Csquared08

Trust me, I do comprehend what I'm reading. I realize within reason is implied in the definition and that justified anger is implied to be acceptable. But would the average human being understand those things to be true? If you cannot get the general populace to see that your point of view actually makes sense, then why bother trying with anyone?

1. Then what would reason or justice be? 2. Then shouldn't 'within reason' be added to the definition? 3. Alright then. How about a competitive event in which everything goes wrong. Certainly fits the bill of 'characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering' 4. See #1 5. Justified anger is acceptable? If that is true, then shouldn't that be clarified in the definition for the definition to be accurate. Partially.

1. What is morally wrong, then? 2. Does that make amputations evil? They are harmful and injurious... 3. If I had a chance to win a game/race and I instead loss, it'd seem pretty unfortunate to me. Apparently that is evil... 4. What is bad conduct? 5. So being angry with someone for stealing my car is evil?

If you had read the edit, you would have saw that I was referring to evil, not omni-benevolence. As said in the edit, my apologies for the mistake. Regardless, the definition of omni-benevolence remains the same: A being that is omni-benevolent/all-loving can do no evil. That begs the question: What is evil? As humans, many have defined evil as many different things, thus creating conflict. Either each and every human is incorrect about the true essence of evil or a particular human (or group) has got what evil actually is right. For example: If you were to ask someone on the street what freedom was, you'd get some sort of answer. You ask someone else, you're likely to get a different answer. Which person correctly knows the essence of freedom? In all likelihood, neither of them do. I'd continue this, but I had to get up really early for cross country and I can't think right now...

Yes, actually I am being serious right now. Quite serious. I can say what a word means, but in the true of sense of the term 'evil,' would not the God who made good and evil, the God who is supposedly all-powerful and all-loving, be the only one capable of clearly stating what is good and what is evil? They may be human terms, but it is God who determines whether our definitions of such terms are accurate. Note: You may want to read my edit, if you haven't done so already.

I was actually kinda hoping we'd get to see what spell it was that was taking so long to cast. In the meantime... *types up a post involving the mace-wielding man's incapacitation*

As stated before, the 'human' definition of omni-benevolence is incorrect. As a human, I am not qualified to give the correct definition. I wasn't trying to avoid it; I wanted a straight answer. By being omnipotent he is all-powerful and can do whatever he wishes. By being omni-benevolent, he can do no evil, whatever evil happens to be. Being both omnipotent and omni-benevolent, a conflict occurs: Can he do 'evil,' as stated that he should be able to by definition of omnipotence? Or can he not, as stated by definition of omni-benevolence. The question, though, is which side wins, if one does indeed 'win'? Do we have a God capable of doing 'evil,' but choosing not to? Or a God incapable of 'evil,' and capable of everything else? EDIT: By definition of omni-benevolence being wrong, I was referring to what evil was and, therefore, what God was incapable of doing. My apologies for not being clear.

In that case, the 'human' definition of omni-benevolence is inaccurate and all of your arguments about 'God being evil,' 'God can't possibly be omni-benevolent,' etc. are all incorrect due to using an incorrect definition of omni-benevolence. I'm not putting a limit on anything; I'm merely stating what something is and isn't. If you're saying that is limiting God's power, then is saying God can do evil limiting his omnipotence?

Yes, he is all-powerful and can do whatever the Hell he wants, but aren't we also arguing whether he is omni-benevolent? If God is omni-benevolent, he is all-loving, yes? Is it love if one party is forced into the situation? In short, no. In long, see above. Therefore, to be all-loving/omni-benevolent, it must be a world where a choice exists between good and evil. If this is not what we are arguing about (God and omni-benevolence, be it the main subject or a sub-argument), then yes, you are quite right. I do not understand.

He may not want us to prove our love/affection/belief/worship/etc. to him, but he most definitely wants us to choose whether we love him or hate him. Say Jill loves Joe and Joe loves Jill. Would it be love if Jill was forcing Joe to 'love' her? Or if Jill was kept at home and never saw anyone but Joe? In either question, the other has no real choice but to 'love' the other. Now, if there were no 'bad' people in the world, would we really be loving/worshipping God? Or if he was forcing us by not giving us free will? Thus, it is not proper worship if the alternative is not given. Therefore, 'bad' and 'good' people exist, giving us both sides. If one chooses to worship God, it is then 'proper' worship as said 'worship' is chosen despite seeing the alternatives present in the world.

I honestly have no plans as of now, other than finding that darned elusive Fargo Capcillon. So, feel free to post whatever and send us whereever.

I'm looking forward to it :o

I am actually quite curious. Why wait?

That works just as well. *runs back* *prepares to kick the bad guy in the teeth*

"Well, I have a few things in mind, but all of them personal." replied Rutem, no longer exhausted, but once again filled with energy. Must be a surge in adrenaline; there is no way I recovered that fast. Then, with a look of concern spreading over his face, he said, "Fargo Capcillon was rumored to have lived in that town. After all, I owe him money and fully intend on paying him back. And if I traveled all this way just for him to die..." Rutem trailed off, clearly demonstrating he would be most displeased if his long journey was for nothing.