Jump to content
270soft Forum
DebateGod

I am legitimate

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@WVProgressive

"But the Christian God does, the bible, on multiple occasions describes God as both omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, even in the New Testament."

Do you have any verses in particular in mind?

Also, are you saying that to be a Christian you have to believe in Biblical infallibility?

 

Deutoronomy 33:27

"[the heavens] are for God who proceeds all and below are the mighty ones of the world.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DebateGod said:

Deutoronomy 33:27

"[the heavens] are for God who proceeds all and below are the mighty ones of the world.."

Correction: Hands of the world not mighty ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DebateGod

Here's Deut. 33:27 from the NIV (probably the standard contemporary English translation)

"The eternal God is your refuge,
    and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you,
    saying, ‘Destroy them!’"

Where is classical theological omnipotence in there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, the broader question is, are you asking about the existence of God, or about the infallibility of (in this case) Deuteronomy 33:27?

A Christian can easily say some part of scripture isn't correct, or isn't meant to be interpreted in a certain way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@DebateGod

Here's Deut. 33:27 from the NIV (probably the standard contemporary English translation)

"The eternal God is your refuge,
    and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you,
    saying, ‘Destroy them!’"

Where is classical theological omnipotence in there?

The previous verse speaks about Heaven implying that God is above in that refuge and below is enemies (implying that in Heaven he has absolute control).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous verse (Deut. 33:26) talks about God riding across the Heavens. Please be more specific.

Again, being very powerful doesn't mean 'omnipotent'. Riding across the Heavens doesn't mean 'omnipotent'. And so on.

Even if you could get a clear link from the Bible to classical theological omnipotence (and some verses come closer than others), the concept 'God' doesn't require classical theological omnipotence, nor does Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@WVProgressive

"But the Christian God does, the bible, on multiple occasions describes God as both omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, even in the New Testament."

Do you have any verses in particular in mind?

Also, are you saying that to be a Christian you have to believe in Biblical infallibility?

 

Mathew 19:26 Genesis 18:14 Jeremiah 32:27 Psalm 145:17 James 1:17 Romans 10:1-21 Acts 14:17 just to name a few. As for Biblical infallibility if you claim the Bible is direct transcription of the word of God it seems heretical to think it not infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

Re specific verses, slow down and be more specific.

Take your first one, Matthew 19:26

""With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.""

Jesus here is referring to salvation - this is not a statement of classical theological omnipotence. Even if Jesus were referring more broadly, it's not clear how to understand this - is it that God can accomplish whatever He wants if He sets his mind to it? Or that He's like a magician who can snap his fingers and make anything happen? Or that God is the ground of possibility in a metaphysical sense?

This (the weakness or not of a case for classical theological omnipotence in the Bible) is beside the point, though. 1. Christians need not believe the Bible is the direct transcription of the word of God, 2. if they do there's a lot of space for interpretation, and 3. the existence of God doesn't hinge on the Bible being or not being the direct transcription of the word of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

But the Christian God does, the bible, on multiple occasions describes God as both omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, even in the New Testament.

By giving others free will, God has used his omnipotence to limit himself in certain aspects. Many Christians believe He does this in regards to the future in an even greater attempt to give man freewill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

By giving others free will, God has used his omnipotence to limit himself in certain aspects. Many Christians believe He does this in regards to the future in an even greater attempt to give man freewill.

So technically after he gave humans free will, he was no longer omnipotent as he gave that up so humans could have free will.

30 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Christians need not believe the Bible is the direct transcription of the word of God

If the bible was just written by man instead of being divinely inspired then what basis does it have to be a holy book, how can we be sure they didn't just make something up?

33 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

the existence of God doesn't hinge on the Bible being or not being the direct transcription of the word of God.

Without the bible there's no good, hard evidence for God (assuming the bible can be called hard evidence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

"If the bible was just written by man instead of being divinely inspired then what basis does it have to be a holy book, how can we be sure they didn't just make something up?"

Divinely inspired does not equal direct transcription! You're creating a false dichotomy.

"Without the bible there's no good, hard evidence for God (assuming the bible can be called hard evidence)."

No, this is wrong. The main basis for belief in God is human experience, of which there is a vast amount that has led many people to believe in something like God.

"So technically after he gave humans free will, he was no longer omnipotent as he gave that up so humans could have free will."

If you substitute 'practically' for 'technically', yes, this is what I would say most major Christian denominations hold - that God radically limited his power so the beings he had created could have genuine free will.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

"Without the bible there's no good, hard evidence for God (assuming the bible can be called hard evidence)."

No, this is wrong. The main basis for belief in God is human experience, of which there is a vast amount that has led many people to believe in something like God.

What? 

2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"If the bible was just written by man instead of being divinely inspired then what basis does it have to be a holy book, how can we be sure they didn't just make something up?"

Divinely inspired does not equal direct transcription! You're creating a false dichotomy.

According to most Christians it is, to quote Don Stewart 

"We use the English word "inspiration" in the since of "divinely given" because of a verse in Second Timothy. The King James Version translates this verse.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).""

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_415.cfm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

So technically after he gave humans free will, he was no longer omnipotent as he gave that up so humans could have free will.

No, because He can take away free will if he chose too, but that would defeat the purpose of giving man (& angels) free will in the first place.  The reason God can limit Himself is because He is all-powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

No, because He can take away free will if he chose too, but that would defeat the purpose of giving man (& angels) free will in the first place.  The reason God can limit Himself is because He is all-powerful.

So god can make himself not all powerful . . .because he's all powerful . . . OK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to give a shoutout to @admin_270 and the other users of this forum for having a mostly respectful discussion on this topic (which is a very controversial and sensitive one). This was probably the most professional way of handling this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

So god can make himself not all powerful . . .because he's all powerful . . . OK. 

