Oh please, mhaze. Don't keep it to yourself now, will you?

<<I can’t imagine how you missed that one….he says with a knowing grin.>>

Tell us all what the link you provided was supposed to reveal.

Did I miss something there that was supposed to be revealed in the post you linked to, or were you speaking in third person?

Don’t hold back now, I’m sure I’ll be terribly embarrassed once you explain the significance.

<<Your argument [re omnibenevolence] assumes that your definition of benevolent is universal.>>

My definition is the same as everyone else's (so far as I can tell):

Benevolence:
“The quality of being well meaning; kindness.”
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/benevolence

Omnibenevolence is, therefore, unlimited goodwill and kindness:

Omnibenevolence:
“(with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness.”
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnibenevolence

So, if the classical Abrahamic god is also omniscient and omnipotent, then it would have not only the will, but also the foresight and the power to create a world in which no suffering or evil occured (I’m aware that, at this point, all sorts of paradoxes start to rear their heads, but these only strengthen my argument about the impossibility of such a god).

<<What if this deity has a different understanding of how to be benevolent?>>

Unlimited benevolence is an absolute. There is no different way to understand it without being wrong.

<<I’m sorry to do this to you since clearly you have no concept of your view being one of many, but benevolence can come in many forms.>>

No need to be sorry, mhaze. All you did was confuse yourself by going from omnibenevolence (an absolute) to mere benevolence (somewhat subjective). The fool was you. But, hey, I’ll at least give you enough credit to assume that the switch there wasn’t a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Not that you deserve it.

//“ As far as I am concerned it is evil.”

Yes I gathered that. But its based on a lack of knowledge of other religions and the real world.//

Is that how it works? Things are which clearly unethical become ethical if examples of more unethical things can be found?

I'm not sure I agree... it sounds a lot like 'two wrongs make a right'. I don't think that's good ethics. And it seems to lead to an ethical race to the bottom, where only the most wicked and despicable acts can be regarded as immoral. Dante's Inferno reduced to just the 9th Circle, with all the other sinners getting a free pass because they're not as bad as the traitors? Bugger that for a joke.

If Christians have behaved or are behaving in an unethical manner, it's still unethical behaviour. Even if their wicked deeds are overshadowed by the blood of sacrificial victims fleeing so freely that it pours like a waterfall down the temple steps as the Sun-priests raise their knives, over and over again...

Or the phansigar, subtly slipping his garrotte around the victim's neck, and then throttling their life away in honour of Kali...

Even at their very worst (child rapists), Christians have never been that bad. But that doesn't excuse them from, for example, burning Jews for being Jewish. Or hanging old women for being 'witches'. Or raping children. That's still grossly unethical behaviour, and you can't just excuse it - or indeed any other unethical behaviour - by pointing out that 'well, at least they aren't Thuggees'.

AJ, You said. "So, if the classical Abrahamic god is also omniscient and omnipotent, then it would have not only the will, but also the foresight and the power to create a world in which no suffering or evil occurred." Yes The Creator has. Example; It is called Mars. The very nature of our complex chemistry is change; that means cell decay and injury to delicate tissue. Evil exists because of self cantered and selfish behaviour in a being called human. It appears you think the universe should have an inert chemistry, and a lifeless existence to prove God is omnipotent. The very fact of the nature of Earth's chemistry and complex life forms indicates a creator who has put complex principles in place of which we are as human part of that chemistry and changing principles of life. Some want to imagine they exist apart from the nature of the reality and more intelligent than the reality. That a loving Creator God could not be part of our reality. Life for humans is not just mechanical it is also social and character development.

Toni Lavis,
By quoting evil behaviour of some, it appears you want to compare yourself; Well I'm not as bad as them. The fact is all humans have a selfish nature the must be supressed and considered dead and supplanted with pure and caring thoughts and actions.

Calling oneself Christian does not cut it with God. God who is pure and holy, who revealed how to live as a human by giving Jesus Christ. By quoting evil human behaviour by persons calling themselves Christian does not identify what God is like. It is merely an excuse for not accepting the reality of a pure and holy character.

mhaze wrote: <<Yes and then it allowed that society to move to democracy and overthrown the tyrant. And how is supporting the tyrant worse than being the tyrant as happens in Islam? The religion is the state.>>

What a complete distortion! The above shows one of the ways that evil Christianity prevails. After fighting democracy and trying to preserve the union of church and state Christianity claims credit for the society which allows democracy. The credit is due to people like Spinoza and Voltaire who were aware of Christian evil not to Christianity which tried to preserve autocracy. Democracy and seoaration of church come from opposing Christianity.

From http://hemed.univ-lemans.fr/cours2011/en/co/grain3_4_2.html

"In 1555, the Peace of Augsburg laid down a principle which gained ground in no time: cujus regio, ejus religio. It meant that each prince of the Germanic realm had the right to opt for the faith of his choice, the which became compulsory for all his subjects. If they did not wish to adopt the prince's religion, they could migrate to a state where the faith of their choice was practised. They had two options only: Roman Catholicism of Lutheranism."

Before the Reformation there were no options. It took the vicious wars of the Reformation with Christians killing Christians to establish any option.

Islam has a tradition of separation of mosque and state. It is often violated, but the tradition is there. The Shia especially have violated that tradition in current Iran.

//The very nature of our complex chemistry is//

Entirely subject to the will of God, if he exists and is omnipotent.

//change; that means cell decay and injury to delicate tissue.//

No, an omnipotent god could prevent that. The thing about being an omnipotent god is that the rules are all up to you.

//It appears you think the universe should have an inert chemistry, and a lifeless existence to prove God is omnipotent. //

If God is omnipotent, nothing prevents him from creating a universe with people and 'inert chemistry' (no, I don't know what it means either. Something to do with noble gases, I assume. Or maybe Josephus is just having another one of his funny turns).

//The very fact of the nature of Earth's chemistry and complex life forms indicates a creator who has put complex principles in place of which we are as human part of that chemistry and changing principles of life.//

TLDR: the good old fashioned Argument from Design.

I despair at your lack of imagination, Josephus.

//Some want to imagine they exist apart from the nature of the reality and more intelligent than the reality.//

Oh yes? And who would they be?

//Life for humans is not just mechanical it is also social and character development.//

Yes, I recommend that the latter two be added to your bucket list. Something new for you to try before you pass beyond the veil.