Theists: riddle me this

“3)omnibenevolence (possessing all goodness and ultimate concern for mankind and justice)”

Whoever said the Abrahamic God was omnibenevolent?
I suggest a good read through the veangeful God of the Old Testament.

Further your definition of benevolence applying somehow to justice doesn’t work. Justice assumes retribution, which would not be benevolent.
If God were omnibenevolent, there would be no ‘evil’ more appropriately sin. There are many acts which can be considered ‘evil’ but have no bearing on what God declared as sin.

The first sin was the transgression of the Devil, formerly the most beautiful angel. This may seem a warped and uninspired place to look for a view point on God and the Devil and their clash, but have you ever read the final chapter of Anne Rice’s The Vampire Lestat series? Very interesting perspective.

Anyway… Anne Rice not being a prophet for certain…

The first sin was jealousy. When God moved Lucifer from his right and placed His Son there in his stead, it created a bruised ego, which even the Good can suffer. Probably more due to an inability by Lucifer to deal with his bruised ego than an actual wish to defy God, a ‘war’ ensued and quickly ended with Lucifer getting his wish to be sent to Earth, God’s crowning achievement with humans made in His image.

He was to be permitted to tempt the humans a sort of bargaining chip in his exile from Heaven. God even created a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He gave the first two humans a single rule to follow to prove their alliegance to their creator. Not to eat of The Tree for it would mean their death. (though some theologians accept the concept that there may have been several or even hundreds of Adams and Eves throughout the Earth).

Obviously you know and He knew what happened. Then the eternal struggle began. God didn’t want the human race to be robotic in nature, He wanted them, His greatest creation, that He endowed with the ability to reason, to follow Him because they wanted to, not because they had no choice.

Sometimes mankind’s desire to follow His adversary really really angered Him and He brought down destruction in mass upon His creations. I suppose you could say that God is on a power trip through a good part of the Old Testament. (That is how ‘evil’ began after all).

After His greatest creation of all, even above mankind, meaning His Son came down to Earth and died, I think He has pretty much told us what is going to happen and is just waiting for the right time to swoop down His final revenge on those who dared to defy their creator.

I could go on…

JustAnotherGuy said:

Churches and the philosophy of religion. I believe what is meant by “omnibenevolence” is ultimate goodness and concern for mankind, and yes, justice, within God’s judgment. As to retribution not being benevolent, well, that could certainly be argued, but God thinks it’s benevolent and so do lotsa people (myself not included), so God’s sense of justice (i.e. sending good people to heaven, bad people to hell, killing murderers, etc.) ends up being interpreted as an extension of his concern for us and our happiness. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Marxist view that society creates religion out of desire for eternal justice to replace the lack thereof here in the real world (among other things)—people just like justice. Maybe it’s childish, and maybe their God is too, but the fact remains it’s considered (by many of his followers) a good trait.

Why not? Does his giving us free will rule out his benevolence? And evil is not always sin; that only accounts for moral evil. What about (for example) natural disasters?

As for God’s vengeful nature, in practice I would have to agree–a God that gets kicks out of flooding the world when people don’t kiss his ass and turning people into salt just as an arbritrary ramification of an arbritrary glance over the shoulder, is a sad, sick son of a bitch if you ask me, and could not by any stretch of the imagination be called omnibenevolent. But this isn’t about what I think; this is about how his followers, the people who actually perceive him and his actions to be omnibenevolent, address the Problem of Evil in their faith.

John Finnan said:

So you’re saying that some of what we perceive as evil may not actually be, according to divine perspective. Alright, for the sake of argument, I’ll grant that. But this still leaves a lot of evil lying around–like the evil that even God sees as evil, revealed to us through the Bible. So let’s throw out all the stuff we perceive as evil, if you like. There’s still evil. It still had to come from somewhere, and there still has to be a reason God lets it be there.

