Divine Intervention and Onmipotence

[Enki]

People are preparing to celebrate a holiday that was meant to commemorate the birth of a man who was born in a manger, because an overbearing government forced his parents to undertake an arduous pilgrimage while his Mother was pregnant so that they could participate in a census in order to be taxed by a foreign occupier. They could not find a place to stay, because the citizens of the town were unkind and the inns were all full with others who had been forced upon the same pilgrimage in the middle of winter.

This man's life was dedicated to helping the poor and healing the sick. He fought against a corrupt priesthood, the only act of violence he committed on record was against bankers, and he instructed those who walked with him to give everything that they had to those in need with no thought to their own material comfort.

Ultimately he was brutally slain by those corrupt priests, the foreign occupying government and the bankers he upset.

In my country, most of the people celebrating, will celebrate with greed and gluttony. But, there is an undercurrent of love that does not pass unremarked on this holiday. And that makes all the difference.

[YMix]

And a Merry Main Shopping Period of the Year to you.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well Tinker you missed the important bit, paying for the sins of mankind and laying down his life, a sacrifice for all mankind.

As for the rest of your material, don't be a debbie downer.

[Enki]

Well Tinker you missed the important bit, paying for the sins of mankind and laying down his life, a sacrifice for all mankind.

Jesus didn't actually die in the story. He didn't pay for anything, he simply cancelled the debt since the debt was to himself.

As for the rest of your material, don't be a debbie downer.

I don't see it as a downer. I was rather in the Christmas spirit when I wrote that. I think the message that one not need be greedy and fearful, that one can through faith rise up and be healthy, powerful and surrounded by love, is a wonderful message.

[Mr. Perfect]

Jesus didn't actually die in the story. He didn't pay for anything, he simply cancelled the debt since the debt was to himself.

Your theology has always been... unique enough to start a new church.

Maybe it is time for another Joe Smith.

I don't see it as a downer. I was rather in the Christmas spirit when I wrote that. I think the message that one not need be greedy and fearful, that one can through faith rise up and be healthy, powerful and surrounded by love, is a wonderful message.

Well Jesus was all for greed and gluttony if it was for a good party.

"Mar 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.
Mar 14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
Mar 14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
Mar 14:6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
Mar 14:8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying."

I don't know anyone fearful at Christmas.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

.. paying for the sins of mankind and laying down his life, a sacrifice for all mankind.

.

where does this paying for sins of mankind and sacrifice stuff comes from ? ?

if he G_d's envoy, he should carry a message

what a discrepancy between him and Mo

one messenger, Mo was genuflecting left and right like there's no tomorrow .. and .. the other, Jesus was paying for other's sin ?

does not rime

.

[Nonc Hilaire]

These guys are getting Easter and Christmas mixed up, Azari. That's why it is not rhyming.

In Christian understanding Christ was no envoy. He was God himself. The question is why might God desire to temporarily experience the completeness of humanity from the inside out?

In all Abrahamic religions there are issues with God not fully appreciating human emotions and limitations. How can a timeless and omnipotent being appreciate doubt or fear? How can an all-powerful God appreciate the power of temptation?

In all three Abrahamic religions prophets are given laws for mankind by God, but the prophet must negotiate these laws with God because God has made them too rigorous for human compliance. And God listens and lowers His expectations for mankind. Why does God alter His supposedly perfect commands after conversations with the prophets?

[Typhoon]

These guys are getting Easter and Christmas mixed up, Azari. That's why it is not rhyming.

In Christian understanding Christ was no envoy. He was God himself. The question is why might God desire to temporarily experience the completeness of humanity from the inside out?

In all Abrahamic religions there are issues with God not fully appreciating human emotions and limitations. How can a timeless and omnipotent being appreciate doubt or fear? How can an all-powerful God appreciate the power of temptation?

This line of reasoning appears to contain an internal contradiction.

Omnipotent means not just all powerful, but capable of conceiving of, understanding, creating, doing, and experiencing, anything does it not?

Including human doubt, fear, and/or temptation.

