Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Willamena]

Suffering is part of desire? So, you are actually saying that it is necessary for individuals to suffer as it is part of their desire for there to be no suffering?

No; that's only implied in your image of reality. I am saying that where individuals desire, they also suffer.

Edit: Oh! I forgot... yours is the "right" one.

To what are you referring?
Willamena: "Existence, even the existence of suffering for us, is better than nonexistence."
Originally Posted by cottage
Then I think we need an explanation of how something that doesn't exist can benefit from...anything.

What is it that doesn't exist?

 

[rojse]

Has anyone considered that God created Man...turned him loose on the earth... and then stood back to see 'how it's going'?

I've heard that one. It is quite an interesting idea, particularly how it does not agree with the idea of God being both omnipotent nor benevolent.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Rojse...
Please see Genesis1 verse26...and keep reading.
You will see a situation of complete freedom.
No names...no law...subdue all things.
Man had nothing to restrain him.

This would be Day Six....and ran through Day Seven.

Chapter Two is where God moves to interfere, and does so first hand.
Still, consequences dealt in the Garden are not restrictions.
And the introduction of proper names is not inhibition.
Man is still free to come and go...and to subdue all things.
"the law" came much later.

 

[rojse]

Thief here...Hey Rojse...
Please see Genesis1 verse26...and keep reading.
You will see a situation of complete freedom.
No names...no law...subdue all things.
Man had nothing to restrain him.

There was the edict not to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....
I was referring to social items, such as, thou shalt not kill...thou shalt not steal.
The "edict" you mention was simply a warning.

 

[free spirit]

Thief here....
I was referring to social items, such as, thou shalt not kill...thou shalt not steal.
The "edict" you mention was simply a warning.

genesis 2: 15 to 17, 'then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
It does not sound like a warning, it does not look like a warnin; so it must be a command.

 

[rojse]

genesis 2: 15 to 17, 'then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
It does not sound like a warning, it does not look like a warnin; so it must be a command.

I never thought I would say this, but thank you for putting up a biblical quote, Free Spirit. Appropriate to the discussion, brief, and a short discussion of what is meant. Exactly what is not done for most biblical quotes..

I think that the word command was sufficient to say that it was not merely a warning.

 

[free spirit]

I never thought I would say this, but thank you for putting up a biblical quote, Free Spirit. Appropriate to the discussion, brief, and a short discussion of what is meant. Exactly what is not done for most biblical quotes..

I think that the word command was sufficient to say that it was not merely a warning.

Yes but obviously our friend Thief needed to be taken there by the hand, sorry for my intrusion.

 

[rojse]

Yes but obviously our friend Thief needed to be taken there by the hand, sorry for my intrusion.

Not intruding at all.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...actually guys...
I've been doing this for a long time.
The same quote is a warning...not a command.
You're confusing the extent of the words.

By example I will lead you both by the hand.....
If I say to you...
Don't cross the road without looking both ways...or you will die!
Stay away rapidly turning machinery...or you will get caught in it...and die!
Don't eat the pretty berries...or you will die!

I think you can get it from here....

 

[rojse]

In the quote that free spirit provided, the word "command" is used, which differentiates it from a warning, where more adequate phrases such as suggest, advise, and so forth might have been used instead.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...okay...I will now lead you by the ear to the dictionary.
Go to Webster's see the word 'command'....
Continue to see the word 'warning'....

Having done so...
Command is an action representing authority.
Warning is an action concerning your well being and your willfulness determines the outcome.

Commands are present to maintain social order...economic structure...labor efforts...etc.
Warnings are issued as dangers are not always apparent.

Presence of danger is the obvious difference.
I'm sure you will find definition #1 under 'warning'...in Webster's...to be much more exacting than 'command'.

And I will take this opportunity to point out...
An excellent rebuttal is aimed at the 'meat of the topic'.
This most recent discourse was a word game at best.
If you desire to 'undo' what I have written...take aim at my intent.
Take aim at my perspective.

This is neither a command or a warning.

 

[rojse]

Thief here...okay...I will now lead you by the ear to the dictionary.
Go to Webster's see the word 'command'....
Continue to see the word 'warning'....

Having done so...
Command is an action representing authority.
Warning is an action concerning your well being and your willfulness determines the outcome.