Perceptive!!! Probably the Bible assumes this knowledge, but that’s still interesting. But, assuming God’s 3 intrinsic traits, he had to be good before Creation, or he was not God before Creation, and if he was not God before Creation, he could not have been the Creator. (as you can see I like the logic a lot more than the reality.)

Ha ha!!! Excellent. Ah, this SO much fun.

For instance, what is “evil”? It’s not something you can hold in your hand, so what do you mean when you talk about the “existence of evil”? I would say that people can commit evil acts, etc. However, does it make sense to say that a tree or rock is evil? I don’t think so. Is being killed by a tornado “evil”?–I would say no.

So let’s say that evil is a word that characterizes the actions of humans. If that’s not what is meant, then we can’t proceed. I’ll add to that the definition that doing good is anything in harmony with God’s desires, and doing evil to be anything else.

BTW, to establish a frame of reference, I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as LDS or Mormon.

I agree with the idea that in order to have free will (or agency), we must be able to choose to do good or evil. And not being perfect, it is inevitable that all of us will do evil deeds sooner or later.

As for the status of God–his doing only good deeds does not remove his free will, if he freely (i.e. without compulsion) chose to be what he is. Of course this brings up the whole issue of what God was before this creation?"

JustAnotherGuy wrote:

By claiming this, you are essentially saying that our actions totally depend on God, i.e. there is no free will. I will respectfully disagree.

To claim that God isn’t benevolent because of his actions recorded in the Old Testament is to ignore the eternal perspective. Ending someone’s life may seem harsh to us, but it might in fact be the best help for that person in question. Since only God can know that, it his place to make such decisions on life and death, and not ours.

As for us, if we go to heaven it will be because we chose to go there, coupled with the atonement of Christ–who offers heaven to all who will accept it. There will be no evil there because all who get there will have freely chosen to reject evil. Lastly, if everyone went to heaven irrespective of his own desires, that would negate free will as well. If we can’t choose to not be with God, then we don’t have free will.

Did I misread the Op?

Weren’t you looking for how Christians, and let’s be honest, there are about 10,000 differing interpretations of the same scriptures, reconcile your three measures of God?

Maybe we should look up benevolence in the dictionary if we want to consider God omnibenevolent.

NOUN : 1. An inclination to perform kind, charitable acts. 2. a. A kindly act. b. A gift given out of generosity.
3. A compulsory tax or payment exacted by some English sovereigns without the consent of Parliament. (I think you will agree with me that the last one post-dates God)

But if you want a reconciliation, you have to accept that perhaps your criteria for God are not the same as mine. If you can’t accept that other people will interpret it differently, you aren’t looking for a reconciliation, but an argument.

He is not omnibenevolent.
He never professed to be so.
He calls himself a veangeful God and there is NOTHING benevolent about vengeance.
Granting an omnibenevolent trait to God is something Man has done in a hopes that somehow his unworthy butt will be saved because he led a ‘decent’ life. God is like a legislator, prosecutor, defending attorney, judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up in one. He makes the rules, puts up His own Son as an offset to the inability of Man to keep His rules, then decides if it is enough.
“By claiming this, you are essentially saying that our actions totally depend on God, i.e. there is no free will. I will respectfully disagree.”

If you take comments out of context, you will undoubtedly disagree. My point was exactly the opposite. We DO have free will which was the entire point of my post. God is NOT omnibenevolent, if He were, we would have no need for free will because He never would have allowed ‘evil’ to exist.

If you can promote an argument that giving a child a loaded gun but telling them not to use it is somehow a kind and charitable act, then perhaps we can debate that point on it’s own merits.

However, he is omniscent is He not? This does not remove free will, it just means that He already knows what you are going to do in any given situation. Or are you saying He is not omniscent? The Book of Ifs theory?

Peloquin: Determinism is passe. The cornerstone of the theory has been disproven scientifically; i.e., that at the atomic level, an ensemble’s state is completely determined by its immediately preceding state.

It sounds as though you’re trying to salvage it by adding in ‘or not determined’ into the premise. (Wouldn’t you get determine or not-ism?)

