Summations Only

1) Who says such a thing is even possible?2) Men do evil and it is impossible to create humans with free will where some of them won't do the wrong thing. Also, motivation from pure motives is not the only way to create progress.

Man created the concept of evil and a moral sense exists only within the mythos of a culture, society or era. It totally arbitrary and it too evolves over time.

If God isn't useful to us, what's the point of having a God? Creating a world with a limited food supply is evil.

quote:

---

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

---

See above.

Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

I'm going to attempt an actual reply to the topic of this thread. Though I am not ChristianI used to be, but long before I was capable of considering things like the meaning of the TrinityI imagine the Trinity as being a single being with three simultaneous manifestations.It is easier to think of if you imagine that for one moment the manifestation is Jesus, for another moment the manifestation is the Father, and for another moment the manifestation is the Holy Spirit.Easy enough to comprehend. There is nothing strange in a God that can manifest in three different ways.The mental jump comes when we say that God can manifest in these three different ways at the same time. God does not have to choose when to be Jesus, when to be the Father, and when to be the Holy Spirit because He can be all of themand is all of themat once. And yet, just as when they were manifest at different times, they are still independent of one another while being manifestations of the same one God.It really is a one, two, three logic trail: One god -> Doublethink -> TrinityBut it works.

It's god. He can do anything. See Ringo's post. He could have easily have made doing evil things as repulsive to us as eating dirt. You'd still get a small minority that would do it, but you would be preventing 99% of the evil in the world. You still have free will to choose to do whatever you want, but now there's no motivation for evil.

Not without programming you in such a way, which I contend does not leave you with free will. How many of what we seem to universally find repulsive is not socially learned? How much of what is left is not a product of evolution?In particular, not eating dirt is a learned response. People put all kinds of things in their mouths (penises, cigars, yogurt without fruit) that I would find repulsive to try.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

On-topic! Whoa. Radical.As a nonbeliever, I take a functional, historical view of the Trinity: Judaic monotheism was hijacked by a charismatic teacher, requiring the Son; his teachings and subsequent oral history opened the door to the Holy Spirit.Functionally, the Trinity breaks the rational mind; you cannot reason your way to the Trinity any more than you can reason your way to a God. It is a theologically useful way to say, stop thinking and just believe.Perhaps, as women make more gains, prompting a greater recognition of the feminine creative principle (if a god created everything alone, what's more likely--male or female?), we may arrive at the Quadrinity: the Mother, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.Though the Prodigal Daughters may not be satisfied with that.

Yet there is apparently a bit more to Trinity doctrine than forced monotheism. What I find most intriguing (i.e. as silly) about the doctrine is the use of it to designated other followers of Christ as non-Christians.In trying to track down and understand the doctrine, I came across a controversy over the fact that evangelist T.D. Jakes embraced held a non-traditional view of the Trinity.While I am able to the distinction between Jakes old view, which he has now renounced and the traditional view, it's a lot more difficult to convince me that the difference is anything Jesus spoke about.According to almost all evangelistic fundies, people like T.D. Jakes with his reformed view is a heretic despite the fact that they agree with 99.44% of everything he says. Of course those same people invariably believe the earth is 6000 years old.

That just emphasizes how silly the concept of an "omnipotent" being is - as silly as the concept of a "trinity".

Nothing particularly strange with that, but what you imagine is definitely not the Trinity doctrine. It is close to the Oneness doctrine embraced by the United Pentecostal Church. As best as I can tell, most fundies would consider that belief heretical.Oneness Pentecostalism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Oneness Pentecostalism derives its distinctive name from its teaching on the Godhead, which is popularly referred to as the Oneness doctrine.[2] This doctrine states that there is one God, a singular divine person, who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (a.k.a. Holy Spirit). This stands in sharp contrast to the doctrine of three distinct and eternal "persons" posited by Trinitarian theology. Oneness believers baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, commonly referred to as Jesus-name baptism, rather than using the Trinitarian formula.

---

Exactly. But most Christians are not quite so literal about the word omnipotent. Even the verse you quoted from the Bible described something rare but not logically impossible. Christians who call God omnipotent aren't looking for God to make an invisible, shining, white opaque object that absorbs all light. And the people telling me that I should hold God responsible for the fact that our sun only has a few billion years worth of hydrogen are invariably atheists.

As soon as you give up omnipotence, "God" becomes just an alien overlord. Then the question becomes: do you "worship" it or charge up the phasers?