Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
We're his children. He loves us. He has given us the opportunity to experience mortality, but the experience comes with risks. He has given us rules to obey and consequences for disobedience. If He were to turn a blind eye to our disobedience, He would not be God, since His divinity requires that He be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. He doesn't want to lose any of His children, but knows that this is bound to happen. That's why I see Him as being concerned if we sin.cardero said:
I can only conclude that if he is omnibenevalent, he is not omnipotent or omniscience.Katzpur said:
"Omnibenevalent"? Is that a word? I think that what you're trying to say is that God can't feel grief or sorrow over our choices. I disagree. The notion of a God without human feelings has its basis in neo-Platonic thought. And besides, the Bible never uses the words "omnipotent" or "omniscient" to describe God. Those are, again, words men have coined to describe God. If you want to argue rationally as to what God can or cannot feel, you really have to stick to what He has said about Himself.greatcalgarian said:
In Homecooked Superfaith, which has recently been renamed Libraism, there is indeed a higher power. In the beginning, the creator god created both good and evil in balance. How we act doesn't matter. Some people will act good while others not so good. This balance is a good emulation of what the creator has made. The creator is perfect by his/her own standards: able to do anything, and perfectly balanced between good and evil.Katzpur said:
Omnibenevalent means ALL KIND, is not capable of doing anythign bad.Katzpur said:
Thanks. Would you mind informing the publishers of the world's English dictionaries. My Webster's unabridged doesn't contain the word. It does, however, contain the word "unabridged" which means "complete, not shortened."greatcalgarian said:
I know what these words mean, Calgarian. But I disagree with your conclusion as to how any of these attributes preclude God's having feelings. God cannot, by His very nature, act in a way that is contrary to His own laws. Constancy is one of his divine attributes, and if we couldn't count on Him to do what He has said He will do in every circumstance, He would cease to deserve our worship. He would be nothing more than one of the false gods He has warned us not to worship.
In other thread, I have shown that in the bible, God has been described as ALMIGHTY. And some one has agreed that the modern way of using the term omnipotent is equivalent.Katzpur said:
The simple arguement goes like this:Katzpur said:
That's all very nice, but it doesn't answer Cardero's question: Why does God become concerned if we sin or lead an immoral life?greatcalgarian said:In other thread, I have shown that in the bible, God has been described as ALMIGHTY. And some one has agreed that the modern way of using the term omnipotent is equivalent.
Don't bother. I also believe that God is omniscient. I just understand the term somewhat differently than you do. As far as God being "omnibenevalent" (which, even if it were a real word, would be mis-spelled, as you have spelled it
), I also believe Him to be "all kind." That's why I believe that He is concerned when we sin -- particularly if we are not kind to one another. To me, this makes perfect sense. Perhaps you could explain why you feel otherwise.
Okay, I think I'm finally starting to see where you're going with this. You are making the mistake of assuming that you know better than God does how this world should function. What is suffering anyway? Would you even have a concept of what pain was without having experienced freedom from pain? God's plan requires that there be opposition in all things. We can't know love without also knowing hatred. We can't comprehend light without having experienced darkness. We can't appreciate happiness without having endured sorrow. Just because suffering is unpleasant doesn't mean that it has no value. Have you ever stopped to consider that God has just a little bit better grasp of the overall picture than our finite minds can comprehend?greatcalgarian said:
The Creator wouldn't care simply because bad things are necesary to keep the balance. Yes, abuse is bad, but that is what the police are for. The act itself wouldn't be so amusing as the fact that people can go so wrong. We are far from perfect, and that is just awesome.Katzpur said:Are you honestly saying that if someone abuses a child this doesn't matter to your Higher Power? He or She doesn't care?
I do not wish to continue discussing along the line when this is brought up as a point of discussion:Katzpur said:
Frubals to you for stepping in rescue me from a topic I try to avoid.Skavau said:Hello Katzpur, do you mind if I step in?
This brings up the usual answer to the question of suffering, which essentially underlines: "God is a mystery." The problem with this is that it is a get out clause and misses the point of suffering and points out to me that you, yourself aren't sure (in some regards) what the diety, that you believe in - really is. You aren't in full knowledge of plan and in full knowledge of his idea for our world that this God is supposedly supposed to have for us.
In a direct response to your argument, I again would not think that an all-loving and all-powerful God would bring such a chaotic and problematic world into existence which causes immense suffering to the majority of it's populants whom which this God created.
Indeed, this statement has some merit and some truth represented inside it and I would agree if suffering was based on fairness and equally proportioned throughout the world. This is not the case.
People get hammered by immense amounts of suffering in third-world poverty stricken countries. They don't have a chance to experience any form of pleasure or any form of positive growth.
When a child is born into this world with mental problems that see the child die almost automatically, you know something isn't right.
When an individual, who has had a horrible life full of suffering and full of trouble gets destroyed by a Tsunami or a Hurricane, you know something isn't right. This was not designed by any diety for our own good, this is mindless slaughter.
This reverts back to the "God is mysterious" argument. Again, the problem here is that you're assuming that God is beyond human understanding and has all answers. This really has no merit in a debate because it doesn't accomplish anything and leaves it stagnant.
But in direct response, I shall give you a common example used for philosophical purposes:
- Imagine a scenario where there is a school. This school has a secretive headmaster who is commonly percieved as all-loving, all-moral and in total control of his school. This headmaster has never been seen by any pupil or any staff member.
- The staff in the school commonly molest and attack the children on a daily basis. Many children there have been killed as a result of this. It's a problematic system, to say the least.
- Is it reasonable to assume that the headmaster has a divine plan for all of his pupils which is morally right in every way? Is it reasonable to suggest that the suffering the children go through has a good cause in the end and that it is all for character building?
- We could logically presume that this school is likely to produce a load of psychopaths who are morally weak and defunct both in confidence and spirituality. If you look at this on a broader scale, you can see that in the history of the world - millions of good people have suffered and died and loads of evil individuals have lived lifes in luxury. It seems odd to suggest this is all for our own benefit.