BTW, most people can convince themselves of their ability to make at least trivial choices. Were you really determined to eat a bagel this morning?

JustAnotherGuy said:

No. I was looking for how theists (not necessarily Christian) reconcile the problem of evil with their religion, assuming these three widely accepted and taught measures of God. I realize that there may be different interpretations of God’s nature, but I am asking those who take these to be his major traits where they think evil came from and why it continues to be around. Haven’t gotten that many real theists yet, though. Furthermore, I am not arguing that God is benevolent. I don’t give a rat’s ass if he’s benevolent, because to me he doesn’t exist. I’m simply arguing that he is believed to be omnibenevolent, or the ultimate good, whichever you prefer, and if you’re going to tell me he’s not, you’re obviously not very familiar with much of Western theism. Your argument is that he is not benevolent because he’s vengeful, and because he gives people free will (referring to the child-with-gun example, which I don’t know what else could represent). Both of these things can be and are interpreted as being in the interest of mankind, therefore good, and therefore an example of his benevolence. Being vengeful has to do with his sense of justice, and punishing those he believes are wicked. Most believers consider the punishment of the wicked a GOOD thing. And hopefully I don’t have to explain to you why people think it’s good to have a mind of their own and be given a choice. Even I think that’s benevolent, considering the alternative.

knappy:

Among particle physicists, sure, among philosophers, not by a long shot…

Yeah, I was being painfully simplistic in my example, hoping someone would open up the issue. I still stand by it though. It sounds silly to say “determined or not-ism” but clearly, if an “ensemble’s state is (not) completely determined by its immediately preceding state.” Then said state cannot be predicted, even in theory. This makes it random, correct? Tell, me, with regards to human choices, would you rather have yours decided based upon your past experiences, your mental state…etc., or some subatomic crapshoot?

How does randomness add ANY amount of freedom?

Look, Free Will is only a big issue for theists, I am exploring it as a thought experiment. It sure SEEMS like I have choices and everyone else does, we all operate under this assumption, and it seems to bear out. Also, even if it is theoretically possible to predict everyone’s actions and mental states, I imagine it would take more computing power than we will ever have. So for all intents and purposes, our illusion is inviolate. Why sweat it?

But as for the nuts-and-bolts truth of the matter, surely you’ve questioned the nature of conciousness and volition, right? I don’t know anyone who has ever thought about it at all and not come away with the idea that it is probably (conciousness) not what we think it is.

Yes, states of particles are unpredictable (mostly) but surely you will concede that larger objects have predictable behaviors? Most of science depends on this. Although it is fashionable for people to use QM as a refuge for conciousness, humans are not quantum computers. We use big 'ol clunky neurons, polarizing and de-polarizing. I seriously doubt that our mental states are impacted much by random particle movement. And if they are, this would provide no solace to Free Will (as above). But I am not a physicist so…

As to my choice for breakfast…Well, sure, it of course seems like I had the choice, again, why sweat it? But if I must: I like bagels and was in the mood for one. My food preferences, like most peoples’, were largely determined by my childhood exposure to certain foods (probably some evolutionary value there), coupled with my biochemistry. My mood was determined by innummerable factors which we need not explore, but are no big mystery.

If everything was the same, situation, mood…etc. I would pick a bagel every time. I kind of find this comforting.

Oh, my apologies, (you did specifically state the Abrahamian God) but I wouldn’t consider myself any more a theist than anyone else. I still don’t quite get where the assumption that God is omnibenevolent is widely accepted or taught, unless you create a Christian religion that leaves the Old Testament, Romans and Revelation out of it’s Bible, but it’s your OP. What I learned from the Bible and from the varying churches I have attended over the years is obviously different from what theists have widely accepted to be true.

[QUOTE**
but clearly, if an “ensemble’s state is (not) completely determined by its immediately preceding state.” Then said state cannot be predicted, even in theory. This makes it random, correct?
**[/QUOTE]

No. There is a middle ground between completely determined and totally random.
I suspect you are influenced by your preceding mental state, but as to the degree, well I’ll leave that up to the individual.

