Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[sojourner]

Only if you pick and choose those verses that support your theory and ignore the ones that do not.

How exactly does a world wide flood not slap your theory of complete benevolence square in the face?

Because the flood story comes out of the perspective of the remnant (Israel), whom God saved from the evil walking in the land, through the purification of the flood. If you read it from that perspective, God is extremely benevolent.

 

[sojourner]

"Cottage: First point: What God has set in place is what exists. For nothing - nothing exists but what God causes and conserves. If humans create anything independent of, or in opposition to the deity, then plainly God is not the omnipotent Creator."

Again, God limited God's Self when God created humanity with free will.

 

[McBell]

Because the flood story comes out of the perspective of the remnant (Israel), whom God saved from the evil walking in the land, through the purification of the flood. If you read it from that perspective, God is extremely benevolent.

I bet those who died in the flood would completely disagree.
Of course, you seem to have a different definition of benevolent than I do.
Here is the definition I am using:

be·nev·o·lent
adj.
1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin benevol

ns, benevolent- : bene, well; see deu-2 in Indo-European roots + vol

ns, present participle of velle, to wish; see wel-1 in Indo-European roots.]
​

So perhaps now you can understand how global genocide would not really qualify as benevolent?

 

[Enoch07]

I bet those who died in the flood would completely disagree.
Of course, you seem to have a different definition of benevolent than I do.
Here is the definition I am using:

be·nev·o·lent
adj.
1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin benevol

ns, benevolent- : bene, well; see deu-2 in Indo-European roots + vol

ns, present participle of velle, to wish; see wel-1 in Indo-European roots.]
​

So perhaps now you can understand how global genocide would not really qualify as benevolent?

Of course those that died in the flood would disagree. They were evil. If they were not evil themselves there were indifferent to evil. Which is not much better, some would say it is worse. There is a phrase I heard once.

Quote: "There is one thing we should fear more than evil men. And that is the indifference of good men." Author: can't remember

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Of course those that died in the flood would disagree. They were evil. If they were not evil themselves there were indifferent to evil. Which is not much better, some would say it is worse. "

And here is a stark example of what I mean.


EVIL MEN - defined by those who believe in a certain god - are to be destroyed ASAP.

And the survivors will be the better for it.

This how we get 9/11. Exactly this "I'm right and good and god-fearing and you are wrong and an evil heathen fit only for the fire of purification" attitude that flourishes with the belief in supernatural religion.

 

[themadhair]

Just because God knows about it, doesn't mean that god determines it.

Yes it does if god set the events in motion (via creation).

 

[cottage]

Again, God limited God's Self when God created humanity with free will.

Then he is not omnipotent, because self-evidently he cannot be limited and without limit at the same time. And if he is not omnipotent he is therefore not 'God', which leaves room for a true God, one who is always omnipotent and always benevolent.

 

[idea]

I bet those who died in the flood would completely disagree.

I bet those who died in the flood are thankful that they were not left to further degrade/humiliate themselves.

 

[idea]

Then he is not omnipotent, because self-evidently he cannot be limited and without limit at the same time. And if he is not omnipotent he is therefore not 'God', which leaves room for a true God, one who is always omnipotent and always benevolent.

God can do it, He is also free not to. His choice to act or not in no way changes His omnipotence. The most powerful being is one who is able to show self-control/rule Himself.
Proverbs 16:32 -... he that ruleth his spirit (is better) than he that taketh a city.
The Dhammapada – One who conquers himself is greater than another who conquers a thousand times a thousand men on the battlefield.

 

[idea]

Yes it does if god set the events in motion (via creation).

And what if God did not set the events in motion? What if the word "creation" is a mistranslation? What if the word should be "transform what is eternal" not "create from nothing"?
What if God is cleaning up a mess that He did not make?

Hebrew Word Studies
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Meaning: To build a nest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.[/FONT]

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

 

[themadhair]

What if God is cleaning up a mess that He did not make?

Then god is not an omnipotent creator.

 

[idea]

Then god is not an omnipotent creator.

Who is more powerful? A being who creates robots? Or a being whom others - of their own free will and choice, choose to follow and emulate?

God creates - He just does not create out of nothingness.

 

[cottage]

Because the flood story comes out of the perspective of the remnant (Israel), whom God saved from the evil walking in the land, through the purification of the flood. If you read it from that perspective, God is extremely benevolent.

But let's not forget that as you don't believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God it can't on that account be used as an argument.

 

[themadhair]

Who is more powerful? A being who creates robots? Or a being whom others - of their own free will and choice, choose to follow and emulate?

Poetic, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (see below). And I really, REALLY, have no intention of emulating the god of the bible in terms of morality.

Let’s try again shall we?

The concept of free will is not compatible with an omnipotent creator god. If an omnipotent god were to create a person it is also, due to its omnipotence, determining all that persons future actions in that act of creation.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I bet those who died in the flood are thankful that they were not left to further degrade/humiliate themselves"

Not only do they have the duty and the right to destroy the heathen. The victim should be thankful for the deed.

A more disgusting anti-human attitude can scarcely be imagined.

 

[idea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by idea
Who is more powerful? A being who creates robots? Or a being whom others - of their own free will and choice, choose to follow and emulate?

Poetic, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (see below). And I really, REALLY, have no intention of emulating the god of the bible in terms of morality.

your choice

Let’s try again shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by themadhair
The concept of free will is not compatible with an omnipotent creator god. If an omnipotent god were to create a person it is also, due to its omnipotence, determining all that persons future actions in that act of creation.

"If an omnipotent god were to create a person " that's the prob right there. God did not create us. He transforms those who want to be something more than they currently are.

...What if the word "creation" is a mistranslation? What if the word should be "transform what is eternal" not "create from nothing"?
What if God is cleaning up a mess that He did not make?

Hebrew Word Studies
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Meaning: To build a nest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.[/FONT]

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section93:29)

 

[idea]

"I bet those who died in the flood are thankful that they were not left to further degrade/humiliate themselves"

Not only do they have the duty and the right to destroy the heathen. The victim should be thankful for the deed.

A more disgusting anti-human attitude can scarcely be imagined.

who do you mean by "they"? Only God knows anyone's heart, only God has the right to place anyone in a better environment.

Who is a victim? They were not victims, their fate was determined by their actions.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

who do you mean by "they"? Only God knows anyone's heart, only God has the right to place anyone in a better environment.

See #525

Who is a victim? They were not victims, their fate was determined by their actions.

According to your superstition. WHY should any be bound to some behaviour - let alone killed - because you believe some foolish myth?

 

[cottage]

God can do it, He is also free not to. His choice to act or not in no way changes His omnipotence. The most powerful being is one who is able to show self-control/rule Himself.

His being free to act is not in question. But God doesn't need to resort to self-control; by definition he is always in control. And to speak of God 'ruling himself' is an utterly absurd notion. It is as if he schizophrenic or suffers internal conflict or turmoil.



Proverbs 16:32 -... he that ruleth his spirit (is better) than he that taketh a city.
The Dhammapada – One who conquers himself is greater than another who conquers a thousand times a thousand men on the battlefield.

And those quotations apply to men - or to God, an all-sufficient and omnipotent being?

 

[Azakel]

Of course those that died in the flood would disagree. They were evil. If they were not evil themselves there were indifferent to evil. Which is not much better, some would say it is worse. There is a phrase I heard once.

Quote: "There is one thing we should fear more than evil men. And that is the indifference of good men." Author: can't remember

Evil by who definition, you...your god? Hell anyone who doesn't bend there knee to your god is considered evil and need to be killed.