The Fallacy of Good vs. Evil: Christianity is inherently flawed

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is how you present and defend, I can see why you 'mastered' and didn't move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be Christian.

[Peter666]

I concur that it is a sad state of affairs when after about 3000 years of philosophy and 2000 years of Christianity, the best most people can do to argue for their Faith is to say "It's true because I can feel it!"

"what kind of God would knowingly create a diety...powerful enough to resist him and harm his creations?"

I believe the answer to this is the same type of God who wants to share His nature with others out of no motivation except love.

Obviously, without free will, a creature is just a programmed robot incapable of true love. And without real consequences(such as eternal Hell or Heaven)to our actions there is no motivation for a creature to do anything important except keep itself alive.

So I suppose the reason God allows His creatures to hurt other creatures is for merit. The more one can suffer for God's sake, the more he proves his love, and hence the more he is entitled to a greater reward. And because the award is an eternal one, any suffering on temporary Earth is incomparable to the consequences it can attain.

I am reminded of a similar question regarding the sufferings of Jesus. If Jesus who is God was incarnated as man to redeem us from sin, why would he choose to suffer greatly on the cross like He did? If He is God, surely the slightest pain, or even just the indignity of being reduced to the level of his creatures is enough to redeem everyone from anything because God's nature is infinite, and the slightest sacrifice is an infinite one.

The answer to the above question is that there is no other reason God chose to suffer as much as He did except to give a lesson to His creatures, showing how horribly He regards sin.

[kleos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this is how you present and defend, I can see why you 'mastered' and didn't move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]
nonpracticing Jew...

You certainly sealed the deal though. You have never taken logic, or you failed it. You use piss poor analogies, and as I said before have poor presentation and defense skills. OJ's was better.

I seriously doubt you even mastered (which would be defined as having a masters in) philosophy at this point. A class here and there, perhaps, maybe a little theology as well.