Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
34 online now:
jar, JonF, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,371 Year: 18,407/19,786 Month: 827/1,705 Week: 79/518 Day: 5/74 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God good?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 706 of 722 (686923)
01-05-2013 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 705 by Stile
01-04-2013 3:49 PM


Re: More squared circles
In setting up God as the all powerful and maximally benevolent creator of a world that contains the problem of evil... you have created a "square circle" situation.

In some kind of "GOTCHA!" sense I might agree.

I gave the example of the drunk man you are trying prop up on a horse. He might tumble over to this side or to that side.

I am happy to repeat that God seems to have limited Himself by man's agreement and cooperation in some crucial things. I could not say this about the creation of the universe.

But in some things related to His will His power is like a locomotive. It needs the "train tracks" the petitions of His people.

Something in me can hinder God.
Sin, unbelief, natural energy can cause some hindrence to God.
In the Bible multitudes of obstacles are thrown up before God by man's capacity to frustrate His will.

At the same time it appears that His foreknowledge of the future has informed us prophetically, that such obstacles are temporary and that He will accomplish all of His will. That is what we see in Revelation 21 and 22.

One day I may open a thread on the very mysterious vision of Ezekiel. This technology of a wheel within wheel full of eyes and whatnot is a kind of grand vision of Divine / Human coordination and cooperation.


You have created a situation where you then need to explain how evil is benevolent. Squares are not circles.
Evil is not benevolent. They are opposites.

I am not sure I have done that. I'll think about it.

We might say it is certainly not good that a grown man would slap a younger person hard. That would appear mean hearted. But if a doctor slaps a newborn baby on the behind so that it takes in its first gulp of air, that is benevolent. But it is has to be appreciated on a higher plane.

We are not instructed to go out and DO EVIL so that good may come. But the fact of the matter is that we will do some evil things. God has the power to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him.


You seem to have plenty of explanations for the way things are.
But everything you say still comes down to one of two quesitons...

Is it because God is not benevolent enough?
Or is it because God is not powerful enough?

I'll go tell the potential rapist that this is God's universe and that He has certain laws which He will enforce. I will tell him that NOTHING will escape God's scrutinization and that the sinner can have redemption in Christ or perdition.

You go and tell the potential rapist that you know God has not done too well in creating the world. You tell him that you have in your imaginative collection two or maybe three or more BETTER ways in which God could have administered things.

I think the former presentation from the Bible will be of more help to him. I think your teaching of the inept God who needs to be presented with a few handy alternatives on how to be God from you will be of less help to him.


I agree that this is the way things are. You do not have to explain the way things are.
The questions, though, still exist. Can you answer them?

What is a problem to you is not a problem to me.
I have given you some reason why what is apparently a problem to you is not a problem to me. I can't do much more than that.

I see where God arrives eventually in the New Jerusalem and with the new heaven and new earth.

I do not assume that as He arrives there is nothing along the way that would cause me to be perplexed. Even the apostles, Paul admits, were perplexed at times.

This perplexity drove them further INTO God. In your case perhaps it drives you away.

Look at your human body. Look at the universe itself. Are there not some things that you do not understand well ? Aren't there some things with the operation of your physical body or even psychological mind which work, yet you do not understand them.

Now I am forced to stop writing now. I'll read your other comments latter.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by Stile, posted 01-04-2013 3:49 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2013 9:42 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 709 by Stile, posted 01-07-2013 1:59 PM jaywill has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 707 of 722 (686980)
01-06-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 706 by jaywill
01-05-2013 12:01 PM


Re: More squared circles
I'll go tell the potential rapist that this is God's universe and that He has certain laws which He will enforce. I will tell him that NOTHING will escape God's scrutinization and that the sinner can have redemption in Christ or perdition.

You go and tell the potential rapist that you know God has not done too well in creating the world. You tell him that you have in your imaginative collection two or maybe three or more BETTER ways in which God could have administered things.

I think the former presentation from the Bible will be of more help to him. I think your teaching of the inept God who needs to be presented with a few handy alternatives on how to be God from you will be of less help to him.

If that was true, and I'm not sure that it is, it has no bearing on the question before us.

By analogy, it might improve the behavior of children if they all believed that Santa is watching to see if they're naughty or nice; but this has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether there is a Santa Claus, or whether, given this hypothesis, he himself is nice or naughty.

And your own reasoning could just as well be turned against you, if only it worked. Imagine a religious zealot about to condemn a heretic to the flames, or fly a plane into a building. Wouldn't it produce a better outcome if he suddenly decided that God doesn't exist? Yes, it would. And yet of course that's no reason to think that God doesn't exist. The consequences, good or bad, of people believing or disbelieving a supposedly substantive proposition can have no possible relevance to its truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2013 12:01 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 9:13 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 708 of 722 (687057)
01-07-2013 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 707 by Dr Adequate
01-06-2013 9:42 AM


Re: More squared circles
If that was true, and I'm not sure that it is, it has no bearing on the question before us.

It is not far removed. We are talking about the goodness of God. This entails stacking human goodness next to God's goodness. How else can man have an opinion about the goodness of God unless he do so from his own self sense of good.

In putting the goodness next to that of God either both are equal or one exceeds. If man's goodness exceeds, I think that argues for either something percularily wrong that the creature is endowed with what the Creator had not to bestow upon him. The effect is greater than the cause.

If God comes up on the greater goodness side, that not only makes more sense but also puts man under God's judgment.

From the standpoint of a Bible believer like myself, it DOES put man under the judgment of God. That judgment is not vain. It carries consequences. However, there is a grand possibility of reconciliation, of justification, of redemption.

