User blog comment:DYBAD/Character Sheet/@comment-25135454-20171011120908/@comment-4867780-20171028012325

Well, the mind is an unquestionable reality while the soul is ultimately an abstract concept, so it makes sense for me to prioritize the first over the later in a reasonable discussion. But if the problem lies in the soul instead, then it is simply the soul that needs to be corrected, and the rest of the point remains unchanged. The problem of consequences isn't really one either, since said creation/correction would be made by an entity possessing all the necessary power and knowledge to do things right.

You're not telling me that someone with nigh-omniscience and nigh-omnipotence isn't capable of doing any better than our current reality, are you ? ^ ^; They can by definition foresee/know the outcomes nigh-perfectly and produce a result close to perfection, that's what the words literally mean.

Here again, things only go wrong because God didn't do his part well-enough in the first place, as explained in the previous comment. He didn't make us well-enough when he absolutely could have as mentioned above, and everything else is clearly a the direct consequences of his own mistake.

But I guess it's the moment where faith tackles pure reason with the psychological necessity to salvage the idea of an omnipotent/belevolent God, making such discussions ultimately a dead-end because God has to be this way to fulfill the function he was created/revealed for.

Who was the priest ? Did he have the authority to state how things are and aren't ? Who does, by the way ?

...or he could have just done what I suggested and everything would have gone right in a free-willed fashion ^ ^;

The Devil was created by God as well, remember ? Lucifer's fall from grace is also the direct product of God's sloppy work as a creator, so here again the real responsibility falls on the maker who could have done things perfectly right (Omnipotence and Omniscience), and instead somehow chose to cause myriads of painful problems for everyone involved.

@ Imouto : I read this part too, which reflects the psychology of the time quite well ^ ^; I believe her role as the first Eve directly created by God and equal to Adam only happens in an older and specific version of the Bibble, and was mostly retgone in later versions because the idea of a strong-willed and independant woman equal to her male counterpart was too troublesome in the end, and the best way to serve the patriacal status quo of the time was to simply erase the idea.

@ Dragon : That depends on the perspective. If we see God as simply an unfathomable Power That Be, then it's all fine because we are just irrelevant bacterias in his eyes, so the idea of him being morally responsible for us is ridiculous. On the other hand, if we see him as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent, then we have every reason to question at least one of these traits, because the perfect combination we associate with him is simply incompatible with the reality we live in. He could be limited, or misguided, or just not care much, or any combination, and it would explain everything. What you cannot reasonably have is a perfect God birthing a crippled world full of crippled beings ^ ^;

But yeah, it appears we have reached the point where neither side can really add to the subject anymore, so we should probably just move on to the next. Any suggestion ?