A Pondering of the Peculiar

[AV1611VET]

The bible does neither to a modern audience.

Coulda fooled me.

 

[46AND2]

The Greek word translated as “Omnipotent” here is pantokrator, meaning “All-ruling” or (as it is more frequently translated) “Almighty.” When we say God is “Almighty,” we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: “And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’” (Luke 4:6).

It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of God’s authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10–11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of “almighty”—and we must accept no other!—we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot! For example, God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), and He “cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these “cannots” mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?

First, quit cut and pasting things without citing your source. You realize that is plagiarism, right?

Secondly, this resolves nothing. The author is essentially saying "god can do all things except the ones he can't. "

Sorry, that's not omnipotence.

 

[46AND2]

Lol, the way you phrased it is not the proper way things happened and the way the Trinity works.

Oh! Do tell us how the trinity works. Preferably in your own words.

 

[Delphiki]

Lol, the way you phrased it is not the proper way things happened and the way the Trinity works.

It is. I just didn't word it in cryptic Shakespearian-style bible speak. I worded it in simple, plain, modern English. It doesn't change the meaning.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lol, the way you phrased it is not the proper way things happened and the way the Trinity works.

Interesting thing to note, Isaac Newton, who was a Christian until his death, didn't believe in the trinity. He felt that no other entity should even be presented in an equal manner as god (I suppose Jesus was god's son and not god on earth to him. Interesting individual.).

 

[46AND2]

That is a very good question.
But, it would take about an hour in a face-to-face class, and I don't think it is worthwhile to do here.

You don't need to define EVERYTHING about your god...how about just resolving this omnipotence thing? You know, actually address my argument, rather than claim you can do it, but refusing to do so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh! Do tell us how the trinity works. Preferably in your own words.

In two major ways:

1. The Godhead violates the Law of Non-contradiction, which says that something cannot be both A and -A at the same time and in the same place.

God can be both Father and Son, or He can be Father or Son.

2. Ontological Subordination, which says that, during any period in time, one Member of the Godhead is in the forefront, with the other two Members in the background, making cameo appearances.

For instance, in the Old Testament, we see the First Person of the Godhead (God the Father) doing this, that, and the other thing; while the other two Members are in the background.

In the first century AD, the Second Person of the Godhead (God the Son) is in the foreground, with the First and Third in the background.

In this dispensation, the Third Person (God the Spirit) is in the foreground, with the First and Second in the background.

In the next dispensation, the Second Person will again come to the foreground for 1000 years, while the First and Third are in the background.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

A source that has a name of an organization or an author with a recent updated date and or if the content was verified by another source.

So if 2 creationist webpages, both with apparently sensible sounding names and recently updated, both print the same creationist 'opinion' about a scientific theory, that for you qualifies as a good source?

And of course whatever bias it takes should be noted, like Wiki for example.

Do you think avoiding bias might be a good reason for not reading creationist websites?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So if 2 creationist webpages, both with apparently sensible sounding names and recently updated, both print the same creationist 'opinion' about a scientific theory, that for you qualifies as a good source?



Do you think avoiding bias might be a good reason for not reading creationist websites?

It is nearly impossible to avoid bias on this topic.

 

[anyathesword]

First, quit cut and pasting things without citing your source. You realize that is plagiarism, right?

Secondly, this resolves nothing. The author is essentially saying "god can do all things except the ones he can't. "

Sorry, that's not omnipotence.

I know!!! I always forget, shame on me!!! I don't plagiarize, I just totally forget to site my sources!!!

Here it is:
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?

God can not go against His nature. He can do what pleases Him, He has all Authority of all Creation, He is in control of every situation to make it work for His purposes.

He allows Satan to test, to run around to some extent, but He is the one who controls how much Satan can do.

Satan is a liar, God is not.

Sorry about the source, I posted this earlier in this thread with a source and reposted it again above forgeting to post the source again.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It is nearly impossible to avoid bias on this topic.

It is, but creationist websites are extreme. They are so full of false information about science that it's difficult to trust anything they say about anything. To understand what creationist webpages look like to me I'd recommend reading the david Icke website. They are just like that to me.


I do admit, however, that when investigating some bible questions I am guilty of being slower to pick up on overly sceptical bias in the opposite direction that tries to discredit everything to do with the bible and religion. But I will notice it, if not always as quickly as I should. But luckily most of the material that crops up and that I find of genuine interest can be investigated in academic history pages or similar more reputable sources, so in the main I feel I'm as happy as I can be that I'm not too caught up in other people's agendas.

 

[anyathesword]

So if 2 creationist webpages, both with apparently sensible sounding names and recently updated, both print the same creationist 'opinion' about a scientific theory, that for you qualifies as a good source?



Do you think avoiding bias might be a good reason for not reading creationist websites?

Possibly, it would be great to look at the mission statements especially concerning the Bible and their belief and their motive.

