Can a xtian god be free?

[Captain Scarlet]

I disagree that it is logically impossible, you assert that it is. You can only claim this by (falsely in my view) by assigning an attribute to a god. God therefore sits at the heart of the premise about his own attributes, which stretches credulity to breaking point.

I bet my knowledge is very incomplete on this and many others subjects. I also realise you do not find the Jesus thing contradictory. Your view is one of a wide spectrum held by xtian theists. Others clearly assert that Jesus was a god and that Jesus' crucification was deicide (infact pogroms were built on this following Easter services in Eastern Europe). The problem for you is that there isn't great data for your position and poor data for other positions, they are all equally poor. I feel justified in my claims an countering your rebuttal as such.

Doing evil IS NOT logically impossible, if you argue that it is because of gods nature then you have to explain why that god can seemingly break out of other parts of his nature at a whim. I understand your position on it, but your position is no stronger or weaker than any others based on the evidence. We haven't even gone at the evidence yet. But when you turn to the evidence (such that it is): the problem of evil; of innocent suffering and of the scripture. It is ALL stacked on one side of the debate, in that a god clearly can allow / do evil things (by most subjective views). In other words in order to believe this concept, you have to ignore / spin the only evidence, and then ground impossible attributes at the centre of the god myth in xtianity. Not very convincing, at least for me.

[fr0d0]

Well check out the orthodox definitions of God. It's not that there is poor data, there's plenty. There are just variations held by people of different beliefs. ie not orthodox Christian. You counter my rebuttal from a position of lack of knowledge of the subject. I can hardly take that seriously.

That God allows suffering does not equate to God causing suffering. The spin on the evidence is on the side of those against the basis of our concept of God, when addressing orthodox Christianity. Until you are able to prove that your challenge is valid, then you cannot assert it.

[Captain Scarlet]

Well check out the orthodox definitions of God. It's not that there is poor data, there's plenty. There are just variations held by people of different beliefs. ie not orthodox Christian. You counter my rebuttal from a position of lack of knowledge of the subject. I can hardly take that seriously.

That God allows suffering does not equate to God causing suffering. The spin on the evidence is on the side of those against the basis of our concept of God, when addressing orthodox Christianity. Until you are able to prove that your challenge is valid, then you cannot assert it.

In terms of taking things seriously, I am not the one with unjustified beliefs, but hey I'll happily admit to xtian theological ignorance. Theology is spin by any other name, its justifying the unjustifiable and a hermetically sealed debate between nodding and winking professor types congratulating themselves on their theist conceptions and incredulous argumentation. If you take that seriously you need someone elses head examining. It seems to me if a job isn't worth doing, it isn't worth doing well; I'll happily stay away from their impossible god debates. I am perfectly justified on judging religion on its foundational texts, pronouncements of its leaders and its post debate declarations of the impossible and contradictory god it portrays. Tiwst and turn as mush as you like....oh and on your second point....

....you are wrong. It exactly equates. If you have:
- no knowledge, nor power to prevent an incident then you are blameless,
- some knowledge/power you can carry some blame, and it increases linearly until....
- ....total knowledge/power, guess what, total blame

[reverendjeremiah]

That depends..can a god exist and not exist at the same time? If so then nothing we say or think will ever come close to understanding such a deity. Such a deity would be absurd, just as any other deity would be.

Can the christian god be a slave to fate and be a free agent uncontrolled by fate at the same time? If not, then he is not all powerful. An truly all powerful being can do things that are OBVIOUSLY absurd and contradictory.

Jesus can create a rock that is to heavy for him to lift and STILL be able to lift and not lift it at the same time. If he cant, then he isnt all powerful. And since he is all powerful, then he is ABSURD!

good thing Jesus is merely a fictional character... fictional character can do so many absurd things.

[fr0d0]

That's what I usually get Scarlet - a refusal to look into it properly. Do me a favour and preface all your future posts with this: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, or the intention to find out, but...". Thanks

[Zenith]

You are wrong. These are not my conclusions but those supposed attributes that xtian theist philosophers place on their god, ie not my words, but theists own words.

So yeah, in this meaning I was wrong: we all borrowed the terms and meanings from the mainstream theists, so it's not your theory as much as it is their theory. Anyway, I think it is important to note that theists' terms and meanings also changed in time.

If they are wrong then it is possible to conceive of a more perfect being.

Sorry, but there cannot be anything more perfect - "perfect" is an absolute term.

But I don't think that an absolute being can be conceived (absolute in everything), because it's paradoxical:

omnipotent = "can do all", which includes absurd/illogical things like "a squared circle";

omniscient = "knows all", which includes, knowing if after exact 200 years a baby would be born in X place with name Y and everything what he would do in his life and if he would finally go to heaven or not - but that's against "free will", because if you know you would irresistibly do X, it means you can't do anything for it not to happen, which means an absolute force (or God) actually took the decision for you, so it's per-ordinance, not "all-knowing" (so "all-knowing" is a paradoxical term, because it contradicts itself... unless my logic is wrong).

omnibenevolent - another paradoxical term, because punishing an evil man might be required in order for that man to understand that he did wrong and to change his behavior (which means that the result is "good"), and if that does not happen, the evil man would continue to do evil. So this "omnibenevolent" is an absolute, paradoxical term as well (not being able to do evil => not causing evil to the evil man which leaves the evil of the man to continue (which is not benevolence), while doing evil to the evil man may be beneficial to him)

all-sovereign - another paradoxical term, and it means that everything that happens (e.g. people's own decisions) are actually God's decision. Perhaps in most theories, these decisions were took before the creation of the world.

