Do you believe in God? A deity, or higher power?

[Landlord]

 

 

These are all really swell explanations, except that God is 1) Omnipotent, meaning absolutely nothing is outside His ability, and 2) God is all-loving, meaning he loves us absolutely.

 

If that is the extent of what omnipotence entails, if it's that simple, then can God make a circle triangle?

 

 

These are all really swell explanations, except that God is 1) Omnipotent, meaning absolutely nothing is outside His ability, and 2) God is all-loving, meaning he loves us absolutely.

 

If that is the extent of what omnipotence entails, if it's that simple, then can God make a circle triangle?

 

This seems like an attempt to evade or negate the question rather than any kind of substantive answer.

 

The basic question is, Does God have the power to eliminate "sin" and place every human ever in existence in heaven to live with Him eternally RIGHT NOW?

 

 

 

The eliminate sin part I can easily answer as He's already done that on the cross. The heaven pickup thing I don't really know how to approach.

 

 

Let's say we were in heaven, then. Would it be possible to want out? Because if not then you have no free will and you could come to the same conclusion that God doesn't love you, but if you did want out, you could come to the same conclusion that God isn't all-powerful and also the same reality where His creation uses it's freedom to rebel.

 

 

These are my poorly formed lunch time thoughts.

[JJ Husker]

Just an observation, but I think a whole bunch of people let their problems/contempt for organized religion affect their ability or desire to explore the issue of God or a creator. The question "Do you believe in God, a deity, or a higher power?", as posed in the thread title, really does not need to involve any discussion of any specific religion, church, sect, etc. I find it unfortunate that what appears to be way too many people have trouble separating those issues and it seems like man caused problems within religions have alienated boatloads of people from being able to answer the question affirmatively. I guess I understand it but I just find it disturbing that so many aren't willing to recognize that most of their difficulty of acknowledging a higher power is the result of what other people have done in the name of, or under the guise of, religion. Imo, first and foremost it has to be a personal, spiritual matter. If you allow the actions or inactions of other people to ruin it for you, that is unfortunate indeed.

[TAKODA]

 

 

These are all really swell explanations, except that God is 1) Omnipotent, meaning absolutely nothing is outside His ability, and 2) God is all-loving, meaning he loves us absolutely.

 

 

 

If that is the extent of what omnipotence entails, if it's that simple, then can God make a circle triangle?

 

 

I think this is what your Circle/triangle reference was speaking too?

 

The statement "a deity can do anything" is only sensible with an assumed suppressed clause, "that implies the perfection of true power". This standard scholastic answer allows that acts of creatures such as walking can be performed by humans but not by a deity. Rather than an advantage in power, human acts such as walking, sitting, or giving birth were possible only because of a defect in human power. The capacity to sin, for example, is not a power but a defect or infirmity. In response to questions of a deity performing impossibilities, e.g. making square circles, St. Thomas says that "everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: 'No word shall be impossible with God.' For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing."

[JJ Husker]

 

I'd like to try and give you some food for thought on this topic...I think it's explainable.

 

 

I still don't understand how there are so many protestant religions out there that find it ok to blame God for all the bad things out there...and I suppose that since they did it in the book of Job (read: all of Job's relatives....a few examples:

• Your 3 year old died? Oh, God must have needed a little angel in heaven right?
• God hates A...so he directed B onto A's place of residence to teach them a lesson. (insert your own values for A and B)
• I hate God because he took my _insert your relative here_ away from me.
• I'm angry with God because
• Natural Disasters? God had nothing to do with these things...he doesn't direct them onto people
• Disease? Famine? etc? God has decided to kill innocent people? That doesn't fit 'God is love'

Why would God kill innocent 3 year olds like the hypothetical example in the first bullet point? He doesn't. Disease, mutation of cells/DNA, sickness, etc...those are products of Adam rejecting perfection back in Genesis. When he did that, death was the thing he received...and just like that, we all have that born in us. God doesn't pluck us out of the masses or take us. Our bodies are imperfect and weak and therefore susceptible to disease and mutations...they're fragile during accidents, falls, etc. Thanks to the serpent for this one...he's the root cause of our imperfect bodies.

 

Do those bad things still happen to good people? Sure, but to think God is hanging out dropping little bombs of punishment and pain on people is just not the way of Christian belief....and here's where I think the proof is:

 

 

Read Luke 4.

 

Now, I'd like to call your attention to a few verses:

 

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.” 8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’

 

What I'd like to call your attention to in those verses is that Jesus doesn't refute that Satan has power over all the kingdoms of the world TO GIVE TO HIM. That's a telling thing to think about. Satan's influence on the world was so great even then, that Jesus didn't refute that he had all that power he was willing to bestow upon him...no refuting it at all.

 

So, who is the one that influences this world more than anyone/anything out there? Who has led mankind into destroying the earth causing increased occurances of national disasters? Who has caused increased violence around the world and unstable governments? Who has caused persecution of ethnic groups and religions around the world? Why do people die? Why is there disease? Satan...he always has been the cause and probably always will be until the day of his final judgement and destruction.

