God is smart, powerful, and good? No.

[elliotfc]

>>>>>So God had first to be a jealous and angry god and kill lots of people, to show that he was God?<<<<<

To show that he was the most SUPERIOR god. It was very competitive back then. You can claim to be the greatest god (eventually that would turn into the ONLY God, but they weren't ready for that idea back then), but it's just hot air unless you back it up.

>>>>>He couldn't figure out a better way, like simply coming down from the heavans in a bright light in front of everyone on the planet saying, "I am God, and I am going to kick your asses unless you get them in gear." I'm just a dumbass (c4ts said so!) human, and even I can think of that!<<<<<

Any god can do that though, other demons/gods manifested themselves in those days. The Hebrew God wanted to have an intimate relationship with a group of people.

-Elliot

 

[Jesse2]

To show that he was the most SUPERIOR god. It was very competitive back then. You can claim to be the greatest god (eventually that would turn into the ONLY God, but they weren't ready for that idea back then), but it's just hot air unless you back it up.

Any god can do that though, other demons/gods manifested themselves in those days. The Hebrew God wanted to have an intimate relationship with a group of people.

-Elliot

Are you saying there were other gods besides Yahweh? Now I'm really confused. I thought he was the one true god.

 

[ntech]

That's your opinion. If a girl tells me she loves me, I have to use my intuition. The application of intuition will vary from person to person, but everybody uses intuition. Scientists use intuitions while conducting science. Obviously my kind of intuition isn't gonna cut it when I try to justify my beliefs to you. But it is sufficient when I justify my beliefs to others. We all have different standards and different exclusions.

-Elliot

The big difference is that with science, the scene plays out and we actually find out whether the girl does love us or not. Definitively!
You don’t just stop after wishful thinking.

I understand why you fear science. At last look, 62% of scientists do not believe in god.

As for the 38%; Will Provine said it best in 1988, If you are a scientist and go to church you “simply have to check your brains at the church door.

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>I live in Harrison Township, which is next door to Mount Clemens. These places are about 30 minutes northeast of Detroit. We just got our power back on late yesterday afternoon.<<<<<

I was thinking about all you Michiganders. On Long Island we only lost power for 6 hours.

>>>>>There was an actual vote. The option to vote was standard, and was given out at that time by Pontius Pilate. He asked the jewish crowd if they wished for Jesus to be released, or Barabbas to be released. Barabbas was a known murderer. They voted for Barabbas to be released. It was after this that Pontius Pilate 'washed his hands' of the matter, but sent Jesus to be crucified anyway.<<<<<

Oh yeah! I never thought of that as an actual vote, but you're right. I try to steer clear of the whole blame the Jews thing. Seems like there might have been some mob mentality going on there, any race of people would have done the same. Maybe, probably, I don't really know.

>>>>>If God allows original sin, and evil, and Satan to exist, what gives him any right to complain about them?<<<<<

God has the right to do anything, including complain. I don't know if it is complaining per se. What like minded souls can God actually complain to? Statements of unhappiness about a situation can come across as complaining, or not. I see complaining as words without the possibility of action. And God did commit action to deal with original sin, evil, and Satan. It might not fit into your timeframe (if time even means anything outside the physical world), but all that stuff has been or will be dealt with.

>>>>>Again, if God is all-knowing and all-poweful, he set into motion everything in existence knowing exactly the outcome.<<<<<

I don't think God thinks like that at all. I don't think God obsesses over outcomes like that. He is concerned with every moment of continuous time equally, and is always willing to lend spiritual support when asked, but he has to be asked. It doesn't do any good to complain about omniscience when all people have the power to accept or reject God. Just accept God and don't worry about the omniscience thing.

>>>>>Free will is irrelevant if God knows the exact outcome of granting free will.<<<<<

No it's very relevant. You have control over what you do. We are creative beings. We can't be creative beings without free will. If you want to think of yourself as a robot I can't stop you, but I'm not a robot and most people I know don't think they are robots.

When God is concerned about each particular moment of continuous time, at each of those moments he is not concerned about the other moments.

>>>>>God is more responsble for the creation and perpetuation of evil than any other entity; precisely because he knew what he was creating when he created, and because he is all-powerful and yet allows it to exist.<<<<<

He is responsible as the first cause. If you think the first cause (of creating creative individuals) to be inherently evil, take it up with God. I disagree with your sentiment obviously. I'm trying to think of a way you can convince me to agree with you. Since I exist, and since I appreciate being a creative individual, I can not in good conscience consider the first cause of creating creative individuals to be inherently evil.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>y'know, if it turns I'm wrong and there is a God, I really hope Elliot et al. are correct and that Hell is really eternity in the absence of God. That'd be fine by me. Eternal life... no grovelling... woohoo!<<<<<

John Milton wrote a book about that. :0

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>Are you saying there were other gods besides Yahweh? Now I'm really confused. I thought he was the one true god.<<<<<

He was the one true god, is the one true god. There are millions of false gods. Mammon is a god, in a sense. It's a false god.

