Benelovant omnipotence and the problem of Evil

I am very much sure Genesis is incompatible with Genesis, there are species mentioned in Genesis who are meant to have no precursor; for example: Birds are mentioned to be created in Genesis by God, and yet, there are fossil records that can predate the species which evolved into Birds.

But anyway, I do not think that this reality is that of a benelovent onipotence, remember, omnipotence means everthing is possible- A world with both free will, and yet no suffering.

Think what you like, however I would like to mention that it states in the bible(I forget where): that what we can understand of God and the kingdom of heaven is as trying to look at it through a darkened mirror. Meaning that sin has caused to be so stupid that our comprehension of things like a world with both free will, and yet no suffering and omnipotence are simply beyond our understanding.

Originally Posted by Brother_Wolf

Think what you like, however I would like to mention that it states in the bible(I forget where): that what we can understand of God and the kingdom of heaven is as trying to look at it through a darkened mirror. Meaning that sin has caused to be so stupid that our comprehension of things like a world with both free will, and yet no suffering and omnipotence are simply beyond our understanding.

So if we cleans our selves of sin, we should be able to to understand these things, yes?

unless something else inhibits our cognitive facilities and perceptive capabilities.

Originally Posted by Erasmus

So if we cleans our selves of sin, we should be able to to understand these things, yes?

unless something else inhibits our cognitive facilities and perceptive capabilities.

From 13+ years of bible belt school, yes. When we go to heaven we all become slightly more mobile versions of Stephen Hawking. One thing I've always found odd with any religion dealing with "sin" is the "cleansing" of sin. I see this as an impossibility.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

From 13+ years of bible belt school, yes. When we go to heaven we all become slightly more mobile versions of Stephen Hawking. One thing I've always found odd with any religion dealing with "sin" is the "cleansing" of sin. I see this as an impossibility.

^that's interesting.

I don't.

but really you must explain what sin is before you can go about talking of cleansing yourself of it.

Originally Posted by Erasmus

^that's interesting.

I don't.

but really you must explain what sin is before you can go about talking of cleansing yourself of it.

A good point. When I think of sin I think of what I was told was sin. Which is the standard Christian Baptist sin. Not so pure thought is the chief one I think is, not quite impossible, but close to it. People sin, that's what they do. True, when struck with the fear of religion people usually try harder not to, but usually they do anyways. So all that really does is make them feel guilty and even more fearful of their god, whoever that may be. I want to clarify that I am not an atheist while saying this. I do, in fact, believe in a God or God like entity.

God didn't create evil.

Evil is like cold or darkness, it really doesn't exist. Just like cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light, evil is simply the absence of good, and is not a real force.

Problem solved.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

God didn't create evil.

Evil is like cold or darkness, it really doesn't exist. Just like cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light, evil is simply the absence of good, and is not a real force.

Problem solved.

Not quite. What about the fallen angel? He, or his minions, make you want to do made. It has to be something on the same plane as good for that. God may have not created evil but someone did.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

Not quite. What about the fallen angel? He, or his minions, make you want to do made. It has to be something on the same plane as good for that. God may have not created evil but someone did.

Good and evil nothing more than subjective and/or qualitative descriptors, no?

or is there an absolute moral divide--either in the intellect or the actions of people.

is the fallen angel "desire" personified? I'm having trouble grasping the meaning from your second sentence.

Evil can be argued to be the perceivable lack of Good though, as opposed to an actual thing in-and-of itself.

thus "nothing" is evil.

rather it is the perceivable barrier between something and nothing from which people can ascertain expectations and notions of how things were, are, and maybe even will be.

It is from the differentiation between expectation and reality that we learn to use the word "should".

This "should" be that.

He "should have" done that.

God "should" do this.

etc.....

the main difference between man and animal is that man can look at it's surrounding environment and perceive how it might "better" suit his needs, and from there forge things as the "should" be in his minds eyes.

