For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

Interesting line of thought...

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Is it Peugeot that is to judge the iPhone or Steve Jobs?

Or when the Camry does not work properly do you take it to the surgeon?

DeepSight:

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

I bet you would not agree that you are guilty of kidnapping simply because your friend used your car to kidnap people.

So if you have that right, how are you so wicked and unjust to imagine that God too does not have it also?

Well, the great thing is that your opinion is inconsequential exactly as when Steve Jobs or Toyoda Judges that certain iPhones and Corollas are fit for destruction.

And it is done!

And no one can stop their destruction.

That is the Incontestable Power and Right of A Creator!

Dtruthspeaker:


Is it Peugeot that is to judge the iPhone or Steve Jobs?

Of course the point being made here is exactly that if an iphone is faulty as released from the factory, surely, Steve Jobs would be the man to question, not the Iphone.

Well, the great thing is that your opinion is inconsequential exactly as when Steve Jobs or Toyoda Judges that certain iPhones and Corollas are fit for destruction.

And it is again exactly this sort of puzzling arrogance that really is worrisome: we are repeatedly told how inconsequential we are in the matter of our own existence - while he who created us as we are sits in righteous and pious judgment over we the inconsequential. There is something markedly perverse in this, surely.

And it is done!

And no one can stop their destruction.

That is the Incontestable Power and Right of A Creator!

No contest - but that remains entirely the deed of the said creator, from start to finish, warts and all. That cannot be blamed on any created thing.

DeepSight:

Of course the point being made here is exactly that if an iphone is faulty as released from the factory, surely, Steve Jobs would be the man to question, not the Iphone.

That is the point, of my point.

WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEN INVESTIGATION, QUERIES AND JUDGEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

DeepSight:

And it is again exactly this sort of puzzling arrogance that really is worrisome: we are repeatedly told how inconsequential we are in the matter of our own existence - while he who created us as we are sits in righteous and pious judgment over we the inconsequential. There is something markedly perverse in this, surely.

And this is where people do not see that they are being very stupid, out of line (Trespassing) and Suicidal.

For, if your car could talk and freely run its mouth, would you tolerate it talking about your garage or compound or House?

Surely, we know you would burn the car for not minding it's own business.

AND CREATE ANOTHER ONE. (If you still desire, As is your Unquestionable Right!)

DeepSight:

No contest - but that remains entirely the deed of the said creator, from start to finish, warts and all. That cannot be blamed on any created thing.

That is what INVESTIGATION clears.

Absence of Factory Defect is Proof of Self Murder aka Suicide!

And unfortunately for us creations, we have no factory defects.

Therefore, those claiming Factory Defects WILL DISGRACE FULLY FAIL IN COURT ON THAT DAY!

Dtruthspeaker:


And unfortunately for us creations, we have no factory defects.

This is a bold claim, considering the diseased nature of the world and the fallible nature of man.
It seems to me that what you are doing is blaming the created thing for its fallible nature, whereas the responsibility for that could only ever rest with the creator.

It is always unreasonable to excuse any creator while blaming any created thing in the matter of the imperfection of the created thing. That, my friend, is always a question of the creator's competence or motives.

And don't be ignorant. I could point you to physical factory defects in a jiffy.

The Creator don't judge the created. The co-created judge themselves. That's why it's good for the executive, legislative and the judicial system of earth to be very effective, because there is no divine judgement.

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

Agreed. The creator would be judging the creator's own abilities and efforts.

DeepSight:

This is a bold claim, considering the diseased nature of the world and the fallible nature of man.
It seems to me that what you are doing is blaming the created thing for its fallible nature, whereas the responsibility for that could only ever rest with the creator.

It is always unreasonable to excuse any creator while blaming any created thing in the matter of the imperfection of the created thing. That, my friend, is always a question of the creator's competence or motives.

And don't be ignorant. I could point you to physical factory defects in a jiffy.

Who diseased the world?

Answer: the creation itself.

Was he under the fear of imminent death (Duress) or "under a gun when" when he was made to BREAK THE ONLY LAW IN THE WORLD?

(This is where Adam (Man) is different from Eve (woman)

Adam was forced by the threat of love and sex and the sweetness of woman into breaking The Law otherwise He would have been Free and the world would not have been diseased, exactly as it was when it came out of the Factory.

And this is the reason why God through the Bible, speaks to men and made A Way for them to Return to their Original Factory Settings and their Former Absence of Diseased State, for those who want it.

But Eve has none.

