Mr. Impossible Man

Lol...

They aren't reasonable if you ignore the fact that God created the conditions from which they arise.

Omnipotence:the quality or state of being omnipotent
Omnipotent: 1 often capitalized : [size=-1]ALMIGHTY [/size]1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
Almighty: having absolute POWER over all <Almighty God>
Power: ability to act or produce an effect

from http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=278axav75ik9s?tname=omnipotence-2&curtab=2222_1&hl=laws&hl=logic&sbid=lc05b

"God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature. He has no external power exerted on him, and is the source and origin of all power. The nature of God includes logic, and thus God cannot do anything which is logically absurd. God is able to alter the laws of physics since they are not part of his nature (strictly speaking, though they may be reflective of it), they are only a means to an end. Tertullian summarized this view as follows: "In one sense there will be something difficult even for God — namely, that which He has not done — not because He could not [in terms of raw power], but because He would not [in terms of self-consistency], do it. For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability." "

The evidence is apparent when your mind is brought into synchronicity with surrounding events. God coordinates all things, and if God has not yet brought your mind into synchronicity (you have not yet been fully prepared to receive (knowledge of) God's grace), you will not perceive this evidence because it does not yet exist as part of your experience.

Exactly.

Except the will that God has grown within us.

God directs our steps and molds the will that exists within us to bring it into synchronicity with all around us.

How is this a bind?

Did you ever consider the offense you commit when you do not acknowledge God is an offense against your self, you cause yourself harm which is why God is so dramatic about it?
In reference to your pantheism comment: God is omnipresent, but deals with each of us as individuals (has emotions directed towards each and every being within God).

No, when God corrects us, God exalts, for God knows that it is for our own good. We exist as entities within God, under God's care and control.

God trancends all experience of God, like you (your being) transcend all experience others have of you. You are more than your words, more than your body, more than your emotions, more than your experience.

Mercy, compassion, and love are everywhere. Some souls lack the requisite conditioning to perceive this, which is why they strike out in desperation.

Do what you feel is right, until God changes your course. Perhaps you need to learn not to do certain things, perhaps you are being used to teach others not to do certain things.

 

Kharakov, I admire your dressings, but where's the beef?

How easy to say "my fairy godmother" made it this way, etc..etc. But, where is the proof of sky daddy?

Don't give me the old "look around you" mystical bullshit, you know good and damn well what I mean and so does your "God" if "he" exists and is omnipotent.

Even if there WAS a "god", it would likely be a deceiver and an asshole due to the history of the world and his "followers" laying all of the blame on mankind and the talking snake.

Get real. For once.

We can argue definitions all day long, but when the shit is time to be shoveled, where the fuck is the PROOF?!?

Why EVEN consider this "GOD" mess at all with ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, and ZERO objective evidence?

 

Hmmm this whole time i thought this thread was on the atributes of God not the objective evidence???

 

Well what you’re concerned with here is the lie mentioned in Hebrews 6:18 which is the greek word pseudomai and means to "utter an untruth" or "to deceive by falsehood"

As for Ezekiel 14:9 deceive is here pathah, and the sense is to entice or persuade. A similar instance of the word can be found in Deuteronomy 11:16. which says “Take Heed to yourselves, that you heart be not deceived (pathah), and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;” Or 1 kings 22:21 which says, “And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade (pathah) him.” The word you’re looking for is probably kachash or ramah.

And as for 2 Chronicles 18:22, well I still don’t see how putting a lying spirit in the mouth the prophets is equivalent to God lying. It’s an expression meaning He gave them over to strong delusion as is the case in 1 kings 22:22. There no secret here, it’s mentioned all over the Bible. 2 Thessalonians 2:11, for example, says, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” And Roman 1:26 says, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature”

What do you mean by “proven” and can you give an example of something that has been proven? How exactly is evidence to be tested, and validated, and can you give an example of this process?

How does nature contain logic? What do you mean? What is logic?

 

Hmm. I guess I should have read that rest of the tread before typing a response. It looks like Kris has already said most of what I said above.

 

Or rather God is bound by His own nature. What's the problem with this?

Of course. Logically only those things which were created were created by God. So what's the problem here?

What have I said that would give you the impression that I am a deist? Explain

I deny the neutral ground you are positing here. But I'm pretty sure that I've already explained this.

Well since my theism is simply a non-belief of your non-belief claim, then maybe I shouldn't defend I position either...

It's presented above, and in the GOD and PROOF tread.

Yes I believe that God ordains what happens in our lives. No I don't believe that He actively controls everthing down to the smallest detail. Yes I believe that you have freewill to an extent. Now will you deal with the argument I've given?

 

jatom seems to believe all powerful literally means having unlimited physical power. You asked how much power it takes to make 2=2=5, but how much physical power does it take to raise someone from the dead?

 

Logically what's impossible for God, He cannot do. And why would you look to a dictionary for a doctrine found in the Bible?

I'm not quite sure what that would mean. I said that He is morally perfect. I guess you could say that His nature is perfect, but I think that's a bit ambiguous and lacks further qualification.

No I didn't, I responded by asking why He couldn't experience these. And even still, you haven't explained what the inconsistency is here.

Second, I think you got it backwards. He does not experience humanistic emotions, rather you feel Godly emotions. Afterall, you are created in His image. Granted sin has affected and severly perverted things, so your emotions are in no way a perfect reflections of God's

Knowing or possessing a virtue of morality, or being a moral person is the same as being morally perfect.

It's just not that simple. There is such a thing as being too kind or merciful for example. Set aside from that mercy presupposes judgment.

Perhaps in the simplest sense

Ok...

Ok, you've read the Bible right? Particularly the Old Testament and Revelation.

Of course He has, when did I say otherwise?

As I said before extension into space is a physical property, now when did I say that God was physical?

Ideas and concepts were merely examples, just as a dog is an example of a material thing. Now, does that mean that you and I are dogs?

Sure I guess...

This is just a tautology. Like saying, "what will happen will happen--no excuses." I mean it's not as if God knowing something causes it to happen.

Now that doesn't follow

So what if He wills that you have freewill?

 

Is someone raising from the dead logically impossible?

 

You probley worded it better

 

fine then more loaves and fishes appearing than there were before.

 

yea yea yea

Anyway my point is that I don't think God can do what is illogical. And as far as I know, someone rising from the dead isn't illogical, while 2+2=5 is.

 

KRIS, that is stretching it a bit, don't you think? Place any of those words in you used in context of that entire passage besides and see if it works. And besides those two words in the Hebrew are homologous. As are many. This shows your lack of understanding of the Hebrew language.

Pure and simple, it was DECEPTION.

And apparently, YOU and your concordance do not take into consideration that "context" of the passage (and I hate using that term as it makes me sound like a fundie) to show that "God" sent DECEPTION. "God" DECEIVED. Period.

I took three years of Hebrew and Greek myself, so although not an expert, I am fairly clear of the way the terms are used. And it seems that the translators got this one right from the original text. It was deception. Pure and simple.

 

So, did "god" create logic? Or is it "his nature"? I think you may have already answered this, but I just want to make sure that I am understand you correctly, so that there is no confusion.

 

Following that idea ...

If logic is God's nature, then logic should be able to prove that logic exists (it should be self-validating), in which case, should it not be able to prove that God exists also?

Maybe what they meant in the Bible by "omnipresent" is that logic is everywhere? Hmmmm ... could be.

 

Well, it does say in the beginning was the "logos" (which doesn't quite mean 'logic' but the word is derived from this).

So, I think logic should validate the existence of "god", IF there is one.

Anyone up to use it or should we all just rely on "faith"?

 

Lib, I'm sorry but You were using the wrong word, and I do think you know that. Unless you want to show us your sources or anything of the such then quite trying to shift the outcome. Hathal does mean to lie, decive, etc etc. However when in context to God the used a diffrent word with diffrent meanings. If you want to throw around credintals for everything then realize that I too come for a Religous background that was probley way more strict *being the UPC* so forgive me for mocking you on this last statement.

"I took 4 years of UPC bullcrap, so although not an expert, I am fairly clear on the way people can twist, evade, and use their "knowledge" to hide behind the fact that they got caught at being wrong"

oh yeah


"O Lord, thou hast enticed me, and I was enticed."
"O Lord, thou hast persuaded me, and I was persuaded."

so yes, they do fit just fine

 

Those words are not the context of that message, Kris.

I think YOU know that and are just afraid to admit it.

 

naw, just using the "objective" evidnece you talk about all the time. I read the surrounding text and came to a diffrent conclusion then "being lied too". I also have a baised hate twoards the KJV and the NKJV. After hearing "ITS THE ONLY RIGHT BIBLE" for so long I start to wonder how "accurate" it is

espically in the Ezek one, I read it as Tricked or Persuaded, like I said you can throw in Lie, Cheat, Devive, Tricked, Persuade. And they all work It just falls back to a word game. and word games are so dull! What kind of church did you attened by the way?

 

Well, I do agree with you there. I happen to think that the Young's Literal Translation is very good myself. I studied with it and the "Companion Bible".

You know, I do admit that if I were to ever be convinced of Christianity, it would likely be through someone who believes more along the lines of Bishop John Shelby Spong. The literalist/supernaturalist "interpretation" is what I am completely opposed to--and for good reasons, I think.

I don't have a problem with Jesus (as a teacher, really), it's just the whole "supernatural" crap that I have a problem with. I would have to say that the JEFFERSON BIBLE (ha ha) would be more up my alley--if any Bible were to be.