Simple question?

You know, a being who "knows" the future flaunts all sorts of universal laws of nature as we understand them. But one who created everything at once would "know" the future, much as a writer "knows" the future of all her characters once she's done writing a novel or story.

But of course a writer doesn't know the future of her characters. Not in the sense that she sets starting conditions and then knows how things will play out. Rather she makes that future up according to her own purpose. If she "knows" it, it's because she made it that way.

There isn't a writer who doesn't love some of her characters, particularly the protagonists. There also isn't a writer who would hesitate to make life difficult for her characters in order to make the story interesting. depending on the story and purpose for writing it, an author will put the characters she loves most through sheer hell, deal them situations from which they'll never recover, kill them, and worse.

The difference is that a writer's characters are mere ideas or abstractions in her mind. They do not exist and will never exist, except as words on paper or, at most, images on film.

Whereas the human beings "god" allegedly created are very real people.

Makes you think what his purpose is in all this, doesn't it, if he "knows" your future because he already made your future.

FrGamble if you had the power to stop the atrocities in Syria, Isis, and relieve suffering of refugees and so forth for the next week at least would you use your power?

If you wouldn't why not?

(OF course this is a trick question)

Quote: FrGamble

You really only need to know the fundamental truth. .

There is a total lack of evidence for
this 'truth'. It's just a bunch of words
strung together. Mark Twain said
people like to fiddle around with
religion, it makes them feel good
and keeps them off the streets.

Nothing wrong with that, just don't
get too carried away with it..

Quote: FrGamble

Oh boy,...First of all the saints in Heaven do not lose their free will. They are so completely in communion with God that they cannot sin not because they are unable to but because there is no desire to. You also have the angels and the nature of their free will wrong as well. They are spiritual beings outside of time and space so their free will is given at the moment of creation. Since they can see the future and all of time they use the gift of their free will once - to serve God and His loving plan for all of creation or to serve themselves and love only themselves above all creation. Once this decision is made they cannot change it, but again it is not because they lost their ability to freely choose, it is just that the completeness of their choice with all the knowledge they posses is for all eternity.

Where does this knowledge of the nature of angels come from?

Here is a guy with a bunch of bible quotes
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-nature-and-power-of-angelic-beings/

It looks like he is taking a lot of the bible literally, though, including the story of creation.

Quote: Dalex64

Where does this knowledge of the nature of angels come from?
.

From people with way way WAY too much time
on their hands. When Tolkein wrote Lord of the
Rings, he suffered under no illusions that it was
a real place. Unfortunately, some people have
a difficult time separating fiction from reality.

This is why women can't be priests:

Quote:

Pope John Paul II specifically clarified that the reservation of ordination to males is infallible under the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, without issuing a corresponding extraordinary papal definition. It has been suggested that Pope John Paul II did this to remind everyone that the ordinary and universal magisterium can also be infallible, and that an extraordinary definition is not necessary to make a teaching irrevocably binding and demanding of supernatural faith.

They can't change the policy now no matter how much they might ever want to. They have declared the policy to be infallible, to change the policy would be to destroy the notion of infallibility.

Note the requirement of "supernatural faith" and also the statements of infallibility made by councils and popes usually carry an "anathema" of excommunication for anyone who refuses to believe it.

As usual, references from wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Quote: Dalex64

This is why women can't be priests:
They can't change the policy now no matter how much they might ever want to. They have declared the policy to be infallible, to change the policy would be to destroy the notion of infallibility.

Of course. It's a brilliant Catch 22. 'We really
really really want women priests, but shoot,
our hands are tied, darn it.'

What they really really want is what they have,
a completely male dominated patriarchy. And
it's crumbling around them, as it must and
should.

Quote: Dalex64

They can't change the policy now no matter how much they might ever want to. They have declared the policy to be infallible, to change the policy would be to destroy the notion of infallibility.

But eventually they will have to ordain women.

When they do, the mental gymnastics will be worthy of an Olympic medal (oh, the irony...), and it will inevitably cause yet another splinter.

Or they may resist forever, which will also cause a splinter.

I love this.

These questions are a good example of the logical fallacy of false dilemma.

There are other possible reasons for the existence of evil besides God not being omnipotent or being malevolent.