'There isn't a space God is not'

[tulipbee]

I don't know about Southern Baptist theologies. I am sure they include Penal Substitution Atonement and everlasting torment for unbelievers. I know that those are false doctrines according to scripture.

I'll have to reread your reply but are you saying theres no "everlasting torment for unbelievers"?

 

[elopez]

Thank God I'm not a fundie

Nor am I.

 

[oi_antz]

I'll have to reread your reply but are you saying theres no "everlasting torment for unbelievers"?

Scriptures speak of burning chaff and weeds and purification by fire. It all describes the getting rid of, destroying, the waste byproduct. Though it is of course not impossible for Him to keep someone alive in agony, it is a mischaracterisation to suggest He intends to do that. God is good. Genesis 3:22 was exactly for that reason. Do you know any farmer who wants to torment weeds? It would definitely indicate an unholy condition. There is one scripture that speaks of everlasting torment, as those who worshiped the image of the beast. As always, I encourage reading the scriptures not with a view to reinforce one's beliefs, but with a view to learn.

 

[oi_antz]

All Powerful; able to work His will on His creation in any way.

I know all about the 'create a stone too heavy to lift' objections to that, but in effect that is in the same class as unstoppable force/immovable object paradoxes, and not valid if there is only one omnipotent power in the universe. God does not oppose Himself.

But again, I want to concentrate on omnipresence here. Of all the absolute properties attributed to God, I think I have heard it discussed less than omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence. And it seems to me to have the rather astonishing implications I have mentioned so far.

I understand that you do not want to discuss this, but I still owe you a response. It started when I expressed my objection to the following idea:

But my central point here is that if God is truly present in all times and places, and is truly omnipotent, then the universe is unfolding exactly as He wills

So there is some subtlety in the words you have used here, that gives an impression that I see as inconsistent with the truth. For example, if you change the last word "wills" to "allows" then I will agree. But because so much happens in this world that is contrary to His own desires, and we, the ones who act contrary to His desires know it, the most sensible logic will conclude that He does tolerate wills that are opposed to His own. We could discuss more why He might do that, but I will not go ahead to do it on this thread right now, as you just said you don't want a derailment. On the other hand, your definition of "omnipotent" contains the word "is able", which is non-binding. If that is the definition you used when you wrote this central point (I was not expecting that caveat BTW), then your conclusion "universe is unfolding exactly as He wills" is not a certain conclusion. I say this because your definition of omnipotent includes a caveat that He is able to withhold His power, to allow someone to have their way even against His own desire. That is more consistent with the truth as I observe it. Your definition of omnipotent is good, BTW, but probably a bit different than normal due to this.

 

[oi_antz]

Even if you try to say the Fall is the working of Satan, Satan is also a creation of God. Which would mean that God is also Satan, inescapably. If there is nowhere that God is not, all these things seem logically entrained.

This is something I have just noticed while reviewing the thread. Check out Job 1:6-7.

 

[tulipbee]

Scriptures speak of burning chaff and weeds and purification by fire. It all describes the getting rid of, destroying, the waste byproduct. Though it is of course not impossible for Him to keep someone alive in agony, it is a mischaracterisation to suggest He intends to do that. God is good. Genesis 3:22 was exactly for that reason. Do you know any farmer who wants to torment weeds? It would definitely indicate an unholy condition. There is one scripture that speaks of everlasting torment, as those who worshiped the image of the beast. As always, I encourage reading the scriptures not with a view to reinforce one's beliefs, but with a view to learn.

A billion years from now we'll look back and say we did that?

 

[oi_antz]

A billion years from now we'll look back and say we did that?

It is difficult to imagine time of that scale. It is possible, realistic and right to look on our own former understandings with as much bewilderment. Thanks for that thought!

 

[Jobar]

I come up with my own movement called Zen Christianity.

Are you familiar with the philosopher Alan Watts?

You might be amused to learn that at the Secular Cafe, I use 'Zen Hedonist' as my own user title.

So there is some subtlety in the words you have used here, that gives an impression that I see as inconsistent with the truth. For example, if you change the last word "wills" to "allows" then I will agree. But because so much happens in this world that is contrary to His own desires, and we, the ones who act contrary to His desires know it, the most sensible logic will conclude that He does tolerate wills that are opposed to His own.

I think that omnipotence must mean that what God allows he wills, and vice versa. If He did not will it, then it could not be.

Some of your other statements in this thread lead me to ask- are you a Universalist, oi? I think that perhaps Universalism may allow one to be a logically consistent Christian panentheist.

 

[oi_antz]

I think that omnipotence must mean that what God allows he wills, and vice versa. If He did not will it, then it could not be.

Do you suggest that the will is the sum of desire and sacrifice? I would rather look at it as desire, whereas to sacrifice is to forego one's will for the sake of another. For example, you can see in Luke 22:42 that the word "will" seems to be used to demonstrate that people can sometimes choose to act against God's will.

Some of your other statements in this thread lead me to ask- are you a Universalist, oi? I think that perhaps Universalism may allow one to be a logically consistent Christian panentheist.

Universalism is not a Christian doctrine. It probably results from a misunderstanding of Christianity, that produces a distasteful characterisation of God, which is resolved only by suggesting that everybody is eventually saved. Or, it could be that someone wants to keep their cake and eat it too. But to believe those ideas, one must go against what Jesus says in Matthew 25:46 and elsewhere. All the writers of the bible have viewed a dual class of wicked vs. righteous, and that a majority of people choose to live against God's will. Salvation is only given to those who are victorious over sin: Genesis 4:7, Revelation 2:7.

 

[tulipbee]

Are you familiar with the philosopher Alan Watts?

You might be amused to learn that at the Secular Cafe, I use 'Zen Hedonist' as my own user title.



I think that omnipotence must mean that what God allows he wills, and vice versa. If He did not will it, then it could not be.

Some of your other statements in this thread lead me to ask- are you a Universalist, oi? I think that perhaps Universalism may allow one to be a logically consistent Christian panentheist.

I have read some of his books. I'm more of a universe inside of a universe. My body is a universe inside our universe. Our universe runs the universe inside me. That's the meaning of God not allowing a single maverick molecule run free. My captive, slaved will is based on Gods will. I see no free will.