Excuse my disabelief here, but again, I stated very clearly at the opening of this thread what we are discussing.

Christians (and others cut from the Abrahamic cloth) believe that not only is their GOD omnipotent, but is omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning that GOD is all-powerful, all-knowning, and all-good. (All-PKG) For each quality, GOD is the infinite expression and unlimited practice of each characteristic.

You can't remove one aspect of ALL-PKG and still have the same GOD. But generally, this is how Christians and other monotheists view their GOD when those beliefs are contradictory. Christians forget what the whole burrito and only worry about the ingredients without considering if oreo cookies or scrap metal should be added to the mix.

When you asked if this thread was questioning the validity omnibenevolence, I thought you were being a smart-ass when you take into consideration that on Post #140 you finally get around asking clarification when I have post after post to you and to the others questioning that and the other associated beliefs about GOD against the backdrop of Jesus's suffering and death.

Once I get my coffee

Thank you. He was my Uncle's Father. He lived a good long life. 92 years! I think that's a rather successful time on this earth. It was a Catholic Ceramony. Very interesting.

No, I didn't say God was not omni-benevolent - and this is precisely why I asked you to define the term as you saw it. That the Christian bible describes God as omni-benevolent (and does it?) does not mean the understanding of what the term actually means is properly translated. God's omni-benevolence stems from His unique perspective of the universe - a viewpoint we cannot comprehend. For us to assume what we consider omni-benevolence as being the same thing as it would mean to God is futile.

We can understand omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because these are all universal descriptions of some primary quality of a being. Omni-benevolence is not such a case as the quality of benevolence depends on many factors, it is not a primary quality of a being.

Ah no, I did not ignore your point. I stated that cutting the cord was "prudent." However, the comparison between a medical necessity and a metaphysical claim is based upon two different situations. One in medical, and the other in GOD's goodness. Since both circumstances are completely dissimilar, you have made a false comparison.

Furthermore, I went on to take extend your reasoning to abortion.


And your affirming the goodness of GOD based on a very narrow view of life yourself. However, I am NOT questioning this alleged goodness in your straw-man above, but what that means if that GOD is said to be an ALL-PKG being and the fact that Jesus suffered and died as the BIBLE stories illustrate.


Well he could converse with me by the form of a burning bush, or personally reveal himself to me like HE did for PAUL. I guess HE must not want too, and must want me to die and suffer in HELL. OR just die...depending on your view of HELL. So, SON, take it up with him, okay?


And if I make that choice, this all loving and all compassionate and all powerful god will chuck me into HELL for my freedom of choice, for my freewill. Hmm... so allow me to thank GOD, for my freedom of choice and apologize to HIM that when HE doesn't like my choices in this PLAN he set up.


Do you have an eternal viewpoint? I guess you must SON. Basically, all I really get from this sermon is that suffering doesn't matter to you. You don't care about suffering because you've accepted GODs offer and will never have to suffer again in Heaven.

Is this correct?


What? What does liberalism have to do with this? (Whether that is political, social, or religious liberalism.) I asked you if 'how can you worship a being that finds and allows children to suffer?"

Can you not answer the question without resorting to a red-herring?


You seriously expect me to believe in fable? A talking Snake? A poison apple? Is this the best you have?

Anyway, if you have no knowledge of Good and Evil, how is one to know that disobedience to GOD is a bad, evil thing? Got an answer to that SON?


Well we don't have to take responsibility. Baptism gets us into heaven. Jesus died getting us into heaven. According to Christianity, we don't have to live moral lives with these doctrines and beliefs in Christianity.


Never blamed GOD. Here's Post #1:
"By and large, Christians (and others cut from the Abrahamic cloth) believe that not only is their GOD omnipotent, but is omniscient and omnibenevolent. Meaning that GOD is all-powerful, all-knowning, and all-good. (All-PKG) For each quality, GOD is the infinite expression and unlimited practice of each characteristic.

If GOD is All-PKG, then the question must be answered...why did Jesus have to die? The very nature, the very tautology of the word "omnipotent" is all-powerful, that is, GOD is the infinite expression of unlimited power. To deny this definition of GOD otherwise abrogates and makes the meaning of the word God a joke and further inchoates an already confusing and contradictory concept where believers, by-and-large, admit that GOD is incomprehensible. With unlimited power and unlimited scope of knowledge, GOD - if the word is to have any meaning at all, MUST change the rules of the Universe, whereby not only the suffering of humans, but of animals in its fecundity abated and made obsolete.