If you look closely you will see that GOD DID NOT TRY HER ON THAT DAY, {unlike Satan and Adam} same as He Did to Cain's murder of Abel. THEIR CASES WERE NOT TRIED BUT POSTPONED TILL JUDGEMENT DAY.)

I even took out time to draft out Eve's Charges to see her action properly.

DeepSight:

This is a bold claim, considering the diseased nature of the world and the fallible nature of man.
It seems to me that what you are doing is blaming the created thing for its fallible nature, whereas the responsibility for that could only ever rest with the creator.

It is always unreasonable to excuse any creator while blaming any created thing in the matter of the imperfection of the created thing. That, my friend, is always a question of the creator's competence or motives.

And don't be ignorant. I could point you to physical factory defects in a jiffy.

Who diseased the world?

Answer: the creation itself.

Was he under the fear of imminent death (Duress) or "under a gun when" when he was made to BREAK THE ONLY LAW IN THE WORLD?

(This is where Adam (Man) is different from Eve (woman)

Adam was forced by the threat of love and sex and the sweetness of woman into breaking The Law otherwise He would have been Free and the world would not have been diseased, exactly as it was when it came out of the Factory.

And this is the reason why God through the Bible, speaks to men and made A Way for them to Return to their Original Factory Settings and their Former Absence of Diseased State, for those who want it.

But Eve has none.

If you look closely you will see that GOD DID NOT TRY HER ON THAT DAY, {unlike Satan and Adam} same as He Did to Cain's murder of Abel. THEIR CASES WERE NOT TRIED BUT POSTPONED TILL JUDGEMENT DAY.)

I even took out time to draft out Eve's Charges to see her action properly.

https://www.nairaland.com/6319053/when-eve-charged-court-charges

Dtruthspeaker:


Who diseased the world?

Answer: the creation itself.

This is absurd, only the creator could do such.
A creator is responsible for its creation.

DeepSight:


This is absurd, only the creator could do such.
A creator is responsible for its creation.

What kind of mad talk is this when it is clear that The Creator did not do anything but Relaxing in His Own House?

Obviously, you have exhausted your reasonability quota of the day!

Dtruthspeaker:


What kind of mad talk is this when it is clear that The Creator did not do anything but Relaxing in His Own House?

Obviously, you have run out of your reasonability quota of the day!

Mad talk? Steady now, calm your nerves and stop being emotional. Take a deep breath and then a cold clear look at this question:
If a product is faulty, who do you blame - the product, or its maker?

Its a really simple question with an equally simple answer.
Why are you so eager to defend a God who is so eager to accuse you?

DeepSight:


Mad talk? Steady now, calm your nerves and stop being emotional. Take a deep breath and then a cold clear look at this question:
If a product is faulty, who do you blame - the product, or its maker?

Its a really simple question with and equally simple answer.

The Answer is as clear as day. NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS SUED HP, COMPAQ, IPHONE BECAUSE HIS NEIGHBOUR PUT IN VIRUSES INTO THEIR CREATIONS WHICH HE GOT FROM THEM.

EXACTLY LIKE SUING TOYOTA BECAUSE ONE MECHANIC TOLD YOU TO PUT SAND IN YOUR ENGINE "FOR STRONGER PERFORMANCE AND FUEL ECONOMY" AND YOU LISTENED.

CLEARLY, THAT IS YOUR FAULT AND NOT THE FAULT OF THE MAKER OF THE TOYOTA.

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

You no think this one through at all at all..

Kobojunkie:
You no think this one through at all at all..

I'd really like to hear why. Sincerely.
Because the only remotely serious answer I have ever received is freewill - which i believe has problems of its own.

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

I remember my mum Rest in Power ma'am, the other woman aside my missus who's one of the best cooks of the world, sometimes when preparing one of her many delicacies, she will say, I put all thats necessary in the cooking to make the dish scrumptious, but alas, it still didnt turn up above par

The created is responsible for not turning out right as expected of it to be, just as the created is capable and even equipped to turn out right

Now the created human beings needed to be judged off his and her character. It hasn't got anything to do with being personal or vindictive, but it is just as you judge and decide with H&S in mind, what ends up in the dustbin or trash can.

We can explore the created with further more consideration(s), if you so wish or if inclined to

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:

Now the created human beings needed to be judged off his and her character. It hasn't got anything to do with being personal or vindictive, but it is just as you judge and decide with H&S in mind, what ends up in the dustbin or trash can.