Stile proposes something like a teaching of the inept God under man's judgment. I represent the Bible's revelation of the sinful man under God's judgment - with the important added fact of salvation extended to man in Christ.


By analogy, it might improve the behavior of children if they all believed that Santa is watching to see if they're naughty or nice;

I count any comparison between God and Christ to Santa Claus as frivolous.

But the prospect of God's judgment will deter some sinners. But it will not deter all sinners. Other aspects about the Divine Person may enfluence them.

In John's Gospel there are nine cases of sinners being turned to Jesus. And not all of them involved a fearful prospect of judgment. Ie. with the woman at the well in chapter 4, it is clear that she did the things that she did merely because she was so thirsty for enjoyment. Many sinners' problem is that they are just so THIRSTY, and so HUNGRY for enjoyment.

But some of us consider our ways in light of God's infallible record of our doings. This and the human conscience can act as a breaking system to prevent us from going TOO far. It may not stop us completely. But this breaking mechanism act upon us until we can be reached by Christ within for salvation.

I think this too speaks to God's goodness. That is arresting and limiting man's downward decline with conscience and the fear of God. The Bible even says that the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.

"The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." (Prov. 9:10 comp. Psalm 111:10)

Again, it says that the fear of God is the hatred of evil.
If evil is not hated one may ask is the real genuine fear of God really there.

"The fear of Jehovah is to hate evil ..." (Prov. 8:13)

Do not despise the fear of God. It is the beginning of wisdom. It is the hatred of evil. Now not all will have a healthy fear of the Rightoeus God. And God is longsuffering, patient, slow to anger. And the Bible also says that because God does not immediately judge, some people are emboldened to mistake that for assuming that there are no consequences to be faced. And this assumption hardens them to sin all the more -

"Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the children of men is fully set within them to do evil." (Ecclesiastes 8:11)

Because some fornicators, rapists, peeping toms, pornography mongers, etc think that their sins are only met with silence apparently, they are bold to err all the more. Of course if they are not saved in Christ they are in for a bitter disappointment.

They can be saved from the guilt of thier sins and from the power of the sinning energy through the Savior and Great Physician Jesus.

The guilt of their sins can be cleansed away in Christ's redemption.
And the power of the sinning members can be saved by Christ's indwelling Spirit regulating and liberating them from within.

This too is God's goodness at work - not only forgiving but furnishing a inward liberation to live godly and righteously.

" For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, training us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present age,

Awaiting the blessed hope, even the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:11-13)


but this has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether there is a Santa Claus, or whether, given this hypothesis, he himself is nice or naughty.


And your own reasoning could just as well be turned against you, if only it worked. Imagine a religious zealot about to condemn a heretic to the flames, or fly a plane into a building.

In elaborating on the righteousness of God the Bible has quite much to say about the tension between genuine faith and religious presumption.

So very much could be said about this. But suffice it to mention only this sample -

"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who does the will of My Father who is in the heavens.

Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, was it not in Your name that we prophesied, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name did many works of power?

And then I will declare to them: I never knew you. Depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matt. 7:21-23)

There is no question that religious zeolotry and hypocrisy is a fact of life. The Bible never ignores this from Genesis on to Revelation. There is no naive ignoring of the facade of counterfiet devotion, presummably to God.

Matthew 7:21-23 is only one of many warnings against presumption verses faith. Yes, some will presume that God wants them to fly a plane into a building to murder thousands of infidels - (Moslem style). Yet we could point to similar errors under the banner of Christ.

Now, I must go and leave some things unsaid.


Wouldn't it produce a better outcome if he suddenly decided that God doesn't exist? Yes, it would. And yet of course that's no reason to think that God doesn't exist. The consequences, good or bad, of people believing or disbelieving a supposedly substantive proposition can have no possible relevance to its truth.

If God does not exist I think man has no real absolute standard of goodness or badness to make a meaningful measure. But I will have to explore that latter. I must give a ride to someone.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2013 9:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 7:18 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 709 of 722 (687085)
01-07-2013 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by jaywill
01-05-2013 12:01 PM


Unnecessary squared circles
jaywill writes:

Stile writes:

In setting up God as the all powerful and maximally benevolent creator of a world that contains the problem of evil... you have created a "square circle" situation.

In some kind of "GOTCHA!" sense I might agree.

No, there's no "GOTCHA!" sense here. It's just the words that you have chosen to describe the creator... and what those words mean.

You have chosen to describe God as all powerful and maximally benevolent.
Not "the most powerful and the most benevolent"... but "all powerful and maximally benevolent."

I didn't choose those words, you did. Or, at least, you say the Bible did.

The problem of evil exists.

A maximally benevolent God would not want evil to exist. If this same God is powerful enough ("all" powerful), then this God would erase the problem of evil so that it did not exist.

I am happy to repeat that God seems to have limited Himself by man's agreement and cooperation in some crucial things.

That's the point. If God seems to have limited Himself, it's due to 1 of 3 reasons:

1. God is not powerful enough to overcome the limitation.
2. God is not benevolent enough to want to overcome the limitation.
3. We need to "have faith" that there is a benevolent justification for God to limit himself in the same way that we would have to "have faith" that God can create a square-circle that we also cannot understand in the same way. Because the terms used are contradicting opposites.

We might say it is certainly not good that a grown man would slap a younger person hard. That would appear mean hearted. But if a doctor slaps a newborn baby on the behind so that it takes in its first gulp of air, that is benevolent. But it is has to be appreciated on a higher plane.

