Sorry, I didn’t realize you’d posted this yet until today, so just catching up now. I appreciate you writing this as clarification on a larger scale; however, to our specific conversation, I’ll note that none of this was new to me. As you said, it’s all pretty standard.
Your description of omni-benevolent however is incorrect. I know that Christians understand God as the definition of morality, but that specific point is different from omni-benevolence. Benevolent means good. The point about “Omni-benevolence” is the reason there are enormous and unending debates - as I mentioned - about why an “all-good” god allows evil in the world. There are ways to suggest that, because God is all good, that the evil is somehow actually a part of that goodness, and furthermore that because he is good morality can be defined through him, but those are simply interpretations of the implications of the word, not it’s actual definition. My real point being: interpretations other than yours may also be valid.
The reason people - and myself - say “your God” is to emphasize the fact that, even though you believe your god is “The God” that doesn’t actually make it true. Other people believe in other gods, and theirs are just as likely to be “the real god” as yours is. So when we say “your god”, it’s not a silly misunderstanding, it’s a point being made through linguistic choices.
And given that we’re about 12 articles and comments deep in various threads, if there’s a specific thing you’re thinking of you might do well to post a link here
Sorry, I didn’t realize you’d posted this yet until today, so just catching up now. I appreciate you writing this as clarification on a larger scale; however, to our specific conversation, I’ll note that none of this was new to me. As you said, it’s all pretty standard.
Your description of omni-benevolent however is incorrect. I know that Christians understand God as the definition of morality, but that specific point is different from omni-benevolence. Benevolent means good. The point about “Omni-benevolence” is the reason there are enormous and unending debates - as I mentioned - about why an “all-good” god allows evil in the world. There are ways to suggest that, because God is all good, that the evil is somehow actually a part of that goodness, and furthermore that because he is good morality can be defined through him, but those are simply interpretations of the implications of the word, not it’s actual definition. My real point being: interpretations other than yours may also be valid.
The reason people - and myself - say “your God” is to emphasize the fact that, even though you believe your god is “The God” that doesn’t actually make it true. Other people believe in other gods, and theirs are just as likely to be “the real god” as yours is. So when we say “your god”, it’s not a silly misunderstanding, it’s a point being made through linguistic choices.
Well, you certainly given me something to write a couple more posts on, thanks.
I notice you never did more fully respond to my article like you said you would. Should I take it that you don’t intend to?
No, this was sort of a foundation response; and I’ve been out of town a lot
My first reply to this comment is up:
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/omni-benevolent-by-any-other-name
And given that we’re about 12 articles and comments deep in various threads, if there’s a specific thing you’re thinking of you might do well to post a link here