Monotheism is a more recent idea than polytheism. When we say we are monotheistic we reject polytheism. We don't equate a pantheon of gods. There is one true god. The other gods are of a different kind than the true god, so it's better off to just take the one exception (exception in that it is inherently different to the others in that it created the others) and as for the rest, the more you reject them the better. And the best way to reject them is to call yourself a monotheist. The excluded gods still have power and can influence people of course.

If you take a test, there are an infinite number of answers. There is only one true test. We could say there are infinite numbers of answers to questions on tests, but isn't it most helpful to just say that there is only one answer, the correct one? Most teachers in objective hard sciences who give exams to students would agree with this sentiment (much to my chagrin grrrrrrrr).

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

>>>>>The big difference is that with science, the scene plays out and we actually find out whether the girl does love us or not. Definitively!<<<<<

What experiment to you set up to do this? What is the null hypothesis? Is there a control group? Is it necessary to test those who claim to love you, and vice versa?

>>>>>You don’t just stop after wishful thinking. <<<<<

I never do.

>>>>>I understand why you fear science. At last look, 62% of scientists do not believe in god. <<<<<

I never said that I fear science. Why do you think that I fear science? If I told you the number of university science classes I've taken would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I read science books would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I respect science would that be evidence that I don't fear science. I know that I don't fear science, while you think that I fear science. Perhaps I should not care what you think? That's the obvious thing to do in this situation (would you agree?).

>>>>>As for the 38%; Will Provine said it best in 1988, If you are a scientist and go to church you “simply have to check your brains at the church door.<<<<<

Believe what you want to believe. It takes brains to think and write and consider possibilities. If you are really a scientist you would know that you can engage your brain inside of a church. Go to church and let me know if your brain stops working. If you're just being sarcastic, then that's all you are. A sarcastic person who has not demonstrated the capacity to say anything remotely interesting.

My time that I can spend on this forum is limited so ntech, I just won't spend time responding to any of your messages. You will most likely chalk that up to fear on my part. Whatever. There are simply more intelligent people in this forum than you, and I base that on just a copule days of experience. You have judged me to be afraid of science in that short time, so I think you can understand how I can make such a judgment call in such a short amount of time.

-Elliot

 

[ntech]

What experiment to you set up to do this? What is the null hypothesis? Is there a control group? Is it necessary to test those who claim to love you, and vice versa?

I guess we can conclude she does after 15 years of marriage or so.

I never said that I fear science. Why do you think that I fear science? If I told you the number of university science classes I've taken would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I read science books would that be evidence that I don't fear science? If I told you that I respect science would that be evidence that I don't fear science. I know that I don't fear science, while you think that I fear science. Perhaps I should not care what you think? That's the obvious thing to do in this situation (would you agree?).

Do as you wish however you obviously have some fears. You stated: :"I'll take the Book of Genesis over the Origin of Species because it is more meaningful to me".

If you're just being sarcastic, then that's all you are. A sarcastic person who has not demonstrated the capacity to say anything remotely interesting.

Yes I am being sarcastic. I am simply responding to your definitive statements about god, genesis and the bible. You assert as if you are stating absolute truth and I am simply pointing out the absurdity.

I am from the school that feels it is meaningless to have a respectful debate with a theist. If an evolutionist gets up to debate a creationist it does nothing for the evolutionist. It does however give credibility to the creationist who now shares the stage with an intelligent scientist giving the impression that the creationist has something meaningful to debate.

My time that I can spend on this forum is limited so ntech, I just won't spend time responding to any of your messages. You will most likely chalk that up to fear on my part. Whatever. There are simply more intelligent people in this forum than you, and I base that on just a copule days of experience. You have judged me to be afraid of science in that short time, so I think you can understand how I can make such a judgment call in such a short amount of time.
-Elliot

There are very intelligent people, we agree. I may get some points wrong however you must admit that since you believe genesis over evolution it must bother you that science is slowly exposing it as a fairytale.

You come on with blatant pronouncements of fact about subjects that science has ripped to shreds and I am simply responding in kind.

Ray-ntech

 

[Jesse2]

Oh yeah! I never thought of that as an actual vote, but you're right. I try to steer clear of the whole blame the Jews thing. Seems like there might have been some mob mentality going on there, any race of people would have done the same. Maybe, probably, I don't really know.

Well, both the jews and the romans were responsible. To be honest, my comment about the jews was misplaced. What I meant to emphasize was that we did not crucify Jesus, they did, meaning the jews and the romans did back then.

>>>>>Again, if God is all-knowing and all-poweful, he set into motion everything in existence knowing exactly the outcome.<<<<<

I don't think God thinks like that at all. I don't think God obsesses over outcomes like that. He is concerned with every moment of continuous time equally, and is always willing to lend spiritual support when asked, but he has to be asked. It doesn't do any good to complain about omniscience when all people have the power to accept or reject God. Just accept God and don't worry about the omniscience thing.

How do you know how God thinks? or what he's concerned with? How can I grant acceptance to God if I cannot define what God is? If I define God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which is how I began this post, then I must find logical inconsistencies. I don't wish to complain about omniscience. I wish to say that it very likely does not exist.

>>>>>Free will is irrelevant if God knows the exact outcome of granting free will.<<<<<

No it's very relevant. You have control over what you do. We are creative beings. We can't be creative beings without free will.

I do not believe that free will exists outside of genetic and environmental causes. If you take away genetics and the environment, what have you got left as causes for choices? The answer is: nothing. What we define as randomness and chaos are simply elements which we do not yet scientifically understand or are not able to predict. I may begin another thread about Free Will. I'm curious to know what other people's responses are to this.

>>>>>God is more responsble for the creation and perpetuation of evil than any other entity; precisely because he knew what he was creating when he created, and because he is all-powerful and yet allows it to exist.<<<<<

He is responsible as the first cause. If you think the first cause (of creating creative individuals) to be inherently evil, take it up with God.

The first cause of creating individuals who he knows, in advance, will do evil acts, is an act of knowingly creating evil. I could take it up with God, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

 

[Jesse2]

>>>>>Are you saying there were other gods besides Yahweh? Now I'm really confused. I thought he was the one true god.<<<<<

He was the one true god, is the one true god. There are millions of false gods. Mammon is a god, in a sense. It's a false god.

If Yahweh was the one true God, why couldn't he simply wipe out all the false ones? (assuming Yahweh was omnipotent) If free will was so important to Yahweh, why did he have to harden the Pharoh's heart?

 

[Loki]

elliotfc,

The suffering of humanity that is most obviously is the suffering of our physical bodies, the consequence of original sin, or living on a falled world.

So a child that dies at age 6 months is an innocent victim of a frail body in a fallen world. What then happens to this child's soul, and why?

If he just took out Pharaoh, would it have made an impression on the people of Egypt or the Egyptian slaves? He had to make a dent on all of Egypt to show just how powerful he was. It was a very harsh penalty.

So, you agree then that the christian god punished the son for the sins of the father? You seemed to dispute this in an earlier post. Your explanation for this behaviour (which would be condemned by human standards) is "there were other priorities, such as establishing his authority, which had to be met". In essence, you're "special pleading" for god on this one?

A Creator God exists.
A "messenger" is needed to translate the creative word into action.
An incarnation of God as man is necessary for salvation of fallen humanity.

I'm not sure how these premises lead to the conclusion that the Trinity is a logically conceiveable entity? They seem to lead to the conclusion that the Trinity was logically necessary, which isn't the same thing at all. The Trinity is based on three premises (from the catechism here:

1. The Trinity is One... The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire
2. The divine persons are really distinct from one another..."Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another
3. The divine persons are relative to one another.

Now, the 3 "divine persons" are *not* "modalities or names" of the one god - they are "distinct" and "whole and entire". Yet there is only one god. One is Three, and Three are One.

You've explained why the Trinity is logically necessary with your premises. Can you explain how the Trinity is logically possible? If not, then can we assume that the Trinity is a logical contradiction?

Hmmm. Baptism is a ritual, an initiation, it is connected to ancient water rituals. It is a way to demonstrate love for God, either the parents making a decision for a child out of love, or an individual making the baptism choice himself. Nothing is assured after baptism, but I think you're better off with it than without it.

You appear to be a very "progressive" catholic! You are for or against the Limbus Infantum then?

(Regarding souls) : I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I feel that I have a soul, it's just intuition. The soul is more than the decision maker. No, actually, it is not the decision maker. The brain makes decisions. Brains are faulty. The soul can interact with the barin. Souls can make decisions, but it is tough for me to conceive of that because my soul is so tied up with my brain.

The purpose behind these questions is that I expected pretty much these sorts of answers - the "soul" is simply a poorly concieved and vaguely defined "bag" into which you place anything you can't figure out, and which acts as a "circuit breaker" for you in trying to see how Free Will and God's omniscience can be resolved. If god created your soul, then he created it's potential impact on your behaviour. WHatever you are capable of, he pout there. Whatever I'm capable of, he put there. If you could *never* abandon him, it's because it made your soul that way, if you *could* abandon him, it's because he put that there. Why would you (or anyone) choose to turn their back on god?

What reason? What process? How does this come to be? You've stated that our final destination is a place that's in accordance with our "Will" - but the Will is the soul (or lives in the soul) and god made that. Did he make something he couldn't see into?

Some people, I am sure you can imagine, will be obstinate and hate God and not want to hear that they were wrong their entire human existence.

Why would they do that? What leads to that state of affairs? When such a person reaches the point of saying "I hate god, and refuse to accept I was wrong" what brought them to that place? Outside factors? Internal "will"? Both? Who created the outside factors - god. Who created this person's will - god. Who's responsible for their decision - god!!!!

 

[elliotfc]

Hey Jesse.

How do you know how God thinks? or what he's concerned with?

Primarily through the life of Jesus. Secondarily through my reading of I don't know how many books. Then there is a lot of thinking on my part.

Theology. It is related to science, but it is not science. I accept that God exists (a creator who creates creative beings). Then I take it from there, and try to make sense out of everything.

Theology is not an exact science, obviously. I could be wrong about one thing or everything. I have been asked questions and I have answered them. If your premise is "how can this person know how/what God thinks", then I don't know why you're asking me questions. It seems you are all trying to get your heads around how I think or how this type of Christian thinks or how any Christian thinks. That's why I was wondering why this forum was here. If nobody can know how God thinks, or what he's concerned with, why scratch your heads over people who are concerned with those things?

How can I grant acceptance to God if I cannot define what God is?[/qoute]

I personally started with a very simple definition. God is the supreme creator who is (ultimately/directly/indirectly) responsible for the creation of every other creative being. I find such an idea unavoidable. If you don't find that idea unavoidable, then I honestly don't know how you can grant acceptance to God. Probably you can't.

Alternatively, maybe you can be impressed by the life of Jesus, who claimed to be God. If you think he was on to something, you could at the very least accept that God exists.

In theology people brainstorm about God, the existence of God is taken for granted. I think it's obvious that I've been designed, and that all living things have been designed, and that the universe has been designed. Of course that isn't self-evident to a lot of people. What can you do? All I'm trying to do here is respond to questions and get engaged in theological discussions. If the position is "we can't possibly know what God is", then there can't be any theological discussions. Just by the fact that you enjoy poking holes in theology seems, to me, to suggest that you are actually interested in theology. I've never talked to (I mean physically talked to) an atheist who wasn't interested in theology, their interest being negative of course.

If I define God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which is how I began this post, then I must find logical inconsistencies.

Agreed, sort of. Or it depends how you define or think about those words. I would be *difficult*, or *a pain in the butt*, and say that our ideas of omni-whatever do not correspond to God's ideas about omni-whatever, and that his ideas about omni-whatever are superior to our ideas about omni-whatever.

With omnipotence, let me see if I can spit out the two main objections (correct me if I've misidentified the two main objections.)

1) If God can't do "evil", how can he be omnipotent?
Response) As the perfect creator, the perfect creator can not act imperfectly. It is against the nature of the perfect creator to do anything imperfectly. It is up to imperfect creators to do imperfect things. If evil is, at the very root, separation from God, how can God be separate from God? God can only be God. That is omnipotence. If you have a different definition of omnipotence (God can be God, and/or God can be an imperfect creator), then we are disagreeing at that point. God can become a limited creator (ie Jesus), but Jesus was perfect in his limitations.

2) Since God doesn't stop evil, how can he be omnipotent?
Response) Just because God doesn't do something doesn't mean he can't do something. I would say that he will deal with evil when he will deal with evil. He won't deal with evil when we want him to deal with evil. I can make the analogy to any human thing. If there is a lamp that is off, and you choose not to turn it on, does that mean you can not turn it on? No, it just means you'll turn on the lamp when you choose to do it. A consequence of creating imperfect creators was them doing evil things. He felt that was an acceptable consequence, and who are we (who exist) to disagree? That is the way it is, take it up with God (well, I guess you already are) if you dislike the way it is.

Regarding omniscience...I don't know. At every particular moment of continuous time God knows everything about that moment. That's how I define omniscience.

Regarding omnibenevolence...Good is a standard. God is the ultimate standard. Therefore God is the ultimate good. The evil that exists goes against the ultimate standard, that is why it is evil. Omnibenevolence comes before evil, evil can only be understood compared to omnibenevolence. We understand evil, therefore omnibenevolence exists, and only God can be omnibenevolent.

I don't wish to complain about omniscience. I wish to say that it very likely does not exist.