God*

 

And, it's not making Himself not all-powerful.  He's simply limiting the power He exercises in order to allow man to have a choice in the way they live their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

And, it's not making Himself not all-powerful.  He's simply limiting the power He exercises in order to allow man to have a choice in the way they live their lives.

So that means he has he power to do something but chooses not to, which means he not a loving god.

5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

God*

Alright then sweetie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

There are a variety of views on the ways in which the Bible is divinely inspired, guided, dictated, or what have you, among Christians. I'm not sure what you think the page you've linked to establishes - perhaps you could be more explicit.

It's obvious that human experiences are the basis for what is written in the Bible. These are a small subset of a much larger class of religious or spiritual experiences about God. There is a vast literature on these experiences. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Bible is the main evidence or only 'hard evidence' for the existence of God. This seems like a complete mistake to me. Rather, the Christian view is that the Bible reveals God's character to us, in particular in the teachings and actions of Jesus. It is not that the Bible is a proof of God's existence. Again, Jesus never argues for the existence of God - it is taken as a given. Rather, his point is that certain people are mistaken about God's character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's obvious that human experiences are the basis for what is written in the Bible. These are a small subset of a much larger class of religious or spiritual experiences about God. There is a vast literature on these experiences. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Bible is the main evidence or only 'hard evidence' for the existence of God. This seems like a complete mistake to me. Rather, the Christian view is that the Bible reveals God's character to us, in particular in the teachings and actions of Jesus. It is not that the Bible is a proof of God's existence. Again, Jesus never argues for the existence of God - it is taken as a given. Rather, his point is that certain people are mistaken about God's character.

Mr. Burgoyne could you please be more specific on what you mean by human experiences, perhaps it's a denominational difference but I don't know what you mean by this? 

22 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

There are a variety of views on the ways in which the Bible is divinely inspired, guided, dictated, or what have you, among Christians. I'm not sure what you think the page you've linked to establishes - perhaps you could be more explicit.

I have never heard a Christian argue that the Bible isn't God breathed truth and the article I linked was to give full context for the quote I used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WVProgressive

People have all sorts of experiences related to God. From mystical experiences to experiences of divine inspiration to experiences of divine providence to near-death experiences.

Re the Bible being divinely inspired, Christians have all sorts of views on the Bible. They certainly believe it is inspired to some degree by God, but again there are a variety of views. By 'direct transcription' I am referring to a strong form of Biblical inerrantism, where God's ideas are directly transcribed to the page, with the writer acting as an impeccable emanuensis. My point is that the Bible can have value as a work that is divinely inspired, without a Christian believing it is inerrant in the strongest sense of that term. In fact, it probably has more value if a person doesn't believe in a strong form of Biblical inerrantism, because Biblical inerrantism in the strong sense is a highly fragile worldview, epistemically speaking (one error in the Bible, and the whole worldview goes to pieces).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

People have all sorts of experiences related to God. From mystical experiences to experiences of divine inspiration to experiences of divine providence to near-death experiences.

The problem is that these "experiences" can't be fact checked.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the Bible be the only kind of hard evidence, when it is *based* on experiences, but experiences themselves (of which we have much more, and on going, evidence) can't be hard evidence?

Religious or spiritual experiences can be fact checked like all kinds of experiences - whether they come from people who are reliable in other areas of their lives as witnesses, whether they make useful predictions, and so on.

To take one kind of experience, Christians use divine inspiration to guide their actions. This is called 'faith', or a trusting relationship with God, and is a basic part of Christian practice. This trust justifies itself by the results the Christians get in their lives, ultimately as increases in joy, inner peace, or love, for examples, or proximally by, say, seeing some key professional choice they discern God is calling them to do, pay off spectacularly, which they wouldn't have done otherwise.

So there are lots of evidence that divine inspiration, in many cases, works and works quite well - it can be fact checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"holy" cow I'm surprised lord Anthony has become so communicative with our community

I love it :)

 @admin_270

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

To take one kind of experience, Christians use divine inspiration to guide their actions. This is called 'faith', or a trusting relationship with God, and is a basic part of Christian practice. This trust justifies itself by the results the Christians get in their lives, ultimately as increases in joy, inner peace, or love, for examples, or proximally by, say, seeing some key professional choice they discern God is calling them to do, pay off spectacularly, which they wouldn't have done otherwise.

I thought you said god doesn't interfere in the lives of people, couldn't this be seen as god directly impacting someones actions, and therefore a violation of free will. In-fact you could argue that the entire system of a religion is a violation of free will, as God has set up specific things you can and can't do (like eating shellfish, Leviticus 11:9-12 KJV) and if you do one of these things, he'll send you to hell to be tormented for eternity (Luke 16:20-26 KJV) and when the only option other than submitting to god is eternal damnation, it isn't that much of a choice now is it, Mr. Burgoyne.

5 hours ago, admin_270 said:

How can the Bible be the only kind of hard evidence, when it is *based* on experiences, but experiences themselves (of which we have much more, and on going, evidence) can't be hard evidence?

 Because the Bible is as per it's own words is god breathed truth, and these experiences are unfalsifiable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

So that means he has he power to do something but chooses not to, which means he not a loving god.

Alright then sweetie.

1. You can stop with the smart aleck comments if you want a serious discussion.

2. How does that prove God is not loving?  Man brought sin, death, and destruction into the world with their rebellion.  Man made that choice.  And despite that, God set a plan for redemption so all those believe can be saved from eternal destruction despite man not deserving anything.  If that's not loving then I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×