Commands are present to maintain social order...economic structure...labor efforts...etc.
Warnings are issued as dangers are not always apparent.

Presence of danger is the obvious difference.
I'm sure you will find definition #1 under 'warning'...in Webster's...to be much more exacting than 'command'.

And I will take this opportunity to point out...
An excellent rebuttal is aimed at the 'meat of the topic'.
This most recent discourse was a word game at best.
If you desire to 'undo' what I have written...take aim at my intent.
Take aim at my perspective.

This is neither a command or a warning.

I will concede that the word warning might have been better used in that context, so I do believe you are right in that regard, Thief. I won't do a dictionary debate with you, because although the word command was used there, the word warning would have been appropriate.

However, where our debate originally began:

Has anyone considered that God created Man...turned him loose on the earth... and then stood back to see 'how it's going'?

It is quite an interesting idea, particularly how it does not agree with the idea of God being both omnipotent nor benevolent.

Now, if God needs to create people and a world, to see what will happen, I think that this would negate omnipotence, in that God cannot see what will happen before He creates his laboratory test, to borrow a bad analogy. Secondly, I think that this negates benevolence, because God will not intervene in this situation, because he wishes to see what outcome will result? Any intervention will make the examination moot.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...much better...
Perhaps we can now step back to glimpse the overview.
Sometimes details get in the way.

Picture yourself as omnificent.
You might have some companionship, but They are 'yes men' in every way.
You have no other perspective. What you say is good...everyone else agrees.

So you then create Man. Why?
Because his perspective would inherently be different.
He would be able to say something different...perform differently.

You mentioned laboratory experiment....you have no idea how right you are.
Day Six....Man is made.
Chapter One shows Man turned loose upon the earth.
No names...no law...no restrictions.
Day Seven...God observes....does nothing.

Apparently the experiment wasn't really going all that well.
Man was behaving too much like an ape.
No serious intellect.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a sketchy detail of interference.
It contains all of the earmarks of an experiment..."hands on".
You might note that Adam ( a man with a name)...was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve is a clone...she had no navel.
BTW...being made of dust fails to make Adam unique.
YOU are made of dust....and Adam probably had a navel.

Adam was not the first man.
He was the first Son of God.

 

[rojse]

Thief here...much better...
Perhaps we can now step back to glimpse the overview.
Sometimes details get in the way.

Picture yourself as omnificent.
You might have some companionship, but They are 'yes men' in every way.
You have no other perspective. What you say is good...everyone else agrees.

So you then create Man. Why?
Because his perspective would inherently be different.
He would be able to say something different...perform differently.

You mentioned laboratory experiment....you have no idea how right you are.
Day Six....Man is made.
Chapter One shows Man turned loose upon the earth.
No names...no law...no restrictions.
Day Seven...God observes....does nothing.

Apparently the experiment wasn't really going all that well.
Man was behaving too much like an ape.
No serious intellect.

Chapter Two of Genesis is a sketchy detail of interference.
It contains all of the earmarks of an experiment..."hands on".
You might note that Adam ( a man with a name)...was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve is a clone...she had no navel.
BTW...being made of dust fails to make Adam unique.
YOU are made of dust....and Adam probably had a navel.

Adam was not the first man.
He was the first Son of God.

Extremely interesting post. Frubals.

I don't often recommend books to posters on this forum (it only ends in tears), but I will make an exception for you, Thief - have a look at Star Maker (which I have linked to a free internet copy from Gutenberg - the copyright has expired in Australia).

I've been trying to come up with a summary of the book, and it's far too difficult. I think it sufficient to say that some of the ideas in there come quite close to your post here, and there are a lot of other ideas besides that. It's about a man who starts off a spiritual journey, and ends up meeting God, but there is so much more to it than those simple words can express.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eople-assume-god-post1579625.html#post1579625
Suffering is part of desire? So, you are actually saying that it is necessary for individuals to suffer as it is part of their desire for there to be no suffering?

