Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

[Hentenza]

Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

If the omnipotence created the free will then it is part of its nature.

 

[Max S Cherry]

The ambiguity in the connotation of virgin is only present when talking about Mary, for Mary is the only woman to have ever conceived a child without the agency of a man.

After I posted in this thread, I started thinking about Mary's being a virgin. Surely, she was the only virgin impregnated with God, but it is not even difficult to imagine a virgin being impregnated by a man. With medicine what it is now, a woman could be a virgin and give birth, and a man could be a virgin and be a father at the same time.

In our normal usage of the term "virgin", it refers to a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man.

That is how I understand it as well, but I also understand it applying to guys.

So there is no logical impossibility in stating that Mary was a virgin and was pregnant, if in the sense of the word "virgin", we understand it to mean "a woman who has never been with a man".

Agreed.

 

[Clare73]

You have completely missed my point. For what I wrote was in response to ChristianT regarding the logical impossibility of a woman being a virgin in the sense of not being pregnant, and at the same time being pregnant.

It is true, Mary was a virgin in the sense that she had not had sexual intercourse with a man.

Thanks for the explanation.

Absence of sexual intercourse is the only sense of virgin.

In fact, in this sense, she remained a virgin after Jesus was born and until she had intercourse for the first time with her husband.

If there was ambiguity, then I apologize. I assumed you understood the context in which we were speaking.

Nowhere will you find the biblical authors stating that she was a virgin after conception.

The problem was not context, but your incorrect statement regarding Scripture, based on the incorrect use of virgin as being defined in relation to pregnancy, rather than in relation to sexual intercourse.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Elioenai26]

Thanks for the explanation.

Absence of sexual intercourse is the only sense of virgin.





The problem was your incorrect statement regarding Scripture, based on the incorrect use of virgin as being defined in relation to pregnancy, rather than in relation to sexual intercourse.

In the faith,
Clare

The statement was not incorrect Clare, as I stated, I used the word with the connotation of pregnancy, which is what ChristianT and I were discussing.

Another way to phrase the statement in question would be thus: "Nowhere in scripture do the biblical authors say that Mary was not pregnant and pregnant at the same time."

Thus, there is not even the slightest hint of the presence of a logical impossibility.

 

[Clare73]

The statement was not incorrect Clare, as I stated, I used the word with the connotation of pregnancy, which is what ChristianT and I were discussing.

Another way to phrase the statement in question would be thus: "Nowhere in scripture do the biblical authors say that Mary was not pregnant and pregnant at the same time."

That probably would have been the better thing to say, in light of definitions of words.

Thus, there is not even the slightest hint of the presence of a logical impossibility.

Well, I don't want to turn this into a harangue, but your wrong meaning of the word "virgin" made you incorrect about what Scritpure imports regarding (the right meaning of) Mary's virginity.

Likewise, if she were not a virgin after conception, then there was no virgin birth, and that is a fundamental of Christianity.

A use of the word virgin to mean something other than its definition (absence of sexual intercourse) is equivalent to using the word bovine to mean buffalo, or goat, and then driving up to the cattle auction to sell your Brahma buffalo (which is really a cow).

The receiver at the auction informs you that they don't accept buffalo for auction, you inform him it is a cow, he informs you that you have made a mistake in your identity of the animal, and you inform him that there is no mistake, that you are correct because cow is what you mean by the word buffalo.

The receiver scratches his head, and wonders when we abandoned the dictionary.

Creates a lot of confusion. . .

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Elioenai26]

That probably would have been the better thing to say, in light of definitions of words.


Well, I don't want to turn this into a harangue, but your wrong meaning of the word "virgin" made you incorrect about what Scritpure imports regarding (the right meaning of) Mary's virginity.

Likewise, if she were not a virgin after conception, then there was no virgin birth, and that is a fundamental of Christianity.

A use of the word virgin to mean something other than its definition (absence of sexual intercourse) is equivalent to using the word bovine to mean buffalo, or goat, and then driving up to the cattle auction to sell your Brahma buffalo (which is really a cow).

The receiver at the auction informs you that they don't accept buffalo for auction, you inform him it is a cow, he informs you that you have made a mistake in your identity of the animal, and you inform him that there is no mistake, that you are correct because cow is what you mean by the word buffalo.

The receiver scratches his head, and wonders when we abandoned the dictionary.

Creates a lot of confusion. . .

