God is smart, powerful, and good? No.

[ntech]

Yes cop out.


And what makes you an expert on validity by the way?

-Elliot

I have no particular relevant expertise. I am just a Systems Engineer with an interest in astronomy, physics and other sciences. I simply find it funny that people with opinions as you boldly state are quick to dismiss all science in order to perpetuate a badly beaten myth.

Please remember that the buy-bull at one time stated that the world was flat, blacks should be slaves, women were property and all sorts of absurd declarations that would be eventually stripped out in order to fit modern knowledge.

Now with new scientific discoveries we find that genesis is a total fudge job. Cult followers of ID refuse to face facts and it seems that we need to shove them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

It all reminds me of the Monty Python adventure where the knight after having his four limbs cut off in battle still professes that it is a mere flesh wound.

I responded to your post simply because you profess your answers as definitive knowledge.

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>I have no particular relevant expertise. I am just a Systems Engineer with an interest in astronomy, physics and other sciences. I simply find it funny that people with opinions as you boldly state are quick to dismiss all science in order to perpetuate a badly beaten myth.<<<<<

OK, you're thinking of other people and not me. When have I dismiss "all science"? I'm sorry that there are people on this planet who dismiss all science, I'm not one of them.

>>>>>Please remember that the buy-bull at one time stated that the world was flat, blacks should be slaves, women were property and all sorts of absurd declarations that would be eventually stripped out in order to fit modern knowledge. <<<<<

I've never forgotten it. And please remember that Christians were behind the abolition movements of the 1800s. Margaret Sanger was as racist as any theist you can name.

>>>>>Now with new scientific discoveries we find that genesis is a total fudge job.<<<<<

First I am not here to defend Genesis. Second it is not meant to be read as history or science. It is a creation myth (at least the first few chapters, Genesis is an extensive book). I wouldn't call a story, like Beowulf, a total fudge job. Having said all of that I am not about to say that there is no historical truth in Genesis. I'm not exactly sure, or confident, how much of it is historically true. Maybe 50%, maybe .0005%. But even that is besides the point. I'll take the Book of Genesis over the Origin of Species because it is more meaningful to me. Then again I place importance in emotional and spiritual things. If I was pure intellect maybe I'd go with Origin of Species. Or maybe not. Genesis gives you a lot to think about. Anyhow, short of time travel, I don't know if anyone can proclaim certitude about origins.

>>>>>Cult followers of ID refuse to face facts and it seems that we need to shove them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.<<<<<

That's silly. It is the 21st century. Are you seriously talking about physical coersion, or is that just a way of speaking? People have the right to believe what they will. Call them a cult if you want, some people call scientism a cult. I think we should be above name-calling myself, but that's just me. All I know is that humans run on a genetic code. Genetic code implies design. As a systems engineer you know about codes and design.

>>>>>It all reminds me of the Monty Python adventure where the knight after having his four limbs cut off in battle still professes that it is a mere flesh wound.<<<<<

Why do you think you've chopped four limbs off of religion? Do you have any idea how many religious people there are on the planet? You are overstating your prowress. Atheists are the minority.

>>>>>I responded to your post simply because you profess your answers as definitive knowledge. <<<<<

I clearly have said that I will happily relinquish my answers when I am supplied with the correct ones.

Again, you avoid my point. Do you believe the questions that were asked were worthwhile? Given your sentiments, asking religious people questions must be the most colossal waste of time. Perhaps the proactive thing to do would be to defuse the questions, as I would have had squat to say without the questions.

-Elliot

 

[Loki]

elliotfc,

Yes, and he became incarnate to show that he understands what it is like to suffer.

Why would this be necessary? Why would god "not understand" what it is like to suffer, since in the beginning he actually created *everything* (including 'understanding', 'feelings' and 'suffering', presumably)?

You seem to be implying in the "he became incarnate" statement that Jesus *was* god. So we killed god for 3 days? Or are you buying into the "trinity" explanation of "one god who is 3"? Would you agree that the trinity is fundamentally illogical?

Where do/did human souls come from?

Evil is permitted to govern this world, it's a temporary situation, ...

Why do you think Evil rules? Is it possible that the Earth is a 50/50 split between good and evil? Or that Evil is the minority?

... and a consequence of free will.

How does the suffering and eventual death of a young child (say, 2 years old) from disease fit with this "free will consequence"?

