Is God Omnipotent? - He's Very Impotent

[Tladatsi]

I was going to respond to Narnian over at Theology 201 but I have not hung the image of the Sword of Sol Invictus (a yellow colored "t" shaped thingy, like a showd with the tip down and handle up) on my screen so I am not considered a "Theist" (so, do Theists take thiestas?) and I promised the moderators I would stay out of those "Theist Only" forums. So I reposted my reply over here

I will go you one further, where does it say God is omnipotent anywhere in the Bible? Not really. On the other hand, God did create the universe in six days, and well - damn! - that is about as close to omnipotence as anything is likely to get. That is not counting all of the various miracles that happened just heer on Earth as recorded in the Bible, He parted the Red Sea and made the sun stand still in the sky. While these are small potatoes compared to ordering the stars into existance, still pretty impressive to me anyway. I also don't recall anywhere in the Bible where God says "Wheeew, whoa, wait I think I hurt something. I'll do that next week". I mean, God has never come bat and had to swing more than once on anything.

This is not to say that God did always make the right decision, only that when He decided to do something, it got done. I lost count how many times God "repented" something - oh, no wait no I didn't. Here is a list.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1603678#post1603678

God never tried to do something and wasn't able to do. That may not be omnipotence but I'm impressed.


Do you think the NT supports the idea that God is not Omnipotent, until the end times. If the NT supports the idea that evil will not be overcome until the "end times", God cannot be omnipotent. This word also does not occur in the NT, nor does "all powerful". Neither do I remember any verses that support omnipotentence off the top of my head.

What you guys think on a TEXT level (rather than a personal opinion or 'feeling'); does the NT support omnipotence or not, and which NT verses back up your answer?

Thanks :smile:

[GhostontheNet]

I will go you one further, where does it say God is omnipotent anywhere in the Bible? Not really. On the other hand, God did create the universe in six days, and well - damn! - that is about as close to omnipotence as anything is likely to get. That is not counting all of the various miracles that happened just heer on Earth as recorded in the Bible, He parted the Red Sea and made the sun stand still in the sky. While these are small potatoes compared to ordering the stars into existance, still pretty impressive to me anyway. I also don't recall anywhere in the Bible where God says "Wheeew, whoa, wait I think I hurt something. I'll do that next week". I mean, God has never come bat and had to swing more than once on anything.

This is not to say that God did always make the right decision, only that when He decided to do something, it got done. I lost count how many times God "repented" something - oh, no wait no I didn't. Here is a list.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1603678#post1603678

God never tried to do something and wasn't able to do. That may not be omnipotence but I'm impressed.

First and foremost, if I read you correctly you should rename your thread "Is God Omnipotent? - He's Very Potent!" Second, the problem about your "God repented oh his evil" verses is, if you dig out a lexicon ( www.e-sword.com ), you find the better rendering is "God took pity/felt remorse of his calamity", which would be fully expected response to things that turned out poorly for the present, even if the example of the thing and God's judgment upon it served to build a better future. The same applies in reverse when God makes a threat which causes a person/people-group to change their ways, after which, because of this closer to optimal state, God "takes pity" and fails to carry out the threat as a result. Chief of all miracles to date however, is the resurrection of Yeshua Christ, removing him from all death and entropy.

[mentored1]

Greetings,

Omnipotence is a very tricky thing to nail down. I'm not atheistic in any sense so lack of omnipotence is not a 'nail in the coffin' of God for me. But in trying to understand God as a mortal omnipotence poses a major problem.

We have the working of iniquity - of which God is said to be separate from. God cannot Sin. God cannot work evil. Is this accurate?

When we speak of God's omnipotence are we forced to consider it omnipotence with a restriction? That's not all-powerful though - is it?

Or is a rephrased definition of omnipotence: God's nature (or character) does not allow Him to do evil (it's not in Him) so he is all-powerful according to his nature. That's still a restriction of all powers available. If another being - such as Satan or perhaps mankind - can bring forth something which God cannot or will not then can God rightly be considered omnipotent?

Or is it a realm of which man is woefully inept to ponder?

Take care

[GhostontheNet]

Greetings,

Omnipotence is a very tricky thing to nail down. I'm not atheistic in any sense so lack of omnipotence is not a 'nail in the coffin' of God for me. But in trying to understand God as a mortal omnipotence poses a major problem.

We have the working of iniquity - of which God is said to be separate from. God cannot Sin. God cannot work evil. Is this accurate?

When we speak of God's omnipotence are we forced to consider it omnipotence with a restriction? That's not all-powerful though - is it?

Or is a rephrased definition of omnipotence: God's nature (or character) does not allow Him to do evil (it's not in Him) so he is all-powerful according to his nature. That's still a restriction of all powers available. I think omnipotence and divine goodness, which is generated by being all-wise, may be likened to the Newtonian physical concept in which an object in a vacuum travelling straight forward gets hit by an equal force on its exact side and then proceeds to travel in a diagonal direction indefinitely. So too both attributes are very real, yet mutually limit each other torwards an entirely different direction than merely the one attribute alone.


