Jump to content

A Question for the Christians


Balefont

Recommended Posts

Probably total omnipotence is logically undefinable.

I suppose the god that I don't believe in is omnipotent insofar as it doesn't contradict being wholly good and doesn't create nonsense statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eponine,

The Orthodox understanding of God is that God is what God is. For example when we die people are not judged and then cast into hell if they are full of sin. It is simply that the parts of us that are not "of God" are burned away by being in God's presence. Therefore, God telling people what is and is not sin is less rule making than warning. "Hey, if you do these things it's going to cause you serious problems when you pass into the next life." It is also implied that God cannot control what being in God's presence does to people after they've died. It is another example of God not being "omnipotent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, I'm not not Orthodox :)

If for some reason I had to be some sort of Christian, your variety of Orthodoxy would largely suit my own ideals of how I'd WANT religion to be, but I'm not sure that constitutes a sufficient reason for belief, nor do I really think that your interpretations of the Bible are any more accurate than any other (not necessarily less accurate, so many positions can be demonstrated based upon what you choose to juxtapose or leave out).

Moreover, if your beliefs are the right ones, then I don't know that I have much more to worry about with being a moral atheist than I did with being a crappy miserable dissatisfied Christian, and if there's another way to be a Christian, the god I don't believe in probably doesn't know that I didn't find it through prayer and supplication and worship and devotion. I'm not trying to make light of your theology, I don't think that purification from sin is that simplistic, but if the essence of god is love and joy and peace and so forth, rather than a creed to profess belief in or saying the sinner's prayer with exactly the right amount of belief and sincerity, then trying to live the best you can will be more of god's essence than trying to believe what you don't believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eponine,

I'm not trying to convert you so no worries on that score. Just attempting to explain the differences in theology. Many in the West are unaware of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

As to the "correctness" of interpretations of the Bible I would point out that the Bible the Sola Scriptura Protestants insist upon looking to was assembled by the hierarchs of the Church in the early Centuries of the first millenium based upon Church tradition as it was understood at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'm up for this conversation today! But if God has perfect foreknowledge, is he constrained by his foreknowledge? Is he all-powerful or not? As far as my opinion of God continuing to create beings to go to hell though, I don't think that the distinction between Calvinist and Arminian matters, except in the case of open theology, which I know you don't hold to. Yet I think that open theology is the only logical path of Arminianism, or else you have a God who you claim is omniscient and omnipotent, yet the choice of any person to Heaven or Hell is beyond his control. The idea of such a being voluntarily giving up control over anything makes no sense considering that he not only created everything but in him all things hold together, and if we start attributing things to the mysteries of God and saying that theology needs have no logical consistency, well we can give that kind of reasoning for any sort of bullshit we want to invent.

I agree that with the basic problem of God creating souls which He knows will eventualy be lost remains from both the Calvinist and Arminian sides. The larger problem - that God resolves to let the damned souls in general (whoever they may turn out to be) suffer fire everlasting - faces us even if He does not know the future.

But for those us us who anathematize "open theists" for the nasty heretics they are, God Almighty is not constrained by His foreknowledge (or foreordination in the Calvinist case). I see no paradox here. The being and the knowledge, the master and the will, are one and the same. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, as the saying goes.

Neither see I paradox between divine foreknowledge and the free choice of men, as far as the Arminian side goes. Knowledge is just that, knowledge. No more no less. We may today know that Lincoln absolutely was elected in 1860, does that mean the voters of the time were mere puppets fulfilling an inevitable outcome in order to satisfy our present information? I think not.

But anyhow, I have to say your reluctance to entertain God giving up control sounds a bit like the classic example of worldly bewilderment at Christians. At the heart of the evangelical message are the ideas of humility and renunciation. The infinite Lord of existence, outside the Universe and above it, gave up His kingly dignity and became a human being. And from this perspective, it's hardly difficult to imagine God might "give up" some of His authority for us to freely exercise.

Where is the real difference between single and double predestination in this definition, if there are only two possible states? Declining to elect someone amounts to the same thing as predestining them to be lost.

Yes, pretty much they are the same. But the Lutheran "single predestination" is something else. God neither declines to elect nor predestines to be lost. The lost souls fall to perdition because of their own stubborn sinfulness, even though God loves them and wishes them to be saved. Whereas all the God of Calvin wants the reprobate to do is give Him glory by their endless roasting.

During the epistle reading today I noticed that St. Paul said that God is incapable of lieing. Therefore, by definition, God according to St. Paul is not omnipotent.

So much for "I believe in one God, the Father almighty..." Now if you insist I suppose you can say they mean different things, but I don't see the point in that. If anyone is omnipotent then God is, and if no one is then why do we even need the word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the epistle reading today I noticed that St. Paul said that God is incapable of lieing. Therefore, by definition, God according to St. Paul is not omnipotent.

