Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Omni benevolence of God

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?
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
8/25/2011 2:22:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

suffering is subjective, is it not? What people in America call "suffering" people in Africa would call heaven.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:01:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

suffering is subjective, is it not? What people in America call "suffering" people in Africa would call heaven.

I don't see how that is a rebuttal hower, it still exists. If Person A is happy in situation A, yet person B is unhappy in situation A we still have the problem of evil. I just use the term suffering because it is generally the 'evil' that the PoE has in mind... and it is far clearer term.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?

I never implied any such thing, and I don't know... does the fly suffer?
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.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:15:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:02:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?

I never implied any such thing, and I don't know... does the fly suffer?

Well, if you define good health as a requisite for well-being, the fly does suffer. I infer this because you said famines in Africa make the Africans suffer.

If one takes this viewpoint to the next step, by curing a disease, we are reducing the well-being of the disease producing organisms. So which one is it? Disease is suffering, or the cure is suffering?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:19:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

You cannot. Omni Benevolence - All Good powered (Gimme a break i haven't been in a Latin class in 30 years). The good part is where you are brought to our understanding of "good" and you will automatically be putting human characteristics in your God. If you were to separate out the morality to being something that is exclusive for us, maybe even objective, but only for us (I know the problems in that, but try and put your head around it), and understand God through purpose and the end game of growth, then you are understanding how much you cannot understand about God.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 3:31:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:15:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:02:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?

I never implied any such thing, and I don't know... does the fly suffer?

Well, if you define good health as a requisite for well-being, the fly does suffer. I infer this because you said famines in Africa make the Africans suffer.

If one takes this viewpoint to the next step, by curing a disease, we are reducing the well-being of the disease producing organisms. So which one is it? Disease is suffering, or the cure is suffering?

Are you really quibbling about the term suffering? Suffering as in to suffer... as in, ouch that hurt... boo hoo that upset me etc etc. A diesease does not 'suffer' neither does a rock.
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.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 4:12:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Presumably it's a description of the fact that God has an essentially good nature. What makes God's 'good' nature non-arbitrary? Ask a Christian.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 4:15:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 3:31:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:15:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:02:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?

I never implied any such thing, and I don't know... does the fly suffer?

Well, if you define good health as a requisite for well-being, the fly does suffer. I infer this because you said famines in Africa make the Africans suffer.

If one takes this viewpoint to the next step, by curing a disease, we are reducing the well-being of the disease producing organisms. So which one is it? Disease is suffering, or the cure is suffering?

Are you really quibbling about the term suffering? Suffering as in to suffer... as in, ouch that hurt... boo hoo that upset me etc etc. A diesease does not 'suffer' neither does a rock.

No, suffering is a reduction in your well-being. You don't need to be able to say ouch or boo-hoo to term it as suffering.

A disease does not suffer. The disease causing organism suffers. A non anthrocentric benevolent entity cannot be benevolent towards the organisms as well as towards us without reducing the well-being of either one.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 4:20:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 2:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
suffering is subjective, is it not? What people in America call "suffering" people in Africa would call heaven.

I would say that suffering is more properly called relative than subjective. Suffering is a state of mind involving distress, pain and discomfort. The conditions that can cause that to happen may vary from person to person, but the thing itself remains constant.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 4:32:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 4:15:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:31:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:15:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:02:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?

I never implied any such thing, and I don't know... does the fly suffer?

Well, if you define good health as a requisite for well-being, the fly does suffer. I infer this because you said famines in Africa make the Africans suffer.

If one takes this viewpoint to the next step, by curing a disease, we are reducing the well-being of the disease producing organisms. So which one is it? Disease is suffering, or the cure is suffering?

Are you really quibbling about the term suffering? Suffering as in to suffer... as in, ouch that hurt... boo hoo that upset me etc etc. A diesease does not 'suffer' neither does a rock.

No, suffering is a reduction in your well-being. You don't need to be able to say ouch or boo-hoo to term it as suffering.

A disease does not suffer. The disease causing organism suffers. A non anthrocentric benevolent entity cannot be benevolent towards the organisms as well as towards us without reducing the well-being of either one.

So we can't address my definition of suffering then?
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.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 5:05:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 4:20:29 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:22:05 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
suffering is subjective, is it not? What people in America call "suffering" people in Africa would call heaven.

I would say that suffering is more properly called relative than subjective. Suffering is a state of mind involving distress, pain and discomfort. The conditions that can cause that to happen may vary from person to person, but the thing itself remains constant.

Exactly. When you change your perspective in such way to eliminate "suffering", happiness in all situations can result. A simple way to do this is to have your perspective reflect that you appreciate and are happy just to exist and be aware that you exist. This core perspective will help in all areas towards the goal of eliminating suffering and appreciating life.
"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."
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:51:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only way God can be omnibenevolent is if there are in fact objective moral laws. If we suppose for a moment that morality is subjective, then "good" becomes arbitrary, and there is no possible way to discuss "all-good" unless the persons involved are all using the same moral system.

So, if there are objective moral laws, omnibenevolence would be the property of always willing in accordance with those laws. It makes little difference what the laws are or whether or not we know them, because we wouldn't really be able to do much of anything about it.

So IMO, the real question is not "what is omnibenevoence" but rather "is God actually omnibenevolent" ?

And, to address what I think you're really getting at - the question of "what does good mean?", I think the only way we CAN identify "good" is to anthropormorphize it. If we want to talk about objective moral laws, we have to have a framework for analysis - i.e. what is good for humans might not be good for cattle (burgers, yum).

It's a huge can of worms.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2011 1:57:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/25/2011 4:32:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 4:15:00 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:31:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:15:47 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 3:02:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:40:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:12:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2011 2:04:11 PM, Indophile wrote:
How do you define it without taking a human-centric approach?

This is in regards to discussion I was having with Cerebral_Narcissist.

Did I say I was taking a humano-centric approach? Why define it so?

I consider suffering is the antithesis to the omnibenevolent being, so his benevolence ought to be extended to all that can suffer?

You are always talking about suffering as if there is some standard measure. If a child plucks a wing out of a fly, does the fly suffer?

I never implied any such thing, and I don't know... does the fly suffer?

Well, if you define good health as a requisite for well-being, the fly does suffer. I infer this because you said famines in Africa make the Africans suffer.

If one takes this viewpoint to the next step, by curing a disease, we are reducing the well-being of the disease producing organisms. So which one is it? Disease is suffering, or the cure is suffering?

Are you really quibbling about the term suffering? Suffering as in to suffer... as in, ouch that hurt... boo hoo that upset me etc etc. A diesease does not 'suffer' neither does a rock.

No, suffering is a reduction in your well-being. You don't need to be able to say ouch or boo-hoo to term it as suffering.

A disease does not suffer. The disease causing organism suffers. A non anthrocentric benevolent entity cannot be benevolent towards the organisms as well as towards us without reducing the well-being of either one.

So we can't address my definition of suffering then?

Sorry, I didn't get that.

Did you mean we can't address the problem of omnibenevolence using your definition of suffering?

If so, then yes. The term omni-benevolent would mean benevelent always and to everyone, not just to one species.

And suffering IS reduction of well-being. Even when you say ouch and boo-hoo, it's because there was a reduction in your well-being.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.