Is Anything *Impossible* for God?

[depthdeception]

I think that God can't do that which is logically contradictory (i.e. He cannot make somebody exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense). He can do anything that is impossible due to lack of knowledge or power, but He can't do things that are impossible by definition.

What does "impossible by definition" mean? Who is it that's determining the definition? God does lots of things that are logically contradictory, like, say, the Incarnation. It makes absolutely no "sense" at all. But Christian faith affirms that it indeed did happen.

 

[depthdeception]

well i would like to see him stop my computer getting stuck on the "saving your settings" screen every time i reboot.

Now that is something that is definitely impossible, even for God!! I think, however, this could be fixed by reinstalling your config.sys file.

 

[Fellowship]

I've heard the of this "god and rock" paradox so many times. You know, though it may be fun, there are more pressing questions.

How is it a paradox? Was Jesus not fully human and fully God; yet, he could hardly carry his cross.

Hmmmm,.... really.....

Nothing is impossible? Then is it a "possibility" that God may be lieing?

Now you could say that scripture stands against this, which is true, but the thing remains that the scriptures were made by God, and if it was within his plan to fool us mortals he could and would very well do just that. And beyound the question of weather or not it is a possiblity, the more pressing one would be how can we tell?There really is no way of knowing weather it really is a a lie or not. That is the problem with non-falseble things.

That is why there is a little thing called faith and trust. I'm not sure whether your questioning free will here or not, but God inspired the Bible he didn't write it. Regardless though, you're right there is no way for us to tell the true validity of the Bible. In the end it's up to you.

On a similair line, is it not also "possible" that God command me to do something I find morally reprehensible e.g. genocide? Would I be justified in refusing?

If you look at what's in the Bible, God argueably ordered the Israelites to genocide the Cananites upon entering the promised land. Joseph would not have been justified if he disobeyed God's direct orders. Jesus' name is actually a mistranslation of the name "Joseph" and he too will lead his followers into battle. It is your choice to refuse, Jesus and God, but in doing so you would not be on the side of the followers in this battle.

After many years of pondering these same ponits I've observed that ideas people have of God, and what he or she may actually be, to be quite differnt indeed.

Maybe He is, maybe He's not. In the end through all the questions we have about God it ultimately comes down to one question. Do we trust him? Either we do or we don't. That's not to say that Christians don't question, but it's that we trust that's important regardless of how much we may know or not know about God's nature.

 

[Outrider]

You are presuming a certain understanding of the nature of God.

O.K.?

However, I am asking a philosophical question that cannot be dismissed so easily.

I won't go far into this because it qualifies as "vain jangling", but will offer just this one redirect. The moment you attempt to subject God to pure philosophical speculation, you have stepped into futility. Even if the question was true to the integrity of a true query (and it is not) there is no answer for it in philosophy. Philosophy proceeds from man's interpretations on what he has received through his senses alone and no man has subjected God to his senses. What the question does is to lay up a corallary in which God is put under the microscope of human thought. Try studying a blue whale under a microscope and you get a picture of what you are attempting to do. The question admits the posibility of God being vast in nature and strength, beyond man. Why then does man seek to put God under his infinitesimal lense. The question itself is a contradiction, not God. It is, therefore, an invalid question which seeks an answer for something within a different category than that to which the subject belongs... otherwise known as an equivocation of idea.

Dodging the question on the basis of "ridiculousness"--while being a popular out for many who do not wish to provide a coherent explication of the nature of God--does not help move anyone towards understanding.

I'm interested in seeing how an answer to a contradiction is going to do any better. The true "dodge" isw the above post which is ad hominem in nature, attempting to invalidate the statement by second guessing the motive "to the man". If Philosophy is your interest, you'll do best to stay away from fallacious reasoning.

Okay, but I'm not asking what the bible says.

Then you will never find an answer to anything regarding the nature of God. The knowledge of God can ONLY be revealed by God. That is what the Bible is here for.

 

[AngCath]

The self-existing one is not subject to such limitations.

 

[billwald]

God can't "save" anyone who doesn't "invite" Jesus into their heart. So say some <G>

 

[immortalavefenix]

Philosophy proceeds from man's interpretations on what he has received through his senses

??

Eh. No. Math comes from the physical world??

 

[Natman]

God cannot be "holy" and "un-holy" at the same time, and, yes, God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot move it. Otherwise, He would not be omnipotent.

Son-cerly,
Nathan Powers

 

[Fellowship]

I'm interested in seeing how an answer to a contradiction is going to do any better. The true "dodge" isw the above post which is ad hominem in nature, attempting to invalidate the statement by second guessing the motive "to the man". If Philosophy is your interest, you'll do best to stay away from fallacious reasoning.

If you've noticed I've answered this question more than once in this thread, with there being no contradiction, or paradox. I've also addressed this topic of God being limited using scripture to back, up my arguement against it.

