Thread: Is God Omnibenevolent?

Nirvana...have you ever considered sterilizing yourself?

Not a problem. Even if someone would breed with him, he couldn't figure out what-went-where anyway.

Ever notice that when ever there is substantial reply to a question, and then there is not a substantive reply in return because of the lack of wit, or understanding from the original questioner. The argumentum always returns with a personal attack instead of a substantive reply.

The Rev.

I would just like to add a little thought here.....

To be honest I know humanity is not spirituality intelligent. Of all the years of scientific and material progress witnessed. Humanity remains totally spiritually absent minded. With an overall unbalanced lifestyle.

Now on top of this, Suprisingly. I have found here at DV, for some reason. Some of the most below average, in spiritual intelligence.

I don't say this to be mean, but a honest observation. I'm thinking this has something to do with some kind of gathered group collective vibration, attracting the people, rather than the subject lucid dreaming itself.

Hopefully if I can lift the vibration a bit, and perhaps some help from others, we can get some more spiritually advanced people in here. What is interesting is I can feel those threatened by the rise fight to lower it and keep it as it is. As they band together to fight it anyway they can. Fortunately however once a higher vibration is present and growing the attracting force is then slowly but surely unstopable.

Amen to that Nirvana!

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Ever notice that when ever there is substantial reply to a question, and then there is not a substantive reply in return because of the lack of wit, or understanding from the original questioner. The argumentum always returns with a personal attack instead of a substantive reply.

The Rev.

Although I do poke fun at you quite frequently, I actually find you to be a fairly intelligent human being (though a little narrowminded, but who am I to make that call?). Vocabulary is generally a decent gauge of intelligence however, so I assume you are at least of moderately capable intelligence.

And if you, for even one second, consider Nirvana's recent replies in this thread to spoon's posts to be 'substantial', I think humanity is in even greater danger than we've imagined. If you believe in God, that's one thing, I don't mind disagreeing with you (sometimes I quite enjoy it). But please don't encourage ignorance.

Good reply

Check this out:

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23684

Oh yes, please do check it out. It's terribly telling.

Originally posted by Nirvana
That is incorrect. Using your intelligence is a mechanism.

A mechanism it may be but a completely useless one for the purpose we're talking about here - for reasons I've already stated, but looks like I'll be re-iterating. You've even pointed out the failings of \"using your intelligence\" as a way of determining which portions of the bible are allegorical:

Originally posted by Nirvana
That's because they use different levels and degrees of intelligence.

If everyone all had the needed amount of intelligence. Everyone would agree, because everyone would understand.

As you've highlighted quite well here: \"using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism for determining if a portion of the bible is literal or not. People come up with different answers. You've attributed this to differing levels of intelligence, I don't agree with that but that's besides the point. For whatever the reason, using intelligence fails as a mechanism in this particular instance - people simply come up with different ideas.

You've got the wrong idea of a mechanism here nirvana. A simple one would be this: When jesus was clearly speaking in a parable(parabolic? ) or allegorical sense then you can interpret it allegorically, for all other parts it must be taken literally. This is logical, it makes use of \"intelligence\" (without insulting it) and it makes sense. This is a far better mechanism than \"using your intelligence\" as you have not yet shown how that is any better than arbitrarily selecting passages.

A mechanism to determine which passages are allegorical/literal would be something like the above - something that anyone can apply and see \"oh yeah, this is literal, this isn't, etc\". \"Using your intelligence\" is not a mechanism, because it is just the same as you selecting passages to interpret allegorically based on beliefs - If passage A conflicts with my belief, then it obviously mustn't be a literal passage.

spoon:
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.

Nirvana:
You need to ask more precise questions. The only thing I can say here is, you lack understanding about the issue. [/b]

No, I am merely demonstrating the complete failure of \"using your intelligence\" as a mechanism in the sense. I used my intelligence, how can you explain away this interpretation (without resorting to a \"special case\") while maintaining that \"using your intelligence\" is a viable mechanism? You can't.

Spoon:
Using intelligence as a mechanism completely fails

Nirvana:
This is a completely ridiculous statement. If your not using your intelligence, what are you using? [/b]

I have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistant answers every time. So again, either show me how "using you intelligence" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:

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?

-spoon

Originally posted by spoon
I have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistant answers every time. So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:

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?

-spoon

If I may interject here for a moment, 'spoon'
I would like to say that without the baptism of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to discern which is scriptures are spiritually interpreted.

The Rev.

Of course, that explains each seperate christian denomination's uncanny ability to agree completely with every other on issues of interpretation.

Originally posted by spoon
Of course, that explains each seperate christian denomination's uncanny ability to agree completely with every other on issues of interpretation.

