or is he able but not willing?
suppose he could be both able and willing... maybe?
or maybe he's neither willing nor able?
anyone know?
suppose he could be both able and willing... maybe?
or maybe he's neither willing nor able?
anyone know?
or is he able but not willing?
suppose he could be both able and willing... maybe?
or maybe he's neither willing nor able?
anyone know?
or is he able but not willing?
suppose he could be both able and willing... maybe?
or maybe he's neither willing nor able?
anyone know?
you noticed the quote hentenza nice .
Yea, seen it a few times.
But in this case the quote would mean he's able but not willing...
But to stop someone from doing evil is to violate their free will which he can't do...
and if he can't do it then he's not omnipotent.
But you are dismissing the obvious. God uses evil to do His will. Is part of His plan, therefore, He doesn't have the conundrum of free will. He is not either willing nor unwilling to stop evil. When He will stop evil is prophesied in scripture. We, mankind, are perfectly capable of messing it up without any help until then. lol
But if you have references to how it's been refuted I'd be more than happy to read em.
Mmm....there has been tons of threads about this in this site. It's easy to just search for one (search feature top right on the blue task bar).
Also just a random thought, do you at all support the separation of church and state?
I do, but I am still an American and do my civil duty (vote).
BTW- Welcome to CF!!
For him to "do" anything though would be a violation of free will.
It's implied. Personally, I don't believe the bible teaches libertarian free will though.Also when did the idea of "free will" come about in the bible specifically.
I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe that to be omnipotent means to exert said omnipotence 100% of the time. In other words you believe that one is either omnipotent or not. No in between or possibility any other option. However, If He is omnipotent then He also has the power to intercede in what He pleases. In other words, God has the free will to exert His omnipotence as He pleases. For example, you have a top sports car with the potential of a top speed of 150mph. The potentiality (as an actual attribute) of having a top speed of 150 mph remains whether you drive at a speed of 50 mph or 100 mph or max it out at 150 mph.If it was right from the start then the bible is riddled with god intervening on free will numerous times, just in genesis. While this does make god more omnipotent if he's able to violate free will when he chooses, it hardly makes him empathetic if he's willing to allow evil just to be elusive on the idea of free will.
Nah, just be considerate and follow the posting rules. We've heard just about every question you guys can dish out though.And ty to the welcome . I'm sure I'll stir some commotion with some people unintentionally but where better to get information and view points if not through a debate.
For him to "do" anything though would be a violation of free will.
Different angle from Hentenza:
1. You're COMPLETELY overlooking the fact that G-d gave man dominion. do you know what that means? Have you considered it?
2. G-d NEVER violated free will. Not once! Rather, we ALWAYS see G-d respecting man's dominion; although it only takes ONE man.
So when the village of sodom wanted to sleep with those men, god was respecting man's dominion by torching them alive?
So when (can't remember his name off the top of my head.. orne? ornan?) was choosing to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] onto the floor rather than impregnate his brothers wife, and was put to death. This was god respecting man's dominion and not intervening? He violated the man's choice not to impregnate her.
and if i remember correctly it mentions that god is unchanging. So why is it we don't have miracles freeing people, not just 1 or 2, but whole groups much like moses and his flock.
By definition what ever God does is a violation of his free will claim.
Sorry, no. I think you're going to consistently miss the mark here.
When, praytell, did G-d surrender His right to Judge? He did this to TWO people re: their relations with this same woman. IIRC Abraham wound up taking her for a wife as a very old coot, at her prompting no less, and she had his children. He had a BUNCH. Note that this was at a time when every possible person in the Hebrew clan was valuable; G-d was making a point, in dramatic fashion. He can be like that.
So when the village of sodom wanted to sleep with those men, god was respecting man's dominion by torching them alive?
So when (can't remember his name off the top of my head.. orne? ornan?) was choosing to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] onto the floor rather than impregnate his brothers wife, and was put to death. This was god respecting man's dominion and not intervening? He violated the man's choice not to impregnate her.
There are consequences for our decisions. If I choose to take a swan dive off the top of a high cliff I am free to make that choice but it won't be any less damaging when I hit the bottom. Should God conjure up something nice and soft to absorb the impact when I land, so as to ensure my free choice doesn't come with any nasty consequences?
Ah but you're using free will to swan dive off that cliff. They didn't use free will to become a human bbq. Or are you implying that them being gay is the reason god had to intervene and abruptly kill the whole village, which I think would be out of their free will, rather than wait for them to grow old and die? So what about the man who via free will decided not to impregnate a woman? God had to step in and intervene punishing him with death for not doing what he wanted him to? Violating that mans free will? I would continue to pull out names of people god has killed but my knowledge of all the killed thus far hasn't been fully obtained, only now stepping in to the fun world of exodus.
And if the reason he made sodom a human bbq why didn't god encourage lot and his family to meet these visitors on the road while already leaving the village somewhat more orange and flaming than when they remembered it. Or was is the story not as interesting that way? Would imagine an all knowing all powerful being would want things to be efficient. He already apparently punishes people on a whim when they don't do what he wants rather than giving them cancer and having them die eventually.
They did use free will to deny God's will. If you read the text you see Abraham asking God to spare the city for the sake of the righteous, and God agreed that if even ten righteous people could be found he would spare the city. But there weren't even ten.
It's also easy to get obsessive about the whole gay thing. Certainly the city of Sodom has given its name to activities associated with gay people but there was more to it than that.
In Ezekiel 16 we see God talking about Sodom and how as well as the abominations they had committed they were haughty, they had an abundance but did ignored the poor and needy.
When I was a child my parents laid down certain rules. If I broke the rules there would be consequences. It was up to me if I broke the rules or not, but if I did there was little point claiming it was somehow unfair that I faced the punishment. Today we know that if you go out and kill someone you go to jail and don't collect $200. The law doesn't prevent you from doing it, but it does put a system in place to discourage it. Why is it difficult to accept God doing the same thing?
Where is the freedom to choose your path? They could J walk, break the societies law, and be smited where they stand because they did something God didn't want them to do.
There was no bible, there was no 10 commandments when god did this. So it was his ignorance to not even tell the people what they were doing was wrong.