said I don't need to rely on my subjective opinions about what is good or bad.
....well, hermenuetically speaking, we all do whether we want to or not.
If "all things are possible with Him" then why isn't "anything" possible?
For us to understand what “is possible” with God, wouldn't we have to give credence to the conception of God that any one of the biblical writers more or less had in mind when constructing and expressing a narrative (or a letter) involving the use of language being applied to God?
To me, it seems strange and somewhat aloof for us to blithely assume that when we use the term 'god,' its denotation as well as its possible connotations must, in no uncertain terms, refer to some stratified conceptual concoction that philosophers have come up with. It seems even stranger to me that we then rely upon this conceptual schematic as some kind of finalized interpretive device by which we attempt to “understand” some fuller, deeper meanings given by the biblical writers. No, I think that kind of interpretive approach on our part is a bit presumptuous.
In sum, obviously, if we're going to 'dabble' in the supposed meanings of the biblical writers and then try to make some kind of extra-biblical deductions outside of that framework, then we probably need to understand something about the various cultural idioms by which those writers thought, lived and breathed. And this is one reason why we probably shouldn't assume that when the Bible says, “all things are possible,” that just instantly translates into our understanding to be “oh...just anything is possible.” In other words, one apple pie isn't necessarily the same as every other apple pie.
Ordinarily I wouldn't throw it around like that. But we're talking about after a point which we've established enough evidence to warrant belief that there is a being that can shape reality and our perception of it at will. That's a bit different from the situation we find ourselves in daily.
No one is in a position to disprove any gods' existence, correct. Arguments can be made about what any gods might be like, though. Honestly not sure what you meant by "this".
...I think I tend to differ here with many people in our understanding of the term “establish” as it may relate to God, humanly speaking. I'd instead propose that where abstract, transcendent entities are being engaged, whether just in thought or, if possible, in full living color, we can never be in a position to establish a warrant. No, all we can do is make choices moment by moment in response to the contexts we each think we perceive.
Now, if we want to build a passenger jet for the rest of us to ride in, by all means, please DO us all a big favor and establish enough evidence by which we ALL can attain warranted belief about the concepts in question [i.e. safely flying in a tube with wings, in this case … ] But when it comes to God, much of that praxis goes out the window and, in the end, is boiled down to the realm of deeper aesthetics, or shall we say, "felt choices."
Okay, it seems you don't want to get into specifics on this, so I'll drop it.
It's not that I don't want to get into specifics, but one has to sometimes think more soberly about how some concepts might be taken by other people on a public forum. Also, a person such as myself realizes that some concepts are held tentatively, even if still seriously, and may, in the final analysis, be wrong. I'd hate to be the one who is wrong about some important concept and, in that, mislead a bunch of folks. However, even with all of that said, I do think there is something to the concept of
Solomon Syndrome, which really is nothing new since, “There's nothing new under the sun!”
