Hii ndiyo “CV” ya Shetani. Hafai kuajiriwa popote!

Mkuu, Kwa mujibu wa biblia, kama kweli shetani ni mouvu kiasi hicho kwa nini Mungu asimuangamize ile kuondoa chanzo cha uovu huo.

Mkuu, Kwa nini Mungu amuadhibu binadamu tena kwa adhabu ya mauti huku akimpa shetani adhabu ya kuungua milele pamoja na binadamu ambao tayari alisha waadhibu kwa kifo???

Kama kweli, shetani ni mbaya kiasi hicho kwa nini Mungu hufanya maongezi naye????

Kwa mtazamo wako na kumbukumbu zilizopo kati ya Mungu na shetani ni nani amewaua binadamu kwa wingi???
 
🤔🤔🤔
 
👏👏👏
 
First things first, human free will contradicts God's perfect knowledge.

You cannot have human free will and God's perfect knowledge.

You can have human free will or Gid's perfect knowledge, not both.

If I have perfect free will to either go left or right, that means God does not know whether I will go left or right, until I decide. This contradicts God's perfect knowledge of things past and future. And if by any means God knows what turn I will take, with God's perfect knowledge, before I decide, then in all meaningful senses, I am just living out a script of what God already knows.

On suffering, couldn't an all knowing, all capable and all loving God device a better way that dies not involve suffering to refine and mature us? If yes, then why didn't Gid do so? If no, is Gid really all capable?

Creation does not affirm the existence of God. What you call creation, through its imperfection, contradicts the existence of your perfect God. Morality neither needs nor proves that God. Revelation is not universal and a subject of cultural and oersonal bias. You are preaching instead of proving here.

You have not resolved the problem of evil. If there is an all knowing, all capable and all loving God, why did that God create a world with even the potential to habe evil? Your answer to this question is very wanting.
 
Setfree said:
Toa sababu za kutounga mkono hoja
Click to expand...
Maelezo ya hoja yamekuwa ni ya Kiimani zaidi. Hakuna aliyewahi kuthibitisha uwepo wa Shetani ambaye wengine wanamwita Lucifer (kitu ambacho sikubaliani nacho) na wengine tena humwita Ibilisi. Ukisoma kitabu cha Enoch sura ya 6-9 ndo unajiuliza maswali mengi zaidi......... Kwa hiyo ni bora nikae kama nilivyo.
 
Lusifa aliumbwa mkamilifu, akiwa na hiari. Uasi wake ulitokana na kiburi na kutumia vibaya uhuru huo wa kuchagua, wala si kutokamilika kwa uumbaji wa Mungu. Ujuzi wa Mungu ni pamoja na kutabiri chaguzi bila kupuuza uhuru wa kuchagua, kuruhusu wakala wa maadili. Hii haizuii nguvu Zake; badala yake, inaangazia heshima Yake kwa uhuru wa viumbe vilivyoumbwa, hapa Sasa nimekuelewa kumbe unaweza kuachwa Kwa sababu una uhuru wa kuchagua
 
Mizania said:
Mkuu, Kwa mujibu wa biblia, kama kweli shetani ni mouvu kiasi hicho kwa nini Mungu asimuangamize ile kuondoa chanzo cha uovu huo.
Click to expand...
Shetani ameishahukumiwa kwenda katika moto wa milele.
 
Kiranga said:
On suffering, couldn't an all knowing, all capable and all loving God device a better way that dies not involve suffering to refine and mature us? If yes, then why didn't Gid do so? If no, is Gid really all capable?
Click to expand...
The question of suffering vis-à-vis the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God is a profound philosophical and theological inquiry that has perplexed thinkers for centuries. To address this, one must consider the underlying assumptions about the nature of God, the purpose of human existence, and the role of suffering within that framework.

Firstly, the premise assumes that suffering is intrinsically undesirable and that an alternative, ostensibly superior, mechanism for human refinement exists. However, it is conceivable that suffering, while unpleasant, serves an irreplaceable and unparalleled role in cultivating virtues such as empathy, resilience, and humility. In a world devoid of suffering, the opportunity for such moral and spiritual growth might be fundamentally constrained. Thus, the necessity of suffering may not reflect a deficiency in God's creative capacity but rather an alignment with a higher teleological purpose that finite human understanding may struggle to grasp.

