Atheology

[BasilValentine]

   ...according to your blatant distortion of what JBS correctly presented as the idea of 'God' in Jewish - and also Christian - tradition. Willingly misrepresent, time and again in your case, what others politely bring in and argue in a debate is something, errr (bad). 

It's also problematic for two other reasons. By ascribing opposite qualities (sadism) to what Auden recognised as 'universal love', you seem to be merely illustrating the 'cutting yourself off from the source' option JBS describes. The question also remains, WHY one would call 'evil' what was presented as the ultimate love and goodness. Isn't it just like in social life - like people hating jews or muslims because of absurd accusations - almost always a matter of projection? About whom does your fantasy of a 'sadistic, monstrous God' tell us more?

None of your blather addressed the logical problem I raised. Here is a simplified formulation: If it is true that "With great power comes great responsibility" (quoting proceedings of the French National Convention of 1793 and Spider Man's Uncle Ben), then with absolute power comes absolute responsibility. A being with absolute power and absolute knowledge doesn't get to blame other beings for events it set in motion and whose outcome it knew before hand.

[Christo]

None of your blather addressed the logical problem I raised.

There is none. You didn't even raise one.

[BasilValentine]

There is none. You didn't even raise one.

The logical problem of reconciling omniscience and free will, which I have raised here, has been debated by theologians for millennia. It is arguably the most important problem in Western theology. The following link presents the answers various Christian sects have adopted in response to the problem. Please educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

[Jo498]

It is an important problem but was hardly ever in almost two millenia seens as a crippling objection. It also both predates christianity in a form (Aristotle's "Is it already true today that there will be a sea battle tomorrow" was already a heavily commented text before) and "survived" outside religon in a variant (now with free will vs. "blind fate" or mechanical determinism).

[Christo]

The logical problem paradox of reconciling God's omniscience and human free will, which I have raised here fail to discuss, has been debated by theologians for centuries millennia. It is arguably the most important problem a minor thing in Western theology. That I faill to address it, is because I refuse to take note of the meaning of both the word 'God' and the notion of 'free will' in it.

Thanks, corrected.

[Christabel]

If I'm sure I own the truth, don't I have the right to be intolerant of others?

Judging by your comments you already are, so yes.

[BasilValentine]

It is an important problem but was hardly ever in almost two millenia seens as a crippling objection. It also both predates christianity in a form (Aristotle's "Is it already true today that there will be a sea battle tomorrow" was already a heavily commented text before) and "survived" outside religon in a variant (now with free will vs. "blind fate" or mechanical determinism).

Crippling objection to what?

[Christo]

I (now with free will vs. "blind fate" or mechanical determinism)

That is a far better topical question: I cannot see how one can ever escape determinism from the point of view of historical materialism, but I'm just curious to know.