Right. But...
We can understand slapping a baby to get it breathing vs. slapping a baby for no reason because they are not opposites.
We cannot understand a maximally benevolent, all-powerful God allowing the problem of evil to exist because they are opposites.

God has the power to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him.

I don't doubt that.
I doubt that God is all powerful and maximally benevolent.
God doesn't have to be all powerful and maximally benevolent in order to "have the power to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him."

He just has to be very powerful and maximally benevolent.
or
He just has to be all powerful and very benevolent.
or
He just has to be very powerful and very benevolent.

...but both "all" and "maximally" are not required.

You go and tell the potential rapist that you know God has not done too well in creating the world. You tell him that you have in your imaginative collection two or maybe three or more BETTER ways in which God could have administered things.

Why am I talking to a potential rapist?
We're not talking about me preventing anything.
We're talking about an all powerful and maximally benevolent God preventing things.
Or... not preventing things (the problem of evil)... things that would be "benevolent to prevent"... which is the opposite square-circle problem we are talking about.

I see where God arrives eventually in the New Jerusalem and with the new heaven and new earth.

"Eventually" is a limitation.
I can see that this could happen, but again, God doesn't have to be all powerful and maximally benevolent in order to "eventually" arrive in the New Jerusalem with the new heaven and new earth.

Why do you use the terms all powerful and maximally benevolent when they are not required?
Why do you cling to these unrequired terms that only add confusion in the form of square-circles to your message?

This perplexity drove them further INTO God. In your case perhaps it drives you away.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
We're not talking about my religious viewpoint here.
We're talking about why you claim that God is all powerful and maximally benevolent when they are conflicting opposites when taking into account the factual problem of evil in this world.
We're talking about why you support the use of these terms when they are not even required for your message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 706 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2013 12:01 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-07-2013 3:15 PM Stile has responded
 Message 711 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 4:49 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12959
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 710 of 722 (687097)
01-07-2013 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by Stile
01-07-2013 1:59 PM


Re: Unnecessary squared circles
stile writes:

Is it because God is not benevolent enough?
Or is it because God is not powerful enough?

God is benevolent enough to even have allowed Lucifer the choice to become satan and actualize potential evil. He is also powerful enough to allow it to exist only long enough to teach us a lesson as we freely choose His Spirit over our own. Hey, even satan may one day get another chance...who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Stile, posted 01-07-2013 1:59 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Stile, posted 01-08-2013 12:24 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 711 of 722 (687108)
01-07-2013 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by Stile
01-07-2013 1:59 PM


Re: No Hydrogen Bomb there
No, there's no "GOTCHA!" sense here. It's just the words that you have chosen to describe the creator... and what those words mean.

You have chosen to describe God as all powerful and maximally benevolent.
Not "the most powerful and the most benevolent"... but "all powerful and maximally benevolent."

I didn't choose those words, you did. Or, at least, you say the Bible did.

The problem of evil exists.

You're riding this like you think you have some hydrogen bomb against the Bible.

I think your problem of evil goes to indirectly prove that God must exist.

The objection of evil has to be more than a difference of opinion.

Your evil must be a real feature of the world.

Paradoxically evil demonstrates God's existence. Evil is a departure from the way things should be.

You would not know what crooked is unless you knew what straight is.

God must exist first to define what good is. Then the existence of evil can be as a departure from what God is.

I don't think objective moral values exist if God does not exist.
If you can point to REAL evil then objective moral values must really exist. They cannot be simply chemical reactions in the grey matter of the brain. If real objective moral values exist by which you can detect real evil as a departure from what ought to be, then

I think this proves that God as the greatest definer of good, must exist.

You have chosen to describe God as all powerful and maximally benevolent.

I may have borrowed those kind of creedal like formulas. I don't make too much of creedal like statements.

They can be helpful. But they do not have the same weight to me as the inspired word of the Bible.

El Shaddai - which is usually often translated "Almighty God" also is rendered "All-sufficient".

When I spoke of a kind of "Gotcha!" way, I mean that it is not too hard to take, say, ONE aspect of God and so drive it as if there is no OTHER aspects or characteristics of God.

I have gone to lengths to explain that man can limit God, at least temporarily.

God NEEDS man's cooperation. Man can hinder this Almighty and All-sufficient God, at least temporarily.

I would not drive the Almightiness of God to the point that it negates that creatures can stand against and frustrate the will of God, at least temporarily.

If by my saying this you claim a point that "Well then, God is NOT all powerful" I will agree with you in some sense.

Actually this aspect of human beings being able to limit God, I think, adds to the status of man. It makes man, in some sense. NEEDED by God. I believe in the God Who created a creater man, who He then prescribed that such a creature could put limits on God, at least temporarily.

The very incarnation of God as a Man - Jesus Christ, testifies to the fact that God needs man.

I am not a Moslem. I believe that in Christ, God could flow through man to the uttermost for the accomplishing of His will.

A maximally benevolent God would not want evil to exist.

Well, as I said, apparently this evil will be vanquished by God.

God seems to have allowed all the evil to be collected in one vast resevoir - Satan. Under this personified repository for all the evil, is included Satan's evil angels, the demons, and the rebellious humans. All of these have joined in the opposition.

But the opposition party will be totally vanquished. The whole nemesis and followers will go down like the Titanic.

Now this may take God some time to do. But it is as good as done.

You make a very big deal of the existence of evil. But I must come back to Revelation 21 and 22 as the climax of God's operation.

In this consummation evil is vanquished. Sin and death are eradicated from the new heaven and new earth.

