God as the ultimate child abuser

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

A problem with this argument that is rarely raised is that while Christians (and sundry others) regularly say they believe God is omnipotent and omnibenevloent, they rarely if ever act as if they did believe it.

If I'm forgiven a bit of marxian jargon, it's aimed at the intellectual superstructure of christianity, not at the fundamentals of how they feel and act qua religious people.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I wonder if Agathon thinks Buddha existed. Pliny doesn't mention him.

AFAIK, there's no solid historical evidence for his existence either, but Buddhism doesn't stand and fall with the person of the Buddha the way Christianity does with Jesus Christ.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
AFAIK, there's no solid historical evidence for his existence either, but Buddhism doesn't stand and fall with the person of the Buddha the way Christianity does with Jesus Christ.

Depends on which Buddhism you're talking about.

As preached by the Buddha, you're probably right; Mr. Gautama was just the first guy to do something pretty cool.

As preached by the more myth-based versions of the ideology, Buddha has become a figure of worship.

[Shrapnel12]

Trying to bring things closer to the original topic of the thread, one thing that always confuses me is why Jesus HAD to die on the cross to save us. If God makes all the rules, then Jesus didn't have to do a thing. Since Jesus = God, he simply imposed this on himself. So other then leading by example, did this really acomplish anything else?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Depends on which Buddhism you're talking about.

As preached by the Buddha, you're probably right; Mr. Gautama was just the first guy to do something pretty cool.

As preached by the more myth-based versions of the ideology, Buddha has become a figure of worship.

Yes, but even then, AFAIK, he does not become the capital-G God. He is more akin to Christian saints* than to an aspect of the Trinity.


* Doubtless, some Catholic or Orthodox will now chime in to insist they do not worship the saints, but merely venerate them. It's all the same to me - it's still honouring dead (or sometimes nonexistent) people and imploring them for assistance.

[Jon Miller]

Death is the result of sin.

It wasn't that Christ had to die (where death was the arbitrary payment), it was that Christ took our place. He died for our sins. So then we don't have to do so.

Now, obviously, we still die here... but we will be resurrected later, so we won't suffer the consequences of our sin.

It all begins with the myth (myth doesn't mean not true) of Adam.

JM

[Lorizael]

JM (and other Christians): Did God know that Jesus was going to die for humanity's sins when he decided to send his son down? Was that God's plan all along?

[Jon Miller]

It was known since the beginning. As I said, look to the myth of Adam.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203;&version=47;

14The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and(L) dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[e] and(M) her offspring;
(N) he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

This (Bolded portion) is (considered) a reference (in standard Christianity) to Christ's death and triumph over the grave.

There is no other solution to the sin problem (other than all of our (spiritual) deaths).

JM

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Death is the result of sin.

God makes the rules, yes? So why did he make that rule, only to override it with the whole Jesus business?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

God makes the rules, yes? So why did he make that rule, only to override it with the whole Jesus business?

Sin is seperation from God. And when seperated from God, there is no life...

Christ is God reaching out to us, removnig that seperation, if we accept it.

Jon Miller

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Sin is seperation from God. And when seperated from God, there is no life...

Christ is God reaching out to us, removnig that seperation, if we accept it.

Jon Miller

So, why does that require the the Jesus business? God being omnipotent, why didn't he just say "presto!" and will the separation away?

[Jon Miller]

That would mean either a loss of free will (for us), or a change of the identity of God.

JM

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
That would mean either a loss of free will (for us), or a change of the identity of God.

The free will argument has been hashed out at great length here, and remains bogus. I'm not sure what you mean by changine the identity of God here - do you mean changing the nature of God?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The free will argument has been hashed out at great length here, and remains bogus. I'm not sure what you mean by changine the identity of God here - do you mean changing the nature of God?

I think he means that... if you let everyone be close to, or in contact with, God, then God changes? Right now, Jesus is only letting good people touch God. Maybe. I don't know.

[Jon Miller]

Identity, with the Jesus solution, sin is still the antithesis of God.

I don't see your point with the free will comment, or else you don't see mine.

JM