If I implied you were complaining I apologize, I was just spouting about tendencies that I observe but that you don't apparently have. Your *idea* of omniscience...well I think that you're right. Your *idea* of omniscience does not exist. But there are many different ideas about omniscience. I'm being difficult. I'm sorry. It's just that I think we would define terms differently. If you want to say that my idea of omniscience does not exist...well, just say it, and I'll take it like a man. As long as if you think about what I say, that's enough. That would make this conversation we are having worthwhile, and that's enough, that's probably the best we can hope out of all this.

I do not believe that free will exists outside of genetic and environmental causes. If you take away genetics and the environment, what have you got left as causes for choices?

OK, I was referring to different levels of existence that are not human levels of existence. I am of the opinion that there are countless billions of creative beings, obviously most of whom are not human. Therefore free will can exist outside of *human* genetics and *earth* environment. But the other entities would have their own particular genetics and environment I suppose. So maybe you are right from your way of looking at things. I was looking at it from the human perspective of original sin (human original sin, I don't think that other entities have {necessarily} original sin. But all entities have free will.

If you say how do I know all of this...again, I plead theological innocence. I'm trying to make sense of everything through theology. If my opinions are baseless, then it's probably best to stop responding to me. I am not talking scientifically about ANYTHING, so don't apply scientific standards to this. Or do. If you do I agree that scientifically this is just nonsensical. But this is a theological/philsophical forum.

The answer is: nothing. What we define as randomness and chaos are simply elements which we do not yet scientifically understand or are not able to predict.

Right. I don't think that I believe in randomness or chaos. Science will ever be able to predict human decision making. I'll bet any amount of money that it won't happen...errr...in our lifetimes. I'd extend the timeframe but then I would be dead and couldn't put the money to good use.

The first cause of creating individuals who he knows, in advance, will do evil acts, is an act of knowingly creating evil.

Knowingly creating the POSSIBILITY of evil. God obviously thought it was worth it.

I could take it up with God, but I have no idea how to go about doing that.

You are taking it up with God, who is READING EVERY MESSAGE IN THIS FORUM. You'll be able to speak to him more directly eventually.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If Yahweh was the one true God, why couldn't he simply wipe out all the false ones? (assuming Yahweh was omnipotent) If free will was so important to Yahweh, why did he have to harden the Pharoh's heart?

OK, now this is what I consider a really tricky one.

Can god "wipe out" any other god? I don't know if God can make his creations cease to exist. If that limits his omnipotence, so be it. If something exists at one time, it will always exist at that time, therefore it will always exist. I don't think time outside of temporal reality is as we think it is.

Retreating from the above philsophical problem, the state of the world is one in which Evil is permitted to reign. He could wipe it out today or yesterday, but he chose not to. Again, that doesn't imply non-omnipotence, anymore that the fact that you don't choose to drink a glass of milk at a particular time means that you are unable to drink a glass of milk.

I'm not sure if he actually did harden Pharoah's heart. Obviously the Exodus writer(s) thought God hardened Pharoah's heart. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. If you expect me to defend every statement in the Bible...that's expecting too much.

I'll defend a whole bunch of them fer sure, but not every one.

I am not a literalist Christian who believes every single thing in the Bible. Am I supposed to be, and do you assume every Christian to be a literalist Christian? 0% of Catholics are literalist biblical Christians.

-Elliot

 

[Jesse2]

Primarily through the life of Jesus. Secondarily through my reading of I don't know how many books. Then there is a lot of thinking on my part.

Many athiests and agnostics have the same qualifications you do: Reading a lot of books and a lot of thinking.

Agreed, sort of. Or it depends how you define or think about those words. I would be *difficult*, or *a pain in the butt*, and say that our ideas of omni-whatever do not correspond to God's ideas about omni-whatever, and that his ideas about omni-whatever are superior to our ideas about omni-whatever.

If we can't adequately comprehend these ideas, I see no point in thinking about them farther than I already have. I can therefore mentally eject the notions of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, which does adequately address the post that began this discussion.

 

[Jesse2]

OK, now this is what I consider a really tricky one.

Can god "wipe out" any other god? I don't know if God can make his creations cease to exist. If that limits his omnipotence, so be it.

Very well. This addresses the first post of this thread.

Retreating from the above philsophical problem, the state of the world is one in which Evil is permitted to reign. He could wipe it out today or yesterday, but he chose not to. Again, that doesn't imply non-omnipotence, anymore that the fact that you don't choose to drink a glass of milk at a particular time means that you are unable to drink a glass of milk.

We keep slipping away from the original statement. The christian tenet is that God is simulataneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In a nutshell, if evil is permitted, then God cannot be all three of these things. If he chooses not to wipe out evil, it seems God cannot be all three of the aforementioned 'omni-whatevers'

I am not a literalist Christian who believes every single thing in the Bible. Am I supposed to be, and do you assume every Christian to be a literalist Christian? 0% of Catholics are literalist biblical Christians.

