- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseWhy is having a nature a logical necessity for God?
Why is having a nature a logical necessity for God? To answer your question, if God is omnipotent, then He should be able to be benevolent whenever He wants. The problem lies in the "omni" part of omnibenevolent, as He should also be ale to be malevolent whenever He wants.
I bring up sending people to Hell because I don't see how this is consistant with benevolence.
It is a logical necessity for all persons. Action presupposes a source of action. The "source of action" is what "nature" is defined as, remember? The source of my writing this post, is my desire to debate. The person doing it, however, is me. When discussing God, we will say He is acting out of His benevolent nature, through His omnipotent personage.
To answer your question, if God is omnipotent, then He should be able to be benevolent whenever He wants.
Yes, of course he should (should?, perhaps rather could). He could be benevolent or malevolent whenever He wants.
The problem lies in the "omni" part of omnibenevolent, as He should also be ale to be malevolent whenever He wants.
Perhaps God always wants to be benevolent, and is hence, omnibenevolent. Is He still omnipotent?
I bring up sending people to Hell because I don't see how this is consistant with benevolence.
How so?
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KAre you saying that God is a person?
[b]Why is having a nature a logical necessity for God?
It is a logical necessity for all persons. Action presupposes a source of action. The "source of action" is what "nature" is defined as, remember? The source of my writing this post, is my desire to debate. The person doing it, however, is me. When discussing God, we will say He is acting out of ...[text shortened]... eople to Hell because I don't see how this is consistant with benevolence.[/b]
How so?[/b]
I think you are confusing benevolent and omnibenevolent. A benevolent God can choose to be benevolent or malevolent(and chooses the former). An omnibenevolent God is necessarily always benevolent(precluding a choice).
If damning someone to eternal fire is being benevolent towards them, then I think we must have different ideas about what constitutes benevolence.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiterose
Are you saying that God is a person?
I think you are confusing benevolent and omnibenevolent. A benevolent God can choose to be benevolent or malevolent(and chooses the former). An omnibenevolent God is necessarily always benevolent(precluding a choice).
If damning someone to eternal fire is being benevolent towards them, then I think we must have different ideas about what constitutes benevolence.
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965In principle, I have nothing against the death penalty as a penalty. In practice however, it is a very different matter. In principle, the penalty should match the crime. However, for the death penalty in particular, there is always the possibility of getting it wrong. Even a signed confession from a killer is not enough to guarantee guilt. Research a guy named Timothy Evans, a poor chap who was sentenced to death for killing his wife. He admitted to it, signed a confession, but later retracted his statement and blamed it on his neighbour (who was later charged - and found guitly of - the murder of other women in similar fashion).
So from the religious point of view, do you think it's wrong for the authority to hang, say, a convicted serial killer?
The human justice system is just so impossibly flawed that finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt just does not exist. The only way that I would ever support a death sentence were if the judge were so perfect and omnipotent that he/she/it were able to look beyond the words and the ocnfessions and see the heart of the individual, to ascertain whether they were guilty, and whether they deserved death for their action.
No human has the capacity to carry out such punishment.
hope that answers your question 🙂
~ The Android
22 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by whiteroseGod cannot "murder" someone. He is the Lord of Life. He owns your life, therefore he cannot take your or somebody else's life, like a human can. He is Life itself.
Omnipotence, as defined by the dictionary, means having unlimited power. Having to act according to anything is a limit on power. If God has unlimited power, then He can do ANYTHING, including murdering people. If, on the other hand, he has a benevolent nature, then He cannot murder someone as His benevolent nature constrains him from doing so.
Anyway, how can it be benevolent to send someone to Hell?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
About omnipotence: Omnipotence means that God can do anything logically possible.
You and other people constantly present different versions of the following well-known question: "Is God able to make a stone he cannot lift ?"
22 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat about the family of Job and the followers of Korah? What about Anannias and Sapphira?
God cannot "murder" someone. He is the Lord of Life. He owns your life, therefore he cannot take your or somebody else's life. He is Life itself.
Omnipotence means that God can do anything logically possible.
You and other people constantly present different versions of the following well-known question: "Is God able to make a stone he cannot lift ?"
22 Dec 06
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVD.HTM
Matthew Chapter 4
1 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
2 He fasted for forty days and forty nights, 2 and afterwards he was hungry.
3 The tempter approached and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread."
4 3 He said in reply, "It is written: 'One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.'"
5 4 Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple,
6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you and 'with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"
8 Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence,
9 and he said to him, "All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." 5
10 At this, Jesus said to him, "Get away, Satan! It is written: 'The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.'"
