A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[Shad]

You are free to do so as I am free to dismiss it as nonsense.

 

[Sonofason]

You are free to do so as I am free to dismiss it as nonsense.

Ah, then at least we can agree on something.

 

[Underground]

I wouldn't call the sentiments you mention "theology." I'd call them "simplistic excuses where theodicy is concerned."

I wouldn't call it theology either. Theology is a bad word.
Nothing more than a void, arrogant claim to be the sole path to truth after millenia of utter, disgusting failures.
Toilet paper.

It's a waste of intellectual effort to maintain that God "could have" done thus-and-such. The reality is, God didn't do thus-and such. The universe is created where suffering is a reality; human beings are created to experience suffering.

The reality is, God isn't there.

About diligence, you need a deeper understanding of the words real and suffering.

However: One can't simply take "omnipotence" and "omnibenevolence," make them absolute and all-encompassing definitions for God, and then claim that because the definitions don't fit reality, then God must not be real. In logic, that's called a "straw man argument."

Not a straw man argument. The straw man argument is theology.
God doesn't fit reality. And will never do.
God is wrong. Not us.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence do not stand alone with universal definitions. They are used to describe God (not define God) in part -- not in whole, and only within the bounds of certain theological constructions. We have to define what is specifically meant by those terms within the theological context in which they are used at any given time.

Do that then.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence generally are not useful when considering theodicy, and are generally not used in that context. So, it sort of creates a false dilemma to use them in that context.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are not useful for theodicity because theology is useless.
The profound meaning of that statement is that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent unless bad events occurs.

Then, we have to decide what, specifically, is meant by "suffering" before it can be explored theologically.

Wonderful. You start.

You're simply not doing your theological due diligence here. The post is relatively meaningless. It's kind of like ranting on about "I can't take the seeds out of a steak, therefore, the steak must be rubbish."

You won't look for seeds if you already have seeds.

 

[Glaurung]

Stop feeding it.

 

[WhatGod]

Sorry, there is nothing evil about suffering. It is the natural God given experience for loss. It can only be good that we suffer when we experience loss.

If I walk along a path and a branch falls and hits me; that is just a chance event of nature and no evil has befallen me.

But if God causes the branch to hit me; that is an act of evil because he is intentionally causing me harm.

In the xtian myth god has through his omniscience and omnipotence pre-chosen every possible outcome. He chooses to give every injury and every loss that anyone ever sustains. Every torment. Every death.

It is effectively the premeditated torture and murder of every being throughout all time. Don't really see how he could be more evil. He even arranges to have himself tortured to death.

Yes, I am most thankful to God for all He has given me. I am most thankful for those moments of suffering from which I have learned the most.

Are you equally thankful for the senseless suffering which you learned nothing from?

God is the source of all that is. Whether or not you think that is dark depends on you and what you think. It has little to do with reality.

It has nothing to do with reality since its just a collection of evil myths.

But embracing those myths and trying to rationalize everything like you are is certainly twisted. Embracing suffering as good is just a step away from imposing it on others and becoming your own evil in the world.

 

[WhatGod]

No, you cannot sympathize for anyone unless you are given that ability.

You don't need to be given the ability to sympathize. Sympathy has clear evolutionary advantages in social species like humans or wolves and naturally develops over time as part of the group dynamic.

No one expects you to do that which is right. I sure don't.

Such an unpleasant world you living.

 

[WhatGod]

You missed the point of what I was saying.

No. An evil god is the clear end result of what you say. You just don't bother to consider the full implications of your dogma.

The triple Omni definition of god is a pretty standard one. Standard enough that it predates xtianity by at least a couple hundred years.

What do you propose for the qualities of god then?

We're not about the business of defining God. It can't be done.

Then the term is absurd and meaningless. We have full agreement there.

These descriptors work in a theological context that is generally at odds with theodicy, which is what we're discussing.

Fantasy terms can work well in a fantasy context. But even here these terms are only good for power tripping on. When you actually consider them, it becomes obvious they are incoherent.

To say that "it would seem self-evident" is to say that you don't understand theology enough to pose any kind of valid theological argument.

No, it is simply to say that simple observation will show that the power in the universe is distributed and not all in a single source. Each star is a strike against fantasies of omnipotence.

this is infantile theological thinking.

Maybe its time you grew up then?