Moreover, the query presupposes that God’s omnipotence entails the ability to achieve every conceivable outcome without limitation. Classical theism, however, posits that divine omnipotence operates in harmony with God’s nature and logical coherence. For example, God cannot create free moral agents and simultaneously compel them to freely choose good, as this would constitute a logical contradiction. Similarly, it is plausible that a world where humans genuinely flourish necessitates the existence of suffering as a corollary of free will, natural law, or a greater metaphysical design.

If one considers the "better way" scenario, it would entail a reality where growth and maturity are achieved without adversity. Such a paradigm, while theoretically possible, may lack the depth and authenticity that suffering engenders. Love, compassion, and perseverance are most profoundly demonstrated and internalized in the face of hardship. Therefore, God's allowance of suffering may not signify a deficiency in His power or love but an intentional design to maximize the moral and spiritual potential of His creation.

Your question Prof. Kiranga assumes a temporal and finite perspective, whereas God’s purposes are often understood in an eternal and infinite context. From this vantage point, suffering in the temporal realm may be a transient mechanism toward an eternal good. Thus, while the existence of suffering may challenge human sensibilities, it does not necessarily negate the attributes of an all-knowing, all-capable, and all-loving God but rather invites deeper contemplation of divine wisdom that transcends human comprehension.
 
Imposing suffering, when there are alternative ways that may not involve suffering, to beings who do not want to suffer, is evil. This cobtradicts an all lovibg God allowing suffering to exist.

If God has limitations, then God is not omnipotence. Omnipotence is not limited. A limited omnipotence is an oxymoron.
 
The assertion that creation contradicts the existence of a perfect God due to its imperfection reflects a presupposition about the nature of divine perfection and the purpose of creation itself. To equate imperfection within the created order with evidence against God presupposes that a perfect God must necessarily create a perfect world—a notion that is not universally held within theistic frameworks. Indeed, many theological perspectives posit that creation’s imperfections serve a didactic purpose, facilitating moral and spiritual growth through the interplay of free will, contingency, and dependence upon the Creator. Thus, perceived imperfections do not inherently negate the existence of a perfect God but may instead affirm a divine teleology incomprehensible to finite minds.

Regarding morality, the argument contends that it neither necessitates nor substantiates the existence of God. While secular ethical systems can indeed articulate moral principles independent of overt theistic claims, this does not preclude the possibility that such principles are undergirded by a transcendent moral source. The presence of objective moral values and duties—if they exist—requires a grounding that is difficult to explain within a purely naturalistic paradigm. Theistic philosophers, such as William Lane Craig, argue persuasively that the existence of such moral absolutes points to a moral lawgiver, as subjective societal consensus fails to account for their universality and immutability.

On the issue of revelation, its perceived cultural and personal biases are not inherently incompatible with the existence of a universal divine reality. Theological doctrines often acknowledge the contextualization of revelation within specific historical, cultural, and linguistic frameworks. This contextualization does not diminish its universality but rather reflects the necessity of communicating eternal truths within the temporal limitations of human understanding. The claim that revelation lacks universality, therefore, overlooks the possibility that divine truths are progressively revealed and ultimately converge in a coherent metanarrative accessible to all who earnestly seek them.

Finally, Prof. Kiranga, your assertion that I am “preaching instead of proving” merits clarification regarding the epistemological boundaries of theological discourse. While empirical proof in the scientific sense may be unattainable for metaphysical claims, this does not render such claims baseless. Philosophical reasoning, experiential testimony, and cumulative evidences form a coherent cumulative case for theism. Preaching, in this context, may be construed not as the absence of proof but as the articulation of convictions grounded in such a case, inviting engagement rather than coercion.

In sum, while the objections you raised challenge traditional theistic paradigms, they do not irrefutably disprove the existence of God but rather highlight the complexities of engaging with transcendent realities through finite human reasoning.
 
Setfree said:
Unasoma cha nini kitabu kisichokubalika kama sio kutaka kujichanganya tu
Click to expand...
Unasoma maandiko mbalimbali na vitabu tofauti tofauti ili kujiongezea Ufahamu na Maarifa na kujua yaliyo nje ya box. Ni sawa na mtu kutoka nyumbani akaenda kutembea tu kama mojawapo ya njia ya kurefresh ubongo au mtu anatazama vipindi kwenye Tv.
Wanaosema hakikubaliki hawatoi sababu zenye mashiko ni kwa nini hakikubaliki.
 
Let me break it down with a nice illustration, because it seems you are not able to understand the flow, either that, or you are just deciding to crusade for your faith with no regard to logic.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…