God the father

So you want to argue semantics?Obviously people are using the dictionary meaning of unlimited for omnipotent. Are you using a different definition?You need to show me that omnipotence doesn't mean the ability to do anything. Saying crap doesn't mean it doesn't.Edited by Theodoric, : Subtitle

quote:

---

omnipotent
   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

---

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

Excuse me, but I'm not the one who brought up omnipotence. Rahvin did.You jumped on my Message 54 which said: Until they are adults, parents are the authority or ruler over their children.One parent ruling more "kingdoms" doesn't change that we can only do so much to influence our children. At some point it is up to them.Deals with ruling. Just because you didn't read or comprehend the whole post is not my problem.I asked you three times to explain the difference and you provided no support or meanings.How dare you insinuate that I'm being deceitful because you didn't read carefully. You had your chance to explain and didn't.Well, Pot, perhaps if you had explained what definition you were using we could have made some headway.Since it pertains to God, I look to see how it is used in the Bible when referring to God.

quote:

---

Or, perhaps more humorously: You keep using this word, Omnipotent. I do not think it means what you think it means.

---

Love that movie! The definition doesn't say the ability to do anything. God can do what he is able to do and wants to do. God was unable to remove evil from the world or didn't want to. I would say unable given his disappointment.The New Testament deals more with dominion, not ability.In relation to this topic, I was trying to give subbie answers supported by the Bible. I wasn't trying to support dogma or tradition. Not my style. IMO, it is easier to withstand a sales pitch when one has more facts at their disposal.If we're just making stuff up, then anything goes. The churches still have to have some basis for claiming God can do anything. I'm saying it isn't supported in the Bible.So saying an omnipotent parent could or would do more than a human parent has no basis. It's fiction.God uses rules and consequences just like human parents.
Everyone dies and God decides who he wants to bring back.Hopefully Christians have been reading the right rule book.

Ok, let's go with this. If God is loving, and loves all of us as a father loves his children, why would he not want to bring back everyone?I'm not a father (quite yet) but even if my child rejected me, I would want to bring him back. Why doesn't god? Does he, in fact, not love me as a father loves their child?

quote:

---

But in the story the God character is challenged, and is corrected. Abe points out that God is not acting justly

---

This is where is falls apart for me - I don't see how god is corrected. It's more like Q: "isn't this a bad thing?" A: "no, and this is why"

quote:

---

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.

---

Now this is interesting. Are you saying that god himself has changed over time? It's almost like an analogy of a young father who doesn't know what he's doing yet and gradually gets a feel for the role as time goes by. Is this what you mean?This is bordering on the edge of the Man created God point of view as would be argued by a sociologist rather than a theologist.At the risk of being as blunt as a sledgehammer, are you a believer or looking at it as an outsider (like I am)?

You honestly don't see how the God character is corrected?And of course man created God; in fact I can't imagine how we could ever talk about a God that we did not create other than to say I believe there is a GOD.And yes, I am a cradle creedal Christian, a very active and devout one.What we see in religious stories is how people of a given era and culture viewed the God appropriate to that era and culture. The God pictured in the much younger Genesis 1 fable is quite different than the God in the older Genesis 2&3 fable as a clear example.

