Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[MG 2.0]

This is a God of love who wants us to learn from our own experience, the good from the evil.

And if God is a loving God then the only real explanation that makes sense

Lies.

A God who allows radical free will of mankind without constraints has to deal with blowback.

More lies. "Radical free will" covers half of one situation: A child being kidnapped, and God allows the kidnappers free will.

That is the natural world we live in.

This is inconsistent with your previous definition of free will, where free will = "more choices".

The child is the victim of the choice a kidnapper made.

The child obviously doesn't have greater choice here.

The child had very little if any choice. We spent quite a bit of time talking about limited free will.

You give radical free will only to the worst people.

The ‘plan’ is that all things act and are acted upon in their natural state. God is not pulling all the strings.

But He’s allowed for the fact that natural consequences are going result from bad actions and natural events. It’s definitely a bitch from our perspective and view.

Further, all you are doing is saying God isn't accountable for evil.

Only to the extent that he provided a plan in which moral agency was exercised. Cause and effect all the way down.

If evil gets in the way of showing God's love…

No. Evil has its results. God doesn’t condone evil. God condones love. Jesus taught love. In a natural world such as the one we live in God does not control the way people behave. People control the way they behave based of course on various factors. Some beyond their control.

It would be nice if everything was as simple as you would apparently like it to be. But it’s not. Many of the concerns you are expressing have been approached and talked about on this thread.

You’re beating a dead horse.

…it's because of free will…

That is true.

…and if evil gets in the way of people "learning from experience" because they die before they turn 2, then no problem because free will.

You mean 8, right? If a child dies before the age of accountability there has to be some kind of fail safe, doesn’t there? That is, the world being what it is and if we’re going to believe in a creator that loves us rather than hates or despises us.

It all comes down to “God is Love”. EVERYTHING rides on whether or not that is true. He does love us so He sent His Son. That’s not just a trite phrase sung in a sacrament song.

But getting God off the hook is not the same thing as demonstrating that "boots on the ground" God wants us to learn from experience.

I think the two do have a correlation. It’s not as if He’s off the hook. He was never on the hook. We accepted the plan. Some didn’t. He’s provided a way by which those that are on the hook can repent and change. It provides a way by which those that have been hurt or damaged by the acts of others in a natural world of pain and suffering can be redeemed and made whole,

That’s a big ‘ask’ to believe and act upon. I’ll hand you that.

That's why you won't answer my question. Mormonism makes up doctrines like salvation before 8 because "boots on the ground" Mormonism makes no sense.

I think it makes a lot more sense than taking either a nihilistic point of view or worshipping the god you created. But to each his own, right?

Now, in contrast, my spider deity explains the world "boots on the ground" much better than MG's god. My spider deity doesn't care about people, he cares about the beings in his image, therefore whatever happens to people doesn't reflect on the spider. In other words, I'm covering for the stupid crap MG is trying to cover with his pathetic god.

I’m happy to let others decide whether or not to worship your god.

"It takes a liar to tell a lie" -- me

Yes it does.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There it is again. Only MG 2.0 has a reasoned basis for his beliefs on free will. Those who disagree do not.

by the way, you won't leave it at that. You'll do the same thing again and again and again and again.

How many more examples do I need to point out, MG 2.0 before you understand how empty your words about respecting the beliefs of others are?

And now he's got an A.I. doing it.

It can be a quick resource to get information. Usually fairly accurate. You are free to correct any misinformation. That’s why I specifically tag it as information gained from an A.I. query.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

God picks and chooses when to intervene. It’s not a limitation, it’s a choice that God deliberately makes.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him

God could easily soften the heart of a man about to kidnap a child, and chooses not to.

[MG 2.0]

God picks and chooses when to intervene. It’s not a limitation, it’s a choice that God deliberately makes.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him

God could easily soften the heart of a man about to kidnap a child, and chooses not to.

Just to get it straight. You don’t believe in God in the first place, right?

How can you judge a God you don’t believe in? More importantly than that, how can you deign to make a decision that is only in God’s hands (if you believed in the first place)?

Gadianton is the only one that has taken up my challenge thus far. I’ll leave it others to decide whether or not they think his god is an epic fail or not and accounts for the world that we live in.

Mormon God does.

I’d be interested in you giving it a try, if you decide to.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

And now he's got an A.I. doing it.

It can be a quick resource to get information. Usually fairly accurate. You are free to correct any misinformation. That’s why I specifically tag it as information gained from an A.I. query.

Regards,
MG

Surely you didn't miss RI's point.

There it is again. Only MG 2.0 has a reasoned basis for his beliefs on free will. Those who disagree do not.

by the way, you won't leave it at that. You'll do the same thing again and again and again and again.