For the subject of Biblical Prophecy, it would make sense to me to look at a Christian source. And one that uses other sources besides "wikipedia".

Did you notice at the end of your rationalwiki page, the sources were other wikipedia pages for the most part??!!!

The best thing sometimes is to use your head a little and your judgement.

Your source was just awful, and on the topic of Prophecies the person or organization needs a little more knowledge about the whole Bible and about history.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is, but creationist websites are extreme. They are so full of false information about science that it's difficult to trust anything they say about anything. To understand what creationist webpages look like to me I'd recommend reading the david Icke website. They are just like that to me.


I do admit, however, that when investigating some bible questions I am guilty of being slower to pick up on overly sceptical bias in the opposite direction that tries to discredit everything to do with the bible and religion. But I will notice it, if not always as quickly as I should. But luckily most of the material that crops up and that I find of genuine interest can be investigated in academic history pages or similar more reputable sources, so in the main I feel I'm as happy as I can be that I'm not too caught up in other people's agendas.

My biggest issue is that people are so sure THEIR religion is surely the one that is correct. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of different religions throughout human history, and you think that out of all of those YOURS is the one that MUST be the truth? Ridiculous.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Possibly, it would be great to look at the mission statements especially concerning the Bible and their belief and their motive.

For the subject of Biblical Prophecy, it would make sense to me to look at a Christian source. And one that uses other sources besides "wikipedia".

Did you notice at the end of your rationalwiki page, the sources were other wikipedia pages for the most part??!!!

The best thing sometimes is to use your head a little and your judgement.

Your source was just awful, and on the topic of Prophecies the person or organization needs a little more knowledge about the whole Bible and about history.

My standards for sources: if I can't use it in an academic paper, then I won't use it in a debate.

 

[anyathesword]

It is, but creationist websites are extreme. They are so full of false information about science that it's difficult to trust anything they say about anything. To understand what creationist webpages look like to me I'd recommend reading the david Icke website. They are just like that to me.


I do admit, however, that when investigating some bible questions I am guilty of being slower to pick up on overly sceptical bias in the opposite direction that tries to discredit everything to do with the bible and religion. But I will notice it, if not always as quickly as I should. But luckily most of the material that crops up and that I find of genuine interest can be investigated in academic history pages or similar more reputable sources, so in the main I feel I'm as happy as I can be that I'm not too caught up in other people's agendas.

You are talking about a subject that is not pertaining to creationism, just to prophecies. I do not think there would be much bias there?

And what are your comments about Tyre?

 

[anyathesword]

Oh! Do tell us how the trinity works. Preferably in your own words.

Ok. God who is the Father lives in Heaven, He has the image of a man (for we were created in God's image; remember?) Jesus Christ is His Son, who came down to earth to die, overcome death, to save us and to rise again, alive. Now Jesus sits at the right Hand of God in Heaven. The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, it is everywhere and makes sure that God's plan is carried out and it also communicates between us and God. These three, the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus His Son are Three different persons in One. They each have a purpose but work in harmony with one another.

 

[anyathesword]

My biggest issue is that people are so sure THEIR religion is surely the one that is correct. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of different religions throughout human history, and you think that out of all of those YOURS is the one that MUST be the truth? Ridiculous.

Absolutly. What other "religion" or better yet book, makes the same claims as the Bible?

 

[anyathesword]

It is, but creationist websites are extreme. They are so full of false information about science that it's difficult to trust anything they say about anything. To understand what creationist webpages look like to me I'd recommend reading the david Icke website. They are just like that to me.


I do admit, however, that when investigating some bible questions I am guilty of being slower to pick up on overly sceptical bias in the opposite direction that tries to discredit everything to do with the bible and religion. But I will notice it, if not always as quickly as I should. But luckily most of the material that crops up and that I find of genuine interest can be investigated in academic history pages or similar more reputable sources, so in the main I feel I'm as happy as I can be that I'm not too caught up in other people's agendas.

And how would you know their information is false?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok. God who is the Father lives in Heaven, He has the image of a man (for we were created in God's image; remember?) Jesus Christ is His Son, who came down to earth to die, overcome death, to save us and to rise again, alive. Now Jesus sits at the right Hand of God in Heaven. The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, it is everywhere and makes sure that God's plan is carried out and it also communicates between us and God. These three, the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus His Son are Three different persons in One. They each have a purpose but work in harmony with one another.

I don't recall god's actual appearance being described in the bible. Not that it matters, considering that, as powerful as god is supposed to be, god could look like anything it wanted. I would imagine though, that god would have androgynous features, since both men and women are created from god's image.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Absolutly. What other "religion" or better yet book, makes the same claims as the Bible?

Most of them claim that they are true. And they have their various respective claims. If you want to look into some, look at Hindu, or the Greek gods, both have prophecies they claim have been fulfilled. Not only that, but Judaism and Islam both share many claims with Christianity.