Aerik Von

It makes me wonder how anyone can believe that God "loves".

If he is allowed to kill massive amounts of people to allow events in human histoy to happen and then claim that we have free will it seems he plays an awful double edged sword eh?

God is like a bad father who cannot show example

HelenM

Yeah but, you are defining omnibenevolence based on your own standards.

Christians say that God sets the standards. So, when man and God disagree, God is right. It must be in that case, that the human is unable to understand what is best as fully as God does.

A Christian will therefore not be open to a human saying "I think God should be like this" because then man, not God, would be setting the standard.

Figure that Christians assume some human limitations that prevent us seeing why certain things are for the best, whereas non-Christians assume they can know what is best and then they hold what Christians believe about God, up to that standard, and find God wanting. Which is a huge difference in approach.

Adamantia: re your question to me: I am saying nothing . But I think it's best for anyone trying to debate/challenge a theist to understand where they are coming from, as much as possible. (So they will be able to debate/challenge them as effectively as possible. WL Craig reads up on what his debating opponent has written - he studies hard like that before any debate - as well as knowing the general viewpoint of non-Christians, I would assume.)

And - thanks again Panta Pei and, likewise!

love
Helen

p.s. edited to try to improve the clarity of this post

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]</p>

HelenM

Absolutely not!

It's not might but complete knowledge of what is best - so the Christian believes.

Veil of Fire

God DOES approve of Genocide. Hitler was having a tea party with the Jews compared to what God is doing to them (eternal Hell, and such things).

Family Man

Problem is, Helen, is that that isn't what non-theists do. Specifically, we don't assume we know best. But we do note that the society we live in teaches that genocide is wrong. Yet the Bible portrays God as approving genocide. Our society values tolerance, yet many Christian churches rail against homosexuality, sometimes to the point of violence. Our society declares slavery is always wrong, yet Christian doctrine was often used to justify slavery before the Civil War. If God is the standard, I would have to wonder its worth considering the difficulty Christians seem to have in interpreting it.

I further have a problem in your claim that our "limitations" prevent to see things properly. Not that we don't have limitations, but because we don't have the base knowledge that there is a God. If I were allowed to make whatever assumptions I want -- that God exists and he has these secret attributes that explain the unexplainable -- then I could explain everything away also. Christians have the same limitations I have, including the ability to read things into situations that are not actually there.

In short, I think it is Christians who assume that they know best, then try to justify their beliefs not with facts, but with unwarranted assumptions about a God that is far from clear exists.

Adamantia

I have seen WLC 4 times in the past two weeks and will again in a few days time...I'll comment on the talks and debates (as well as the comments in this thread)later as I desperately need to get some sleep soon. For now I'll just say to Family Man, I agree wholeheartedly with what you've written.

Tomorrow I will be attending something altogether different. This is lifted from the pages of Honi Soit (the student paper):

God/Sex/God

Dear Honi,

On the 4th of September at 1pm, those nasty EU people will be holding a lecture on whether God can have sex, or something like that. However, at precisely the same hour, on the other side of campus, a sex god of an entirely different kind, namely the philosophy dept's Adrian Heathcote, will be delivering a talk entitled 'Truth or Christianity' in the Holme Building's Refectory Hall.

I felt it only my duty to inform your readership of this startling fact!

Definitely Hell-bound,

Agatha Nostic.
--------------


Adrian was the lucky chap who had debated the Uni's Anglican Chaplain some years ago:
<a href="http://mission.sueu.org.au/nailinggod/" target="_blank">http://mission.sueu.org.au/nailinggod/</a>

HelenM

Originally posted by Family Man:

Problem is, Helen, is that that isn't what non-theists do. Specifically, we don't assume we know best. But we do note that the society we live in teaches that genocide is wrong. Yet the Bible portrays God as approving genocide. Our society values tolerance, yet many Christian churches rail against homosexuality, sometimes to the point of violence. Our society declares slavery is always wrong, yet Christian doctrine was often used to justify slavery before the Civil War. If God is the standard, I would have to wonder its worth considering the difficulty Christians seem to have in interpreting it.

Fair enough. I should have been more careful what I wrote, in trying to present the non-Christian viewpoint. Thanks for calling me on that and putting it better than I did

I further have a problem in your claim that our "limitations" prevent to see things properly. Not that we don't have limitations, but because we don't have the base knowledge that there is a God. If I were allowed to make whatever assumptions I want -- that God exists and he has these secret attributes that explain the unexplainable -- then I could explain everything away also.

Point taken

Christians have the same limitations I have, including the ability to read things into situations that are not actually there.

Ah, but, that ability isn't limited to Christians, if we're to be honest, is it?

In short, I think it is Christians who assume that they know best, then try to justify their beliefs not with facts, but with unwarranted assumptions about a God that is far from clear exists.

It's a matter of opinion - or viewpoint - whether Christian assumptions about God are warranted.

Btw - I have no problem with non-Christians debating Christians - may the one who presents the best case 'win' - as it were.

But I'm not here to defend Christianity - just so you know.

Only to defend it against misperceptions, sometimes.

But those who seem to understand it correctly and object to it - I don't generally go up against them. Because, like I said, I'm not here to defend it.

I will be interested to see what you post about what you'll be going to, Adamantia. What's the EU?

love
Helen

Rusting Car Bumper

How does Craig deal with the double standard?

That is, if God is busy "allowing" evil, then how do I not know that its my duty to stand by and watch such evil without interference because said evil is being done for a greater good. If I interfered I would be interfering with the "greater good."

DC

Family Man

Helen --

Fair enough. Nor am I one to pick a fight with someone with who replies so graciously. I only posted because I saw some misperceptions in your own post. It matters not to me what you choose to believe, as long as I'm free to believe what I choose.

All of this is why, of course, you're the single most highly regarded theist on the board. A tip o' of the cap to you.

HRG

God may set his standards for the language he uses. However, omnibenevolence is a word of human language; thus our language use sets its standards.
He may be right according to his standards, and we may be right according to our standards.
So it must be that way because it must be that way ?

&lt;snip&gt;

Regards,
HRG.