Then you should have used his definition.
But instead you decided to dishonestly attempt a juvenile 'gotcha' where you use a definition completely different to everyone else.
But you knew this - which is why I accused you of deceit. Since you knew you were using an 'alternative' definition, the onus was on you to give the meaning.
But you were too busy giggling at your stupid word-game to debate honestly. I did not insinuate anything.
I stated it very clearly.
I even explained how you were being deceitful. I cannot be certain of what you mean. Since you insist on using obscure definitions of words - but intentionally keep that from us - I have no confidence that you are using normal parlance.
You will need to explain every single word as you cannot be trusted not to switch meanings half way through the discussion. And when it comes to discussions you value stupid semantic tricks over honesty or accuracy.So - why were you being deceitful? This is the second time I have asked.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That's not what's actually going down. Abraham isn't asking whether it's a bad thing; he is telling God that destroying the fifty righteous with the wicked is not right, and asking whether God is going to do what is right or what is wrong.God replies by agreeing to do what is right.Abraham then says that it is also wrong to destroy even forty-five righteous people with the wicked ones and again asks God if he plans on doing what is right or what is wrong.God replies by agreeing to do what is right.And so forth.Granted, it is not clear that God did not intend to do what is right to begin with. There isn't a lot to tell us that God didn't already have in mind to save the city for the sake of ten or even fewer. But the incident does set a precedent that it is the duty of a good Jew to speak up when they think God is about to do something wrong and to tell God what they think is right. Even when God may already have things well under control. The examples jar has given present a pretty good outline to the changes of God over time. In fact, there are even parallels in the Christian myths of Jesus.In Mark 8:22—26 (our earliest gospel), for example, we see Jesus heal a blind man in two tries using mud made from his spit. It reminds us of the way the God in Gen 2 creates not with mere words but from clay and elbow grease. When we get to the last of the canonical gospels to be written, John, we see a much more distanced Jesus. He turns water into wine without touching anything (Jn 2:1—11), and raises the dead with a shout of his voice (Jn 11:5—44). Indeed, the elevation of Jesus, over time, continues until Jesus is not only equated with God, but is God.The evolution of the God of the Jewish legends happens in similar fashion, beginning with a very human and intimate being and ending (it is actually still going on) with a super deity who brings things into existence by speech alone.Jon

Thanks Jar and Jon for the replies.I honestly read that as god reassuring Abraham that the good would not be harmed rather than the way you describe it. I can see how it can be interpreted the other way now too.Jar, I find it interesting that you say that man did create god. To me that sounds like having an imaginary friend that you know you made up. Not trying to throw dirt on your beliefs but that's how is seems to me. If I stretch my interpretation, I can see that this is a form of biblical-philosophical agnosticism - like 'we can't know if he's real but the book itself demonstrates a good philosophy to live by'. Is that pretty close?Jon, Thanks for illustrating the evolution of god within the bible. I have seen the same process within cultures and religions before from a sociological point of view but I've never seen it related like that. To me, it illustrates the maturation of the culture of the authors of the books and I think that's what you mean.To both of you, thanks for the most rational response I've had to a question on religion that I've had for a long time.

Not quite. Let me try again to describe GOD, God and god.First I believe there really is a GOD, that which created all that is, seen and unseen; but if there is such a critter, it is something that is at least as far above me as I am above pond scum. I have no adequate way to describe such a critter; I am limited.But I can make attempts to describe my beliefs, the God (note case change) of my beliefs. For example in Christianity there are the creeds, the "I believes" such as the Nicene Creed that says:

quote:

