God the father

Yes, it shows that man has morality and that when what god is doing does not stand up to judgement by man, then man has not just the right but the duty to speak up.Remember that the God of Abraham was very human, did not know everything, got around by walking, got hungry and ate just like everyone else, and could be wrong.But in the story the God character is challenged, and is corrected. Abe points out that God is not acting justly.Now granted this story shows a much evolved God compared to the God of Adam, and of course the "God" character continues to evolve as the societies evolved.

First off, the Genesis 2&3 story is not of a Fall but of a Rise.In the story man gains the great gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the possibility of being moral.And of course forbidding the Tree of Knowledge was just plain stupid. Until mankind ate from the Tree of Knowledge they simply did not have the tools to even know they should obey.Teaching that story as Fall is one of the greatest failures in Christianity.

quote:

---

No it doesn't.

​

A child will want to play with fire.
As a human parent, you try (and probably fail) to prevent your child from playing with fire.
As an omnipotent parent, you successfully prevent a child from playing with fire.
Their 'wants' are irrelevant.

---

I didn't say their "wants", I said they have to want to. IOW, people have to want to change their behavior. Babies and toddlers learning about the dangers around them is not the issue.You're moving away from the original point I was addressing in Message 47. The scenario given wasn't necessarily about a dependent child. It wasn't specific, but could go either way. It was an analogy concerning eternal torment.

quote:

---

An omnipotent parent would ensure that their children were restored to life.

---

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?

Do you really not know the difference between a human parent and an omnipotent parent?
Do you really not see a difference between them?
Do you really not see how 'being omnipotent' would be different from 'not being omnipotent'? Your sentence contradicts itself.
You say you aren't talking about their 'wants' and then you start talking about what they have to want. Answer:A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.
An omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life.Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of something that an omnipotent parent would not be able to do...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do you really not know the difference between a human parent and an omnipotent parent?
Do you really not see a difference between them?
Do you really not see how 'being omnipotent' would be different from 'not being omnipotent'?

---

That doesn't answer the question.

quote:

---

A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.
An omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life.

---

Saying that doesn't mean that they can or explain what an omnipotent parent would do that a human parent wouldn't.

quote:

---

Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of something that an omnipotent parent would not be able to do...

---

You're the one that says there's a difference. What is the difference? This is my third request.

It seems to me that the idea of God being omnipotent is a meaningless phrase from a human perspective. If God is the creator of the universe then it is obvious that his knowledge is so vastly superior to ours that we would be completely unable to comprehend any limits to his knowledge or power. My dog probably thinks I'm omnipotent.When the entire Bible is read in context it is clear that it tells of us that God works with us in time. The idea that God knows what I will have for lunch a week from Thursday is not consistent with scripture. Whether this is the case because of a choice on God's part or out of necessity is unknowable to us.What we can know that if we all lived our lives in accordance with the idea that we are to relate to all of God's creation, (including all of our fellow humans), with unselfish and even sacrificial love that the vast majority of the misery and strife in the world would no longer exist. That is a big part of the Christian message. Also of course if we all lived our lives according to that principle there would be no need to have a discussion of eternal suffering in hell because it would be uninhabited.

I have already addressed these questions:So - in summary: A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.
But an omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. A human parent could only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.
Whereas an omnipotent parent would do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life. A human parent can only do so much to help their child survive or succeed in life.
In contrast. an omnipotent parent can do all that is needed for their child to survive and succeed in life.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : Hopefully increased the clarity of the obvious.

...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.

Have you read Mysterious Stranger?If not, perhaps that would help you.

quote:

---

I have already addressed these questions:

---

All you've said is one can and one can't, but you haven't explained why one can and one can't. You've also not provided any support for your reasoning.The Judeo/Christian God is described as El Shaddai in the Old Testament and pantodrator in the New Testament. These are the words that lead to the idea of omnipotence. Pantokrator deals more with ruling authority, supreme authority.God gave them rules and consequences to guide their behavior, just like human parents. 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.

For the Omnipotent God, all things would be their child.

quote:

---

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!

---

Omnipotence is more about ruling authority. See Message 70.

quote:

---

The Omnipotent Creator could have simply created a Universe where nobody ever dies.

---

But he didn't. How do you know an omnipotent creator could have done that?You're presenting all these characteristics for an omnipotent being. What omnipotent being are they based on?

quote:

---

An omnipotent parent can choose to do so regardless of the situation, however, because omnipotence means the ability to do anything.

---

You need to show me that omnipotence does mean the ability to do anything. Saying it doesn't mean it does.

Ah - I see you were knowingly using an uncommon definition of the word 'omnipotent'.
Perhaps if you had explained that you weren't using the normal meaning of the word we could have got to this point sooner.Why were you being deceitful?