived by all religions descending from Abraham.

I agree that the problem of evil is a conundrum but I've rarely seen it so incoherently and chaotically argued as by OP.

So I assumed God to be real in this example. He is good. Can we agree on that?

So how does he deal with this blunder? I assume it's a blunder, unless you have a better explanation. I mean Angela did not want to be tormented. God knew this but let it happen.

He is making up for his blunder. Yes my understanding of a God is he protects people, God is good and injustice would never happen.

Does the above help. God's only motive is to help people, no harm should be done, in fact can be done.

Thanks for the dagger my friend! Do you want to stomp all over my body too? Perhaps knife me in the back? Kick me in the face,while I'm sleeping?

Do you want a badge for your honest and brave opinion?

You forget about Angela's scares for life, scares she did not ask for! Why would she thank God for that?

Angela doesn't get what she wants, so therefore God must have blundered? You're trying to use emotional impact to avoid confronting your own logical fallacy. If your argument is logically solid, you shouldn't need to make an emotional appeal to make your point.

You can assert this, but that doesn't make it meaningful. Why is God making up for his "blunder"? Where? What purpose does it serve?

What if two people both love God but want the opposite things to happen? Is it even logically possible for a "good" God to satisfy both people? Is it always an injustice that someone doesn't get what they want?

It doesn't help you at all. I think you're going to end up showing yourself to be intellectually shallow. You don't have a particularly strong argument here without first establishing a whole lot more about your belief system.

Good-hearted, but not good-minded.

Maybe you should take the comment as a sign that your argumentation really is quite poor, and that perhaps you should work on improving it before going into battle again. If you think that people are going side with you just because they agree with your conclusion, you're sorely mistaken on the nature of argumentation and debate.

Is Angela good in our view or in Gods view?
Do we assume that we understand everything or just a little bit?
For example: When we dream while sleeping usually even the worst dreams might be just a strong warning to avoid something. So even if they are horrible they might be still a help to survive (for the sake of the argument).
Now what if this world should also be just a dream and after death we all recognize that all **** that happened was good for us?
The point of this two questions is: your point is only right in a narrow range of your very reductive and simplified assumptions. Outside of it are lots of possibilities that we cannot even think of. But what we cannot think of doesn't mean it is not possible. At some point people couldn't think of the Earth not being the center of the universe. But this didn't mean it was not possible.