If another being - such as Satan or perhaps mankind - can bring forth something which God cannot or will not then can God rightly be considered omnipotent? I don't think it unreasonable to allow a mind to limit its own technical potential through application of wisdom. For example, it is in my power of free will and potentiality to go running about the neighborhood naked making chicken noises, but I really don't want to. Considering I define make a major defining point of individuality as "the distance from God and his own infinite attributes because of having limited attributes" and sin/evil as "Increasing the distance from God by refusing to do his will generated by his infinite attributes", this is like saying "If God cannot be God, is he really omnipotent?" As I see it, sin/evil is not so much a creation as a destruction or deconstruction. God wishes to sin roughly the same amount I wish to go streaking chicken-style. And if your reasoning holds, can you tell me why I am in fact technically powerless to go chicken-streaking?

[Tladatsi]

First and foremost, the title is a wee but funny. It plays on the fact that in some dialects of English, the "r" is not pronouced so that the words "impotent" and "important" sound the same. There is a whole joke based on a man going to the doctor and being told he is one and he thinks he is the other.

No, it is not a better translation. Many modern readers find it embarrasing to think that the God might regret His actions. It might indicate He had not thought things through carefully or was not omniscient. They try to translate away the plain meaning of the words to obscure it. Nonetheless, this is exactly what the Bible says.

Taking Gen 6:6 as the clearest example, the phrase in question is veyinakhem yahweh ey ashah at-ha-adam - "and Yahweh repented that He made man". The root word seems to mean in the [i]qal (which is not recorded in the Bible but based on how cognate verbs in related languages like Arabic, it seem to be the meaning) to groan or labored breathing (due to emotional stress). In the niphal, which is how it is used in the in each case I cited, it means (accorrding to Thayers Lexicon) either "to lement or grieve" either (a) because of pity for someone else's condition or (b) because one's own action. In Gen 6:6 Yahweh is not feeling pity or sympathy for mankind sorry state, but rather disgust. He is about obliterate all of mankind but eight, hardly a sympathetic state of mind. The only reasonable reading is that Yahweh regretted His previous decision to create mankind. Yahweh grieved not for mankind but for Himself for his poor judgement.

The meaning of the word is unambiguous. Yahweh regretted His decision to make mankind. Omnipotence - being able to create both the universe and mankind - does not equal wisdom - deciding whether it is a good idea to create the unvierse or mankind.



First and foremost, if I read you correctly you should rename your thread "Is God Omnipotent? - He's Very Potent!" Second, the problem about your "God repented oh his evil" verses is, if you dig out a lexicon ( www.e-sword.com ), you find the better rendering is "God took pity/felt remorse of his calamity", which would be fully expected response to things that turned out poorly for the present, even if the example of the thing and God's judgment upon it served to build a better future. The same applies in reverse when God makes a threat which causes a person/people-group to change their ways, after which, because of this closer to optimal state, God "takes pity" and fails to carry out the threat as a result. Chief of all miracles to date however, is the resurrection of Yeshua Christ, removing him from all death and entropy.

[Tladatsi]

Greetings to you,

I cannot name a single instance when Yahweh was unable to do anything He wanted to do, including order the universe in existance as well as create man (adam) from clay (adamah). Is there anything more demanding than those two tasks? Is there anything that could be more difficult than those two things? If that is not omnipotence, I don't know what is.


Greetings,

Omnipotence is a very tricky thing to nail down. I'm not atheistic in any sense so lack of omnipotence is not a 'nail in the coffin' of God for me. But in trying to understand God as a mortal omnipotence poses a major problem.

We have the working of iniquity - of which God is said to be separate from. God cannot Sin. God cannot work evil. Is this accurate?

When we speak of God's omnipotence are we forced to consider it omnipotence with a restriction? That's not all-powerful though - is it?

Or is a rephrased definition of omnipotence: God's nature (or character) does not allow Him to do evil (it's not in Him) so he is all-powerful according to his nature. That's still a restriction of all powers available. If another being - such as Satan or perhaps mankind - can bring forth something which God cannot or will not then can God rightly be considered omnipotent?

Or is it a realm of which man is woefully inept to ponder?

Take care

[Tladatsi]

There are two or three separate concepts, only one of which is the topic of this thread. Is God omnipotent? Dose God have the power and ability to do whatever He wants to do? That is completely different from asking "Is God omniscient"? or "Is God always wise?" - or "Does God understand the full implications of His actions?"

To the first question, if God can create the universe in six days and man in just one, there is nothing in the universe He cannot do. It is an entirely different question as to whether those actions were wise. Gen 6:6 clearly indicates that God Himself did not think creating mankind was really a good idea. So He took action and wiped out mankind (except Noah, his wife, and three sons and three daughter-in-laws). God would not have done that if He had thought He had made the right decision in the first place.


I think omnipotence and divine goodness, which is generated by being all-wise, may be likened to the Newtonian physical concept in which an object in a vacuum travelling straight forward gets hit by an equal force on its exact side and then proceeds to travel in a diagonal direction indefinitely. So too both attributes are very real, yet mutually limit each other torwards an entirely different direction than merely the one attribute alone.

I don't think it unreasonable to allow a mind to limit its own technical potential through application of wisdom. For example, it is in my power of free will and potentiality to go running about the neighborhood naked making chicken noises, but I really don't want to. Considering I define make a major defining point of individuality as "the distance from God and his own infinite attributes because of having limited attributes" and sin/evil as "Increasing the distance from God by refusing to do his will generated by his infinite attributes", this is like saying "If God cannot be God, is he really omnipotent?" As I see it, sin/evil is not so much a creation as a destruction or deconstruction. God wishes to sin roughly the same amount I wish to go streaking chicken-style. And if your reasoning holds, can you tell me why I am in fact technically powerless to go chicken-streaking?