We can explore the created with further more consideration(s), if you so wish or if inclined to.

This is the well known concept of separating the wheat from the chaff which I have no problem with, save to note that one cannot accuse the created of any guilt where they are so made by the creator. The creator may therefore judge himself and choose his best works while thrashing the worst, but they all remain his works, and his works alone.

DeepSight:
This is the well known concept of separating the wheat from the chaff which I have no problem with ....

Really appreciate that you're keen on going the long haul on this bud

DeepSight:
save to note that one cannot accuse the created of any guilt where they are so made by the creator.

We judge characters every time every day sir. The Creator made the created, equipped to live up not just only to expectation(s) but also to their potentials.

The only guilt, the created was confronted with, is stealing what doesnt belong to them. They took without permission someone's else personal property. The created, was directly and plain told what to do and what not to do, but they squandered their potentials

DeepSight:
The creator may therefore judge Himself and choose His best works while thrashing the worst, but they all remain His works, and His works alone.

Job 38:1-2
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2“Who is this that darkens counsel [questioning my authority and wisdom]
By words without knowledge?
3“Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know and have understanding.
5“Who determined the measurements [of the earth], if you know?
Or who stretched the [measuring] line on it?
6“On what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,

The Creator, apparently is on a two pronged approach problem solving mission or project

The created, is God's best work, with the woman being God pièce de résistance.

Why would God judge Himself, especially when God is not found wanting to warrant any need or want to judge Himself. Talk to me please.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

This Creator is unlike other creators. He has the ability to give His creation something no other creator can -- a will.
The Creator passes judgment based on what the creation does with that will.
Steve Jobs would not be responsible for a defective iPhone if it had a will.

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

That's because the creator story according to religion is bullshit and a bronze age contraption is what formulated by nomads who had to idea how the universe works

ThothHermes:
This Creator is unlike other creators. He has the ability to give His creation something no other creator can -- a will.

Evil comes from the abnormal use of this free will

ThothHermes:
The Creator passes judgment based on what the creation does with that will.

I love this. Exactly a judgment of the work of the creation. Creation was judged for their sin, by the Creator and by the sin too.

ThothHermes:
Steve Jobs would not be responsible for a defective iPhone if it had a will.

Steve Jobs will 'I am not worthy' cower with you comparing him with God

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Finally, a worthy response. Thank you.

ThothHermes:
This Creator is unlike other creators. He has the ability to give His creation something no other creator can -- a will.
The Creator passes judgment based on what the creation does with that will.
Steve Jobs would not be responsible for a defective iPhone if it had a will.

The defense of freewill is the most regular response to the problem of evil - which perceptive persons would have instantly recognized as one of the dilemmas under-girding the poser offered by this thread. However one must note that freewill as an assumption for mankind in the context of overall responsibility for the nature of the world is highly questionable. However before I proceed further here, permit me to establish two different questions which are cardinal here -

1. The question of overall responsibility
2. The question of freewill of mankind

Let me start with the question of overall responsibility. As inferred, what is referred to here is the question as to who bears overall responsibility for the nature of the world. I posit that that responsibility could rest on no one else than the creator of said world - especially where this creator is said to be omniscient and omnipotent.

So when you point out sir, that we are talking about a very unique creator - a creator who bequeaths a will - you must also not forget or leave out the fact that so great is the uniqueness of this creator that he is also said to be omniscient and omnipotent. The paradox must in this case instantly leap out at you - that an omniscient creator would necessarily know and understand the consequences of creating free-willed beings. Furthermore an omnipotent creator would have every capacity to create the most positively inclined free willed beings conceivable and in the most ideal environment for the expression of same. Now is this the case?

I say that it certainly is not the case - neither in terms of the alleged "freewill" of the created beings nor in terms of the environment created for their dwelling, and my reason for so saying is simple - man is highly circumscribed in his will by both the very nature he is created in, and the environment he is created in. I assert that both this created nature and the created environment actually predispose man very naturally to what is called "sin" - if not outrightly compel him into it - and for this reason I therefore say that it would be deceitful for a creator to wave freewill as some sort of escape from its responsibility for the nature of man and the nature of the world. Not that religious scripture generally gives us any reason to think that the creator is a stranger to deceit, but I digress.

Why do I say that both man's created nature and his created environment predispose, if not outrightly compel him into what is called sin? Well lets start with the very hormones by which man is reproduced. They are designed for constant and easy arousal from a fairly young age. They are not built with rigidity and refrain as second nature, but with spontaneity as their natural flow. This has predisposed mankind to every sort of social, political and I dare say even military complication which the mind can imagine throughout the ages.

