peppermill at my-deja.com wrote:
[> 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.
I take it you are referring to Epicurus's statement. His statement is based
upon the Christian bible which self destructs.
[>Peppermill
Stoney
