Originally posted by AgergThe "world as it is" resulted from the disobedience of man as
The system you describe is not consistent with an omni-benevolent God. Moreover, to preempt the standard retort that I'm saying God isn't benevolent if he doesn't wipe my ar$e for me after visiting the toilet, this is a gross caricature of the argument I'm putting forwards. Petty struggles like having to look after my own personal hygeine for example fade into ...[text shortened]... n accord.
Basically, the world as it is fails to be harmonious with a benevolent God.
described in the Holy Bible. So, that is why, as you say,
"the world as it is fails to be harmonious with a benevolent God."
Originally posted by AgergDo you enjoy "picking holes" or do you consider it a duty?
Well I'm working from the definitions provided to me by most other theists. As for my own notions of what a god should entail - it is beyond my capacity to have any insight into the workings of things that may or may not exist outside dimensions I interact with. As such I give the matter no private thought and content myself with picking holes in what others h ...[text shortened]... m well enough (I can't actually martial them to my thoughts to give you an example though).
Apparently, you are saying you simply ignore anything
you can not "pick a hole" in.
Originally posted by Rajk999If a god exists
Well its obvious that neither you nor the theists truly understand the nature of God, and furthermore what the Bible defines as 'love' or 'the love of God' is not something easy to appreciate because it conflicts with what our small simple minds has defined love to be.
There are many unanswered questions in religion which believers are not honest enough ...[text shortened]... faith of the faithful irrational. But in my opinion irrationality is not the worst offence.
big if!
then the only intellectually honest appraisal of it's attributes I can offer is that they are not wholly natural - as such the statement "neither [I] nor the theists truly understand the nature of God" is trivially true.
I can say far more about the attributes others put forwards however simply because humans, not free from error or wishful thinking have made a grave mistake somewhere along the lines - the omni-ness of "God" being one of them.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere did I say or imply
Do you enjoy "picking holes" or do you consider it a duty?
Apparently, you are saying you simply ignore anything
you can not "pick a hole" in.
"[I] simply ignore anything [I] can not "pick a hole" in." ??? 😕
As for your first question, when my adversaries are strong, then yes! I enjoy the challenge of the battle of defending my own evaluation of their god. The ever so transient lol-factor I get from "debating" with the likes of yourself doesn't, by itself, justify the time I put into this hobby ;]
If I genuinely thought I could talk people into a more refined (i.e. less defined!) god then I would see it as a duty.
Originally posted by Agergabsolute benevolence doesn't mean you don't allow suffering. sometimes there is a bigger picture. a parent will not rush to his kid's aid whenever he scrapes his knees. he might allow him to deal with the pain on his own and become stronge so the next time the child will either learn to avoid getting hurt or will deal better with perhaps an even bigger pain. there is nothign sadder than a 20 year old mama's boy who never experienced hardship and then crumbles at the first difficulty he encounters. and i believe it would be even sadder if that "let mommy take care of you" persists for ever. i would find such an existance demeaning and boring.
The system you describe is not consistent with an omni-benevolent God. Moreover, to preempt the standard retort that I'm saying God isn't benevolent if he doesn't wipe my ar$e for me after visiting the toilet, this is a gross caricature of the argument I'm putting forwards. Petty struggles like having to look after my own personal hygeine for example fade into ...[text shortened]... accord.
Basically, the world as it is fails to be harmonious with a benevolent God.
