In article <3792087d.12648219 at news.meganews.com>,
stoney at stoney.net (stoney) wrote:
> , "dp3" <DP333 at prodigy.net> wrote:
>> [>peppermill at my-deja.com wrote..
> [>>I think the common answer is that God gave free will, and as a
result
> [>>stays his hand. Certainly not something people do.
> [>but god is supposedly omniscient and therefore knew all the
horrible things
> [>man would do with his so called free will before he gave it him.
its a poor
> [>argument for a benevolent god. and thats not even getting into the
inherent
> [>contradiction involved in believing in both the concept of man
having
> [>freewill and the idea of a judeo/cristian god.
>> Not only that, but the direct action taken by god in throwing stones
in battle,
> the ordering of genocidal operations, and in hardening pharoh's heart
eliminate
> free will.
>> /begin
> [>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
> [>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> [>Is he both able and willing? Then whence commeth evil?
> [>Is he neither able nor willing? When why call him god?
> [> -Epicurus
>> /end
>> [>dan
>> Stoney
>True. But then, if there is a God, I don't suppose he is confined to
anyone's stereotypes.
Peppermill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