 

The above is how I choose to believe and it is how I feel the Bible shows this to be true.

 

 

 

These are all really swell explanations, except that God is 1) Omnipotent, meaning absolutely nothing is outside His ability, and 2) God is all-loving, meaning he loves us absolutely.

 

But if he does, why are we here? Why aren't we in heaven right now? Some bizarre "free will" explanation? That's a very human-sounding excuse for a reality that we should NOT be in.

 

It's really simple. If God loves us absolutely, and he's omnipotent, all this nonsense about sin shouldn't be. At all. We should just be in heaven with him now, living forever in blessed perfection.

 

It has to be a free will situation as bizarre or unsatisfying as some may find that. If we don't/can't choose to freely love God and do his will, it would be a complete sham. The fact that he is omnipotent and "could" cause us to be with him now in heaven forever without all this BS of sin etc., ignores the fact that, if that is the path he chose for us, we could not truly, freely, decide to love him. How can you love something if you have no choice?

 

If I created 100 beings that I wanted to love me, how good and satisfied would I feel about the love they gave me if they had absolutely no choice in extending that love to me? the "If God loves us....." and "If he's omnipotent......." are straw man arguments. No matter how badly you want it to be easy, it simply cannot be that easy.

[knapplc]

So it's a sham that a baby loves its mother?

 

That's what we're saying here - that the baby has not had the chance to choose to love, live with, be the child of its mother, therefore the love they have for their mother - the baby's very existence in the mother's home/presence - is a sham. Does the mother feel any less love for that baby because the baby has hasn't chosen to love her?

 

See how silly that sounds?

[JJ Husker]

So it's a sham that a baby loves its mother?

 

That's what we're saying here - that the baby has not had the chance to choose to love, live with, be the child of its mother, therefore the love they have for their mother - the baby's very existence in the mother's home/presence - is a sham. Does the mother feel any less love for that baby because the baby has hasn't chosen to love her?

 

See how silly that sounds?

Sorry, I'm failing to see how the baby-mother relationship can be compared, even marginally, to the human race-God relationship. Trying to compare those two situations is the silly part imo.

[Landlord]

 

So it's a sham that a baby loves its mother?

 

That's what we're saying here - that the baby has not had the chance to choose to love, live with, be the child of its mother, therefore the love they have for their mother - the baby's very existence in the mother's home/presence - is a sham. Does the mother feel any less love for that baby because the baby has hasn't chosen to love her?

 

See how silly that sounds?

Sorry, I'm failing to see how the baby-mother relationship can be compared, even marginally, to the human race-God relationship. Trying to compare those two situations is the silly part imo.

 

 

 

 

Well, maybe a baby declaring that it's mother doesn't love it because of some arbitrary conclusion about what love is can be compared to the human-God relationship

[Ratt Mhule]

 

What about the bible saying the Earth is flat? Earth only being thousands of years old? No mention of dinosaurs ever existing? Stuff like that is what I meant.

 

 

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. Isaiah 40:22

 

The Bible says nothing about the earth's age. It does speak of the age/lineage of people tracing back to Adam and Eve...but we don't know how long Adam and Eve lived in that garden do we? We don't know how long of a separation happened between the creative days...could have been thousands of years.

 

 

Why would the dinosaurs be mentioned specifically? There is mention of monsters of the sea in Genesis...but why do they have to be mentioned? Are they important for the central theme of the Bible which is to help us with our spirituality? I don't really care if dinosaurs were mentioned or not personally. Takes nothing and gives nothing to me.

 

 

It also mentions the four corners of the Earth. Must have been confusing enough to the early Christians because they persecuted scientists who claimed the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun.

 

As far as the age of the Earth. Nine years of Catholic school and religion classes, the teachers taught young Earth theory. And you just said Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands of years in the garden. That's just silly.

 

You might not care about if the dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, but they are a big part of the history of the world. You would think a book like the Bible would mention something about them. And if humans and dinosaurs lived with each other during this time, why didn't humans become extinct when the asteroid hit?

[BigRedBuster]

So it's a sham that a baby loves its mother?

 

That's what we're saying here - that the baby has not had the chance to choose to love, live with, be the child of its mother, therefore the love they have for their mother - the baby's very existence in the mother's home/presence - is a sham. Does the mother feel any less love for that baby because the baby has hasn't chosen to love her?

 

See how silly that sounds?

A baby is going to love who ever is taking care of it. If a baby is taken away from its birth mother and given to another mother to be raised and that mother does a loving job, then the baby is going to "choose" to love the mother that is taking care of it.

[Landlord]

 

It also mentions the four corners of the Earth. Must have been confusing enough to the early Christians because they persecuted scientists who claimed the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun.

 

As far as the age of the Earth. Nine years of Catholic school and religion classes, the teachers taught young Earth theory. And you just said Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands of years in the garden. That's just silly.