If not perfect why would you call it a god and not just another being, just a very brilliant one?

I don't understand very well what you mean by "perfect".

Anyway, the answer is the same: because you don't re-invent the wheel! That is, the word "god" has already been invented, and has many different meanings (depending on culture, religion, epoch), including what you say there.

For instance:

- in ancient pagan religions "gods" were not necessarily immmortal, they were not necessarily brilliant, not necessarily good, etc.
- in the Christian Bible, there is no definition of the word "God", but it's just used throughout the Bible, e.g. when it shows what God did and how God is.
- in the Qur'an, Allah is an absolute God (omniscient, omnipotent, though it seems not omnipresent - I've heard a muslim scholar explaining that Allah is not omnipresent), but not quite benevolent - I'd call Allah a rather racist God that hates the Jewish people and all infidels - but "Allah" is still called "God", not by other term.

So, why re-invent the wheel? Or, what and how a "God" should be in order to exist?? - and I think this question is absurd.
If "God" exists, He exists no matter how or what we want Him to be.

If not infinitely great then has finite characteristics and does not halt infinite regress.

hmmm... what do you mean by "does not halt infinite regress"? I cannot answer this unless I understand it properly...
Anyway, for some reason, I've got the feeling we're debating useless terminology...

you need to define your god and state why it should be called one, why it can be a creator etc.

How a god can be a creator... well, if he created (e.g. the universe, the world, etc.)!!

OK, definition of "god":
"a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world..."
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god)

So, my understanding of "god" is: a supernatural being (with supernatural powers, obviously) that is worshipped and can has power/authority over parts of the universe, events, etc. - in other words, it can do something for the worshippers (otherwise, it wouldn't have been worshiped).

My understanding of "God": a single god that created the universe, the laws of the universe, and all that is in and about it (and is eternal). This implies that He has power/authority over all He created. This also implies that He knows everything about what He created (e.g. thoughts of man, their intentions, how they are, etc.). But, if we weren't forced a destiny by this God, and because we are not robots (everything we do to be programmed in us to do so), it means that there are things that cannot be known. So, for instance, it is impossible to know if a man would be born at position X after 200 years and to be known everything he would do in his life until death.

Anyway, if such "God" exists, I think it's stupid for us, people, to invent paradoxical terms and concepts to describe Him, and because our own theory is paradoxical, to state that God cannot exist.

I think you are the one who has made there own theory of a 'god', if not all powerful, good, knowing, immutable, eternal etc;

If immutable means unchangeable, the Bible says that God does not change. And it is stated that He is eternal.
Anyway, it seems to me that you accuse me for not believing in a God that can create a squared circle (or a rock He cannot lift, etc.)...

As about the absolute paradoxical "omnibenevolence", that is not found in the bible. On the contrary, you can find:

23. Jesus said to them...
...
25. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.
26. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon.
27. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed— only Naaman the Syrian.
28. All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.
29. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff.

so the lack of the absolute paradoxical "omnibenevolence" is not my invention either. Would you call the Christian God not a "God" now?

[reverendjeremiah]

I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.

LMFAO - Jesus is talking about that "firmament" (read as: solid sky with windows) again, claiming that the windows of heaven were shut for 3 1/2 years...LMFAO..Jesus is supposed to be god, yet he doesnt know that the Earth's atmosphere isnt solid?

COME ON PEOPLE! This is evidence that Jesus is so obviously full of crap

[Zenith]

I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.

LMFAO - Jesus is talking about that "firmament" (read as: solid sky with windows) again, claiming that the windows of heaven were shut for 3 1/2 years...LMFAO..Jesus is supposed to be god, yet he doesnt know that the Earth's atmosphere isnt solid?

COME ON PEOPLE! This is evidence that Jesus is so obviously full of crap

this argument is as good as proving these to be "wrong":
"My nose is running" - THE NOSE CANNOT RUN!! (as if now it's the first time we hear it) IT'S A CONTRADICTION!!
"what is done is done" - now this must be an absurd statement!
"it's raining heavily" - the rain cannot be heavy!!
"Better be the head of a dog then the tail of a lion" - one cannot be a head of the dog, COME ON PEOPLE!!! or... a tail of an animal??? (isn't this idiotic?)
"Kill the goose that lays the golden egg" - no goose lays golden eggs! now that's ridiculous!!
"Kindness begets kindness" - kindness cannot beget. sorry. it's absurd.

the list can go on, and on. Too bad I don't know too many sayings like these in english.

