YES! And your retort, please? WHY this inequality? Why immediate "slapping-down" when violating the "laws of electricity" - wouldn't that negate our much-touted "Free Will?" - but no immediate slapping-down of, e.g., serial murderers?
Why "slapping-down" of sinful cities like Pompeii and Herculaneum (incl. the innocent children) - doesn't that negate our precious "Free Will?" - but no immediate "slapping-down" of mass murderers - some of whom get off scot-free and/or whose crimes are even ever detected by law enforcement?
Just answer that!
A typical problem with arguments of atheists is that they want to morally argue against the God of the Bible while rejecting attributes of God and what is says as regards the scope of His operation, as if He was ignorant like them, and they were omniscient as God, and thus assert that God "needlessly permits" rare mass extinctions.
Please stop DESCRIBING what I'm asking, and instead just answer it!
HINT: An honest answer might very well be, "I have no friggin' idea why!"
Regards,
That was my first response in this thread - #283
YES! And your retort, please? WHY this inequality? Why immediate "slapping-down" when violating the "laws of electricity" - wouldn't that negate our much-touted "Free Will?" - but no immediate slapping-down of, e.g., serial murderers?Which means that once again, on one hand the atheist charges God for the evils resulting from man's disobedience to God, from conscience to express revelation, and then finds fault when He does manifest judgment.
Nope, not at all. Free will does not mean one does not have motivating consequences for actions, positive or negative, with consequences that are either immediate or eventual, or that consequences are the same in every realm. You can still choose to touch a 600 volt rail line despite knowing the consequences, and a person can choose suicide. And a person can drink and drive dangerously, or become obese thru unhealthy living, etc. knowing there are risks of negative physical effects. And one can also see Divine punishment for sin as being a risk that is worth taking.
In all this one still has the ability to choose is not removed, though to varying degree they are influenced by consequences, assured, likely or possible.
What your objection could be is that while consequences of ignoring gravity or touching a high voltage line are manifestly immediate, that of eternal consequences of sin are not. However, consequences of violating basic natural laws often need to be immediate if man is to live to even be able to make moral choices. And God executing immediate consequences for disobeying moral laws would place most in a straitjacket (most persons are grossly ignorant of their sins of commission and omission), while even God immediately striking down cold blooded murderers removes the responsibility of man to deal with such (and God does ordain just CP by the state).
Moreover, even the devil exists as an alternative for man to choose. Go back to my OP questions.
And yet, as seen in the exodus of Moses, under the most direct leader ship of God for a very rebellious nation (a context usually ignored in describing God in the OT as harsh), making believing in God so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and doing manifestly supernatural mighty miracles to their benefit, and quickly punishing sin - did not overall make the subjects true believers, which are those who honestly seek Him, and therefore appreciate the revelation.
but no immediate "slapping-down" of mass murderers - some of whom get off scot-free and/or whose crimes are even ever detected by law enforcement?
Your assertion of getting off scot-free is another example of the atheist's moral argument against the God of the Bible by rejecting what that Source states. Which means that there is no getting off scot-free apart from full pardon.
Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. (1 Timothy 5:24-25)
Why are some good deeds not immediately rewarded, including the sacrifices of properly raising children? Just because some consequences of choices and actions are not immediate does not mean there are no consequences.
Please stop DESCRIBING what I'm asking, and instead just answer it!
I have, but the reason for your objections flows from your rejection of the premise of omniscient being who knows all that can be known, past present and future, and in accordance with that has a purpose for all His actions and inaction, being able to make all to to ultimately work out for what is Good. Your argument against Him essentially presumes He is not as revealed in the Bible.
You may argue against the existence of God, but an omniscient and omnipotent Being who by His very nature of knows all that can be known, including what every effect has and will be for every one of man’s choices and of His own - not only for this life but for eternity - and motives, and can make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, as promised, cannot be morally judged regarding His choices by finite and exceedingly ignorant specks in this darkened corner of the universe, existing on earth in but a moment of time.
At least this thread has manifest some of the atheists on this officially pro-God (of the Bible) forum! Now I have scraping and painting to do while sunny days remain.