Myron Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Hello everyone, I am new to the forums and would like to introduce myself . I am Myron Mason and I am a liberal/progressive Christian. I would like to ask all of you if it is possible that god or gods (if they even exist) can be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, omniscient, and omnipresent? I have already concluded that God cannot be omnipotent, and Christians hate me for that, but I do not care. It is contradicting to say god or gods can be all of them. And this is called the theodicy paradox. I believe what Rabbi Kushner concluded, "Rabbi Kushner, author of "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," concludes that the theodicy paradox can only be solved only by redefining the attributes of God. Viewing God as all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful leads to internal contradictions. At least one attribute has to be abandoned. He suggests that we reject the omnipotence of God and believe in a deity with only finite powers to influence people's actions, but who remains all-knowing and all-loving. Kushner's God didn't prevent the terrorists because he didn't have the power to do so. God can only cry with the victims."(http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter3.htm) So what do you all think? I know most of you are atheist or agnostic, but please bare with me and try to think this through logically instead of emotionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Sure, that would make it easier to envision a world where god exists, yet stupid stuff happens, but once you remove the omni aspects from the character of god, there's still other problems that make it absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 True other problems could pop up from that. And I like your Raiden picture . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Yeah, dropping at least some of the omni stuff definitely helps. Now for editing the bible (and the koran, while we're at it) so that 1. all stuff gets removed that could be used to promote hatred et al, and 2. there are no painfully obvious contradictions and bullshit (like the goo' ol' flat earth or four-legged insects) in the rest, now that would be a huge step forward. Liberal christians and muslims (at least the ones I know personally) effectively are doing it already anyway, so why not officially throw out this crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Welcome Myron. Given the state of this world, I don't think we can have omnipotent and omnibenevolent together. I have read that book of Kushner's and his answer also doesn't seem satisfactory to me. Then you have a wimpy god. Who wants to worship that? As Thurisaz says, why not just throw the whole truckload of nonsense out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 So, what's the point of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Kushner's God didn't prevent the terrorists because he didn't have the power to do so. God can only cry with the victims. So in other words, when other people point out how terrible your god is or how flawed your theology is, change the definition of the god so future attrocities can be better explained and the faithful don't look as ignorant as before? I was told god is unchanging and unmoving. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Yeah, dropping at least some of the omni stuff definitely helps. Now for editing the bible (and the koran, while we're at it) so that 1. all stuff gets removed that could be used to promote hatred et al, and 2. there are no painfully obvious contradictions and bullshit (like the goo' ol' flat earth or four-legged insects) in the rest, now that would be a huge step forward. Liberal christians and muslims (at least the ones I know personally) effectively are doing it already anyway, so why not officially throw out this crap? Agreed, all of those should be changed as it is obviously just prejudice. I am just stating that god cannot be all power and all knowing at the same time. One of those has to be finite. And it may be true that god is unchanging, but what if we where wrong about its nature? That is to say if it even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Welcome, Myron! Unfortunately, I agree with everyone else here. It just sounds to me as if christianity is evolving yet again to make it easier for more educated minds to digest. It's just more cognitive dissonance. Further, consider how far away from the original idea of god you are getting...it gets to the point where one must say (and as everyone else has already said) "what's the point?" Why bother with a god at all? This also sounds a lot like Deism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Welcome, Myron! Unfortunately, I agree with everyone else here. It just sounds to me as if christianity is evolving yet again to make it easier for more educated minds to digest. It's just more cognitive dissonance. Further, consider how far away from the original idea of god you are getting...it gets to the point where one must say (and as everyone else has already said) "what's the point?" Why bother with a god at all? This also sounds a lot like Deism. One could definately call it Deism. My atheist friend calls me a Deist, which I find as a compliment . And I would not say all of Christianity is agreeing with me on this. Many conservative Christians call me an atheist or not a true Christian because of my beliefs. But I do not think we can just drop the idea of God so easy just because it is hard to understand. My friend agrees with my that it does not make a person illogical or harm them in anyway to believe in a deity/deities, but that is another discussion althogether . Thank you all for your replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Yes, it's true...to conservatives and fundies you are probably WORSE than atheists, because you would seem to fall into the "terrible" category of lukewarm. I, too, have