"For I am now creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former things will not be remembered, nor will they come up in the heart. But rejoice and exult forever, in what I create, For I am now creating Jerusalem as an exultation and her people as a rejoicing ... there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the voice of crying." (See Isaiah 65:17-19)

Isaiah ends his prophecy this way -

"They they will go forth and look on the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; For their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:24)

The evil men are all vanquished. Satan is casted into the lake of fire with his final false prophet and final Antichrist.

"And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)

The hinderence of the opposing evil is totally dealt with forever. Whoever's name is not found written in the book of life joins the nemesis Satan -

"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15)

But as for the redeemed, they enjoy a new heaven and new earth in which righteousness dwells -

The sons of God are the constituents of the New Jerusalem. And surrounding the New Jerusalem are the nations on the new earth living in the light of the city of God (city means people here not buildings).

"But according to His promise we are expecting new heavens and new earth, in which righteousness dwells." (2 Peter 3:13)

To the regenerated man PART of his being is ALREADY in that new world - his reborn human spirit. He is tasting the powers of the age to come (Hebrews 6:5). Because God NEEDS his cooperation these are called to HASTEN and not DELAY the coming of the day of God -

" Expecting and HASTENING the coming of the day of God ..." (2 Peter 3:12a)

This man is not causing hindrance but it HASTENING the ultimate vanquishing of God's enemies. The creation eagerly awaits the maturity and full manifestation of the sons of God who are hastening His coming, wooing Him back to this earth in full kingship -

"For the anxious watching of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God ... in hope that the creation itself will also be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory ofthe children of God." (See Rom. 8:20,21)

So these people can hinder or hasten God's will. Man can hinder for a time, causing the Almighty some problems. But man in coordination can also hasten God's kingdom.

If this same God is powerful enough ("all" powerful), then this God would erase the problem of evil so that it did not exist.

We see evil totally vanquished. If you complain "Well, WHY is it not that way right NOW ???" That may be hard for me to answer.

But God is working in TIME. And if we have faith and trust we can see what the final consummation of His work will be.

I hear you saying "But because the New Jerusalem and the new heaven and earth are not here NOW, this proves something against God." It is not a problem to me. Part of my being is already IN that new age. And when I abide in this indwelling Life, this indwelling Person, evil in me is conquered.

In the earliest days of the church the angel told the persecuted apostles - " Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life." (Acts 5:20)

We Christians are living in this divine life and announcing as the good news all the words of this divine life.

That's the point. If God seems to have limited Himself, it's due to 1 of 3 reasons:

1. God is not powerful enough to overcome the limitation.
2. God is not benevolent enough to want to overcome the limitation.
3. We need to "have faith" that there is a benevolent justification for God to limit himself in the same way that we would have to "have faith" that God can create a square-circle that we also cannot understand in the same way. Because the terms used are contradicting opposites.

He has limited Himself. But when man is one with Him, what a glorious sight that is. He is then able to do far above all that we ask or even think.

I can recall God telling Moses not to delay by calling on God, but to go ahead and cleave asunder the Red Sea !

" And Jehovah said to Moses, WHY DO YOU CRY OUT TO ME? Tell the children of Israel to move forward. And you, lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea, and divide it; and the children of Israel shall go into the midst of the sea on dry ground."

When God secures a man on there earth who is one with Him His authority flows through him. There is a transmission of God's authority and power through the open channel. In time God is working to head up all things TO the church. This means a kind of transmission through a corporate channel of human beings one with His will -

While some may focus on the hindrence, many of us rather focus on the effective cooperation and its result.

Perhaps you are occupied with man as a hindrance to this God who is not as mighty as we thought.

But many of us see a different angle. What an unspeakable priviledge that we redeemed could facilitte God's move on the earth. What a honor and what a sense of human worth this is to us. What a high calling this is. We would never speak of sacrifice. It is a an untold priviledge

It is no wonder that Paul counted all else as dung, as dog food in comparison to his high calling in Christ Jesus.

"But what things were gains to me, these I have counted as loss on a account of Christ, ... I also count all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus m Lord, on account of whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as refuse that I may gain Christ." (Phil. 3:7,8)

I will stop here. But faith is effective because God is FAITHFUL. Faith is one side of the matter. The faithfulNESS of God is the other side.

And God, since the fall of man at least, has chosen the intrument of faith as the means to combine Himself and dispense Himself into man. Faith is the means by which one Divine Person Christ can make His home in man's being -

"That Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith ..." (Eph. 3:17)


I doubt that God is all powerful and maximally benevolent.


God doesn't have to be all powerful and maximally benevolent in order to "have the power to cause all things to work together for good


We're talking about an all powerful and maximally benevolent God preventing things.

I can see that you are going to ride this objection to the maximum.

What is a problem there for you is not a problem to me.


We're not talking about my religious viewpoint here.

I don't know what you mean by a religious viewpoint. If there is a God then He is not the God of religion. He is the God of reality.

I am just speaking of the reaction of some of us to the God of reality.


We're talking about why you claim that God is all powerful and maximally benevolent when they are conflicting opposites when taking into account the factual problem of evil in this world.
We're talking about why you support the use of these terms when they are not even required for your message

Maybe I should utter the matter in a somewhat different manner.

I count the Bible as infallible. I do not count my theology or my creedal formulas as on the same level as the word of God.

If you insist to repeat that there are problems with saying God is "maximally" this or that, it is not a serious problem to me.

At worst it means theological explanations can introduce pitfalls in metaphysical conversation.

Its no biggy. "Maximally benevolent" "One God in Three Persons" "Omnipotent" ... etc. These expressions do have some imperfections to the rigorous philosophical academic.