[mentored1]

Well met Ghost...


I think omnipotence and divine goodness, which is generated by being all-wise, may be likened to the Newtonian physical concept in which an object in a vacuum travelling straight forward gets hit by an equal force on its exact side and then proceeds to travel in a diagonal direction indefinitely. So too both attributes are very real, yet mutually limit each other torwards an entirely different direction than merely the one attribute alone.

Good example. While I may not grasp your argument at the level you were intending I'll try my best! :wink: This demonstrates what I was thinking about when speaking of the paradoxical "limited omnipotence".

The object of which you speak in your example is governed by myriad physical laws and in no wise can be considered omni-anything. There are limitations and restrictions on what it can and cannot do - and its actions can be predicted based on the limitations which govern it.

I don't know if I can rightly consider the question of God's potency in those terms. Although maybe you can elaborate for me a bit?


I don't think it unreasonable to allow a mind to limit its own technical potential through application of wisdom.

Is the mind limiting itself or is it being limited? Many of the examples that might be conjured up would seem to demonstrate that external forces (e.g. physical laws as per previous comments) limit the possibilities.


For example, it is in my power of free will and potentiality to go running about the neighborhood naked making chicken noises, but I really don't want to.

Is it a matter of free, unburdened choice or are there social pressures, ethics, morals, and other things that act like physical laws and limit the possibilities?

The fact that we do or don't desire to do something suggests there are things that govern our will. The very impulses of desire themselves seem to suggest that our will is under many limitations.

I ask because I've found myself stating similiar things only to consider them in retrospect and realize that there were a great many reasons why I could not do what I believed I could. The imagination blurs the lines between potential and actual.


As I see it, sin/evil is not so much a creation as a destruction or deconstruction. God wishes to sin roughly the same amount I wish to go streaking chicken-style. And if your reasoning holds, can you tell me why I am in fact technically powerless to go chicken-streaking?

I haven't actually commited to any position so please take my comments as just opinions.

In regards to the chicken-streaking I mentioned it in a previous comment: there are likely social pressures, ethical and moral standards, and other factors that have gone into your personality that make the potentiality of chicken-streaking offensive. It is limited to imagination, to potentiality only.

If you are not physically restrained in some way from doing so (limited by physical laws) then it is only your wlll which restrains you. Thus you cannot launch yourself into orbit without some external assistance nor can jump across the English Channel. Physical laws limit you. But if you do not do what you can imagine - a potential - and what is allowed then why not do it?

The problem with sin/evil being simply an opposite, destructive element of goodness and perfection is the duality of it. In order to understand Sin we must understand Not-Sin (Good - Evil). In order to understand Good we must also grasp Evil. The two are intertwined.

I think this is shown when Adam & Eve eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good & evil (there is no separation, no distinction made for each). Without the existence of Evil / Sin then goodness and perfection has no meaning - at least not one that is comprehensible to mankind in his present state.

I appreciate your thoughts... Take care

[mentored1]

Well met Tladatsi



I cannot name a single instance when Yahweh was unable to do anything He wanted to do, including order the universe in existance as well as create man (adam) from clay (adamah). Is there anything more demanding than those two tasks? Is there anything that could be more difficult than those two things? If that is not omnipotence, I don't know what is.

I won't dispute that God was able to accomplish the things that He desired to do as noted in Scripture. And the testimonies recorded there certainly indicate a powerful being.

I think my inquiries bend more to the use of omni-potent. God is certainly potent but is there not one single thing that God cannot do? Can God Sin? If God cannot or will not bring forth iniquity then how did it or does it come about?
And how can we understand God to be sovereign in all affairs and the beginning and end of all things - with the exception of evil - and still be omnipotent?

As you mention God has accomplished everything He has desired to do. Is it that God does not desire to Sin? Does the absence of a desire suggest that there is one thing God cannot do: desire to Sin?

My questions are not accusatory; these are inquiries that I consider seriously and would not lightly dismiss.

Take care

[Tladatsi]

Hello Mentored One,

Methodologically, the only evidence we have for the extent of the God's power is the Bible. Based on that evidence, it does not seem possible that there is a limit on His ability to make things happen. Think about the creation of the universe. Galaxies, stars, planets, and all life on earth were created by simple commands. "Let there be..." and - bam - it exists.

Your question requires a little more nuanced answer. What is sin? It is violating God's rules, the 613 commandments in the Pentateuch. None of those rules apply to God. All of the commandments say (either literally or implciitly) "you will not do....X". It does not say "I" or "We", but "you". The 613 commandments only apply to human beings, not to God. The Bible records no rules that God sets down for Himself. For example, God tells both Noah and Moses that it is a sin to kill an other human being yet God kills human beings all of the time. God also orders human beings to kill other human beings. So the commandments tell human beings what are or are not sins, not God.

So God can do anything He want's and it cannot be a sin because His actions have not broken any of God's commandments.

It is like the childhood game of "Simon Says..." except it is "Yahweh says...". If Yahweh says - "Stand on your head", then standing on your head is good. If Yahweh says -"Don't stand on your head", then standing on your head is bad, a sin. Yahweh can stand on His head if He pleases as the command was "your head", not "my head".



Well met Tladatsi

I won't dispute that God was able to accomplish the things that He desired to do as noted in Scripture. And the testimonies recorded there certainly indicate a powerful being.

