Or let's put it another way. Do you think "personal sacrifice: giving up something for something else" is good? Now add "ultimate sacrafice: giving up something you don't need to give up, but choose to for the greater good for something that is selfless" could support "omni"
Cool, but most theologian apologists mean something different by Omnibenevolent - to them it's a reference to a fundamental aspect of God's nature, not a description of a particular action on his part. I don't think good, or evil, are meaningful concepts in any objective sense.
I'm not most theologian apologists. Are you okay with Hitler massacring millions of Jews? Are you okay with the Catholic Church, during the age of the crusades, killing thousands of "non-believers"? Are you okay with Stalin, using Marxism as a justification to murder millions of "believers"? Are you okay with "right wing extremist" go out "gay bashing" because they think homosexuality is an abomination? I may not be understanding you, but it seems you are fine with those events happening because evil actions do not exist.
I think this is where you and I are at ends. Because if we are having a philosophical discussion, then "subjective reasoning" is all we have. Unless you can give me an example of the concept of "good" can be described "objectively" with consciousness.
False dichotomy. I think those are undesirable and subjectively very bad things, but I don't not think they are "evil" in any objective sense. I don't know what the latter means. Are you OK with the Jews massacring Canaanite women and children?
So then you and I agree there is good or bad right? So the concept of these massacres being bad is absolutely "subjective", using your argument towards my reasoning "ultimate sacrifice" being good. I think it would be better if we stop using a double standard here. No I am extremely angry that woman and children had to die because of the actions of Adam and Eve.
Benevolent. At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. 30 Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his officials and all the Egyptians; and there was a loud cry in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead [lit: “a dead male something”]. 31 Then he summoned Moses and Aaron in the night, and said, “Rise up, go away from my people, both you and the Israelites! Go, worship the Lord, as you said. 32 Take your flocks and your herds, as you said, and be gone. And bring a blessing on me too!”
That sounds similar to "At one point in history, white people in the US owned slaves. Therefore all white people are forever evil in the US." It seems like a god could choose when necessary to intervene without destroying free will. Like Spiderman says "everybody gets one."
And? Remember when you had a debate on another thread about capital punishment not being a punishment of fear? You said it was just the byproduct of law. The crime of sin is Death. It is simply the penalty befitting the crime. And using bits and pieces of the gospel doesn't tell the entire tale. Whatever the case, the double standard needs no place here
That doesn't have anything to do with god creating a system it hates, IMO. By definition, if god hates something, it's negative and thus not well-designed. Which is ungodlike, so awkward.
And I think you're similarly angry/appalled that Jews had to die because of the actions of Hitler, and suspect when you reference "evil" you are just subconsciously referencing your feelings about those actions, and not anything truly objective (the fact that we agree about what is bad does not make it objectively so). If not, why specifically do you think it was evil for Hitler to slaughter Jews, but not evil for Jews to (hypothetically) slaughter Canaanites?
The intention of God was not to create sin, he was creating love. As I already expressed, the love he gets in return supersedes the hate of sin. And, his "sacrifice" that puts an end to sin, once and for all, gives evidence of his "Godly plan". So you are judging only a portion of the design. That's like judging a building's design based on the type of employees being used without judging the final outcome of the building itself.
I'm really wondering if you guys are even reading what I post? I am equally angry all the way around. I also used two "Christian" atrocities in my response (Cruisades and left wing gay bashers). Did you overlook that as well?
I don't feel you've established well how the creation of love necessitates the creation of sin. If it's a net positive, why does god "hate the game?" That "don't hate the player, hate the game" saying is generally used about fundamentally broken systems. I originally thought you meant Christ's sacrifice. But that didn't put an end to sin, in Christianity's canon. Do you mean a sacrifice when Christ returns? I wasn't aware that Christianity considers Christ's eventual return to be a sacrifice.