Not as much as you would think...

Exactly.

Or to translate: They're not all hitting the same crack pipe.

Originally posted by kimpossible
Exactly.

Or to translate: They're not all hitting the same crack pipe.

Again Superfluous Commenting, nothing of meaning...

You know, (k)impossible it is going to be a very sad awakening when you stand before God, and He asks you why you scoffed His messengers, and His Word? And that you will bow before Him and confess that ‘Jesus is Lord’, and that why do you waste so much of your life hating those who are trying to help?

The Rev.

Spoon you have not understood my post.

A mechanism it may be but a completely useless one

Intelligence is not useless.

for the purpose we're talking about here - for reasons I've already stated

You have not stated any reason why using your intelligence is useless.

but looks like I'll be re-iterating. You've even pointed out the failings of \"using your intelligence\" as a way of determining which portions of the bible are allegorical:

Using your intelligence can never fail. If something fails. It is because of your lack of some sort of intelligence needed.

As you've highlighted quite well here: \"using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism for determining if a portion of the bible is literal or not.

How have I pointed that out? I have never pointed out any such thing as this. I have only stated that using intelligence is the method used to interpret. A vague method I admit. But it goes with your vague question.

People come up with different answers. You've attributed this to differing levels of intelligence, I don't agree with that but that's besides the point. For whatever the reason, using intelligence fails as a mechanism in this particular instance - people simply come up with different ideas.

Using the observation that people come up with different ideas, then using this to prove intelligence fails, is completely illogical. Why don't you agree that it is because of different levels of intelligence? how is it not so? You say you disagree, then state no reason why. How can you consider this a useful response?

You've got the wrong idea of a mechanism here nirvana. A simple one would be this: When jesus was clearly speaking in a parable(parabolic? ) or allegorical sense then you can interpret it allegorically, for all other parts it must be taken literally. This is logical, it makes use of \"intelligence\"

Just because jesus spoke in parables, does not mean that nothing else in the book is in symbolic form. Please explain what you are talking about here if I have misunderstood.
I don't see how it is logical to assume this, let alone using intelligence.

This is a far better mechanism than \"using your intelligence\" as you have not yet shown how that is any better than arbitrarily selecting passages.

what mechanism is far better? You have failed to explain a mechanism at all, or any logic here. Arbitrarily selecting passages is not more useful or equal to using intelligence, because it is random and mindless and not based on any knowledge of truth but on blindly picking out whatever. Intelligence is knowing where the target is and being able to hit it. Being random is shooting at a target blindfolded without knowing where the target is around you. Hopefully you are able to use your intelligence here to understand that this example is not meant to be taken litrally, but a symbolic example of what I am trying to convey in regards to knowing truth through intelligence.

\"Using your intelligence\" is not a mechanism, because it is just the same as you selecting passages to interpret allegorically based on beliefs

If it is an intelligent belief. Than it is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you are ignorant in your belief, you are not using intelligence. This is fairly obvious to most people.

- If passage A conflicts with my belief, then it obviously mustn't be a literal passage.

Depends how intelligent you are.

I have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense.

No you havn't. No-where can be found in your writing a reason why using intelligence fails to interpret the bible. You are saying you have explained it in order that you add strength to what you are saying. but it is hollow because you have nothing against what I am saying that makes sense.

It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically.

You are repeating yourself. And this conversation is repeditive because you have failed to understand what I mean when I say intelligence. I reply not for your sake. But for the more advanced readers that may look back on this.

A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistant answers every time.

What you said does not even make sense. Let alone result in consistent reliable answers every time. Here I am assuming you mean truthful asnwers. You can only get truthful reliable and consistent answers through the use of intelligence.

So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:

If you want me to explain a precise mechanism using intelligence, Ask a precise question and then you can recieve a precise mechanism about it. But before this, you must understand that intelligence is always used for any effective method. And that without intelligence you will get no-where.

Intelligence. Learn it.

Originally posted by in reply to awaken brady

Although I do poke fun at you quite frequently, I actually find you to be a fairly intelligent human being. And if you, for even one second, consider Nirvana's recent replies in this thread to spoon's posts to be 'substantial', I think humanity is in even greater danger than we've imagined. If you believe in God, that's one thing, I don't mind disagreeing with you (sometimes I quite enjoy it). But please don't encourage ignorance.

What is interesting here is you are all of a sudden calling awaken intelligent. Mentioning you sometimes enjoy his replies. And giving him a compliment, which is suprising enough, considering the usual, but there is a catch.....In order for awaken to recieve this compliment he should in effect not listen to what I have written. which you claim to be ignorant and not to be encouraged.

