Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God = Omnimax entity? Biblical Support?

Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

However, 'all things' means 'all things that are possible are possible with God..' there are always silly little self-refuting conumdrums one can come up with..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:30:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

However, 'all things' means 'all things that are possible are possible with God..' there are always silly little self-refuting conumdrums one can come up with..

I'd tell you a few philosophical resolutions to the omnipotence paradoxes, but something tells me you aren't the sort to care...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:38:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:30:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

However, 'all things' means 'all things that are possible are possible with God..' there are always silly little self-refuting conumdrums one can come up with..

I'd tell you a few philosophical resolutions to the omnipotence paradoxes, but something tells me you aren't the sort to care...

There's nothing to resolve; asking silly questions about 'creating an object too heavy to lift' etc are self refuting nonsenses..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:44:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:38:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:30:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

However, 'all things' means 'all things that are possible are possible with God..' there are always silly little self-refuting conumdrums one can come up with..

I'd tell you a few philosophical resolutions to the omnipotence paradoxes, but something tells me you aren't the sort to care...

There's nothing to resolve; asking silly questions about 'creating an object too heavy to lift' etc are self refuting nonsenses..

I thought so.
Completely off topic; what church do you go to in Exeter?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:47:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:44:16 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:38:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:30:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

However, 'all things' means 'all things that are possible are possible with God..' there are always silly little self-refuting conumdrums one can come up with..

I'd tell you a few philosophical resolutions to the omnipotence paradoxes, but something tells me you aren't the sort to care...

There's nothing to resolve; asking silly questions about 'creating an object too heavy to lift' etc are self refuting nonsenses..

I thought so.
Completely off topic; what church do you go to in Exeter?

Not at all, I'm quite happy to dismantle them one by one. I've done it before..

I live in Torbay, from a Pentecostal background but the Lord has called me to go to ALL churches..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:50:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:47:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:44:16 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:38:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:30:37 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

However, 'all things' means 'all things that are possible are possible with God..' there are always silly little self-refuting conumdrums one can come up with..

I'd tell you a few philosophical resolutions to the omnipotence paradoxes, but something tells me you aren't the sort to care...

There's nothing to resolve; asking silly questions about 'creating an object too heavy to lift' etc are self refuting nonsenses..

I thought so.
Completely off topic; what church do you go to in Exeter?

Not at all, I'm quite happy to dismantle them one by one. I've done it before..

I live in Torbay, from a Pentecostal background but the Lord has called me to go to ALL churches..

Yes, they can be dismantled, but they aren't nonsense.
Ahh. I just wondered as I know a load people who go to St Lenards.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:57:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...

I'd roll with the psalms for omnibenevolent and omnipresent, and Isiah for omniscient.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 12:01:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If there IS such support, at best, when considered in historical perspective, it would support a quasi-omnimax entity... Consider that the primitive, tribal, nomadic jewish people of the time attributed almost anything unexplained or mystical to God... so while God may have seemed super powerful to them, relatively, their words have to be taken with a grain of salt.

There are also some powerful logical objections to the Western omnimax God... I don't mean the "omnipotence paradox" that really isn't a paradox - i.e. God cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, not because he lacks the power, but because if God exists, there cannot be such an object - God can't do nonsensical things.

I refer more to a problem with Omnibenevolence - it is impossible to convincingly show that the Biblical God is omnibenevolent simply because of the atrocities and social injustices he visits upon people throughout the old testament.

Second, there is a problem with omniscience - it cannot refer to "knows future events for certain" or else it is impossible to truly have free will...
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 12:01:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If there IS such support, at best, when considered in historical perspective, it would support a quasi-omnimax entity... Consider that the primitive, tribal, nomadic jewish people of the time attributed almost anything unexplained or mystical to God... so while God may have seemed super powerful to them, relatively, their words have to be taken with a grain of salt.

There are also some powerful logical objections to the Western omnimax God... I don't mean the "omnipotence paradox" that really isn't a paradox - i.e. God cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, not because he lacks the power, but because if God exists, there cannot be such an object - God can't do nonsensical things.

I refer more to a problem with Omnibenevolence - it is impossible to convincingly show that the Biblical God is omnibenevolent simply because of the atrocities and social injustices he visits upon people throughout the old testament.

Second, there is a problem with omniscience - it cannot refer to "knows future events for certain" or else it is impossible to truly have free will...

As for omnibenevolence- Good (in Christian theism) is objectively determined as a reflection of Gods nature, not how man feels what is right. God is perfectly good in what He does and cannot do otherwise. Looking upon atricities outside of the whole context of the Bible will and easily does raise the question is God omnibenevolent? Instead of omnibenevolent I perfer to use 'perfectly good' to describe what the former attempts to. When taking into context that man is sinful and God is holy and just and the sinfulness of sin acts like the flood, Onan, etc. the atrocities actually seem more like justice. This link logically refutes what I think you are trying to say: http://carm.org...

As for omniscience and free will- if you did not so quickly dismiss compatible determinism by saying "that's an idiotic position." and perhaps endeavored to actually support your statement perhaps we could discuss how omniscience and free can and does make sense.

As for omnipotence: http://carm.org...

No one ever raises questions about omnipresence lolz... Which is actually ironic.

Also, in places of scripture where it is read differently they are ascribed to be anthropomorphisms. link: http://carm.org...

enjoy :-)
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 6:06:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 5:17:29 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/16/2011 12:01:49 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If there IS such support, at best, when considered in historical perspective, it would support a quasi-omnimax entity... Consider that the primitive, tribal, nomadic jewish people of the time attributed almost anything unexplained or mystical to God... so while God may have seemed super powerful to them, relatively, their words have to be taken with a grain of salt.

There are also some powerful logical objections to the Western omnimax God... I don't mean the "omnipotence paradox" that really isn't a paradox - i.e. God cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, not because he lacks the power, but because if God exists, there cannot be such an object - God can't do nonsensical things.

I refer more to a problem with Omnibenevolence - it is impossible to convincingly show that the Biblical God is omnibenevolent simply because of the atrocities and social injustices he visits upon people throughout the old testament.

Second, there is a problem with omniscience - it cannot refer to "knows future events for certain" or else it is impossible to truly have free will...

As for omnibenevolence- Good (in Christian theism) is objectively determined as a reflection of Gods nature, not how man feels what is right. God is perfectly good in what He does and cannot do otherwise. Looking upon atricities outside of the whole context of the Bible will and easily does raise the question is God omnibenevolent? Instead of omnibenevolent I perfer to use 'perfectly good' to describe what the former attempts to.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be claiming that, correctly viewed in the context of the Bible, all of God's actions are "perfectly good," whether this term comports with "omnipotent" or not??

How, then, do you get around the fact that God orders people to do, or does himself, deeds that are patently evil? It would seem that even in the context of the Bible, God falls far short of "perfectly good."

A simple test for this would be to consider a situation as described in the Bible and perform the thought experiment: "Could a perfectly good god have handled the situation in a better way?" It further seems to me that there are very few instances where the god of the Bible DID in fact handle a situation as a perfectly good being would have.

When taking into context that man is sinful and God is holy and just and the sinfulness of sin acts like the flood, Onan, etc. the atrocities actually seem more like justice. This link logically refutes what I think you are trying to say: http://carm.org...

I'm confused what kind of justice visits the sins of the father upon the children, destroys the earth in a flood (including the, at least relatively, sinless babies), orders slavery, and condones rape? This is a strange definition of "justice" indeed...

As for omniscience and free will- if you did not so quickly dismiss compatible determinism by saying "that's an idiotic position." and perhaps endeavored to actually support your statement perhaps we could discuss how omniscience and free can and does make sense.

The only viable compatibalist position is agency free will - where all that is required for "free will" is that the actor *believe* he is making a free choice, regardless of whether or not he actually is. And this is not generally how people conceive of free will.

As for omnipotence: http://carm.org...

Omnipotence paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes... I didn't read that link, mostly because I think we are in agreement on this point.

Though for an omnipotent being, God seems to refrain from exercising his omnipotence to stop events such as, say, earthquakes and reactor meltdowns. Not that I'm blaming him for those events... unlike a certain girl on YouTube =P

No one ever raises questions about omnipresence lolz... Which is actually ironic.

Not really... I think at this point in history, everyone realizes the idea is so completely ridiculous they just kind of leave it alone.

Also, in places of scripture where it is read differently they are ascribed to be anthropomorphisms. link: http://carm.org...

enjoy :-)

Where what, exactly, is read differently? Descriptions of God? If so, that would seem to support the notion that humans made God in their image, eh?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 6:14:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Omnibenevolence proves very difficult for theologians to explain. Either god chooses what is right or wrong based on qualities of that action(which makes god unnecessary) or an action is good or bad only because god decided it was. Most Christians will go with option B but add that god's omnibenevolence only allows him to do good and choose good things. This brings up two problems. A-It takes away god's omnipotence and B-What is god's omnibenevolence based on? Now you have the same argument but instead of what makes things moral, one asks what decided what is omnibenevolence?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As for omnibenevolence- Good (in Christian theism) is objectively determined as a reflection of Gods nature, not how man feels what is right. God is perfectly good in what He does and cannot do otherwise. Looking upon atricities outside of the whole context of the Bible will and easily does raise the question is God omnibenevolent? Instead of omnibenevolent I perfer to use 'perfectly good' to describe what the former attempts to.

I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to be claiming that, correctly viewed in the context of the Bible, all of God's actions are "perfectly good," whether this term comports with "omnipotent" or not??

Gods omnipotence follows His omnibenevolence (His nature). If you decide to read the link it is evident that God is not ominbenevolent as to that He can do things against His nature. There a things in scripture that says God cannot do, God cannot sin would be one.
How, then, do you get around the fact that God orders people to do, or does himself, deeds that are patently evil? It would seem that even in the context of the Bible, God falls far short of "perfectly good."

A simple test for this would be to consider a situation as described in the Bible and perform the thought experiment: "Could a perfectly good god have handled the situation in a better way?" It further seems to me that there are very few instances where the god of the Bible DID in fact handle a situation as a perfectly good being would have.

When taking into context that man is sinful and God is holy and just and the sinfulness of sin acts like the flood, Onan, etc. the atrocities actually seem more like justice. This link logically refutes what I think you are trying to say: http://carm.org...

I'm confused what kind of justice visits the sins of the father upon the children, destroys the earth in a flood (including the, at least relatively, sinless babies), orders slavery, and condones rape? This is a strange definition of "justice" indeed...

"visits the sins of the father upon the children"- aka Federal Headship. If you actually want to understand how that works look at these links:

http://carm.org...
http://carm.org...

destroying the earth with a flood- God did this with a purpose that is clear when reading the story.

Babies are not sinless. There is debate on whether there is a moment of maturity that is called the ‘age of accountability' in which once the child reaches a certain understanding the child will be held accountable on judgment day for he/shes actions. However, I am not well versed on the doctrines. I feel this link should suffice: http://carm.org...

Orders slavery- God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system. Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God. Nevertheless, God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.
I feel that is sufficient. To read more: http://carm.org...
http://carm.org...

As for God condoning rape- its been my experience that the best way to address this is simply by reviewing the text(s) in question. Saying that God condones rape does not prove anything. If you wish to, offer some verses :-)

As for omniscience and free will- if you did not so quickly dismiss compatible determinism by saying "that's an idiotic position." and perhaps endeavored to actually support your statement perhaps we could discuss how omniscience and free can and does make sense.

The only viable compatibalist position is agency free will - where all that is required for "free will" is that the actor *believe* he is making a free choice, regardless of whether or not he actually is. And this is not generally how people conceive of free will.

Most people who talk about Free Will do not know theology very well. Most, not all (that has been my experience). My position on Free Will can be read here: http://www.debate.org...
or for a much thorough understanding watch: http://video.google.com...#
Unless you would like to discuss this or at least present arguments directly against it and not other definitions of Free Will we will have to agree to disagree.
As for omnipotence: http://carm.org...

I still suggest you atleast review the link. I don't like discussing on one thing when the other person is assuming another.
Omnipotence paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes... I didn't read that link, mostly because I think we are in agreement on this point.

Though for an omnipotent being, God seems to refrain from exercising his omnipotence to stop events such as, say, earthquakes and reactor meltdowns. Not that I'm blaming him for those events... unlike a certain girl on YouTube =P

It seems you are alluding (is that proper the term) to why does God permit/ordain suffering? There are many answers given to this question. I believe God ultimately does everything that He does for His own glory, not to be confused with the contentment of man. In Gods sovereignty He works in mans sinful world to accomplish 2 main things (to my knowledge): to save the elect, and to glorify Himself. This ofcourse is not satisfying to most people. CARM does a thurough job offering the different answers here: http://carm.org...
and
http://carm.org...

Who is the girl on youtube referring to?

No one ever raises questions about omnipresence lolz... Which is actually ironic.

Not really... I think at this point in history, everyone realizes the idea is so completely ridiculous they just kind of leave it alone.

Also, in places of scripture where it is read differently they are ascribed to be anthropomorphisms. link: http://carm.org...

enjoy :-)

Where what, exactly, is read differently? Descriptions of God? If so, that would seem to support the notion that humans made God in their image, eh?

Read the link. It gives many places in which anthropomorphisms are in scripture.
The scripture is subjective. Theology works in the manner of comparing scripture with scripture and in turn forms doctrine. So whether or not it "seems" to support the notion that humans made God in their image would be ultimately influenced by how the person interprets the scripture and how the view God, the Bible, spirituality etc. Is this called presuppositionalism?
Your questions are many and require a lot of understanding of theology and thus requires a ton of explaining and writing. It is much easier to post links that explain my position because they are thorough and normally address questions that would follow. Please read the links, I picked them carefully to address the topics. I do not wish to rewrite what is already written- if you do not at least review the links then I have no real desire to continue on these topics. Thanks!
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2011 10:47:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 6:14:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Omnibenevolence proves very difficult for theologians to explain. Either god chooses what is right or wrong based on qualities of that action(which makes god unnecessary) or an action is good or bad only because god decided it was. Most Christians will go with option B but add that god's omnibenevolence only allows him to do good and choose good things. This brings up two problems. A-It takes away god's omnipotence and B-What is god's omnibenevolence based on? Now you have the same argument but instead of what makes things moral, one asks what decided what is omnibenevolence?

Perhaps I may offer some insight?
A-It takes away god's omnipotence- this is not a problem for theologians. Often terms are misleading when they were originally intended to be used in a certain context. Gods omnipotence follows His omnibenevolence (His nature). God is not omnipotent in such a manner that He can do things that are against His nature. So the term used in theology is sufficient for theology but then used out of the theological context of course is problematic.

B-What is god's omnibenevolence based on?- I may not be correctly understanding your question here but I believe that Gods omnibenevolence is based on Gods nature. I am not well versed in this doctrine either but i have heard from many great and renown theologians that the Law (the standard of goodness) is a reflection of the nature of God. Did what I say miss the point of the question?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 1:12:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I thought this topic was about Ben 10. :(
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 2:10:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:31:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
"visits the sins of the father upon the children"- aka Federal Headship. If you actually want to understand how that works look at these links:

http://carm.org...
http://carm.org...
So federal headship is just because people living 2000-4000 years ago thought it was a good idea. You know what else they thought were good ideas? Slavery, racism, sexism, genocide and a whole host of other things that we have realized aren't just principles. Can you demonstrate that federal headship should be considered a just system without quoting the Bible?


destroying the earth with a flood- God did this with a purpose that is clear when reading the story.

Babies are not sinless. There is debate on whether there is a moment of maturity that is called the ‘age of accountability' in which once the child reaches a certain understanding the child will be held accountable on judgment day for he/shes actions. However, I am not well versed on the doctrines. I feel this link should suffice: http://carm.org...

Carm= God won't damn babies because, well, heck, he just ain't that kind of guy.

Ok then, wouldn't you agree that abortion is a good idea in that it prevents babies from becoming old enough to qualify for hell?

Orders slavery- God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system. Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God. Nevertheless, God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.
Umm, What about "Thou shalt not kill!", "Thou shalt not bear false witness!", "Thou shalt not steal!" Why not add "Thou shalt not own slaves!"? If the point of giving the commandments to the Hebrews was to point them in the right direction, why not include things that they weren't civilized enough to figure out on their own?

Oh, and as far as rape goes, nowhere does God give women any say in who they can or cannot have sex with. The whole idea that a woman should have the right to say "no!" seems to be so alien to God that the Bible never even considers it possibility.

I feel that is sufficient. To read more: http://carm.org...
http://carm.org...
Carm= Slavery may be a very bad thing today but it wasn't a very bad thing back then - oh and God is never changing...uh huh,,,yeah,,,right. So God knew it was a very bad thing back then, but because they didn't consider it to be a bad thing (and getting rid of slavery would have been bad for business and we all know how much God supports big business) so God allowed them to keep slavery even though he knew it was a bad thing (except it wasn't really so bad back then).

As for God condoning rape- its been my experience that the best way to address this is simply by reviewing the text(s) in question. Saying that God condones rape does not prove anything. If you wish to, offer some verses :-)

Oh there are lots of them. The tricky part is in realizing that whenever the Bible uses a phrase like "take her as his wife", that's code for rape. You see, as I said before, since women had no rights, they could not refuse be be taken as a wife and wives, back then, were every bit as much considered to be property as slaves were. So their 'husbands' could do anything to them they wanted to. Rape wasn't just tolerated, it was a way of life.


As for omniscience and free will- if you did not so quickly dismiss compatible determinism by saying "that's an idiotic position." and perhaps endeavored to actually support your statement perhaps we could discuss how omniscience and free can and does make sense.

The only viable compatibalist position is agency free will - where all that is required for "free will" is that the actor *believe* he is making a free choice, regardless of whether or not he actually is. And this is not generally how people conceive of free will.

Most people who talk about Free Will do not know theology very well. Most, not all (that has been my experience). My position on Free Will can be read here: http://www.debate.org...
or for a much thorough understanding watch: http://video.google.com...#
Unless you would like to discuss this or at least present arguments directly against it and not other definitions of Free Will we will have to agree to disagree.
As for omnipotence: http://carm.org...
Carm= God is so powerful that He can do anything...except for the things He can't do.


I still suggest you atleast review the link. I don't like discussing on one thing when the other person is assuming another.
Omnipotence paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes... I didn't read that link, mostly because I think we are in agreement on this point.

Though for an omnipotent being, God seems to refrain from exercising his omnipotence to stop events such as, say, earthquakes and reactor meltdowns. Not that I'm blaming him for those events... unlike a certain girl on YouTube =P

It seems you are alluding (is that proper the term) to why does God permit/ordain suffering? There are many answers given to this question. I believe God ultimately does everything that He does for His own glory, not to be confused with the contentment of man. In Gods sovereignty He works in mans sinful world to accomplish 2 main things (to my knowledge): to save the elect, and to glorify Himself. This ofcourse is not satisfying to most people. CARM does a thurough job offering the different answers here: http://carm.org...
and
http://carm.org...
Carm= Suffering exists because suffering is necessary and suffering is necessary because if it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.

Who is the girl on youtube referring to?

No one ever raises questions about omnipresence lolz... Which is actually ironic.

Not really... I think at this point in history, everyone realizes the idea is so completely ridiculous they just kind of leave it alone.

Also, in places of scripture where it is read differently they are ascribed to be anthropomorphisms. link: http://carm.org...

enjoy :-)

Where what, exactly, is read differently? Descriptions of God? If so, that would seem to support the notion that humans made God in their image, eh?

Read the link. It gives many places in which anthropomorphisms are in scripture.
The scripture is subjective. Theology works in the manner of comparing scripture with scripture and in turn forms doctrine. So whether or not it "seems" to support the notion that humans made God in their image would be ultimately influenced by how the person interprets the scripture and how the view God, the Bible, spirituality etc. Is this called presuppositionalism?
Your questions are many and require a lot of understanding of theology and thus requires a ton of explaining and writing. It is much easier to post links that explain my position because they are thorough and normally address questions that would follow. Please read the links, I picked them carefully to address the topics. I do not wish to rewrite what is already written- if you do not at least review the links then I have no real desire to continue on these topics. Thanks!

Except that Carm is to God as Burger King commercials are to a healthy diet.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 5:48:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...

Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."


Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


1 Chronicles 16:34
34 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.


Job 9:4
4 His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?

Job 12:13
13 "To God belong wisdom and power;
counsel and understanding are his.

Job 12:16
16 To him belong strength and insight;
both deceived and deceiver are his.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 6:33:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 5:48:28 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...

Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."


Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."



1 Chronicles 16:34
34 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.


Job 9:4
4 His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed?

Job 12:13
13 "To God belong wisdom and power;
counsel and understanding are his.

Job 12:16
16 To him belong strength and insight;
both deceived and deceiver are his.


Thank you Dat, this is more along the lines of what I was looking for.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:31:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...
It's not hard to look it up, http://www.biblegateway.com...

as for those other three, omnibenevalent obviously can be gotten from verses in Psalms that speak of there being no wicked in god at all http://bible.cc...
omniscient; http://www.the-highway.com...
omnipresent; http://wiki.answers.com...

indecently on the last one, even if there was no verse, it should just logically follow from knowing the bible say's god created all.

if the universe is created by god, out of god, then it is not greater than he, so for all the space the universe covers in reality as a whole god covers all than an ten times more!
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 4:32:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 2:10:39 AM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:31:17 PM, joneszj wrote:
"visits the sins of the father upon the children"- aka Federal Headship. If you actually want to understand how that works look at these links:

http://carm.org...
http://carm.org...
So federal headship is just because people living 2000-4000 years ago thought it was a good idea. You know what else they thought were good ideas? Slavery, racism, sexism, genocide and a whole host of other things that we have realized aren't just principles. Can you demonstrate that federal headship should be considered a just system without quoting the Bible?

No, Federal Headship is a biblical doctrine not something people thought centuries ago was a good idea. Federal Headship works to explain how the actions of the father (the head) effect the descendants. For example, if Hitler's descendants were alive today I would expect that there would be much shame on his lineage. Is that fair or just? I would say no, however Federal Headship is not a judicial system, but more of an exposition of the obvious. However I do think there should be made a differentiation between the Federal Headship in regards to Adam and the Federal Headship of others since Adam. The first link addresses Adam and is used as a system, the second addresses everyone after Adam is not a system but more simply a term used in observation of cause and effect in social units. I am not well versed on this doctrine but I believe this makes sense and is adequately explained in the links.

destroying the earth with a flood- God did this with a purpose that is clear when reading the story.

Babies are not sinless. There is debate on whether there is a moment of maturity that is called the ‘age of accountability' in which once the child reaches a certain understanding the child will be held accountable on judgment day for he/shes actions. However, I am not well versed on the doctrines. I feel this link should suffice: http://carm.org...

Carm= God won't damn babies because, well, heck, he just ain't that kind of guy.

This is the 1% where I am undecided with CARM. Man is naturally sinful from birth, but an ‘age of accountability' is evident in scripture and would therefore be instituted by God. To feel comfortable with my own conscience I will study this area more and get back to you :-) Though I do feel the majority of Christians believe in an ‘age of accountability'. After reading this article: http://www.gty.org... I feel I am in agreement with it.

Ok then, wouldn't you agree that abortion is a good idea in that it prevents babies from becoming old enough to qualify for hell?

Good question, my answer: no. If someone is worrying about the judgment of people over the act of sinning then their founding in theology and the Christian is drastically off. To abort to prevent accountability is committing 2 sins: idolatry in that the person is ‘playing god' and 2 murder- if one can view abortion as murder (as I do). The Christian aught to have holiness at the highest priority of his/hers life, not pragmatism. Great question though!

Orders slavery- God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system. Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God. Nevertheless, God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.

Umm, What about "Thou shalt not kill!", "Thou shalt not bear false witness!", "Thou shalt not steal!" Why not add "Thou shalt not own slaves!"? If the point of giving the commandments to the Hebrews was to point them in the right direction, why not include things that they weren't civilized enough to figure out on their own?

I may be misunderstanding you here. Are you saying: why would God command the obvious? Moreover, the point of the commandments were not ultimately to point man in the right direction. That would give the notion that man can work to be good- this is simply not biblical. The commandments were given to show that man is morally evil and is under the wrath of God. The commandments were used to show the yoke of sin, and Christ as the liberator. In a sense the commandments were used to guide the people of God but the ultimate reason for them is to expose sin.

Oh, and as far as rape goes, nowhere does God give women any say in who they can or cannot have sex with. The whole idea that a woman should have the right to say "no!" seems to be so alien to God that the Bible never even considers it possibility.

Perhaps because the Bible assumes marriage before sex. This does not answer all of the questions related to rape, but as I said that I feel should be handled on a verse by verse basis.

I feel that is sufficient. To read more: http://carm.org...
http://carm.org...

Carm= Slavery may be a very bad thing today but it wasn't a very bad thing back then - oh and God is never changing...uh huh,,,yeah,,,right. So God knew it was a very bad thing back then, but because they didn't consider it to be a bad thing (and getting rid of slavery would have been bad for business and we all know how much God supports big business) so God allowed them to keep slavery even though he knew it was a bad thing (except it wasn't really so bad back then).


God used the sin and evil of slavery to work His will of salvation. This does not mean God condones slavery anymore then He condoned the crucifixion. He worked through mans sin to accomplish what He desired. God does not change.

As for God condoning rape- its been my experience that the best way to address this is simply by reviewing the text(s) in question. Saying that God condones rape does not prove anything. If you wish to, offer some verses :-)

Oh there are lots of them. The tricky part is in realizing that whenever the Bible uses a phrase like "take her as his wife", that's code for rape. You see, as I said before, since women had no rights, they could not refuse be be taken as a wife and wives, back then, were every bit as much considered to be property as slaves were. So their 'husbands' could do anything to them they wanted to. Rape wasn't just tolerated, it was a way of life.

Once again on a verse by verse bass please. Though I believe your statement is unfounded- even if it were the case "take her as your wife" is ambiguous to the idea that God condones rape via woman having no rights. Marriage was often then and today determined by the family but that does not mean God condones it, nor does it mean God condones the modern American method of marriage. You seem to be blaming the God for the culture. To my knowledge, marriage is simply explained as one leaving his/her family to join with the spouse. Beyond that the methods are as diverse as cultures.

As for omniscience and free will- if you did not so quickly dismiss compatible determinism by saying "that's an idiotic position." and perhaps endeavored to actually support your statement perhaps we could discuss how omniscience and free can and does make sense.

The only viable compatibalist position is agency free will - where all that is required for "free will" is that the actor *believe* he is making a free choice, regardless of whether or not he actually is. And this is not generally how people conceive of free will.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 4:36:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most people who talk about Free Will do not know theology very well. Most, not all (that has been my experience). My position on Free Will can be read here: http://www.debate.org...
or for a much thorough understanding watch: http://video.google.com...#
Unless you would like to discuss this or at least present arguments directly against it and not other definitions of Free Will we will have to agree to disagree.
As for omnipotence: http://carm.org...
Carm= God is so powerful that He can do anything...except for the things He can't do.

No lolz, CARM= God can do anything within His nature. Again, I don't like discussing on one thing when the other person is assuming another.......

I still suggest you atleast review the link. I don't like discussing on one thing when the other person is assuming another.
Omnipotence paradoxes aren't actually paradoxes... I didn't read that link, mostly because I think we are in agreement on this point.

Though for an omnipotent being, God seems to refrain from exercising his omnipotence to stop events such as, say, earthquakes and reactor meltdowns. Not that I'm blaming him for those events... unlike a certain girl on YouTube =P

It seems you are alluding (is that proper the term) to why does God permit/ordain suffering? There are many answers given to this question. I believe God ultimately does everything that He does for His own glory, not to be confused with the contentment of man. In Gods sovereignty He works in mans sinful world to accomplish 2 main things (to my knowledge): to save the elect, and to glorify Himself. This ofcourse is not satisfying to most people. CARM does a thurough job offering the different answers here: http://carm.org...
and
http://carm.org...
Carm= Suffering exists because suffering is necessary and suffering is necessary because if it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.

-Again no, CARM= suffering exists because of sin. What was necessary was God working through mans sin for His good pleasure and ends.

Who is the girl on youtube referring to?

No one ever raises questions about omnipresence lolz... Which is actually ironic.

Not really... I think at this point in history, everyone realizes the idea is so completely ridiculous they just kind of leave it alone.

Also, in places of scripture where it is read differently they are ascribed to be anthropomorphisms. link: http://carm.org...

enjoy :-)

Where what, exactly, is read differently? Descriptions of God? If so, that would seem to support the notion that humans made God in their image, eh?

Read the link. It gives many places in which anthropomorphisms are in scripture.
The scripture is subjective. Theology works in the manner of comparing scripture with scripture and in turn forms doctrine. So whether or not it "seems" to support the notion that humans made God in their image would be ultimately influenced by how the person interprets the scripture and how the view God, the Bible, spirituality etc. Is this called presuppositionalism?
Your questions are many and require a lot of understanding of theology and thus requires a ton of explaining and writing. It is much easier to post links that explain my position because they are thorough and normally address questions that would follow. Please read the links, I picked them carefully to address the topics. I do not wish to rewrite what is already written- if you do not at least review the links then I have no real desire to continue on these topics. Thanks!

Except that Carm is to God as Burger King commercials are to a healthy diet.
ignored

I put this post up in a hurry, sorry if I missed anything :-)
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 12:13:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 4:32:40 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/17/2011 2:10:39 AM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:31:17 PM, joneszj wrote:

No, Federal Headship is a biblical doctrine not something people thought centuries ago was a good idea. Federal Headship works to explain how the actions of the father (the head) effect the descendants. For example, if Hitler's descendants were alive today I would expect that there would be much shame on his lineage. Is that fair or just? I would say no, however Federal Headship is not a judicial system, but more of an exposition of the obvious. However I do think there should be made a differentiation between the Federal Headship in regards to Adam and the Federal Headship of others since Adam. The first link addresses Adam and is used as a system, the second addresses everyone after Adam is not a system but more simply a term used in observation of cause and effect in social units. I am not well versed on this doctrine but I believe this makes sense and is adequately explained in the links.


How do you know Hitler's descendants would feel shame? Do you feel shame for any of the bad things your ancestors have done? More importantly, should you have to pay for the bad things they've done? Should Hitler's descendants be prosecuted for Hitler's crimes?

Back in the bronze age, ancestor worship and the custom of holding descendants responsible for the acts their ancestors was very common. So they didn't see anything wrong with God punishing humanity for what Adam did. Later, when Paul was looking for a way to tie salvation through Jesus with Adam's original sin, he used that custom to show how everyone who came after Jesus would be linked to Jesus just like everyone who came after Adam was linked to Adam.

When the Reformation rolled around (and people actually began to pay attention to what the Bible said) apologists decided to use Paul's words as a justification for the obviously unjust act of punishing mankind for one man's mistake. But what it really all boils down to is; federal headship is just because God says so. There is no other way to justify it.


Umm, What about "Thou shalt not kill!", "Thou shalt not bear false witness!", "Thou shalt not steal!" Why not add "Thou shalt not own slaves!"? If the point of giving the commandments to the Hebrews was to point them in the right direction, why not include things that they weren't civilized enough to figure out on their own?

I may be misunderstanding you here. Are you saying: why would God command the obvious?
No, I'm asking why He didn't command things that weren't obvious.

Moreover, the point of the commandments were not ultimately to point man in the right direction.
So we shouldn't consider the commandments as an example of God's moral standard?

That would give the notion that man can work to be good- this is simply not biblical. The commandments were given to show that man is morally evil and is under the wrath of God. The commandments were used to show the yoke of sin, and Christ as the liberator. In a sense the commandments were used to guide the people of God but the ultimate reason for them is to expose sin.

This doesn't explain why slavery wasn't on the list. If slavery is sinful, why didn't God say it is sinful?

http://carm.org...

Carm= Slavery may be a very bad thing today but it wasn't a very bad thing back then - oh and God is never changing...uh huh,,,yeah,,,right. So God knew it was a very bad thing back then, but because they didn't consider it to be a bad thing (and getting rid of slavery would have been bad for business and we all know how much God supports big business) so God allowed them to keep slavery even though he knew it was a bad thing (except it wasn't really so bad back then).


God used the sin and evil of slavery to work His will of salvation. This does not mean God condones slavery anymore then He condoned the crucifixion. He worked through mans sin to accomplish what He desired. God does not change.

Doesn't God use the sins of murder, theft and dishonesty too? You still have not explained why God allowed slavery if slavery was wrong?


Once again on a verse by verse bass please.
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Though I believe your statement is unfounded- even if it were the case "take her as your wife" is ambiguous to the idea that God condones rape via woman having no rights. Marriage was often then and today determined by the family but that does not mean God condones it, nor does it mean God condones the modern American method of marriage. You seem to be blaming the God for the culture. To my knowledge, marriage is simply explained as one leaving his/her family to join with the spouse. Beyond that the methods are as diverse as cultures.

No, that's not what I said. Rape was as common back then as racism was before the civil rights movement - they did not see it as a sin. So why is it God didn't see it as a sin either? Either the Biblical God is immoral or He is a creation of bronze age barbarians.
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 12:41:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 4:36:24 PM, joneszj wrote:

Carm= God is so powerful that He can do anything...except for the things He can't do.

No lolz, CARM= God can do anything within His nature. Again, I don't like discussing on one thing when the other person is assuming another.......

And His nature is what you want to say it is whenever its convenient to say it. Right? Or can you spell out the definitive, inerrant description of exactly what God's nature is in exact detail? (This would be a neat trick since God is supposed to be unknowable)
In other words, God's nature is that He can do anything...except for the things He can't do.

Carm= Suffering exists because suffering is necessary and suffering is necessary because if it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.

-Again no, CARM= suffering exists because of sin. What was necessary was God working through mans sin for His good pleasure and ends.
Is it possible for God to pleasure His ends without sin? I don't see how. Since God hates sin He wouldn't have allowed it to exist if it weren't necessary. So, if sin is necessary, and suffering exists because of sin, then suffering is necessary. And neither of them would exist if they weren't necessary, right?

But the big questions are, why is God's pleasure so necessary that we should all have to suffer just to make him happy; and, if God really loves us, how could he feel pleasure knowing that we have to suffer in the first place?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 5:10:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 11:31:21 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...
It's not hard to look it up, http://www.biblegateway.com...

as for those other three, omnibenevalent obviously can be gotten from verses in Psalms that speak of there being no wicked in god at all http://bible.cc...
omniscient; http://www.the-highway.com...
omnipresent; http://wiki.answers.com...

indecently on the last one, even if there was no verse, it should just logically follow from knowing the bible say's god created all.

if the universe is created by god, out of god, then it is not greater than he, so for all the space the universe covers in reality as a whole god covers all than an ten times more!

No, it wasn't hard to look up, so it was a pleasure for me to serve and do it myself;

Matthew 18:4
Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 19:30
But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.


Your problem is your just not AMBITIOUS enough!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 5:13:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 5:10:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/17/2011 11:31:21 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...
It's not hard to look it up, http://www.biblegateway.com...

as for those other three, omnibenevalent obviously can be gotten from verses in Psalms that speak of there being no wicked in god at all http://bible.cc...
omniscient; http://www.the-highway.com...
omnipresent; http://wiki.answers.com...

indecently on the last one, even if there was no verse, it should just logically follow from knowing the bible say's god created all.

if the universe is created by god, out of god, then it is not greater than he, so for all the space the universe covers in reality as a whole god covers all than an ten times more!

No, it wasn't hard to look up, so it was a pleasure for me to serve and do it myself;

Matthew 18:4
Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 19:30
But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.


Your problem is your just not AMBITIOUS enough!

Don't we want to be really unambitious? So that we are last in the pecking order so we can be first.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 5:27:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 5:13:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/18/2011 5:10:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/17/2011 11:31:21 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:50:40 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:28:11 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:21:23 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:16:01 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:09:46 AM, Meatros wrote:
Does the bible support the western philosophical view that God is an omnimax entity?

I'm not certain it does, but it's been years since I read the bible cover to cover.

I've tried looking up omnimax but with no luck so you're going to have to explain what you mean..

Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Omniscient
Omnipresent

Basically, the omni's.

Well, the Bible doesn't use any of those words.. but it does say that 'all things are possible with God..' etc..

So this would mean omnipotent - IYO?

So what about omnipresent/omniscient/Omnibenevolent?

Also, what's the verse for the 'all things possible'? I'm fairly certain it's in there, but where...
It's not hard to look it up, http://www.biblegateway.com...

as for those other three, omnibenevalent obviously can be gotten from verses in Psalms that speak of there being no wicked in god at all http://bible.cc...
omniscient; http://www.the-highway.com...
omnipresent; http://wiki.answers.com...

indecently on the last one, even if there was no verse, it should just logically follow from knowing the bible say's god created all.

if the universe is created by god, out of god, then it is not greater than he, so for all the space the universe covers in reality as a whole god covers all than an ten times more!

No, it wasn't hard to look up, so it was a pleasure for me to serve and do it myself;

Matthew 18:4
Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 19:30
But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.


Your problem is your just not AMBITIOUS enough!

Don't we want to be really unambitious? So that we are last in the pecking order so we can be first.