---

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

---

If you look at that it is again a pretty generic statement that doesn't give us much detail about God other than that I believe He is like a father, that He is almighty (having ultimate authority) and created all that is, seen and unseen.Note though there is a sex assumed in the believe that that God is a man, which is almost certainly wrong and down right silly.The Nicene Creed is a general statement that was meant to be relatively inclusive while intentionally excluding a particular subset of Christian beliefs that were pretty popular at the time.While GOD is the actuality, the reality (assuming that I am right and GOD does exist), God is a human creation, an attempt by humans to put into words their beliefs about GOD.Although we can say almost nothing about GOD, we can add some more detail at the God level of abstraction since at the God level we are talking about a map, not the territory itself.The Nicene Creed abstraction is broad enough and general enough that both Buz and I can agree that it describes our beliefs but also detailed enough that it eliminates Jews and Muslims and some of the then current Christian sects.Finally there is god (note all lower case) where we have the greatest detail and also the greatest variations. This is a creation of a given people of a given era and given culture; it is the many gods found in the Bible stories, and each of those gods represents a snapshot of how a specific people viewed their relationship at a given point of time. Those gods evolve rapidly and there is lots of change. Let's look at just a few of them.There is the god of Genesis 2&3, a hands on tinkerer, often unsure, learning on the job, working by trial and error, afraid, but also powerful and in command of armies yet personable and intimate. This god walks and talks with the creation and has direct contact with them.Later we see the god of Abraham, again very human, without perfect knowledge who is doing a walk about to confirm or deny rumors He's heard. Still a male and very powerful, still the ultimate authority but subject to questioning and reproof. (note that there is also a change in how man is viewed in these stories)Another god is the one found in the story of the creation of the people "Israel" (not to be confused with the Nation Israel that is often considered apostate) where Jacob wrestles with god and even though the god character doesn't quite fight fair Jacob doesn't give up. Again, in this story the god is a powerful man but we see another slight change in how the relationship between god and man was viewed.In the Gen 2&3 story man is innocent and totally helpless, amoral at first; by the Abraham story man is a moral agent questioning even god and when we get to Jacob man even struggles with god although man cannot overcome god.Then there is the much later story found in Genesis 1 where the god character is entirely different (far more like the god we see in the New Testament stories), overarching, supremely competent, creating by an act of will alone, never hesitating, moving from task to task without trial or error and able at the end to look back at what was done and find it good. But this god is also separate, aloof and does not interact directly with the creation and is not intimate.Does that help you understand my position?

Ok, think I've got it...GOD is completely beyond reach to our limited selves outside the conviction that it exists as the creator.God is the the overall human concept of GOD. I feel that your quote from the Nicene Creed is quite universal - well beyond christianity. I am aware that this quote is not the complete creed. I checked I'm just referring to your particular extract here.god is the god of societies and cultures. This is the god of sociology and anthropology. It is this god that is usually argued on this very forum.So GOD is felt as God and depicted as god.About right?

Close enough for government work.On God though, Ganesha would not fall under the definition found in the Nicene Creed as an example. The Nicene Creed though was written to exclude the other current Gods such as the Roman and Indian pantheon while appropriating the Hebrew God but excluding Hebrews by other sections of the Nicene Creed. It was an attempt to build consensus, to outline a minimal set of beliefs that all could say "I can live with that" while opposing the Arian position. And it was almost successful.

quote:

---

Ok, let's go with this. If God is loving, and loves all of us as a father loves his children, why would he not want to bring back everyone?

​

I'm not a father (quite yet) but even if my child rejected me, I would want to bring him back. Why doesn't god? Does he, in fact, not love me as a father loves their child?

---

Children weren't quite so "sacred" in the first century. The Jews considered infanticide to be a crime for humans. From what I've read in the Bible, I don't think the same applied to God.This is the backdrop for the New Testament. Religion evolves with society. It may lag a bit, but if we bring God up to today's standards, odds are he will bring everyone to life since we don't like seeing anyone lose out or not bring anyone back at all. Of course that would depend on when he decides to do this. A few ages from now, who knows what the prevailing feelings will be.Another possibility since people feel that omnipotent means God can do whatever we dream up, God will probably wake up from this horrible vision and rethink his plans for this planet. Types of love in the BibleThe Greek words Eros (sensual love) and Storge (family love) are not used in relation to God or Jesus in the New Testament.Agape (selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love) is used in relation to God. Parents try to train their children to behave a certain way. Some children are easier to train than others. We set rules and consequences. When our child breaks the rules, we still love them; but they still suffer the consequences. One child breaks the rules and one doesn't; then one child suffers the consequences and the other receives the "prize". The idea that everyone gets candy no matter how they behave isn't an incentive to behave.The idea is that if you want to go to the after party, your name has to be on the list. To make the list you have to meet a certain criteria. It's one way to get adults to behave and play well together. Hopefully Christians have the right set of instructions.As with any parent; God can always change his mind at any time. Edited by purpledawn, : Changed Subtitle

Yep, I can see the exclusion of polytheism in this. No problems there.Thanks for taking the time. Except for the base assumption of GOD, this all works for me. I believe I get it.Cheers.