I think my inquiries bend more to the use of omni-potent. God is certainly potent but is there not one single thing that God cannot do? Can God Sin? If God cannot or will not bring forth iniquity then how did it or does it come about?
And how can we understand God to be sovereign in all affairs and the beginning and end of all things - with the exception of evil - and still be omnipotent?

As you mention God has accomplished everything He has desired to do. Is it that God does not desire to Sin? Does the absence of a desire suggest that there is one thing God cannot do: desire to Sin?

My questions are not accusatory; these are inquiries that I consider seriously and would not lightly dismiss.

Take care

[mentored1]

Well met Tladatsi

I appreciate your replies and the discussion. :thumb:



Methodologically, the only evidence we have for the extent of the God's power is the Bible. Based on that evidence, it does not seem possible that there is a limit on His ability to make things happen. Think about the creation of the universe. Galaxies, stars, planets, and all life on earth were created by simple commands. "Let there be..." and - bam - it exists.

I agree that when speaking of God the context is key - in this case the God of the Bible. Your examples above - and I will concur - seem to demonstrate that God has unlimited ability to manipulate energy. His will translates to action, as it were. No problems there.

Unfortunately the realm of morality, ethics, and ideology gets hairier. A lot of human fallacy and interpretation get mixed in. Let's say we agree that God has unlimited power - He is omnipotent - when considering the physical, the cosmos as we know it. But regarding the field of the will and implied powers thereof I'm still a little fuzzy.


What is sin? It is violating God's rules, the 613 commandments in the Pentateuch. None of those rules apply to God. All of the commandments say (either literally or implciitly) "you will not do....X". It does not say "I" or "We", but "you". The 613 commandments only apply to human beings, not to God. The Bible records no rules that God sets down for Himself. For example, God tells both Noah and Moses that it is a sin to kill an other human being yet God kills human beings all of the time. God also orders human beings to kill other human beings. So the commandments tell human beings what are or are not sins, not God.

So God can do anything He want's and it cannot be a sin because His actions have not broken any of God's commandments.

Fair enough. But there are references in Scripture regarding some "restrictions" upon God.
Are they self-imposed and does violating them constitute sin?
If God can do what he wills with impunity how can we be sure that He is benevolant?


In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Are these just for mankind - or just interpretations of things for mankind? Is the scripture - which is unbreakable - wrong in determining that God cannot lie? That God does not turn or change? That God does not tempt man with evil and cannot be tempted with such?


It is like the childhood game of "Simon Says..." except it is "Yahweh says...". If Yahweh says - "Stand on your head", then standing on your head is good. If Yahweh says -"Don't stand on your head", then standing on your head is bad, a sin. Yahweh can stand on His head if He pleases as the command was "your head", not "my head".

I have no problem with this if it is a matter of personal faith. If that is the nature of God for you so be it. My inquiry concerns the insistence that God is above his own moral code and ethic responsibility.
The argument that God can do what he pleases with what he made is fine for personal faith but unfortunately doesn't satisfy the question.
If God is not held accountable to his own standard then on what basis does he claim sovereignty?
If God's character is beyond question then what hope does mankind rest on for mercy? Is it just fear of the maker?

Once more, excellent discussion - take care

[Tladatsi]

Hello, hello,


Well met Tladatsi

I appreciate your replies and the discussion. :thumb:

Thank you, and you too.


I agree that when speaking of God the context is key - in this case the God of the Bible. Your examples above - and I will concur - seem to demonstrate that God has unlimited ability to manipulate energy. His will translates to action, as it were. No problems there.

Unfortunately the realm of morality, ethics, and ideology things gets hairier. A lot of human fallacy and interpretation get mixed in. Let's say we agree that God has unlimited power - He is omnipotent - when considering the physical, the cosmos as we know it. But regarding the field of the will and implied powers thereof I'm still a little fuzzy.

OK


Fair enough. But there are references in Scripture regarding some "restrictions" upon God. Are they self-imposed and does violating them constitute sin?

I have found none in the text of the Bible. In any event, what is a sin without punishment? Who would punish God if He did violate some commandment? When the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, God struck them down with fire and brimstone. When the King of Egypt defied God, plagues rained down on Egypt. When Korah and his followers rebeled against Moses, the Earth swallowed them up. (Strictly as an aside, you will note that God did not damn them to enternal suffering in "hell", punishments were in the here and now and awfully specific.) Who would rain down fire and brimestone on God?


If God can do what he wills with impunity how can we be sure that He is benevolant?

I do not believe that God ever claims to be benevolent per se. God is good to those who obey His will. God is evil to those who do not obey His will.


Are these just for mankind - or just interpretations of things for mankind?

If you think that the Pentateuch is God's very word spoken from His lips to Moses' ear, then they are just for mankind. That is what the Bible says. If you do not believe this, then the commandments could easily be a set of rules written by ordinary mortal men to try to make life work for them in their particular time and placae.



Is the scripture - which is unbreakable - wrong in determining that God cannot lie?

I do not think it is so much that He cannot lie, it is that He generally has no need to. In any event, there is no commandment against lying (bearing false witness is lying under oath to produce a false judgement, a very specific and narrow type of lying).


That God does not turn or change?

Well I know of nowhere in the Bible where God says He does not change. In fact I can see several passages that show concretely where God does change His mind. You can read them here.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1603678#post1603678



That God does not tempt man with evil and cannot be tempted with such?

