omnibenevolent

[magnifier661]

That sounds similar to "At one point in history, white people in the US owned slaves. Therefore all white people are forever evil in the US." It seems like a god could choose when necessary to intervene without destroying free will. Like Spiderman says "everybody gets one."

God doesn't think man is evil. God thinks sin is evil.

God doesn't hate the playa, he hates the game

 

[Minstrel]

God doesn't think man is evil. God thinks sin is evil.

God doesn't hate the playa, he hates the game

Yet god created the game. The game it hates.

Awkward.

 

[Eastoff]

God doesn't think man is evil. God thinks sin is evil.

God doesn't hate the playa, he hates the game

God could still smite evil dictators once in a while to turn things around.

 

[magnifier661]

Yet god created the game. The game it hates.

Awkward.

These are the replies that give evidence that you clearly didn't read my philosophical reasoning.

That he would sacrifice the powers that make him omniscience or omnipotent so that man could have "free will". And that free will that maybe 99.9% would freely love God no matter what trials, tortures or harm that sin puts before him and still won't have that person stop and believe and love in God.

And what if 99.9% didn't believe in him or falls victim to sin, torment or harm; he's be willing to bet the entire existence of him, the universe and everything for that 0.1% that say "I love you as much as you love me".

That's omnibevelant. That is true love. That is true good. That is God

Then

 

[magnifier661]

God could still smite evil dictators once in a while to turn things around.

Then God would be interfering with man's free will.

 

[Minstrel]

These are the replies that give evidence that you clearly didn't read my philosophical reasoning.

That doesn't have anything to do with god creating a system it hates, IMO. By definition, if god hates something, it's negative and thus not well-designed. Which is ungodlike, so awkward.

 

[crowTrobot]

No I am extremely angry that woman and children had to die because of the actions of Adam and Eve.

And I think you're similarly angry/appalled that Jews had to die because of the actions of Hitler, and suspect when you reference "evil" you are just subconsciously referencing your feelings about those actions, and not anything truly objective (the fact that we agree about what is bad does not make it objectively so).

If not, why specifically do you think it was evil for Hitler to slaughter Jews, but not evil for Jews to (hypothetically) slaughter Canaanites?

 

[magnifier661]

That doesn't have anything to do with god creating a system it hates, IMO. By definition, if god hates something, it's negative and thus not well-designed. Which is ungodlike, so awkward.

The intention of God was not to create sin, he was creating love. As I already expressed, the love he gets in return supersedes the hate of sin. And, his "sacrifice" that puts an end to sin, once and for all, gives evidence of his "Godly plan". So you are judging only a portion of the design. That's like judging a building's design based on the type of employees being used without judging the final outcome of the building itself.

 

[magnifier661]

And I think you're similarly angry/appalled that Jews had to die because of the actions of Hitler, and suspect when you reference "evil" you are just subconsciously referencing your feelings about those actions, and not anything truly objective (the fact that we agree about what is bad does not make it objectively so).

If not, why specifically do you think it was evil for Hitler to slaughter Jews, but not evil for Jews to (hypothetically) slaughter Canaanites?

I'm really wondering if you guys are even reading what I post?

No I am extremely angry that woman and children had to die because of the actions of Adam and Eve.

I am equally angry all the way around. I also used two "Christian" atrocities in my response (Cruisades and left wing gay bashers). Did you overlook that as well?

 

[Minstrel]

The intention of God was not to create sin, he was creating love.

I don't feel you've established well how the creation of love necessitates the creation of sin.

As I already expressed, the love he gets in return supersedes the hate of sin.

If it's a net positive, why does god "hate the game?" That "don't hate the player, hate the game" saying is generally used about fundamentally broken systems.

And, his "sacrifice" that puts an end to sin, once and for all, gives evidence of his "Godly plan".

I originally thought you meant Christ's sacrifice. But that didn't put an end to sin, in Christianity's canon. Do you mean a sacrifice when Christ returns? I wasn't aware that Christianity considers Christ's eventual return to be a sacrifice.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't feel you've established well how the creation of love necessitates the creation of sin.

Once again, I ask you review all that I wrote before you respond. As I said, since evil exists, it always existed. Good exists then good always existed. Designing anything would include that these obstacles are there because they are always there. Before man was even created, Evil was always there.

And as I explained, God is in us, so he is going through all our pain as well. Since this is a philosophical discussion, we can compare with those "in love" now. Just like the parent knows that the world isn't a safe place filled with roses, yet we create a child. The best we can do as parents is to try our best to influence our children to do what we believe is right. In the end, the choice to follow our lead is solely theirs.

The good thing is, even when we still fall, God has paid the final price so man doesn't have to be judged.

If it's a net positive, why does god "hate the game?" That "don't hate the player, hate the game" saying is generally used about fundamentally broken systems.

