Your Own Way...

[rdhopeca]

If I were God, I would not have allowed the freedom to choose evil in life. Do no harm to each other would be the rule of the day. I would make everyone's primal instinct a thrist for knowledge, not a thirst for procreation. No pandora's box, no evil, no jealousy, no Lucifer.

To be blunt, I would not have made the mistakes that the Christian God seeminly has done, nor would I have allowed my creations the freedom to make similar mistakes, in particular not in My name.

[SoulBiter]

I dont think I could make those kinds of decisions because I cant see the ends of all choices. Some of these sound good but as I think long and hard about those choices, they are choices that limit personal freedom and free will. And if I was God and wanted my creations to be able to grow spiritually and to learn, I then couldnt limit free will, without turning them into automotons.

[Cybrweez]

That's why I mentioned Bruce Almighty. We think we can run the world better, and if we get the chance, quickly becomes worse. Even Jim Carey figured it out

[rdhopeca]

I suppose we might run it worse...or we might not. Are we assuming that we will be granted the omniscience, omnipotence, and most importantly, the wisdom of a God? If so, then we might do ok. Just granting the power is not enough.

[Xar]

I suppose we might run it worse...or we might not. Are we assuming that we will be granted the omniscience, omnipotence, and most importantly, the wisdom of a God? If so, then we might do ok. Just granting the power is not enough.

If you assume you would be granted omniscience and wisdom as well as omnipotence, then by right you couldn't post anything here at the moment, since in principle you don't have those qualities and anything you post here before being granted those qualities will by necessity be constrained by your own wisdom and ability to foresee consequences

[rdhopeca]

I suppose we might run it worse...or we might not. Are we assuming that we will be granted the omniscience, omnipotence, and most importantly, the wisdom of a God? If so, then we might do ok. Just granting the power is not enough.

If you assume you would be granted omniscience and wisdom as well as omnipotence, then by right you couldn't post anything here at the moment, since in principle you don't have those qualities and anything you post here before being granted those qualities will by necessity be constrained by your own wisdom and ability to foresee consequences

I wouldn't have to. You'd all be doing it for me.

[rusmeister]

I suppose we might run it worse...or we might not. Are we assuming that we will be granted the omniscience, omnipotence, and most importantly, the wisdom of a God? If so, then we might do ok. Just granting the power is not enough.

I think that if you WERE granted all that, you would immediately stop complaining about what He has done, because you would know why things were done the way they were. I think you would see that there would be no other way to both give people freedom and have them choose good (referring to a truly good God, the only kind we would want).

Like I said, with our limitations and brokenness (what imperfection means), we,as gods, would only create a new kind of hell - and that is, on the individual level, exactly what we DO do, for others on this earth and for eternity for ourselves. Thus, God calls us to be like Him - holy as He is holy - a daunting task to say the least, and an undesirable one for all who prefer our will to His (which means, since we all naturally prefer our own will, that it is a struggle even for those who desire and strive to be like Him) .

[rdhopeca]

I suppose we might run it worse...or we might not. Are we assuming that we will be granted the omniscience, omnipotence, and most importantly, the wisdom of a God? If so, then we might do ok. Just granting the power is not enough.

I think that if you WERE granted all that, you would immediately stop complaining about what He has done, because you would know why things were done the way they were.

Not a chance. The question was, what would YOU do, not "reasons why you would do nothing different.". From where I stand, God can't lay claim to having received these traits Him or Herself. Personally, I would like to see God take a little more responsibility for his creations. Maybe then Angels would not have betrayed him and mankind would not have fallen in the Garden of Eden. Maybe if God had hired a better scribe for his book, or trained his children better, or been a better Father figure, his children would not have failed him so miserably. Maybe he wouldn't have had to send his only Son to atone for theirs sins. And heck, maybe His only Son would have done a good enough job of it that their still wouldn't be near constant warfare and children starving and so forth. If I were to judge God by the state of his creation today, I might suggest he's a failure.

So would I stop complaining if I was granted all power and knowledge and wisdom? Maybe, but not because I saw the previous Holy Incarnation was right...more likely because I might do a better job taking care of things.

[danlo]

Hey Orlion! Can you clear up this thread a little, 'cause I'm seeing someone inserting his own views and completely undercutting what I perceive to be your basic premise?

[Cybrweez]

danlo, are threads beholden to the original post and that only? I'm not sure why you're making a big deal out of someone's posts not fitting into your idea of what the thread is about.

[Seven Words]

I think his comments are because while some off on a tangent posts are understandable, denouncing the original stated intent of the thread (as well as OP's "arrogance") and prosleytizing is another matter entirely.

