'Safe'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
Why do you think it remarkable that God (Christian God, often portrayed as loving) would be anti-cruelty, brenda?
Well, presumably the whole thing would be more coherent if you didn't assume omnibenevolence. Cause that's the tricky part. It seems to me.
Aimee! Welcome home!
Blanket and warm drink and hugs for the Empress.
Why do you think it remarkable that God (Christian God, often portrayed as loving) would be anti-cruelty, brenda?
Seems like more effort, therefore requiring more explanation. No, seriously, it does seem like a more active choice, while non-intervention seems like a more logical default. I'm not coming at this from a Christian God perspective, though (for the purposes of this conversation). I think Betsy's original statement (speaking hypothetically, and also drawing on the earlier conversation) was that having logically proven the existence of God, you're left with the challenge of then logically explaining why there's evil in the world. And to me, that doesn't seem like a necessary inference, because I don't see how a proof that "God exists" necessarily also implies "God is benevolent," or even raises that question. It sounds to me like Betsy perspective on that is different, but I'm not sure at what stage our interpretations are diverging. And I'm finding it really interesting that they do, and curious as to why and how much.
Hmm. Fair point.
I can certainly imagine proving that God exists and is a right bastard, but I'm betting that a book entitled "...and the Baha'i revelation" isn't going to take that tack.
Yeah, you're probably right there.
{{{Aimee}}}
I do wish I could give you one of those in person.
vw, are you feeling better?
I do wish I could give you one of those in person.
Me, too.
I'd grab yer boob.
I don't see how a proof that "God exists" necessarily also implies "God is benevolent,"
Well, you need to define your god. And the god that's being described on the billboards as I pass church -- I think he's being described as a loving enough god that if you're getting rigourous about it, you need to cover all the bases, and it had better be effable.
I mean, there are a lot of things I don't think God implies, including Creator.
vw is napping. I'm not here, because I've already left for work. See?