Was Jesus A Legitimate Child?

Then God is not omnipotent? Bounded by the physical laws of time in ralation to the nature of eternity. This seems to suggest that the concept of eternity exists seperately, outside and even overriding of God. Is that right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Surely you are a moral absolutist Buz?Yet your whole absolutism relies on the whims of something (i.e. God) who you cannot predict or know the mind of.For example how can killing in cold blood be morally wrong if when God performs that action it is morally right.Surely this is moral relatavism gone mad?

By ridiculous you seem to mean logically contradictory.
In which case you are saying that God is limited by logic? Logically something created, something with a "beginning" cannot be eternal? Right? That is what you are saying?Thus the obvious conclusion from all of this is that God's "omnipotence" is indeed limited and bounded by logic?
Thus logic must be seperate, external to and in some way "superior" to God.Right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are claiming to know the mind of God? If God cannot be judged by any absolute morality then there is no good or evil beyond that which God decides at any given point in time. If I were God I would not kill people for disobeying my rules or disbelieving. Nor would I send anyone to eternal damnation. These punishments seem too extreme, by my personal definition of morality, for the crimes committed.Does my compassion make me evil?
Is my morality of compassion wicked because it opposes the actions of Gods?
Can compassion ever be evil? How do you know? You are claiming to kno the mind of God again. I don't believe in God. If I were in Gods place I would be more forgiving than God.
Does that make me part of the "forces of evil"?

You have already said that whatever God does is good.
So presumably by this definition whatever God chooses to do is also logical? What is it, if not logic, that stops an omnipotent, eternal uncreated God from creating another eternal and uncreated God?
If it is not logic that is limiting a supposedly omnipotent God's actions what is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To "the extent that he wishes"? How do you know what extent God wishes? You are claiming to know the mind of God again.Is it compassion or retribution? Is it an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? You are claiming to know the mind of God from the bible but it seems that biblical interpretation can justify most actions in most situations. This, to my mind, is evil.
Aparently by your definition of good and evil my compassionate and moral opposition to eternal damnation makes me evil and destined for damnation.How can you meaningfully justify that as being "good"? Is it also necessary to condemn people to eternal damnation? Why? Are you claiming to know the mind of God again?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then surely an omnipotent God can indeed create another eternal and uncreated God because, by definition, if he does this it is no longer illogical? Does God define what is logical? Or does logic define what Gods available actions can be? That is the question.God can break the commandments (for example) but still be good because his actions define good.
But God cannot perform acts that are logically contradictory even though God's actions define logic.There seems to be a contradiction between how you apply your view of God as omnipotent and good and your view of God as omnipotent and logical. One limits the possible activities of God and the other does not.This seems inconsistent.

If by "insistence of own will" you mean conscious objection to that which they believe to be evil. Then yes I do consider it to be a bad thing. The punishment does not fit the crime. If indeed there is any crime morally speaking in opposing eveil actions perpetrated by God.

The inconsistency in your thinking remains. Whilst you say God is both logic and good you do not seem to be applying the same thinking to both these aspects of God in relation to his actions. The fact that God is good in no way seems to restrict the actions of God. There is nothing conceivably that God can do that is evil (according to you).
Thus God defines what is good and what is evil.However the actions of God are limited by what is illogical according to you. We can conceive of things that God cannot do because they defy logic (e.g. create the uncreated).
Thus logic defines what God can and cannot do rather than the other way round. Logic is not defined by God. In fact logic appears to bind and restrict the possible actions of God.Whether or not you are being consistent or not can be determined by your ability to answer the following questions:

Can you think of something God cannot do because it is illogical?

Can you think of something that God cannot do because it is evil?

​

God cannot break a commandment because he doesn't fall under the juristiction of his commandments.

​

Whenever questions of morality lead to 'lawyer speak' with clauses, exceptions, jurisdictions etc. etc. it is usually a sign of hypocrisy in action. When those who preach a form of morality that does not apply to themselves then the authority of that morality is inevitably diminished. But this is probably another topic.

