Would an Omnipotent being have a Need/Want to do ANYTHING?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to Danmark]

I did not mean to convey that the discussion was definitively decided, if that is what it came across as I apologize. That is merely my opinion on the topic. I have my reasons for believing such, all valid, but actually proving an issue as complex as that is much more difficult. I would be genuinely surprised if free will vs. determinism is ever definitively solved.

For now though, I find enough evidence and reasoning to side with determinism.



@instantc
By predestination taking precedence over free will I was referring to the calvinistic views of "double" predestination and any other views that have derived from, or are similar to that. There are many.

The argument of whether free will truly exists is more philosophical than theological.

[Boosh]

[Replying to instantc]

That's not quite "how the story goes." There are various examples of biblical scripture showing god's decisions as supreme and coming before human choice.
Such as god's plan:
Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
OR
when he made pharaoh's decisions for him by "hardening his heart":
Exodus 9:12
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses

Since when has Christianity had anything to do with the literal reading of the Bible? I'm simply explaining how mainstream scholars interpret God's plan and knowledge as being compatible with free will. If God created us as free creatures and made his plans in accordance with our future choices, then free will fits into that scenario as well as it fits into any scenario.

Christianity was about literal reading of the bible until science showed it to be dead wrong. People used to really think of the creation story and Noah's flood as real until they realized it was ridiculous. Then suddenly its metaphorical. Same thing with the homosexuality issue. People used to condemn it and now many moderate Christians reinterpret verses so they can be ok with gays. The problem with the bible is that its got so many seemingly contradictory verses that its a crapshoot for "bible scholars" to say nearly anything definitively. It may be the case that many modern bible scholars read the bible a certain way so it isn't so nonsensical, but isn't that just using sophistry and rationalization to get around what the bible actually says in plain text? Why is there a need to find hidden meanings and reinterpret stuff that isn't there just to make it not be wrong about reality? I think its obvious

[Danmark]

[Replying to instantc]

That's not quite "how the story goes." There are various examples of biblical scripture showing god's decisions as supreme and coming before human choice.
Such as god's plan:
Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
OR
when he made pharaoh's decisions for him by "hardening his heart":
Exodus 9:12
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses

Since when has Christianity had anything to do with the literal reading of the Bible? I'm simply explaining how mainstream scholars interpret God's plan and knowledge as being compatible with free will. If God created us as free creatures and made his plans in accordance with our future choices, then free will fits into that scenario as well as it fits into any scenario.

Christianity was about literal reading of the bible until science showed it to be dead wrong. People used to really think of the creation story and Noah's flood as real until they realized it was ridiculous. Then suddenly its metaphorical. Same thing with the homosexuality issue. People used to condemn it and now many moderate Christians reinterpret verses so they can be ok with gays. The problem with the bible is that its got so many seemingly contradictory verses that its a crapshoot for "bible scholars" to say nearly anything definitively. It may be the case that many modern bible scholars read the bible a certain way so it isn't so nonsensical, but isn't that just using sophistry and rationalization to get around what the bible actually says in plain text? Why is there a need to find hidden meanings and reinterpret stuff that isn't there just to make it not be wrong about reality? I think its obvious

When I think of interpreting literature and the Bible, I think of different ways of interpreting any document, and in particular laws in genera/ and the U. S. Constitution in particular. There is no single 'right way' to interpret literature and law.

An idea of the scope of the issue can be found in the Hart - Fuller debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%E2%80%93Fuller_debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Whether it is the Bible or the Constitution of the United States, some interpretation is necessary. A case can be made that an inflexible 'literal' interpretation MUST be wrong, since it fails to consider cultural changes that simply were not anticipated by authors writing two hundred or two thousand years ago.

Homosexuality is a case in point. In terms of the Hart/Fuller debate it may be helpful to look at the core of the law and its penumbra.

Reasonable minds can differ, but I suggest the 'core' of the law about sexual activity as referenced in the Bible has to do with God advising a committed, loving relationship/partnership where the participants form a life long bond that transcends sex. The opposing or 'evil' side of this core belief is that of promiscuous sexuality that has no regard for the person inside the body, but focuses almost completely on the pleasure of the moment.

A different approach would focus most on the mere words, and not on the underlying intent behind those words.

[Boosh]

When I think of interpreting literature and the Bible, I think of different ways of interpreting any document, and in particular laws in genera/ and the U. S. Constitution in particular. There is no single 'right way' to interpret literature and law.

An idea of the scope of the issue can be found in the Hart - Fuller debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart%E2%80%93Fuller_debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Whether it is the Bible or the Constitution of the United States, some interpretation is necessary. A case can be made that an inflexible 'literal' interpretation MUST be wrong, since it fails to consider cultural changes that simply were not anticipated by authors writing two hundred or two thousand years ago.

Homosexuality is a case in point. In terms of the Hart/Fuller debate it may be helpful to look at the core of the law and its penumbra.

Reasonable minds can differ, but I suggest the 'core' of the law about sexual activity as referenced in the Bible has to do with God advising a committed, loving relationship/partnership where the participants form a life long bond that transcends sex. The opposing or 'evil' side of this core belief is that of promiscuous sexuality that has no regard for the person inside the body, but focuses almost completely on the pleasure of the moment.