What is the cause of the anguish? Is it externally-enforced, or internally cased? Why are all forms of suffering lumped together? Surely we can separate suffering into several categories of cause, quantity, and purpose? You see, until we've explored human suffering and decided what specifically we'd like to address theologically, it does no good to put God in the mix.

It seems the Buddhists have been doing all that without god for longer than xtianity has existed. Looks like we don't need god at all.

A very broad set of human conditions cannot rightly be used to disprove or defame God.

They can when you want to attribute everything to her.

Maybe it'd be best for you if you got a handle on theology, and its purpose, before we proceed further.

Oh you are so CUUUTE when you are condescending! Do it again!

 

[Sonofason]

If I walk along a path and a branch falls and hits me; that is just a chance event of nature and no evil has befallen me.

But if God causes the branch to hit me; that is an act of evil because he is intentionally causing me harm.

In the xtian myth god has through his omniscience and omnipotence pre-chosen every possible outcome. He chooses to give every injury and every loss that anyone ever sustains. Every torment. Every death.

It is effectively the premeditated torture and murder of every being throughout all time. Don't really see how he could be more evil. He even arranges to have himself tortured to death.


Are you equally thankful for the senseless suffering which you learned nothing from?



It has nothing to do with reality since its just a collection of evil myths.

But embracing those myths and trying to rationalize everything like you are is certainly twisted. Embracing suffering as good is just a step away from imposing it on others and becoming your own evil in the world.

It is not necessary for one to embrace suffering in order to be an evil in this world. We do that quite well on our own.

 

[Sonofason]

You don't need to be given the ability to sympathize. Sympathy has clear evolutionary advantages in social species like humans or wolves and naturally develops over time as part of the group dynamic.



Such an unpleasant world you living.

Yet I am the one who is content, even in the face of human suffering. If my world is unpleasant, I can't imagine the one you're living in.

 

[Shad]

You are content in your state suggests you neither care nor wish to help those in suffering. This says a lot about you and what is acceptable to you.

 

[Sonofason]

You are content in your state suggests you neither care nor wish to help those in suffering. This says a lot about you and what is acceptable to you.

Please show how existing in a state of contentment excludes one from helping those who are not content.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Truly, truly i say to you all, there is more love inside this triumphant loser than in all the catholic churches of the world.

Thank you. I try.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Regarding suffering, take famines for example. Whenever one occurs we send sacks of food which temporarily stops the suffering, but months or years later when famine hits again, we do it all over again, and again, and again.
Why don't we tackle the root cause-- overpopulation-- and try to get the message into peoples heads that having more babies than the land can support means famine and suffering?

 

[Underground]

Stop feeding it.

The answer is obvious, such a universe can't exist because it's definitionally incoherent.

Irrelevant. A dogma.
No one ever said a universe should be definitionally coherent.
Who said that your mind is capable of finding a coherence.
A small candle will make you feel safe, but the ocean of darkness is still there.
Jump!

You're just stringing words together. Faith isn't some thing that exists. Faith is just the conscious commitment to religious precepts.

Faith is useful when your trust in God is absolute.
Someone else takes care, so you disappear.

I'm actually starting to think engaging you is the real waste

All you can waste with me is time, and not that much. With theology you're gonna waste your life.

 

[Underground]

Regarding suffering, take famines for example. Whenever one occurs we send sacks of food which temporarily stops the suffering, but months or years later when famine hits again, we do it all over again, and again, and again.
Why don't we tackle the root cause-- overpopulation-- and try to get the message into peoples heads that having more babies than the land can support means famine and suffering?

Overpopulation is not a problem yet.
The problem is that some human beings populate this planet 24 times more than others.

 

[sojourner]

I wouldn't call it theology either. Theology is a bad word.
Nothing more than a void, arrogant claim to be the sole path to truth after millenia of utter, disgusting failures.
Toilet paper.

Yeah, except that's not what theology is or does. Dogma and doctrine can (and do) claim those things, and they can fail when they try to define God too closely and too absolutely. But dogma and doctrine are not, of themselves, theology. Theology, itself, makes no absolute claims about God, or about being "the path." Better to stay away from cooking if you don't understand food...

Then the term is absurd and meaningless. We have full agreement there.

Was the sun "absurd and meaningless" before we were able to define it? Lack of definition does not render something "absurd and meaningless."