If any seeker of the truth has serious problems with these phrases, I would just advize them to give greater weight to what the Bible says and how it says it. We're just trying to help. We don't always help some folks.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Stile, posted 01-07-2013 1:59 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 6:43 PM jaywill has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 712 of 722 (687122)
01-07-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by jaywill
01-07-2013 4:49 PM


Re: No Hydrogen Bomb there
Paradoxically evil demonstrates God's existence.

Couldn't he have used less evil to prove his existence?

Heck, you'd think that an omnipotent being could have proved his existence without using evil at all. I mean, I can prove my existence without being evil.

Evil is a departure from the way things should be.

You would not know what crooked is unless you knew what straight is.

God must exist first to define what good is.

Yeah, but my grandfather's socks are sometimes purple.

Oh, wait, we're not playing Non Sequiturs?

I don't think objective moral values exist if God does not exist.

I think I've already addressed this nonsense. But in any case, it doesn't matter, because the argument from evil involves investigating the corollaries of the proposition that God does exist. If the existence of God implies an objective standard of good and evil, that can be made part of the argument.

By analogy, imagine the following conversation.

A: There is an elephant in your bathroom.

B: But an elephant is a large and tangible material object. If there was an elephant in my bathroom, then I'd keep bumping into it every time I tried to take a bath. Your supposed elephant is purely imaginary.

A: But you see, your argument fails. An imaginary elephant would be intangible, so you wouldn't bump into it. The elephant must first exist in order to be tangible.

But B's argument involves investigating the consequences of the elephant being real, which include the elephant being tangible and his ability to bump into it. It doesn't require the elephant to be real and tangible, rather it asks what if it was?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 4:49 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 9:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 713 of 722 (687127)
01-07-2013 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by jaywill
01-07-2013 9:13 AM


Re: More squared circles
Well, this doesn't seem to relate to my post at all.

You asked, what were the consequences of telling a potential rapist X rather than Y. I pointed out that this has no bearing on the truth of X or Y. Your subsequent post doesn't answer that point or even discuss it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 9:13 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 714 of 722 (687136)
01-07-2013 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2013 6:43 PM


Re: No Hydrogen Bomb there
Couldn't he have used less evil to prove his existence?

I didn't say that God prescribed a certain amount of evil in order to prove His existence. I just said, coincidently the evil indirectly proves His existence.


Heck, you'd think that an omnipotent being could have proved his existence without using evil at all. I mean, I can prove my existence without being evil.

I did not say that God designated a certain amount of evil so that the question of His existence might be solved. I merely said that a by product of the problem of evil is that man must have a sense of the objective and true good. Indirectly and incidently this proves God's existence.

Not everyone is in need of this indirect proof. Many of us simply believe in God's existence because of creation, because of Christ, because the Bible is a believable book.

jaywill:
Evil is a departure from the way things should be.
You would not know what crooked is unless you knew what straight is.

God must exist first to define what good is.

Dr. A:
Yeah, but my grandfather's socks are sometimes purple.

I think you lost me here.


Oh, wait, we're not playing Non Sequiturs?


I think I've already addressed this nonsense.

Please link me to your post on this matter.


But in any case, it doesn't matter, because the argument from evil involves investigating the corollaries of the proposition that God does exist. If the existence of God implies an objective standard of good and evil, that can be made part of the argument.

By analogy, imagine the following conversation.

A: There is an elephant in your bathroom.

B: But an elephant is a large and tangible material object. If there was an elephant in my bathroom, then I'd keep bumping into it every time I tried to take a bath. Your supposed elephant is purely imaginary.

A: But you see, your argument fails. An imaginary elephant would be intangible, so you wouldn't bump into it. The elephant must first exist in order to be tangible.

But B's argument involves investigating the consequences of the elephant being real, which include the elephant being tangible and his ability to bump into it. It doesn't require the elephant to be real and tangible, rather it asks what if it was?

I don't follow this little argument. But when I do want to hear the side argued well that God is not needed for morality, I listen again to Shelley Kagan's debate with William Lane Craig.

"Is God Necessary for Morality?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

And I think Shelley Kagan argues for the negative very well.
I'd take a class with him any day. But as of yet, I think I agree with Craig on a lot of what he says.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2013 6:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 715 of 722 (687190)
01-08-2013 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 710 by Thugpreacha
01-07-2013 3:15 PM


Benevolent is the opposite of Evil
We can always take words and just put them one after another to form a sentence. The problem is when we want the idea and context of that sentence to make some sense.

God is benevolent enough to even have allowed Lucifer the choice to become satan and actualize potential evil.

God is "benevolent enough" to "actualize evil"?

That just doesn't make sense.
It's like saying God can make a circle "square enough" such that it's also "a circle" in order to have a square circle.

We can type the words in order... but they don't mean anything because the terms are conflicting opposites.

He is also powerful enough to allow it to exist only long enough to teach us a lesson as we freely choose His Spirit over our own.

That is wonderful.
The point, however, is whether or not God is powerful enough to allow evil to exist only long enough to teach us a lesson as we freely choose His Spirit over our own and not hurt any innocent victims in the process.
Is God that powerful?
Or is He not benevolent enough to care for the innocent victims?

It is a grand gesture for God to provide us with free will to make our own decisions. Be that being evil or choosing to walk with the Holy Spirit.

But what about providing innocent victims the free will to make their own decisions?

God seems to allow an evil-doer the free will to live their life their way and choose to hurt other people. Sometimes quite viciously.
But God does not seem to allow an innocent person to have the free will to live their life their way and choose to live with family (if they are imprisoned and tortured by an evil-doer, they are not living with their family).

Why side with evil?

