Thread: Is God Omnibenevolent?

Originally posted by InTheMoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InTheMoment)</div>

I was going to say a fucktard, but close enough.[/b]

Oh, frick. Prof. Sesame seed has made a post almost exactly like that in every thread on this section of the forum.

Here's a list of things I know I can scroll past safely without missing anything:

- Bible quotes
- Any post by Nirvana Starpeel

<!--QuoteBegin-Darkmatic
Basically if you want to go to heaven as a christain , you have to throw away the majority of your free will , thats how i see it .

Doesn't most every religion say basically this same thing? Believe or you will burn. Seems just like some lame scare tactics to get some more converts, if you ask me.

Also, pronouns are not capitalized.

Originally posted by InTheMoment
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?

Really, exercise some Intelligence here. God does not have to CREATE a hell. What God does is exclude some Evil Souls from Heaven. What they do after they are excluded from Heaven is their own business. and that Business is Hell.

God has nothing to do with it.

What I suppose is happening is that the Republican in Hell do all they can in order to maintain the present status quo of Power. They newcomers in hell are put in the lowest jobs where they don't even get a minimum wage, because that only limits employment opportunities they say, and they are lorded over very seriously in order to assure that they do not threaten the positions of those already in power.

Things are very likely to get very ugly when you are dealing with Souls who have absolutely no love or caring in their souls. What would you expect of a place where the only qualification for membership is to be Evil and Predatory. You can't hold God responsible for that. You should only congratulate God for the Wisdom of keeping such despicable trash out of Heaven.

Let them sublet with you and then see how you like it. Let you live a month or two with Attilla, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper and then see how effusive you are about how mean a guy God is.

Originally posted by InTheMoment
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?

Really, exercise some Intelligence here. God does not have to CREATE a hell. What God does is exclude some Evil Souls from Heaven. What they do after they are excluded from Heaven is their own business. and that Business is Hell.

God has nothing to do with it.

What I suppose is happening is that the Republican in Hell do all they can in order to maintain the present status quo of Power. They newcomers in hell are put in the lowest jobs where they don't even get a minimum wage, because that only limits employment opportunities they say, and they are lorded over very seriously in order to assure that they do not threaten the positions of those already in power.

Things are very likely to get very ugly when you are dealing with Souls who have absolutely no love or caring in their souls. What would you expect of a place where the only qualification for membership is to be Evil and Predatory. You can't hold God responsible for that. You should only congratulate God for the Wisdom of keeping such despicable trash out of Heaven.

Let them sublet with you and then see how you like it. Let you live a month or two with Attilla, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper and then see how effusive you are about how mean a guy God is.

The Definition of Hell is – ‘The absences of the ability to sense God’s presence in the spirit realm.’ To be cut off from the presence of God.

This is not to say that He is not there, but only that the individual can not sense Him.

The way I always see it, if you hold true to the Christian beliefs (or any other religion, for that matter) God will look favourably on you
You don't have to believe, belief means squat
Just lead a decent life

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" - Morpheus

Just think about that

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The Definition of Hell is – ‘The absences of the ability to sense God’s presence in the spirit realm.’ To be cut off from the presence of God.

There are various texts that suggest hell is a lot worse than that.

The book of Isaiah (Chap. 66) mentions, "The worms that eat them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never be put out. The sight of them will be disgusting to all people." Similiar comparisons are also brought up in the book of Matthew (see Matthew 18:8-9 & Matthew 13:42, 50)

II Peter, Chap. 3, verse 7 says, "God has ... commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish."

Not too mention, the book of Revelations describes a lake of fire and brimstone that will consume the unbelieving. (Rev. 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.)

So are these portions of the Bible supposed to be dismissed? Maybe we should apply some of that symbolic interpretation, that you like to wield.

In the moment. The fire is not meant to be litrally burning, or the worms litrally eating the entity. They are not seen as physically discusting. It is all symbolic in it's meaning to convey the pain and description of this entity who disconnects from the source/soul.

You do not interpret your dreams litrally. Neither should you interpret these writings litrally.
meaning is conveyed through symbolism of image.

For example. "the light at the end of the tunnel" phrase I am sure you have herd before.
When someone mentions this they are obviously not talking about a physical tunnel and light that they are walking towards in their life, which can be found perhaps in some room of their house.There is no physical light or tunnel. They are using it as a example to explain something to you about the situation in their life. Same as this writing is using the fire to symbolize the suffering.

If god did exist, then there could not be a hell and god still be omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being is one whose actions are harmful to none and beneficial to all. Sending someone to hell would be harmful to them, and therefore, a god who sends people to hell cannot be omnibenevolent.

But there is no reason to believe god exists, so it's not really an issue.

Originally posted by InTheMoment


There are various texts that suggest hell is a lot worse than that. *

The book of Isaiah (Chap. 66) mentions, \"The worms that eat them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never be put out. The sight of them will be disgusting to all people.\" Similiar comparisons are also brought up in the book of Matthew (see Matthew 18:8-9 & Matthew 13:42, 50)

II Peter, Chap. 3, verse 7 says, \"God has ... commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish.\"

Not too mention, the book of Revelations describes a lake of fire and brimstone that will consume the unbelieving. (Rev. 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.)

So are these portions of the Bible supposed to be dismissed? Maybe we should apply some of that symbolic interpretation, that you like to wield.

These are not Hell, these are 'Sheol', and 'The Second Death',

Hell is casted into the Lake of Fire...The Second Death... 'Our God is a consuming 'Fire'!

Originally posted by the most rambling worthless excuse for a piece of fiction

\"The worms that eat them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never be put out. The sight of them will be disgusting to all people.\" *

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


These are not Hell, [...]

Good to know.

See, this is exactly why religion is so difficult to take seriously. Everyone interprets what they read in a way that makes sense to them. Some people study both the natural history and the translations of the Bible and others just take the information that they've heard from a second hand source.

The Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, yet I'm always amazed at how some people can still defend it by using, a constant switch from literal to metaphoric interpretations.

[quote]

Hell is casted into the Lake of Fire...The Second Death... 'Our God is a consuming 'Fire'!

So which is it? If you guys want to get together to collaborate, that's fine.

In the moment you just have to realize your interpretation of it perhaps needs a bit of work, and that many people do interpret it yeah ofcourse as do you, And many people make mistakes. There is only one true interpretation, just because it is not said to be litral does not mean people are being relative about the way they interpret. If you think the sentences above are meant to be in a litral context, you are indeed far away from understanding.
You need to take a decent look at it, not just say you are. First thing is to make an effort to understand peoples interpretations. And the real interpretation itself, Then if you feel the need once you understand them, discuss the meaning of it. Atleast this way the conversation has a chance of being on the right track. If you just assume what other people think all the time without actually talking to them about it, or even considering your own interpretation as perhaps not perfect, (thus the reason you think it does not make sense to you.) Then it is useless to keep going on about it.

You have a problem with the bible. ok you have made that clear. But the reason you have a problem with it in my opinion is because you just don't understand what it means. And you pick out all the mistranslations and misconcpetions, having no hope of finding your way through it without a highly distorted view.

Originally posted by Ynot
The way I always see it, if you hold true to the Christian beliefs (or any other religion, for that matter) God will look favourably on you
You don't have to believe, belief means squat
Just lead a decent life

\"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path\" - Morpheus

Just think about that

I must politely disagree Tony, without faith it is impossible to please God…

Originally posted by InTheMoment


The Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, yet I'm always amazed at how some people can still defend it by using, a constant switch from literal to metaphoric interpretations.

The so-called flaws are for those of faith who can discern between truth,and error of man, it is the Spirit which will lead you into all 'truth' without it you can not make sense of the bible.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The so-called flaws are for those of faith who can discern between truth,and error of man, it is the Spirit which will lead you into all 'truth' without it you can not make sense of the bible.

Sigh. Once again we're back on the "you just have to have faith" train. I'm getting off.

Here in the rational world we call that 'arguing in circles' and it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. In fact, it sort of makes you look like a doushebag, if you really want my opinion.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Sigh. Once again we're back on the \"you just have to have faith\" train. I'm getting off.

Here's in the rational world we call that 'arguing in circles' and it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. In fact, it sort of makes you look like a doushebag, if you really want my opinion.

Facts are facts, you can't work around them you must work with them any good scientist would tell you that.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Facts are facts, you can't work around them you must work with them any good scientist would tell you that.

I'd be interested to know what facts you're referring to?

Originally posted by nirvana
In the moment you just have to realize your interpretation of it perhaps needs a bit of work, and that many people do interpret it yeah ofcourse as do you, And many people make mistakes. There is only one true interpretation, just because it is not said to be litral does not mean people are being relative about the way they interpret. If you think the sentences above are meant to be in a litral context, you are indeed far away from understanding.