God cannot lie precisely because He is omnipotent. Remember that God is eternal - he is unchanging. Implying that God can/cannot is imperfect human way of explaining something because it implies time. Omnipotence implies timelessness. If God is Truth (which he is), He cannot lie because that is something that He is not. Saying something like "if God is Omnipotent he can lie" is logically meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE, El-A,

The Orthodox position is that for all intents and purposes God is omnipotent but that there are certain things God cannot do such as change God's fundamental nature. As such, under the simplest definition of the word omnipotent, because there are actions God is not capable of undertaking, God is not omnipotent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, I'm not not Orthodox :)

If for some reason I had to be some sort of Christian, your variety of Orthodoxy would largely suit my own ideals of how I'd WANT religion to be, but I'm not sure that constitutes a sufficient reason for belief, nor do I really think that your interpretations of the Bible are any more accurate than any other (not necessarily less accurate, so many positions can be demonstrated based upon what you choose to juxtapose or leave out).

Moreover, if your beliefs are the right ones, then I don't know that I have much more to worry about with being a moral atheist than I did with being a crappy miserable dissatisfied Christian, and if there's another way to be a Christian, the god I don't believe in probably doesn't know that I didn't find it through prayer and supplication and worship and devotion. I'm not trying to make light of your theology, I don't think that purification from sin is that simplistic, but if the essence of god is love and joy and peace and so forth, rather than a creed to profess belief in or saying the sinner's prayer with exactly the right amount of belief and sincerity, then trying to live the best you can will be more of god's essence than trying to believe what you don't believe.

Well said, Ep. Especially that last part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was (and might still) write a longer post, annotated with scripture no less. But alas I am feeling lazy, any way I grew up a mix of different sects of Christianity but predominately Lutheran and Catholic. At one point in my childhood I went to church 3 times a week.

To give my take on the original question of this thread what Casey did from a Christian perspective is wrong.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" Matthew 5: 38-42

What's important in this passage is that it explicitly states even if the person who is assaulting you is evil, it's not right to fight for yourself. You shame yourself when you defend your pride or honor. Nothing you can defend in this parable is worth it. Not your body, not your wealth, not your time or your freedom.

When Jesus losses his shit at the temple it's not because of a personal slight (well kind of if you think about the trinity being one, but lets not loose focus here), he's mad because he sees that the house of god had been turned into a "den of robbers".

Nothing a mortal can possess, except for his faith in his God is justly defended.

This is pretty much the perfect example of a Christian response a situation of extreme bullying. Look at the young man, he is making no effort to defend himself or attack his tormentors. The people around him look in horror, and he looks very scared. But his not doing anything to fight back. He is following the word of God, and in the end he did in fact overcome.

If Christian and teach their child to fight back, they are teaching them that they are as important as God. That insults to them should be treated just as insults to God should be treated. By the way if they are not teaching their children to defend God, but to defend themselves you are teaching them that they are more important then God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE, El-A,

The Orthodox position is that for all intents and purposes God is omnipotent but that there are certain things God cannot do such as change God's fundamental nature. As such, under the simplest definition of the word omnipotent, because there are actions God is not capable of undertaking, God is not omnipotent.

Well that's not just the Orthodox position but the position of all Christians I know of. God can't act against His nature. But that's not a "limitation"; I don't get why we can't use the word. A circle is infinitely round, yet it cannot have corners because then it would no longer be a circle. God is infinitely powerful, yet He cannot lie because then He would no longer be God. Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth, quoth the Revelation to St. John the Divine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's not just the Orthodox position but the position of all Christians I know of. God can't act against His nature. But that's not a "limitation"; I don't get why we can't use the word. A circle is infinitely round, yet it cannot have corners because then it would no longer be a circle. God is infinitely powerful, yet He cannot lie because then He would no longer be God. Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth, quoth the Revelation to St. John the Divine.

This reminds me of a quote from Mark Twain:

I am different from Washington; I have a higher, grander

standard of principle.Washington could not lie. I can lie, but I won’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE, El-A,

The Orthodox position is that for all intents and purposes God is omnipotent but that there are certain things God cannot do such as change God's fundamental nature. As such, under the simplest definition of the word omnipotent, because there are actions God is not capable of undertaking, God is not omnipotent.

I'm also Orthodox, but I've never heard any Orthodox theologian or priest say that God was not omnipotent. Our position, as far as I know, is pretty much the same as what El-A wrote.

Here is a nice little discussion on the matter...

http://www.oodegr.com/english/theos/genika/nai1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE,

Actually, I've been meaning to talk to my priest aboiut that epistial reading as it seems to imply, logicially, that God is not omnipotent because God is incapable of lieing.

Random little question: What English Bible translation does your church use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...