No - improper religius conduct is one thing (ie philosophical deviation), improper use of power is another - in this instance its a case of improper use of power in the guise of religion - says nothing about religion - says more about human fallibility, which you can find examples of all across the board - but if you have a pet hate of religin then this might seem noteworthy I guessgeeser said:ar'nt they one and them same, unless your on another planet to the rest of us.
wsionynw said:It's an issue of organized religion abusing power.
lightgigantic said:So you agree its a power issue?
simple - its a power issuewsionynw said:Yes I do, in as much that the power the church seems to have over it's congregation is abused. In the same way that radical Muslim clerics incite violence, they are also abusing children but in a different way.
Light, why do you think the church attempted to cover up and even condone these crimes (as this brief trailer would have us believe)?
But an omnipotent god could have designed people without evil. Since evil exists then if an omnipotent god exists then it deliberately wanted and chose to allow evil. It has nothing to do with us.Love and evil are presented in human actions.
That only works if good and evil are objective qualities separate from the individual perceiving the act. There could still be an omnipotent god if good and evil are relative.Cris said:Live,
But an omnipotent god could have designed people without evil. Since evil exists then if an omnipotent god exists then it deliberately wanted and chose to allow evil. It has nothing to do with us.
I think the point is not to deny an omnipotent god but to indicate the conflict with Omni-benevolence (can do only good). Even if evil is considered relative then doesn’t that still contradict the claim for Omni-benevolence? The issue would then become how to erase the relativity of the two paradigms. Wouldn’t the result simply be a bland “goodness”. We could argue that good can only be truly appreciated when contrasted with evil, but then would evil actually have to exist for that appreciation to occur?That only works if good and evil are objective qualities separate from the individual perceiving the act. There could still be an omnipotent god if good and evil are relative.
Well, I would have to agree with you, then. Omni-benevolence is not a quality that I usually attribute to God when considering it's potential qualities.Cris said:JM,
I think the point is not to deny an omnipotent god but to indicate the conflict with Omni-benevolence (can do only good). Even if evil is considered relative then doesn’t that still contradict the claim for Omni-benevolence? The issue would then become how to erase the relativity of the two paradigms. Wouldn’t the result simply be a bland “goodness”. We could argue that good can only be truly appreciated when contrasted with evil, but then would evil actually have to exist for that appreciation to occur?
Only when the living entity misuses their free will - I think you posted the same version of the same argument before - you have to address how free will can exist with out the opportunity to express "evil", or errorMythbuster said:1. God is allegedly Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent
2. Through Omniscience, God knows how to prevent evil
3. Through Omnibenevolence, God wants to prevent evil
4. Through Omnipotence, God has the power to prevent evil
5. Evil still exists.