one for the hardcore christains

Originally posted by Conrau K
Where is the contradiction?

If God is omnipotent, He can do anything. If God is omnibenevolent, then He can only do things that are "good". You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by whiterose
If God is omnipotent, He can do anything. If God is omnibenevolent, then He can only do things that are "good". You cannot have it both ways.

Don't be ridiculous. God's omnipotence means that God has the capacity to be potent everywhere, that he can do anything (there are of course logical constraints). The "can" is a potential. It does not mean God "will". Just as I can kill someone, I will not. If God has a benevolent nature, it is because God does not execrise non-benevolent actions.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Don't be ridiculous. God's omnipotence means that God has the capacity to be potent everywhere, that he can do anything (there are of course logical constraints). The "can" is a potential. It does not mean God "will". Just as I can kill someone, I will not. If God has a benevolent nature, it is because God does not execrise non-benevolent actions.

If God is omnibenevolent, He is constrained by the obligation to only do "good" things. Therefore He cannot be omnipotent. He cannot, for example, murder someone.

Originally posted by whiterose
If God is omnibenevolent, He is constrained by the obligation to only do "good" things. Therefore He cannot be omnipotent. He cannot, for example, murder someone.

He is not constrained. I am not constrained when I say I will not kill someone. We tend to say God is omnibenevolent because he does not commit non-benevolent actions, not that he doesn't commit non-benevolent actions because he is omnibenevolent. In the latter case God is constrained by his nature to not commit non-benevolent actions (but that doesn't mean he's not omnipotent either, if God has an omnipotent nature, acting in accord with it demonstrated God's omnipotence, not the converse), in the latter it is rather that God can, but doesn't. God would not be omnipotent if he had to commit murder just to prove his omnipotence.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Killing innocents is being done in abortion clinics every day.

i agree, but its not me doing it even though i bet Christians do it. people could just as easily put them up for adoption

Originally posted by Conrau K
He is not constrained. I am not constrained when I say I will not kill someone. We tend to say God is omnibenevolent because he does not commit non-benevolent actions, not that he doesn't commit non-benevolent actions because he is omnibenevolent. In the latter case God is constrained by his nature to not commit non-benevolent actions (but that doesn't mean ...[text shortened]... sn't. God would not be omnipotent if he had to commit murder just to prove his omnipotence.

Of course God doesn't have to commit murder to prove His omnipotence. That is exactly my point. If God is truely omnipotent then He doesn't have to do anything. However, if He is omnibenevolent, then he HAS TO only do good things, or He wouldn't be omnibenevolent. This prevents Him from doing anything He wants, thus precluding omnipotence.

Originally posted by whiterose
Of course God doesn't have to commit murder to prove His omnipotence. That is exactly my point. If God is truely omnipotent then He doesn't have to do anything. However, if He is omnibenevolent, then he HAS TO only do good things, or He wouldn't be omnibenevolent. This prevents Him from doing anything He wants, thus precluding omnipotence.

Well I disagree. It's not that God HAS TO do only good things. It's just that he DOES.

And don't you think that they way you are referring to omnipotence is a bit of a strawmen? The idea that God is omnipotent originates from the belief that God holds everything in existence, and that God holding everything in existence can exercise the power to withdraw existence. How does the fact that God can only do good things contradict with this? You will find that if you continue to adhere to your stringent definition of omnipotence, that omnipotence is utterly meaningless. Everything has a nature, and everything HAS TO act according to its nature (the statement is tautological, since our nature is the source of our action), therefore, following your logic, nothing can be omnipotent - at least in your sense of the word.

EDIT: And it hardly follows that He is prevented from doing anything he wants. An omnibenevolent nature implies a benevolent will. Being omnibenevolent is in according with His Will.

Originally posted by whiterose
If God is omnibenevolent, He is constrained by the obligation to only do "good" things. Therefore He cannot be omnipotent. He cannot, for example, murder someone.

God can and has killed people though. Whether it be considered an "evil" act though is up for another debate. To answer the thread question, Christians are commanded not to Judge others (judge as in "condemn", a lot of people make the mistake of understanding the Greek terminology used to judge someone), or else they will themselves be judged. When Jesus lived and walked on this earth, he was asked about the Greatest Commandment. To which he replied that everything in teh Bible hangs off two laws - Love God, and Love your neighbour. To murder someone, even a rapist, how is this loving?

The Old Testament is a little different. In our modern day and age, God does not directly intervene in societal interactions the way he did back in the past. In times when God spoke to Moses and led the Israelites out of Egypt, or when he spoke to the prophets or collapsed the walls of Jericho, God was there to pronounce judgement (that's an important point to consider, God's judgements were always judgements - no one was arbitrarily smited just because God could do it). Today, without God's physical interaction, to take the life of another is acting beyond the scope of God's commands.

Thus to kill another, for any reason, is wrong in today's society.

~ All the best,

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well I disagree. It's not that God HAS TO do only good things. It's just that he DOES.

And don't you think that they way you are referring to omnipotence is a bit of a strawmen? The idea that God is omnipotent originates from the belief that God holds everything in existence, and that God holding everything in existence can exercise the power to withdra ...[text shortened]... evolent nature implies a benevolent will. Being omnibenevolent is in according with His Will.

"the fact that God can only do good things" is exactly where the contradiction lies. Omnipotence mean you can do anything. You are not constrained to act according to any nature.

It should also be maybe noted that the concept of "good" and "evil" are dualistic terms used by humans to describe human acts. Is it possible for the creator to be defined by its creation? If I were to create an artwork (say a sculpture), does this creation define me, or am I beyond the definition applicable to this statue and (heaven forbid) by this statue?

Originally posted by kanthmike
Ye, no thoughts about it. If some bstd raped my daughter I would kill him/her. God created me in his/hers/hits image and gave me my brain and nobody but hitself to answer to. I answer to hitself for my actions . My proof to my God is not to hitself, it is beyond hits needs,,,,, beyond hits provided

so you should be sent to hell... if you are a christian, then you should follow christaian beliefs... thou shall not kill... what happens if you kill this man who raped your daughter and then it turns out the man was innocent..? it was you who judged this man and it was you who dished out the punishment... and you believe in god..? where does god come into this..? surely if you're a christian you should have faith god will judge and punish..?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i agree, but its not me doing it even though i bet Christians do it. people could just as easily put them up for adoption

I'm absolutely sure Christians do it ..... giving these children up for adoption is indeed a far better way of solving the problems.

Originally posted by whiterose
If God is omnipotent, He can do anything. If God is omnibenevolent, then He can only do things that are "good". You cannot have it both ways.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PW0.HTM


Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads

40 and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, (and) come down from the cross!"

41 Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said,

42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! 25 Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.

Originally posted by whiterose
"the fact that God can only do good things" is exactly where the contradiction lies. Omnipotence mean you can do anything. You are not constrained to act according to any nature.

How is it a constraint to act according to your own nature? To act against your nature would not be omnipotence. It is, rather, the opposite that is the contradiction.

Originally posted by Conrau K
How is it a constraint to act according to your own nature? To act against your nature would not be omnipotence. It is, rather, the opposite that is the contradiction.

Omnipotence, as defined by the dictionary, means having unlimited power. Having to act according to anything is a limit on power. If God has unlimited power, then He can do ANYTHING, including murdering people. If, on the other hand, he has a benevolent nature, then He cannot murder someone as His benevolent nature constrains him from doing so.

Anyway, how can it be benevolent to send someone to Hell?