The original post of this thread addresses a 'literalist' or fundamental christian tenet. I perceive you to be backsliding a little bit, but that's just my non-literalist interpretation.

 

[elliotfc]

Hey Loki.

So a child that dies at age 6 months is an innocent victim of a frail body in a fallen world. What then happens to this child's soul, and why?

The child's soul is free from being tied to the human body. After that it is almost certainly reconciled with God completely. Or not. I have no idea. The soul, while we are humans, is stuck in the human perspective. Free from that human perspective I have absolutely no idea how it would think. Strike that. I have lots of ideas. I'm not exactly sure.

If there are visions of limbo dancing in your head, I could speak about limbo but I would only (probably badly) mumble stuff that can be found at the following webpage.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

So, you agree then that the christian god punished the son for the sins of the father?

More for the sins of the civilization. I don't think it was as personal as Exodus makes it. We're talking slaves rebelling against the enslaved. The slaves, for good reason, fixated on Pharoah, and no doubt explained it as Pharoah instead the Egyptian state.

Let me just go ahead and tell you what I believe. I do believe that God did in fact visit Egypt with a whole bunch of bad things. The reason for doing so was to prove that he, as a God, was more powerful than the Egyptian gods. This would create an impression on the Jews. Of course we can make fun of the Jews for all the times they slipped...but Judaism still exists, so it had to work. The specifics that are mentioned in Exodus may or may not be true, particularly how they explained the reasons of God behind the actions of God.

I'm just typing, I'm not looking back to see what I typed. I hope that helps to show you how I think about the Bible. Things happened. God was involved. The writers of the books of the Bible explained them as best they could. They probably got a lot of stuff wrong. Or maybe just a little stuff wrong. I don't know.

You seemed to dispute this in an earlier post. Your explanation for this behaviour (which would be condemned by human standards) is "there were other priorities, such as establishing his authority, which had to be met". In essence, you're "special pleading" for god on this one?

I hope I explained myself above. I don't take the bible literally. The writers did the best they could. They might have assigned specifics (God beating down Pharoah personally) that are off the mark. Egypt had to go down, and Egypt had to go down hard!

I'm not sure how these premises lead to the conclusion that the Trinity is a logically conceiveable entity?

God exists. I can't escape that logically. I just can't.

God as Jesus is God's way of reconnecting with his rebel creation. I conclude that Jesus is God because that explains a whole heck of a lot. God and humanity can only reconnect through...Jesus. Who is God and who is human. That's part two of the trinity. God taking on a limited role and still being God.

God's way of *action* is the Holy Spirit. If God, who I believe exists, does things, those things are done by the Holy Spirit. Which is a part of God. Think of it as the mechanism of God. A Hindu would get what I'm saying. The Holy Spirit is an aspect of God. The Virgin Mary became pregnant throught the Holy Spirit. Which is the same as becoming pregnant through God.

You can probably say that "well, Jesus got Mary pregnant since God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit man how weird is that". I would respond by saying "see, that's the beauty of the Trinity! We have different names, just to get around such weirdness!" It's very convenient to think of God as Three. I don't even think I have any idea just how convenient it is. The Trinity is called the greatest mystery of Christianity for good reason. Three names for the same thing? Something like that.

Jesus seemed like he knew what the heck he was talking about. He talked about God, he talked about the Holy Spirit, and he talked about Jesus. That's the trinity right there.

They seem to lead to the conclusion that the Trinity was logically necessary, which isn't the same thing at all.

I think objective reality is logically necessary? If God is Love, God CANNOT BE PURELY ONE. Love is interaction. Love is two creating another. The Trinity is logically necessary. I am summarizing I don't know how many people, people from Fulton Sheen to Rene Girard. More people than those two, I think they articulated it the best. I can't recomment Rene Girard highly enough, and I feel silly trying to explain this stuff when there is no way I can explain it better than him.

The Trinity is based on three premises (from the catechism here:

1. The Trinity is One... The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire

Right. I would never say that any part of the Trinity is only 1/3 of God. Jesus just wasn't 1/3 of God, Jesus was God.

2. The divine persons are really distinct from one another..."Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another

I agree with that competely.

3. The divine persons are relative to one another.

Good. I agree completely with my chosen theology.

By relative that implies family. You need three for a family.

Now, the 3 "divine persons" are *not* "modalities or names" of the one god - they are "distinct" and "whole and entire". Yet there is only one god. One is Three, and Three are One.

If I said anything above I am sorry, I was just doing a bad job of explaining what you outlined above.

You've explained why the Trinity is logically necessary with your premises. Can you explain how the Trinity is logically possible?

