Kharakov

I can't say that I want children to skin their knees, but I certainly think they have more fun with the training wheels off (after a bit of motivated learning via pain (evil)).

Elfman

Beautiful. Basically, you have nothing. 2 Psalms? And what do they say....the second says that God's law is perfect and what he says is true. Nothing on benevolence, man's suffering, etc... It is a vague inference at best. The first says God's way is perfect. What's that...His plan? His methods? This is the problem of trying to draw theological conclusions from psalms.....most of which are prayers and songs filled with methaphors such as "he is a buckler."

I'll help you out. Jesus said that God was "good." It is a more direct passage, but it still does not give us a lot about what is meant by that. It certainly doesn't say omni-benevolent anywhere. (which is why its such a nice strawman to beat up on).

I cannot comment on the vatican council...don't know anything about that.

Elfman

It is a more accurate scenario than the baby in cribs and kids in pool scenarios. Here are the parallels: Initial warning about danger given to someone who could understand and choose (Adam and Eve given direct command not to eat - surfer told about sharks). Alternative option to eating forbidden fruit given (eating other plentiful fruit - aka option to go to other beach)....ok maybe we don't get to the third stern warning, but that is not any different from the initial command having consequences told (you will die). This is far more accurate than a baby with a fork hurting itself by accident. If you cannot see that, then I must doubt your sincerity, for I know you are not stupid.
As an aside, we do not know if God told them more than what is recorded. Maybe He did as He lived with them in the garden. Maybe He didn't. He certainly told them clearly what not to do and gave them easy alternative paths.
More troubling is that you think the snake told the truth??? He warped the truth by asking questions like "Did God forbid you to eat of the fruit of the garden??" (an appeal to God being unfair - a charge that continues to be leveled today because it works - I see how you believe it so completely.) He presented the eating of the fruit as a good thing...which it clearly wasn't. But that point hardly is worth supporting since you agree that the consequences caused untold suffering to all mankind ever since. Again, you are starting to sound disingenuous here.
And, while we are at it, why must the consequences of eating the fruit have had to be immediate. God didn't say that the fruit was poisonous and that death would be instantaneous. So again, you play loose with the account to twist and support your view of the events.
You react as if Eve and Adam had no choices, were mere puppets or kids in the pool that had no fault in the situation. That view is not supportable. The surfer analogy stands as far more accurate. A better tack would be to say that it is unfair that God punish all for the sins of one (or two). But you seem to not want to go that route......I am surprised at the hesitation.

George S

I would think the Vatican would be a good source on Christian theology.

And how many times does the Bible have to say something before you believe it? Once? Twice? Forty-two times?

There is only one case of many quotations that Christians use to justify the meaning of their holy text.

If it is God's word and God is perfect then the Bible is perfect in every word.

It is these two quotations that Christian apologists use to claim that their God is all loving. If I can't believe the current crop of apologists (Geisler is among the very best) who can I believe?

Since the Bible is inconsistent it is not perfect.

Since the concept of the tri-omni God is incoherent (and yet appears in the Bible even if only twice) it is not perfect.

The Bible so clearly is myth (talking donkeys, moving stars, etc.) like the Koran (with the flying horse, etc.) that one should take the whole thing with no more seriousness than Aesop's fables (talking fox who likes fruit, etc.).

Not that good life lessons cannot be learned from Aesop. And, in recent history Christians have thrown out the parts that advocate misogyny, slavery, killing Wiccans, conversion at swordpoint, and some even the anti-homosexual passages. The morality taught by the Bible has been found wanting in modern times. It is not perfect.

My experience (in parallel to Saul's personal revelation) is that some men pretend to be God. A particular man recently claimed to me to be the Architect of the Universe. Should I believe just as Saul did? This man claiming to be God gave me a Form of Healer. (This meshes well with my hypnotherapy.)

I see no particular reason to believe Saul/Paul. He had a revelation. As have I. (Details on request.) I have met God. (Well, someone who claimed to be.) And God said: All there is for a reason to be in this life is to learn and prepare for the next incarnation. Not karma theory. Just that when a person has learned all that (s)he can about love (and that may be nothing at all) then (s)he moves on to the next.

So I shall pronounce the truth of that God: Love.

rhutchin

I think the argument that has been made is that an omnipotent God who is also good would be obligated to prevent the child from falling and hurting himself. Training wheels would be allowed but no skinned knees.

rhutchin

Wiki needs some work.

The Bible clearly espouses the freedom of the individual to choose the path he wants to take. It is true that "[God] is a buckler to all those that trust in him" but the person is free to choose whether he will trust in God. It is true that "the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple" but the person is free to choose whether he will read and follow that testimony. The verse does not say that God will be a buckler to all but to all those that trust Him.

The morally perfect argument denies the sense of these verses and requires that God override any decision that a person might think to make if that decision would result in suffering. Under the morally perfect argument, the verses should read, "[God] is a buckler to all" and "the LORD makes wise the simple."

rhutchin

I basically took the omnibenevolent part to be assumed as Prof's context was of "good person."

So, you and Prof are saying that a god who is omniscient and omnipotent and "a good person" could not have created a universe in which people could be free to think or act except as the god dictated they think and act. I don't see how the tri-omni god must be an incoherent concept. I think the issue here is the meaning of omnibenevolent or "a good person" and the morally perfect argument that obligates an omniscient and omnipotent god to act in a specific manner.

rhutchin

It will come. You just need to understand what you are asking.

We have a person who, as a toddler, is drowning. That person will die one day, either today or at some later time. The manner of death is immaterial. That the life ends is the focus. So, your point is that life is a "good" and has value. To prevent the toddler from drowning and allow the person to live for some time before finally dying is "good." So, why is it "good" that the toddler be saved from drowning and live a longer life? What is it about this life that causes you to place a greater value on living than on not living?

You refer to the "moral status" of Bob and Ted and relate this to whether the toddler dies at that point in time or lives. Given that you seem to be a non-religious person, on what basis do you determine that a living person has a greater value than a dead person? Is a living person always, in every instance, of greater value than a dead person and therefore to be preserved from death?

This depends on your answers above. Once I understand your basis for ascribing greater value to the living person over the dead person, I can respond to your questions within the context of your concept of the value of the person and my concept of the value of the person (if they differ).

Deus Ex

You have got to be kidding me? If this is a shining example of Christian thought, then thank Odin, I no longer am one.

If that was your 'toddler', would you want me to save him/her given the chance? If your child is 'elect', she will go straight to heaven. If your child is not chosen, she will go on to hell. Might as well go now instead of waiting 80 or so years.

Bet you would want someone to save your child either way.

Elfman

Yes I agree that RHut would want someone to save his kid, but that is not the question he is asking. If we all die, then is death, in and of itself immoral? The fact that it happens. You obfuscate the question by asking about Rhut's own kids.