Watched porn when i was trying to watch religious video

I think you're correct in your reasoning that we cannot take God's mercy for granted. This would fall under a presumption of God's mercy, which is wrong and not something we would do to those we love. But, we must also consider your condition and some following aspects which make your situation differen't than the one you mentioned in the last paragraph of your OP.

Things to consider:

• You have an addiction so your willpower has been reduced significantly. You cannot judge your actions or lackthereof on the same level/scale as someone who does not have an addiction.
• You have not excused your behavior, so clearly you do not view it as being fine or acceptable.
• You're genuinely sorry when you fall.
• You're trying to change your life and are taking steps to change your life, amidst setbacks and struggles.

None of the above are characteristic of someone who is obstinate in their sin; meaning someone that thinks sinning is fine or that God can be used like a car wash for the soul. If you genuinely have no intention of abusing God's mercy and if you believe God knows your heart, then be assured that God would never refuse you His love nor would he turn away from you. Imagine Christ as a physician (Mark 2:7). Now ask yourself what physician would turn his back on someone who's sick? Christ is the physician of our souls, so be assured that when you've fallen He is closer to you than ever!

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

He is able to and willing, but in His own time and in His own way, and this is the crux of your issue with God. That He does not do your will.

Paul Reveals this truth:

Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. --2 Corin 12:7-10

 

If he's willing and able, "Then whence cometh evil?"

 

Addressing Epicurus quote about God willing to prevent evil
by Matt Slick

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born in Athens, Greece in the third century BC. He taught that the purpose of life was to obtain tranquility and peace with the avoidance of pain and suffering. The following four statements are attributed to him. They are sometimes used by atheists to deny God's existence. Let's take a look at them.

1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
2. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
3. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
4. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?1

Do his statements make sense? Are they true? Let's examine each one.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
First of all, if God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then it would be true that he is not omnipotent. But this would mean that he is not the God of the Bible, since the God of the Bible does whatever he desires to do (Eph. 1:11).

Second, Epicurus offers no definition for evil. Therefore, how can his assertion be validated? It can't. How would someone, say an atheist, define evil and also justify the definition as being the right one? Is evil unnecessary suffering? Is it murder but not stealing a paperclip? Is it a famine, an earthquake, bad thoughts, and/or wrong motives? Again, without defining what evil is, the validity of the statements cannot be properly assessed.

Third, after a definition is offered, and hopefully justified, we can then ask to what degree ought God prevent evil? Should God prevent mass starvation, but not the theft of a paperclip? Who decides where the boundary is drawn? What about a person's evil thoughts and intentions? Should God prevent those from occurring as well and thus violate a person's free will? Is that okay? If so, why? If not, why not?

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
This objection presupposes that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But why ought God stop evil (all evil?) from happening? Just saying so does not make it so. Furthermore, the second assertion presupposes a kind of moral absolute; namely, that evil ought to be prevented by anyone who is able to prevent it. We must ask, from where is such a universal moral absolute obtained? Is it made up by people? Is it voted on? Or is it just assumed, by faith, to be true? This is important because this second assertion presupposes a moral absolute. So how do we validate the moral assertion? Is it by intuition? If so, how do we know the intuition is right? Is it by logic? Then what logical syllogism or deduction is used that necessitates such moral obligation?

In addition, there are questions we would have to ask that are related to this second assertion. Could it be that God can use evil for a greater good, as would be exemplified in the evil of the crucifixion by which people are redeemed? Could it be that the freedom God allows people to have also means that they must have the freedom to choose to do what is bad? This would mean that he desires people not to do evil, but that he also desires that they be free to do that which is contrary to God; namely, evil.

Also, could it be that God would have reasons to allow evil that we do not understand? After all, he's greater than us and he understands things in a way that we do not, and we are not privy to his scope of knowledge. Therefore, it is possible that he could have reasons to allow evil that we cannot understand.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
If God is both able and willing to stop evil, but chooses not to stop all evil, that means God has allowed evil to exist. As is stated above, there are many aspects to this issue of allowing evil, including free will, the degree of evil, the definition of evil, how much evil ought God stop, etc.

