IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
You make a lot of assumtions, as well as I, and they are necessary for these discussions. The difference is that you believe in yours (because you are a Christian, right?) while I am being theoretical. |
I would say that the difference is that I am not trying question anything and you are. You are asking questions based on assumptions and you're only accepting the answered that validate your assumptions that God is flawed.
Every question you asked me can posed me with the same question. Why would you assume God is flawed? Or, why can't you accept that God is perfect and as a human that is beyond comprehension?
What is the point of a theoretical discussion about a flawed god? God can't be flawed therefore God isn't flawed. If you believe that God's job could have been handled better, you are assuming you understand the purpose and method of God's creation which is hubris in its purest form. If you believe that God is flawed then you don't believe in God and there is still no point to a theoretical discussion. Therefore I am going to assume that your motive for posing such a theoretical questions is not to get an answer, but instead to evoke theological doubt within those with faith.








