Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Why is there a fascination with some people about the possibility of other people being gay - particularly those they don't like? Is it a way of putting them down or something? If so, be careful - some gay people rightfully would find that offensive.

It's only the ones whos crow so loudly about it like that douchesatchel  in spokane.

HeadonaStick wrote:

And I'm sure that all religions make similar promises.

Do they?

Surely you can do better than that?

What would you like?

NAG wrote:

resedit wrote:

Surely you can do better than that?

What would you like?

Stay out of science, politics, etc...

Ah. You don't like what I have to say, so you just want me to shut up.
I read you loud and clear.

resedit wrote:

NAG wrote:

resedit wrote:

What would you like?

Stay out of science, politics, etc...

Ah. You don't like what I have to say, so you just want me to shut up.
I read you loud and clear.

OMG, res is a religion.

resedit wrote:

...there is a really screwed up view of God amongst those here - who seem to think a God that would hold people accountable for their actions, a God that has consequences for actions, is a "hateful vengeful God".

Nothing could be further from the truth - we are accountable for our own actions, and the loving just God of the Bible has provided a way by which we can escape the consequences of our actions - a way that involved sending his own son to be scoffed at and persecuted amongst the very people he came to save, and then killed by them.

That is a loving God.

Oh, res!  Allow me to (re-)introduce you to a problem that you are undoubtedly familiar with. 

I assume that you will grant the following premises:

1) God is omniscient.  This means, of course, that He is all-knowing.

2) God is omnibenevolent.  This means that He is all-loving - that He would never intentionally allow pain or suffering to befall His creatures.

3) God is omnipotent.  This means that He has the power to to anything.

From (1), it follows that God knows (or knew) the destiny of each person prior to their creation.

From (2) and (3), it follows that God would and could do anything to prevent the infliction of unnecessary harm on human beings.

Let us now engage in a little story-telling.  Suppose that there is a man named John.  Suppose further that John is a real scumbag - a rapist and convicted child molester, perhaps.  John is convicted and condemned to life in prision.  While serving his sentence, he is repeatedly tortured and sodomized by his fellow inmates.  Unlike many prisoners, John refuses to take refuge in God - he dies from a fatal stab wound (inflicted by a fellow inmate) having never accepted Christ as his personal savior.  He now resides in Hell, where for an eternity he will do nothing but weep and gnash his teeth.

Drawing on the assumptions presented above (which I assume you would be willing to accept), we can draw the following inferences from our story:

A) Becuase God is omniscient, He must have known John's fate (i.e., that he would die of a fatal stab wound having never accepted Christ and be condemned to an eternity in Hell).

B) Becuase God is omnibenevolent, He would not have wanted this to happen to His beloved John.  In fact, he would have done everything in His power to prevent it.  Fortunately,

C) God is omnipotent.  But wait!  God was unable to prevent John (and the countless others who are destined to an eternity of suffering) from enduring a terrible afterlife.  Thus, He cannot be omnipotent.  Or perhaps He is omnipotent but doesn't care much for John (i.e., He is not omnibenevolent)?  Or maybe He is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent but lacks omniscience?

The point is that God simply cannot possess all of the attributes that the adherents of the Judeo-Christian faith have ascribed to Him.  Yet the same adherents hold that each of the three attributes presented in (1), (2), and (3) are absolutely essential.  But as our example has shown, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, it follows that He cannot be omnibenevolent.

The standard response to this line of argument is one concerning "free will".  But I don't think that ascribing human beings the property of having a free will alleviates the difficulty in any way.  Before making the decision to grant free will to all human beings, an omniscient God would have known that some humans would choose not to believe (and thus be condemned to eternal damnation).  Moreover, He would have known precisely which humans would follow this path.  Yet He opted for their creation. 

Would you still call the Judeo-Christian God a loving God?

Last edited by robmoore (2005-08-18 12:00 am)

How else can you justify the bloody wars of the past...and present?

Indeed. There is a difference between "allow" and "inflict".

He created us.
I don't see what that has to do with him allowing pain and suffering.

Omniscientense* cannot cope with the free will granted to humanity, so robmoore's point isn't. Or if it can, then some people are damned from the start but you might as well act as if you're not one of the damned as people who don't act like one of the damned probably aren't.

*Or whatever.

Just F My I, what's the technical difference between insanity and religious faith?

resedit wrote:

2) God is omnibenevolent.  This means that He is all-loving - that He would never intentionally allow pain or suffering to befall His creatures.

Where do you get that from? He does allow pain and suffering.

If you believe that 1) God is infinitely perfect in all of his attributes and 2) that He is morally good, it follows that God must be perfectly good - and this seems to entail being good to all of His creatures at all times (since morality is primarily concerned with behavior toward others).

So my point appears to escape your criticism unscathed.  A perfectly moral (omnibenevolent), omniscient, and omnipotent God would not allow harm to befall his fellow beings.  Or don't you believe that God is perfectly moral?

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

According to most branches of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by giving us free will, God denies his ability to be omniscient. Your point has been done to death for a very long time.

And your point implies that God is somehow deficient.  That His power is somehow limited.  Perhaps this is the case.  You are free to worship a deficient God if you so choose.

But your point fails to address mine.  If God gave up omniscience, He must have consciously done so.  But prior to the creation of mankind, God would have possessed the attribute of omniscience, and would therefore have known the fate of every individual human being.  He knew that many would be forever condemned, but opted for their creation anyway.

And notice that if you say that God did not possess omniscience before the creation of humanity, you are acknowledging that God has always been deficient - that he has never been infinitely perfect (a claim that most religious adherents would be unwilling to make).

robmoore wrote:

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

According to most branches of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, by giving us free will, God denies his ability to be omniscient. Your point has been done to death for a very long time.

And your point implies that God is somehow deficient.  That His power is somehow limited.  Perhaps this is the case.  You are free to worship a deficient God if you so choose.

I'm actually an agnostic verging on atheist, but whatever.

But your point fails to address mine.  If God gave up omniscience, He must have consciously done so.  But prior to the creation of mankind, God would have possessed the attribute of omniscience, and would therefore have known the fate of every individual human being.  He knew that many would be forever condemned, but opted for their creation anyway.

And notice that if you say that God did not possess omniscience before the creation of humanity, you are acknowledging that God has always been deficient - that he has never been infinitely perfect (a claim that most religious adherents would be unwilling to make).

God is considered infinitely perfect morally, but not infinitely powerful by His own choice. Most religious adherents wouldn't claim that every human is a puppet; that a human cannot choose to live his/her life in sin. But they would claim that no human can escape judgement on their actions. Free will denies omniscience on the part of anyone ; that is free will.

Last edited by Zetetic Apparatchik (2005-08-18 11:30 am)