 

You might not care about if the dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, but they are a big part of the history of the world. You would think a book like the Bible would mention something about them. And if humans and dinosaurs lived with each other during this time, why didn't humans become extinct when the asteroid hit?

 

 

 

 

Four corners.... couldn't possibly refer to north/south/east/west could it? Besides, that is apocalyptic, poetic literature.

 

Young Earth theory is an interpretation (a very poor one, at that, in my estimation) - it is not what the Bible actually says.

 

As far as dinosaurs, the Bible has a very large number of hebrew words that are translated into such things as dragon, serpent, sea monster, behemoth, leviathan, etc. Are these dinosaurs? Who knows. Were dinosaurs relevant to the story of redemption and salvation? I don't really think so.

 

 

 

 

Like I said before - these things have only been "proven" false if you only look at them in one very narrow interpretation and ignore the rest.

[knapplc]

 

The basic question is, Does God have the power to eliminate "sin" and place every human ever in existence in heaven to live with Him eternally RIGHT NOW?

 

The eliminate sin part I can easily answer as He's already done that on the cross. The heaven pickup thing I don't really know how to approach.

 

 

Let's say we were in heaven, then. Would it be possible to want out? Because if not then you have no free will and you could come to the same conclusion that God doesn't love you, but if you did want out, you could come to the same conclusion that God isn't all-powerful and also the same reality where His creation uses it's freedom to rebel.

 

 

These are my poorly formed lunch time thoughts.

 

1) God did not "eliminate" sin. Sin is why you're not in heaven right now. If there was no sin, no gulf would exist between God & Man, and we'd be back in Eden/paradise/whatever where we're all walking around naked with God.

 

Unless we're saying God didn't/doesn't have the power to return things the way they were before. Jesus' act of saving us all from our sins doesn't/didn't have the power to recreate that sinless, perfect & pure relationship we had with God when it was just Adam & Eve. If that's the case, he did half a job, didn't he? Shouldn't he have done everything, put it all back to rights again, like God's very own Omega 13? And if he can't, we're back to the "not omnipotent" problem.

 

2) The "wanting out" question doesn't make much sense. What if you want out of heaven after you die now? Do you get out? Where do you go? Will you have free will in heaven when you die, or do you only get that here?

[Ratt Mhule]

 

 

It also mentions the four corners of the Earth. Must have been confusing enough to the early Christians because they persecuted scientists who claimed the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun.

 

As far as the age of the Earth. Nine years of Catholic school and religion classes, the teachers taught young Earth theory. And you just said Adam and Eve could have lived for thousands of years in the garden. That's just silly.

 

You might not care about if the dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, but they are a big part of the history of the world. You would think a book like the Bible would mention something about them. And if humans and dinosaurs lived with each other during this time, why didn't humans become extinct when the asteroid hit?

 

 

 

 

Four corners.... couldn't possibly refer to north/south/east/west could it? Besides, that is apocalyptic, poetic literature.

 

Young Earth theory is an interpretation (a very poor one, at that, in my estimation) - it is not what the Bible actually says.

 

As far as dinosaurs, the Bible has a very large number of hebrew words that are translated into such things as dragon, serpent, sea monster, behemoth, leviathan, etc. Are these dinosaurs? Who knows. Were dinosaurs relevant to the story of redemption and salvation? I don't really think so.

 

 

 

 

Like I said before - these things have only been "proven" false if you only look at them in one very narrow interpretation and ignore the rest.

 

 

They shouldn't be teaching young Earth theory in school then.

[Landlord]

Jesus' act of saving us all from our sins doesn't/didn't have the power to recreate that sinless, perfect & pure relationship we had with God when it was just Adam & Eve.

 

Yes it does. That's a big part of what Hebrews details - Jesus is our forerunner or our example and by His accomplishment we are now representationally (not a word?) and will later functionally have the same standing with the Father.

[Landlord]

 

They shouldn't be teaching young Earth theory in school then.

 

 

 

[knapplc]

 

So it's a sham that a baby loves its mother?

 

That's what we're saying here - that the baby has not had the chance to choose to love, live with, be the child of its mother, therefore the love they have for their mother - the baby's very existence in the mother's home/presence - is a sham. Does the mother feel any less love for that baby because the baby has hasn't chosen to love her?

 

See how silly that sounds?

A baby is going to love who ever is taking care of it. If a baby is taken away from its birth mother and given to another mother to be raised and that mother does a loving job, then the baby is going to "choose" to love the mother that is taking care of it.

 

So having the baby make the choice isn't really a good idea, is it? Perhaps the mother should make that choice, since she's the one with vastly greater intelligence?

 

Any way you look at it, this whole "free will" thing is a boondoggle. We're not here because some first-generation people ate fruit from the bad tree, we're here because we're here. Religions are just an attempt to make some sense out of why we're here.

 

God didn't come first. Existence came first, then wonder, then explanation. One of those explanations is "god." It's not the only explanation, and it's not better supported than any other explanation.