God seems to protect the free will interests of the evil-doers, but doesn't seem to care about the loss of free will for the innocent victims.
Why not protect the free will of the innocent victims and stop caring about the loss of free will for the evil-doers?
No loss of free will... just simply different from how God seemingly chose to do things.

That sounds more benevolent to me.

Is God not benevolent enough to protect innocent victims?
Or is God not powerful enough to protect innocent victims?

Hey, even satan may one day get another chance...who knows?

This possibility would still exist within a world where the evil-doer's free will was restricted, and the innocent victim's free will was protected...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-07-2013 3:15 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2013 1:40 PM Stile has responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12959
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 716 of 722 (687211)
01-08-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by Stile
01-08-2013 12:24 PM


Re: Benevolent is the opposite of Evil
Let me try and put my belief another way.

God initially created Angels. They were in communion with God...as a matter of fact, there was no "outside"...there was only inside.

God created good and evil only in the sense that He created potential evil...or a potential "outside" of communion.

Lucifer was given free will and chose to be outside of communion. Thus, potential evil became actualized evil (evil=outside communion)
and from an outsiders perspective we now had dualism...though in reality it was still One Holy Spirit and an "outside" composed of imitators.

Humans came along and were foreknown to choose the knowledge of good and evil. This is essentially the knowledge of inside (in Communion) and outside..(outside communion).

This is where we sit today. We have a choice to re-establish communion through Jesus Christ or we have the choice to remain freely outside of it all.

I dont expect you to necessarily agree with my belief, but can you at least understand the concept as I present it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by Stile, posted 01-08-2013 12:24 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 717 by jaywill, posted 01-09-2013 7:49 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 718 by Stile, posted 01-11-2013 1:10 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 717 of 722 (687282)
01-09-2013 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 716 by Thugpreacha
01-08-2013 1:40 PM


Re: Benevolent is the opposite of Evil
I would like to add some development to this post.

Let me try and put my belief another way.
God initially created Angels. They were in communion with God...as a matter of fact, there was no "outside"...there was only inside.

These were the most ancient of God's creatures. Being the most ancient the book of Revelation symbolizes them as 24 elders in chapters 4 and 5.

That is not elders of Israel or elders of the Christian church. That is elders of all creation. The eldest most created beings in the universe.

Lucifer (Latin, or Daystar) who became Satan, was one of these early created angelic beings.

He was first under the authority of God, as Phat says in communion, (I believe). He did NOT have the life of God. He did not have the indwelling of God. But he had high position, glorious attributes, and a surpassing wisdom which he totally corrupted.

[color=yellow] "O you who sealed up perfection, full of wisdom and perfect and perfect in beauty." (Ezek. 28:12)

"You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ezek. 28:15)


God created good and evil only in the sense that He created potential evil...or a potential "outside" of communion.

I found this helpful. I like to express this as this high being was under the authority of the Most High God. That is until he sought rebellion and to challenge the authority of God.

This was the start of the "outside". The advasary within God's kingdom sets to make himself life the Most High God. In Isaiah there are the seven "I wills". Seven times Satan says "I will" do thus and such consummating in "I will be like the Most High".

Isaiah 14:12-15 covers this being's revolt against God's authority. Ezekiel 28:13-17 covers this beings sin against God's holiness.

The sin against God's holiness is more easily forgiven. The more serious problem is the challenge to God's authority. The introduction of the Satan's WILL was the beginning of more than one WILL in the creation of God. Previously there was in place only the will of God.

Satan took his perfect wisdom and his great power and knowledge and established a second will opposed to God. He became the opposite of what God is ... a dynamic withdrawal into sin and death. Of course it was a degradation from good into evil.

He corrupted his wisdom - "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom by reason of the brightness. (Isa. 28:17a)

I want to emphasize though that this creature never shared the life of God. He was just the highest created being most likely. We do not know how long he stayed in a communion and under God's authority willingly. At some point he revolted and decieved millions of beings to join him.

Maybe he said something like "You know God doesn't really appreciate you. You were made for better things. Now if I Satan were in charge, I would make sure that you got in the position you SHOULD be in. I'd take care of you. God is holding you down. God is holding you back from your greatest potential."

He (Satan) is a LIAR and the father of lies.


Lucifer was given free will and chose to be outside of communion.

I agree. He challenged the authority of God. To be above the Most High is impossible. Satan sought to be LIKE the Most High.

This can be certainly refered to as out of communion. He was out of the authority of the Final and Ultimate Governor.

Yet this communion is not the same as the communion of the Holy Spirit given to the saints. God has been dispensed into the saints - the believers in Christ. This is something no angel ever had. This is the priviledge of a dusty new creation called MAN .

MAN can receive God Himself into him. That is why God placed Adam before "the tree of life"

God had the knowledge of good and evil. This is proved by Genesis 3:22 - "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil"

Lucifer must of had this "knowledge of good and evil". But Lucifer CORRUPTED his wisdom -

" Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom [knowledge of good and evil?] by reason of your brightness."

I think Satan must have had this knowledge of good and evil. The serpent (representing Satan) seems to have had some PREVIOUS experience with the knowledge of good and evil -

" ... You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:5)

Remember that Satan sought to be LIKE the Most High God.
Now he tells Eve that God does not want HER or her husband to become like God.

The lie - God is an arbitrary despot. God is a tyrant withholding back from other beings their greatest blessing. Quite a bit of energy and time is spent on this Forum by people who have bought into Satan's lie. All manner of accusations are hurled against God.

We have just heard how God does not care for the victims who have their wills violated. This too is a lie. But I digress a bit.

Satan's challenge was against the authority of God. And the question of WHO shall have the authority is the contraversy of the universe.