In the faith,
Clare

You are right!

You are quite articulate. I have not seen you in this forum much, I hope to have the privilege of reading more from you.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I suppose to mayke my point more briefly maybe an omnipotence can be free on its own, but is there is another agent then the omnipotent may force its move.

 

[Clare73]

You are right!

You are quite articulate. I have not seen you in this forum much, I hope to have the privilege of reading more from you.

Thank you for the kind words.

From what neck o' the woods are you?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[DennisTate]

Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

Certainly!

The Beings composed of fundamental energy who have planned and choreographed an infinite number of Big Bang events over infinite time are able to work out their will through branching time off somewhat like a menorah.

Any moment in the past can be energized...recreated...and from that new beginning a vastly preferable future can be worked out. Scripture is written in such a way that an amazing number of ways exist for that future to be fulfilled.

For example in Revelation it talks about a third of the grass being burned up....but Isaiah 40 says that human life is like grass.....so a metaphorical fire can hit us...we can return to our God in genuine love for each other....which would prevent the really nasty more probable events form occurring in our branch of time?!

 

[Elioenai26]

Thank you for the kind words.

From what neck o' the woods are you?

In the faith,
Clare

Near Charlotte, NC. About twenty minutes from BGEA headquarters.

 

[Clare73]

Near Charlotte, NC. About twenty minutes from BGEA headquarters.

I'm about 2 1/2 hours west of Charlotte.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm about 2 1/2 hours west of Charlotte.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Paradoxum]

Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

Yes, assuming that there aren't any other problems with free will. But there are other problems, so I don't think we objectively have free will.

When Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conception occurred and she was no longer a virgin from that point on. She was a virgin prior to conception, afterwards, she was a woman who was pregnant. She was not a pregnant virgin. Nowhere will you find the biblical authors stating that she was a virgin after conception.

So there is no contradiction here.

If Mary didn't have sex then she was a virgin. If you say she wasn't a virgin after the conception of Jesus then you are saying the Holy Spirit literally had sex with Mary... and that is strange.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, assuming that there aren't any other problems with free will. But there are other problems, so I don't think we objectively have free will.



If Mary didn't have sex then she was a virgin. If you say she wasn't a virgin after the conception of Jesus then you are saying the Holy Spirit literally had sex with Mary... and that is strange.

I expounded upon this earlier and I will so again to clear up any confusion that might have been garnered by my ambiguous use of the word "virgin"

Mary was a virgin until she had sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph which we know was some time after Jesus was born. Doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary are wholly unjustified and of course unbiblical.

My use of the word virgin in its initial context in a post to ChristianT was to denote a woman who was "not pregnant". Therefore, there is no logical impossibility inherent in the proposition: "The virgin Mary was pregnant", for in this context, virgin is used in its usual understanding to mean "a woman who has not known a man".

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Paradoxum]

I expounded upon this earlier and I will so again to clear up any confusion that might have been garnered by my ambiguous use of the word "virgin"

Mary was a virgin until she had sexual intercourse with her husband Joseph which we know was some time after Jesus was born. Doctrines like the perpetual virginity of Mary are wholly unjustified and of course unbiblical.

My use of the word virgin in its initial context in a post to ChristianT was to denote a woman who was "not pregnant". Therefore, there is no logical impossibility inherent in the proposition: "The virgin Mary was pregnant", for in this context, virgin is used in its usual understanding to mean "a woman who has not known a man".

Sorry for the confusion.

That makes sense.

 

[juvenissun]

I tend to agree with dysert. However, I would suppose that omnipotence implies the ability to effect whatever it is that one wills. If so, is it possible for such a being to be in a state of "not willing" anything?

Yes, with a purpose. Giving free will is a method to achieve a purpose.

 

[Belk]

Can omnipotence coexist with free will?

I can see no reason why not. Did you mean to use omnipotence or were you thinking omniscience?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can see no reason why not. Did you mean to use omnipotence or were you thinking omniscience?

You got it But it yielded an interesting conversation so I didn't change it.

 

[dysert]

You got it But it yielded an interesting conversation so I didn't change it.

Well, my answer stays the same in either case. I see no mutual exclusion with omniscience and free will.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You got it But it yielded an interesting conversation so I didn't change it.

It still works with omniscience, because there's no reason to assume that there is a defined future to know that people would be tied to (which is presumably where you intended on going with this).