The problem with taking parts of the bible literally and at the same time interpreting other parts is that: there is no viable mechanism for determining which parts are literal and which allegorical. You can really see that something is wrong when different denominations interpret a passage completely differently, while others are taking it entirely literally. There is no mechanism used to determine which passages are meant to be allegorical save for the useless "it would go against my faith literally, so it must be allegorical". For example if we're interpreting things without cause this would be completely viable:

Jesus was crucified as the synoptic gospels tell us. Yet he was only up there for 6 hours (again, as the gospels say) - this was a very short time to be nailed up on a cross. This obviously is meant to be interpreted that jesus was let down after six hours because they felt sorry for him. All other interpretations (including the rest of the gospels, an apparent contradiction) are either based on a faulty interpretation of the above fact or are a later interpolation into the text. Jesus did not die for anyone's sins.

If you say that there is "one true interpretation", then you would have to provide a mechanism for determining which passages are allegorical or literal. Why, for example, should we take the views of hell as allegorical - but the crucifiction as literal? Whats to stop me from interpreting it all as a fairy tale? Or a group of roman plays that were mistaken as truth and promoted as religion? Lacking a mechanism, interpreting any passage (or the whole book) is just as viable as your selected passages.

In addition to that, you would have to establish why your particular interpretation is the true one - why not any other?

-spoon

[edited to add] Awaken: I'd be interested in hearing about "facts" in the bible too.

Use your common sense and intelligence. How else do you think you interpret it?

If you don't know how to do this. Start learning.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Use your common sense and intelligence. How else do you think you interpret it?

If you don't know how to do this. Start learning.

Not exactly what he meant.

I understand what he was talking about. That's why I made that reply.

It's obvious the mechanism for understanding anything, not just the bible,
is the use of your intelligence.

Use your common sense and intelligence. How else do you think you interpret it? [/b]

The main part of my post was concerned with the fact that, lacking any viable mechanism, you cannot say which passages are literal and which are allegorical. Even if "common sense" was a good way to interpret passages, you still have not provided this mechanism. Remember without such a mechanism it is just as true for me to say jesus never died on the cross, after all my common sense tells me this was clearly meant to be taken as allegory. So again - how do you determine that certain passages are allegorical, while most are literal?

You cannot say that you interpret passages with common sense and intelligence, as you said that there was "only one true interpretation". Obviously there has to be something other than than simple common sense, as people have been using this dubious "method" of biblical interpretation for centuries and guess what - there's thousands of interpretations of key passages in the bible. So what do you use to interpret the "one true interpretation"?

So my two questions were:

1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be "it aligns with my belief".

2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?

Originally posted by spoon
Remember without such a mechanism it is just as true for me to say jesus never died on the cross, after all my common sense tells me this was clearly meant to be taken as allegory.

You can say it's \"my common sense'\". but that doesn't always mean it is common sense.

Originally posted by spoon
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be \"it aligns with my belief\".

Intelligence.

Originally posted by spoon
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?

Intelligence.

If you say this is an unprecise answer. Think about why, when you ask an unprecise question, you cannot expect anything other than a unprecise answer.

Nirvana, you have stated that there is "only one true interpretation" of the bible. I have two problems with this: you have never provided a viable mechanism for determining the allegorical nature of passages; and you have never shown how a particular interpretation of said passages can be shown to be true. You're answer of "Intelligence" fails on both counts.

Intelligence cannot be a mechanism for determining the literal/allegorical nature of a passage, in part because intelligence is not a mechanism, but mostly because people of intelligence come up with different answers. If all you needed was intelligence, then everyone would agree on which parts of the bible are to be interpreted allegorically. For example I'd say I'm at least slightly intelligent - using this mechanism(which it isn't, that was sarcasm) I know that the crucifiction of jesus and his subsequent resurrection is meant to be taken allegorically - it did not actually happen. Why should my interpretation be false, as it is just as valid as interpreting that particular passage literally. Using intelligence as a mechanism completely fails, as it has exactly the same problems as no mechanism at all - namely that people, using intelligence, will come up with wildly varying answers.

The same problems arise when using intelligence to determine the true interpretation of a particular passage. You may as well pick the interpretation out of a hat.

[Edited for your edit]

You can say it's \"my common sense'\". but that doesn't always mean it is common sense. [/b]

Why is it not common sense? It seems just as sensible as your answer. But it doesn't align with your beliefs, so it cannot be allegory. This illustrates my point well - this is the mechanism that you're using to determine a passage's interpretation, and it is not a viable mechanism - you just see what you want to.

Would you like to try another answer?


-spoon