He didn't create horrendous and terrifying things. The things, with all the potential given, chose to reject the beauty they could work for the ugliness they could work.

Is cancer one of these "things" that have chosen to reject beauty in favour of ugliness? How about earthquakes?

The power of God is limited on this Earth, but that is not an eternal condition. It is out of God's hands whether a created being wants to "go to heaven" or "go to hell".

What is the source of this "want"? A human's "free will"? Where does the will exist? Presumably, in the soul - where did the soul come from?

By definition, God is loving and benevolent.

Unless he's angry. Just ask the Egyptians.

We may not think that he is loving and benevolent, but how can any of our standards be superior to God's standards?

Well, we mere humans don't think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father, yet the christian god does.

We mere humans believe in making the puniushment fit the crime, yet god will inflict an infinite (eternal) exile from heaven in response to a finite decision not to believe. Alternatively, the christian god will forgive *any* amount of sin (effectively, forgoing any punishment) in exchange for a single pledge of loyalty. If Timothy McVeigh stood up in court and expressed utter remorse for the Oklahoma bombing, should the court have simply said "fair enough - off you go then"?

We mere humans believe that a person should not be punished for their political or religious beliefs. The christian god is prepared to punish you *solely* on the grounds of your religious belief, irrespective of your actions.

We mere humans believe that each person has a duty to uphold that law, and to aquaint themselves with the law. The christian god seems to have a fondness for ambiguous laws, and a poor system for information dispersal. Is slavery immoral? Is abortion? What about genetics and cloning? Is baptism required for salvation? Do works count towards salvation? Is there any sin that makes a sanctified person unfit for heaven?

But you might be right - perhaps the christian god just *seems* to treat humans worse than we (try/hope to) treat ourselves. I'm sure he has "good reasons" for this.

Objective reality is not contingent upon human preference or human aesthetics.

And certainly not contingent on christian theology.

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>Why would this be necessary? Why would god "not understand" what it is like to suffer, since in the beginning he actually created *everything* (including 'understanding', 'feelings' and 'suffering', presumably)?<<<<<

I have to split the house, so I'll get to the rest of this later. But on this point...

It isn't that God has a problem with understanding. It has to do with us. We think that God doesn't understand, so he went out of his way to clearly indicate that he understood suffering by experiencing it.

Let's say you're a drug addict. And someone who never did drugs says that "they understand". You might just say "screw you how can you understand". Something like that.

-Elliot

 

[ntech]

Why do you think you've chopped four limbs off of religion? Do you have any idea how many religious people there are on the planet? You are overstating your prowress. Atheists are the minority.
-Elliot

Yes, I do, Yes, I don't think so and People who believed that the world is round were also once in the minority.

Again, you avoid my point. Do you believe the questions that were asked were worthwhile? Given your sentiments, asking religious people questions must be the most colossal waste of time. Perhaps the proactive thing to do would be to defuse the questions, as I would have had squat to say without the questions.

-Elliot

In order to not avoid your question: No I don’t but I didn’t post the questions.

Remember Elliot that in science, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. My response to your post was no more arrogant or misguided than your assertions put forth in your responses to the questions.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It isn't that God has a problem with understanding. It has to do with us. We think that God doesn't understand, so he went out of his way to clearly indicate that he understood suffering by experiencing it.

-Elliot

This is absurd, in light of the suffering that God dishes out in the stories in the Old Testament..

If you insist that it is O.K. for God to do these things, for some ' we cannot understand the mind of God ' rationalization, then God clearly created a bunch of idiots who cannot be logically held responsible for their actions; which makes the concept of any action on our part, to obtain salvation, ridiculous.

 

[Ensign Steve]

This is ostensibly a religion and philosophy forum. I'm assuming most people here are a-religious, or are materialists, or are skeptical about the inherent nature of religion. Yet you had the need, nonetheless, to name the certain forum as you did. So I'll happily talk about religion and philosophy. Yet if everything I say is inherently invalid, may I suggest that this forum be nuked? What's the point of having a forum about something that is inherently invalid?

The forum should not be nuked, and the point of having such a forum could be (among other things) that if there is one thing that people need to be most skeptical about, it is religious claims. There are men, big, powerful, men, telling us how to live our lives. How to prevent (or not prevent) pregnancies. Where to give 10% of our income. Who we should or should not have sex with or have a marriage with. They expect us to make all these life decisions in order to receive some unseen reward (or avoid some unseen punishment) without a shred of evidence. If "they" expect "us" to base some major life decisions on some of these very outrageous claims, don't you think it would behoove us as individuals to be very skeptical about those claims?