Well that told me.
The drum roll was a especially appreciated However this in itself is a cause for more questions.1) Firstly, this implies that the underlying point that God is not, and cannot be, omnipotent in the true sense of the word is completely correct. No?
2) Is lieing the only act God cannot undertake due to his 'goodness' or are there any others you can conceive of?
3) What is a lie? Exaggeration, misleading by omission etc. etc. are these foms of lying or not?
4) When God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to test his faith did God 'lie' in spirit if not in fact?It seems to me that God is only omnipotent if you define 'omnipotence' to meet that requirement.
It seems to me that God does not lie only if you define the term 'lie' to meet that requirement. Frankly when you have to redefine words and create get out clauses it sounds like a debating tactic rather than a valid position. Well that all sounds very reasonable.
The trouble is that a better anology would be - You give me some of your cake. Then you decide I am not being appreciative enough. So you grab the remainder of the cake back. And claw the crumbs in my mouth back out from my still chewing teeth. And have my stomach pumped for the remainder. Then, as if all of that were not enough, you consign me to starvation for the rest of eternity. That brutal analogy would be a better metaphor for the God you claim loves us all.

Yes well. If we define "nonsense" as that which God cannot do.....then it all makes perfect sense. If we do not then God seems very limited by logic.
Regardless - A God that cannot lie cannot also be omnipotent. An omnipotent God limited in such a way is ridculous. That is no different to saying that a God that cannot create, because the nature of that God is uncreative, is omnipotent despite an inability to create anything. Rationally?
Rationally there is no justification for belief in God at all. So lies are only self serving?
What about deviation from truth?
Is this a "lawyers" definition of the term "lie"? Devised to extricate God from any responsibility for anything that could be cosntrued as a lie? Well he is only "not a sinner" if we accept your premise that everything God does is just and good by definition. If morality is absolute and universal then God is a bigger sinner than most. Fine. I fully accept that I have no right to take your life. The thing I question is Gods right to treat us as we would treat inanimate possessions. Worse even than pets.
Your analogy fails if we apply it to God as the "owner".
I own my pets. This does not give me the right to do as I will with them no matter how cruel, depraved or malicious. Does it? I can potentially be "evil" to my pets without inflicting a modicum of the suffering that many human beings experience, regardless of religious status, due to 'acts of God'.God is good. God loves us. But God treats us worse than we would morally accept the treatment of our pets.It's absurd.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Defining words to meet ones arguments is just a method of avoiding the underlying concepts.Imagine a being as powerful as God but who can do both good and evil. Who can lie. And who is not limited by logic in any way. This being would be 'more omnipotent' than God but the term 'more omnipotent' is patently stupid. Thus the only obvious conclusion is that God is in fact not omnipotent by any meaningful conceptual standard of the term omnipotence.Of course if you want to define the word 'omnipotence' in terms of the abilities that God has available to him then by definition alone God is indeed omnipotent. But the underlying flaw in the thinking demonstrated above remains regardless of definitions. Well I agree that the most common reasons for lying are self serving but that far from demonstrates that this is necessarily so.If I lie to save someone else from persecution surely that is still a lie? The truth of what is said must be the basis of a lie rather than the intent? No? Where does truth come into your definition? If at all? Well it seems you are now defining the term 'lie' to meet your arguments as well as the term 'omnipotent'By this definition God is perfectly capable of telling "untruths" as long as those untruths result in "good" as opposed to "truths" that would result in "evil" (which he is incapable of). But seeing as God defines what is "good" and what is "evil" he can say just about any damn thing he pleases. God is as capable of "untruths" as you or I.In other words we have no reason to believe the veracity of anything God says at all. By your flawed and circular reasoning anyway. The ability of theists to convulute, contort and contrive such that they utterly convince themselves that there is good and meaning behind every quite evidently indiffernt act of nature is what blows my mind.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If God asked you to kill a room full of people would you do it?

So can God create the uncreated? End the eternal? Etc. etc.
This is what I mean when I ask if logic binds Gods actions. But if God defines good and sin is the opposite of that then whatever God does is good and whatever opposes this is bad by definition alone. This is circular. It also leads to some quite bizzarre depictions of 'good' and 'evil'.When God is being vengeful and retributional he is being 'good' whilst those who might oppose this vengefulness on grounds of compassion would, by this definition, be 'sinful'.I just do not see how this is compatible with the more sensible aspects of the Christian message (peace, love, forgiveness etc. etc.) or with any sort of morality that could meaningfully be called "absolute"??It just all seems like an overly intricate web of justification by definition.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.