often wondered if we don't dismiss the idea of a "god" of some sort too quickly. Speaking for myself, I get so wrapped up in dealing with the idiocies of fundies that it makes me feel repulsed by the whole idea of a god. I consider myself agnostic/atheist, but if I DID have an idea of god, it would be the infinite mystery of life, reality, and the universe. I DON"T believe in "god of the gaps," I just feel that there's so much left to learn, so much mystery...but I also think that if our species survives long enough, we'll eventually have most (if not all the answers), and I don't think we'll ever find a god behind any of those questions/answers. The only harm in believing in god (or anything for that matter) comes when you try to force your beliefs on others against their will. Theists all over the world do this on a regular basis.... ...and so, we here continue to fight in our own way.... I'm enjoying this exchange, and I wish you the best of luck in your search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Yes, it's true...to conservatives and fundies you are probably WORSE than atheists, because you would seem to fall into the "terrible" category of lukewarm. I, too, have often wondered if we don't dismiss the idea of a "god" of some sort too quickly. Speaking for myself, I get so wrapped up in dealing with the idiocies of fundies that it makes me feel repulsed by the whole idea of a god. I consider myself agnostic/atheist, but if I DID have an idea of god, it would be the infinite mystery of life, reality, and the universe. I DON"T believe in "god of the gaps," I just feel that there's so much left to learn, so much mystery...but I also think that if our species survives long enough, we'll eventually have most (if not all the answers), and I don't think we'll ever find a god behind any of those questions/answers. The only harm in believing in god (or anything for that matter) comes when you try to force your beliefs on others against their will. Theists all over the world do this on a regular basis.... ...and so, we here continue to fight in our own way.... I'm enjoying this exchange, and I wish you the best of luck in your search. Thanks ; I never force my beliefs on anyone. I firmly believe a person has the 100% choice to believe whatever they choose. No one has the right to tell them otherwise. I will agree that fundamentals also get on my nerves with this God hates gays and atheist and all of this eternal burn in hell crap. It really annoys me and I really want to give them a lecture on how wrong they are. But I understand it is what they believe, so I try not to create much of a fuss with them. I also believe we will have all of the answer in the end, but I think god might not appear behind most of those answers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I thought Deism had God in everything and everyone all the time.... thus, in it's simplest form, God was in the people in WTC, in the structure of the building, in the people who hijacked the planes, in the people on the planes, in the structure of the planes... and does nothing to change anything, not becuase it doesn't want to but because it's enjoying the show... good and bad... so God may cry with the victims, but also rejoices with the villains, and is grimly determined with the heroes... so, instead of it being a Behavioural lab, it's more of a complex soap opera... This is why, if I have an image god at all, it's probably less involved and less warm and cuddly than Azathoth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 anyhoo, I repeat... what is the point of bothering with a god who is more or less in same situation of Viktor Frankenstein... Thus, not an object of worship and worthy of veneration, but something to be pitied for it's impotence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I thought Deism was more along the lines of the old "clock-maker" analogy. He (a god) built it, made it run, then promptly decided to take a nap that he has never woke up from. Still all powerful, just doesn't care what we do so long as we don't unduly manage to disturb him somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 I thought Deism was more along the lines of the old "clock-maker" analogy. He (a god) built it, made it run, then promptly decided to take a nap that he has never woke up from. Still all powerful, just doesn't care what we do so long as we don't unduly manage to disturb him somehow. Yes, that is what Deism is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I thought Deism had God in everything and everyone all the time.... thus, in it's simplest form, God was in the people in WTC, in the structure of the building, in the people who hijacked the planes, in the people on the planes, in the structure of the planes... and does nothing to change anything, not becuase it doesn't want to but because it's enjoying the show... good and bad... so God may cry with the victims, but also rejoices with the villains, and is grimly determined with the heroes... so, instead of it being a Behavioural lab, it's more of a complex soap opera... I don't know, that sounds more like some combination of pantheism and regular theism? Deism in my understanding is more of "A guy who cooked together the universe, and then just let it rot in a corner of his kitchen." This is why, if I have an image god at all, it's probably less involved and less warm and cuddly than Azathoth... But the Cute Bunny is warm, fussy and cuddly and loves everyone and gives all nice children a basked of candy eggs at Easter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 anyhoo, I repeat... what is the point of bothering with a god who is more or less in same situation of Viktor Frankenstein... Thus, not an object of worship and worthy of veneration, but something to be pitied for it's impotence... Well if god is not omnipotent then we can conclude that God has no power to stop what he had created. He knew that we would turn out this