When the disciples asked Christ 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven' He did not tell them 'not to be ambitious' but spoke DIRECTLY to their ambition; telling them to become like children; " WHOEVER WANTS TO BE FIRST (ambition) must become like a little child.. "
The Cross.. the Cross.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2011 7:55:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/18/2011 12:13:19 AM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/17/2011 4:32:40 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/17/2011 2:10:39 AM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/16/2011 10:31:17 PM, joneszj wrote:

No, Federal Headship is a biblical doctrine not something people thought centuries ago was a good idea. Federal Headship works to explain how the actions of the father (the head) effect the descendants. For example, if Hitler's descendants were alive today I would expect that there would be much shame on his lineage. Is that fair or just? I would say no, however Federal Headship is not a judicial system, but more of an exposition of the obvious. However I do think there should be made a differentiation between the Federal Headship in regards to Adam and the Federal Headship of others since Adam. The first link addresses Adam and is used as a system, the second addresses everyone after Adam is not a system but more simply a term used in observation of cause and effect in social units. I am not well versed on this doctrine but I believe this makes sense and is adequately explained in the links.


How do you know Hitler's descendants would feel shame? Do you feel shame for any of the bad things your ancestors have done? More importantly, should you have to pay for the bad things they've done? Should Hitler's descendants be prosecuted for Hitler's crimes?

Back in the bronze age, ancestor worship and the custom of holding descendants responsible for the acts their ancestors was very common. So they didn't see anything wrong with God punishing humanity for what Adam did. Later, when Paul was looking for a way to tie salvation through Jesus with Adam's original sin, he used that custom to show how everyone who came after Jesus would be linked to Jesus just like everyone who came after Adam was linked to Adam.

When the Reformation rolled around (and people actually began to pay attention to what the Bible said) apologists decided to use Paul's words as a justification for the obviously unjust act of punishing mankind for one man's mistake. But what it really all boils down to is; federal headship is just because God says so. There is no other way to justify it.

Tigg it seems to me you misunderstood what I said. I observe two forms of Federal Headship. One seeks to explain why a sin of an ancestor effects the descendants not how. That is not a system of judgment by God, but instead works to point out that sins of an ancestor effect the descendants. Also, I never said I ‘know' what Hitler's descendants would experience socially, I simply said I would expect there to be (a level of resentment with certain people in society). Did I say this would be morally right? I said no, but it is a natural consequence (and is obvious at that). In a social respect the Nazis are generally seen as ‘bad' thing. Yes, there is a difference between a social political party and a father but the point of the first differentiation of Federal Headship is that the actions ‘head' of a unit effect the ‘body'. This is not a bronze age concept, it's a persistent observation.
Now, the second observed Federal Headship that of Adam. The Reformation was a proponent of Federal Headship. It only takes a quick read on Covenant theology to see this (I am reformed). Either I am completely misunderstanding you (in that your saying the reformation found Federal Headship to be unjust) or you have no idea what you are talking about: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net...


Umm, What about "Thou shalt not kill!", "Thou shalt not bear false witness!", "Thou shalt not steal!" Why not add "Thou shalt not own slaves!"? If the point of giving the commandments to the Hebrews was to point them in the right direction, why not include things that they weren't civilized enough to figure out on their own?

I may be misunderstanding you here. Are you saying: why would God command the obvious?
No, I'm asking why He didn't command things that weren't obvious.

First why would He have to? The commandments were not ultimately a tool to point man in the right direction. They were there ultimately point out that man is sinful. If you knew anything about Reformed theology you would have known this.

Moreover, the point of the commandments were not ultimately to point man in the right direction.
So we shouldn't consider the commandments as an example of God's moral standard?

That is not what I said- please quit twisting my words. Key word there is ‘ultimately'. The law had many purposes but one ultimate purpose.

That would give the notion that man can work to be good- this is simply not biblical. The commandments were given to show that man is morally evil and is under the wrath of God. The commandments were used to show the yoke of sin, and Christ as the liberator. In a sense the commandments were used to guide the people of God but the ultimate reason for them is to expose sin.

This doesn't explain why slavery wasn't on the list. If slavery is sinful, why didn't God say it is sinful?

Why did not God say looking at pornographic images online is sinful? Just because God did not specifically mention that a certain action is a sin does not mean that He condones it. I hate to be captain obvious here but slavery is a direct confliction of several Commandments. Or perhaps you should look up key religious figure in abolition movement like for example William Wilberforce and how religion was what sparked their anti-slavery heart.

http://carm.org...

Carm= Slavery may be a very bad thing today but it wasn't a very bad thing back then - oh and God is never changing...uh huh,,,yeah,,,right. So God knew it was a very bad thing back then, but because they didn't consider it to be a bad thing (and getting rid of slavery would have been bad for business and we all know how much God supports big business) so God allowed them to keep slavery even though he knew it was a bad thing (except it wasn't really so bad back then).


God used the sin and evil of slavery to work His will of salvation. This does not mean God condones slavery anymore then He condoned the crucifixion. He worked through mans sin to accomplish what He desired. God does not change.

Doesn't God use the sins of murder, theft and dishonesty too? You still have not explained why God allowed slavery if slavery was wrong?

Yes, but by saying God uses said sin does not mean He is condoning them nor He is responsible for the sin of the agent. Just because God does not mention slavery directly in the 10 Commandments does not mean He condones it either. This is because the 10 Commandments are a tool ultimately to point out mans sin, not ultimately to establish a form of man governed theocracy.