It's interesting that one side of this arguement is ignoring pure logic, and reasoning backed with scripture to make uncalled for attacks on the starter of the OP.

If your going to question anyone, maybe you should question me.

I unlike the OP starter, I have stated that I have a problem seeing Christ lift but so huge of a rock when he could hardly carry his cross. I've also pointed out that the Lord our God allowed Satan in his presense in the book of Job, Jesus was tempted to sin in the dessert, there was a burning bush that wouldn't burn, God swears on his own name, Jesus being fully God died, God commanded Joseph to genocide the Cananites, the Red Sea separated and parted for Moses, Jesus walked on water, a donkey in the OT talks, and yet some act surprised, and skeptical that God is not bound to possibilities. People even want to argue scripture that plainly says that through God all things are possible.

 

[depthdeception]

O.K.?

I won't go far into this because it qualifies as "vain jangling", but will offer just this one redirect. The moment you attempt to subject God to pure philosophical speculation, you have stepped into futility. Even if the question was true to the integrity of a true query (and it is not) there is no answer for it in philosophy. Philosophy proceeds from man's interpretations on what he has received through his senses alone and no man has subjected God to his senses. What the question does is to lay up a corallary in which God is put under the microscope of human thought. Try studying a blue whale under a microscope and you get a picture of what you are attempting to do. The question admits the posibility of God being vast in nature and strength, beyond man. Why then does man seek to put God under his infinitesimal lense. The question itself is a contradiction, not God. It is, therefore, an invalid question which seeks an answer for something within a different category than that to which the subject belongs... otherwise known as an equivocation of idea.

How does one determine the "categories" to which God does and does not belong. Any category within which we describe the infinite is going to be obviously lacking and limited. However, the approach which you are suggesting mitigates against any possibility of exploring God in philosophy--or theology--for it is quite impossible to determine objectively the proper categories to which God belongs and doesn't belong, and will invariably be determined by one's own subjective prejudices.

Then you will never find an answer to anything regarding the nature of God. The knowledge of God can ONLY be revealed by God. That is what the Bible is here for.

No, Christ is the revelation of God, not the Bible.

 

[immortalavefenix]

impossible to determine objectively

Which is the problem with most Christain thinking, the source of many of its inconsistancies. For most Christain God is a "subjective" issuse, not an "objective" one.

No, Christ is the revelation of God, not the Bible.

I wish more people could understand this.

 

[jasperbound]

I didn't realize that some people believe that God can sin.

Christ is the revelation of God, not the Bible.

And where do we learn of Christ, if not the Bible?

 

[immortalavefenix]

And where do we learn of Christ, if not the Bible?

Well you just have to put things in prespective.
You have to consider the following.


a. History
b. The bible is a fine, execllenct source for information about Jesus.
b.1 It is a source. Not perfect, and requires extentsive research and interpatation.
b.2 Due to the difficulty in interpating, some of the more extravagant claims should not be taken at face value.
b.3 The culutral, lingistic, and poetic influcines of its time most be taken into consideration when analyzeing the bible.

Therefore;

God may be perfect, but "his book" is FAR from it, but that is squarely the fault of God not man. If he wanted to be clear about things, God should have set about transcribing IN HIS OWN WORDS exactly what he wanted to say.

In my opinioun his depandance and reliance on human interperters has been a mayor flaw.

 

[jasperbound]

Well you just have to put things in prespective.
You have to consider the following.


a. History
b. The bible is a fine, execllenct source for information about Jesus.
b.1 It is a source. Not perfect, and requires extentsive research and interpatation.
b.2 Due to the difficulty in interpating, some of the more extravagant claims should not be taken at face value.
b.3 The culutral, lingistic, and poetic influcines of its time most be taken into consideration when analyzeing the bible.

Therefore;

God may be perfect, but "his book" is FAR from it, but that is squarely the fault of God not man. If he wanted to be clear about things, God should have set about transcribing IN HIS OWN WORDS exactly what he wanted to say.

In my opinioun his depandance and reliance on human interperters has been a mayor flaw.

I would say that the book not being easily understood without a proper education in it doesn't make the book less perfect. It just shows people to be lazy and self-centered, because they want things to be made quickly and to be made specifically for them. Besides, the first century Christians understood the Bible, and I'm sure they wouldn't have as easily if it were written for the 21st century westerners who, unlike the 1st century Christians, have the time and the resources to learn about the other culture.

Besides, if not the Bible, then where else do we learn about Christ?

 

[immortalavefenix]

?

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say.