There is no mention of any reasons for why it is ignorance. It just is... If you disagree then humanity is in danger. This is like a reward punisment method and the motive for the post is just a lure away from what has been revealed.

Claiming 'humanity is in danger' if anyone listens to this, is dramatic and silly. The danger is not in what I have written at all. And no reason has or can be stated why it is dangerous. It is only percieved as a danger to people such as brady because they do not understand, or are not willing to, or/and are scared of what will be revealed.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed


What is interesting here is you are all of a sudden calling awaken intelligent. Mentioning you sometimes enjoy his replies. And giving him a compliment, which is suprising enough, considering the usual, but there is a catch.....In order for awaken to recieve this compliment he should in effect not listen to what I have written. which you claim to be ignorant and not to be encouraged.

There is no mention of any reasons for why it is ignorance. It just is... If you disagree then humanity is in danger. This is like a reward punisment method and the motive for the post is just a lure away from what has been revealed.

Claiming 'humanity is in danger' if anyone listens to this, is dramatic and silly. The danger is not in what I have written at all. And no reason has or can be stated why it is dangerous. It is only percieved as a danger to people such as brady because they do not understand, or are not willing to, or/and are scared of what will be revealed.

Brady recently wrote to me pretending the ploy that the scientific community was entirely impartial in its attacks against religion... the only sensible thing to do, blah blah blah. But then he does not recognize his own insane stridency and venom as part and parcel of that same Community that he supposes to be inherently even and etherially wise. As though Bean Counters can't be as Vindictive as anybody else.

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

What is interesting here is you are all of a sudden calling awaken intelligent. Mentioning you sometimes enjoy his replies. And giving him a compliment, which is suprising enough, considering the usual, but there is a catch.....In order for awaken to recieve this compliment he should in effect not listen to what I have written. which you claim to be ignorant and not to be encouraged.

There is no mention of any reasons for why it is ignorance. It just is... If you disagree then humanity is in danger. This is like a reward punisment method and the motive for the post is just a lure away from what has been revealed.

Claiming 'humanity is in danger' if anyone listens to this, is dramatic and silly. The danger is not in what I have written at all. And no reason has or can be stated why it is dangerous. It is only percieved as a danger to people such as brady because they do not understand, or are not willing to, or/and are scared of what will be revealed.[/b]

If you are going to quote me, do not alter my original text in any way without explaining the changes.

<!--QuoteBegin-I
Although I do poke fun at you quite frequently, I actually find you to be a fairly intelligent human being (though a little narrowminded, but who am I to make that call?). Vocabulary is generally a decent gauge of intelligence however, so I assume you are at least of moderately capable intelligence.

And if you, for even one second, consider Nirvana's recent replies in this thread to spoon's posts to be 'substantial', I think humanity is in even greater danger than we've imagined. If you believe in God, that's one thing, I don't mind disagreeing with you (sometimes I quite enjoy it). But please don't encourage ignorance.

That was the original text.

Furthermore, the compliment was not conditional. Awaken obviously has a decent grasp of the English language, our disagreement of certain subjects does not change that fact. My wish for him not to view your responses as 'substantial' was a plea, not a qualifier.

I know the plea went with the compliment. Just read what I wrote and you should understand what my point is. I did not include all of what you wrote, I deleted some of it. (this is petty) But changed none of the words or it's order, and did not quote out of context. The reason I deleted some was to save a little bit of space, sorry if it disturbed you. I didn't think it needed to be explained.

I don't see this as a big deal anyway. My point is still clear.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
sorry if it disturbed you.

Thank you for your apology.

lol

Nirvana.

You've stated in this thread that there is "only one true interpretation" of the bible, with the implication of course being that your interpretation is the the correct one. This originally came about because you choose to interpret passages about an everlasting hell allegorically, while ITM pointed out that they seem to be meant to be taken literally. When I asked you to supply a mechanism by which you can determine the allegorical/literal nature of a particular passage you came up with "using your intelligence". The mechanism by which you think the "one true interpretation" of the bible can be understood is merely using one's intelligence. Now, I've stepped through why it's clear to me that this is not a viable mechanism for interpreting anything - but you don't seem to grasp it so I'll explain it more precisely.

