one for the hardcore christains

Originally posted by whiterose
Well, if God a person, or three persons, then He cannot be omnipotent. If not, then He is not restricted by a "nature" akin to a person's.

If God chooses to be benevolent, then He can still be omnipotent only because He can choose to be malevolent a any time in the future. Of course, this implies time, which apparently God is above. So according to your ...[text shortened]... , if you don't read it literally then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.

Well, if God a person, or three persons, then He cannot be omnipotent. If not, then He is not restricted by a "nature" akin to a person's.

How does personage negate omnipotence? I haven't introduced anything new by using the term "person". When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person.

A thing without a nature cannot act. How is such a thing omnipotent, in ANY sense of the word?

If God chooses to be benevolent, then He can still be omnipotent only because He can choose to be malevolent a any time in the future.

Yes, but the point is that God won't choose to be malevolent.

So according to your doctrine of immutability, God is above time, but cannot do things that are logically impossible(which of course being above time is).

It's not my doctrine. But anyway, how is transcending time logically impossible. Wait, let me guess, you haven't thought this through have you? Just like you haven't thought through the concept of omnipotence and have some garbled version instead.

Again, how is it benevolent to damn someone to eternal fire?

Well done Whiterose. You officially cannot read - or atleast not very well, and in that, very selectively.

Of course, if you don't read the bible literally, then God is not damning anyone. But then, if you don't read it literally then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.

Are you really justifying religious fundamentalism here?

Now you have given your own interpretation of scripture. That is not necassarily how its original audience interpreted it. It's not even what the author intended. I suppose you've gone to all the trouble of reading Augustine and Thomas' works on the subject, as opposed to just assuming that they're some warped interpretation of scripture. I suppose then you've also looked up biblical commentaries, leart ancient Greek and Hebrew, studied cultures of antiquity. Perhaps not then.

Originally posted by whiterose
I said nothing about God not being able to be omnipotent. Of course omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible. Where have I said otherwise? What I am saying is that He cannot be omnipotent AND omnibenevolent. If He owns your life, He can most certainly take it away, but this isn't being benevolent towards you.

Whiterose: "If He owns your life, He can most certainly take it away, but this isn't being benevolent towards you "

Is it ? How do you know ?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Well, if God a person, or three persons, then He cannot be omnipotent. If not, then He is not restricted by a "nature" akin to a person's.

How does personage negate omnipotence? I haven't introduced anything new by using the term "person". When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person.

A thing without a nature cannot act. How is suc ...[text shortened]... rt ancient Greek and Hebrew, studied cultures of antiquity. Perhaps not then.[/b]

As you said before, a person has a "human nature". A person, therefore, cannot be omnipotent.
Why is it that a thing without a nature cannot act? Shouldn't God be above nature as He is above time? I thought He was supernatural.

Omnipotence is very simple. It means you can do anything. It is you who keeps trying to twist this simple definition. As for transcending time being logically impossible, I think there was a whole discussion about this on the Dr. Who thread. But to put it simply, if you act within the physical universe, you must act within time.

Does the bible not say that God damns people to Hell(a place of eternal fire)? Then how is it that I cannot read? There are many interpretations of the bible. All I am saying is that unless you read it literally(in which case it contradicts itself) then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.

Originally posted by whiterose
As you said before, a person has a "human nature". A person, therefore, cannot be omnipotent.
Why is it that a thing without a nature cannot act? Shouldn't God be above nature as He is above time? I thought He was supernatural.

Omnipotence is very simple. It means you can do anything. It is you who keeps trying to twist this simple definition. As for ...[text shortened]... which case it contradicts itself) then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.

As you said before, a person has a "human nature". A person, therefore, cannot be omnipotent.

No because they are human they cannot be omnipotent.

Why is it that a thing without a nature cannot act? Shouldn't God be above nature as He is above time? I thought He was supernatural.

I have already explained this twice. Natuure - the source of one's actions. Free-willed action presupposes a nature. Without a nature, action is logically impossible.

Why is it that a thing without a nature cannot act?

Because that would be a contradiction. A logical absurdity.

Omnipotence is very simple. It means you can do anything. It is you who keeps trying to twist this simple definition.

Let me use an example to illustrate my point. Say I pull out a loaded gun. Having this gun, I can shoot my neighbour. It is logically possible: the gun, the bullets, the neighbour, and me holding the gun are all present. But it is against my nature to kill people. Now this is the point where we disagree. I will continue to maintain that I CAN kill my neighbour, you will assert that I cannot. In a sense, I cannot kill my neighbour, but in the deterministic sense that I will not kill, and therefore, could not. But this does not reduce the potency of the gun. Nor does it mean that it was logically impossible for that situation to have resulted in the death of my neighbour - if my nature was different. But when we say, "God can do everything because He is omnipotent", we mean that God has all the equipment to do everything (just as I have the gun), but does not do everything because it is against His nature (just as I am against killing humans).

You use of the word omnipotence absurdly. It entails that not only God can do everything, but that God DOES do everything because if He's not doing everything, then that God's nature prevented Him, and hence, he could not have been omnipotent. Your definition entails that God have no nature.

As for transcending time being logically impossible, I think there was a whole discussion about this on the Dr. Who thread. But to put it simply, if you act within the physical universe, you must act within time.

Yes, of course you act within time.

Does the bible not say that God damns people to Hell(a place of eternal fire)? Then how is it that I cannot read?

Because I hace already explained that people do not interpret the scripture literally, and then you ask, "why does God damn people to eternal fire".

All I am saying is that unless you read it literally(in which case it contradicts itself) then it is open to any interpretation you want to give it.

No. A literal interpretation would be an interpretation based on the English language with modern concerns in mind. Look up hermeneutics.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Whiterose: "If He owns your life, He can most certainly take it away, but this isn't being benevolent towards you "

Is it ? How do you know ?

Oh, so now taking away someone's life can be benevolent?
That's not what you seemed to be saying before.

Originally posted by whiterose
Oh, so now taking away someone's life can be benevolent?
That's not what you seemed to be saying before.

People should not be taking human lives, since these are not theirs. God owns our lives and therefore cannot take them away like humans can.

These two acts are simply two very different acts in a moral sense. You keep equating them or at least you keep confusing the two.

God is the Lord of Life and man wants to become the Lord of Life. That's why man who is striving to become the Lord of Life becomes God's rival.

We want to have divine attributes and act accordingly. We even want the Right to Kill.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]As you said before, a person has a "human nature". A person, therefore, cannot be omnipotent.

No because they are human they cannot be omnipotent.

Why is it that a thing without a nature cannot act? Shouldn't God be above nature as He is above time? I thought He was supernatural.

I have already explained this twice. Natuure - the s ...[text shortened]... tion based on the English language with modern concerns in mind. Look up hermeneutics.[/b]

If God is a human (i.e. a person, they mean the same thing) then He can't be omnipotent, as I already said.

You agree with me that a humans cannot be omnipotent, yet you keep using examples of human nature to illustrate why omnipotence is possible. You cannot be omnipotent because of your human nature. In fact, you cannot be "omni" anything. As I said before, it is the "omni" that is the problem. You could choose to kill your neighbor, just as God could choose to kill you. However, in that choice lies the option to not to be benevolent, which an omnibenevolent God does not have. If God is truly omnibenevolent, then all of his future actions must be benevolent, meaning that He has no choice. Of course, as you said before:

"God transcends time, time is a measurement of change, since God is above time, God cannot change. This means that if God is benevolent at one point in our time, He must then be benevolent at all times."

But of course, as I pointed out, acting within the universe but outside of time is logically impossible (which even an omnipotent God cannot do).

I know people do not interpret the scripture literally, as I have already said. As I have also said, there are many ways to interpret if you are using a metaphorical interpretation. If you are using a literal interpretation, then my quetion about Hell stands.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
People should not be taking human lives, since these are not theirs. God owns our lives and therefore cannot take them away like humans can.

These two acts are simply two very different acts in a moral sense. You keep equating them or at least you keep confusing the two.

God is the Lord of Life and man wants to become the Lord of Life. Th ...[text shortened]... val.

We want to have divine attributes and act accordingly. We even want the Right to Kill.

good point, i bet killing god's children makes him mad

Originally posted by ivanhoe
People should not be taking human lives, since these are not theirs. God owns our lives and therefore cannot take them away like humans can.

These two acts are simply two very different acts in a moral sense. You keep equating them or at least you keep confusing the two.

God is the Lord of Life and man wants to become the Lord of Life. Th ...[text shortened]... val.

We want to have divine attributes and act accordingly. We even want the Right to Kill.

So killing is not killing when God does it?
I guess it follows the old saying "do as I say, not as I do"
You still haven't explained how it can be benevolent to kill someone, whoever is doing the killing.

Originally posted by whiterose
If God is a human (i.e. a person, they mean the same thing) then He can't be omnipotent, as I already said.

You agree with me that a humans cannot be omnipotent, yet you keep using examples of human nature to illustrate why omnipotence is possible. You cannot be omnipotent because of your human nature. In fact, you cannot be "omni" anything. As I said b ...[text shortened]... rpretation. If you are using a literal interpretation, then my quetion about Hell stands.

If God is a human (i.e. a person, they mean the same thing) then He can't be omnipotent, as I already said.

No, human and person do not mean the same thing. I cannot be bothered ret-typing the definition of person, please re-read my previous posts.

You agree with me that a humans cannot be omnipotent, yet you keep using examples of human nature to illustrate why omnipotence is possible. You cannot be omnipotent because of your human nature.

No, I use examples to show how human nature does not mean that potency is impossible.

However, in that choice lies the option to not to be benevolent, which an omnibenevolent God does not have. If God is truly omnibenevolent, then all of his future actions must be benevolent, meaning that He has no choice.

Omnibenevolence is not something imposed on Him. It is not some unwanted nature that He wants to eradicate but is powerless over. It is Him, it is His will. God contradicting His will would negate omnipotence.

And as I have said before perhaps God has chosen to be omnibenevolent.

And just so you know, "choice" is irrelevant. We are not arguing over God's free will.

But of course, as I pointed out, acting within the universe but outside of time is logically impossible (which even an omnipotent God cannot do).

First of all, you never explained why God being outside of time is impossible.

I know people do not interpret the scripture literally, as I have already said. As I have also said, there are many ways to interpret if you are using a metaphorical interpretation. If you are using a literal interpretation, then my quetion about Hell stands.

And I know people who have doctorates in scriptural theology. Wonderful. Please look up hermeneutics.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If God is a human (i.e. a person, they mean the same thing) then He can't be omnipotent, as I already said.

No, human and person do not mean the same thing. I cannot be bothered ret-typing the definition of person, please re-read my previous posts.

You agree with me that a humans cannot be omnipotent, yet you keep using examples of human nat ...[text shortened]... w people who have doctorates in scriptural theology. Wonderful. Please look up hermeneutics.

If a person is a "thing that performs an action" (which it isn't, but we'll go with your new definition), then it must act within time in order to act within the universe. If God is a person(as defined by you), then He must act within time.

So, if God must act within time, then He will have past and future actions. If all of His future actions are predetermined to be benevolent, then there can be no choice and therefore no omnipotence. It has everything to do with choice and free will.

You know people with doctorates in scriptural theology? Great. Why are you bringing that up? Are you trying to say that their interpretation of the bible is the only correct one?

Originally posted by whiterose
If a person is a "thing that performs an action" (which it isn't, but we'll go with your new definition), then it must act within time in order to act within the universe. If God is a person(as defined by you), then He must act within time.

So, if God must act within time, then He will have past and future actions. If all of His future actions are pred ...[text shortened]... at up? Are you trying to say that their interpretation of the bible is the only correct one?