The second half is straight forward enough, who could tempt God and with what? The first half is either just plain wrong or correct in a very narrow technical sense. God has an angle called "The Satan" (the Opponent) whose job it is to tempt mankind. So in a very narrow sense, it is God's angel the satan who tempts mankinds with evil, but not God. However, since the satan has no power or authority that God does not grant him, in the broader sense it is God who tempts mankind with evil.

The entire Book of Jobs makes this very point.


I have no problem with this if it is a matter of personal faith. If that is the nature of God for you so be it.

I merely point out what the OT says.


My inquiry concerns the insistence that God is above his own moral code and ethic responsibility.

The only moral code presented in the OT is "Obey God and be rewared with good. Oppose God and be punished with evil". Nowhere in the Bible is there any claim that there is some moral code that applies to God. God is the source of both good and evil. In fact you and I had this exact exchange back in February.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=71713

I had a similar exchange with seeking_clarity

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79482


The argument that God can do what he pleases with what he made is fine for personal faith but unfortunately doesn't satisfy the question.If God is not held accountable to his own standard then on what basis does he claim sovereignty?

Might makes right. God has the power to punish those who oppose Him and to reward those who obey Him. Do what God says or face the consequences.


If God's character is beyond question then what hope does mankind rest on for mercy? Is it just fear of the maker?

God never says "Here are a bunch of rules that are good in and of themselves. They are so good, I obey them myself Obey them as I obey them." God rarely explains any of the commandments. He does not explain why eating shell fish is wrong, why homosexual intercourse is wrong, why cross dressing is wrong, or why once a couple has divorsed they can never marry each other ever again.

You simply have to take God at His word that He is merciful (He says it enough in the Bible). In any event, what's the alternative?


Once more, excellent discussion - take care

[mentored1]

Hello again Tladatsi



I have found none in the text of the Bible. In any event, what is a sin without punishment? Who would punish God if He did violate some commandment? When the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, God struck them down with fire and brimstone. When the King of Egypt defied God, plagues rained down on Egypt. When Korah and his followers rebeled against Moses, the Earth swallowed them up. (Strictly as an aside, you will note that God did not damn them to enternal suffering in "hell", punishments were in the here and now and awfully specific.) Who would rain down fire and brimestone on God?

That's pretty straight-forward. The answer is, of course, obvious. I appreciate the direct answer; it does, at least, answer the question.


I do not believe that God ever claims to be benevolent per se. God is good to those who obey His will. God is evil to those who do not obey His will.

Some of your views are not exactly.... "orthodox" views, are they?


I do not think it is so much that He cannot lie, it is that He generally has no need to. In any event, there is no commandment against lying (bearing false witness is lying under oath to produce a false judgement, a very specific and narrow type of lying).

Again it seems that you have slightly different views that most Christians I've spoken to; obviously there are subtle differences in different denominations and churches but I've rarely encountered this kind of reply. "Lying is Lying" is the standard reply.

So given your reply what do we make of the verse that states that God cannot lie?


The second half is straight forward enough, who could tempt God and with what? The first half is either just plain wrong or correct in a very narrow technical sense. God has an angle called "The Satan" (the Opponent) whose job it is to tempt mankind. So in a very narrow sense, it is God's angel the satan who tempts mankinds with evil, but not God. However, since the satan has no power or authority that God does not grant him, in the broader sense it is God who tempts mankind with evil.

The entire Book of Jobs makes this very point.

Job is pretty much why I asked the question about temptation. The normal discussions I engage in rarely seem to indicate that God, using Satan, is in the end the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. It seems a rare opinion that God is associated with evil in any way.


The only moral code presented in the OT is "Obey God and be rewared with good. Oppose God and be punished with evil". Nowhere in the Bible is there any claim that there is some moral code that applies to God. God is the source of both good and evil. In fact you and I had this exact exchange back in February.

How does this reward-punishment scheme differ greatly from something like the idea of karma? Or a strict partriarchal family system? Granted the scale is different, but the idea seems very terrestrial...

I was wondering about that deja-vu sensation. Nothing new under the sun, eh?


Might makes right. God has the power to punish those who oppose Him and to reward those who obey Him. Do what God says or face the consequences.

That's to the point. Again, that is so very rare in these discussions. I can easily recount on one hand how many direct answers of that nature I've received in my discussions. How does that affect your own faith? Do you accept it out of necessity or is it your "heart" in it?


God never says "Here are a bunch of rules that are good in and of themselves. They are so good, I obey them myself Obey them as I obey them." God rarely explains any of the commandments. He does not explain why eating shell fish is wrong, why homosexual intercourse is wrong, why cross dressing is wrong, or why once a couple has divorsed they can never marry each other ever again.

What is meant when God says to be Holy for He is holy? Is that in reference to something else? If holiness is the absence of imperfection (or something akin to that) how can man be such?


You simply have to take God at His word that He is merciful (He says it enough in the Bible). In any event, what's the alternative?

That seems to illustrate the naked truth that Faith is the only component. Either you trust God or you don't.

Take care - I appreciate the discussion

[Iluvatar]

Well, if I'm going to be impotent I want to be sure to look impotent! :lol:

[Tladatsi]

Well met once more Mentored One,

I should put a more thorough caveat on what I wrote. I made notes to the effect that this is the ethics of the OT which is true. I could have made it even more specific and said the Heptateuch and of the Histories (1,2 Sameul, 1,2 Kings, 1,2 Chronicles).