A mechanism for gaining the "one true interpretation" of the bible cannot be something as subjective as intelligence. When you get right down to it "using your intelligence" is just as arbitrary as "if it doesn't agree with my faith, interpret it differently". There is no logical or objective basis here. It is merely "I think this is true, therefore it is true". A good example of a viable mechanism for interpreting the gospels would be the one I already gave you:

Originally posted by I
When jesus was clearly speaking in a parable(parabolic? ) or allegorical sense then you can interpret it allegorically, for all other parts it must be taken literally. This is logical, it makes use of \"intelligence\"

To which you reply:

Originally posted by Nirvana

Just because jesus spoke in parables, does not mean that nothing else in the book is in symbolic form. Please explain what you are talking about here if I have misunderstood.
I don't see how it is logical to assume this, let alone using intelligence.

The reason that this is a viable mechanism is that it completely avoids the individual's subjective beliefs. An atheist, a christian and a satanist can all apply this mechanism and come up with consistent results.

It is logical because it completely avoids any sort of ambiguous special exceptions. Either something is stated allegorically, or it is literal. If you want to say that a passage (which is portrayed in a literal sense) should be taken allegorically you would need to supply further mechanisms. A good example of another mechanism would be to compare phrases in the original greek form. If something is often referred to in an allegorical sense and the same phrase occurs in a literal passage, you could argue that the allegorical context outweighs the literal. Another good example would be identifying similies or metaphors used in texts written in that language around that time.

I'm not saying this is the correct method of biblical interpretation, I am just using this as an example of a viable mechanism.

There is easy evidence (which you inadvertently supplied a few posts ago, and I pointed out) that \"Using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism - and that is the fact that intelligent people all come up with different answers. To this you answer that:

Originally posted by Nirvana
Using your intelligence can never fail. If something fails. It is because of your lack of some sort of intelligence needed.

This is a logical fallacy, something like the \"no true scotsman\" fallacy. (look it up)

Claim: Using your intelligence will tell you everlasting hell is meant to be allegorical
Response: But here's a bunch of intelligent people who think it should be taken literally
Counter-Claim: Ahh, but no-one with true intelligence thinks it is literal

This just highlights the subjective and arbitrary nature of \"using your intelligence\" as a mechanism in this case. So to end on a high note. The following really sums up why \"using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism:

Originally posted by Nirvana
Intelligence is knowing where the target is and being able to hit it.

In other words, you already \"know\" the answer - so you pick and choose evidence or just flat out arbitrarily decide to interpret a passage allegorically. There is no reasoning behind \"using your intelligence\", it is merely interpreting a passage a particular way because, gosh darn it, it'd invalidate your belief any other way.

I'm not saying you can't use intelligence, I'm just saying that there has to be some sort of mechanism behind the intelligence. The mechanism behind your interpretation seems just to be \"passage x invalidates my belief, so passage x is obviously allegorical.

Since the end of my last post seems to sum up this one as well:

Originally posted by I
have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistent answers every time. So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:

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?

Please answer the questions. If you still feel that "using your intelligence" is a viable mechanism, please supply some sort of reasoning why.

-spoon

I never said I was perfect in my understanding about the bible. Instead of being argumentative. You should take the oppportunity to attempt to learn from me by asking questions. Even if you are skeptical, this approach never hurts. I say this knowing not only there is only 1 true meaning [from a number of diverse perspectives however] but knowing I am closer to understanding and seeing that meaning than you are.

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

<!--QuoteBegin-nirvana starseed

Using your intelligence can never fail. If something fails. It is because of your lack of some sort of intelligence needed.

This is a logical fallacy, something like the \"no true scotsman\" fallacy. (look it up)[/b]

If someone is not using intelligence it should be able to be explained why they are not. And it therefore becomes evident. There is no fallacy here, just common sense.

Originally posted by spoon
Claim: Using your intelligence will tell you everlasting hell is meant to be allegorical

If you want an explaination for why this is using your intelligence. This will confirm the claim. To do this I would have to type an entire essay on \"Hell\" just for you.

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

Response: But here's a bunch of intelligent people who think it should be taken literally[/b]

The real test is to take a look at their beliefs and if you find illogic there [like in this example] Thus illogic equals lack of intelligence. Then you can conclude they are not using intelligence. What is logic is not subjective, and what is intelligent is also not subjective. But a persons judgement about both these things can be inaccurate. This does not mean it is never accurate. It just means it can be if the person is not using their brain.

<!--QuoteBegin-Spoon
Counter-Claim: Ahh, but no-one with true intelligence thinks it is literal

That is not a counter claim. That is a statement telling someone they are not using their intelligence. If one wants an explaination why it is not intelligent. Then they should be able to explain why. That is the counter claim.

My answer to your questions is to use intelligence.
If you wish to proceed in more detail. You need to understand this answer.

Question for Nirvana:

The "one true interpretation" of the Bible would be perfectly in line with all Christian beliefs right? It would explain every positive claim, and destroy every negative criticism?