Was Jesus A Legitimate Child?

If those who end up in Hell end up there by insistance of own will then surely you wouldn't find that a bad thing. Surely you would prize a persons God-given right to exercise their own will unto that end if they so chose. And find God permitting that they be allowed do so, a good thing.

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.

Not if logic (a feature of God) won't permit this to occur. Gods omnipotence isn't diminished by his inability to act inconsistantly with himself. I am suggesting that God is logic. That logic is sourced within him in the sense of it being part of his nature. He defines it by being it. But can't change the definition because he can't change his nature. He is who he is. God cannot break a commandment because he doesn't fall under the juristiction of his commandments.For example: murder is unrighteous killing. Unrighteous for the simple fact that another persons life is not my possession to take. Everyones life belongs to God therefore God is entitled to place me under the juristiction of a law forbidding my taking anothers life.But God killing is a different matter. He can wipe out nations in the blink of an eye and it will be righteous (in every sensible-thinking persons eyes) because those peoples lives belong to him. He is taking back something (a life) that belongs to him and which was only ever temporarily loaned to a person.Now I know that a this-life-centric view allied with some sentimentality will tend to decry such a position - it often can't be helped. But if you consider for a moment that our existance in this world is about the deciding of our eternal destinations - and the temporal destruction of nations doesn't at all mean those peoples eternal damnation - then it may help you over the stumbling block.God kills everyone at some point Straggler - so there is no point in getting too worked up about it. Hopefully this explains it a bit?

This doesn't sound logical. We might dispense with good and evil for the moment and simply say that you stand at the opposite end of the spectrum to God on these matters. Now suppose that Hell is merely a place where all traces of God are absent. Surely that would be a good thing from the perspective of a person who stands at the opposite end of the spectrum to God and wants nothing to do with him.That that necessarily entails the removal of those aspects of the image of God (in which we were made) - which will make Hell a living Hell - is a heavy price to pay for your will expression. But if you find that good then surely it is good that God permits your wills expression to this end What evil actions of God?As suggested above, the punishment might simply consist of God granting your will and removing himself from your presence. You might not be aware of it Straggler, but you should know that your being made in his image means you can do some of the things that he can do: you can enjoy relationships, appreciate beauty, create things, love what he finds good, hate what he finds evil, etc, etc.That image removed (at your behest) then Hell won't actually contain all the interesting people.

iano's posts are powerful examples of the danger of religious belief overpowering and subverting our common sense. In what other philosophy would you justify the extermination of nations of people, blanket fiat of tyrants, establishing universal edicts yet be exempt from them. This is the exact mentality that allows the worst attrocities to be commited by those who claim inspiration from your authority.It is my fervent hope that a philosophy of rational ethical behavior will eventually defeat this kind of utter blind obediance to authory. To me this is the true purpose of this entire forum (indeed every 'debate' between reason and religion).

Makes me happy thay I have never went through one of these 'personal religious experiences' which so many of these 'born again' types have went through.I know a few of them personally, and they are amongst the most godless, disgusting, twisted people you could ever meet. In fact, they are not even Christian, so I do not know what they have experienced but it isn't the Christ of the New Testament.

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.

It would help your charge of inconsistency stick if you gave an example of an action of his for us to look at It might help is we clarify good as "that which occurs inside the boundary that God finds acceptable" and evil as "that which occurs outside the boundary of that which God finds acceptable". He is the standard by which you compare other things to see how good/bad they are. Of course the standard can't but be the standard.You'll agree with him on some points: murder is evil and will disagree with him on others (perhaps): sex outside marriage is evil. He defines, you measure up or not in relation to that. But if everything is sourced from the nature of God then logic too. Logic is the way it is because God is the way he is. If you said that God is limited by his own nature then I'd agree. If you want to pose another god who isn't sovereign then fire away, we're not talking about the same God. *drum roll* Create a free-willed being who is sure to obey God. Lie. You seem to have dodged the point altogether. If I own a cake, I am within my rights to demand of you that you don't eat it unless I give you some. That I do so doesn't diminish my right to eat my own cake.This is playground common sense Straggler, not the stuff of lawyers

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.