A different approach would focus most on the mere words, and not on the underlying intent behind those words.

When you have a holy book claiming its the infallible word of God dictated to man any changes in the world are irrelevant. Changes in culture or knowledge do not affect a holy book, its never wrong no matter what happens. In regards to the gay issue people on both sides of the fence quote many of the same verses against it each other. Either God doesn't think homosexuality is permissible or he does. Somebody has to be wrong. Somebody has to be wrong when Noah's flood is dictated in the bible as historical fact. Etc etc

[Danmark]

When you have a holy book claiming its the infallible word of God dictated to man any changes in the world are irrelevant. Changes in culture or knowledge do not affect a holy book, its never wrong no matter what happens. In regards to the gay issue people on both sides of the fence quote many of the same verses against it each other. Either God doesn't think homosexuality is permissible or he does. Somebody has to be wrong. Somebody has to be wrong when Noah's flood is dictated in the bible as historical fact. Etc etc

I don't think this is necessarily the case. For example in the beginning of Genesis, we have passages that are clearly lifted from earlier creation myths. Many cultures have flood myths. I don't find it implausible that there have been local floods in many different parts of the ancient world, that made each culture affected see their flood as worldwide, as opposed to a local experience. Once we dispense with the notion that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of God and perfect, we can sit back and see these reports in their proper cultural and historical context.

Let me give an example in addition to homosexuality and polygamy.

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul says that women should be silent in church.

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Tho' Paul says this authoritatively, it is obviously dependent on the patriarchal culture. If I recall correctly, in the Hebrew culture of the 1st Century and earlier, women were not even allowed in the temple. There certainly were no Hebrew female priests. It was an amazing cultural breakthru that they were even allowed to attend Church. We should probably give some credit to Jesus for setting an unprecedented example that women should be treated with equality since Jesus reportedly dealt with them almost on a level of equality.

If I am correct that women attending church was a new thing, naturally they would have questions about what was being said and be pestering their husbands for information. Paul of course wanted to bore people to death* and not be interrupted, so he gave what appears as a sexist instruction.

___________________
*Acts 20: 9-12

[Boosh]

When you have a holy book claiming its the infallible word of God dictated to man any changes in the world are irrelevant. Changes in culture or knowledge do not affect a holy book, its never wrong no matter what happens. In regards to the gay issue people on both sides of the fence quote many of the same verses against it each other. Either God doesn't think homosexuality is permissible or he does. Somebody has to be wrong. Somebody has to be wrong when Noah's flood is dictated in the bible as historical fact. Etc etc

I don't think this is necessarily the case. For example in the beginning of Genesis, we have passages that are clearly lifted from earlier creation myths. Many cultures have flood myths. I don't find it implausible that there have been local floods in many different parts of the ancient world, that made each culture affected see their flood as worldwide, as opposed to a local experience. Once we dispense with the notion that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of God and perfect, we can sit back and see these reports in their proper cultural and historical context.

You can't dispense with the notion that the bible is the inspired word of God. The bible explicitly states in 2nd Timothy 3:16 all scripture is god inspired. It seems to me that Christians are committed to the inerrancy of the bible or the whole thing can be questioned and it falls apart. Even William Craig, an excellent apologist debater can sometimes be seen to run away from addressing legitimate questions about bible inerrancy in debates. He knows that path cannot be followed too far before he has to face up to some serious problems. This commitment to a flawless bible is what puts so much pressure on bible scholars to reinterpret the bible in such a way so as to not be wrong about things the bible is clearly wrong about.

Let me give an example in addition to homosexuality and polygamy.

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul says that women should be silent in church.

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Tho' Paul says this authoritatively, it is obviously dependent on the patriarchal culture. If I recall correctly, in the Hebrew culture of the 1st Century and earlier, women were not even allowed in the temple. There certainly were no Hebrew female priests. It was an amazing cultural breakthru that they were even allowed to attend Church. We should probably give some credit to Jesus for setting an unprecedented example that women should be treated with equality since Jesus reportedly dealt with them almost on a level of equality.

If I am correct that women attending church was a new thing, naturally they would have questions about what was being said and be pestering their husbands for information. Paul of course wanted to bore people to death* and not be interrupted, so he gave what appears as a sexist instruction.

If the passages require context of the time they were written in to be properly understood it is clearly human authorship. God would know this is not useful for future peoples

[Danmark]

When you have a holy book claiming its the infallible word of God dictated to man any changes in the world are irrelevant. Changes in culture or knowledge do not affect a holy book, its never wrong no matter what happens. In regards to the gay issue people on both sides of the fence quote many of the same verses against it each other. Either God doesn't think homosexuality is permissible or he does. Somebody has to be wrong. Somebody has to be wrong when Noah's flood is dictated in the bible as historical fact. Etc etc

I don't think this is necessarily the case. For example in the beginning of Genesis, we have passages that are clearly lifted from earlier creation myths. Many cultures have flood myths. I don't find it implausible that there have been local floods in many different parts of the ancient world, that made each culture affected see their flood as worldwide, as opposed to a local experience. Once we dispense with the notion that every word in the Bible is the inspired word of God and perfect, we can sit back and see these reports in their proper cultural and historical context.

