God and the stone

[Robert]

Originally posted by Sn00py
"God created us in His own image"

What if our 'image' is not our human body

This suggests that it is supposed to be the human body as an image to God....... which is clearly not the general explanation, which is that we're made in his image as inteligent, thinking, self-aware beings.

On-Topic: you bunch of smart-asses are clearly good at giving your own idea about God and the stone, though NONE of you replies to my superior theory

Threadjacking

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You completely ignore my arguments.

You merely redefined the word "omnipotence" to mean something else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I think that a nice idea is that God would escape causality thus be outside our space and time, and such contradictions which are bound to our time and space are not applicable.

Except that is something that humans cannot comprehend. So that's just gibberish.

[Flip McWho]

Not necessarily gibberish. We can understand that God exists outside of our space and time, even though then we wouldn't be worshipping an interventionist god.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Not necessarily gibberish. We can understand that God exists outside of our space and time, even though then we wouldn't be worshipping an interventionist god.

I re-read the original post by OFITG and it doesn't mean what I thought.

However, to reconcile "able to a rock so heavy you can't lift" and "able to lift anything" is impossible except by defying rules of logic.

That is what makes it gibberish.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
In order to believe in God, one must believe in His ability to operate outside of the laws of physics and logic.

That sounds like a really bad case of confirmation bias.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
In order to believe in God, one must believe in His ability to operate outside of the laws of physics and logic.

That would go some way to explaining why an omnipotent god would put up with the likes of polyester American televangelists as his proselytisers...

It's a very handy get out clause for Religionistas stymied by the inability to explain god's capricious behaviour over the centuries and god's seeming ability to have created itself (we're created in 'his image'- if that were the case, then presumably god wouldn't be 'masculine', but masculine and feminine).

What amuses me is the way Religionistas constantly harp on at people who think that Darwinian evolutionary theory best explains the development of life on earth (who being cognisant of science are also aware of uncertainty) and bray loudly that 'it's only a theory' and yet when pressed for similar evidence for the existence of an intelligent being designing life, invoke the supernatural not the natural.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by molly bloom



That would go some way to explaining why an omnipotent god would put up with the likes of polyester American televangelists as his proselytisers...

It's a very handy get out clause for Religionistas stymied by the inability to explain god's capricious behaviour over the centuries and god's seeming ability to have created itself (we're created in 'his image'- if that were the case, then presumably god wouldn't be 'masculine', but masculine and feminine).

What amuses me is the way Religionistas constantly harp on at people who think that Darwinian evolutionary theory best explains the development of life on earth (who being cognisant of science are also aware of uncertainty) and bray loudly that 'it's only a theory' and yet when pressed for similar evidence for the existence of an intelligent being designing life, invoke the supernatural not the natural.

Ah. Well, first off, if you are willing to consider the plausibility of God, you ought to be able to think in terms of free will, defined not so much as it has been by certain movements within organized religion, but in terms of God setting up natural laws but still revealing enough to plant the seeds of faith. In that line of thinking, God has not acted capriciously at all, but is hands off, outside of subtle intervention. Religionists find the hand of God in lots of places it isn't, and claim to be doing God's will far more often than they are in fact.

I find no contradiction in God as creator using evolutionary processes if that is actually what happened.

If God exists, then we have to answer to Him, not He to us and therefore we shouldn't expect to have all of the answers through either inspiration or scientific methodology.

We should all beware religionists that seem to have all the answers but keep an open mind about God.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle




We should all beware religionists that seem to have all the answers

I'm particularly wary of this one:

The Gospel according to
St. John
14

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life .

'The' way, 'the' truth, 'the' life.

Seems to think he has all the answers, doesn't he ?

But then that's the abiding message of monotheistic religions- their way, the ONE way.

When creationists such as Ken Ham (!) build a 'creationist' museum based on the notion that:

'the answer's in Genesis' and that they are 'upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

then they do a double disservice, to informed biblical scholarship and to scientific enquiry.

“first ever” post-Flood painting showing majestic dinosaurs and other animals along with Noah’s family praising God for their deliverance and sign of “The New Covenant” for all generations to come.

In appreciation for your museum support, Answers in Genesis offers you this stunning new signed and numbered limited edition print or canvas by renowned artist Jim Oliver!

This is a unique opportunity for you not only to receive a wonderful exclusive painting, but also to help AiG build a unique museum that will provide answers from Scripture to a world that continues to move farther away from God.

Let this beautiful painting be a silent witness to the accuracy of the Bible and enhance your home, office, church or school.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/promise/

I think of it as being more a witness to Born Again Bad Taste...

[Capt Dizle]

Bloom, you made a good point that alot of folk are way the heck out there with some of their claims.

But, I don't consider Jesus to be a religionist, but God made manifest in human form. This is the crux of the gospel and it is your choice to believe or not. I was, until my late twenties, a skeptic. In concentrating on the teachings of Jesus I became a believer. I will never be able to reconcile all my questions about the teachings of the Bible. I just try to keep my eye on the ball, the basic precepts, and try not to be such a terrible sod. Sometimes I do okay, sometimes not. But I have hope.

You all can insert snide "crutch for weak minds" cracks at will, I don't mind. Jesus is my crutch.

[The diplomat]

As I see it, omnipotence means having infinite power. So, God being omnipotent could create a stone that He could not lift. In essence what that means is that omnipotence includes the power to give up some power. or limit your power. One could argue that God did just that in Jesus: God became flesh thus temporarily putting limits on His powers. Jesus willingly allowed himself to be crucified when He had the power to avoid it. But there was a reason for God to do that. Jesus' death and resurrection allowed for the salvation of mankind.

So, God's omnipotence means that God even has the power to give up some of his powers but naturally there would have to be a reason to do so.

[Arrian]

Round and round we go... weee!

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
Round and round we go... weee!

-Arrian

shamless plug

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4195467#post4195467

because I am too lazy to type it all again

and for most organized religions people just exploit other people in the name of God.

hey people exploit other people for many other reasons too, but exploitaion in the name of God = organized religion

[Japher]

If you can use a gun
and you shoot yourself in the head
can you use a gun?

[Robert]

Originally posted by Japher
If you can use a gun
and you shoot yourself in the head
can you use a gun?

FINALLY! a serious reply to my ramble! THANKS!

Yes, you can use a gun if you can kill yourself.
But killing yourself with a gun doesn't conflict with being able to use a gun.

Now, what if you're immortal and can use a gun, and you shoot yourself in the head (and die), can you use a gun? are you still immortal?

Does being the fastest person in the world mean that it's impossible to ever be surpassed by someone?
Of course not, somebody may train to become faster, a new person may be born and be faster then you are.

Does being omnipotent meant that you can do all phantasy imaginable things? Or does it mean that you can do all things that are possible to do?

Ie. being able to lift all stones?
As long as God didn't create a stone that's too heavy to lift by God, he can lift all stones.