(February 22, 2016 at 8:18 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: God is not omnibenevolent, but the existing trifecta omni doctrine combined with the doctrine of perfection are what should prevent a god from deciding not to prevent evil. If he were to do this, then that would make him imperfect.

That is illogical. Not doing anything within one's capable means is evil.

(February 22, 2016 at 5:46 pm)Godschild Wrote: If you don't believe then quit blaming God, everyone.

You really are a fucking tool GC. We "blame gawd" for being an utter bastard the same way we "blame Lord Voldemort" for being an utter bastard. That you can't see that is quite telling.

(February 22, 2016 at 6:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ all, since everyone ignored my question to those who responded to my first post I have nothing further to say. Ignoring my question is telling me you either do not care or guilt is running over you. I know that new posts are being presented at this moment and I want answer then either because I'm not getting into the gang up thing.

GC

(emphasis is mine)

Or, you've put all the respondents on ignore, removing from your perception any arguments you're unable to counter.

(February 22, 2016 at 10:52 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 8:18 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: God is not omnibenevolent, but the existing trifecta omni doctrine combined with the doctrine of perfection are what should prevent a god from deciding not to prevent evil. If he were to do this, then that would make him imperfect.

That is illogical.  Not doing anything within one's capable means is evil.

How is that illogical? I don't see any logic in that statement, unless it's presumed that the presumed-perfect god is perfectly evil, and not perfectly good. Since my observations reflect Xtian doctrines back at them, I doubt they presume this of their god.

Of course we see the evil in a god who doesn't do what only he could to intervene and prevent evil, or to even allow evil to be so much as a threat. It also means the same god is not really perfect, and 6 is a half-dozen.

(February 22, 2016 at 10:49 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 8:18 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: God is not omnibenevolent, but the existing trifecta omni doctrine combined with the doctrine of perfection are what should prevent a god from deciding not to prevent evil. If he were to do this, then that would make him imperfect.

If god can not do anything evil and can only do good, because he is perfect, how is that not omnibenevolent?

Agreed, this would require him to be omnibenevolent, although I don't know if that's a doctrine. If so, then it would present another problem of conflict, because "God's benevolent love" is not unconditional - you have to be a believer, or do your penance!

Personally, I don't care what the Xtians have decided their god thinks of us - if he is in every way unlimited and perfect, then it has no prejudices anyway, and should be expected to prevent evil. If it's really that perfect, then it should not have to think at all. God would be an intergalactic and unlimited robot which responds when and where needed always, and without any of that petty and quibbling human nonsense such as favoritism or prejudice. I suppose this would be benevolence, which is not necessarily the same as love is in the point which I just argued above, but both are surely absent when you choose to allow evil.

What I was trying to do was point out the conflicts of actual Christian doctrines, and I don't know if "omnibenevolence" is among them. I don't recall seeing that in my Fundy school curricula, nor can I remember hearing it from any church pulpit. But those days are now ages past, so I suppose they could be teaching anything now.

(February 23, 2016 at 2:59 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 10:49 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: If god can not do anything evil and can only do good, because he is perfect, how is that not omnibenevolent?

Agreed, this would require him to be omnibenevolent, although I don't know if that's a doctrine. If so, then it would present another problem of conflict, because "God's benevolent love" is not unconditional - you have to be a believer, or do your penance!

Personally, I don't care what the Xtians have decided their god thinks of us - if he is in every way unlimited and perfect, then it has no prejudices anyway, and should be expected to prevent evil. If it's really that perfect, then it should not have to think at all. God would be an intergalactic and unlimited robot which responds when and where needed always, and without any of that petty and quibbling human nonsense such as favoritism or prejudice. I suppose this would be benevolence, which is not necessarily the same as love is in the point which I just argued above, but both are surely absent when you choose to allow evil.

What I was trying to do was point out the conflicts of actual Christian doctrines, and I don't know if "omnibenevolence" is among them. I don't recall seeing that in my Fundy school curricula, nor can I remember hearing it from any church pulpit. But those days are now ages past, so I suppose they could be teaching anything now.

While the bible does not say the word omnibenevolent, it is certainly taught that god is all good. Even when god does something we consider evil, the xitan argues that we just don't understand his ways and he is doing it for a greater good. He must be omnibenevolent in the eyes of the believer otherwise "faith" breaks down, because you can't blindly support him when there are doubts as to whether his actions are good or evil. I agree there are many things that contradict the idea that god is omnibenevolent, which is why I find the problem of evil a compelling argument.