 

[Ensign Steve]

Sorry, Elliot, let me expand on that. I do not mean simply to be skeptical of claims in favor of a religion, but any claim about religion, in general. A few people (very few people, I hope) accuse atheists of following our "atheistic dogma" with as much blind faith as any religious person. While I am pretty sure not all atheists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are atheists, there seems to be a decent amount of overlap, as you noticed. Those who are both skeptical and atheist, like myself, are going to be skeptical of most religious claims, those made in favor of religion and those against. For example, ceo_esq's "omnipotence, logical impossibilities, and the unliftable rock" post just blew me away, and really made me think. That was a rebuttal of a very common (if sophomoric) argument for atheism.

Forgive me if I am being redundant, but long story short, skepticism does not necessarily equal a-religious. Even though the one can often lead to the other, skeptics are skeptics, and don't take any claims at face value, even those that support their own materialistic worldview or what-have-you. So a religious forum for skeptics is quite valuable (IMO). And what you have to offer will not automatically be considered invalid, if you offer up logical arguments and good evidence. Thanks.

 

[swstephe]

omnibenevolent -- must be denied

I really don't like the term "omnibenevolent", "all loving", "all good". I don't think there is true scriptural foundation for how we interpret those phrases. It implies that God doesn't have free will. That He must always make the best possible choice, (for whom?), and it is impossible, because of his nature to act differently.

The omnicience part, (which is necessary for prophecy to be valid), means he is fully aware of the consequences of his actions until the end of time, which is quite different from our "free will". There is an implied deterministic quality to having that amount of knowledge rather than following rules, guidelines, and intuitions like we do. But if he is omnibenevolent as well, and knows the consequences of his actions, then he must always pick the same action at all times, unless the consequences are exactly equal, in which case his choice is pretty much random.

When I hear "omnibenevolent", I always have to ask "for whom". Every action can have benefit for one group, and not the other. Certainly, if the devil is the chief antagonist, he shouldn't derive any benefits from God, but according to Christian traditions, not only enjoy benefits but seems to be especially protected. He doesn't have to share the curse of mortality, has a lot more verification of the true nature of the Universe, (perhaps, conceptually, that he doesn't even exist). If his fate has already been communicated, (prophecized), then his existence is completely deterministic and for invisible decoration only.

I think the term should be denied and rejected. It would be better to allow the deterministic nature of omnicience, (and that it applies to everything else in the universe, if it is true), and that the rest is free will. That God is working toward a specific consequence which He determins to be good for Himself and nobody else. The story of the flood, for example, makes slightly better sense under a God whose means are toward an ultimate end, rather than dividing up each miniscule or catastrophic event as being morally correct. I think its better to focus on "all just", that whatever the ultimate consequence, it will be just, maybe not good for everyone involved.

 

[swstephe]

ten commandments

Ever notice ... that, according to the movie, the israelites who were worshipping the golden calf got punished before they even had heard the law. That's retro-active!

Also, there are two listings of the ten commandments in the Old Testament, and they *differ*, so which one of the commandments did they have at the courthouse in Alabama?

On top of that, Jesus explicitly added 2 more commandments, "Thou shalt love one another" and "Thou shalt love the lord your god with all your heart and all your mind". If anyone puts up just 10 commandments, they would be (fundamentalist?) Jews, (without dietary laws), not Christians, because they have left two additional laws off.

But these days, Judaism has 100's of laws. There are, in fact, a set of about 17, (not sure of the number anymore), laws which are written for non-Jews to practice. (Look up "Hashidic Gentile" -- you are also supposed to worship Israel). My favorite one is "you shall not eat the limb of an animal while the rest of the animal is still alive". My mind races at the thought of what act could have prompted the need for that law! Was this a pre-refrigeration act? We'll have leg of lamb today and leave the lamb hopping around on 3 legs until next time. -- I'm not making fun of the law, I think that if you choose to believe in that religion, you should definitely follow those laws. I'm just relating it in a light-hearted manner so some people don't get too bored.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: ten commandments

.......We'll have leg of lamb today and leave the lamb hopping around on 3 legs until next time. -- I'm not making fun of the law, I think that if you choose to believe in that religion, you should definitely follow those laws. I'm just relating it in a light-hearted manner so some people don't get too bored.