In both his nature and his given environment, mankind has been forced to be competitive for survival. Again this spirit of competition, vital as it is to his survival just as is the instinct of sex, has myriad natural consequences for the nature of Earth-Life for man as it is virtually impossible with such a given-nature, to avoid the spectres of jealousy, covetousness, greed, ambition, competition for resources, class-war, and outright war. All of these are inevitable consequences of the nature of man and the nature of his given environment.

And the creator of both man and his environment cannot escape complicity in all this. It is disingenuous to create a sexxual being, with all its implications for territorialism, jealousy and covetousness, and place such a being in an environment which demands spirited competition for survival, and then assert that one has not thereby created a being definitely disposed towards certain obvious outcomes.

To do that and then hide behind alleged freewill, is simply dishonest.

But the foregoing is just the tip of the iceberg because when I say that man's freewill is highly circumscribed, I mean just that. It is most limited in many ways. Who determined for him what planet he would dwell on? Who made him male and female. Who made it so that he must kill and consume living things for his survival. Who placed in him the sexxual instinct? Who placed in him all of his other multifaceted desires? So long as you cannot say that man's alleged freewill is responsible for all of these things, then you must at once recognize that man has been created into a given and already defined context and system, and that in itself circumscribes and limits freewill and for this reason you cannot blame man's freewill for his nature, and you cannot exculpate the creator from responsibility for the nature of man.

Finally, this rabbit-hole goes even further. How many things will you blame man's freewill for? Will you blame it for natural disasters. Will you blame it for the existence of mosquitoes, fleas and disease giving worms and the like. You will end up blaming man's freewill for the very cycle of nature and that will simply be absurd.

NNTR:
Evil comes from the abnormal use of this free will.

Including disease and natural disasters?

Besides, can you really explain to me what would be abnormal use of freewill.

DeepSight:
Finally, a worthy response. Thank you.



The defense of freewill is the most regular response to the problem of evil - which perceptive persons would have instantly recognized as one of the dilemmas under-girding the poser offered by this thread. However one must note that freewill as an assumption for mankind in the context of overall responsibility for the nature of the world is highly questionable. However before I proceed further here, permit me to establish two different questions which are cardinal here -

1. The question of overall responsibility
2. The question of freewill of mankind

Alright.

Let me start with the question of overall responsibility. As inferred, what is referred to here is the question as to who bears overall responsibility for the mature of the world. I posit that that responsibility could rest on no one else than the creator of said world - especially where this creator is said to be omniscient and omnipotent.

From the Holy Scriptures (read: Bible), we see the character of the Creator. The words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" with which you describe Him are not in that book so you may want to tell me where you got those descriptors from. However, the Scriptures describe him as just, righteous, faithful, jealous, visiting the inquities of fathers upon their children even up to the fourth generation, without variableness or shadow of turning, slow to anger, holy, merciful, among others. From these we can discern His modus operandi, not with logic and intellect alone, for He dwells in a realm superior to this one.

So when you point out sir, that we are talking about a very unique creator - a creator who bequeaths a will - you must also not forget or leave out the fact that so great is the uniqueness of this creator that he is also said to be omniscient and omnipotent. The paradox must in this case instantly leap out at you - that an omniscient creator would necessarily know and understand the consequences of creating free-willed beings. Furthermore an omnipotent creator would have every capacity to create the most positively inclined free willed beings conceivable and in the most ideal environment for the expression of same. Now is this the case? [quote] Those words again, where did you get them from? You have conferred attributes on the Creator only to challenge them. For example, Scriptures tell us "God is not a man that he should lie. He cannot lie. That not omnipotence.
We see again that God regretted that He created man. That negates omniscience. So please tell me where you got those attributes of the Creator from?

