Do you know any good resources for learning Biblical Hebrew?
This doesn’t really answer my question, it was for every religious concept of gods if their definitions shows gods Who have or not free will.
For example, wouldn’t a god that can only do “good” have no free will to do differently than their nature? To have no will to do differently, thus no free will.
Lesser gods in some religions seem to think of humanity as their playthings. The old Roman gods are often portrayed this way, and I’ve read some good fiction based on this concept. Free will, gods who act and think more like humans.
You have to ask yourself- good for you from your perspective or God’s? You tell a kid no cookie because dinner is almost done, he gets mad, you’re the bad guy, forget that dinner is good. Our desires aren’t always good for us. Or getting impatient behind a very slow garbage truck that if you’d been 10 seconds earlier wouldn’t have turned in front of you. Maybe it’s keeping you from an accident.
If we, who want good things for our children… I believe God can be “evil” if he chose to, but being God, chooses not to. Bible say He “wants” good things for us, not is required by his nature.
God gets angry… flood for example. To quote Captain Kirk speaking to mirror Spock, “I can kill today, I chose not to.” (Hope I got it right, lol) The more “advanced” we get as a species, the less harm we try to cause, the more help we try to do.
I think you’re expecting way more from my question than I really intentes, I’m asking in which religions does god or gods have free will or not. I don’t care how you interpret that “bad things happen for a good cause.”
And I think it is valid question to ask “if god cannot do something, like in the case of the Christian god, do evil, does it mean they have free will?” It is simple as that.
What I got from your reply is that your god CAN do evil, just chooses not to. It is an interesting reply since it enters in conflict with some descriptions I heard from the Christian god.
Now on other topics since you brought them:
As far as I remember, the Olympian gods don’t like humans because humans are the creation of the Titans. This is why they intentionally cause humans harm, they really don’t like humans. And because of that I wouldn’t discard Greek’s credit, those guys were awfully smart and philosophical for their time.
Isn’t calling anyone’s gods “lesser” because they are not “your god” very disrespectful to other people’s believes?
Also, the behind the truck analogy could be used the other way around and those ten seconds that you’re late are exactly the reason why you were under the tree when it fell and crushed your car and you.
It is like in those disaster where 1 person in 200 survives and everyone praises the lord for this one life saved, while the other 199 leaves their relatives thinking why they weren’t spared as well or if they weren’t worthy to be spared. “Because they deserved it” “because it was their time.” Are usual explanations I hear.
I can see this as a way to accept disasters in an attempt to bring comfort, though, it is a way to rationalize or understand things that are beyond our control (since it is of the human nature to fear or hate not having control over everything, specially one’s own life). I see those “bad things come for a good cause because god is good.” Not that different as a comforting method than the Hindu cast system “you are in this lower cast because you deserve it, be content with it.”
They are all different methods to reach the same goal.
I didn’t mean to disrespect anyone by the term lesser gods. It’s how I’ve heard them referred to, such as in the Hindu religion. I’ve always been fascinated at how Hindu discribes Brahman.
I’ve never heard anyone describe distasters that way. “It rains on the just and the unjust.”
So, I just wrote an essay about various religions and how it makes no sense to call one religion true and all other false.
THIS. I really dislike this, whatever god they use to try to explain it.
I haven’t heard of any god referred to as lesser gods in Hinduism.
Sorry, didn’t mean it that way, I meant thashow I grew up hearing them referred to.
If you learned, then I’m cool.
It is hard to deal with diversity, to know what offends and what not. But I believe humankind is slowly improving on that by simply getting used to deal with it on a day-to-day basis.
The “It was their time.” Is quite common though, but I think I have no problem with that.
I think the worst “they deserved it.” Falls on the worst examples you can get out there, like people blaming gays for the latest hurricanes and earthquake disasters. I don’t want to mean those are your thoughts I don’t know you well, I was just ranting.
A bit more consideration for others as well. I grew up in the age when retarted was the only term used for the mentally slow, which was one category and not specific medical conditions. Education makes a huge difference.
Yes, and the internet as well managed to break distance barriers and shows how big and diverse the world is. This realization is something quite new to humankind, we are still learning how to work with this.
Until then, flamewars will be quite common.
Here’s a new topic: Masterpice Bakeshop vs Colorado Rights Commision.
For those who weren’t aware, basically a gay couple went into a man’s bake shop and asked for a wedding cake. The man refused because this union was against his religion. He did offer to make any other type of cake, just not a wedding one. The couple took their case to the supreme court. If the baker were to lose this case, his career and shop would be jeopardized. If the baker were to win the case, the LGBTQ+ community would suffer yet another discrimination in the country.
Just this summer, the case was ruled in favor of the baker.
My question is: Was the ruling fair?
My opinion: in this specific case it was. The couple could have just gone somewhere else or just ordered a different cake.
In general: I honsetly don’t know. I put God over everything else, so I might’ve done the same. But something just isn’t right about it. I mean two communities who fight to have their beliefs be validated every day. Isn’t this the country where we are all granted equal rights?
Either your business is open to everyone or you shouldn’t have a public business. No one was asking them to host or officiate or attend the wedding. Just bake a cake. Which is what their business does. Bakes cakes.
Do they interrogate all their customers to make sure their relationships are up to their personal religious standards?
If Sue Anne comes in wanting a birthday cake for little Jimmy will they refuse because Sue Anne wasn’t married to Jimmy’s father?
Or is it just in the instance of gay people they suddenly decide to enforce their religious values?
What about if a woman comes in to but a cake for an anniversary? Do they interrogate her to make sure she is married to a man? What if two men come in to buy cupcakes? Do they check to make sure they are just friends before selling to them?
If we are going to let people use “but my religion” to dictate who they serve, they better be using the same code for everyone. You don’t get to say “Well the gays are bad and we won’t serve them, but the unwed mothers (insert any other group doing things against a strict Christian interpretation of the Bible) are okay.”
watches Wattpad forums history repeat before my eyes
No offense to anyone, but I’m leaving before this gets nasty.
I agree. That’s why I wanted to know others opinions.
I just really don’t see the difference between saying “No gay people” and saying “No black people.” Either we uphold anti-discrimination laws, or we don’t. And people certainly used religion to justify segregation too. We already decided as a nation legally that anti-discrimination overrules those religious justifications. Going backwards is just…backwards. People can’t just look into the past and say “well obviously that was wrong, but this is totally fine.” It’s hypocritical.