North Korea won't attack the South because fo Pres. Packer and Pres. Eyring

[consiglieri]

The justification for why God's inaction is not immoral is that his action would hamper agency. But God's inaction, since He is omnipotent, is itself an action--just as my choosing to not rescue the drowning girl was an action by the choice not to save her. Again, how does the choice to let the bad things happen over the good promote agency? Could you not just as easily argue that doing good promotes more agency? The saved girl and the healed amputee might have more opportunity to exercise free agency?

Please stop stripping the word "agency" of its talismanic power, John.

Once that word is used in a discussion, all reasonable opposition must cease.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Having power to stop evil and not doing so--isn't that a moral failing?

Not if it's conditioned on the Korean saints using the temple to an appropriate, though completely unspecified, degree.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[rodheadlee]

How does allowing evil to thrive not interfere with our agency? Implied in this justification is the idea that allowing the existence of evil promotes free "agency" while promoting good interferes (somehow) with agency. Can you please explain this premise? I do not understand it at all.

Let me give an example. Suppose I am standing by a lake and a 4 year old girl is drowning. I am a strong swimmer and have nothing impeding my rescue of the child. I choose to do nothing. Most people, and in fact many laws, suggest that my lack of action is immoral. God being omnipotent has the power to save the girl, stop the war, heal the amputee, etc. But God chooses to do nothing.

The justification for why God's inaction is not immoral is that his action would hamper agency. But God's inaction, since He is omnipotent, is itself an action--just as my choosing to not rescue the drowning girl was an action by the choice not to save her. Again, how does the choice to let the bad things happen over the good promote agency? Could you not just as easily argue that doing good promotes more agency? The saved girl and the healed amputee might have more opportunity to exercise free agency?

Suppose God chose you to be His instrument to save the little girl and you did not heed his call?

[rodheadlee]

There is precedence for angels warring with fallen angels over earhly kingdoms. See Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

Will any of you scholars take a crack at this? Isn't this an angel teamed up with Michael warring with the hidden princes of these kingdoms?

Why can't it be so with Korea?

edited to fix dyslexic typing.