There were two basic trees in the garden of Eden - the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9) .
I think "the tree of life" not only signifies taking God Himself into one's being but also an acceptance of the authority of God.

For certain it is the communion in the sense of as is meant in the New Testament -

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor. 13:14)

I want to say that Satan came out from under the authority of the One Who is authority and upholds all things by His authority. His throne is established on His authority.

At the end of the Bible the eternal and divine life is pouring out of the throne of God and of the Lamb in the street of the New Jerusalem. His divine life is despensing from the seat of His authority. His uncreated and eternal being must be the basis of His great authority. And from this throne of universal administration dispenses His life into His sons forever -

"And he showed me a river of water of life, right as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb in the middle of its street." (Rev. 22:1)

From the seat of His authority God is pouring His divine and uncreated life into the saved man who has been built up to become the City - the New Jerusalem.

Satan and no angels ever had this right.


Thus, potential evil became actualized evil (evil=outside communion)
and from an outsiders perspective we now had dualism...though in reality it was still One Holy Spirit and an "outside" composed of imitators.

I don't believe that Satan ever had the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that any angel ever had the Holy Spirit.

BUT I do believe that the "inside communion" means within and under the authority of God.

Of course to partake of the Holy Spirit is to be under the authority of God. For if we are not redeemed, not justified, not forgiven judicially, we can never partake of the Holy Spirit withing.

My take on communion as you use it is to be under God's authority. In the creation of MAN a new kind of being came into existence. That is one in the image of God who can partake of God Himself within as life.

This is not merely to live forever. God has angels who live forever.
Neither is this merely to be good.
God has many angels who remained good.

The dusty being God created and which Satan has such intense jealousy of, is a being who can become compounded with God Himself so as to live God, live unto God, live out God and have God live THROUGH him.

Jesus Christ the Son of God - and Jesus Christ mass produced.


Humans came along and were foreknown to choose the knowledge of good and evil. This is essentially the knowledge of inside (in Communion) and outside..(outside communion).

Adam choice of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil over the tree of life was a choice to join the Satanic rebellion. That is the revolt of the one who corrupted his wisdom.

Adam's choice was to join the opposition party and thus to be infested with sin and death. The choice to step out from under God's authority was the choice of death.

He became infested with a parasitic like cosmic leech. This presence, I think, may be what Paul refers to as contributing to spots and blemishes - an evil foreign element or at least the effects of an evil foreign element.

"Even as He chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world to be holy and WITHOUT BLEMISH before Him in love."

The destiny, the destination of the believer in Christ is to arrive before God not only totally justified judicially but organically without spot, blemish or any such evil foreign element, and saturated with God's Holy Spirit.

God wanted not just a good man. He wants a GODman.
He wants not only being who live forever.
He already has plenty of angels who live forever.
He want men mingled with God as His sons.

Man took the knowledge of good and evil. What he did not realize that he joined himself to Satan. He took sin and death into his being.
Man would know good but not be able to fully carry out the good that he knows.
Man would know evil but not be able to fully resist the evil that he knows.

It was a serious thing for man to partake of this knowledge of good and evil and be joined to Satan. It immediatly estranged man from God Himself in terrible estrangement (Gen. 3:22-24; Eph. 4:18) .

This was the beginning of man being "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) . This was the beginning of man being potentially under the wrath of God's judgment. This is why the rest of the Bible is the story of God's salvation to bring man back to the life of God and under the authority of God.


This is where we sit today. We have a choice to re-establish communion through Jesus Christ or we have the choice to remain freely outside of it all.

Please write something on this if you can.

Why did God tell Adam and Eve, after their eyes had been opened -
" Who told you that you are naked? " (Gen. 3:11)

What do you think about that Phat?
Richh? What would you say if your there?

Anyone with something besides a wisecrack is welcomed to enlighten me.

"And he [Adam] said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid myself.

And He [God] said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gen. 3:10,11)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2013 1:40 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 718 of 722 (687511)
01-11-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 716 by Thugpreacha
01-08-2013 1:40 PM


Why require unnecessary, blatantly false "perfect" ideals?
Phat writes:

I dont expect you to necessarily agree with my belief, but can you at least understand the concept as I present it?

Oh, I do understand the concept you have provided.
I also understand the concept that jaywill has provided.

They are wonderful concepts that describe a very powerful and very benevolent God that is generally compatible with how we see the world as it is around us.

They just don't describe an all powerful and maximally beneovlent God, which is incompatible with how we see the world around us. This causes me to wonder why you stress that these terms should be used. Or do you not care if these terms are used or not?

The concepts you and jaywell describe are within the realm of a very powerful, very benevolent God. And that same God could be behind the world around us.

But if you start saying that the same God is now "all-powerful" and "maximally-benevolent"... and want that to jive with the problem of evil that is present in our world... I'm just pointing out the obviously conlicting terms that simply don't make sense.

This is how I see the issue here:

We look at our world, and we see a square with rounded edges.
You and jaywell seem to describe the concepts that depict a God who created square-circles, although your concepts themselves seem to stay away from the terms "square" or "circle" or any direct definitions of such words.
This seems to have a generally co-herent flow to it. The concept makes sense and it can work with how we see the world around us.

Then I ask a direct question (like this thread does) "Is God square?" And I get answers that involve statements of God being "all-square" and "maximally-circular" at the same time and using those same perfections to make our world... but I look at the world around us and it's a sqare with rounded edges.
So I explain that it's either a sqare with some rounded edges... or it's a circle with 4 sides to it... it's certainly not "all-square" and it's certainly not "maximally-circular."