But no, the Universe is indifferent and even the Son of God must die, as the stories in the New Testament illustrate."


No, I am not asserting that GOD is pleased. I've extended your analogy. It is in fact, you who are asserting that GOD is pleased. You stated that "from the perspective of God" that "we experience pain and suffering, will lead to a much greater good, so it is actually good too."

So what's the difference? Death is suffering. Doesn't matter if man makes you suffer, or GOD allows you to suffer, the end result to the fetus is all the same if GOD perspective that it is GOOD that we suffer before we get to HEAVEN. At least fetus don't have the possiblity of rejecting GOD and Christianity and going to HELL. They get to go there right away and, as you state "enjoying eternity with their Creator."

Gracious, I see your points and have read a lot of this thread. But, the simple fact is, most true believers see no contradictions from their God, they don't interpret the scriptures the way you do (obvious, I know). So, if it is your task to 'convince' the 'ones on the fence', then have at it... enjoy the challenge. But, I believe, when it comes to one's spiritual self, there is no one true faith that will work for all.

You stated "such a being is beyond benevolence or evil and, imo, to call It all-benevolent is to reduce It to something akin to ourselves."

Seems to me you're dismissing that GOD is not all-benevolent.

And I stated to you here these are the definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, again:

"Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Benevolence is the desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God."

I'll ask for the fourth time, is there some other definition of each you wish to use?


You state that we can not comprehend GOD, therefore you refute any positive statements made in defense that GOD as some special form of "omni-benevolence." Except that omni-benevolence is only an attribute of GOD, so there can not be a special form. And if you can not properly "translate" what that means in your description of GOD, you can not assert a special form.


Well I don't have to assume. If GOD is ALL-PKG the universe would look and act much different. Facts on the ground prove that otherwise.


Twaddle.

Each definition of OMNI-ness describes infinite potential.

Your "special omni-benevolence" argument is ad hoc at best, incoherent at its worse.

I hear you and thank you. I'm not arguing for a true faith of any kind, but testing what beliefs are valid from what is said to be the "true faith."

Oh dear!

Gacious - despite your clever userid you haven't really displayed any wisdom in this response.

It doesn't matter what the Oxford dictionary definition of all-benevolent is. It was defined in there from our limited perspective. Tell me, did God write the OED? Did He define the words so we could use these as a reference to describe Him? We can use whatever words we wish to describe God but they only describe the human imagining of God, not the divine actuality.

Rather than respond in the abusive manner which seems to be your style if you have no intelligent recourse, I would ask if you could think upon the point I am making. Or are you trying to provoke aggressive response from people by being aggressive? Because that is a posting style that is frowned upon in this forum.



My point regarding the special circumstance of the inclusion of omni-benevolence in the description of God is that benevolence - whether omni or otherwise - depends on other qualities of being. The other omni-qualities ascribed to God do not. God can be omnipotent without having any other quality, likewise omniscient or omnipresent. God, or any other being, however, cannot be benevolent or omni-benevolent without having other qualities with which to decide what benevolent action actually is. Benevolence, in this sense, is a decision. Gods' quality of omni-benevolence depends on His omniscience at the very least. How can we comprehend that omni-benevolence without having ourselves the same qualities as God?



If you do not understand an argument someone is making, then perhaps it would be best to ask them to clarify - or perhaps simplify - their point rather than resort to insult.

Yes, and yet both indicate that although a particular act, cutting the umbilical cord in the baby's instance and requiring us to live with the effects of our own and all of mankind's decisions in this world in the case of humanity, may result in pain and suffering the overall result is not just good, but significantly better than if the action had not taken place. The comparison had to do with the necessity of pain to achieve a positive, life-giving result, sorry you were unable to grasp that.

Sorry, but you began with an assertion that obviously showed you had failed to grasp the simple analogy.

Eternal life is a narrow view?

He's actually choosing to speak directly to your heart, so why aren't you listening?


Actually, He's not condemning you anywhere, you are choosing not to accept a gift, and are, therefore, choosing to pay for the choices you made. If you are choosing not to accept the way out, how is it God is condemning you?


