The idea of God being omnicient / omnipotent confuses me - Page 3

PrayingMantis · #21 11-03-2005, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PrayingMantis: "Of course if you think about love as a love of say some very very strict, proud, envious and almost psychotic father, this is more in accordance with God of the old-testamant."

DavidL: When I read the Bible as a whole, that is not what I see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we haven't read the same book (although I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the Bible as a whole". Specific stories are still the same. The "whole" doesn't chage this fact). In any case, There is absolutely no way in the world you can read the old-testament and think about God as "God is love. Love is patient and kind. It is not envious, nor proud, nor boastful.", unless you _completely_ distort the meaning of the actual words and narratives of many of the stories there, and also, many of the things specifically said about him in that book.

NotReady · #22 11-03-2005, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

True, but without a creation there is nothing for God to love. Love without object is futile, dead, inexpressible. Hence, even with the full bucket, the creation is "necessary". From a mathematical standpoint, infinity can not be added to, but that is... only a mathematical standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly differ with you on this point. God is love from all eternity and doesn't need to create to express that love. This would bring us to the doctrine of the Trinity if we were to continue.

NotReady · #23 11-03-2005, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

"Our ideas only reach as far as our experiences..We have no experiences of divine attributes or operations"
-David Hume

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazing the way sceptics can make truth propositions about the nature of all reality and still maintain we have no certain knowledge.

DavidL · #24 11-03-2005, 04:24 PM

Three-toed-sloth: "Freewill almost seems like a limitation of God."

Omnipotence is perhaps paradoxical. Being omnipotent supposedly gives one the ability to divest one's omnipotence, if one chooses to do so. In this sense, one is still omnipotent, in that one always retains the choice to divest, or (potentially) "regather".

The world is a million miles from being perfect, even from our "un-infinite" perspective. I believe that a loving being shares in the pain of those whom it loves. Yet somehow it is more pleasing, more worthwhile, to God to give each of us the opportunity to create good of our own, to in some small way redress poverty, injustice, oppression, etc than if He was to sovereignly and effortlessly stamp it out Himself. When one individual sides with God, even in the smallest possible way, He rejoices: the whole creation process was somehow worth it.

The alternatives seem to lie at the crux of the matter: beings with complete free will, beings with partial free will, automatons, or no creation at all. If you were God, what would you have done? :-)

DavidL · #25 11-03-2005, 04:43 PM

NotReady:
I've read many of your posts, you're much better versed in both philosophy and Biblical theology than I am. My simplistic take on the Trinity is that God the Son and God the Spirit are in no small way one with God the Father, but I'm not sure where this is leading us. What is your view, then, on the purpose for the creation?

Praying Mantis:

I (think I) understand where you're coming from: the harsh laws, penalties, the commands to conquer and kill. I apologise if I have glossed over your question, even more so as it is one that I have previously asked myself.

Please allow me some time (especially as I have take my doggie to the vet now!). Of course I can't speak directly on God's behalf, but I will pray and hope that an "answer" is forthcoming that will somehow satisfy both of us.

Again, my apologies
David

PrayingMantis · #26 11-03-2005, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Praying Mantis:

I (think I) understand where you're coming from: the harsh laws, penalties, the commands to conquer and kill. I apologise if I have glossed over your question, even more so as it is one that I have previously asked myself.

Please allow me some time (especially as I have take my doggie to the vet now!). Of course I can't speak directly on God's behalf, but I will pray and hope that an "answer" is forthcoming that will somehow satisfy both of us.

Again, my apologies
David

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, no problem! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

After all, these problems are discussed so many years, it's not like we are in a hurry here...

NotReady · #27 11-03-2005, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What is your view, then, on the purpose for the creation?

[/ QUOTE ]

My only concern is that the way you state it you make God dependent on the creation, that it was necessary for Him to create. He was always God and doesn't need us in any sense. He would be the same if He had not created. He is independent of the creation, the creation is dependent on Him. This is a very important doctrine as it goes to the very essence of God's nature. If the creation was in any way necessary He would not be God.

As to why God created every major theologian agrees that we can't go beyond what Scripture says, that He created for His glory. That's very unsatisfying to human curiosity. The only thing to add is that He created for His good reasons which He hasn't revealed to us, and that the creation is good. I can't go beyond that.