Benevolent Creator God?

[pocaracas]

Why do I get caught up in these huge replies that need me to set aside some time to type up?

From now on, and to make replying easier, I suggest we adopt a different format, we will focus on one particular point until it's settled, then move on to another. In any case, it seems you have huge problem with the fact that Muhammad conducted wars; so let's focus on that and on God's benevolence for now.

Fair enough.
But that's not my big problem. My problem is the way that the god decided to carry things out that then lead to Muhammad conducting wars.

Benevolent god provides message to Muhammad, apparently, in a continuous fashion for years.
Muhammad gets transformed from an illiterate merchant into a " social reformer, statesman", and military leader who eventually conquers the whole Arabian Peninsula.
Obviously, Arabia was taken by the power of illiterate merchant's diplomacy, not military might, right?
So, what is it, benevolent or military? You can't have it both ways.

Okay. So, first of all, it's not clear what's your stance on Muhammad is to begin with, do you think he should've adopted some Gandhi-like opposition? That he was wrong about resorting to force ?

My stance is the same it's been.
That the benevolent god would foresee that men would end up warring each other over differences of opinions and it would come up with a better way to pass on its message.

Aside from that, I strongly recommend you to actually read (even just some excerpts of) his biography, especially the part after his migration to Medina, that of Montgomery Watt is particularly well-written and covers many aspects of his life. Again, whether you're a Muslim or not, we're talking about one of the most documented people -or probably THE most documented person - in the history of mankind, your simplistic assessment above is nothing more than the demonstrably wrong platitude "since Muhammad fought wars, these wars must have been about imposing Islam on people".

I honestly don't care about Muhammad. He's just the worst example of a prophet getting a message from a benevolent god and following it with the total opposite.

If you are assuming God's benevolence, then you have the additional theological question of why God would let Muhammad be the successful messenger that he was? I know this is not an issue for an atheist, but if you assume God's existence with some desirable properties, then it really should be taken into account. And, actually, God's benevolence is an important premise in any argument in favor of Muhammad's prophethood. Even the most hardened apologist can't get very far with a malevolent God.

The thing with a malevolent entity is that it can keep us guessing if any particular action is indeed malevolent or just a benevolent means to a malevolent end... or just temporarily benevolent.

A benevolent entity, on the other hand, is bound to always be benevolent.

Choosing Muhammad as a prophet, knowing full well that the military career would come out of it and all the strife between humans of different faiths, doesn't seem like the action of a benevolent god.
And add to it all the other prophets that this benevolent god has passed his message to. And all the religions and sects and cults that sprung from that and that resulted in them being attacked or attacking others.


All I'm saying, all I've been saying all along, is that all this human conflict could be avoided had god chosen to pass on its message without resorting to prophets. I suggested just passing it on directly to everyone, but maybe there's an even better way, I don't know.
What I know is that the method we see being exalted by the believers doesn't seem to be the product of a benevolent god.... if it is the product of a god at all.

But it can oh so easily be the product of human ingenuity.