A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[Sonofason]

The theory is that if you were truly and wholly content, you would lack any motivation to change that state and so would not be doing anything. But no one has that level of contentment and we do things for lots of reasons and often capriciously as well.

However I strongly suspect that you help others because you are discontent with the state they find themselves in and in fact that you invoke the term "helping" them implies that you are discontent with their state and are seeking to improve it.

If you were actually content with their state you wouldn't be helping them, you would just be hanging out with them for the fun of it.

If I were to stop doing anything, because I am content in the state in which I find myself in, how in the world could I maintain that state? If I were to stop helping others because I feel content in helping others, I most assuredly would lose my contentment.

Honestly, this has gone too far. You're right, I'm not absolutely content every single moment of my life, but I am quite content. I am so content that I feel quite content stating that I am content; even in the face of human suffering and misery, I am quite content.

 

[Sonofason]

There's so much nastiness and darkness in the world that it's FUN to redress the balance by helping people!
Jesus said to his followers- “You are the light of the world", and Christians like brightening the place up a little..

That was a good answer.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I told you straight up:
Actual non xtians are proud of this fact and fringe xtians (like deists for example) are quick to distance themselves from the normative mainstream.

Granted this is just a rule of thumb but I have noticed xtians get really antsy about straight out denying that they are xtians.

But they don't mind trying to imply it by saying things like "Who says I'm a Xtian?"

And I notice he has fail to deny it as well.

So, smells xtian.

Deists are not Christians though. We deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ, as well as all other supposed divine religious figures. I'm not sure of any Christian who would do that. That being said, Jesus was a great guy. He did a great job of combating the self-righteousness and false piety of the religious authorities of his time, in addition to advocating a more pacifistic way of life rather than the traditional "eye-for-an-eye" lifestyle.

Also, pantheists are not Christian either. In Christianity, the creator is seen as distinct from his creation, while generally no such distinction exists in pantheism, as deity and creation are generally seen as one and the same.

Once again, belief in deity and rejection of anti-theism do not automatically equal Christianity... or even organized religion in general. My belief in deity does not make me Christian, nor does my refusal to adhere to organized religion make me atheist.

 

[sojourner]

Deists are not Christians though. We deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ, as well as all other supposed divine religious figures. I'm not sure of any Christian who would do that. That being said, Jesus was a great guy. He did a great job of combating the self-righteousness and false piety of the religious authorities of his time, in addition to advocating a more pacifistic way of life rather than the traditional "eye-for-an-eye" lifestyle.

Also, pantheists are not Christian either. In Christianity, the creator is seen as distinct from his creation, while generally no such distinction exists in pantheism, as deity and creation are generally seen as one and the same.

Once again, belief in deity and rejection of anti-theism do not automatically equal Christianity... or even organized religion in general. My belief in deity does not make me Christian, nor does my refusal to adhere to organized religion make me atheist.

Christian theology also asserts that God is one with creation, though. It's a "both/and" sort of thing.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Christian theology also asserts that God is one with creation, though. It's a "both/and" sort of thing.

Agreed, but from my experience with Christendom, most will agree that there is at least some sort of separation between the creator and his creation, and that they are not completely identical to each other.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed, but from my experience with Christendom, most will agree that there is at least some sort of separation between the creator and his creation, and that they are not completely identical to each other.

It depends on the construction that's being used. As you're aware, there is no one, overarching construction that trumps all others. Whether God is transcendent or immanent -- unified or particular -- depends on the POV taken, with the understanding that neither immanency or transcendence -- unity or particularity -- are absolute to the exclusion of the other.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It depends on the construction that's being used. As you're aware, there is no one, overarching construction that trumps all others. Whether God is transcendent or immanent -- unified or particular -- depends on the POV taken, with the understanding that neither immanency or transcendence -- unity or particularity -- are absolute to the exclusion of the other.

Abslolutely. I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive to each other. That is partially why I identify as both a deist and pantheist. Part of me believes that creator is separate from creation, while part of me believes that creation itself is part of the divine as well. To what degree I am not really sure though. It really is a difficult thing to explain.