way, but tried his best to make it better. I really do not know for sure the nature of god. But as I said before, it does not hurt anyone if a person believes in a deity/deities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Deism is essentially that God created everything and left and never returned. They believe all beliefs, including atheism and agnosticism, is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Well if god is not omnipotent then we can conclude that God has no power to stop what he had created. He knew that we would turn out this way, but tried his best to make it better. I really do not know for sure the nature of god. But as I said before, it does not hurt anyone if a person believes in a deity/deities. Yes, but this has always bothered me about theism. If god created us KNOWING how we'd turn out, why create us at all? Or, at least, why didn't he fix it? He could have. He SHOULD have. But he didn't. It just doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 anyhoo, I repeat... what is the point of bothering with a god who is more or less in same situation of Viktor Frankenstein... Thus, not an object of worship and worthy of veneration, but something to be pitied for it's impotence... Well if god is not omnipotent then we can conclude that God has no power to stop what he had created. He knew that we would turn out this way, but tried his best to make it better. I really do not know for sure the nature of god. But as I said before, it does not hurt anyone if a person believes in a deity/deities. Great response. Fails miserably as an answer... why the hell even take an interest in something that inept? It is like worshipping Azathoth, just with the golss of 'he'd like to make it better, he just can't' In effect, the belief in such a god is akin to having no god at all, since everything still remains 'random chance', limited by physics. God is strapped to the same wild mule we are, as it dashes, helter-skelter, across the moonless wilderness of Time... I fail to see why the 'all knowing' bit remains important, since all that does is makes the fact he can't control squat even worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Well if god is not omnipotent then we can conclude that God has no power to stop what he had created. He knew that we would turn out this way, but tried his best to make it better. I really do not know for sure the nature of god. But as I said before, it does not hurt anyone if a person believes in a deity/deities. Yes, but this has always bothered me about theism. If god created us KNOWING how we'd turn out, why create us at all? Or, at least, why didn't he fix it? He could have. He SHOULD have. But he didn't. It just doesn't make sense. Indeed, that is another question that arises as well. I really do not know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myron Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 anyhoo, I repeat... what is the point of bothering with a god who is more or less in same situation of Viktor Frankenstein... Thus, not an object of worship and worthy of veneration, but something to be pitied for it's impotence... Well if god is not omnipotent then we can conclude that God has no power to stop what he had created. He knew that we would turn out this way, but tried his best to make it better. I really do not know for sure the nature of god. But as I said before, it does not hurt anyone if a person believes in a deity/deities. Great response. Fails miserably as an answer... why the hell even take an interest in something that inept? It is like worshipping Azathoth, just with the golss of 'he'd like to make it better, he just can't' In effect, the belief in such a god is akin to having no god at all, since everything still remains 'random chance', limited by physics. God is strapped to the same wild mule we are, as it dashes, helter-skelter, across the moonless wilderness of Time... I fail to see why the 'all knowing' bit remains important, since all that does is makes the fact he can't control squat even worse... But just because it cannot control what had happened does not mean a deity cannot exist. Does the inability to control means he has no right to exist? I do not wish to argue whether a god(s) exist or not with you. We will get no where with it and I do not want to feel as though I am proselytizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 I'm not debating whether it exists or not... I'm debating why the hell, with the a-priori assumption of its existence, I should take notice or even be interested in it... it adds nothing to day to day life, it can't answer prayers, basically, it may as well be stranger on the number 410 bus to Liverpool... I may nod in its direction, but I don't see anything to get excited over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 But just because it cannot control what had happened does not mean a deity cannot exist. Does the inability to control means he has no right to exist? I do not wish to argue whether a god(s) exist or not with you. We will get no where with it and I do not want to feel as though I am proselytizing. In this case, it is immaterial whether or not this type of god exists. But even if it does exist, consider this from a practical standpoint. What good is a god that is basically impotent and helpless to interfere (either directly or indirectly) in human affairs? What power/effect has he in our affairs? What influence? This is what Grandpa Harley was saying earlier. This god is fundamentally useless and in NO better shape than Dr. Frankenstein. It's as if this god unwittingly unleashed a beast that quickly grew far beyond his master's powers. Or, if you prefer, a dotard old father/grandfather who has had to make way for his child/grandchild because he has long since lost the mental/physical strength to stand against him/her. One can almost here Nietzsche whispering again, softly, that "god is dead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts