Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Why the three Omni's?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 12:55:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God, is by default defined as having the properties of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence.

My question is why?

From whence is this description derived. Presumably it should be derived from the bible, yet the God of the bible is quite blatantly not omnibenevolent, not omniscient and arguably not omnipotent. Though he may be accorded descriptions similar to such definitions, his behaviour confirms otherwise.

In addition such a definition allows us to negate him by demonstrating that he is a contradiction.

So given that the God of the three O's is in conflict with the bible (yea forgive my cultural-centrisism for a moment). Given that this God is self-contradictory, why are there not more believers making the alternate and far easier claim that he is merely the most potent and scient (is that a word). And either claiming that he is ultimately benign, indifferent, neutral or indeed malignant.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 3:26:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:55:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
God, is by default defined as having the properties of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence.

God is not defined that way. First, you have to stipulate which God you are refering to, because different Gods of different religions are defined differently. A generic god (simply meaning creator of the universe, or whatever), is not defined that way.


My question is why?

From whence is this description derived. Presumably it should be derived from the bible, yet the God of the bible is quite blatantly not omnibenevolent, not omniscient and arguably not omnipotent. Though he may be accorded descriptions similar to such definitions, his behaviour confirms otherwise.

In addition such a definition allows us to negate him by demonstrating that he is a contradiction.

So given that the God of the three O's is in conflict with the bible (yea forgive my cultural-centrisism for a moment). Given that this God is self-contradictory, why are there not more believers making the alternate and far easier claim that he is merely the most potent and scient (is that a word). And either claiming that he is ultimately benign, indifferent, neutral or indeed malignant.

That depends on how you define the omnis. If they are to mean "total" without limit, then you have a contridiction. If they simply mean greatest logically possible, then the contridictions go away.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 3:34:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@ OreEle

All monotheistic Gods are defined that way. Go check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Gods that don't have those properties like Brahman of Hinduism are not monotheistic, they are either Panentheistic or Pantheistic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 3:39:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 3:34:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ OreEle

All monotheistic Gods are defined that way. Go check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Gods that don't have those properties like Brahman of Hinduism are not monotheistic, they are either Panentheistic or Pantheistic.

Monotheistic merely means "one god," that, in no way defines any other traits of that God. Plus, you can't exclude polytheism. And finally, you can't toss that in later, since the OP didn't specify.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 4:21:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 12:55:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
God, is by default defined as having the properties of Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence.

My question is why?

From whence is this description derived. Presumably it should be derived from the bible, yet the God of the bible is quite blatantly not omnibenevolent, not omniscient and arguably not omnipotent. Though he may be accorded descriptions similar to such definitions, his behaviour confirms otherwise.

In addition such a definition allows us to negate him by demonstrating that he is a contradiction.

So given that the God of the three O's is in conflict with the bible (yea forgive my cultural-centrisism for a moment). Given that this God is self-contradictory, why are there not more believers making the alternate and far easier claim that he is merely the most potent and scient (is that a word). And either claiming that he is ultimately benign, indifferent, neutral or indeed malignant.

I have asked myself why people don't see the clear reality of it myself. I saw it as a catholic boy in mass when I was child and I first learned about biblical religion. There were many things I did not agree with and I found many contradictions among the teachings. I figured that if I could see things so clearly as a child I couldn't understand why other people couldn't that were much older than me. That was about the time when I started going to public school instead (2nd grade) and started learning about other religions throughout the world as the years passed by. I slowly saw that most of the people were joining in to those biblical religions through fear, manipulation, youth brainwashing, and/or confusion. That was my perception of things at least. Even to this day I can't get straightforward reasonable answers from biblical followers about the many contradictions and immoral teachings. I find more confusion, fear, and overall negative qualities in general from passionate bible followers in comparison to followers of other religions or secular individuals. I feel that is because the biblical teachings and followers promote servantry, slavery, fearfulness, judgementality, no or low self worth, etc.

I have spoken to many people who used to be lifelong biblical followers and who left the religion due to the very same things that I have said here in this post. They have said these things and much much more. The world of passionate biblical religion seems to be more like a cult and it seems to be a very dark world in my opinion. Most people who come out of it that were in it from childhood have to take many steps in order to neutralize the brainwashing that has been done to them. I have personally seen this with close friends and family. The religion says that their God doesn't want the manipulation of free will, yet the manipulation of free will has been the backbone of biblical religion for centuries. As a matter fact, the religion probably would never have been such a big influence if Rome wouldn't have forced it on people and the Spanish Inquisition done the same. The very teachings in the bible are an act of manipulating free will, for it says that you must do this and you must do that. It is a book of control and manipulation over freewill and yet at the very heart of the religion the people say that God does not want the manipulation of free will.

I guess that's why you created the Devil, so that way you could have an answer to the problem of followers who manipulate free will being influenced by the devil. But then you would have to credit the Devil for writing the bible, as the bible manipulates free will through the forceful energy of it's words. You would also have to credit the Devil (aka Satan) for the influence over the religion's entire dark history of controlling and killing people. Then you would have to ask yourself again what is God if this is true. Then you would have to ask yourself if the biblical religion you follow isn't a dark religion itself and that dark energy has been the backbone if it's foundation for it's entire history. Once you realize that you may have been part of a huge group of humans in human history who have been manipulated and controlled into fearing and believing these falsehoods about what God is, that is when you wake up and regain control over your life and your spirit.

That is real spiritual salvation. That is really finding God.

This is only my opinion, though I have seen far too much darkness come out of the followers lives and far too much negative influence on those who are connected to them. Manipulation, judgement, forcefulness, and fear. These are dark qualities, and ones that I see taught to the youth, followers, and interested individuals of the religion and taught by the families/individuals themselves.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."