You can't dispense with the notion that the bible is the inspired word of God. The bible explicitly states in 2nd Timothy 3:16 all scripture is god inspired. It seems to me that Christians are committed to the inerrancy of the bible or the whole thing can be questioned and it falls apart. Even William Craig, an excellent apologist debater can sometimes be seen to run away from addressing legitimate questions about bible inerrancy in debates. He knows that path cannot be followed too far before he has to face up to some serious problems. This commitment to a flawless bible is what puts so much pressure on bible scholars to reinterpret the bible in such a way so as to not be wrong about things the bible is clearly wrong about.

Let me give an example in addition to homosexuality and polygamy.

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul says that women should be silent in church.

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Tho' Paul says this authoritatively, it is obviously dependent on the patriarchal culture. If I recall correctly, in the Hebrew culture of the 1st Century and earlier, women were not even allowed in the temple. There certainly were no Hebrew female priests. It was an amazing cultural breakthru that they were even allowed to attend Church. We should probably give some credit to Jesus for setting an unprecedented example that women should be treated with equality since Jesus reportedly dealt with them almost on a level of equality.

If I am correct that women attending church was a new thing, naturally they would have questions about what was being said and be pestering their husbands for information. Paul of course wanted to bore people to death* and not be interrupted, so he gave what appears as a sexist instruction.

If the passages require context of the time they were written in to be properly understood it is clearly human authorship. God would know this is not useful for future peoples

Agreed. And that is one reason why I have personally dispensed "with the notion that the bible is the inspired word of God." Everything about it suggests human hands. And just as you say, when we realize that the errors, and contradictions, and frequently poor writing reeks of human rather than divine authorship, I have dispensed with this god, as well as the thousands of others imagined by other cultures.

[instantc]

[Replying to instantc]

That's not quite "how the story goes." There are various examples of biblical scripture showing god's decisions as supreme and coming before human choice.
Such as god's plan:
Jeremiah 29:11
For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
OR
when he made pharaoh's decisions for him by "hardening his heart":
Exodus 9:12
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses

Since when has Christianity had anything to do with the literal reading of the Bible? I'm simply explaining how mainstream scholars interpret God's plan and knowledge as being compatible with free will. If God created us as free creatures and made his plans in accordance with our future choices, then free will fits into that scenario as well as it fits into any scenario.

Christianity was about literal reading of the bible until science showed it to be dead wrong. People used to really think of the creation story and Noah's flood as real until they realized it was ridiculous. Then suddenly its metaphorical. Same thing with the homosexuality issue. People used to condemn it and now many moderate Christians reinterpret verses so they can be ok with gays. The problem with the bible is that its got so many seemingly contradictory verses that its a crapshoot for "bible scholars" to say nearly anything definitively. It may be the case that many modern bible scholars read the bible a certain way so it isn't so nonsensical, but isn't that just using sophistry and rationalization to get around what the bible actually says in plain text? Why is there a need to find hidden meanings and reinterpret stuff that isn't there just to make it not be wrong about reality? I think its obvious

It's pointless to hold a literal reading of the Bible against a Christian, everyone decides for themselves what they believe in. It's even possible for one to believe some parts of the Bible and reject the others. Clearly that person then has other reasons for the belief he holds apart from that it says so in the Bible.

[ttruscott]

...

Ted, I'm not sure I understand you, or your point. I only intended to argue that this absolute perfect god concept is wrong. I see you agree.

...

Not quite...I claim the definition of perfect is wrong, not that GOD is not perfect. As a perfect person, HE is only not perfect if HIS perfection is defined wrongly.

Peace, Ted

Interesting. Are you saying then that his perfection is not absolute?
Do you have a biblical basis for defining his perfection?

Or can we just say God is beyond definition?

Having trouble here - every time I WRITE GOD IS PERFECT you want to understand if / how I mean HE is imperfect?

Gone...

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 105 by dianaiad]

except the bible explicitly states that god knows everything, not that he could know everything but limits his knowledge by self-imposed restrictions.

Also, the entire concept of free will is an illusion that fades when examined closely.

GOD knows everything about what HE created. Acts 15:18 'Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.' There is no proof that HE DID NOT mitigate HIS full knowledge of HIS creation BY NOT CREATING the results of their true free will decisions but instead left the results for HIS creation to bring into reality.

Our true free will decisions were not HIS work (they were our works) so do not come under HIS definition (not Plato's) of HIS full knowledge of all HIS works: Act 15:8.

The Bible teaches the illusionary nature of free will on earth but there is a theological necessity for our true free will to have created evil, to keep GOD at arm's length from its creation and making us truly culpable of the guilt for that choice, therefore,

it is an obvious requirement that the hints at our pre-earth existence in sheol are in fact true descriptions of our creation and the created on earth theory which is accepted as fact, is wrong.

Those who continue to diddle with defining free will only from the pov of earth are like flat earthers...

Peace, Ted