So, now because I have answered from my perspective, I'm giving a sermon? Come on, Gacious, the supposedly subtle attacks and petty comments are not as subtle as you think and they are really tiresome. Yes, I try to have an eternal viewpoint, but since I am currently bound to this life also, I fail quite often, especially when I'm the one hurting or someone close to me is hurting. But even then I do try to keep that eternal viewpoint. How did you get that suffering doesn't matter to me? It matters very much. I served in the U.S. Army partly because I wanted to be part of the solution to some of the suffering in the world. I left a successful career in a Fortune 50 company to join the staff of a church which is dedicated to sharing God's love with everyone and who tries to live that by helping those who are suffering, and like I said, I do suffer myself.


Liberalism (politically) takes on the attitude that all people are simply victims, either of the "system," the environment, or circumstances and does not allow or want people to be responsible for their actions but to simply blame Big Mother Government for all their ills and demand that She take care of them. This is the same attitude you are now reflecting by refusing to accept responsibility but instead assuming that God is the one condemning you, by failing to acknowledge that whatever happens to you in the end is the result of YOUR choices. That is liberal though at it's most corrosive.

I think I could, but it seems you are incapable or unwilling to actually grasp the point. Can you be intellectually honest and actually study the point instead of looking for non-important side issues to dismiss the whole explanation?


Actually, at this point the only thing I expect is that you will continue to use whatever petty thing you can to ignore the points being made.

Simple, if you are told NOT to do something and are told what the consequences of doing it are, you have everything you need in order to make a choice. Can you be mature enough to accept responsibility for your choices?


Ah, but by acknowledging that your decisions have severed the life-line relationship with God and placed you on a path to eternal death, you ARE taking responsibility.

Baptism gets you nowhere. Baptism is only a ritual to announce what has occurred in the Spiritual plane when you acknowledge your sin and accept God's gift of life through Jesus's death and resurrection.

According to Christianity, the desire to live an immoral life should no longer be a part of you if you have truly accepted Christ as Savior. Of course, since accepting Christ does not lead to immediate perfection, ALL Christians will fail to live 100% moral and upright lives, but will continue to strive to live that way, thereby living the best life they possibly can.

You may want to actually study, not just read the Bible or even Christian websites, but actually study the New Testament before making assertions about what Christianity is or is not.


I agree, the universe is indifferent, it's not a living creature, it has no intelligence in and of itself it's just energy in different forms, an God set it up like that, and yes, the death of God in human form was required by the rules of this universe. But God is not the universe, and God is not bound or unwillingly bound by the rules of the universe, since He is the one who established them


That in no way implies God is happy that we are suffering, since He originally set us up so we would have no suffering, but man has shown He will choose to do things which will cause him or others to suffer. This all basically boils down to an unwillingness to accept responsibility.

If you could not understand what I wrote quite clearly, it's not worth spending more time explaining it, just so you ignore the explanation and use it as a springboard for more nonsense.

Oh it doesn't, does it?

Does the Oxford definition of God matter as well?

God –noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

According to your argument above, definitions 1 through 5 do not "matter," as you said we are "limited" Therefore, our limited perspective can make no positive statements for or about GOD.

Which means, Leo, neither can you.


Well you tell me who created the universe? Where reason is supposed to come from? Where are morals supposed to come from? You ask a Christian, they tell you GOD.

Ah, so by that reasoning... YES.


If he wants proof of his existence and can provide a BIBLE or other revealed texts, this HE can surely do as well.

Too bad he did not do a better job of it.


Your defining GOD as divine. What is your definition of divine? The BIBLE? The OED? Leo's imagination?

If all words fail, LEO, then we have no idea what your are describing LEO and then you can not describe GOD or guess at his reason either, like SON.

Therefore, your defense of "divine actuality" is incoherent.


Well if members on this board would stop reading my mind, red herring into subjects that have no bearing, strawman the discussion when a post of mine refutes their last point, answer directly questions that I have asked (the many which GO now answered) perhaps the push back wouldn't be so obvious. That is simply rude. I've taken all the assertions about my personality from you, from SON, from Saleria (which s/he apologized for), from Flower on this site.

Are you going to scold them too? Nah, I am the evil atheist that should take all the abuse quietly so people like you can feel smug & secure.