In medievil theology the person is defined as the thing that performs the action. The nature is the source of the action. This is the terminology used to describe God. You, however, not being versed in this vocabulary may be mislead by the assertion that the Holy Spirit, an incorporeal identity of God is a person. But I have not introduced anything new.

I do recall saying that God acts within time. God's actions correlate with a certain time in our history - but not God's. Classical theology recognizes God as eternal, which is intended to mean that God does not have future or past, God experiences every moment at the one time, this is what is meant by transcending time. God's actions, however, (even while performed at the same moment) are manifested at different times in creation's history.

This has nothing to do with God's omnipotence or free will. I personally do not see determinacy as preclusive to free will (which you obviously do) but nor do I see it relevant to omnipotence. Omnipotence is a faculty, or more accurately an attribute, which God exercises at will according to His nature. It has the potential to do anything, but God, acting out of His omnibenevolent nature does not exercise it in full. This is out of choice. A choice that is immutable.

Sorry, to be dogmatic there. But so many concepts have been conflated together.

Why do you bring up your friends and their interpretations of scripture? And no, I would not say that their interpretations are the only correct ones, but I would say that they are more correct.

The problem with most people interpreting scripture is that they approach it with their own concerns, concerns which did not exist at the writing of that scripture. Nor do they appreciate the scripture as a piece of literature, or as part of a social and cultural paradigm, nor with nuance that comes from the language they were authored in. It is very complex understanding any passage in scripture.

Originally posted by Conrau K
In medievil theology the person is defined as the thing that performs the action. The nature is the source of the action. This is the terminology used to describe God. You, however, not being versed in this vocabulary may be mislead by the assertion that the Holy Spirit, an incorporeal identity of God is a person. But I have not introduced anything new.
...[text shortened]... language they were authored in. It is very complex understanding any passage in scripture.

"When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person."
Hey, you said God was a person, not me. I am merely going along with your definition.

If God's actions are manifested at different times, then they have a past and a future. As such, the actions of a God with free will (which of course an omnipotent God must have) cannot be predetermined. If He is omnibenevolent, then they are predetermined, thus precluding his omnipotence. Determinancy is certainly preclusive to free will. How could it not be?

Originally posted by ParanoidAndroid
I think what Ivanhoe was trying to say was that from the Christian point of view, God as the creator of all owns all its creation. It is therefore inconsistent to refer to God taking a life as murder in the same sense that humans view murder (as taking a life that does not belong to them). It's like if I have a clay model boat that I made (which I ...[text shortened]... ), then like the boat, God has every right to take offense.

Hope that helps,
~ the Android

Sounds like Divine Command Theory, which has its problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

"It implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon God's whim; if God had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been."

Originally posted by whiterose
"When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person."
Hey, you said God was a person, not me. I am merely going along with your definition.

If God's actions are manifested at different times, then they have a past and a future. As such, the actions of a God with free will (which of course an omnipotent God must have) cannot be predetermined. If H ...[text shortened]... ng his omnipotence. Determinancy is certainly preclusive to free will. How could it not be?

"When I refer to "God", I am referring to God as a person."
Hey, you said God was a person, not me. I am merely going along with your definition.

You are not going along with my definition at all - which, mind you, is not really my definition. You said that the person isn't "the thing which performs the action". I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

If God's actions are manifested at different times, then they have a past and a future. As such, the actions of a God with free will (which of course an omnipotent God must have) cannot be predetermined.

I agree. But for different reasons. God transcends time. There is no pre-God, or predeterminism of God. All these actions manifest at different times in creation but are performed at the same moment outside of time by God (our language forces me to use the word "moment" which implies a separate time-line to ours. This is not my intention).

If He is omnibenevolent, then they are predetermined, thus precluding his omnipotence. Determinancy is certainly preclusive to free will. How could it not be?

God's actions are not predetermined. Predeterminacy is irrelevant to a God that transcends time. But, just to indulge you, no, determinacy doesn't negate free will. Imagine a world in which you didn't determine your own actions.