You have nothing to apologize for.. These are legitimate questions...

 

[ntech]

The forum should not be nuked, and the point of having such a forum could be (among other things) that if there is one thing that people need to be most skeptical about, it is religious claims. There are men, big, powerful, men, telling us how to live our lives. How to prevent (or not prevent) pregnancies. Where to give 10% of our income. Who we should or should not have sex with or have a marriage with. They expect us to make all these life decisions in order to receive some unseen reward (or avoid some unseen punishment) without a shred of evidence. If "they" expect "us" to base some major life decisions on some of these very outrageous claims, don't you think it would behoove us as individuals to be very skeptical about those claims?

Well said, Ensign Steve.
I have no doubt that you will make Captain someday.

Welcome!

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Re: God is smart, powerful, and good? No.

humanity is inherently in rebellion against God. That's just the way it is

But it's that way because God wants it that way. He's the creator, remember, and omnipotent: so you can't appeal to random fate to explain why things are the way they are. They are that way because God explicitly desired them to be that way.

If you believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator God, I don't think you are entitled to use the phrase, "that's just the way it is."

There are, in fact, a set of about 17, (not sure of the number anymore), laws which are written for non-Jews to practice. (Look up "Hashidic Gentile"

It's only seven.

 

[Jesse2]

jesse2,
Saying it forcefully doesn't make it any less of an assumption. Why is "could make it better" obvious? What reasoning supports this premise?

My reasoning is based on the idea that the assumption that the world is "as good as God can make it." is hogwash. If God is omnipotent, he can do absolutely anything he pleases, including eliminating all forms of pain. Pain exists, therefore God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent, or does not exist. Scientifically, we ascertain why pain exists. But if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, certainly he could find a work-around.

Finally, the notion "3. Premise : This world does *not* contain 'the best possible amount of good'" is defendable precisely because a single person can perceive that it is true. If god is all-powerful, he should have the ability to disallow any form of evil. You specified that my premises included that God was omnibenevolent, but actually each premise must include that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient, as that is how I began this thread. You therefore slightly, but significantly, misrepresented the premises I first gave.

P.S. I am now spelling omniscient correctly.

 

[elliotfc]

Hey Loki:

>>>>>You seem to be implying in the "he became incarnate" statement that Jesus *was* god. So we killed god for 3 days? Or are you buying into the "trinity" explanation of "one god who is 3"? Would you agree that the trinity is fundamentally illogical?<<<<<

We killed the incarnate God for three days, yes. I understand the Trinity as the most perfect manifestation of love. Rene Girard has articulated this in his writings, and I am highly influenced by his ideas. Which are just ideas, analogies. I don't agree that the trinity is fundamentally illogical. God reaches humanity through the Word/Spirit, and through the Incarnate Son. Given the premises I accept, I don't think the Trinity is illogical. Of course I doubt you have the same premises that I have.

>>>>>Where do/did human souls come from?<<<<<

God.

>>>>>Why do you think Evil rules? Is it possible that the Earth is a 50/50 split between good and evil? Or that Evil is the minority?<<<<<

Because humanity allows itself to be ruled by Evil. I don't know about this 50/50 stuff. Given the existence of evil, suffering, sin, the fact is Evil reigns on the planet. That doesn't mean good can't fight back. I don't know if I'm interested in speculating about percentages.

>>>>>How does the suffering and eventual death of a young child (say, 2 years old) from disease fit with this "free will consequence"?<<<<<

Our human bodies are genetically programmed to die. Some will die sooner than others. Our bodily insufficiency is a consequence of original sin. Free will exists independent of original sin, so I would say that you're mixing them up with each other.

>>>>>Is cancer one of these "things" that have chosen to reject beauty in favour of ugliness? How about earthquakes?<<<<<

Cancer is an aspect of our inherent genetic defectiveness. Earthquakes...I have ideas about them that I'm still working out. Sorry to sound obtuse. If you are interested in the ideas, e-mail me personally, my e-mail address can be seen in my profile.

>>>>>What is the source of this "want"? A human's "free will"? Where does the will exist? Presumably, in the soul - where did the soul come from?<<<<<

I'm not sure about the whole "where" questions. The will is associated with a human body, but I think temporal locality misses the point. The will is not a tangible object, nor is the soul. It is associated with a body, but the association may be, literally, neither here not there.

