Is God really and fully omnipotent?

jodrey · Apr 9, 2003

I just dont' understand how to explain it to you if you're not getting it. God left his description incomplete. If you say, who is outspoken and I say, I am that I am, its not a complete description. Its like defining a word with itself.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but do you know the meaning of the word "am"? It means existing -- "I am that I am" is "I exist," which is why the literal traslation reads it as "the existing One." There's nothing too complex here. What's so difficult to understand?

LOL. whatever you say bro, I guess in your own mind you can think that, though its not true at all, but whatever.

Then what is it? Please don't participate in discussions like these if you don't intend to give valid explanations.

It means we can't understand God much like an ant can't understand us.

We're talking about two quite different things: the improbability to understand and the impossibility to understand. Why is it impossible for an ant to understand us? They have much smaller mental capacities, so it is unlikely that they will, but we (we and the ant) exist under the same laws, and because of that it is not impossible for the ant to understand us.

Problem number 1 yet again, you're inserting YOUR THOUGHTS on the text. Again you're making a mistake in theology, though that's the 2nd most common

On the contrary: I'm only explaining to you what is obvious to everyone else.

Yes, though that has no bearing on the conversation at all. I gave you all the answers, yet you refuse to accept them. Go read Augistine (sp) or thomas A. then come back and say I was correct. Till then you can rant and rave all you want I'm still giving you the correct answer.

All you've done is run around in circles. "This is true because I said so." Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word on something just because you said so. You've given no valid argument to support your position. If I missed something then please point it out. It looks to me like you're frustrated that I'm not blindly believing what you say because you're trying to look like you know what you're talking about; in fact, it appears that you really haven't gotten the message I was trying to get across to you. If you had payed attention, you'd see that I didn't say you were wrong, but that since it can't be proven that we don't know then we should continue to intellectually explore. Your method leads to ignorance if you are incorrect. At least I come to an incorrect conclusion someone will later be able to correct me, but with your theory, no one would be looking. Do you see the fallacy yet?

Outspoken · Apr 10, 2003

"It means existing -- "I am that I am" is "I exist,""

Nope, that is not the correct meaning of that phrase or jewish people would say in answer to who is God, "he that exsists." they say the great I AM, so try again.

"Please don't participate in discussions like these if you don't intend to give valid explanations."

I've given several, you just seem to not be reading then or busy shrugging off answers that leave a bitter taste in your mouth dispite being true.

"Why is it impossible for an ant to understand us?"

It cannot grasp it. Its like you trying to count to infinity. YOu can't. YOu can't fully grasp its exsistance.

"I'm only explaining to you what is obvious to everyone else."

LOL if you say so. I'll tell God you've got him figured out so we can both have a good laugh at it

"Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word on something just because you said so"

LOL. Again evidience of you not reading. I've given you two great authors that were quite smart and you tell me I say, "cause I said so." You're a trip and a half.

"If you had payed attention, you'd see that I didn't say you were wrong"

"a main theme of the Bible is getting to know God, and I believe He has made that task possible, no matter how complex or frustrating it is. "

Me thinks you're not reading what you're writing.

SavedByGrace3 · Apr 14, 2003

1st April 2003 at 04:23 PM jodrey said this in Post #1

But doesn't this imply that God can't do anything and everything by speaking a word? I mean, why make His Son suffer and why make us suffer (assuming He loves us) if He can just give us whatever He wants to give us by a thought or word? We also read several places in the Bible where He was made sad. None of it would really be necessary if He were ALL-powerful, right? Just a thought to chew on...

What you have proposed is an example of the extreme view on the general attributes of God. Many such dilema are generated by attmpting to apply these concepts to our relationship with the Father.

This are really the Greek/Olympia/Zeus view of God. All powerful, all knowing, all seeing, in absolute control of evey atom in the universe. He is so pervasive that His very will is implemented in creation. No need to even speak it. He just needs to think it. We are puppets in his theater, and free will is just an illusion. These are all reflections of the paganization of God...

The true revelation of God can be seen in the person and nature of Jesus.This is much different image than is taught in modern theology.
He knows all, but chooses to limit His knowledge.
He is all powerful, but chooses to limit Himself and His power to certain spheres.
He is present everywhere, but chooses to localize His presence to certain areas.
He is invincible, but allows Himself to be hurt.
It seems that even though God does possess these "OMNI" abilities... He willingly limits and directs these abilities by love and mercy.
For us, and most importantly, He allows us an inroad to Himself via faith.

Aradia · Apr 14, 2003

Question:

If god *is* omnipotent (even by the "anything possible" definition), and if god is love, then why did god give us free will knowing full well that we would sin? Could he not have simply made us happy without the need for free will? Could he not have simply made us know him and love him without the need for free will?

Outspoken · Apr 14, 2003

"then why did god give us free will knowing full well that we would sin?"

Can't have free will without the possiblity of a wrong choice. Can't have REAL love unless it is given freely.

Aradia · Apr 15, 2003

Outspoken: "Can't have free will without the possiblity of a wrong choice. Can't have REAL love unless it is given freely."

Says who? Couldn't god dictate that free will exists without wrong choices? Or couldn't he dictate that real love can exist without it being given freely?

jodrey · Apr 16, 2003

Says who? Couldn't god dictate that free will exists without wrong choices? Or couldn't he dictate that real love can exist without it being given freely?

