xeren

Kent,
I honestly don't know. But seeing(and this is an argument from popularity, i'll admit) as half of all religious debates and philosophy papers that exist are about this issue, with christians always saying that he IS, i figured it would be pretty safe to use.

Doubtless, the next person that comes along with more bible knowledge than me can post it for you.

Kantian

That's quite allright- neither do i. I remember coming across a very long list of words in Christian dogma that are not listed in the bible, and all the 'omni's' were included.
Then it's not the bible you should be referring to, but standard Christian theology. There really is no need to contribute to the prevailing ignorance of those believers, is there?

Highly unlikely, since that would be a first.

~Transcendentalist~

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

xeren

Kent:

I stand corrected. But substituting "bible" with "christian theology" makes my arguments no less valid, do you agree?

Thanks for the info

VirusInTheSystem

unfortunately xeren, i would not agree. I'd say tht christian theology is relatively undefined, considering that any individual christian can have a different theology.

theology is a certain *interpretation* of scriptures and their implications.

not to be confused with scriptures themselves, which are the writings being *interpretted* by theologists.

If the Bible doesn't say "God is all benevolent" or something to that effect, it makes no difference what certain theologies might believe. It is debate-able.

Although the Bible may say: God is love, must that be interpretted that "God is all-benevolent"? First, the very word "love" can be seen different ways. Also, love itself can be "tough love". Is "tough love" not love? So would "tough love" contradict: God is love?

Also, just because God is love does not mean he can't be other things as well. For example: Eggs are white
does this mean that there are no eggs of a different color? since many people view God as having more than one personality in the same essence, perhaps God could be love.... and anger.... and suffering... and peace... and pleasure... and, well, anything and everything that exists.

The Bible itself says:
"His anger lasts for a night, but his good-will lasts for a life-time." This would suggest that according to the Bible, God has an angry side and a "merciful" side. It also suggests that the Bible considers God's merciful side to be more *powerful* than his angry side... and thus his mercy is the side that will triumph in the end.

So please, do show us specific Biblical references to suggest that God *must be* "all-benevolent". If you don't know any off-hand... look them up or something

peace,
-justin

xeren

Look, you're just arguing things that are unimportant to this debate. NOT unimportant, just unimportant to this debate.

We can argue for days whether or not christian theology is relatively undefined or not, but we'd be straying off subject. My argument still stands, but i'll re-write as such:

A good number of Christians believe that god is all-loving/omni-benevolent. But we live in a world where there exist things that show that god is NOT all-loving/omni-benevolent. (as i have show in my ealier posts in this topic)

My point is that for those that believe that god is all loving/omni-benevolent, they have a large problem. They are wrong about the one thing they should not be wrong about: their god.


Tough love is something along the lines of letting people make their own mistakes and learn from them, not allowing people to be put to death in a gas chamber by nazis only to be sent to hell because they didn't find the "case for christ" compelling.

Using your egg analogy, another god could easily be something else(obviouly different gods could have different qualities), but one egg that is all-white cannot be another color. One god that is all-loving CANNOT also be NOT all-loving at the same time as well.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]</p>

Jobar

Dealing with the vasty topics we do, staying on topic is often extremely difficult. My usual practice is to re-read my post while checking for errors, and if it isn't at least slightly to do with the topic title, I re-write or delete it.

Mojo-Jojo:
The truth is that Jesus--his life, his teachings, his resurrection--is difficult for all of us to accept. But we must do so. His words and his actions are a stumbling block, not because we are so modern that we know better than to embrace the beliefs of a more primitive age, but because they are often so hard.

Nonsense. Oh, there are plenty of good rules for behaviour contained in the gospels, and in the NT- but there are also plenty of self-contradictory and plainly evil things there too. And, many of us- me for instance- consider Jesus to be completely mythical, a fiction with no basis in fact.

If you want beliefs hard to follow, try Buddhism (to name just one).

MOJO-JOJO

I agree that it's nonsense, Jobar, I was quoting Mr. Bethell and pointing out what the typical, final theistic argument stands on. Fear of eternal punishment which can not be proven. It's all about being part of the "Jesus Club" so that fellow believers know what they can expect form each other, and they have some basis to call one another to the carpet.

I have cast off these silly supersticous notions.

Simon Magus

Here is my dilemma:

1. Evil (other than "natural evil") is of man's making. Therefore Earth is considered "crappy" because we make it crappy.
2. Man goes to heaven whether we are sinners or not.
3. Therefore what is to stop man from messing up heaven when he gets there? What is the essential difference between there and here?

Cheers, Simon.