[quote]I say that it certainly is not the case - neither in terms of the alleged "freewill" of the created beings nor in terms of the environment created for their dwelling, and my reason for so saying is simple - man is highly circumscribed in his will by both the very nature he is created in, and the environment he is created in. I assert that both this created nature and the created environment actually predispose man very naturally to what is called "sin" - if not outrightly compel him into it - and for this reason I therefore say that it would be deceitful for a creator to wave freewill as some sort of escape from its responsibility for the nature of man and the nature of the world. Not that religious scripture generally gives us any reason to think that the creator is a stranger to deceit, but I digress. [quote] The created nature you speak of is just one part of the nature of man. This is mistake of men who rely on their five senses alone for perception. Sin is an appetite that grows when the created relies on his sensual perception alone. God created man for his pleasure, and man was created insufficient deliberately so He would have to perpetually rely on the Creator to overcome that appetite for sin and other limitations of his realm. There are superior faculties of perception (soulish and spiritual) which are the primary means of interacting with the Creator and His realm.
[quote]Why do I say that both man's created nature and his created environment predispose, if not outrightly compel him into what is called sin? Well lets start with the very hormones by which man is reproduced. They are designed for constant and easy arousal from a fairly young age. They are not built with rigidity and refrain as second nature, but with spontaneity as their natural flow. This has predisposed mankind to every sort of social, political and I dare say even military complication which the mind can imagine throughout the ages.

All of these predilections can only be checked by perpetual reliance on the supply of the Spirit. This was and is the original design. Man lost the manual when he used His freewill to commit sin in Eden.

In both his nature and his given environment, mankind has been forced to be competitive for survival. Again this spirit of competition, vital as it is to his survival just as is the instinct of sex, has myriad natural consequences for the nature of Earth-Life for man as it is virtually impossible with such a given-nature, to avoid the spectres of jealousy, covetousness, greed, ambition, competition for resources, class-war, and outright war. All of these are inevitable consequences of the nature of man and the nature of his given environment.

None of these are necessary for the man who sticks to the manual -- absolute reliance on the supply of the spirit. These are only the effects of a system not following the original design. The same way your phone will start to misbehave if you disobey the manufacturers and dip it in water.

And the creator of both man and his environment cannot escape complicity in all this. It is disingenuous to create a sexxual being, with all its implications for territorialism, jealousy and covetousness, and place such a being in an environment which demands spirited competition for survival, and then assert that one has not thereby created a being definitely disposed towards certain obvious outcomes.

To do that and then hide behind alleged freewill, is simply dishonest. [quote] I think I've addressed this. The seeming lack of resources that cause competition comes from not relying on the supply of the Spirit. The resources of Heaven are infinite. You will never know as long as you rely on your sensual faculties alone. There is no need for competition.
[quote]but the foregoing is just the tip of the iceberg[/b] because when I say that man's freewill is highly circumscribed, I mean just that. It is most limited in many ways. Who determined for him what planet he would dwell on? [quote]Who made him male and female. Who made it so that he must kill and consume living things for his survival. Who placed in him the sexxual instinct? Who placed in him all of his other multifaceted desires? So long as you cannot say that man's alleged freewill is responsible for all of these things, then you must at once recognize that man has been created into a given and already defined context and system, and that in itself circumscribes and limits freewill and for this reason you cannot blame man's freewill for his nature, and you cannot exculpate the creator from responsibility for the nature of man.

I believe I've addressed this. Those desires come from utilizing only one part of your being. The weakest part

Finally, this rabbit-hole goes even further. How many things will you blame man's freewill for? Will you blame it for natural disasters. Will you blame it for the existence of mosquitoes, fleas and disease giving worms and the like. You will end up blaming man's freewill for the very cycle of nature and that will simply be absurd.

Man's misuse of freewill brought disasters, disease and all what not. They were not in the original manual. As the Zenith of creation, his actions affected and continue to affect the rest of creation.

DeepSight:


Including disease and natural disasters?

Yes.

Besides, can you really explain to me what would be abnormal use of freewill.

Using it contrary to what is prescribed by the Creator. The same way you would be abnormally using your phone if you used it contrary to what is written in the owner's manual that accompanies it.
I call heaven and earth to record against you this day that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deuteronomy 30:19

ThothHermes:
Alright.


From the Holy Scriptures (read: Bible), we see the character of the Creator. The words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" with which you describe Him are not in that book so you may want to tell me where you got those descriptors from.

You will pardon me, but I do not limit this discourse to your scripture alone - I address generally held notions of God across cultures and across ages (including scripture). I would, however, be interested to know if you specifically say that God is not omnipotent or omniscient.

However, the Scriptures describe him as just, righteous, faithful, jealous, visiting the inquities of fathers upon their children even up to the fourth generation, without variableness or shadow of turning, slow to anger, holy, merciful, among others. From these we can discern His modus operandi, not with logic and intellect alone, for He dwells in a realm superior to this one.

And how do you feel about the bold?

All of these predilections can only be checked by perpetual reliance on the supply of the Spirit. This was and is the original design. Man lost the manual when he used His freewill to commit sin in Eden.

It is heartwarming that you admit that the proclivities are inherent. This alone calls into question both the motives and competence of the said creator, surely?

Besides, something else springs to mind as I read you say - "Man lost the manual when he used His freewill to commit sin in Eden" - and do you know what that is? It is the fact that there exists an odd paradox here: for if man never committed any sin, then you would say he was living according to the will of God, and this would be no freewill. It emerges that the endowment of freewill could only possibly make sense with the possibility and reality of sin, and that it would only make sense therefore that the creator granted freewill with the express intention that sin would follow. This again takes the responsibility for sin right back to the creator - its only logical place.

Man's misuse of freewill brought disasters, disease and all what not. They were not in the original manual. As the Zenith of creation, his actions affected and continue to affect the rest of creation.

This is a most bold, and I dare say, arrogant, anthropocentric view of creation and the universe.
1. Is it just - as concerns all other creatures in creation?
2. Is it rational, especially in consideration of the role of "natural disasters" in the cosmos?
3. Is it rational, in light of the natural cycles of ecosystems within the biosphere?
4. Is it so taught in your scripture, that man is the greatest or highest of God's creations?

ThothHermes:
Yes.


Using it contrary to what is prescribed by the Creator. The same way you would be abnormally using your phone if you used it contrary to what is written in the owner's manual that accompanies it.
I call heaven and earth to record against you this day that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deuteronomy 30:19

It hardly appears an honest grant of freewill to me if one then puts a gun to the head of the recipient and says - "Choose as you like, but if you do not obey me, I will shoot you dead."

Workch:
That's because the creator story according to religion is bullshit and a bronze age contraption is what formulated by nomads who had to idea how the universe works

Whilst ceding that there may be much myth and legend in ancient creation accounts, and that such people may have "had no idea how the universe works" - I dare say that even in this day and age we still know very little about how the universe works.

DeepSight:


It hardly appears an honest grant of freewill to me if one then puts a gun to the head of the recipient and says - "Choose as you like, but if you do not obey me, I will shoot you dead."

It's not the Creator that "shoots you dead". It is a system set in motion from the foundation of the world. The consequences or otherwise of your actions result from your existing in that system.
Option A leads to consequence A while Option B leads to consequence B.

ThothHermes:
It's not the Creator that "shoots you dead". It is a system set in motion from the foundation of the world. The consequences or otherwise of your actions result from your existing in that system.
Option A leads to consequence A while Option B leads to consequence B.

Who set that system in place? Nobody?

DeepSight:


You will pardon me, but I do not limit this discourse to your scripture alone - I address generally held notions of God across cultures and across ages (including scripture). I would, however, be interested to know if you specifically say that God is not omnipotent or omniscient.

God is not a notion. The Bible is tried 7 times and is the highest and purest form of wisdom there is. The Bible is my paradigm and boundary. It's more than sufficient.

And how do you feel about the bold?

God is not a democrat. He's a monarch.

It is heartwarming that you admit that the proclivities are inherent. This alone calls into question both the motives and competence of the said creator, surely?

Scripture tells us that we were created for his pleasure. The proclivities were put there deliberately. So that we would rely absolutely on Him for our being.

Besides, something else springs to mind as I read you say - "Man lost the manual when he used His freewill to commit sin in Eden" - and do you know what that is? It is the fact that there exists an odd paradox here: for if man never committed any sin, then you would say he was living according to the will of God, and this would be no freewill. It emerges that the endowment of freewill could only possibly make sense with the possibility and reality of sin, and that it would only make sense therefore that the creator granted freewill with the express intention that sin would follow.

If man never commited sin, the option to sin will still be available. There are angels who did not rebel with Lucifer. They still have that option. Jesus did not sin. He had that option.

This again takes the responsibility for sin right back to the creator - its only logical place.

No. The responsibility for sin rests on the creation's use or misuse of freewill.

This is a most bold, and I dare say, arrogant, anthropocentric view of creation and the universe.
1. Is it just - as concerns all other creatures in creation?
2. Is it rational, especially in consideration of the role of "natural disasters" in the cosmos?
3. Is it rational, in light of the natural cycles of ecosystems within the biosphere?
4. Is it so taught in your scripture, that man is the greatest or highest of God's creations?

Man is the only creation made in God's image and likeness. He's superior to all others. His accomplishments reveal this truth.
Natural disasters, and natural cycles are an EFFECT of man's rebellion. They were not in the original blueprint. It's why the Christ came with a restoration plan.