Pia, parents have a responsibility NOT to let their children hit destruction. If the child has those needs, perhaps the parents should rethink their parenting skills and what they have done so far (and not done). A happy child has no needs to rebel. Also, if the child is not stopped, and gains experience, it may come do despise his parents, BECAUSE they didn't stop (=they didn't care).

As for the soul, you seem to follow the path of "life after death, but not rebirth"? And that's fine, the problem is when a person destroys another person, the victim may not gain a "reward" but punishment after death (if the soul of the victim reaches darkness). So basicly, punished on earth, punished in hell? Are some souls born to suffer?

These are all interesting ideas, but let me first explain that which I believe you might have misunderstood.

When I said that you do not follow the path of rebirth, was based on that which you wrote. The parallell to the Egyptians (and Christianity) implied that. There is no reincarnation in those teachings (that I know of [except for one/some of the Gnostic teachings where one can find this]). Another reason I wrote that, is that the idea of rebirth can explain human suffering with karma.

I didn't mean that reincarnation can be used to get even. No no no. My point with the victim was this: That the victim itself becomes the perpetrator (because of the victimization). Example: a sexually abused child grows up and does the same to another child. The point is, the child is actually a victim, and has not healed but reached darkness. For this, we'd assume he is punished after death, he has not a pure heart, on the contrary, the heart is very very dark. So, he was a victim on earth and punished here, after death there is no salvation, but more suffering. Is this a soul born for suffering?

Parents with grown up adult children have less to say, but it doesn't mean they abandon them. If an adult child suffers, surely the parent helps? The child may not listen, but a real parent will make sure they have done everything they could, and even more. Furthermore, a good upbringing creates good relationships. If the relationship between the child and the parent is bad, then the child cannot be at fault.

Inthenever wrote: What I'm pointing out is the incoherence of an omnimax god creator. From god's perspective, there can be no free will. We may have an illusion of free will, but an omnicient creator necessarily makes all "choices" for its creation because it knows the outcome of each design decision. You mentioned judging the "soul," but in this context, the soul is no more independent than any other piece of the puzzle. In order for this to work, there would have to be two "gods," an effectively omniscient judge and an effectively omnipotent creator (disclaimer: I am aware that neither omniscence or omnipotence are logically possible).

Let me try!

Why can there not be a free will? Do humans not make different decisions in the same situations? If the "free will" was fixed, we'd be alike, making the same decisions, the same predicatable decisions, wouldn't we? God may know the possibilities, or even how we will act, but the possibilities are still in the plural, hence there must be choice involved? What you could blame God for, is that he didn't stop you, or that he didn't stop someone else from harming you. But that, would also be a choice, not everyone lives in the past, some do move on and fogive.

Marabod wrote:Christianity is the main religion in all countries where I was ever living - I would be gladly "bashing" the remote religions too but I have little personal experience with them and do not know what exactly do they do to the people, while about Christianity I know enough to be able to say something.

Marabod, would you say that seeing Christianity is a primary source, or is it possible that it is actually a second-handed source, since what you see is other people's interpretations of Christianity?

INTHENEVER:

Are your thoughts that free will cannot exist because the choices are pre-made by God? Maybe one could see it like that. Yet there are choices, and we can pick either-or. You say God cannot punish because there is no free will. But this (limited) free will does include good and bad choices, making judgement even logical. God may know the outcome, but the design still included and does still include the possibility of choice.

Inthenever wrote:action A = what we might call an evil or good act, supposing that morality can exist in this scenario

God intends action A, god intends the creature's intent, by his creation choices. It is illogical for god to qualitatively judge the creature as an independent entity (as it is not). It would be a judgement on himself. You are treating the intent of man as separate from the intent of god. It is not. It may be that god intends the intent of man/action of man for different purposes. Both intents can be true. But, the intents are both god's.

In the scenario of an omnimax god, freewill seems like it must be an illusion. That you may intend an evil act is irrelevant as you were designed to do so (pre-determined). You had no choice but to conform to that design. Hence, there cannot be freewill for the human given these parameters. Judgement then, is illogical.

God intends action? Or rather, God intends choice? If deciding between actions is possible, then judgement is possible as well - without God judging himself.