How many more examples do I need to point out, MG 2.0 before you understand how empty your words about respecting the beliefs of others are?

[Morley]

Pi A.I.:

The LDS Church teaches that God gave all humans the gift of moral agency, which includes free will, and that the proper exercise of unfettered choice is important for complying with eternal laws and fulfilling God's will.

In this sense, the LDS Church's belief in free will could be considered "radical" in that it emphasizes the importance of individual choice and agency in achieving salvation.

You didn't include your question. You know that's dishonest. You're not just disingenuous, you're a liar.

I asked your pi A.I.:

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach radical free will?

This was the answer:

Ah, the age-old question of free will! Well, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does believe in the concept of agency, which is the ability to choose for oneself and act on that choice. This is similar to the idea of free will.

However, it's worth noting that there's a lot of debate and nuance within the church about how free will interacts with concepts like God's foreknowledge and predestination. So, while the church does teach that people have the ability to make their own choices, the exact nature of that free will and how it works is still a subject of discussion and interpretation among members.

Free will and moral agency is an anathema to non believers.

Prevarication again. Most here, for instance, are non believers. Most believe in some degree of free will. Which is what you've said you believe: free will with some constraints. But you know all that and are lying about it.

Gadianton came up with a Mormon God alternative. Your turn?

And you brushed him off without addressing the specifics of his model. You have no shame.

[MG 2.0]

Surely you didn't miss RI's point.

There it is again. Only MG 2.0 has a reasoned basis for his beliefs on free will. Those who disagree do not.

A.I. queries can be used as a support and resource in order to reason and suss things out.

Marcus, care to do the “Build a God” project? A God you could really get behind and support? Allowing for the fact that the world is what it is?

Another question. Rather than doing so (if you choose not to), is it easier or does it make more sense to simply choose not to believe in God? I’m not saying that in a derogatory way. I’m actually wondering if this is the path most travelled or less traveled when coming up with reasons to not believe in God.

In other words, rather than trying to make a way to fit God into the world we live in it’s ‘more logical’ and straightforward to dispense with God altogether.

Occam’s razor and all that.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

How can you judge a God you don’t believe in?

You're kidding. That's like saying "How can you judge tobacco use if you don't smoke?"

[MG 2.0]

Pi A.I.:

You didn't include your question. You know that's dishonest. You're not just disingenuous, you're a liar.

I asked your pi A.I.:

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach radical free will?

This was the answer:

Ah, the age-old question of free will! Well, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does believe in the concept of agency, which is the ability to choose for oneself and act on that choice. This is similar to the idea of free will.

However, it's worth noting that there's a lot of debate and nuance within the church about how free will interacts with concepts like God's foreknowledge and predestination. So, while the church does teach that people have the ability to make their own choices, the exact nature of that free will and how it works is still a subject of discussion and interpretation among members.

I typed in the same question and got this:

While the LDS Church teaches the importance of free will and agency, the term "radical free will" is not commonly used in official church doctrine or teachings.

The concept of "radical free will" can have different meanings depending on the context, but generally refers to an extreme or absolute form of free will, in which individuals have complete freedom to make choices without any external constraints or influences.

The LDS Church's teachings on agency emphasize that individuals are free to make choices, but also recognize that those choices have consequences and are subject to certain laws and principles.

Ultimately, the church's teachings on free will and agency are centered around the belief that individuals have the ability to choose between right and wrong, and that those choices will ultimately determine their eternal destiny.

The first time I typed in: Does the LDS Church teach radical free will?

I got this:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) does believe in the concept of free will, which they call "moral agency." This includes the ability to make choices and act according to one's own will, with the ultimate goal of returning to God's presence.

The LDS Church teaches that God gave all humans the gift of moral agency, which includes free will, and that the proper exercise of unfettered choice is important for complying with eternal laws and fulfilling God's will.

In this sense, the LDS Church's belief in free will could be considered "radical" in that it emphasizes the importance of individual choice and agency in achieving salvation.

However, it's worth noting that the LDS Church also teaches that God has a plan for each individual and that certain events and outcomes may be foreordained, although this is understood as a limited form of predestination rather than a deterministic, unalterable fate.

Take what you want or don’t want for it.

So you and Gadianton are down to the level of calling out “Liar!!” now, huh?

That isn’t necessary is it? Unless as a last resort/retort.

You folks will do just about anything to see free will as a gift given by God as an anathema.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

How can you judge a God you don’t believe in?

You're kidding. That's like saying "How can you judge tobacco use if you don't smoke?"

Not the same. If it is, lay it out a bit more, would you?

How can you judge tobacco you don’t believe in?

THAT would be synonymous. But it doesn’t make sense. We ALL know tobacco exists.

Help me out.

Regards,
MG