LMAO.
You finally realized the futility of demonstrating the contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence, eh? And now you're back for more?
You really have a penchant for humiliation.
Yep. Good so far.
Yep. He made it so that one can reap the rewards (or pain) of one's own choice. Free will, remember?
Sure he can. He could have made it in a way that you would suffer the consequences of my action. But he didn't. One could clearly see the wisdom of free will -- as it is, no?
Yes, I know.
He could have made it in such a way that you have your free will and yet not suffer its adverse consequence.
And what do you suppose would happen to someone who was somehow shielded from the adverse consequences of his choices, eh?
He can neither know the pain of an evil deed nor the rewards of a good one -- which leads us to the true nature of morality.
A moral action is its own reward just as an evil action is its own punishment.
Capice?
What???
You have already assumed free will, have you not? What exactly have you said that somehow negated your own premise, eh?
Of course I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that you are WRONG.
Let me get this straight.
Man was given the rational faculty to discern good and evil in his own action and in the action of others.
Man was given revelation, as if the rational faculty was not enough (at least in your case, it is not enough).
Man was given senses to experience pleasure within the boundaries of a moral good.
Man was given an immutable existence, and the free will to choose his own thought and action within that existence.
Man was given absolution for his sins unilaterally -- even sins that he has not committed but is in his nature to commit.
And to top it all off, man was given grace, if and when he is incapable of saving himself, even if that danger comes from himself.
And what exactly does man do with all these -- he uses it to bring misery to himself and his fellow man.
So, who exactly is the monster, eh?