Sorry if I skipped a step. Let’s try it again:

The point is our acts are good or evil. You claim that God’s being omnibenevolent implies that we would no longer do evil things (there weould be no evil). Hence no free will. Note that I make no distinction between evil and sin.

JustAnotherGuy said:

Simple. It’s because the actions God takes are considered in the big picture to be benevolent. If he kills someone, they deserved it; therefore he’s helping out the rest of us by ridding us of the danger that person may have posed, or maybe even helping the person himself in some vague way. The point is, theists tend to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making those decisions, and assume they’re for the general good of mankind. That’s why people still think he’s omnibenevolent. I went to church (different churches, of different denominations) for 15 years, and this principle appeared everywhere I went; that is why I assume this trait as characteristic of God. What were you taught, and by whom, just as a matter of curiousity?

**nevermore wrote:

Not of God(s), but of THE God. Of Western theism, that is. These assumption are not mine, either; I don’t even believe in God (not yet at least), therefore his omni-anything is nonexistent and thus to me a nonissue–these are just the characteristics I was told to accept when I went to church.**

What you’re reciting, nevermore, is simply history as told by the winners. With the distruction of the temples at Uppsala back in the twelveth century (IIRC), organized antique Paganism in Europe came to an end.

For an interesting history of its revival, try Ronald Hutton’s book; The Triumph of the Moon.

One word of advice; if you come around to a Theist point of view, make sure it’s not for some silly reason like Pascal’s wager. Let your belief be sincere, not because you were scared into it.

And PolyC, thanks for the stuff on Babylonian mythology. I don’t know much about it and what I do know I got mainly from Dr. Asimov.

Well, here’s my take on a few of the topics that have been brought up here.

I see free will this way: we’re travelling on our little road, and God has the road map. He can see what’s coming up and which way would be the better to go, and even which way He’d like for us to go, and may try to guide us in that direction, but ultimately the choice is ours. He has control over the terrain and layout of the roads we take, too, so that even if we take the road he didn’t want us to, he can make it turn out all right in the end.

I realize this has holes in it, but it works for me.

And as for the problem of pain and the existence of evil… that’s trickier. I do believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, and the only way I can reconcile these things with the world we know is this way: sometimes the only way God can reach someone is through what we perceive as evil (bad things happening to innocent people, etc). And sometimes we do it to ourselves. Along the lines of a parent telling a child, “If you touch that stove, you’ll get burned” and the child does it anyway, and gets burned.

That has even more holes in it, I know, but what I believe even more is that it is meant to be a problem for us. That’s the point of Faith, and the Mystery of the Divine: “now we see as in a mirror, darkly; then we shall see face to face. Now we know in part; then we shall know in full, even as we are fully known.” I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I believe this. If we know all the mysteries of the Creation, why should we have Faith?

Maybe it’s just me.

So, I won’t bring down the Church that brought me up, or others that I have attended, in case I am just seeing things differently than they did.
emarkp… my assertion was that God is NOT omnibenevolent.

Anyway, sorry again for the intrusion, I don’t believe that, so there is really no point in my being here. smile

I think that good and evil are human concepts, and God is above that.

Scylla wrote:

WEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLL, Kyle’s mom’s a bitch,
She’s a big fat bitch,
She’s the biggest bitch in the whole wide world.
She’s a big fat bitch,
And she has stupid hair,
She’s a big big big big big big bitch!
Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch,
She’s a fucking biiiiiiiitch!
Kyle’s mom’s a bitch,
And she’s such a dirty bitch!

I really mean it…

I’m facinated by the questions brought up in the OP, I often seek to understand the believer’s thoughts on benevolence and omnipotence.

I have a problem with this “evil is necessary for free will” arguement. First of all, this completely ignores the natural evil that exists in the world. That is, people are buried alive in mudslides, children are struck by lightning on playgrounds, viruses cause untold agony. None of this could be attributable to a person’s willful acts of evil. In common conversation, these kinds of things are called “acts of God” - with a God that would allow (or initiate!) this kind of evil, who needs murderers and rapists?