[SoulBiter]

I dont think it was that far off target... IMHO the only tangent was that the OP replied to what someone else said they would do rather than what they themselves might do. The OP also replied with what he thought someone else might do rather than what he specifically might do...

But its really not that big of a deal. If someone is derailing a thread of hijacking it, you can always follow up with:

or

[Orlion]

Hey Orlion! Can you clear up this thread a little, 'cause I'm seeing someone inserting his own views and completely undercutting what I perceive to be your basic premise?

I can see why there may be some confusion, but I think I stated that if there is an objection to what someone would do, it could be voiced with a reason why (since that is essentially what we're doing all ready ) If I neglected to post that, I apologize. So, saying something along the lines of, "I think God is doing a good job now" would be fine, but saying something along the lines of "God saves, accept Jesus/Visnu/Buddha/Foul" would just be pure proselyting and would be out of place in the thread. I think the exchange between rus and rd is keeping with this idea thus far (though it could get out of hand, but we'll deal with that if it happens:big grin:) Hope that answers your question danlo, if not, be sure to let me know, and I'll clarify!

That being said, I would like rus to clarify the following:

there would be no other way to both give people freedom and have them choose good

Since "have them choose good" seems like it would negate "give people freedom". Furthermore, I doubt the present situation would qualify as having those two qualities, since morality is so damn ambigious. We're suppose to do good, but we do not know what that good would be and will be punished for not doing it anyway? I think it was Rawls who said that for a law to be, well, lawful and enforceable, It needs to be clear what the law is directed at and what its consequences are. The consequences are clear, but its object is not. That is one thing I would change, if there is good and evil, I would make sure that everyone knew clearly what constituted as being good and what constituted as being evil. I would not want to "punish" anyone for ignorance or misunderstandings. And if there is no good or evil, then that would be made clear as well.

[rdhopeca]

I also don't think it was that off target in terms of thread hijacking, FWIW. And I sincerely doubt that Rus and I would ever get out of hand...

[danlo]

jus' checking!

[Cybrweez]

Hmm, maybe an interesting thread, what is prosleytizing? Hearing something you don't like?

orlion, I'm confused about what you're asking for clarity on? I thought rus was saying the two are a bit contradictory. One would negate the other.

[rdhopeca]

From Google, and I am making no value assumptions on its meaning in context of this thread. This is only in response to the request.

Definitions of proselytize on the Web:

convert to another faith or religion
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'πρός' (towards) and the verb 'έρχομαι' (I come). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytize

To encourage or induce people to join a religious movement, political party or other cause or organization; To convert (someone) to one’s own faith or beliefs
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proselytize

To attempt to convert another person to your beliefs.
www.translationdirectory.com/glossaries ... y007_p.htm

proselytizing - Used for works written with the intent of converting the reader to the author's religious viewpoint. ...
lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%20NSP%20GLOSSARY%20EXTERNAL%20revised6-02.php

[Seven Words]

Hmm, maybe an interesting thread, what is prosleytizing? Hearing something you don't like?

orlion, I'm confused about what you're asking for clarity on? I thought rus was saying the two are a bit contradictory. One would negate the other.

My objection was (and remains) that rather than discussing/explaining what he would do, someone used the opportunity to simply extoll their own faith's superiority. Simply saying, "I think that would be arrogant and presumptuous" would have sufficed.

[danlo]

While I didn't name any names I just felt we were wandering dangerously close to that "fine line". As far as 'Proselytism' is concerned I feel like I've just come 360 degrees on the internet in 5 and a half years: back then I had joined a Tolkien forum run by one of my friends a member here and a moderator of Ahira's Hangar (my website) that had very strict rules. I got banned from that site by offhandedly mentioning the Hangar, not feeling that I was trying to promote it in any way. It was unfortunate that I lost a friend and remained confused of being accused of proselytizing for a very long time. Interestingly enough it was a Christian based Tolkien site who's founder was highly influenced by Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. He and I were also members of The Badger's Den, unfortunately no longer in existence, run by Ser Camaris (also well known on the A Song of Ice and Fire [GRRM] board) that explored nothing but Chesterton and C. S. Lewis a site that rus, I believe, would have simply adored.

Anyway, now I'm hijacking the thread. One thing I would do if I were God would be to require all humans on earth to pause at least 10 seconds (except in case of emergency) between sentences and tasks and collect themselves before talking again. Especially with someone they've never met before. Not letting their moods and personal problems swing into an entirely new situation and saying something they may very well regret. In other words deal will a new person as a person and carefully weigh one's thought before blurting what one feels like out of one's mouth. (yes, I just ran into a snarky service industry employee )

[Vader]

Hey, a fellow English teacher abroad!

That makes us three. Wanna cyber?

[/OFFTOPIC]