Biblically speaking, evil originated in the heart and mind of Lucifer who decided to rebel against God. It was he who acted as though he "lacked belief in God," when he did not trust in God's wisdom and declarations but instead behaved in a manner that is consistent with independence from God.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
We should call him God because he is God. Also, as is stated in the previous paragraphs the issue of ability and willingness to prevent evil should not be taken as isolated assertions without context, further examination, or establishing some moral contexts (definition of evil, levels of evil, kinds of evil, how much evil to prevent) by which the assertions can be properly evaluated. Since this fourth assertion is built upon the previous three, and the previous three are in no way conclusive, then the fourth cannot be trusted as being a valid couplet.

Summation
The problems with Epicurus' statements are as follows.

1. Evil is not defined. Therefore, the assessment of the statements cannot be validated.
2. If evil were defined, what would justify the definition as being the right one?
3. Epicurus presupposes a moral absolute that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But how is such a moral absolute justified as being true?
4. The problem of how much evil (all, most, some) ought to be prevented is not addressed.
5. The problem of preventing evil thoughts and intentions with its implication of denying free will is also not addressed.

 

Why won't this God man mow my lawn? Is he unwilling or unable?

 

First of all, good on christian theology for coming up with lengthy descriptions of what God is and isn't but failing to answer simple questions. That first thing you said answers NONE of the questions that Epicurus asked. God gave us free will and that's where evil comes from? Surely you see how ridiculous this is. It's like giving your child a loaded rifle and then punishing him for pulling the trigger. what kind of person would you be if you did that? Now surely this God of yours is a bit more sensible than this!

 

This response by "mark" you got off the net is insanely preposterous and pretty appalling to say the least, but I'll take just one little thing from it just to show you what I mean. It's not Epicurus's job to define evil, it is not only defined by religion it is in fact one of the pillars the whole religion thing rests upon that. Every religion has a clear definition of evil and beautifully imaginative stories about all sorts of evil throughout the ages. All prophets have encountered them. Take ANY of them. Perhaps a more contemporary one like, say, the holocaust (surely this is evil by anyone's standards). Why did God not stop it when in the holy book he says he will cross oceans and destroy entire cities just to protect his children? Did he want to stop it but just couldn't? Or both? Neither?

 

I refer you back to the second point of Matts response:

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
This objection presupposes that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But why ought God stop evil (all evil?) from happening? Just saying so does not make it so. Furthermore, the second assertion presupposes a kind of moral absolute; namely, that evil ought to be prevented by anyone who is able to prevent it. We must ask, from where is such a universal moral absolute obtained? Is it made up by people? Is it voted on? Or is it just assumed, by faith, to be true? This is important because this second assertion presupposes a moral absolute. So how do we validate the moral assertion? Is it by intuition? If so, how do we know the intuition is right? Is it by logic? Then what logical syllogism or deduction is used that necessitates such moral obligation?

In addition, there are questions we would have to ask that are related to this second assertion. Could it be that God can use evil for a greater good, as would be exemplified in the evil of the crucifixion by which people are redeemed? Could it be that the freedom God allows people to have also means that they must have the freedom to choose to do what is bad? This would mean that he desires people not to do evil, but that he also desires that they be free to do that which is contrary to God; namely, evil.

Also, could it be that God would have reasons to allow evil that we do not understand? After all, he's greater than us and he understands things in a way that we do not, and we are not privy to his scope of knowledge. Therefore, it is possible that he could have reasons to allow evil that we cannot understand.

 

Are you capable of forming your own opinion or copy paste is all you do?

 

It's not a poor analogy. Your answer is a very confusing and vague definition of evil. Is it you or Satan? Or both? Pretty sure many christians would disagree with you. You all just make it up as you go along and dodge any questions thrown at you but at the same time offer lengthy explanations for other things. Nauseating

 

I can form my own but why waste time doing that when I can find exactly what I want to say but worded better from someone else? Also if I'm not mistake you copy/pasted first so you're a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I copy/pasted a quote/riddle. Eight short sentences that refutes your entire belief system. Everything after that was my own words in the hope to see how you'd fool yourself into believing whatever it is you believe.

 

I think someone is having a hard time with answering the objections made in the copy/pasted material regarding your copy/pasted material. What's wrong Fap_Doc? Unable to get your superiority fix for the day?