The Phophets have a slightly different view. While not disagreeing with any of the theological views of the preceding books, they add that God had an objective other than simple obedeance. God used His awesome power to achieve a particular goal - Justice. God threatens to use His power to do evil on those who treat other human beings with cruelty, injustice, and oppression. For example Micah 6:8-12, Amos 5:12, Isaiah 58:1-10, Proverbs 14:31, Zechariah 7:10, Ecclesiastes 5:10-12, Ezekiel 16:49, Nehemiah 5 to name but a few. God is the all powerful source of good and evil for the prophets as with the Heptateuch, but He uses His power to threaten those who rob the poor and enslave them. A little nuance there.

Of course I did not mention anything about Jesus or the NT.


Hello again Tladatsi



That's pretty straight-forward. The answer is, of course, obvious. I appreciate the direct answer; it does, at least, answer the question.



Some of your views are not exactly.... "orthodox" views, are they?



Again it seems that you have slightly different views that most Christians I've spoken to; obviously there are subtle differences in different denominations and churches but I've rarely encountered this kind of reply. "Lying is Lying" is the standard reply.

So given your reply what do we make of the verse that states that God cannot lie?



Job is pretty much why I asked the question about temptation. The normal discussions I engage in rarely seem to indicate that God, using Satan, is in the end the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. It seems a rare opinion that God is associated with evil in any way.



How does this reward-punishment scheme differ greatly from something like the idea of karma? Or a strict partriarchal family system? Granted the scale is different, but the idea seems very terrestrial...

I was wondering about that deja-vu sensation. Nothing new under the sun, eh?



That's to the point. Again, that is so very rare in these discussions. I can easily recount on one hand how many direct answers of that nature I've received in my discussions. How does that affect your own faith? Do you accept it out of necessity or is it your "heart" in it?



What is meant when God says to be Holy for He is holy? Is that in reference to something else? If holiness is the absence of imperfection (or something akin to that) how can man be such?



That seems to illustrate the naked truth that Faith is the only component. Either you trust God or you don't.

Take care - I appreciate the discussion

[djdavo]

Greetings,

Omnipotence is a very tricky thing to nail down. I'm not atheistic in any sense so lack of omnipotence is not a 'nail in the coffin' of God for me. But in trying to understand God as a mortal omnipotence poses a major problem.

We have the working of iniquity - of which God is said to be separate from. God cannot Sin. God cannot work evil. Is this accurate?

When we speak of God's omnipotence are we forced to consider it omnipotence with a restriction? That's not all-powerful though - is it?

Or is a rephrased definition of omnipotence: God's nature (or character) does not allow Him to do evil (it's not in Him) so he is all-powerful according to his nature. That's still a restriction of all powers available. If another being - such as Satan or perhaps mankind - can bring forth something which God cannot or will not then can God rightly be considered omnipotent?

Or is it a realm of which man is woefully inept to ponder?

Take care

God promised not to do evil & not to sin,but does that mean he couldn't? Isn't He just "playing the the rules" that He set up?


good answer,btw. same goes for omniscience. for example: god can't know "djdavo is typing right now" if it was 2 days ago. he's knows when i will type,but cant know i'm in act of typing it. it's a logical impossibility. but that doesn't make him not omniscient.

[mentored1]

Well met djdavo


God promised not to do evil & not to sin,but does that mean he couldn't? Isn't He just "playing the the rules" that He set up?

Possibly so. But then we have to talk about the emergence of sin into mankind's history. If God can see the future and knew what man would do with "free will" and yet bestowed it anyway does that make God accountable for sin? Is it excusable to allow evil while not performing it directly?

Or why make Satan knowing his future course of action? There seems to be some conflict between omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolance...

I don't intend it to disparage God nor to judge God; but to highlight some areas that the mortal mind seems ill-equipped to understand.



good answer,btw. same goes for omniscience. for example: god can't know "djdavo is typing right now" if it was 2 days ago. he's knows when i will type,but cant know i'm in act of typing it. it's a logical impossibility. but that doesn't make him not omniscient.

I'm hoping you can elaborate a bit on this... If God isn't bound by time (doesn't experience time passing) then the past and future are the present - all time is present for God. I apologize if I'm not grasping what you're getting at here - I am getting old, after all. :tongue:

Take care

[djdavo]

Well met djdavo


Quote: Originally posted by djdavo

God promised not to do evil & not to sin,but does that mean he couldn't? Isn't He just "playing the the rules" that He set up?




Possibly so. But then we have to talk about the emergence of sin into mankind's history. If God can see the future and knew what man would do with "free will" and yet bestowed it anyway does that make God accountable for sin? Is it excusable to allow evil while not performing it directly?

Or why make Satan knowing his future course of action? There seems to be some conflict between omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolance...

I don't intend it to disparage God nor to judge God; but to highlight some areas that the mortal mind seems ill-equipped to understand.


yeah, this question blows my mind, too. i honestly think we'll never understand exactly how that works.
it's kinda like that scene in the matrix where the oracle says to neo "dont worry about the vase". neo turns and breaks it. neo says "im sorry". the oracle says "i said dont' worry about it.... what's really going to bake your noodle later is would you still have broke it if i hadn't said anything?" :smile:

does God knowing everything preclude our freewill? i think we still have freedom to choose,but i haven't really worked on this problem all that much. heheh.... ask the calvinists in the crowd and they'll give you a different answer. (as far as libertarian freewill,that is)


-there's something to be said for god's time frame VS ours. all of creation to the second coming of Jesus and a new heaven and new earth (assuming the biblical narrative) is taking place in the snap of a finger according to God's perception of time. our time on earth with our problems is nothing compared to living for eternity.

to try to explain it in our terms: let's say you had to suffer for a single nanosecond,and then got to live in paradise for your entire life.
(by making a simple decision to follow jesus during that nanosecond. assuming the biblical narrative is true once again)

seems like a pretty good deal, eh?