In all three Abrahamic religions prophets are given laws for mankind by God, but the prophet must negotiate these laws with God because God has made them too rigorous for human compliance. And God listens and lowers His expectations for mankind. Why does God alter His supposedly perfect commands after conversations with the prophets?

Same apparent internal contradiction here.

Also, I would argue, that the concept of omnipotence itself intrinsically contains a number of logical contradictions.

Official of a religion: "God is omnipotent."

Schoolboy: "Can God create a stone so large that he can't move it?"

Official of a religion: "Why?"

Schoolboy: "Well, if he can't create such a stone, then God is not omnipotent, but if he can create such a stone and can't move it, then he is not onnipotent either."

Official of a religion: "Don't ask such stupid questions."

[YMix]

Thanks for the good news, T.

If god gave your wife a stroke just to make you go back to church, I suggest setting the church on fire and refusing to have anything to do with such an evil entity.

[Typhoon]

Thanks for the good news, T.

If god gave your wife a stroke just to make you go back to church, I suggest setting the church on fire and refusing to have anything to do with such an evil entity.

I'm not sure that this is the thread for philosophizing, so I will defer to Torchwood's views on this matter at to whether or not it should be split off.

_____

In my view, invoking God as the agent is a way of attempting to rationalize and come to terms with the terrible indifference of nature:

young innocent children may get cancer or other terrible diseases,
good decent people may have debilitating diseases early in their lives,
others succumb to freak accidents that are simply time and chance,
while mass murderers and other evil types often die peacefully of advanced old age.

[Nonc Hilaire]

These guys are getting Easter and Christmas mixed up, Azari. That's why it is not rhyming.

In Christian understanding Christ was no envoy. He was God himself. The question is why might God desire to temporarily experience the completeness of humanity from the inside out?

In all Abrahamic religions there are issues with God not fully appreciating human emotions and limitations. How can a timeless and omnipotent being appreciate doubt or fear? How can an all-powerful God appreciate the power of temptation?

This line of reasoning appears to contain an internal contradiction.

Omnipotent means not just all powerful, but capable of conceiving of, understanding, creating, doing, and experiencing, anything does it not?

Including human doubt, fear, and/or temptation.

No. The issue of experience is crucial. You may understand childbirth is painful, but unless you are female you may not experience how or why. You may understand that a wagging tail means your dog is happy, but do you truly experience all the emotion which tail-wagging entails (pun intended)

In all three Abrahamic religions prophets are given laws for mankind by God, but the prophet must negotiate these laws with God because God has made them too rigorous for human compliance. And God listens and lowers His expectations for mankind. Why does God alter His supposedly perfect commands after conversations with the prophets?

Same apparent internal contradiction here.

Also, I would argue, that the concept of omnipotence itself intrinsically contains a number of logical contradictions.

Official of a religion: "God is omnipotent."

Schoolboy: "Can God create a stone so large that he can't move it?"

Official of a religion: "Why?"

Schoolboy: "Well, if he can't create such a stone, then God is not omnipotent, but if he can create such a stone and can't move it, then he is not onnipotent either."

Official of a religion: "Don't ask such stupid questions."

Nonsense. Omnipotence means that one has infinite command. It does not mean one can redefine logical terms at will.
God cannot move against his own nature. It is like saying if God is omnipotent, why can He not create a four sided triangle?

Also note omnipotence is a theological construct. It is not scriptural, and for those of us who are of a true evangelical persuasion that makes a difference.

Back to the question. You know your dog wags his tail when he is happy. Can you be sure you feel exactly as he feels if you do not have a tail?

Again, in all three Abrahamic religions God requires mediation from humanity in order to establish a lawful order. Why?

Typhoon is bringing in nonsense, but avoids the question.

[Typhoon]

These guys are getting Easter and Christmas mixed up, Azari. That's why it is not rhyming.

In Christian understanding Christ was no envoy. He was God himself. The question is why might God desire to temporarily experience the completeness of humanity from the inside out?

In all Abrahamic religions there are issues with God not fully appreciating human emotions and limitations. How can a timeless and omnipotent being appreciate doubt or fear? How can an all-powerful God appreciate the power of temptation?

