QUOTE(flaymzofice @ Feb 1 2007, 7:20 PM)

^ because once having left His side, humans are prone to corruption by the natural evil which exists to provide for the operation of free will (to choose between good and evil)? - devil's advocate suggestion; not necessarily a response I endorse.
Clearly, a perfect all-knowing and all-loving god could find better means to the same end. Further, we are just as prone to said evils today. Why not flood the earth again?
QUOTE(flaymzofice @ Feb 1 2007, 7:20 PM)

King and God are not comparable ideas; in this day and age, king as a representative/vessel of God on earth is an obsolete idea.
As for the different moral standards between God and man - well, if you follow religion then God created man, automatically rendering man subservient to God. It would not then seem right to treat as equal the one who alone had the power to create you? (if you follow religion).
And one would not 'permit' God to kill millions; as a higher being, His choices/decisions/actions are not accountable to man since again, subservience.
And as for law makers being inherently exempt from those very laws of their creation, well, in any progressive (and by this, I mean Western; I will readily admit to thinking a great majority of the states in the other direction operate a dated legal system) country this is not the case. Quite the contrary - accountability is very high on the agenda (though may not necessarily be conducted in the most effective manner). Indeed, in many states, lawmakers are held to a higher degree of accountability precisely because they are lawmakers.
The problem with this is that no meaningful ethical system works from an authoritative and totalitarian position. Ethics and moral actions are not derived from obedience and subservience. Further, there is nothing which suggests that an immoral act committed by one party is inherently moral given it is committed by a higher authoritative party, even if that party happens to be the highest of all authoritative parties. Either morality is absolute or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.
We can say God is above man, but that's an excuse, not an explanation. How,
exactly, is it that murder is justified in God but unjustified in man?
QUOTE(JakeKKing @ Feb 1 2007, 7:42 PM)

What if God were to give man any number for every situation he was too encounter? That would eliminate the contradiction.
Also, dude. Are there any books you recommend? I was blown away with your Theological Problems of Free Will. I know you didn't just think of that crap all by yourself. You must have read some stuff.
I'm not so sure that eliminates the contradiction. So long as god is omniscient, man can not make a free choice as he has no options.
Uhhmm, I thought of a lot of that myself, ergo the intentional emphasis in deductive and analytical positions. Further, the analogies and arguments I brought forth are of my own for the most part, however this is not to say very similar or near identical comparisons have been made, as I'm sure they have. The argument isn't very rare, but I certainly expanded on it freely.
But, if you want some good reading, I'll suggest a few books:
Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell.
Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche.
An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding by David Hume.
For the most solid and less poetic of arguments, I would suggest Smith's work.