• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

rojse

RF Addict
I personally would assume most people assume the 'God' is benevolent because of(most likely) tradition. Saying 'God' is benevolent within ones religion for over a few 100 years and so people assume that he/she/it, is because it's become tradition.
IMHO.

But most of the posters on here have broken away from tradition, and are able to question their beliefs. Why not benevolence?
 

rojse

RF Addict
Thief here...so Willamena...
Biblical accounts are myth?

Fine...let's run with that.

Having set aside biblical accounts....do we proceed that God is a myth?
If so...this thread....all of it...is a fraud.

If we retain God as real...then this thread does not require proof of His existence.

Seeing that God does exist...then His interaction with Man is real.
If His interaction with Man is real....should we then examine ALL of that interaction...or just the ones you say are not myth?

The Bible may well be myth, but the God of the Bible is not.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Thief here...okay guys...let's get on the same page...if you can.
This is actually simple....

For this thread, post #1 implies the existence of God.
Without this portion of the opening premise...we have a very lengthy waste of time here.

It is also contained in the opening premise the possibility of God interacting with Man and He refrains from harm doing, as He does so.

If you insist on discounting biblical knowledge of God....then this thread is bogus... empty words....and will continue as such.

If you retain biblical knowledge as argument...then God has His "moments".

Perhaps we should refrain the risk of such debate.
He is known to be...jealous...vengeful...narcissistic...domineering...etc.
Do you want to risk His anger?
 
Last edited:

rojse

RF Addict
Thief here...okay guys...let's get on the same page...if you can.
This is actually simple....

For this thread, post #1 implies the existence of God.
Without this portion of the opening premise...we have a very lengthy waste of time here.

No, it assumes that people believe in the existence of God (whether this God exists is not of consequence for this debate), and that this God has the quality of benevolence. The second presumption pops up often in debate, and I wished to see why this was so.

It is also contained in the opening premise the possibility of God interacting with Man and He refrains from harm doing, as He does so.

No, the presumption is that people presume that God is benevolent, and the question is why the presumption is so.

If you insist on discounting biblical knowledge of God....then this thread is bogus... empty words....and will continue as such.
If you retain biblical knowledge as argument...then God has His "moments".

Perhaps we should refrain the risk of such debate.
He is known to be...jealous...vengeful...narcissistic...domineering...etc.
Do you want to risk His anger?

Some people have progressed beyond the Bible in their theology, Thief.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Thief here....
So...if your serious about your last post this thread is about to close.

Post #1 is a simple question...which cannot be answered without some discussion to God's not so benevolent nature.
 

rojse

RF Addict
Thief here....
So...if your serious about your last post this thread is about to close.

No; it seems that several people have found a subject peripherally related to the OP that they are interested in discussing.

Why close it? All that will happen is that a new thread will be made so everyone can debate there. I see no reason for the thread to close, anyway - it seems to conform to all of the posting rules so far - no personal insults, no spam, or anything of that nature.

Post #1 is a simple question...which cannot be answered without some discussion to God's not so benevolent nature.

That seems to be what the other posters think.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Thief here...Rojse....
So now the confession presents itself....
You incited the debate...for curiosity...with preset notions of your own already in place....
Is this not true?

This entire dialog had no value. Through out it's entire length, people expressed their beliefs...vehemently...repeatedly...and all for your personal entertainment.

That's fine. I hope you had your fun.

But if God does bear resemblance to us...in mind and heart...then all who participated here...are now at risk.

God is not one to be tested....and what you are willing to say of Him will be repeated...later on.

If your assertions are correct...no problem...but if your "presumptions" prove false...then what of you...as you stand before the angelic?
 

rojse

RF Addict
Thief here...Rojse....
So now the confession presents itself....
You incited the debate...for curiosity...with preset notions of your own already in place....
Is this not true?

Not at all. I had read quite a few posts that presumed God to be benevolent, and I wished to see why this was so. If I was wrong in this presumption (which I entertained as a possibility), I would be told so quite quickly by posters on this forum.

Just to clear up any misconceptionsthat you have, the only agenda was to have the question answered in the OP. The OP of the thread represents my best efforts to ask the question that I had on my mind, expressed in the manner that I thought most clearly and articulately expressed my question. If the OP has gone in a different direction to this, then I have failed to express myself properly in the OP, or because the posters have seen an issue which they thought more worthy of discussion than the OP itself, neither of which can be said to be deliberate on my part.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Thief here...Hey Rojse...
So your intention was casual....
I believe you.
I hope the angelic also believe you.
Questioning God's nature?
Even with good intentions...I would not be so casual.
 

rojse

RF Addict
Thief here...Hey Rojse...
So your intention was casual....
I believe you.
I hope the angelic also believe you.
Questioning God's nature?
Even with good intentions...I would not be so casual.

I was questioning people's perceptions of God's nature. Entirely different.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Thief here....and the flip side of your last post would be...
God's perception of you.
 
Top