I would say that the book not being easily understood without a proper education in it doesn't make the book less perfect

Even if we assume the book to be prefect, if you do not have the required capacity to understand the complex matters of lingistics, grammar, culture, history, literature, art, and context you will not be able to arrive at a clear understanding of just what the book is saying. Granted it [its complexity] dosnt make it less "prefect", but it sure makes the many and varied interpatations of the text far from prefect eg. Differnt people with differnt backgrounds will come to varying conclusions about the text. Therefore when reading biblical text, espeacially when one is not a professional teologian, one must take great care to not jump to conclusions, and give carefull thought to the conclusions one arrives at, and with whatever capacity one has try to arrvie at conclucions that seem right to one, always understanding that there may just be a better why of looking at the material.

It just shows people to be lazy and self-centered

I am niether lazy or self centered.

made quickly and to be made specifically for them

I would expect nothing else from an all powerful God. And let us be clear about this point, it is IN GODS intrest, not ours, that his message gets out clearly. HE is the responsible party regarding propoganda. Imagine a presidantial candidate complaing because people wont walk to HIS office in order to gain information about his run for office. I really see no reason God insiste in communicating with mortals in the most inefficant, complex, and ultimatley unrealible method avalible other than that he so chooses.

first century Christians understood the Bible

They very well may have. The problem lies not in weather or not they understood it, the problem is that their understanding is very differnt from my, and just because I am not a "first century christain" is no grounds to invalidate my point of view. ( nor is the fact that I am not a teologian grounds to void my conclusions )

have the time and the resources to learn about the other culture

They did? What leads you to that conclusion?

Besides, if not the Bible, then where else do we learn about Christ?

Again, the Bible is the best source material for information regarding the life and meaning of christ. Unfortunately as a source, IT IS NOT THE BEST OF SOURCES, for many reasons, most important of which is that IT IS NOT A FRIST HAND ACCOUNT by ANY strech of the imagination, separated not only by being a 2nd and 3rd person account, it is also sepearted by DECADES from the actual events. So one must use discretion as with ANYOTHER source.

Again. Objective. Not Subjective. I hope I have made myself understood.

 

[depthdeception]

I didn't realize that some people believe that God can sin.

Who said that God can sin?

And where do we learn of Christ, if not the Bible?

The Bible, the Church, creation, etc. etc..

 

[jasperbound]

Even if we assume the book to be prefect, if you do not have the required capacity to understand the complex matters of lingistics, grammar, culture, history, literature, art, and context you will not be able to arrive at a clear understanding of just what the book is saying.

Yes, if you want to understand the details, then you'll need to know all that, but to understand the main idea and what's necessary for salvation does not have as high of a learning curve.

Differnt people with differnt backgrounds will come to varying conclusions about the text. Therefore when reading biblical text, espeacially when one is not a professional teologian, one must take great care to not jump to conclusions, and give carefull thought to the conclusions one arrives at, and with whatever capacity one has try to arrvie at conclucions that seem right to one, always understanding that there may just be a better why of looking at the material.

I agree, and it's people jumping to conclusions and refusing to accept that their mindset might be wrong that leads them to such radical interpretations. That said, the main idea can still be understood (and is understood) by most people.

I would expect nothing else from an all powerful God. And let us be clear about this point, it is IN GODS intrest, not ours, that his message gets out clearly. HE is the responsible party regarding propoganda. Imagine a presidantial candidate complaing because people wont walk to HIS office in order to gain information about his run for office. I really see no reason God insiste in communicating with mortals in the most inefficant, complex, and ultimatley unrealible method avalible other than that he so chooses.

Yes, you are self-centered if you think that God has to cater to you and do your homework. The message is clear, and considering that we do have the Bible as well as an adequate understanding of what's necessary to grasp the main message, I do not see why you think the method He chose was so unreliable.
Perhaps God should have had imprinted the Bible in everybody's brain so that we wouldn't even need to bother with paper!

They very well may have. The problem lies not in weather or not they understood it, the problem is that their understanding is very differnt from my, and just because I am not a "first century christain" is no grounds to invalidate my point of view. ( nor is the fact that I am not a teologian grounds to void my conclusions )

It isn't, but if you're expecting to understand the intricate details of the Bible without any effort on your part, then that voids your conclusions.

They did? What leads you to that conclusion?

They didn't, because the 21st century didn't happen yet, and they were being persecuted, so they, unlike you, didn't have time to learn about ancient cultures.

Again, the Bible is the best source material for information regarding the life and meaning of christ. Unfortunately as a source, IT IS NOT THE BEST OF SOURCES, for many reasons, most important of which is that IT IS NOT A FRIST HAND ACCOUNT by ANY strech of the imagination, separated not only by being a 2nd and 3rd person account, it is also sepearted by DECADES from the actual events. So one must use discretion as with ANYOTHER source.

*cough* Peter *cough*

 

[jasperbound]

Who said that God can sin?

If nothing is impossible for God, then that means that God can sin, because if God can't sin, then something is impossible for Him.

The Bible, the Church, creation, etc. etc..

