|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God the father | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4063 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
But the concept itself can only be supported by taking passages out of context. Which concept, the "loving God," or the "unbelievers burn forever?" Last I knew, both of those concepts were well supported and contradicted in the Bible, depending on whether you're limiting "consistency" to a single book or the entire collected canon. On Hell:
quote: On a loving God:
quote: And on a God who doesn;t actually love everyone:
quote: Does God love us? Does God hate us? Does he love the ones he condemns to burn forever in the lake of fire? Other?The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4063 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Yup, quote mining and taking passages out of concept. As I said. Then by all means show us what the passages mean in context. If you think they mean something else when context is included, the onus is on you to support that assertion. I'd very much like to see the reason you believe the passages that support the existence of Hell as a place of eternal punishment in fire are simply "out of context." Two-line replies make for a poor debate, Jar. This isn't an instant message application.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4063 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
A parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life. Not when the parent is supposed to be omnipotent. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4063 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
You still haven't explained why. Why does omnipotence make a difference? This is the second time I've asked. Why would an omnipotent parent ensure that all their children were restored to life? ... If I lost my child in a car accident, but I was omnipotent, I would edit reality so that the car accident never happened. Or bring the child back to life. Because I would love my child. Your argument centers on the idea that parental influence is limited - but omnipotence removes any and all limitations on the ability of the parent to influence their child. An omnipotent parent doesn't need to worry about their child being burned by a hot stove -the parent could simply create a force-field around the hot stove, or make the child invulnerable to injury from heat, or magically make sure that the child knows better and consistently avoids touching hot stoves. As a normal paren't you're limited, but an omnipotent parent is not. Beyond that, the father-figure God is supposed to have made up all the rules in the first place. What loving parent would ever create a set of rules where one or more paths can potentially lead to the death of their child? We aren't talking about a human parent working within the Universe as it's presented - we're talking about the supposed Creator of the Universe! If the Omnipotent Creator doesn't want its children to die or suffer, then the Omnipotent Creator is under no obligation to create the Universe such that suffering and death are possible! Whether you believe that "Hell" is a lake of eternal unquenchable fire and burning punishment or simply permanent death and the cessation of existence, God is supposed to be the one who made it that way. The Omnipotent Creator could have simply created a Universe where nobody ever dies. Therefore each and every death, regardless of "Free will," is the choice of the Creator, not the created. That's the difference of omnipotence. If you have the ability to have an effect, then you are ultimately responsible for that effect happening or not. An omnipotent parent can simply give eternal life to all of its children, whether they want it or not, and can even make them want it, because that's what omnipotence means! If the child is not restored to life, then that is the decision of the parent. And the root of this thread is "what kind of parent would make that decision and let their child suffer the consequences?" Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4063 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Omnipotence has nothing to do with whether one would or could do any more to help their "child" survive or succeed in life. Correct on the former but utterly wrong on the latter. An omnipotent parent may choose not to use their omnipotence to help their child. An omnipotent parent can choose to do so regardless of the situation, however, because omnipotence means the ability to do anything. Name one example of a situation where an omnipotent parent cannot help their child succeed.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4063 Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
You need to show me that omnipotence does mean the ability to do anything. Saying it doesn't mean it does. quote: Definition 1) is the one used to apply to God, or at least was in every Christian denomination of which I am aware. I was brought up in Congregational, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Christian Reformed churches and schools, and all of them taught that God was all-powerful, able to make anything happen simply because he wanted it to, Creator of the Universe, with unlimited ability to change realiy to match his will. You know, omnipotent. Apparently you've been using a completely different definition of the word. I suspect that if you went into any random 10 churches anywhere in the world and asked if God was capable of performing some absurdly impossible feat, like say, a miracle involving an event that should not be possible according to the normal laws of physics, they would answer in the affirmative. If you asked those same people whether God can do anything at all, with no limits, I imagine they would also all answer in the affirmative. I think you're talking about a different God than any concept of the character I have ever heard of. Certainly not the version typically included in Christian dogma, who supposedly Created the world and all life in it in six days, and who very clearly is supposed to be the one who set all of the rules of existence, right down to the requirement that sin be punished with death, and the absolution of that debt through a bizarre and brutal human scapegoating ritual where God sacrificed himself to satisfy the consequence of his own rules. Or, perhaps more humorously: You keep using this word, Omnipotent. I do not think it means what you think it means.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024