[reverendjeremiah]

this argument is as good as proving these to be "wrong":
"My nose is running" - THE NOSE CANNOT RUN!! (as if now it's the first time we hear it) IT'S A CONTRADICTION!!
"what is done is done" - now this must be an absurd statement!
"it's raining heavily" - the rain cannot be heavy!!
"Better be the head of a dog then the tail of a lion" - one cannot be a head of the dog, COME ON PEOPLE!!! or... a tail of an animal??? (isn't this idiotic?)
"Kill the goose that lays the golden egg" - no goose lays golden eggs! now that's ridiculous!!
"Kindness begets kindness" - kindness cannot beget. sorry. it's absurd.

the list can go on, and on. Too bad I don't know too many sayings like these in english.

LOL, where did you get these quotes? I never heard most of them before.

- "My nose is running" sound much better than "snot is running out of my nose"..but the bible says several times that there are litteral "windows in the heavens" that rain comes out of, and that the sky is solid. Is saying the sky is solid the same as saying your nose is running?

Are we supposed to take the bible literally, or make excuses for it? Is the bible written to be accurate, or does it use slangs, shortcuts, etc?

[Zenith]

LOL, where did you get these quotes? I never heard most of them before.

Some I knew, others from here:
http://www.learn-english-today.com/Prove...s_A-K.html

My nose is running" sound much better than "snot is running out of my nose"..

Are we supposed to take the bible literally, or make excuses for it? Is the bible written to be accurate, or does it use slangs, shortcuts, etc?

First off, know that it wasn't God who invented the Hebrew language, and it wasn't God who invented the Greek language, etc. Hebrew most surely evolved from the Canaanite language, from whom they also took their alphabet (as I remember) - though that alphabet changed afterwards.
a bit of info about Canaan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

Anyway, the fact that languages evolved means that:
1. They were made by common people, for the people, and transformed by the people.
2. There exist metaphors, as metaphors exist in english too.
3. Sayings and metaphors must have been even in Canaan (before Abraham), and so, it would be obvious if their sayings and metaphors were used by the Jews afterwards (most surely they spoke exactly the same language). Now how they got to have those sayings and metaphors I don't know.
4. As about the "running nose" instead of "snot is running out of my nose", something like this also exists:
Gen 4.1 says "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived".
5. In the bible there is also poetry, so metaphorical things are used in such contexts.
6. Hebrew and Greek are not English. This means that there are words and sayings that cannot be translated exactly into english (e.g. in english a certain word cannot be found to match exactly the meaning in Hebrew/greek, even in a certain context), and many sayings do not have a matching saying in english, so it's translated literally (as you would translate literally, "my nose is running" from english to other language - it would sound very odd in the other language). This problem with the languages is valid, perhaps for any two different languages.

Is the bible written to be accurate, or does it use slangs, shortcuts, etc?

Your question sounds something like this:
given the text:
"Can you get square eyes from watching too much television?
No.
Is it lawfully to rape?
No."
One asks the question: Should this quoted thing be taken literally or not?
The answer, is, well... it depends on what is said! The first question cannot be taken literally, while the second cannot be taken symbolically (well, you can forcibly take them the other way, but it would be odd).

The same with the Bible: you can't expect all to be taken literally, nor all to be taken symbolically, etc. There are language peculiarities, there are different cultures, there are metaphors, there are laws/commandments, there is history, etc.

And by the way, the books of the bible were not written for scientific purposes (e.g. to help people learn biology, or cosmology, or any other science). Unlike many seem to believe...

"but the bible says several times that there are litteral "windows in the heavens" that rain comes out of, and that the sky is solid. Is saying the sky is solid the same as saying your nose is running?

Well, if they could have seen literal "windows" in the sky (heaven = sky) when it was raining, from which rain comes out, then yes! Otherwise, no (it would sound like "look, a dinosaur on the street!" when the street is empty and dinosaurs do not exist, and the reality is clear to everyone).

And I've never found in the Bible to be written "there are litteral windows in the heavens that rain comes out of", as you suggest.

You know, many people believe that, in this 21st century, we are the geniuses, while those in antiquity were all retards. Such retards, that perhaps they could not distinguish between a cow and a dog. And, as such, they come with 'contradictions' such as "the locust doesn't have 4 legs" - as if those 'idiots' could not count the number of legs of an animal, etc.

I've even heard a muslim saying that in the 7th century (the time of the Prophet Mohamed) people did not know that the clouds were being moved by the winds, and he stated a verse in the Qur'an as a "miracle of the Qur'an" (a thing that could have only been revealed by Allah), which was talking about winds moving up-down (they were forcibly interpreted as "the winds are being moved by the clouds"). The idea is that the people of the 7th century were called retards, and that they could have not figured out that the clouds are being moved by the winds, while in the christian bible that is said as something obvious:

These men are... clouds without rain, blown along by the wind

This is a metaphor (obviously, men cannot be clouds). Anyway, the fact that the clouds are moved by the wind is used as "already known" (this is a letter to common people, not to 'scholars'), and used in a metaphor. And this is antiquity!! People knew that in antiquity! And 7th century people are called retards, and it's claimed that they could not have figured out this fact!

Come on, in ancient Greece there was also the theory that the earth was round (though it did not get too popular). If I remember well, they were not even the firsts to believe that the earth is round.