Well, the Church runs on the Bible, and I do wonder how one would read a plant to understand the nature of God, except one might find that God is logical, and therefore, cannot do the logically impossible.

 

[immortalavefenix]

but to understand the main idea and what's necessary for salvation does not have as high of a learning curve.

That sounds eeerily familiar to a communist coming over to me and saying,... hey you dont need to know alot about politics to get communisim, its a great system and you just need to understand its general outlines. Ah. Right. I dont think so.

Question that deal with eternity are question that should not be taken lightly.

Does one need to suffer a harsh learning curve? Well you dont need to, but before I commit my soul for all of time I'd think I'd like to be prepared. If a realtionship with god is anything similair to marriage, I prefer to take my goodtime making sure I know what Im getting into to.

I agree, and it's people jumping to conclusions and refusing to accept that their mindset might be wrong that leads them to such radical interpretations. That said, the main idea can still be understood (and is understood) by most people.

That is why humility is important when dealing with biblical terms.

Yes, you are self-centered if you think that God has to cater to you and do your homework.

heh? Ah, God is the creator. I did not choose to be born in India in 1487, or in Mexico in 402AD, or born to to Muslim parents in 1982. Niether was I responsible for not being able to read Hebrew, or having the liberty to dedicate myself to teology. It is not my fault that the "word" of god has passed more hands then, well, more then anything really should. And most of al it is not my fault I cannot just ask God.

Is not my God my friend? Why should I have to read something he wrote long ago, instead of simply asking him. What is so hard for God to just answer me directly? If I had a friend that REFUSED to answer my direct quetions, well he wouldnt be a friend for very long.

No God does not have to cater to my needs. But he also shouldnt abandone me to my own powers.

without any effort on your part

I have expended a great deal of effort trying to understand the bible. I begin to get the inpression you take my studies of the bible for granted. Just because my conclusions are differnt than yours are not grounds for underestimating my understanding of scripture.

 

[jasperbound]

That sounds eeerily familiar to a communist coming over to me and saying,... hey you dont need to know alot about politics to get communisim, its a great system and you just need to understand its general outlines. Ah. Right. I dont think so.

So, what you're saying is that people need to understand the nuances and culture of ancient Israel to be saved? As for how it sounds eerily familiar to a communist, I don't know. One can replace communism with anything, and the analogy would sound just as bad.

Question that deal with eternity are question that should not be taken lightly.

Indeed, but not everything deals with eternity. Do you honestly think God will tell somebody, "You did not adhere to TULIP, so you are going to hell!"

Does one need to suffer a harsh learning curve? Well you dont need to, but before I commit my soul for all of time I'd think I'd like to be prepared. If a realtionship with god is anything similair to marriage, I prefer to take my goodtime making sure I know what Im getting into to.

I did too. That said, I'm not going to fault God for not laying it out completely at my feet, nor will I expect to understand every single detail of the Bible before I commit to Him. I wonder if husbands ever truly know their wives inside and out.

That is why humility is important when dealing with biblical terms.

And that's why people shouldn't fault the Bible because of their own ignorance.

heh? Ah, God is the creator. I did not choose to be born in India in 1487, or in Mexico in 402AD, or born to to Muslim parents in 1982. Niether was I responsible for not being able to read Hebrew, or having the liberty to dedicate myself to teology. It is not my fault that the "word" of god has passed more hands then, well, more then anything really should. And most of al it is not my fault I cannot just ask God.

Yes, you are responsible for not learning Hebrew and dedicating yourself to theology, because what is stopping you from doing such? Besides, you don't need to learn Hebrew to understand the main idea of the Bible, as it has been faithfully preserved (besides, it's the culture and the language that's changed), but if you want to know the intricate details, then stop being lazy and expect to spend at least a few hours learning the necessities. What's next?

"It's unfair that I don't know calculus!"

"Take a calculus class."

"That is unfair! I should know it naturally!"

Is not my God my friend? Why should I have to read something he wrote long ago, instead of simply asking him. What is so hard for God to just answer me directly? If I had a friend that REFUSED to answer my direct quetions, well he wouldnt be a friend for very long.

If you see God just as a friend (which implies some equality in the relationship), then I understand why you'd expect him to cater to you. But God isn't your equal, and He is not obligated to answer selfish desires immediately so that you do not need to exert any effort.

No God does not have to cater to my needs. But he also shouldnt abandone me to my own powers.

I actually think it'd be easier to grow up and be responsible with your own life than to want God to take away your free will. If you feel that you cannot understand the main idea of the Bible as you are, then nothing's stopping you from learning Hebrew and dedicating your life to theology.

I have expended a great deal of effort trying to understand the bible. I begin to get the inpression you take my studies of the bible for granted. Just because my conclusions are differnt than yours are not grounds for underestimating my understanding of scripture.

It's not that your conclusions are different that bothers me. It's that they're selfish, childish, and lazy.