Further, a system which allows people the free will to do as they please is not consistent with a benevolent God - it is consistent with a god who desires the "who's the daddy!"' factor if people choose to be subservient to it of their own accord
i don't get " a system wich allows free will [...] is consistent with a god who desires the who's your daddy factor" . care to rephrase that? and assuming you claim that free will somehow forces god to step in and deny it (or be branded as a jerk), what would your solution be? force all people to do only good things? to effectively deny free will? what is the point of living if your actions are forced on you? where is the satisfaction of you accomplishing anything if god did it?
free will is a gift. it is by it that we live our lives as we deem right ( or at least under the ilusion that we have control), that we grow and prosper and accomplish great things as a civilization. us, not an outside force. that means you are a human being, and not a barbie doll in a giant cosmic doll house controlled by a supernatural force.
i thank god for what i was given. i thank god for the beauty of creation. i like to think that god is with me and is sad when i am sad and proud of me and happy when i overcome a difficulty. he is my friend and a silent observer. i don't ask for help from him because i feel it would be insulting to him, he already gave me more than enough.
this life is a life of suffering. of growth. what you ask for, god promisses. not in this life though, but the next. you struggle through this one so you can appreciate the next.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think aqerq is on the wrong track and you are on the right track.
absolute benevolence doesn't mean you don't allow suffering. sometimes there is a bigger picture. a parent will not rush to his kid's aid whenever he scrapes his knees. he might allow him to deal with the pain on his own and become stronge so the next time the child will either learn to avoid getting hurt or will deal better with perhaps an even bigger pain ough, but the next. you struggle through this one so you can appreciate the next.
I agree with your attitude.
Originally posted by Zahlanziabsolute benevolence doesn't mean you don't allow suffering. sometimes there is a bigger picture. a parent will not rush to his kid's aid whenever he scrapes his knees. he might allow him to deal with the pain on his own and become stronge so the next time the child will either learn to avoid getting hurt or will deal better with perhaps an even bigger pain. there is nothign sadder than a 20 year old mama's boy who never experienced hardship and then crumbles at the first difficulty he encounters. and i believe it would be even sadder if that "let mommy take care of you" persists for ever. i would find such an existance demeaning and boring.
absolute benevolence doesn't mean you don't allow suffering. sometimes there is a bigger picture. a parent will not rush to his kid's aid whenever he scrapes his knees. he might allow him to deal with the pain on his own and become stronge so the next time the child will either learn to avoid getting hurt or will deal better with perhaps an even bigger pain ough, but the next. you struggle through this one so you can appreciate the next.
Let's remain focused on the particularly nasty situations where the `opportunity to grow' is a non issue, like for example, someone suffering a long and brutal death. It's all too easy to pick examples where you can put up a defence of some god's omni-ness in one specific case (and others) like it,
and even these are far from watertight
but it has to hold for all cases - even the really grizzly ones. To this end, what is the bigger picture for people who, in one moment may have been living decent lives, and in the next are thrashing around in agony, dazed and confused, doing whatever they can (in vain) to stay alive as they are slowly dying half crushed and scorched under a pile of burning rubble in the wake of a terrorist explosion somewhere?
Further, a system which allows people the free will to do as they please is not consistent with a benevolent God - it is consistent with a god who desires the "who's the daddy!"' factor if people choose to be subservient to it of their own accord
i don't get " a system wich allows free will [...] is consistent with a god who desires the who's your daddy factor" . care to rephrase that? and assuming you claim that free will somehow forces god to step in and deny it (or be branded as a jerk), what would your solution be? force all people to do only good things? to effectively deny free will? what is the point of living if your actions are forced on you? where is the satisfaction of you accomplishing anything if god did it?
Basically I meant the free will as often described is to guarantee that people choose "God" of their own accord - an action which would bolster the already soaring ego of a god who set such a thing up.
What I meant by the "who\'s the daddy!" factor is we could suppose it\'s sitting in the clouds somewhere thinking to itself "oh YEAH!!!..chalk up another believer for the God-meister! I\'m too good, just too damned good!!!"
I'm not seeing the problem that you have with either the suppression of (or even complete denial) of `free-will'. Firstly I'm a determinist so I don't actually believe true "free will" exists anyway - pseudo free will yes, but not truly untethered, undetermined (in some way) free will.
So long as the person is unaware that some sort of intervention is taking place that prevents them from choosing to be evil then from their own perspectives they are still choosing to be good; and live out their rewarding lives as they would if they were naturally good people anyway.
free will is a gift. it is by it that we live our lives as we deem right ( or at least under the ilusion that we have control), that we grow and prosper and accomplish great things as a civilization. us, not an outside force. that means you are a human being, and not a barbie doll in a giant cosmic doll house controlled by a supernatural force.