>>>>>Unless he's angry. Just ask the Egyptians.<<<<<

In those days wars were fought under the banner of gods. Every political state had gods, and usually a particular god that represented them. The only way to convince the Jews, who only knew this mindset, that He was the most superior, most true God, was to obliterate the armies that fought in the name of foreign gods.

>>>>>Well, we mere humans don't think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father, yet the christian god does. <<<<<

Do you know the Christian God better than I do? I have no idea what you are talking about here. It isn't punishment. The world is fallen, sin is everywhere. Bad things happen because evil reigns, not because God causes bad things to happen. Again, where do you get this idea about the Christian God?

>>>>>We mere humans believe in making the puniushment fit the crime, yet god will inflict an infinite (eternal) exile from heaven in response to a finite decision not to believe.<<<<<

No, exile will be a free choice. Anyone who wants to be with God eternally will be allowed to do so. Anyone who doesn't want to be with God eternally will be allowed to not be with God. People choose their own punishments, that is true justice.

>>>>>Alternatively, the christian god will forgive *any* amount of sin (effectively, forgoing any punishment) in exchange for a single pledge of loyalty.<<<<<

No, it's a lot more than that. We have to completely discard all of our ideas, all of our pride, all of our beliefs for the true ones. There is nothing easy or simple about that, particularly given the fact that humanity is an obstinate creation, they prove it all the time.

>>>>>If Timothy McVeigh stood up in court and expressed utter remorse for the Oklahoma bombing, should the court have simply said "fair enough - off you go then"?<<<<<

No. That is not how earthly justice works. It is the responsibility of the state to protect society. We can't trust people to be sincere in their remorse. God, however, can see through any and everything. The court doesn't have that ability.

>>>>>We mere humans believe that a person should not be punished for their political or religious beliefs. The christian god is prepared to punish you *solely* on the grounds of your religious belief, irrespective of your actions.<<<<<

Again, I don't see it as punishment, since humans choose it. And the cleansing of a human soul may be, no make that is, a harrowing experience.

>>>>>We mere humans believe that each person has a duty to uphold that law, and to aquaint themselves with the law. The christian god seems to have a fondness for ambiguous laws, and a poor system for information dispersal.<<<<<

What is ambiguous about treating every human being as a creation of God, as a child of God? Or seeing Jesus in every person you encounter? Call it a poor system of information dispersal if you want, but there have been a few billion Christians on the planet in the past 2000 years.

>>>>>Is slavery immoral? Is abortion? What about genetics and cloning? Is baptism required for salvation? Do works count towards salvation? Is there any sin that makes a sanctified person unfit for heaven?<<<<<

Slavery is immoral because you must treat your fellow human as a child of God, as you would treat Jesus. Abortion is immoral for the same reasons. Genetics and cloning is immoral for the same reasons. Works are part of the process of redemption. The ultimate work (the crucifixion) made the process of redemption, human works help to further it. The sin of pride, if maintained after death, will make a person unfit for heaven, by their own choice.

>>>>>But you might be right - perhaps the christian god just *seems* to treat humans worse than we (try/hope to) treat ourselves. I'm sure he has "good reasons" for this.<<<<<

The Christian God allowed himself to be treated horrifically by humanity. There was a good reason for that. If existence is only the human lifespan, it is meaningless. But Christains don't believe that.

>>>>>And certainly not contingent on christian theology.<<<<<

Agreed. Theology is only a way of thinking, it is not the same as objective reality. We do the best we can to understand, and God doesn't expect anything more than a sincere effort.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Hi there.

>>>>>People who believed that the world is round were also once in the minority. <<<<<

And Christians were once in the minority. That wasn't my point. You made an analogy that the limbs of religion have been chopped off. That analogy does not correspond to the world that I see. Now maybe 100 years from now that will be a terrific analogy. I was only referring to the present. Of course minorities and majorities fluctuate throughout history.

>>>>>In order to not avoid your question: No I don’t but I didn’t post the questions. <<<<<

OK. You didn't post the questions, and you didn't post the answers. You just decided to isolate the answers as invalid. OK.

>>>>>Remember Elliot that in science, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. My response to your post was no more arrogant or misguided than your assertions put forth in your responses to the questions.<<<<<

Agreed. It was equally opposite.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Hi Diogenes.