No, it's the biggest mystery in Christianity. I can only perceive that it is necessary (three implies Love, because Love is both unifying and creative).

If not, then can we assume that the Trinity is a logical contradiction?

Human logic is limited, we do the best we can though.

You appear to be a very "progressive" catholic! You are for or against the Limbus Infantum then?

No, I HATE the Limbo. Love the chicken dance though.

Here is a link regarding Limbo. I must admit that the ideas of Limbo have evolved throughout the history of Catholicism (the link extends that to predate Christianity). I'm glad Catholicism is not totally stagnant in doctrine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

The purpose behind these questions is that I expected pretty much these sorts of answers - the "soul" is simply a poorly concieved and vaguely defined "bag" into which you place anything you can't figure out, and which acts as a "circuit breaker" for you in trying to see how Free Will and God's omniscience can be resolved.

I did the best I could.

My soul is how I feel connected to God. And I do feel connected to God. I can't be connected to God without a soul. I can exist without a connection to God, but then I would be totally uncreative and a bore (no snide comments please ). Here's a quote from GK Chesterton:
"To each man one soul only is given; to each soul only is given a little power - the power at some moments to outgrow and swallow up the stars."
That's how I feel about the soul. The soul is what is more than this human body/brain of mine. It is my wishes, my conscience, my dreams, my fears and joys. You can scientifically explain all that (I said EXPLAIN not prove) but such an explanation has no spiritual value to me.
If you respond to that by saying "you are just a weakling who NEEDS spiritual value when none exists", I would respond by admitting that I am a weakling with needs, while disagreeing that none exists.
My intellectual pursuits (I have many) are also spiritual pursuits. My soul is hungry, as much as my brain. You can tell me there is no difference, but I feel there is a difference. You can tell me the feeling is an illusion, but you can't prove that my feeling is an illusion. It is a very real feeling to me, and I'm not about to rationalize out of it.

Here's something else to consider.
IF God exists, and IF there is human existence after human death, does that mean a soul exists?

I'm very curious to hear everyone answer that question. I can't escape the idea that God exists. Given my belief in Jesus, I believe that there is existence after human death. Therefore I believe a soul exists. Does all of that follow? I mean, if you accept the two IFs, does it follow that a soul exists? Even if we have only the most vague definition of soul?

If god created your soul, then he created it's potential impact on your behaviour. WHatever you are capable of, he pout there. Whatever I'm capable of, he put there.

If you could *never* abandon him, it's because it made your soul that way, if you *could* abandon him, it's because he put that there. Why would you (or anyone) choose to turn their back on god?

He made our souls so that they can freely choose to abandon him or stick with him. Both options are in the soul. Let's say I choose to abandon God. That's in there as you put it, yes. I also say that the other option is in their too. Why would anyone choose to turn their back on God? Any of a trillion reasons. Read the first book of Paradise Lost and tell me what you think. Everytime we sin we turn our back on God. Why would we do such a thing? Because at the moment we sin, we place ourself (or someone else or something else) in the center of the universe. Why would we do that? Isn't the answer obvious? The option is there. If you give an multiple choice test, you'll have people choose each of the options. You do your best to instruct them about the correct answers, and you even offer to TELL THEM the correct answers (if they would just listen to you). But if there is one thing that creative beings have shown, it's that they can and do decide to rebel against their creator.

What reason? What process? How does this come to be? You've stated that our final destination is a place that's in accordance with our "Will" - but the Will is the soul (or lives in the soul) and god made that. Did he make something he couldn't see into?

No! Since he can see into our souls, he cooperates with those who reject him. He created wills/souls that could reject him. If you think that is just a crazy thing to do...that's your opinion. I think it a reasonable thing to do because you can't force Love. If God wants Love, he has to allow that love to be free, and if it is free that leaves the possibility for, errr, hate. He'll let the "haters" hate if they want to. If they want to. If they want to. If they want to. God doesn't force anyone to reject Love.

Why would they do that? What leads to that state of affairs?

"They" meaning the people who ultimately reject God. I don't know, I think it's a stupid thing to do myself. Pride. That's the answer. What leads to pride? Discontentment maybe. Loving yourself more than God. A whole bunch of stuff. Or maybe it's pride that leads to discontentment.

Why do people do stupid things? I don't know. The answer isn't "because they are stupid" because smart people do stupid things all the time. Does that make them not smart? I don't know. Maybe. Some people have the attitude that all people are stupid, or most people are stupid. I don't like that attitude. I think most people are smart, but they just love themselves or other things to much, they get their perspectives out of wack, that doesn't make them stupid.

When such a person reaches the point of saying "I hate god, and refuse to accept I was wrong" what brought them to that place?