This line of reasoning appears to contain an internal contradiction.

Omnipotent means not just all powerful, but capable of conceiving of, understanding, creating, doing, and experiencing, anything does it not?

Including human doubt, fear, and/or temptation.

No. The issue of experience is crucial. You may understand childbirth is painful, but unless you are female you may not experience how or why. You may understand that a wagging tail means your dog is happy, but do you truly experience all the emotion which tail-wagging entails (pun intended)

Well, I have that limitation as I'm all too human, rather than omnipotent.

Being supernatural [as in not subject to the physical laws of our universe] and omnipotent I would not have that limitation.

In all three Abrahamic religions prophets are given laws for mankind by God, but the prophet must negotiate these laws with God because God has made them too rigorous for human compliance. And God listens and lowers His expectations for mankind. Why does God alter His supposedly perfect commands after conversations with the prophets?

Same apparent internal contradiction here.

Also, I would argue, that the concept of omnipotence itself intrinsically contains a number of logical contradictions.

Official of a religion: "God is omnipotent."

Schoolboy: "Can God create a stone so large that he can't move it?"

Official of a religion: "Why?"

Schoolboy: "Well, if he can't create such a stone, then God is not omnipotent, but if he can create such a stone and can't move it, then he is not onnipotent either."

Official of a religion: "Don't ask such stupid questions."

Nonsense. Omnipotence means that one has infinite command. It does not mean one can redefine logical terms at will.
God cannot move against his own nature. It is like saying if God is omnipotent, why can He not create a four sided triangle?

Well, is that not the very definition of being supernatural and onmipotent?

Being able to arbitrarily intercede the laws of nature at will?

It would seem to me that that is the definition of what many people call a miracle.

Also note omnipotence is a theological construct. It is not scriptural, and for those of us who are of a true evangelical persuasion that makes a difference.

Whether onmipotence is scriptural or a theological construct appears to be a matter of ongoing debate.

Back to the question. You know your dog wags his tail when he is happy. Can you be sure you feel exactly as he feels if you do not have a tail?

See above.

Again, in all three Abrahamic religions God requires mediation from humanity in order to establish a lawful order. Why?

Isn't this a Protestant Christian interpretation?

Typhoon is bringing in nonsense, but avoids the question.

Well, what is omnipotence was considered by Augustine and Aquinas, so I think it's far from clear that it is nonsense.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Again, in all three Abrahamic religions God requires mediation from humanity in order to establish a lawful order. Why?

Isn't this a Protestant Christian interpretation?

No. Moses and Muhammad (in the Hijira) both had to negotiate divine law with God and make it possible for human compliance. The events are narrated in both Scriptures.

Typhoon is bringing in nonsense, but avoids the question.

Well, what is omnipotence was considered by Augustine and Aquinas, so I think it's far from clear that it is nonsense.

Omnipotence is power to rule over all. Logic is God's nature as well as His name.
It is bringing in the "Can God make a rock so large he can't lift it" that is nonsense. That is a simple matter of an improper syllogism.

[Enki]

Jesus didn't actually die in the story. He didn't pay for anything, he simply cancelled the debt since the debt was to himself.

Your theology has always been... unique enough to start a new church.

Maybe it is time for another Joe Smith.

I don't see it as a downer. I was rather in the Christmas spirit when I wrote that. I think the message that one not need be greedy and fearful, that one can through faith rise up and be healthy, powerful and surrounded by love, is a wonderful message.

Well Jesus was all for greed and gluttony if it was for a good party.

"Mar 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.
Mar 14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
Mar 14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
Mar 14:6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
Mar 14:8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying."

I don't know anyone fearful at Christmas.

Interesting that where I see an exhortation for temperance, you see a justification for greed.

[Marcus]

Schoolboy: "Can God create a stone so large that he can't move it?"
Official of a religion: "Why?"
Schoolboy: "Well, if he can't create such a stone, then God is not omnipotent, but if he can create such a stone and can't move it, then he is not onnipotent either."
Official of a religion: "Don't ask such stupid questions."