But I contend that's not a system consistent with an omnibenevolent god - a pragmatic god maybe,
in *certain* cases that is
but not an omnibenevolent one; indeed that is a claim about god which carries strong implications about what it "ought to do" when suffering takes place. For example suppose your employer is decent person, pays you a comfortable wage and allows you the freedom to get on with and grow in your job, suppose you are actually pretty good at your job (to him you're difficult (not impossible) to replace) - then suppose you are struck down with a life-threatening affliction for which the treatment can only be carried out outside the health system you have access to and you can't afford it on your current wages. Is your employer "maximally benevolent"as far as such maximality can apply to humans
if, supposing he were not inconvenienced financially by helping out, just shrugs his shoulders content in the knowledge that your health ought not to be his problem? swap \"he\" for \"she\" if necessary
He might have been a good employer but does he deserve the title "maximally benevolent employer"? more deserving than one who put his hand in his pocket and gave you enough coin to get better!?
i thank god for what i was given. i thank god for the beauty of creation. i like to think that god is with me and is sad when i am sad and proud of me and happy when i overcome a difficulty. he is my friend and a silent observer. i don't ask for help from him because i feel it would be insulting to him, he already gave me more than enough.
this life is a life of suffering. of growth. what you ask for, god promisses. not in this life though, but the next. you struggle through this one so you can appreciate the next.
I acknowledge that's your own view on the nature of God and your own reservations about asking for or demanding help, but then given you're in a position to hold that view means your not not the sort of person who's life (soon to expire) has been defined pretty much, for example, by hunger and hopelessness.
Moreover you talk about the struggles in this life being such one will appreciate what's to come in the next; supposing I reserve my own skeptism here, I have to ask how much the relatively transient (but in some cases truly horrible) struggles living as a mortal really weigh in on ones eternal evaluation of how good it is to exist in the afterlife!
Originally posted by AgergSin is the reason we have needless grief, pain, suffering, and death. So I do
I'm not the one claiming an omnipotent omniscient, omnibenevolent god exists - I, along with others, merely raise the problems with supposing that kind of entity exists.
Reconciling such a god with the world we live in is your problem.
not have a problem with saying God is Holy and good. You seem to have an
issue with assigning blame on man, as the vast majority of things wrong are
due to our own actions or non-actions.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat on 'earth' does 'God is Holy' mean, exactly. Please define.
Sin is the reason we have needless grief, pain, suffering, and death. So I do
not have a problem with saying God is Holy and good. You seem to have an
issue with assigning blame on man, as the vast majority of things wrong are
due to our own actions or non-actions.
Kelly
The term 'God' is an abstract noun, and can be proven to exist as much as 'the square root of -1 can.'
They have their uses, of course. But they are purely abstract. If you can give me an example of where 'God' or 'the square root of -1' haven't been abstract then please give me examples.
Until then it is my opinion, and that of billions, that these abstract ideas don't physically exist. They are purely 'ideas'.
Please show me a physical non-abstract example of where God has proven its existence for us all to view, and to accept as non-abstract.
-m.
Originally posted by mikelomHow about the design in all nature and in the heavens and the earth with
What on 'earth' does 'God is Holy' mean, exactly. Please define.
The term 'God' is an abstract noun, and can be proven to exist as much as 'the square root of -1 can.'
They have their uses, of course. But they are purely abstract. If you can give me an example of where 'God' or 'the square root of -1' haven't been abstract then please give me examples. ...[text shortened]... s proven its existence for us all to view, and to accept as non-abstract.
-m.
its tilt at just the right angle and its moon and sun at just the right distance
to provide for the seasons with its rotation that helps provide for life as a
start. Maybe, you have the same mind as black beetle who seems to think
everything is abstract and imaginary.