God is smart, powerful, and good? No.

[Jesse2]

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.

Why don't we just use the dictionary definition? If you say omnipotent doesn't mean unlimited power, then you contradict the dictionary. Why should christians use words and change their meaning and apply them to God? If you throw out the idea that God has unlimited power, then we agree and should stop gabbing about it.

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.

You're ignoring again 'omnibenevolence', meaning all-good. If God is all-good, of course he would eradicate evil, unless he couldn't, which means that God is not all-powerful. If I don't choose to open a bottle of beer it means I don't want the beer. If God chooses to leave the evil alone, it means he wants the evil to exist. If God wants the evil to exist, he cannot be omnibenevolent. Since you have already redefined these words for yourself, why should we continue talking about them? For the sake of convenience, I am using the dictionary definition.

 

[Jesse2]

Re: 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.

You're missing the point. Open discussion is welcome. I'm not encouraging you to stop writing in the thread. Please continue to do so. I'm simply saying there's no point in discussing the omni-whatevers if you either:

A) Agree that God is not all three of them

or

B) Have chosen to redefine words already clearly defined.

1) Can God "uncreate" what he has created?

If God is all-powerful, he can uncreate anything he has created. If God is not all-powerful, there's no point in applying the term to him. It's that simple. Saying God is all-powerful when he is not in actuality all-powerful is simply going to confuse people; christian and non-christian alike.

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.

If our definitions of God are best left to God, it's best not to define God at all. Why spread confusion amongst people if God is humanly undefinable? And I'm not blaming God for that, I'm blaming any christian who attempts to define God when the definition of such is best left only to God. It's really not fair to say, "God is omni-anything, but only if you don't find logical flaws. If you find logical flaws, then the definition of God is best left to God. But God is still omni-anything."

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Re: For Jesse

It's really not fair to say, "God is omni-anything, but only if you don't find logical flaws. If you find logical flaws, then the definition of God is best left to God. But God is still omni-anything."

Not fair: but distressingly common. You get the sense they are just waiting for you to leave the room, so they can get right back to their omni-ing.

 

[elliotfc]

Hey Jesse

I surrender from this thread. Tonight I am going to start a new thread, and I might just be kidding myself, but I am prediciting that you will agree that the scope of the new thread (that I will start tonight) will get this omni-words thing going into a different direction. I am not ready to quit this, but I am getting sick of this particular thread. No offense, I blame MYSELF alone.

-Elliot

 

[Ensign Steve]

Well said, Ensign Steve.
I have no doubt that you will make Captain someday.

Welcome!

Thank you! I lurk around here a lot, but I'm just starting to post a little bit more.

 

[Loki]

elliotfc,

I can see that you're 'abandoning" this thread, but I wanted to add one more comment, whihc you can clarify if you wish...

(loki wrote) : So, you agree then that the christian god punished the son for the sins of the father?

(elliotfc wrote) : 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.

The point I originally made was "god killed children because of the parent's decisions (sins/crimes)". You seem to be trying to use two different responses here :

1. It wasn't really personal - god was punishing the entire civilisation, so naturely the woman and children (and innocent men, assuming there were a few Egyptians who just sat at hiome and did their work, rather than repressing Hebrews all day) also got punished. For punished, we mean 'killed'.

2. It wasn't really about "punishment for sin", it was about "establishing his power".

So, to clarify :

Do you believe that god (personally, not acting through human agents) killed even one Eqyptian child?
Do you believe that Exodus is correct, and that god deliberately targeted children for his "punishment/demonstration of power"?
Do you believe that to "establish his power" god was justified in killing innocent people?

 

[Jesse2]

Well, Loki, in terms of Exodus, Elliot already explained that he is a 'non-literalist' and that he does not believe that God hardened pharoh's heart, even though Exodus clearly states this. Under the defense of being a non-literalist, he may pick and choose which items he believes and which he does not.

Originally posted by elliotfc 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.

Once again, if God needed to show his power to 'prove' things, why didn't he just show himself to everyone and bypass all this bloodshed and terror? And to support your point, Loki, by ending the lives of the egyptian firstborns, is he not uncreating his creations, something Elliot already stated that God could not do?