 

[sojourner]

Abslolutely. I agree that the two are not mutually exclusive to each other. That is partially why I identify as both a deist and pantheist. Part of me believes that creator is separate from creation, while part of me believes that creation itself is part of the divine as well. To what degree I am not really sure though. It really is a difficult thing to explain.

God can't be defined -- only described and only in part. We spend too much time looking for easy, all-encompassing answers when we ought to be formulating better questions.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Deists are not Christians though. We deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ, as well as all other supposed divine religious figures..That being said, Jesus was a great guy..

You can't lump Jesus in with other religious figures!
He did 37 miracles but they did none..

 

[idav]

It depends on the construction that's being used. As you're aware, there is no one, overarching construction that trumps all others. Whether God is transcendent or immanent -- unified or particular -- depends on the POV taken, with the understanding that neither immanency or transcendence -- unity or particularity -- are absolute to the exclusion of the other.

It makes sense that god could simply be all those things at his own discretion, not all of once of course. God should be able to be transcendent or immanent, whatever is necessary. A good question is, was transcendence or immanence necessary for creation, if so which ones? One has to transcend to cause without cause and must be immanent for knowledge to be possible which would have been the case prior to big bang. God would know, cause and be caused all at once, all while outside of time.

 

[sojourner]

It makes sense that god could simply be all those things at his own discretion, not all of once of course. God should be able to be transcendent or immanent, whatever is necessary. A good question is, was transcendence or immanence necessary for creation, if so which ones? One has to transcend to cause without cause and must be immanent for knowledge to be possible which would have been the case prior to big bang. God would know, cause and be caused all at once, all while outside of time.

God may be both at the same time. If God is embodied in the very breath that fills the lungs of human beings, God is immanent. If God lies at the source of power of the big bang, God is transcendent.

 

[idav]

God may be both at the same time.

That sorta helps the dilemna, both at the same time reconciles a personal type god with atheism giving something in the middle. A god that is both transcendent and immanent. Not so apathetic that god is Deistic but not so personal that god controls every single particle.

 

[Prophet]

Deists are not Christians though. We deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ, as well as all other supposed divine religious figures. I'm not sure of any Christian who would do that. That being said, Jesus was a great guy. He did a great job of combating the self-righteousness and false piety of the religious authorities of his time, in addition to advocating a more pacifistic way of life rather than the traditional "eye-for-an-eye" lifestyle.

Have you ever considered that possibly Jesus was, himself, a deist?

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Here, Jesus seems to teach that we should learn to love perfectly from the example of an impartial God, a notable departure for one born into a race indoctrinated to believe they were God's favored.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Have you ever considered that possibly Jesus was, himself, a deist?

I have, and in fact, I do to some degree.

Jesus of Nazareth seemed to be very anti-authoritarian when it came to religion. He was certainly not afraid to criticize the pompous religious authorities of his time In fact, Jesus was probably one of the biggest opponents of organized religion of his time. If I were to guess, if he were alive today, he would be ashamed of all of the pomp-and-circumstance that the church has turned into with its giant golden crucifixes, lavish long flowing robes, funny hats, and circus-like ritual. Makes me wonder if he would throw another "temple tantrum" like he did back in Jerusalem.

 

[Sonofason]

That sorta helps the dilemna, both at the same time reconciles a personal type god with atheism giving something in the middle. A god that is both transcendent and immanent. Not so apathetic that god is Deistic but not so personal that god controls every single particle.

Indeed, look at Genesis. Who or what actually brought forth the grasses, and the herbs, and the fruit bearing trees? Who or what actually brought forth the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that flew above the earth?

God said, "let the earth bring forth...", "let the waters bring forth".

God created and the earth brought forth.
God created and the waters brought forth.

I don't know. Is this relevant to your present discussion?

 

[idav]

Indeed, look at Genesis. Who or what actually brought forth the grasses, and the herbs, and the fruit bearing trees? Who or what actually brought forth the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that flew above the earth?

God said, "let the earth bring forth...", "let the waters bring forth".

God created and the earth brought forth.
God created and the waters brought forth.

I don't know. Is this relevant to your present discussion?

I am pretty much agreeing with your "both sorta thing".