Also, why would the elimination of evil from the world undermine anyone’s sense of free will? If I were incapable of stealing or murder, I could still choose to have lunch at McDonalds or Pizza Hut, root for the Mets or Yankees, go into work tomorrow morning or call up my boss and tell him to go pound sand. All of these are expressions of free will, and have nothing to do with evil. The only thing I suppose I couldn’t do is go against God. So, then, without evil everybody has a happy life and goes to heaven in the end - what’s the problem here?

But, you say, without evil there is no goodness. I dunno, theres plenty of good food and bad food, good movies and bad movies, and I’ve had good golf games and bad ones. At no time have I ever seen an “evil” movie, had “evil” food, or thought about evil on the golf course. If all the arsons, murderers, prostitues and drug dealers (substitute your most hated evil here) were to disappear, I’d still know the happines of a sunny day and the dispair of a weeks worth of rainydays when my car broke down. I’d still hate disco and crank up the rock 'n roll.

And what’s so great about free will anyway? I’d argue that if my life was determined and I didn’t know it, I couldn’t tell the difference anyway. When the movie “Titanic” came out, every frame was determined without my knowledge, and I still found it entertaining, enlightening, and intersting (I even knew how the story would end!). We live in a world where we could be burned to death tomorrow by the EVIL actions of a drunk driver, our daughters could be raped on the way to school, our fortunes erased by an embezzeler. I’d trade that kind of existance - in a minute - for a universe where my life was “determined” and I knew myself and all my loved ones would live to a wise and productive old age.

Free will and evil, harumph.

JustAnotherGuy: I understand that you were claiming that God is not omnibenevolent. I was disagreeing with the conclusion his being omnibenevolent. I don’t agree that omnibenevolence implies the elimination of evil. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

Is it clear now what I was saying? (Have to stop posting so late…)

JustAnotherGuy:

Well, if we’re gonna argue that, I guess I shouldn’t be here either, along with about half the people who posted!!! While the explanations of theists is my major interest in this thread, I still like to hear from people like me. So, no intrusion. As you were!!!

kellymccauley:
you bring up some interesting points, some of which I’d never really considered before. As to your position on natural evils being “acts of God”, I believe there must be some truth to that, contrary to the views of those who only consider moral evil worth talking about. If God designed the world, he could have made it without this stuff, and even if he didn’t plan it (which is incongruous already, assuming his omniscience) he could always, with a wiggle of the divine nose, eliminate it from the picture. Just because we humans don’t cause it don’t mean it ain’t evil–it makes bad stuff happen, right? Then, doggone it, it’s evil. But as to “free will”–I think the free will we refer to in terms of religious philosophy must be confined to that which allows us to decide between the (intrinsically) good and bad. That’s why some take up a position that evil is a necessary consequence of free will. Seems backwards to me, though; if you weren’t already looking at evil you couldn’t even come up with the concept of free will, nor would you care to, so it seems to me that free will is more likely a consequence of evil.

stargazer:

If we knew all the mysteries of Creation, we wouldn’t need faith, we’d just know; faith would be obsolete, and I betcha anything you wouldn’t miss it. That’s like saying, if we knew everything about evolution, oh no, nobody would be confused anymore. As if being confused was so much fun anyway.
Didn’t mean to sound harsh there, in case I did. But thanks for your theistic perspective on the question @ hand–I can see that your view is largely based on faith, which I guess is the only way to overcome this problem.

I really don’t want to get into the debate here, but I stumbled onto something somewhere else, and it made me think of you guys in here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39f0d2a04f9a.htm

I’m just going to tell you now, that I did not read this whole thread, so I don’t even know if it is relevant anymore. I read the first 10 or so posts the other day, and then about half of the link up there, and I figured it might be interesting to you guys.

Take it or leave it. :slight_smile: