The bible

[Albion]

Meh, it depends. If you consider the bible just the words of ancient humans, then yes, you are right, no accountability really there. But, if it really were the ideas of an all knowing being, it would have known before hand the consequences of certain verses, and would have chosen not to alter them to prevent harm.

How interesting it is that you know all about how the Creator works. Even we theists do not presume to know everything about God's nature, doings, and plans.

 

[Lollerskates]

Do anyone honestly have the authority to hold accountable a god, let alone a Perfect God - king of gods - accountable for anything? Especially, for humans fudging a perfect God's words (imperfect humans nonetheless)?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Meh, it depends. If you consider the bible just the words of ancient humans, then yes, you are right, no accountability really there. But, if it really were the ideas of an all knowing being, it would have known before hand the consequences of certain verses, and would have chosen not to alter them to prevent harm. If one considers the bible the direct writings of god, then as a being of such great power and knowledge god would be accountable.

Chapter and verse were added as a study aid. Sadly they often alter the context and thus wrong meanings and conclusions can be reached. Not good.

The greatest mistake even many Christians make is that we can reconstruct Eden. The fall began a war that is still raging. The whole human experience is a reenactment of the 'war in heaven' that led to the casting down of Satan and the demons.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How interesting it is that you know all about how the Creator works. Even we theists do not presume to know everything about God's nature, doings, and plans.

So to you, god is not all knowing and all powerful then?

 

[Albion]

So to you, god is not all knowing and all powerful then?

On the contrary, it was your statement below that caught my eye.

"But, if it really were the ideas of an all knowing being, it would have known before hand the consequences of certain verses, and would have chosen not to alter them to prevent harm."

 

[PsychoSarah]

On the contrary, it was your statement below that caught my eye.

"But, if it really were the ideas of an all knowing being, it would have known before hand the consequences of certain verses, and would have chosen not to alter them to prevent harm."

Yes, an all knowing, all powerful being has no excuse for allowing suffering. Such an entity would have no need for such a thing, ever. Thus, if it allows suffering anyways, despite being perfectly capable of making the world acceptable in its own eyes without suffering existing (if it can't, then it isn't all powerful), this doesn't bode well for attempting to press the idea this entity loves anything.

 

[St_Worm2]

Yes, an all knowing, all powerful being has no excuse for allowing suffering.

Hi PS, God didn't intend for us to suffer or die when He created us. Rather, He made man upright, intending that we would live in harmony with Him and with each other forever. But for some reason, He also decided to give us the ability to choose between doing right and wrong, good and evil. Unfortunately, bad choices have consequences, and those consequences always result in suffering.

For God to stop all suffering would mean He would also have to put an end to free will (which would turn us into nothing more than puppets doing our Master's bidding). I believe He gave us free will so that we could choose to love Him and love each other .. or not (something that puppets, by nature, can never do).

Yours and His,
David

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi PS, God didn't intend for us to suffer or die when He created us. Rather, He made man upright, intending that we would live in harmony with Him and with each other forever. But for some reason, He also decided to give us the ability to choose between doing right and wrong, good and evil. Unfortunately, bad choices have consequences, and those consequences always result in suffering.

For God to stop all suffering would mean He would also have to put an end to free will (which would turn us into nothing more than puppets doing our Master's bidding). I believe He gave us free will so that we could choose to love Him and love each other .. or not (something that puppets, by nature, can never do).

Yours and His,
David

No it wouldn't, an omnipotent being could make it so both free will and no suffering could happen. Such a being has no limits, suffering is not necessary for free will to exist, even in making suffering an option, an omnipotent being can still make it effectively never happen and retain the free will of its creations.

 

[Albion]

Yes, an all knowing, all powerful being has no excuse for allowing suffering.

It's that sort of comment that caused me to marvel at the presumption that you or I or anyone else could know for a certainty what God has to do and what he cannot do.

Such an entity would have no need for such a thing, ever. Thus, if it allows suffering anyways, despite being perfectly capable of making the world acceptable in its own eyes without suffering existing (if it can't, then it isn't all powerful), this doesn't bode well for attempting to press the idea this entity loves anything.

It's always a questionable policy to think that God marches in step with our band. What seems logical to our minds, is not necessarily the answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's that sort of comment that caused me to marvel at the presumption that you or I or anyone else could know for a certainty what God has to do and what he cannot do.


It's always a questionable policy to think that God marches in step with our band. What seems logical to our minds, is not necessarily the answer.

God doesn't have to do anything, that is sort of the big point of omnipotence. The fact remains of what it COULD do and yet chose not to.

 

[St_Worm2]

No it wouldn't, an omnipotent being could make it so both free will and no suffering could happen. Such a being has no limits, suffering is not necessary for free will to exist, even in making suffering an option, an omnipotent being can still make it effectively never happen and retain the free will of its creations.

Hi Sarah, that's not actually true, at least that's not how Christianity defines "omnipotence" anyway. God does have limits. He cannot lie. He cannot temp. He cannot sin. He cannot go against His nature or His Word. He cannot die. And He cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it, or create a two-sided triangle ..

He is omnipotent in the sense that He has the power to do anything that is possible to do, but He cannot do that which is utterly impossible. No amount of power can make a triangle into something that is two-sided because it simply ceases to be a triangle. And the same can be said of free will.

Or am I missing something here .. Can God really cause A to be both A and Non-A at the same time and in the same relationship? If so, how ..

Thanks!

--David

 

[Albion]

God doesn't have to do anything, that is sort of the big point of omnipotence. The fact remains of what it COULD do and yet chose not to.

Sure, but you talk as though you know for sure what that is and isn't...which isn't possible or even reasonable to assume.

 

[Chany]

Hi Sarah, that's not actually true, at least that's not how Christianity defines "omnipotence" anyway. God does have limits. He cannot lie. He cannot temp. He cannot sin. He cannot go against His nature or His Word. He cannot die. And He cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it, or create a two-sided triangle ..

He is omnipotent in the sense that He has the power to do anything that is possible to do, but He cannot do that which is utterly impossible. No amount of power can make a triangle into something that is two-sided because it simply ceases to be a triangle. And the same can be said of free will.

Or am I missing something here .. Can God really cause A to be both A and Non-A at the same time and in the same relationship? If so, how ..

Thanks!

--David

Have you've looked into quantum mechanics?

Also, isn't Jesus full god and full man?

Likewise, is God beholden to the laws of logic?

 

[St_Worm2]

Have you've looked into quantum mechanics?

Also, isn't Jesus full god and full man?

Likewise, is God beholden to the laws of logic?

Hi Chany, I can only tell you what Christians mean when we use the word, "omnipotent" or "almighty". It means that God can do anything that is "possible" to do. It does not and cannot include God doing the "impossible". Christ being fully God and fully man at the same time is a "mystery" that we cannot fully grasp this side of Glory, but it is not impossible in the sense that a two-sided triangle would be.

Yours and His,
David

 

[PsychoSarah]

You guys don't get to change the definition of a word just so you can keep applying it to god. If there is anything at all god cannot do, then it isn't omnipotent end of discussion.

But in any case, god never asked us if we would be ok with risking suffering in return for free will. I personally have no issue with a deity interfering with the wills of rapists and murderers to prevent suffering.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You guys don't get to change the definition of a word just so you can keep applying it to god. If there is anything at all god cannot do, then it isn't omnipotent end of discussion.

But in any case, god never asked us if we would be ok with risking suffering in return for free will. I personally have no issue with a deity interfering with the wills of rapists and murderers to prevent suffering.

God has led us to water. It's up to us whether we drink or not.

 

[St_Worm2]

You guys don't get to change the definition of a word just so you can keep applying it to god.

om·nip·o·tent [om-nip-uh-tuhnt]
adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.​

Hi Sarah, I'm sorry, but you guys don't get to change the definition of a word to accomplish your purposes here either .. Above is Merriam-Webster's definition of "omnipotent". Omnipotent is a word that addresses the amount of power (or authority) that God has at His disposal, and by this definition we know that His power is infinite. Omnipotent means, "All Powerful", and that means that anything that can be accomplished by unlimited power can be accomplished by God.

But no amount of "power" in the universe can make a square circle or a 2-sided triangle. God can do anything that is possible to do, but He cannot do that which is impossible (which for one, includes doing things that are self-contradictory). He cannot make A to be both A and Non-A at the same time and in the same relationship anymore than He can make our wills both "free" AND "not free" at the same time. That is irrational.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Albion]

You guys don't get to change the definition of a word just so you can keep applying it to god. If there is anything at all god cannot do, then it isn't omnipotent end of discussion.

That's ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that something that does not exist and cannot exist because to speak of it is only a trick with words--for example, "make a square circle"-- renders God less than omnipotent?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that something that does not exist and cannot exist because to speak of it is only a trick with words--for example, "make a square circle"-- renders God less than omnipotent?

I am stating that a being cannot be considered omnipotent if there is even a single thing it can't do, because that would not be infinite power but limited power, and would not be applicable given what omnipotence is. You can certainly have god be very powerful, to near omnipotence, but calling it omnipotent is not a legitimate use of the word unless god literally can do anything.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are times when I think that everyone should watch the movie "Dogma" by Kevin Smith. To me, there's a lot of truth in that film.

It is a semantics issue for me, not a religious one, when people claim god is omnipotent and yet are willing to contend there are things it cannot do.