No; that's only implied in your image of reality. I am saying that where individuals desire, they also suffer.
I’m referring to your words: ‘Suffering is necessary’ (979), and ‘If we didn't know suffering, we wouldn't know relief from it; if we didn't know death, we wouldn't hold so tightly to life.’ (973). So what is it that individuals desire, relief from suffering?
Edit: Oh! I forgot... yours is the "right" one.
I’m not sure how that sharp, uncalled-for little remark is supposed to contribute anything to the debate. Arguments stand or fall by their own merit, not because of some imagined rightness.
The image of reality this argument refers to is one where suffering exists.
Suffering exists everywhere! It is the very point of the discussion. And having established the existence of suffering, the problem now is how we reconcile that fact with the contradiction, an omnipotent God who is perfectly good and all benevolent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eople-assume-god-post1579625.html#post1579625
To what are you referring?
Willamena: "Existence, even the existence of suffering for us, is better than nonexistence."
Originally Posted by cottage http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eople-assume-god-post1579241.html#post1579241
Then I think we need an explanation of how something that doesn't exist can benefit from...anything.

What is it that doesn't exist?
We didn’t! If humans are a created species then there was a point when we didn’t exist (and didn’t suffer). Read your own words. You are saying it is better that we suffer, rather than to not exist. I’m asking you how it can be better for a non-existent thing to suffer?

 

[Willamena]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Suffering is part of desire? So, you are actually saying that it is necessary for individuals to suffer as it is part of their desire for there to be no suffering?

No; that's only implied in your image of reality. I am saying that where individuals desire, they also suffer.
I’m referring to your words: ‘Suffering is necessary’ (979), and ‘If we didn't know suffering, we wouldn't know relief from it; if we didn't know death, we wouldn't hold so tightly to life.’ (973). So what is it that individuals desire, relief from suffering?

We desire and suffer for a lot of things. Suffering and desire go hand in hand. Desire is for things we can't have, and we suffer when we don't have the things we desire. A desire for no suffering could certainly be one of the things we desire, and suffer for not getting; however, suffering, like desire, is not necessary to have, but where there is one there is necessarily the other.

Edit: Oh! I forgot... yours is the "right" one.
Arguments stand or fall by their own merit, not because of some imagined rightness.

There's a modium of truth in that. It's been my experience that arguments stand or fall on their interpretation and acceptance by the reader. Even more so, they stand or fall on the reader's ability to interpret them as arguments.

Suffering exists everywhere! It is the very point of the discussion. And having established the existence of suffering, the problem now is how we reconcile that fact with the contradiction, an omnipotent God who is perfectly good and all benevolent.

The real contradiction is in the idea that a benevolent God could give us a world where all desires are immediately fulfilled, perhaps before they can even be fashioned as desires. That would be choatoic. And dull, as there would be nothing to do (no hunger, no motivation, no love, no hope... oh, and no desire).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
To what are you referring?
Willamena: "Existence, even the existence of suffering for us, is better than nonexistence."
Originally Posted by cottage
Then I think we need an explanation of how something that doesn't exist can benefit from...anything.

What is it that doesn't exist?
We didn’t! If humans are a created species then there was a point when we didn’t exist (and didn’t suffer). Read your own words. You are saying it is better that we suffer, rather than to not exist. I’m asking you how it can be better for a non-existent thing to suffer?

But when we did exist, we existed, and it was good. I'm simply saying that existing is good. "Nonexistent things" don't suffer --they don't exist, there is nothing to suffer.

 

[lunamoth]

Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

Because God is Love. We know the Love of God through his Incarnation in Christ.

 

[erato]

Because God is Love. We know the Love of God through his Incarnation in Christ.

So tri-O god, Omni-benevolent, Omnipotent and Omnipresent: All good, all powerful and all knowing. If that exists then natural evil cannot. Natural evil does exist so Tri-O cannot. Because natural evil means that either god didn't know, couldn't stop it, or didn't care.
Not all those things, but at least one must be false.

 

[Satanic Truth]

Why do most people believe God is benevolent? The answer is quite simple. Over the years, people have completely brainwashed the masses to an extent to where whenever they here God, they automatically assume he's good, when in fact he is an evil Tyrant. Christians have always preached only God's so-called "benevolence" through the bible, *edit* Since Christianity is so mainstream, it's what the majority of people believe. People seeking truth must follow their own path, which is what led me to Theistic Satanism. Another strong point is the fact that in the Koran, Muhammed, who was a *edit* prophet, kept women as SLAVES! How could this "benevolent" God let this occur if he was so damn benevolent? Of course that was just one example from my memory, but with good knowledge you could find a whole lot more of it.