"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained." -- Roland Burris, on Senate opposition to his appointment by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich
Don't people who talk about a capital-L Lord like that usually claim that the guy is omnipotent? if so, how would anyone be able to deny anything he ordained?
(Plus my perennial issue with prayer. If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then he is *already doing what is best*, by definition. Why are you trying to change His mind?)
I think it's pretty clear that he's not omnibenevolent. He clearly (in the Bible, anyway) rewards people who worship him and punishes people who don't. There's a reason a lot of early Americans characterized themselves as "God-fearing". God is dangerous, violent, and mercurical. Your best bet is to attempt to placate him with prayer.
The idea of God's omnibenevolence in Christianity is based on Psalms 18:30, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." It is also supported by Ps.19:7, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." This tradition was confirmed by the First Vatican Council:
The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[5]
The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independence and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.
I certainly find your view a more convincing one ("He's not a tame lion!"), but a lot of official dogma says otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 03:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 04:10 pm (UTC)(Plus my perennial issue with prayer. If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, then he is *already doing what is best*, by definition. Why are you trying to change His mind?)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 05:33 pm (UTC)I certainly find your view a more convincing one ("He's not a tame lion!"), but a lot of official dogma says otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 06:28 pm (UTC)