"The paradox is internally incoherent. If it is assumed that there is e.g. no rock that the being cannot lift, then the category 'rocks so heavy that the being cannot lift' is a category of non-existence. The being is then required to create something that does not exist. This is a nonsense requirement. Hence the paradox is nonsense."

[Parodite]

Well Tinker you missed the important bit, paying for the sins of mankind and laying down his life, a sacrifice for all mankind.

That part always baffled me...wtf does that mean, how does that work? Explain it to me doctor..

Oh wait, I'll give it a shot.

In the past offerings, sacrificing something like a lamb, a virigin.. or your own son, or just part of the yearly harvest.. were meant to Voodoo-ise the Gods into favourable behavior. Now we call that a bribe.

But something happened with that good-ol bottom-up bribe. In the case of Christ, it was God who sacrificed his Son to Vooddo-ise us into favorable behavior - the whole thing got reversed and went top-down. Somehow God felt it necessary to bribe us, begging us for mercy and demanding us to change behavior for He is afraid and suffering, fearing what might happen for his own sake.

I don't think God needed this Sacrifice of the Son to prove anything to us.. such as omnipotence or love... since we all are his children and no child will accept the love of his father to be proven by killing your oldest brother. He then better kill all of my brothers and sisters and my mom...if He were serious about this love-proving method.

So really, God was sacrificing his own Son allowing us to be God, and him just little Jo.. afraid and powerlessly begging us to do certain things and make Jo happy again.

This of course mirrors the character of Christ ," lowering" himself to be the slave...washing feet...sacrificing his own time and life entirely for the good of the other, serving you and me with his all.

Most of Christianity entirely missed this point it seems to me as a secular, turning Christ into a Godhead to be worshipped whilst dying. (to be sure: dying Gods are entirely useless as well as unlikely!) Instead of humbling oneself to your neighbor, serving his interest first ie. before your own, as Christ himself lived.

I very much doubt Jesus wanted to be put on a pedistal and woshipped to begin with, let alone depicted half naked dying on that cruel piece of Roman torture in every household above the chimney.

Both God and Jesus at your feet, begging you to change your life, willing to sacrifice their life to convince you. The holiest of bribes in history.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Well Tinker you missed the important bit, paying for the sins of mankind and laying down his life, a sacrifice for all mankind.

That part always baffled me...wtf does that mean, how does that work? Explain it to me doctor..

Oh wait, I'll give it a shot.

In the past offerings, sacrificing something like a lamb, a virgin.. or your own son, or just part of the yearly harvest.. were meant to Voodoo-ise the Gods into favourable behavior. Now we call that a bribe.

No, temple sacrifice in the Hebrew context was a purification ritual. Very different from Egyptian, Canaanite and other local religions where sacrifice was propitious.
When you hear the word sacrifice, remember chess. A sacrifice is the deliberate giving up of something valuable for the eventual gain of something more valuable. With Jesus, His sacrifice began at the incarnation and was not completed until Pentecost.

[YMix]

"The paradox is internally incoherent. If it is assumed that there is e.g. no rock that the being cannot lift, then the category 'rocks so heavy that the being cannot lift' is a category of non-existence. The being is then required to create something that does not exist. This is a nonsense requirement. Hence the paradox is nonsense."

The New Genesis, as per Marcus' quote: On the first day, God said: "I can't be required to create something that does not exist. This is a nonsense requirement. So ends the whole story."

[Enki]

Parodite It's a demonstrated paradox trying to get the dumbass noobs to understand that eternal life is eternal. Some still don't get it.

The lesson was: I cannot die, and neither can you.

[Ibrahim]

Again, in all three Abrahamic religions God requires mediation from humanity in order to establish a lawful order. Why?

Isn't this a Protestant Christian interpretation?

No. Moses and Muhammad (in the Hijira) both had to negotiate divine law with God and make it possible for human compliance. The events are narrated in both Scriptures.

This is not entirely accurate, at least in the Islamic view (or my Islamic view anyway). God doesn't require mediation, but offers revelation through prophets to outline (Moses) and clarify (Muhammad, others) His law for humanity. The issue is rendering divine concepts in a way that is understandable to humans, and within a given historical context. So the its not so much a negotiation as "can you put that in a way that these people are going to get?"