The intent of man is the same as intent of God? Maybe the consciousness and awareness is the intent of God, but the choices remain, because through conscious and aware actions, can we act through what we call free will. Yet what we do decide, is ours, not Gods'. We humans, are not God(s), therefore we could only have a little bit of God in us - if we have it (maybe spirit/soul?). But if we have only received means (through with we can act) by God, then the intention of God is that we exist, but it has nothing to do with how we exist, since that must depend on us, because we can make choices.

Inthenever wrote:"If deciding between actions is possible, then judgement is possible as well"

From our perspective, we can decide between actions. However, from god's perspective, he's already made all of those decisions. If he's omniscient at the time of creation, how can he create something with free will?

I am sorry, how can you know anything about God's perspective??!! The concept of free will works for me, because I can see the possibility of having means for acting and deciding, without God having done any choices for me. I could think of God being a guide or helper during those decisions (if one assumes God can speak to the soul), but the decision is still...mine.

Inthenever wrote:"I am sorry, how can you know anything about God's perspective??!! "

Well, it's part of the definition of God, yes? Or at least some gods. The idea of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence tells us something about god's perspective. At the least, it tells us about what god knows when he creates you.

Yet you define omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence from a human perspective.

It tells what he knows, not that he controls my decisions. Or does it?

So, because one cannot see through more than one perspective, does it acutomatically make that one perspective 100% correct? Come on! On the contrary, it shows the perspective cannot be trusted. Especially if it is to be applied to something we know nothing about, and can only make assumptions about it.

I don't think you have managed to show how God controls our decisions.

Inthenever wrote:"Especially if it is to be applied to something we know nothing about, and can only make assumptions about it.
"

But, in this discussion, we do know something about it. Hence, the underlying assumptions of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, creation, judge. That's 5 qualities of which we can discuss the ramifications.

Knowing some parts doesn't mean you understand the whole.

Inthenever wrote:- God characteristics = omnimax
- God designed everything in the universe
- God was aware, bu definition of the consequences of all design choices
- Within the universe is contained humans, in whole. This includes any perception of self. In other words, the mind, which is the self-perceived source of will, or intention.
- As god created that intention, and all conditions surrounding it, and was aware of the consequences on that intention when making all design choices, god's design choices determines all intention. Everything we see is literally a manifestation of god's will. We cannot be independent actors given those parameters. There can be limited free will between those blinded to the facts (i.e., not god) but to god, the objective reality must be (given the assumptions of omnimax) that there are no independent behaviors/thoughts to judge (he designed them all).

- Where is the flaw in the above logic? I cannot see it.

What makes you think God is logical or that God's existence can be explained with logic? Don't forget that knowledge does not equal faith.

I think it's the word determines that doesn't fit in. Knowing how one will act, is not the same as determining their actions.

I really think you're simplifying and narrowing things down, and exclude the possibility of free choice, just because you don't want it to be a part of the reasoning.

Creating a spirit which can make choices, does give that spirit a free will, and it is not determined to act in a CERTAIN way.

Maybe I can illustrate with a silly idea?

Lets assume I design a computer game. The game is very simple, it is just going to generate some numbers, 5 of them to be exact, and then it will stop. I program it to make choices of ANY number, from 0 up. The choices are endless. Since I have the ability to see into the future, I know that my game is going to create the numbers: 1, 45, 3, 8009, 102. Now, I know this when I design it. But the question is, did I pick the numbers, or did the game pick them, while having the ability to pick ANY OTHER number?

What if I give it a free will and the ability to THINK? Do you not think that the numbers will differ? AND if I keep creating new games using the same design, they will still keep on generating OTHER numbers. My design gives the game the option to generate 5 different numbers, and that same game has the option of generating DIFFERENT numbers. I have not decided what it will generate.

Now, if the game has no head of its own, then the game cannot be blamed for my flaws. But if the game has a head, and can also make MORAL decisions (lets assume numbers ending with 1 are morally good, and the higher we get, the worse it gets). If the game knows this as well, and it does, and it still violates the idea, then the game must be "destroyed", since it's useless. Yet there will always be games, that will generate good numbers, and thus...choosing good.

Have you played the sims? Surely no one believes that everyone will create identical sims, even if everyone owns a copy of the very same game.

Marabod, how about philosophy of life? Philosophy of good/bad, philosophy of spirituality, philosophy of existence...? They can include God and religious teachings, can't they?