Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

You're getting there Drich, slowly and surely. So you can see how useless it is to use the bible to define what evil is in this context. It is not how Epicurus was using it.Now, you have avoided the question. So I will ask until you again.

Is YOUR God, omnipotent. Is YOUR God, not malevolent.

Apparently I have to spell it out for you in simple English. The bible does not use that word to describe God, Therefore I can not say that He is, or He is not if I was as using a biblical standard. That is why i asked you to define the word, apparently because you have the power to redefine biblical words like sin and evil, and apparently have given yourself the power to use word phrases like omnipotent, to describe God when the bible does not. So Again, you define the word because it is not a biblically based word.

In short, therefore Biblical definition is irrelevant to the argument.

As if I were talking to a child. Epicurus was judging non biblical gods with non biblical terms. therefore his argument stands in that specific discussion. The reason is does not work with the God of the Bible is because you all have decided to use the Bible to define God, Then you entrap God with a standard or term of your own definition ignoring the standard He Himself has set in the Same book you used to define Him.

Sunday schooler explanation:
Epicurus was asking why his life and the lives of his peers was such hard work after so much had been sacrificed to his gods. He was not asking about the evil you have embraced and redefined. Why did he ask this? because his people had a deal with his gods, they offer them food and sacrifice in return they got things. He did not receive those things so in turn he question his idea of god.

Why does this standard not work with the God of the bible? Because no such "deal" was brokered between God and his people. Matter of fact Adam was told it was only by hard work would he eat.

Now to take this one step further, you have taken the Epicurus frame work and applied your own definitions apart from the originals and apart further from the bible. So your witch hunt doesn't even follow the intent or purpose of the original work.

That is why your representation of this "paradox" Fails. That is why I am saying in order for your argument to have merit you must single source the variables in which you pretend to judge IF you wish to do so honorably.

I'm not. I'm using the concepts of a non-malevolent, omnipotent God.

Actually this is what you need my argument to be, in order for yours to work. However, as I have stated at least a dozen or more times "The omni aspects of God are not a biblical representation of the characteristics of God as these terms are not found in the bible.

If I need to say this to a child I would say: We can not call God "omni" anything because the bible does not use or outline the use of these terms as used by religious and atheist alike.

I really did not see a need to respond to anything else because you have fail to establish the basic premise of your argument. (That we claim God is omnipotent in the face of malevolence)

As I pointed out earlier you are using the frame work designed to speak to very specific gods. Of which little besides the title of God can be transfered to the God of the bible. The parameters of the discussion no longer fit, therefore one must source characteristics and definition from the Bible when speaking of the God of the bible if you want to have an Honest discussion about the God of the bible.

Again if you want to redefine god, sin, evil and add words that start with omni, then know there is nothing else for me to say as we are not discussing the God of the Bible. That would place us in a position much like your attempted conversation of Thor, anubus, allah or any other god of your choosing. It is something I have little to no interest in discussing.

(Talking to a child) If you want to keep mixing your standard with a god of your own creation even if you make him similar to the God of the bible, then you can pat yourself on the back because you won this conversation. Because I am only interest in helping those looking to make an honest effort. I am not here to break you of your personal convictions or reason you have to hate God, or the reason you have no more faith.

---

This is where your basic understanding of Christianity has failed you. The standards are the same for everyone. What was a sin is still a sin. The only difference being is believers have found atonement for their sin. Even so it's still sin, and the punishment would be the same, however they/we have found forgiveness. All those who do not believe will be subject to the same wrath as those in the OT were subject to.

Except your god seems to get a special exception where all things are concerned.

No for He defines Sin and Evil. The special exception is your personal defination of sin and evil.