Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Lol. I was sort of hoping you'd explain what you were implying by that. . Its not really a big deal, though. Always nice discussing with you, but I'm perfectly content to leave it where it is.
|
I really was simply agreeing with you that the POE (Problem of Evil, which I prefer to call the Problem of Suffering) is only a logical conundrum for the three omnis (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) as literally taken and defined.
Once you qualify one or more of them in any way, then you don't need to construct a theodicy to try to explain why / how such a god would allow suffering. You are no longer truly positing a tri-omni god.
And there is nothing wrong with that, either. Not from my point of view at least. Conservative Christians would tend to differ with you, and would hold fast to an undiluted tri-omni god because to dilute any of them is to end up with something other than the god they believe in.
Not all fundamentalists are unwilling to dilute any of the three omnis. Our own Eusebius holds that god is not omnibenevolent, although he also takes the minority position of Universal Reconciliation. An interesting combination to say the least: a god who practices situation ethics and yet can be trusted to reconcile all to himself, by hook or by crook apparently.