On Thu, 30 May 2002 18:29:43 J Burgeson wrote: >Stuart wrote (and this time I will quote him in full: "I don't see why you >feel it advantageeous to resort to condescension. This is a >serious topic and an (otherwise) serious discussion." > >No such was intended. I did intend to point out that I, for one, found your >arguments too verbose to try to unpack. That it is a "serious topic" I >agree; else I would not have replied.
SK: I'm sorry if you found my explanations too abstract. I maintain that God, and thus omnipotence, must be transcendant beyond the physical realm. (You may not agree with this, but that is my starting point). Therefore, to understand God, one must explore the metaphysical. My arguments deal more with the metaphysical than the physical. Although this might not wholly clarify things, it should put it into a more defined focus. > >" That you don't agree with my view doesn't invalidate it as being without >merit." > >Of course not. But it is up to you to state it clearly enough that it makes >some sense. I read your post twice before concluding that it was too obscure >for my simple mind to understand. My reply was, of course, only to point out >that "omnipotence" does not imply (necessarily) exercise of that >omnipotence. Nothing more.
SK: I think this implies that God is either a capricious being, or a changeable being, characteristics which are more readily human than divine. Is it an anthropomorphic God which you worship, or a spiritual being which transcends all human fallibility and is perfect and divinely supreme? > >"Arguing 'ad hominem' serves no useful purpose and only obscures the >objectivity of the issues being discussed. As a scietntist, you should >understand that objectivity must be divorced from personal bias and opinion >in order to be effectively realised. I'm sure you have better judgement than >that." > >If I implied an ad hominem descriptor of you, I apologize. None was >intended.
SK: Apology accepted, but I wasn't taking offense, just trying to make this a more objective discussion. > >I had written: "Let me, for argument's sake, assume omnipotence, in which I >neither believe >nor disbelieve BTW. Assuming omnipotence on the part of >God, it seems easy to also assume he chooses not to exercise that >omnipotence in some instances." > >Stuart replied "I can only reiterate that omnipotence is not dependant on >any human assumptions by virtue of it's very definition. And to assume that >it is, is trying to place your opinion above God, or divine Truth, an >impossibility and an inevitably futile gesture. If you think that God can be >circumscribed by human opinions and theories and conjectures or hypothesis, >then you misunderstand the fundamental >principle of omnipotence, which is all-power, the key word eing 'all'. >There is nothing more than what is 'all', how can there be? And since God is >all-power, how can there be any other power or even any suggestion of >somthing outside of His jurisdiction, since He is all-in-all. No human >argument can alter the reality of His dominion or usurp the jurisdiction of >His divine province, because it is wholly divine and not dependant on human >opinion." > >I quoted all your text above, sans the Bible verse, which so many people >seem impelled to add as if it proved their point. I find the above text >sufficiently confusing that I hesitate to even try to unpack it. But -- >where angels fear to tread ... I will try.
SK: If we can not rely on the scriptures to help validate our views, then what can we rely on? If we didn't need the scriptures to strengthen our convictions, then why did anyone bother writing them in the first place? The scripture I quoted was pretty consistent with my proposition, but since you do not agree with it, or do not understand it, does this mean you can just dismiss the scripture as not being germane? Seems a little audacious, John. > >"I can only reiterate that omnipotence is not dependant on any human >assumptions by virtue of it's very definition." > >"Omnipotence," is, of course, a word. A human word. "Unlimited power," >according to Webster's 3rd (unabridged). To understand that, of course, I >must understand (and assume) definitions of both "unlimited" and "power." So >it seems that it is not the word itself you are arguing about. Perhaps you >are arguing that God is, in fact, omnipotent. Fine, I have no quarrel with >you having that particular opinion. But, of course, that was not the subject >being discussed.
SK: Well, yeah, I am not arguing the word, but the quality as it describes God, which was the subject being discussed, unless I really missed something. > >Perhaps you meant something else. But what that might be baffles me. > >"And to assume that it is, is trying to place your opinion above God, or >divine Truth, an impossibility and an inevitably futile gesture." > >How you can decide I wish to place my opinion above God's is a mystery.
SK: see below > >"If you think that God can be circumscribed by human opinions and >theories and conjectures or hypothesis, then you misunderstand the >fundamental principle of omnipotence, which is all-power, the key word being >'all'. There is nothing more than what is 'all', how can there be?" > >How you can conclude that I think this is also a mystery.
SK: John, the 'you' I am referring to here is not John Burgeson, but humankind in general. Again, let's try to be objective. > >"And since God is all-power, how can there be any other power or even any >suggestion of somthing outside of His jurisdiction, since He is all-in-all." > >Well -- I can address this. Given that God IS omnipotent, he can obviously >choose to exercise that omnipotence by allowing decisions to be made WITHIN >his realm by secondary entities, such as you and I. To say he cannot is to, >ipso facto, limit his power. Now you may say he DOES not, and I suppose that >option can be defended up to a point, but only by also an assertion that we >are without free will. > >I which case I cannot help but type this! < G >
SK: Are the decisions being made by these other entities governed by God? If not, then we don't have omnipotence, and the concept of omnipotence is a non starter. The problem is that, in truth, God is omnipotent, and if this were universally understood, acknowledged and assented to, (as Nebuchadnezzar realised in Daniel 4: 34-37) , then true reason and intelligence would always guide man and there would be no will opposed to God, as indeed there can not be, in truth, if God is indeed omnipotent. The trick is to learn how to live in harmony with omnipotent government (as Nebuchadnezzar did), which is acknowledging God's supreme rule, which is why understanding omnipotence and obeying the first commandment is so important. Fortunately for us, we have Christ to follow, and the grace of God to bless us in our efforts. > >" No human argument can alter the reality of His dominion or usurp the >jurisdiction of His divine province, because it is wholly divine and not >dependant on human opinion." > >To the extent that these words express a thought, I probably agree. But as I >stare at them a second and a third time, I'm not sure they mean anything in >particular. I may be wrong. >John
SK: Meaning comes from inspiration, inspiration comes from truth, life and love. Divine inspiration comes from Divine Truth, Life and Love. That's all you need to know to find blessedness.
Stuart > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > >
________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 31 2002 - 18:59:21 EDT