>>>>>This is absurd, in light of the suffering that God dishes out in the stories in the Old Testament..<<<<<

The revelation of God to humanity happened in phases. In those times everyone believed in gods. People died over which god was stronger. In order to persuade a tribe of people about certain ideas, and set the stages for the salvific act, God told the Jews that he was the true God, the most superior God, and then he proved it. He did it to make humanity understand. The Bible is the story of the evolution of human understanding about God.

>>>>>If you insist that it is O.K. for God to do these things, for some ' we cannot understand the mind of God ' rationalization, then God clearly created a bunch of idiots who cannot be logically held responsible for their actions; which makes the concept of any action on our part, to obtain salvation, ridiculous.<<<<<

We can understand the mind of God if we believe that Jesus was God. It can't be a complete understanding. We do the best we can.

God created limited creators. Humans are also governed by fallen evil spirits. While sin is a fact, all sins will be forgiven if the desire and repentance is there. Yes, humans cannot be logicall held COMPLETELY responsible for their actions. That's why humanity has been redeemed. Humans can't save themselves. Actions, however, are meaningful. Actions show the human desire to do what is good, despite what we've already have established as a pretty tough situation. But you're right that human actions alone can't obtain salvation. Only one action obtained salvation. It's a free gift that many will refuse.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>There are men, big, powerful, men, telling us how to live our lives.<<<<<

You mean the government, right?

>>>>>How to prevent (or not prevent) pregnancies.<<<<<

You mean the public school system, right?

>>>>>Where to give 10% of our income.<<<<<

I'd say you mean the goverment, but they want more than 10%.

>>>>>Who we should or should not have sex with or have a marriage with.<<<<<

You mean wives and parents and husbands and friends and relatives, right? Tell you wife or husband that you want to have sex with someone else, and let me know how they respond.

>>>>>They expect us to make all these life decisions in order to receive some unseen reward (or avoid some unseen punishment) without a shred of evidence.<<<<<

No "you mean" here. People choose their own rewards and punishments as far as I'm concerned. Theology isn't about scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is nice and all, but other things are much more important. To me personally, that is.

>>>>>If "they" expect "us" to base some major life decisions on some of these very outrageous claims, don't you think it would behoove us as individuals to be very skeptical about those claims?<<<<<

Sure. I'm skeptical about tons of things myself, like evolution. If the general consensus is that everything I say is invalid, I should just nuke myself from the forum then. I'm sorry to rain on the parade here, the parade seems merely to mock religion and religious people. Whatever gets you off.

Is the point of the forum to complain about religion, and the fact that it has influenced billions of people? Or to coordinate ways to debate or defuse religion? I'm sorry for saying the forum should be nuked. From my perspective, complaining and mocking are two activities that I find to be complete waste of times.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Hi Steve.

>>>>>I do not mean simply to be skeptical of claims in favor of a religion, but any claim about religion, in general.<<<<<

Well I'm skeptical about all religions, including my own, so I agree with you.

>>>>>A few people (very few people, I hope) accuse atheists of following our "atheistic dogma" with as much blind faith as any religious person.<<<<<

I would make that accusation, but only to certain kinds of atheists. Atheists who insist they are correct about their ideas about religion, and that there is no way they are incorrect about their ideas about religion, or practicing blind faith. Most religious people I know express uncertainty about specific beliefs often.

>>>>>While I am pretty sure not all atheists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are atheists, there seems to be a decent amount of overlap, as you noticed.<<<<<

I have a skeptical nature myself, so I think the overlaps are greater than you have outlined.

Sorry for getting all huffy puffy. I should realize my place, and where I am. Of course most of you wouldn't agree with me, it's asinine for me to expect otherwise. Most forums that I participate in are forums where I am in the majority.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: omnibenevolent -- must be denied

>>>>>I really don't like the term "omnibenevolent", "all loving", "all good". I don't think there is true scriptural foundation for how we interpret those phrases. It implies that God doesn't have free will. That He must always make the best possible choice, (for whom?), and it is impossible, because of his nature to act differently.<<<<<

You're right about the scripture thing. Of course, as a Catholic, it isn't just about scripture. We don't even read the Bible you know.

I like the omnibenevolent idea. God has the most perfect will, you see. All other wills are imperfect. So you can hardly look at it as free will. There is not a difference in degree with imperfect wills and the perfect will, but a difference in kind.

-Elliot