In order for God to give man true free will, he must not intervene. He can still hate the game "SIN", knowing that there is nothing he can do to take that "game" away and still give man "free will".

I think you guys just skimmed through all I wrote without any thought. Are you guys arguing because you want to or are you really "objectively" discussing the issue?

I originally thought you meant Christ's sacrifice. But that didn't put an end to sin, in Christianity's canon. Do you mean a sacrifice when Christ returns? I wasn't aware that Christianity considers Christ's eventual return to be a sacrifice.

The moment Christ died on the cross, sin lost all its teeth. Sin still exists, but it cannot be judged anymore. Man, the moment they leave this body, is washed and perfect in God's eyes.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[riverman]

Here's a question for the Biblical scholars in the house, What's the difference between immaculate conception and adultry? Was Joseph empowered with free will in this situation and was the act actually a sin according to religious doctrine?

 

[magnifier661]

In trying to understand why you posted this picture?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

In trying to understand why you posted this picture?

I work in mysterious ways.

 

[HomerLovesKoolAid]

In trying to understand why you posted this picture?

It's hot.

Sly is monobenevolent. He's only nice to his penis.

 

[magnifier661]

Here's a question for the Biblical scholars in the house, What's the difference between immaculate conception and adultry? Was Joseph empowered with free will in this situation and was the act actually a sin according to religious doctrine?

I would read this debate to give you the answers. It puts this argument to rest. If you would like me to summarize it for you I can.

http://www.debate.org/debates/Immaculate-Conception-Bible-Patristics/1/

 

[Denny Crane]

And? Remember when you had a debate on another thread about capital punishment not being a punishment of fear? You said it was just the byproduct of law.



The crime of sin is Death. It is simply the penalty befitting the crime.

And using bits and pieces of the gospel doesn't tell the entire tale.

Whatever the case, the double standard needs no place here

LOL

Benevolent means "kind." It's a stretch of the greatest length to say "God" murdering all the 1st born of Egypt is "kind."

LOL

 

[Denny Crane]

The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies. 3 The LORD is very patient but great in power; the LORD punishes. His way is in whirlwind and storm; clouds are the dust of his feet. 4 He can blast the sea and make it dry up; he can dry up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither; the bud of Lebanon withers. 5 The mountains quake because of him; the hills melt away. The earth heaves before him— the world and all who dwell in it. 6 Who can stand before his indignation? Who can confront the heat of his fury? His wrath pours out like fire; the rocks are shattered because of him. 7 The LORD is good, a haven in a day of distress. He acknowledges those who take refuge in him. 8 With a rushing flood, he will utterly destroy her place and pursue his enemies into darkness.

vengeful is not benevolent.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's hot.

Sly is monobenevolent. He's only nice to his penis.

Hahahaha! Rep'd!

 

[magnifier661]

LOL

Benevolent means "kind." It's a stretch of the greatest length to say "God" murdering all the 1st born of Egypt is "kind."

LOL

Actually it depends on how you look at it. If you look at time on Earth and eternity, it's but a small scale to the reality. If the first Born are in Heaven, through God's grace, then it's a very "KIND" thing.

 

[magnifier661]

The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies. 3 The LORD is very patient but great in power; the LORD punishes. His way is in whirlwind and storm; clouds are the dust of his feet. 4 He can blast the sea and make it dry up; he can dry up all the rivers. Bashan and Carmel wither; the bud of Lebanon withers. 5 The mountains quake because of him; the hills melt away. The earth heaves before him— the world and all who dwell in it. 6 Who can stand before his indignation? Who can confront the heat of his fury? His wrath pours out like fire; the rocks are shattered because of him. 7 The LORD is good, a haven in a day of distress. He acknowledges those who take refuge in him. 8 With a rushing flood, he will utterly destroy her place and pursue his enemies into darkness.

vengeful is not benevolent.

Again, you are looking at one action and not the concept of Sin. God's wrath is on Sin, not man. And God's grace frees man from the burden of Sin. If he lets us go, even though it is justified penalty, like you said "Laws aren't a deterrent but a penalty befitting certain crimes"

The death penalty isn't meant to deter anyone. It's simply the penalty befitting certain crimes.

 

[crowTrobot]

I am equally angry all the way around. I also used two "Christian" atrocities in my response (Cruisades and left wing gay bashers). Did you overlook that as well?

I wasn't questioning "Christian" atrocities vs. others, I was questioning something that you would describe as an atrocity if done by man, that the bible says was commanded by God.

 

[Minstrel]

Once again, I ask you review all that I wrote before you respond. As I said, since evil exists, it always existed. Good exists then good always existed. Designing anything would include that these obstacles are there because they are always there.

Yeah, you repeat this a lot and I still don't think it makes sense in the context of an omnipotent god. Or do you believe that god is not omnipotent?