Quote:

good answer,btw. same goes for omniscience. for example: god can't know "djdavo is typing right now" if it was 2 days ago. he's knows when i will type,but cant know i'm in act of typing it. it's a logical impossibility. but that doesn't make him not omniscient.




I'm hoping you can elaborate a bit on this... If God isn't bound by time (doesn't experience time passing) then the past and future are the present - all time is present for God. I apologize if I'm not grasping what you're getting at here - I am getting old, after all. :tongue:

Take care



heheh..not sure how to explain it any better. God is outside of time, but we're not. i would assume He's aware of time even if he exists outside of it.
for God to know "Davo is typing right now on sept. 14th 2006, at 4:10 Pm" it has to be "sept. 14th 2006, at 4:10 Pm",since i can't type "outside of time".
god knows im typing right now, as opposed to him knowing i was going to type this.
it's a different kind of 'knowing'.

does that make any sense, or have i gotten too old to even make sense? :wink:

[Nub_Saibot]

I would say that God(the biblical god) is the MOST powerful being there is. Words like omnipotence and all-powerful are just used to exaggerate(hyperbole). If you read the bible, you will know that there are things that God cannot do.

[Zarathustra]

I would say that God(the biblical god) is the MOST powerful being there is. Words like omnipotence and all-powerful are just used to exaggerate(hyperbole). If you read the bible, you will know that there are things that God cannot do.

Things that would cause a logical contradiction, or things like turning cheese into mice?

[Kelp]

Things that would cause a logical contradiction, or things like turning cheese into mice?
God can't make a square circle or an infinite finite. Things like that. He could turn cheese into mice, though.

[Zarathustra]

God can't make a square circle or an infinite finite. Things like that. He could turn cheese into mice, though.

Indeed, but:

Nub_Saibot stated that 'If you read the bible, you will know that there are things that God cannot do.' I was juist wandering what those things are.

[Kelp]

Indeed, but:

Nub_Saibot stated that 'If you read the bible, you will know that there are things that God cannot do.' I was juist wandering what those things are.

God cannot lie(Num. 23:19). He can not sin. He can not commit suicide. He cannot break a promise. He cannot deny Himself.

Say, didn't you use to be an Ahteist?

[Zarathustra]

God cannot lie(Num. 23:19). He can not sin. He can not commit suicide. He cannot break a promise. He cannot deny Himself.

Right, but those are assumed to be necessary truths right? In the sense that to do those things would be a logical contradiction by definition for God.


Say, didn't you use to be an Ahteist?

No.

[Nub_Saibot]

Right, but those are assumed to be necessary truths right? In the sense that to do those things would be a logical contradiction by definition for God.



No.
Thanks Kelp! ^_^

And I do agree that God(biblical god) can turn cheese to mice if He wants to.

[Kelp]

Right, but those are assumed to be necessary truths right? In the sense that to do those things would be a logical contradiction by definition for God.





Yes.

The suicide one would violate God's asceity. The others violate His holiness.


No.
Sorry, my bad.

[Zarathustra]

Yes.

The suicide one would violate God's asceity. The others violate His holiness.

So maybe the thing to ask then:

Does God have any contingent properties?

And

Is there anything God cannot do/know that a contingent being can/know?


Sorry, my bad.

np

[Kelp]

So maybe the thing to ask then:

Does God have any contingent properties?

And

Is there anything God cannot do/know that a contingent being can/know?


His holiness would seem to imply that God cannot know what it is like to sin. Therefore, God cannot know what it is like to confess, etc.

I do not believe that God can know what it is like to fail but OVT's might disagree.

God cannot learn, God cannot sleep, God cannot be hungry. God cannot be undecided or ignorant. Although He knows these things via the Incarnation.

Basically, He cannot be incomplete.

[Nub_Saibot]

Is there anything God cannot do/know that a contingent being can/know?


About God being literally all-knowing, I would refer to these verses:

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Genesis 22:10

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."


I think if you have not made a decision yet, then God does not know your decision as well.

[Zarathustra]

His holiness would seem to imply that God cannot know what it is like to sin. Therefore, God cannot know what it is like to confess, etc.

I do not believe that God can know what it is like to fail but OVT's might disagree.

So there are things I can know that God cannot know?

God can choose?


God cannot learn, God cannot sleep, God cannot be hungry. God cannot be undecided or ignorant. Although He knows these things via the Incarnation.
Basically, He cannot be incomplete.

If you played chess with God, whould God always win or always lose?

[Kelp]

So there are things I can know that God cannot know?
You can know what it is like to sin and to fail in something that you tried to do. Being perfect and holy, God cannot do that. This makes you worse than God and not better, btw.



God can choose?
Choose what?




If you played chess with God, whould God always win or always lose?
Being omnipotent, God would always have the option to win. He could throw the game if He wanted to, but that would be success as opposed to failure.

[Zarathustra]

You can know what it is like to sin and to fail in something that you tried to do. Being perfect and holy, God cannot do that. This makes you worse than God and not better, btw.

Whether it makes me worse or not is irrelevant in the sense that I hold knowledge that God cannot have. I essence I know something that God does not.