This would fall into the category of God doing whatever the heck He wants, period. I don't believe in that. There are limits and laws that even He adheres to.

Yes, God knew we would sin, and that's exactly the point. You can't know happiness without knowing misery, now can you?

Aradia · Apr 16, 2003

Who says one cannot know happiness without knowing misery? Rhetorical question.

The real question, of course, is that if god created the universe and all that exists, why did he make it with such foolish laws as "free will can only exist if wrong choices are available"? Sounds more like a cop-out for people who don't want to really think about it.

I have plenty of other questions along similar lines. Why did god create the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why did he not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil? Why did he punish them, if prior to knowing the difference between good and evil, they wouldn't know that it was wrong to disobey him? Why did he create a creature (serpent) that would tempt them? Why did he punish all humanity for the sins of two people -- I wasn't responsible for eating the stupid thing! The list goes on and on. =)

Outspoken · Apr 20, 2003

"Couldn't god dictate that free will exists without wrong choices?"

Then it is not free will.

Aradia · Apr 22, 2003

"Then it is not free will."

Why not? If god says it's free will, it's free will. We can't have free will to only make good choices? And what's with the free will scapegoat, anyway? If god wanted us to all be happy, he could have made us all happy without requiring free will. If god merely created us to love him, he's codependent and needs to deal with his insecurity on a deeper level.

jodrey · Apr 22, 2003

Who says one cannot know happiness without knowing misery? Rhetorical question.

So, according to you, blind people should be able to know what "white" is and deaf should understand the concept of sound. Uh, no, I don't think so.

Why not? If god says it's free will, it's free will. We can't have free will to only make good choices? And what's with the free will scapegoat, anyway? If god wanted us to all be happy, he could have made us all happy without requiring free will. If god merely created us to love him, he's codependent and needs to deal with his insecurity on a deeper level.

You must then deal with two issues. Either God doesn't love you or He's not ALL-powerful. I tend to agree with the latter case. Even God is bound by law. Outspoken is right -- if you leave only one choice then it's no longer a choice, is it? Free will does not exist if you MUST do something: if there is only ONE thing to do.

Aradia · Apr 22, 2003

Aradia: "Who says one cannot know happiness without knowing misery? Rhetorical question."

Jodrey: "So, according to you, blind people should be able to know what "white" is and deaf should understand the concept of sound. Uh, no, I don't think so."

False analogies.
1) Blind people cannot see any colour. This would be analogous to not being able to feel *anything*, regardless of how it is labeled. The inability to feel misery does not remove the ability to feel happiness.
2) Many deaf people *do* understand the concept of sound, yes, but that's irrelevant to negating your analogy. Deaf people do not have the capacity to experience sound. Once again, removing things that make one feel misery does not remove the capacity to feel happiness.

Or, more simply put: One need only remove the causes of misery, not the chemical reactions that create "feeling" or "emotion".

1) Ok, he's not all powerful. So? Who created evil and misery? Better yet, why not create a physical brain with the capacity to feel happiness, but without the capacity to feel misery? I assume *that* is within the limits of god's powers, n'est-ce pas?

2) I'm not leaving one choice. I'm removing all bad choices, and leaving all (multiple) good choices.

Let me make it really easy on you. *poof* I just made all the bad cars in the world disappear. Now, can you honestly tell me that only having ferraris, alfa romeos, healeys, lotuses, lambos, et cetera means you don't have a choice of what to drive? BS. You lose.

Outspoken · Apr 22, 2003

"Why not? If god says it's free will, it's free will. "

NO. In order for reality to exsist God has set things about himself to. You might as well as why isn't black white or red blue and cite that as silly evidience for something or other.

"If god merely created us to love him, he's codependent"

NOt at all, if you eat chocolate because you like it that doesn't make you codependant on chocolate.

Job_38 · Apr 22, 2003

1st April 2003 at 10:23 PM jodrey said this in Post #1

Just something I've been thinking about... I mean, God loves us and so He sent His Son so that we can come back to Him. But doesn't this imply that God can't do anything and everything by speaking a word? I mean, why make His Son suffer and why make us suffer (assuming He loves us) if He can just give us whatever He wants to give us by a thought or word? We also read several places in the Bible where He was made sad. None of it would really be necessary if He were ALL-powerful, right? Just a thought to chew on...

Truly, some things done are done for reasons that we have no idea why. Most of the time, though, its for us. Such as the case with Abraham. By ordering him to sacrafice his son, Abraham was brought to the realization of who was in charge and how great that was. Ultimately, we see Abraham rewarded in the fullest sense.

 

You must then deal with two issues. Either God doesn't love you or He's not ALL-powerful. I tend to agree with the latter case. Even God is bound by law. Outspoken is right -- if you leave only one choice then it's no longer a choice, is it? Free will does not exist if you MUST do something: if there is only ONE thing to do.

 True, free will for US does not exist. However, I agree that God is not all powerful, at least in the sense that we use it. God cannot sin. Because if He did then He is not God.

Now, God can also change what right and wrong are and be completely justified in doing so. We must also remember that His ways are far beyond our ways.

 

Is God really and fully omnipotent?

Well-Known Member

Standing in the Gap

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Regular Member

Standing in the Gap

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Standing in the Gap

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Standing in the Gap

<font size="1"> In perfect orbit they have circled

Similar threads