Your still special pleading. Your new argument is that if your GOD is omnipotent, and omnipotent only, then HW can not be likewise omniscient or omni-benevelopment. That is not the Christian God. So are you arguing for three separate gods? One that is omniscient. One that is omni-benevelopment. And One that is omnipotent. However, you've just contradicted yourself, again, by stating that GOD's "omni-benevolence depends on His omniscience." So, I have no idea what your saying, and IMO, neither do you.


You are sitting here arguing that you can, even though you admit you are limited and I am supposed to accept your ad hoc argument based upon your definition of yourself as limited?

If you have some other definition of what all PKG is, please provide it. You keep refusing. You keep dodging. And you keep re-qualifying what you mean by each term.


How did I insult you? My answer to your statement of "Omni-benevolence is not such a case as the quality of benevolence depends on many factors, it is not a primary quality of a being."

Is an ad hoc, special qualification of what it omnibenevolence means. Try as you might, you can not explain yourself out of that each attribute of all-pkg literally is the "infinite potential."

I guess you don't get it. Your ALL-PKG GOD has no choice to change the universe, or recreate it, if those definitions mean anything.

Which they don't.

OK, I'll try one more time and I'll try to keep it simple.

Assuming that biblical God exists means we accept the other biblical premises; i.e. the soul and all that life everlasting stuff.

Can we know what happens to this soul of ours once we pass from our life here on Earth? No, we can't.

Do we then have the perspective of God, who's omniscience lets Him know all that will happen, including this second life of our soul? No, we don't.

I cannot begin to guess at why God lets bad things happen, but if He is omni-benevolent as stated, it can only be because the alternative would be worse for the soul(s) affected. Ok, God is omnipotent so he can change anything He wants - but if He has given us free-will He respects that (part of his benevolent nature) and therefore must suffer Himself for our mistakes while He knows He could just wave His hand and make everything right. He has to do only the best He can while letting us do what we will. That is His covenant with Man.

S.A.G., if you accept part of biblical lore to argue against, you must accept all of it. I could argue that what God does (or doesn't do) seems pitiless and cruel, indeed I have in the past done that. However, I can also accept the Christian argument that the very nature of God puts Him beyond our comprehension. We may give him human traits and qualities, but these are just our approximations of what He truly is.

Your argument is simply that a human with god-like abilities would do such and such, which is fine but God is not Human. The bible states we are created in His image, it does not state we are as He.

Btw, I like that you used capitals to highlight my name. Does that mean I'm very important???

*Insert the Unitarian Universalist* WOOHOO

Okay so this was actually going to be MY next interjection as well

What if the benevolence that we see (or lack thereof, I THINK is more what Gacious has been getting at) is what is possible at any given moment falling into the perimeters of free will? If God were to just wave his hands and make everything hunky dory, would it not affect free will, which was a promise given to people as a result of God's benevolence?

AGAIN just adding...not necessarily trying to argue with anyone. I enjoy following this thread...

Oh UM...I friggin love it here... *happy sigh*

I personally think that Dawkins should stop telling GOD what to do. I'm pretty sure that, being GOD and all, he's probably thought it all properly through in advance.

I'm not sure what Dawkins is trying to achieve, to be honest. It's not as if GOD hangs on Dawkin's every word, thinks to himself "By Golly, that Dawkins fellow is right" and changes the universe forthwith.

If he means that our limited human understanding of the definition of GOD is wrong....then that really doesn't come as much of a surprise to anyone, us being human and all. It would be more of a surprise if we'd nailed it, don't you think?

Wow. What an amazingly thick, and pointless post oh Moderator. Can you dense-headed Christians ever innovate a thought on your own? Oh you did, but that was in the 4th century when you adopted/stole Pagan philosophy - and quite badly, to give your Trinity some semblance of reason and coherence.

What a waste of post there. So I will rub it in and see over and over how just pathetic Christian-reason fails to honestly meet the self-evident dilemma that an all-PKG and a universe that is mute to the suffering therein contained.

But, lets do what Christianity did in during it's early formation of its doctrine... we'll just ignore the problem and then wallow in ignorance and pat our selves on the back as a virtue.

I'm an atheist, as it goes. Nice try, however.

If that's the case, your post makes no sense - at least the first part.

And, anyway, no other Christian has been able to resolve suffering in the world with it's Bible and Stories as perfect illustration.

It is the case - and my post makes perfect sense. God - if he exists - can do whatever he wants, without having to get a permission slip signed by Dawkins.