So if god decided that rape was acceptable you'd have no problem with it?

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

As is frequently the case, what the 'true sense' of the word is would be a matter for debate. Endless debate. I'll go with C.S. Lewis on this one and leave it at that if I may..

quote:

---

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

---

- Although he can be jealous (as in 'jealous of his regiments honour') he can't be green-eyed monster jealous. That later arises out of pride, the former out of love for another.It's worth repeating that a helpful way to view "good" is to consider it as actions/thoughts/etc which lie within the boundary of Gods will - whether these be his own actions (naturally they will lie within his will) or ours, or another entities. And to consider evil to be that which lies outside his boundaries. Clearly God cannot operate outside his own will - therefore he cannot do anything evil, according to this way of approaching it.He is good. Which is not the same as saying Mother Theresa (for illustrative purposes) is good. He is goodness itself. Whereas Mother Theresa was someone who operated within his boundaries to a greater extent than average maybe..Within that boundary there is choice for us. God said they could eat of any tree in the garden. Eating of any of the range of options made available (bar one) lay within his boundaries.- Depends upon who is being served by it I suppose. One could exaggerate to entertain others. One could exaggerate to achieve position above others who actually deserve the promotion going.A debate in itself: but if unrighteous self-serving is the motivation at root then a lie it must surely be (for an example of unrighteous see the comment on jealously above: the one righteous in type, the green-eyed other, not)- I don't see how God lied. God already knew the extent of Abrahams faith and the outcome thereof so the test wasn't intended to inform God of anything. If God not served by it then I can see no lie in it.- It seems to me that you are elevating your definition of such things above mine without due cause or diligence. - The law was given by God to man for one reason and one reason only. And it wasn't given in the hope that you would obey it. God knew you wouldn't obey it. The law was given as part of a mechanism which is designed to make you conscious of the fact that you are a sinner.Think about it ...You could be operating outside Gods will (sinning). But unless there is someway of making that known to you then there exists no chance that you would be delivered from the consequences of your sin. Thus the law was introduced - and was written into your spiritual DNA. When you break it (and supposing you haven't dulled your conscience to death so as to escape its clutches) then you feel bad about it. Guilty. Pained. The pain of a seared conscience is intended as all pain is: designed by the Creator to tell you that there's something wrong. In this case: something wrong with you-the-personhood.Given that: what possible application has Gods law to God? He's not a sinner and so has no need of the law.- Your analogy, although making another point, is not dealing with what is being discussed.To spell out my own analogy. God owns all of us and he is within his rights to demand of you that you don't kill me. I am not yours to do with as you like. He rightfully demands of you via his law thus.On the other hand, God can justifiably do what he likes with both of us. We are both his property. Rationally spealing, you can't apply the law he applies to us, to him. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Why should I? You have to decide on some standard and I've decided upon Gods.If you decided that rape was acceptable you'd have no problem with it?(As it happens, God will never find rape acceptable. Whereas you might. I'd safer sticking to God's standards than yours.)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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.

I think what he means to say is that God, being the measure of all things, is good in concept and being. That is to say, whatever is considered "good" is only because God has decreed it. Since he is the measure of all things, goodness and God are therefore synonymouy. Conversely, anything contrary to God is considered evil, so that the anithesis of what is good is evil. I would agree with that theologically. Anything that man considers "illogical" or impossible actions that defy the laws of nature (Jesus walking on water) are not logical to humans. In fact, it is illogical. Thus I would have to concur with your statement to a degree, but I also understand what he is trying to convey. He is trying to convey that God is the template. Because it is illogical? No. I don't think it applies. Logic applies to man who is bound by laws of non-contradiction and physical laws which would prevent him of doing something. God is presumably under no such restriction for a number of theological and philosophical reasons. Yes... God cannot sin, theoretically, because God is goodness. God can only do things according to what he is. In a sense, but it may make more sense to say that God wouldn't break what he supports.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"