Fantasy terms can work well in a fantasy context. But even here these terms are only good for power tripping on. When you actually consider them, it becomes obvious they are incoherent.

...But you're not bitter, or anything. BTW: what's "fantasy" about the world and the place of human beings in it??

No, it is simply to say that simple observation will show that the power in the universe is distributed and not all in a single source. Each star is a strike against fantasies of omnipotence.

That's "atomistic" thinking. Each star (and, indeed each speck of dust -- each atom in a grain of sand) has a single source. All matter and energy are part and parcel of that source and, therefore, are interrelated. You've already shown you know nothing about the theology you argue against. Do you also know nothing of science??

Maybe its time you grew up then?

Projection is a poor defense, and ad hominem is a poor argument. Both are clear indicators that you're frustrated with your inability to argue the point clearly or logically.

It seems the Buddhists have been doing all that without god for longer than xtianity has existed. Looks like we don't need god at all.

I never said we "needed God." Besides, "God" is larger than the concepts of any one religion.

They can when you want to attribute everything to her.

In what way do you think I've done that?

Oh you are so CUUUTE when you are condescending! Do it again!

Not condescending -- just making an observation and suggesting a course of action to keep you from becoming frustrated and embarrassing yourself. By the looks of things, you've opted for frustration and embarrassment, because you've shown no further knowledge of theology. In fact, the opposite has been shown. I'm glad your embarrassment makes me "cuuuuute."

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Overpopulation is not a problem yet.
The problem is that some human beings populate this planet 24 times more than others.

Haha looks like the poor Canucks have their heaters going full blast to keep their feet warm in their igloos..

PS- when I make myself a cup of tea I put just a cupfull of water in the electric kettle which boils in no time, but when I stayed with my friend and his wife I was shocked to see they always fill their kettle full every time which takes a good 10 minutes and a lot of electricity to boil!
Dumb shmucks, I'm glad they pay the bill and not me..

 

[Underground]

Haha looks like the poor Canucks have their heaters going full blast to keep their feet warm in their igloos..

PS- when I make myself a cup of tea I put just a cupfull of water in the electric kettle which boils in no time, but when I stayed with my friend and his wife I was shocked to see they always fill their kettle full every time which takes a good 10 minutes and a lot of electricity to boil!
Dumb shmucks, I'm glad they pay the bill and not me..

I can't make myself a cup of tea unless the sun shines, but i pay no bill.
And, i'm way below Nigeria

 

[WhatGod]

Was the sun "absurd and meaningless" before we were able to define it? Lack of definition does not render something "absurd and meaningless."

You confuse the referent with the term. The referent of the term sun was in the sky before there were words. But before the term "sun" was used to refer to the big hot thing in the sky, the term "sun" was meaningless and it would have ben absurd to use it. Consider the term "jergzol." It hasn't any meaning yet.

...But you're not bitter, or anything. BTW: what's "fantasy" about the world and the place of human beings in it??

Awe! Are you trying an ad hominem? That is so cute.

The "omnixxxx" powers are good comic book and religious fodder, but things just don't work that way in the real world. They are fantasy power for fantasy worlds.

No, it is simply to say that simple observation will show that the power in the universe is distributed and not all in a single source. Each star is a strike against fantasies of omnipotence.

That's "atomistic" thinking. Each star (and, indeed each speck of dust -- each atom in a grain of sand) has a single source. All matter and energy are part and parcel of that source and, therefore, are interrelated.

Sorry but I only allow complaints about atomism IF you forego using any atoms in the process.

But be fore you get too far off in your red herring, I'm merely pointing out there are power sources all over and therefor god isn't ALL powerful.

You've already shown you know nothing about the theology you argue against. Do you also know nothing of science??

Awe, you're second ad hominem in one post. Whose my widdle fierce debater? Now you need to accuse me of ad hominems so it all seems justified.

Projection is a poor defense, and ad hominem is a poor argument.

Wow! Its like you can read my mind!

I never said we "needed God."

I am so glad you are finally over all that god stuff.

Not condescending -- just making an observation and suggesting a course of action to keep you from becoming frustrated and embarrassing yourself.

Isn't it so nice that you insult me for my sake.

 

[Shad]

Please show how existing in a state of contentment excludes one from helping those who are not content.

If you are context in the way the world is yet try to help people who are not "content" you have created a contradiction. If you are helping people this means you are not content then.