Varies from person to person. It all boils down to the word "pride" in the end. Some people can never say they are wrong. Maybe you've met people like that. We can theorize what brought them to that place, and maybe even blame others. But we are all responsible for our own stubbornness.

Outside factors? Internal "will"? Both? Who created the outside factors - god. Who created this person's will - god. Who's responsible for their decision - god!!!!

No, decisions are up to the decision makers. God created beings with the capacity to make decisions. He gives all of us the option to make the right decisions or the wrong decisions.

Again, what is the alternative? Choiceless automatons? Is that what you would rather be? There's no love in that.

Here is another question. Is love possible without choice? If you respond "what's love?" then I give up, I'll have reached the end of my ability to contribute to the thread.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Many athiests and agnostics have the same qualifications you do: Reading a lot of books and a lot of thinking.

You're right. We are all qualified to be theologians, and I don't know if there is a limit to possible conclusions. We are disagreeing and trying to express our disagreements.

My ideas are ways to help me understand what I think I need to understand. If they don't help others so be it. I'm doing the best I can. It goes without saying that I favor my ideas over anyone elses, or, at least the other ideas I encounter. When I encounter other ideas that I think are superior to mine I readily alter my perspective.

Again, we aren't talking about science here.

If we can't adequately comprehend these ideas, I see no point in thinking about them farther than I already have. I can therefore mentally eject the notions of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, which does adequately address the post that began this discussion.

OK. It was a pleasure talking to you in this thread, see you in another I'm sure.

My intention is not to convince anyone anything, just to articulate what I believe. If my articulations don't cut it, I sincerely appreciate hearing that, and the whys behind it.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The christian tenet is that God is simulataneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Since we define those words differently we disagree. I am not content with how you define them, but I understand with your definitions you think as you do.

In a nutshell, if evil is permitted, then God cannot be all three of these things. If he chooses not to wipe out evil, it seems God cannot be all three of the aforementioned 'omni-whatevers.

So if you don't choose to open a bottle of beer you can't open a bottle of beer? Eradicating evil or the possibility of evil would be to eradicate every creative being. We disagree with omniscience because I don't think God perceives time as you/I do.

The original post of this thread addresses a 'literalist' or fundamental christian tenet. I perceive you to be backsliding a little bit, but that's just my non-literalist interpretation.

OK. This thread has evolved past the original post. Should I apologize for that? I'm sorry if that is against the rules of the board. I am supporting the "fundamental christian tenets" by declaring that your definitions of omni-whatever are not how "fundamental christians" would define them. I consider myself a "fundamental" Christian becaue I believe in the fundamentals of Christianity. I introduced the "literalist" idea.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

For Jesse

Jesse if I got away from the initial sentiment of your original post, that wasn't my intention, but it seemed we were going in a direction that led to a discussion.

I can't possibly think of anything else to say, and I do have the habit of over-verbage and repeating myself. Please respond to anything I said, I'll read the responses and ONLY reply if I have something NEW to say. But I think that will be very unlikely (but possible).

I've come to the unavoidable conclusion that we have different ways of thinking about the "omni"-words.

Here are some interesting questions I get out of this which I think deserve thought, at least on my part.

1) Can God "uncreate" what he has created? I suspect not. Does that have ramifications on a definition of omnipotence. I suspect so. I (at this point) am thinking, since God is omnipotent, God cannot undo what he has already done, because what he has already done cannot be undone because God is omnipotent. I am slightly dissatisfied with that idea, but only slightly.

2) Do creatures who have the option to choose evil have the right to blame God for being the source of that evil. The answer is definitely YES. We all have the right to blame anybody for anything. Is that blame appropriate? I would say YES, only if you are furious that you were created as a creative being and would have preferred non-existence to existence. Is the a legitimate position? I don't think so, but I am not exactly sure about that. If you prefer non-existence to existence, then you should not do anything creative. Ever. Or stop making decisions. But to cease making decisions is to make a decision. Therefore creative beings are forced to exist and forced to make decisions.

3) If God exists, does he have to be omni-anything? I say yes, but would leave the definitions of those omnis to God. If we whip up an idea of omni-something, try to apply it to God, and find that the application doesn't work, I would not blame that on God but on oneself for trying to stick a faulty omni-definition on God. But returning to question three...IF (premise) God exists, does he have to be omni-anything. I answer a whole-heared YES.

Very interesting to hear your ideas on those three points Jesse. And if you have any specific questions for me that you would like me to answer or give an opinion for, go ahead and ask them. Barring that it's likely I'll stop contributing to this thread (but no promises ).

-Elliot

 

[Jesse2]

OK. It was a pleasure talking to you in this thread, see you in another I'm sure.

You misunderstood me. When I say "these ideas" I am referring to the omni-whatever ideas. If we agree they can be thrown out, there's nothing more about them to discuss.