Then you go back to the general concepts that describe square-circle type things without actually using the terms "square" or "circle" or defining them... or mentioning any requirement for perfect "square-circles."
...yet you seem to get very upset when I point out that, factually, we do not have anything that is "all-sqaure" and "perfectly circular" at the same time. Even when it's blatently obvious to anyone who's ever lived longer than 5 years.

Your concept itself is not difficult to understand.
What is difficult to understand is your unyielding defense of a perfect ideal that is not necessary for your concept to function in the first place. Especially when it is extremely simple to see that this perfect ideal is obviously a directly conflicting oxymoron that can't possibly exist within the same world we live in.

This is where we sit today. We have a choice to re-establish communion through Jesus Christ or we have the choice to remain freely outside of it all.

I can certainly agree that this is where we sit today.
But none of this requires God being "all-powerful" or "maximally benevolent."
And, still, if we look at the world, we have the problem of evil. We have a problem of evil that an all-powerful, maximally benevolent God would not allow to exist.

So, I do agree with your above statement of where we sit today.
I just don't see how it connects with the topic, or with my question.

Is God not powerful enough to provide a world where the problem of evil does not exist?
Or
Is God not benevolent enough to provide a world where the problem of evil does not exist?

God cannot be "all-powerful" and "maximally-benevolent" because the problem of evil does, in fact, exist.

I understand that these are uncomfortable questions.
I also do not see a problem with the following answer:

quote:
It does not appear that God is all-powerful and maximally-benevolent at the same time, however... God certainly is "the most powerful being in existence" and "the most benevolent being in existence" and has provided to us the "best world in existence."

I still don't believe that answer to be correct... but it does answer the questions and also provides an answer that is not in direct conflict with the simplist observations of the world we live in.

Is that more of what you're talking about?
Or are you going to continue to insist that God is indeed "all-powerful" and "maximally benevolent" while there is the problem of evil factually existing right in front of all our faces that directly proves this wrong without even having to think about it at all?

Edited by Stile, : The quote was just hanging... not closed anywhere, just going on and on and on for eternity... will somebody think of the children???!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-08-2013 1:40 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by jaywill, posted 01-11-2013 3:34 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 719 of 722 (687527)
01-11-2013 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Stile
01-11-2013 1:10 PM


Re: Why require unnecessary, blatantly false "perfect" ideals?
Stile,

My replies are going to be concise this afternoon. I think we can get clarified where each of us stands.


They are wonderful concepts that describe a very powerful and very benevolent God that is generally compatible with how we see the world as it is around us.

The Christian walks by faith and not by sight in many things.
When we say "Jesus is Lord" we do not mean all around is now rosy.

Nevertheless, God in Christ is operating towards that world we see in Revelation 21 and 22. Basically, your complaints sounds to me like - "Well, Why are we not NOW in what John saw in Revelation 21 and 22?"

We are on the way. Sinners still have time to be saved.


They just don't describe an all powerful and maximally beneovlent God, which is incompatible with how we see the world around us.

Oh, I don't know. I certainly discribe God as revealed in the Bible.
Don't you think that the 11 disciples thought that God must have FAILED or not been powerful enough for the three days in which Jesus lay dead in the tomb ?

The God of resurrection is being manifested again and again down through the ages.


This causes me to wonder why you stress that these terms should be used. Or do you not care if these terms are used or not?

I'll try to keep my responses related to me.
Phat can respond for him or herself.


The concepts you and jaywell describe are within the realm of a very powerful, very benevolent God. And that same God could be behind the world around us.

During the three days in which Christ as dead, the disciples must have been dejected by similar thoughts. The joy of knowing that Christ had conquered dead with His Love and His Power launched them to turn the world upside down.

We still are spreading to all the Gospel of the God of resurrection.
There is still time for sinners to be saved.
This is not a downer to us.
We know as the third day vindicated both His love and His power, so the consummation of the age will vindicate Him.

"In the world you will have tribulation. Fear not. I have overcome the world."

Your philosophical dejection argues - "See? No maximally benevolent God. See? No maximally powerful God."

Don't be so sure. The durability of the church and of the Gospel require proving, apparently. "The church of God is an anvil that has worn down many hammers."

Besides - "maximally benevolent" or "maximally powerful" are theological expressions. They may not be perfect. They may introduce some dilliculties if one wants to press to find some.

I take the Word of God to be inspired and infallible. As for my theological formulas - they are not perfect.

I think more would just be repetitious now. I stop here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Stile, posted 01-11-2013 1:10 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 720 of 722 (687556)
01-12-2013 2:25 PM


All powerful but can't lie ?
The Bible has God asking the rhetorical question Is anything too hard for Jehovah?"

"Is anything too marvelous for Jehovah?" (Gen. 18:14)

"too marvelous" or "too wonderful" or "too hard" .

Here then God asks Abraham if there is ANYTHING that is TOO HARD for God to do.

Yet we also are told there some things God CANNOT do. One of them is to LIE -

" ... that by two unchanageable things in which it was impossible for God to lie ..." (Hebrews 6:18)

You have a paradox here -

1.) A biblical indication that nothing is too hard for God to do.

2.) A biblical indication that it is impossible for God to lie.

While in theological talk we may borrow phrases like "maximally powerful" some of us don't press such phrases too far. I mean if God is maximally powerful then He should be powerful enough to lie and it should not be "impossible" for Him.

Statements of the Bible trump theologically invented phrases.
Such phrases may be useful. They also may introduce problems.

I guess God being all powerful does not mean He will do what is against His nature to do just to prove that He is powerful enough to do so.


Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2013 3:12 PM jaywill has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019