Courtney: "I can do ANYTHING I want to do with it. I created it for my purpose!!... Same way God gas created us (for his glory)'''' I DO NOT SEE GOD TO BE AN EVIL CREATURE. Hw is a just God and very merciful!!"

So, if you could not possibly mistreat your Lego city -- literally nothing you ever did to it, melt it, rip it apart, whatever -- could be considered evil. Ok, I accept your analysis, explain to me if there can be no moral condemnation for the way you treat your creation, how could there be moral praise for the way you treat your creation?

Either your creation is a thing that you can interact with in a morally meaningful way -- or not. If you can interact with your creation in a way that is praiseworthy, it is also possible for you to interact with your creation in a way that is morally condemnable.

If it simply is not possible to interact in a way that is morally condemnable to your own creation, fine, you also cannot act in a way that is morally praiseworthy.

Let's bring this back to God. You can say that no matter what God does He cannot mistreat something that He created -- fine. Then since it isn't even possible for him to do otherwise, God's actions -- whatever they are -- are not praiseworthy, either.

Courtney: "It is OBVIOUS that there is a God because if there were not one then why would people be trying to prove that he does not exist?"

Good question. Do I argue with God about anything? No. Do I argue with people who believe in God? Yes. What is it that exists? People who believe in God -- that should explain everything.

If no one believed in God, then I would have no argument with anyone. If people believed that praying to unicorns helped cancer victims, and money was spent on a project like this -- I would have an issue with the people who believed in unicorns. The fact that unicorns do not exist is completely irrelevant. The fact that PEOPLE exist who believe in unicorns -- or God -- is entirely relevant.

I'm not as concerned with natural disaster accidents -- compelling as they are -- and I'm not interested in you explaining everything that you think God does. I'm asking a question about you, to you.

Do you believe that God commanded His followers to kill men, women, children, and infants as the Bible said that He did in 1 Samuel 15?

If so, what goes on in your head that lets you worship such an evil creature as though it is good?

If you don't, let me know and we'll explore that avenue.

You should have read the article before responding. I'm well aware of your type of rebuttal, which is why I crafted my article to criticize an aspect of the resurrection accounts that makes your response entirely irrelevant.

If I remember his book (The Family) correctly (I'm on vacation and don't have access to check on it), neither Clinton nor Gore were members of The Family. They each apparently have spoken favorably of Coe and have attended events. So I think 'affiliated' is a word that was used to mean, "associated with" and "members of" the Family. Again, read it over 6 months ago and don't have the copy with me to double check.

Ah I see, you don't agree with the questions and answers in the entry.

To the questions:
1. Does this mean that God could exactly flip what was evil and what was good at whim, any time He wanted, as many times as He wanted, throughout the course of all time?
and
2. Could God flip what was good and what was evil without telling us humans?

You must be answering "no, God cannot do that."

My apologies, I thought you were in the camp that God could do anything He wanted with regards to defining morality.

By the way, Could gravity change without us knowing about it? Not in any substantial way.

I did not argue that God is arbitrary because he changes the rules.

I argue that the conception of evil that relies only on the whim of a creature who could reverse what is good and evil whenever he wants -- is arbitrary and potentially unstable. Especially if that creature has not supra-morality that he must conform to. Beyond that, figuring out what is good and evil in such a conception is impossible.

I like it. Have you tried it out in any conversations yourself? If so, how has it been received?

"you've assumed it when talking to someone who likely won't share your assumption - that's a receipe for miscommunication between two people"

I understand your point, and I agree entirely in one sense -- if I am assuming something that the person I'm talking with does not also assume -- that's a recipe for miscommunication.

However, I am flatly disagreeing with your assessment that most Christians do not agree with the statement: God allows suffering.

Mostly because they believe that 1. God has the power to stop suffering , and 2. that suffering exists.

Those two statements lead to "God allows suffering" in a relatively straightforward fashion.

Now, people who worship God tend to think of justifications that God has or might have for allowing suffering -- some higher good, free will, etc., but you are the first person that I've come across that has tried to deny that "God allows suffering" -- or to claim that it is not widely held that He does.

I think there might be something to be gained from a general attitude of "these ideas are not taken seriously by people" ... and I think it could be a useful thing to do in addition with order approaches. As a primary or solitary strategy I think it's probably less useful.