During the transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to dominance of agricultural settlements, this can be observed.

I would gander that every materialistic advance has been a repeat of this in some form or another at it's root level, looking at it from a quantitative perspective as opposed to qualitative.

Originally Posted by Erasmus

Good and evil nothing more than subjective and/or qualitative descriptors, no?

or is there an absolute moral divide--either in the intellect or the actions of people.

is the fallen angel "desire" personified? I'm having trouble grasping the meaning from your second sentence.

Evil can be argued to be the perceivable lack of Good though, as opposed to an actual thing in-and-of itself.

thus "nothing" is evil.

rather it is the perceivable barrier between something and nothing from which people can ascertain expectations and notions of how things were, are, and maybe even will be.

It is from the differentiation between expectation and reality that we learn to use the word "should".

This "should" be that.

He "should have" done that.

God "should" do this.

etc.....

the main difference between man and animal is that man can look at it's surrounding environment and perceive how it might "better" suit his needs, and from there forge things as the "should" be in his minds eyes.

During the transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to dominance of agricultural settlements, this can be observed.

I would gander that every materialistic advance has been a repeat of this in some form or another at it's root level, looking at it from a quantitative perspective as opposed to qualitative.

...I like you. You're good.

Yes, when I said "He" I was mainly referring to the Christian Satan, or whatever you want to call it. The idea that evil is simple the lack of good is a good thought, and indeed has something to back it up. But if we're going on that, then that means that there is chiefly ONLY good, which just plain isn't true in my opinion. The first "evil" thing that was done after the creation of earth was the snake tricking Eve into eating the apple. The snake was evil, therefore, from the beginning of time (on earth anyways) there has been evil. I personally see a moral divide. It's not really absolute though. I've said this before in reference to morals: life is not black and white, it's a grey, messy, deformed blob. One might have to murder an innocent man to save the lives of one thousand innocent men. Though, as it has been said, all of this is opinion and not exactly law, even if you might think, or hope, it is.

Without reading more than the first post i will respond. I believe god realizes that only by facing trials and temptations in our lives can we truly become worthy of meeting his vision for us. What i'm saying is if we don't face struggles in our lives then how will we know whether or not we're worthy of spending eternity in peace. Life is just a trial that has to be passed before you can be granted eternal rest and live a life of peace in his domain. Does this make sense to anyone?

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Without reading more than the first post i will respond. I believe god realizes that only by facing trials and temptations in our lives can we truly become worthy of meeting his vision for us. What i'm saying is if we don't face struggles in our lives then how will we know whether or not we're worthy of spending eternity in peace. Life is just a trial that has to be passed before you can be granted eternal rest and live a life of peace in his domain. Does this make sense to anyone?

No, becuase the idea of selflessness is completley ignorant to a guy named Alex Delarge.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

No, becuase the idea of selflessness is completley ignorant to a guy named Alex Delarge.

Who is Alex Delarge?

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Who is Alex Delarge?

He has good taste in music.


despite the quirkiness.




8:05
<33

I meant to say that he is the scrouge of humanity, If he were to suddenly die, he would go to Hell. Which he dosen't deserve, becuase he dosen't know any better.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

I meant to say that he is the scrouge of humanity, If he were to suddenly die, he would go to Hell. Which he dosen't deserve, becuase he dosen't know any better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the novel, doesn't he directly acknowledge that he realizes what he does is wrong?

EDIT: Yes, he says this at one point.

Originally Posted by Alex

You can't have a society with everybody behaving in my manner of the night.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the novel, doesn't he directly acknowledge that he realizes what he does is wrong?

I prefer to think of it as counter productive rather than wrong.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the novel, doesn't he directly acknowledge that he realizes what he does is wrong?

well then why does he continue to do it?

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

well then why does he continue to do it?

because it makes him happy and he doesn't give two ♥♥♥♥s about most other people besides himself.

you lost me at "incompatible"