In order for God to give man true free will, he must not intervene. He can still hate the game "SIN", knowing that there is nothing he can do to take that "game" away and still give man "free will".

Disagree, but we've been over this.

I think you guys just skimmed through all I wrote without any thought. Are you guys arguing because you want to or are you really "objectively" discussing the issue?

I think you struggle to put together coherent arguments and then get upset when people point out the inconsistencies. You tend to just repeat things ad nauseam, as if just saying something makes it true. Sin is required for love. Why? Because sin is always there and god loves us. Why didn't god design a system without sin? Because sin is always there. That type of thing is really not the basis for real philosophical discussion, no matter how many times you accuse people who disagree with you of "not reading" or "not understanding" or "arguing just to argue." You should consider that maybe you don't really put out arguments that are coherent enough to understand.

 

[magnifier661]

I wasn't questioning "Christian" atrocities vs. others, I was questioning something that you would describe as an atrocity if done by man, that the bible says was commanded by God.

But as I keep saying over and over again, the command wasn't against man, it was against sin. This was before Christ's redemption of grace, and all those that suffered are with God.

As I said, if you get to perfection, does it really matter how you got there once you are free from death?

 

[magnifier661]

Yeah, you repeat this a lot and I still don't think it makes sense in the context of an omnipotent god. Or do you believe that god is not omnipotent?

Um why don't you read what I said please...

The creator of all the heavens and earth, everything and anything couldn't create us to live a sinless life and give us "free will". That he would sacrifice the powers that make him omniscience or omnipotent so that man could have "free will". And that free will that maybe 99.9% would freely love God no matter what trials, tortures or harm that sin puts before him and still won't have that person stop and believe and love in God.

Disagree, but we've been over this.

Disagreement noted... You don't have to like my answer.

I think you struggle to put together coherent arguments and then get upset when people point out the inconsistencies. You tend to just repeat things ad nauseam, as if just saying something makes it true. Sin is required for love. Why? Because sin is always there and god loves us. Why didn't god design a system without sin? Because sin is always there. That type of thing is really not the basis for real philosophical discussion, no matter how many times you accuse people who disagree with you of "not reading" or "not understanding" or "arguing just to argue." You should consider that maybe you don't really put out arguments that are coherent enough to understand.

Really? Or maybe your refusal to read and actually openly think about what I said could be the culprit? If I said "God must give up the powers to make him omnipotent or omniscience to give free will", then reply "Or do you believe that God is not omnipotent?" sums it all up right there.

 

[RR7]

who's making god give up powers? Why MUST he do anything, and be under constraint?

 

[Denny Crane]

vengeful and benevolent do not go together.

jealous and benevolent do not go together.

There is no "context" to it, the bible says he murdered the first born sons of Egypt. A whole nation. That's an atrocity on the scale of the Nazis.

 

[Minstrel]

Really? Or maybe your refusal to read and actually openly think about what I said could be the culprit? If I said "God must give up the powers to make him omnipotent or omniscience to give free will", then reply "Or do you believe that God is not omnipotent?" sums it all up right there.

You're very confused. If god "gave up" those powers, that means it had those powers to begin with and it was a choice to give them up. Which means that while it was omnipotent (and omniscient), it could have designed a much better system. I've already explained how free will and no sin are compatible, but you basically hand-waved it away in a different thread.

My question of whether you think god is omnipotent was in regards to prior to it "giving up" those powers. Because omnipotence doesn't work with "sin is just a pre-existing force against which god is helpless."

Basically, your "philosophy" doesn't really make sense at any level. But you, are of course, welcome to it.

 

[magnifier661]

You're very confused. If god "gave up" those powers, that means it had those powers to begin with and it was a choice to give them up. Which means that while it was omnipotent (and omniscient), it could have designed a much better system. I've already explained how free will and no sin are compatible, but you basically hand-waved it away in a different thread.

Um yeah... Like I also said "Knowing that he couldn't create us to live a sinless life". As you are just taking a bit of the entire philosophical concept to work in your attempt of fallacy. I don't think you are confused. I just think you are just refusing to read with an open mind. And that is why you think I'm confused.

My question of whether you think god is omnipotent was in regards to prior to it "giving up" those powers, that you speculate occurred. Because omnipotence doesn't work with "sin is just a force against which god is helpless."

Basically, your "philosophy" doesn't really make sense at any level. But you, are of course, welcome to it.

Can humanity give up their life for the ones they love, even if they know that it isn't good? A person in a terrible relationship (abuse, violence, whatever) still chooses to love the person that hurts them. That debunks your statement "Your" philosophy" doesn't really make sense at any level. Sure you can be outside the box and say things like "Why the hell does that abused person stay in such a disastrous relationship?", but that love is still there, regardless if you believe its love or not.