Re: "making a rock so heavy..." etc, I 'm not sure what people think this kind of wordplay demonstrates one way or the other. I include too the venerable "Ontological argument" here too They are mere word games, and as such require acceptance of their definitions to function. As Hume observed, how we chose to define or describe something does not have any influence on the subject itself.

But, philosophically speaking, omnipotence is constrained by logic if not physics. The best example (Thomist, I think) is that God can indeed make a person exist in two places at once, but cannot make a person exist and not exist at the same time.

[Zack Morris]

No, temple sacrifice in the Hebrew context was a purification ritual. Very different from Egyptian, Canaanite and other local religions where sacrifice was propitious.

Sacrifice for the Jews was a test of loyalty to God, loyalty that would be rewarded in the future. I doubt the average Jew in ancient Palestine had a much different understanding of sacrifice than their neighbors. Modern theologians' attempts at re-interpreting Biblical rituals are a biased project designed to bolster claims of Judeo-Christian exceptionalism.

When you hear the word sacrifice, remember chess. A sacrifice is the deliberate giving up of something valuable for the eventual gain of something more valuable.

That's practically the definition of 'propitious' sacrifice.

[Zack Morris]

"The paradox is internally incoherent. If it is assumed that there is e.g. no rock that the being cannot lift, then the category 'rocks so heavy that the being cannot lift' is a category of non-existence. The being is then required to create something that does not exist. This is a nonsense requirement. Hence the paradox is nonsense."

The New Genesis, as per Marcus' quote: On the first day, God said: "I can't be required to create something that does not exist. This is a nonsense requirement. So ends the whole story."

[Parodite]

Well Tinker you missed the important bit, paying for the sins of mankind and laying down his life, a sacrifice for all mankind.

That part always baffled me...wtf does that mean, how does that work? Explain it to me doctor..

Oh wait, I'll give it a shot.

In the past offerings, sacrificing something like a lamb, a virgin.. or your own son, or just part of the yearly harvest.. were meant to Voodoo-ise the Gods into favourable behavior. Now we call that a bribe.

No, temple sacrifice in the Hebrew context was a purification ritual. Very different from Egyptian, Canaanite and other local religions where sacrifice was propitious.

This source claims that Hebrew sacrifice was all about Forgiveness, but at the same time says that the practice sacrifice was more and more minimised:

The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully limited the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.

When you hear the word sacrifice, remember chess. A sacrifice is the deliberate giving up of something valuable for the eventual gain of something more valuable. With Jesus, His sacrifice began at the incarnation and was not completed until Pentecost.

Yet.. the story of Christ is soaked with the concept of Forgivness; He payed for our sins with death after which we were all forgiven. The same type of deal; 1) I made a mistake, 2) my Father is angry and 3) the sacrificed Lamb made Father forgive me and all is fine again.

[Ibrahim]

Ancient Jewish sacrifice was specifically a substitute sacrifice for sin/wrongdoing. Jesus, in the Christian understanding, replaces all of those sacrifices with a single sacrifice with himself (as "God) as the the victim and also the recipient of the sacrifice, thus creating the ultimate sacrifice and ending the need for future sacrifices. Islam has no sacrifices, all relationship between man and God being direct. I think that also applies to some Protestant theologies.


But in Judaism and older forms of Christianity the logic behind the sacrifice is that man has transgressed against God (sinned), and the sacrifice is a symbolic act on man's part to seek reconciliation. This is a little different from other religious traditions in which a sacrifice or gift to the god(s) is supposed to produce better crops, success in business, etc..

[Parodite]

A sacrifice in the ordinary sense also helps as a reminder that "we are not there yet". We not do everything right already. So it helps focus on ones own responsibility, decision to do better.

As for the sacrifice of Christ, the story also often is read as simply the hero not giving up nor giving in to fulfill his mission: explain the theory and show the practice of dedicating your life entirely to the well being of the other; not even under the treat of death, torture... not even hate those that kill you but forgive them.

Very little mythology or voodoo in the above. Just to show that it is humanly possible.