(February 23, 2016 at 8:02 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 2:59 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Agreed, this would require him to be omnibenevolent, although I don't know if that's a doctrine. If so, then it would present another problem of conflict, because "God's benevolent love" is not unconditional - you have to be a believer, or do your penance!

Personally, I don't care what the Xtians have decided their god thinks of us - if he is in every way unlimited and perfect, then it has no prejudices anyway, and should be expected to prevent evil. If it's really that perfect, then it should not have to think at all. God would be an intergalactic and unlimited robot which responds when and where needed always, and without any of that petty and quibbling human nonsense such as favoritism or prejudice. I suppose this would be benevolence, which is not necessarily the same as love is in the point which I just argued above, but both are surely absent when you choose to allow evil.

What I was trying to do was point out the conflicts of actual Christian doctrines, and I don't know if "omnibenevolence" is among them. I don't recall seeing that in my Fundy school curricula, nor can I remember hearing it from any church pulpit. But those days are now ages past, so I suppose they could be teaching anything now.

While the bible does not say the word omnibenevolent, it is certainly taught that god is all good. Even when god does something we consider evil, the xitan argues that we just don't understand his ways and he is doing it for a greater good. He must be omnibenevolent in the eyes of the believer otherwise "faith" breaks down, because you can't blindly support him when there are doubts as to whether his actions are good or evil. I agree there are many things that contradict the idea that god is omnibenevolent, which is why I find the problem of evil a compelling argument.

In my experience, having wasted so many Sunday mornings in different sectarian churches, I found that evangelical Protestants are best at playing up the "God's perfect love" idea. Of course all Xtian sects teach that Gawd loves us, but they would not all need to backpedal so much from that other doctrine that he's a jealous god, for which there actually is a clause in the first commandment. In a conservative Dutch Reformed church which I attended with my parents, the 10 Commandments were recited by the entire congregation, in sync, on a regular basis. Evangelical Protestants, on the other hand, generally try and pretend that the Old Testament doesn't exist, which sort of does make it easier to emphasize a god of love. So it may depend on which church you attend, but the three most common omni doctrines focus on infinite power, presence, and intelligence, which are relatively safe from conflicts with other doctrines. Well, they are given that the believer fails to demand any specific quality for that other doctrine that "God is perfect".

EDIT: I confess I did pull all of the above from my memory, which is as selective as anyone's. I said evangelical Protestants tend to ignore the Old Testament because I cannot ever remember having sat through a 10-Commandments reading in a more charismatic church. Also, I'm not really sure if radicalism and evangelicalism are separable, although the constipation-faced creeps in swanky suits and polished shoes who hate all secular entertainment and try to use the law against all secular culture are certainly a different approach to evangelicalism than the charismatics, most of whom are more easy-going (but about as dumb) than Westboro Baptist. Anywy, they all teach the OT, when it's convenient for teaching obedience.

(February 22, 2016 at 4:16 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm)Drich Wrote: For this boy, what his Father did was more than he could bear, so God called him home.

If a god can do something about a situation where an innocent child is being harmed but does nothing except watch, then that is not a god worth acknowledging.

Again two dimensional thinking.

How is being called back home to a God that loves you doing nothing?

(February 22, 2016 at 4:29 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(February 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm)Drich Wrote: So let's say one of your two dimensional hero's saves this kid, now who will save this kids kid from him? or do you not get these types of anger issues are passed down? that the dad was a kid beaten the same way...

So now what if the beating was bad enough, and did enough mental damage that if he lived he would have done something far worse??? Hitler's Dad was supposed to have beaten little boy hitler with in an inch of his life several different times.

At what point is it better to 'reset' the child's life than to force him to live it?

But, again to 'rest' is not an option for you all therefore you see death as being a 'bad' thing. because again you all are two dimensional only.

The limit God promises all of us is to not test us beyond what we can bear. For this boy, what his Father did was more than he could bear, so God called him home.

In the light of a 3 dimensional reality, how is being called home a 'bad thing?'

The idea that abuse victims typically go on to become abusers is a myth.  So much for your answer.

 Do you have citation, or am I suppose to take your 'nuh-huh' as gospel?

I have three that says (for the last 27 years) that number of abuse victims who becomes abusers themselves is 1, in 3. Which according to these articles is a high number to which they all seek different ways to "stop the cycle of abuse."
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/parents-...id=8549642
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/24/scienc...edies.html
https://www.myptsd.com/c/threads/30-of-a...622/page-2

Please provide tangible, realistic evidence that there is such a god that loves people?

Oh, and the bible doesn't count as tangible, realistic evidence since it was written by goat herders who thought the world was flat.