11 Then the devil left him and, behold, angels came and ministered to him.
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI think what Ivanhoe was trying to say was that from the Christian point of view, God as the creator of all owns all its creation. It is therefore inconsistent to refer to God taking a life as murder in the same sense that humans view murder (as taking a life that does not belong to them). It's like if I have a clay model boat that I made (which I do), i carefully fashioned it for 50+ hours, curving it, sculpting it, making every bit as perfect as I could. It now sits pride of place in my living room.
What about the family of Job and the followers of Korah? What about Anannias and Sapphira?
If for whatever reason, I choose to destroy that boat, that is my right as creator. I own the boat, I made the boat, therefore I have the right to do as I please with that boat. If my brother chooses to destroy the boat, I would be most upset with him. He took something away that was not his right to take. And I would be justified in many ways in taking offense.
God as the creator of humanity owns humanity. It is his right to do as he pleases, and if that includes destroying some, then so be it. He's the creator. If someone else murders (destroys something that God created), then like the boat, God has every right to take offense.
Hope that helps,
~ the Android
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI said nothing about God not being able to be omnipotent. Of course omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible. Where have I said otherwise? What I am saying is that He cannot be omnipotent AND omnibenevolent. If He owns your life, He can most certainly take it away, but this isn't being benevolent towards you.
God cannot "murder" someone. He is the Lord of Life. He owns your life, therefore he cannot take your or somebody else's life, like a human can. He is Life itself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
About omnipotence: Omnipotence means that God can do anything logically possi ...[text shortened]... rsions of the following well-known question: "Is God able to make a stone he cannot lift ?"
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseAre you saying that God is a person?
Are you saying that God is a person?
I think you are confusing benevolent and omnibenevolent. A benevolent God can choose to be benevolent or malevolent(and chooses the former). An omnibenevolent God is necessarily always benevolent(precluding a choice).
If damning someone to eternal fire is being benevolent towards them, then I think we must have different ideas about what constitutes benevolence.
I said God acts through His personage. I never said God was a person. But Christians will say that God is three persons. If you must know. Strictly speaking, the term "person" refers to the thing that performs the action.
I think you are confusing benevolent and omnibenevolent. A benevolent God can choose to be benevolent or malevolent(and chooses the former). An omnibenevolent God is necessarily always benevolent(precluding a choice).
I have given several reasons as to why your objection is meaningless. The last one was that perhaps if God chooses to be benevolent at one moment, then He also chooses to benevolent at all moments, and is hence omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent God is necessarily always benevolent(precluding a choice).
No, it perhaps God just doesn't want to not be omnibenevolent. Most monotheists (the philosophy is still the same) hold to a doctrine called "immutability", that God cannot change. There are two reasons for this, 1) God is perfect, and change entails the introduction of something new, change thus precludes perfection, 3) God transcends time, time is a measurement of change, since God is above time, God cannot change. This means that if God is benevolent at one point in our time, He must then be benevolent at all times.
Note: the doctrine of immutability does not contradict God's omnipotence either. God cannot doing things that are logically impossible.
If damning someone to eternal fire is being benevolent towards them, then I think we must have different ideas about what constitutes benevolence.
Eternal fire? It is true that images of fire are employed to describe hell. But as I explained most Christians are prepared to look at them as metaphorical. And isn't it rather not God's benevolence in question but the person's intelligence for failing to avoid it?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whiteroseYou have a completely different definition to the word "can" to what everyone else is using.
I said nothing about God not being able to be omnipotent. Of course omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible. Where have I said otherwise? What I am saying is that He cannot be omnipotent AND omnibenevolent. If He owns your life, He can most certainly take it away, but this isn't being benevolent towards you.
EDIT: and omnipotence
22 Dec 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, if God a person, or three persons, then He cannot be omnipotent. If not, then He is not restricted by a "nature" akin to a person's.
[b]Are you saying that God is a person?
I said God acts through His personage. I never said God was a person. But Christians will say that God is three persons. If you must know. Strictly speaking, the term "person" refers to the thing that performs the action.
I think you are confusing benevolent and omnibenevolent. A benevolent God can choos ...[text shortened]... ot God's benevolence in question but the person's intelligence for failing to avoid it?
If God chooses to be benevolent, then He can still be omnipotent only because He can choose to be malevolent a any time in the future. Of course, this implies time, which apparently God is above. So according to your doctrine of immutability, God is above time, but cannot do things that are logically impossible(which of course being above time is). Wow, this God of yours is full of contraditions.
Again, how is it benevolent to damn someone to eternal fire? Of course, if you don't read the bible literally, then God is not damning anyone. But then, if you don't read it literally then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.