I can imagine an entity which knows what it is like to sin, and know what it is like not to sin. This entity knows everything it is possible to know, God is limited in the knowledge it posses and thus does not posses omniscience the other entity does God is a lot knowing only.


Choose what?

Between two contingent options; can God choose to go for a long walk on the beach instead of a candle lit dinner? I.e., can a being which posses only necessary properties make non-necessary choices?


Being omnipotent, God would always have the option to win. He could throw the game if He wanted to, but that would be success as opposed to failure.

I can imagine a person who always wins in chess, they never lose. If God ever loses a game, would this entity not be better at chess than God?

I can also imagine an entity that will always lose at chess; every possible game will be a loss. If God ever wins a game then would this entity not be better at losing than God?

I can imagine a possible world in which the best winner and the best loser both exist. In that possible world God is not the most powerful entity as God cannot be the best at both, something which omnipotence demands.

[Kelp]

Whether it makes me worse or not is irrelevant in the sense that I hold knowledge that God cannot have. I essence I know something that God does not.What I meant by worse was "not as good and perfect as".

This is an objection of the same calibur as asking whether God can wish himself out of exsistance. God is neccesarily holy and therefore cannot sin. You and I are of course not. Just like omnipotence, omniscience would not include knowledge of the logically absurd.


I can imagine an entity which knows what it is like to sin, and know what it is like not to sin. This entity knows everything it is possible to know, God is limited in the knowledge it posses and thus does not posses omniscience the other entity does God is a lot knowing only.
Oh, really? A neccesarily holy entity that knows those things? If you do, than I'm sure ou wouldn't mind describing it for me.

The fact that God does not know what it is like to sin does not contradict the classical understanding of His omniscience.

[Zarathustra]

What I meant by worse was "not as good and perfect as".

And what I meant is that what defines God as perfect and what defines omniscience, are separate categorize. To place an entity that knows everything into the box which must also contain other properties like moral perfection and omnipotence seems to unnecessary.

This is an objection of the same caliber as asking whether God can wish himself out of existence. God is necessarily holy and therefore cannot sin. You and I are of course not. Just like omnipotence, omniscience would not include knowledge of the logically absurd.

But that is not what I am asking, you assume that to have omniscience one needs to be moral, why? God is necessarily holy, but this does not mean that a being which is not, is incapable of knowing everything. This would include knowing what it is to sin.


Oh, really? A necessarily holy entity that knows those things? If you do, than I'm sure ou wouldn't mind describing it for me.

Again, why does the entity need to have the property of holy for omniscience? Just imagine yourself knowing what it is to sin, but also knowing what it is not to sin and everything God knows. Who would know more, you or God, what would the logical contradiction be for you to posses such knowledge?


The fact that God does not know what it is like to sin does not contradict the classical understanding of His omniscience.

It contradicts the meaning of omniscience. If God knows everything that it is possible to know, then God would know what it is to sin. As there could exist an entity which is truly omniscient, then only this other entity could the word omniscience apply to.

Think of this as running the Plantingas ontological argument, but without the morally perfect and omnipotent axioms in the second premise, only omniscience. Would that entity know more than an entitly with the other properties as part of their property bundle?

[Kelp]

And what I meant is that what defines God as perfect and what defines omniscience, are separate categorize. To place an entity that knows everything into the box which must also contain other properties like moral perfection and omnipotence seems to unnecessary.

This is an objection of the same caliber as asking whether God can wish himself out of existence. God is necessarily holy and therefore cannot sin. You and I are of course not. Just like omnipotence, omniscience would not include knowledge of the logically absurd.

But that is not what I am asking, you assume that to have omniscience one needs to be moral, why? God is necessarily holy, but this does not mean that a being which is not, is incapable of knowing everything. This would include knowing what it is to sin.



Again, why does the entity need to have the property of holy for omniscience? Just imagine yourself knowing what it is to sin, but also knowing what it is not to sin and everything God knows. Who would know more, you or God, what would the logical contradiction be for you to posses such knowledge?



It contradicts the meaning of omniscience. If God knows everything that it is possible to know, then God would know what it is to sin. As there could exist an entity which is truly omniscient, then only this other entity could the word omniscience apply to.

Think of this as running the Plantingas ontological argument, but without the morally perfect and omnipotent axioms in the second premise, only omniscience. Would that entity know more than an entitly with the other properties as part of their property bundle?
Allow mw to shift gears, slightly. In order to know what is to be incapable of sin, a being would have to be neccesarily holy. However, a neccesarily holy being cannot know what it is to sin. In addition, a being that knows what it is to sin, cannot know what it is to be neccesarily holy.

[Zarathustra]

Allow mw to shift gears, slightly. In order to know what is to be incapable of sin, a being would have to be neccesarily holy. However, a neccesarily holy being cannot know what it is to sin. In addition, a being that knows what it is to sin, cannot know what it is to be neccesarily holy.

Indeed, I faced this problem when I thought about it. Although the conclusion from the problem seems to be that there is, a contradiction if one applies the word omniscience to God, because God cannot be omniscient, as you have stated above.
Further more it would seem though that this other entity knows more than God, as this entity knows what it is to have sinned and to have not sinned. God only know what it is to have not sinned.

[Griggsy]

See the ignostic-Ockham and the definitve refutation threads..
As God is omnibenevolent,by necessity, He cannot do wrong.This is a limitation on His freedom.
Therefore, He is not perfect.