Believing in a limited God

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) It wasn't applicable. Assumptions need to be made, if you can't do it and stay on topic then you can't debate.
2) That = Bible = simple = not applicable to the current debate.

Your profound knowledge of the history of the bible is not relevant? I couldn't have said it any better myself. However, it's totally relevant; very well documented; and severly damning to your argument. But, I imagine that's why it's "not applicable".

That? Bible? Simple? "not applicable"? "Bullshit too deep to dig up a response?"

We are talking about whether certain characteristics of God are flaws, not whether the Bible is valid. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you elsewhere.

Originally posted by Nellinator
...I want a free car, I won't get one and I'll be okay without it. If I get it, that would be sweet, however, my want for a car isn't a weakness. There does that example work for you? You're making God should like a lonely teenager that's depressed because no one loves Him. Thats obviously not the way it works.

But why would god want a car? 😕

😆

Originally posted by Thundar
Having browsed thru some of the older threads within this forum, it seems that many questions have come about regarding what is not possible for God to do.

Whenever someone brings up such a scenario, I'm always reminded of this particular verse.

Luke 18:27
And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

I know many of you are not Christians, but I just wanted to point out that this above verse is generally the one that comes to mind when debating issues relating to God's capabilities.

I do not believe in a limited or flawed God, I believe in one that is full of infinite possibilities, all of which are filled with loving intentions. His loving nature is defined by the bible as being patient, kind, longsuffering, humble forgiving, and merciful.

My beliefs are not exclusively based on my faith of what's written in the bible, they are also based on the way in which the world works around me, and the actions of God that I've witnessed within my own life, as well as within the lives of others.

So for those of you who believe and have faith in limited or flawed God, whether that God represents yourself("yourself" meaning you control everything about your life) or a God of a spiritual religion, please explain to everyone what motivates you to believe in such a God?

* i believe God is limited in the sense that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and it's impossible for Him to do so (Hebrews 6:18)... but that does not mean God is flawed... God's truth endures forever (Psalms 100:5) which means He is someone we can depend on... someone who promises life eternal life, a being who cannot lie... being not able to lie does not limit God as an Almighty entity... 😉

* i would like to extend my apologies... i cannot respond anymore to any discussions - as active as before - because i already had a job with hectic skeds... but i will still give some of my comments or reactions sporadically... thanks, everyone... happy discussing here in KMC... 🙂

Originally posted by peejayd
* i believe God is limited in the sense that He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and it's impossible for Him to do so (Hebrews 6:18)... but that does not mean God is flawed... God's truth endures forever (Psalms 100:5) which means He is someone we can depend on... someone who promises life eternal life, a being who cannot lie... being not able to lie does not limit God as an Almighty entity... 😉

* i would like to extend my apologies... i cannot respond anymore to any discussions - as active as before - because i already had a job with hectic skeds... but i will still give some of my comments or reactions sporadically... thanks, everyone... happy discussing here in KMC... 🙂

Without getting into excessive recitations of scripture, I think the problem here peejayd, is that you're confusing "cannot" with "will not." Can God lie? Of course he can. But he chooses not to lie. Why? Simple, because he's loving.

Edit

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A god that needs is incomplete. A god that wants is not in charge. Perfection cannot be added too. Every god is flawed.

I think the problem here is that yourself and others of similar views believe a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw. I actually view this desire as a strength, and yet another example of God's perfection. I wouldn't worship a God, nor would I believe any God could truly be loving and perfect, if he didn't have a sincere desire to be with me, or if he only desired to have a relationship with me based on what I could give him. Likewise, if I truly love God, then I'll value more so having a loving relationship with him, as oppossed to caring about any physical or spiritual gifts he could give me.

This is not to say that a loving relationship doesn't consist of giving and receiving gifts, but it is to say that a truly loving relationship isn't exclusively based on what one can receive or what one can give.

It's based on sincerely desiring to see the person that you love happy, even when at times giving this other person happiness may cause you much misery. It also consists of "righteousnous" and will not turn a blind eye to a friend in need, particularly a friend who has been the victim of evil circumstances. This type of love is demonstrative of what the God of the bible exemplifies.

All this being stated, for those of you who disagree with the above - please extrapolate on why you believe desiring to have a loving relationship with someone is a sign of weakness, as oppossed to a strength.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think the problem here is that yourself and others of similar views believe a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw. I actually view this desire as a strength, and yet another example of God's perfection. I wouldn't worship a God, nor would I believe any God could truly be loving and perfect, if he didn't have a sincere desire to be with me, or if he only desired to have a relationship with me based on what I could give him. Likewise, if I truly love God, then I'll value more so having a loving relationship with him, as oppossed to caring about any physical or spiritual gifts he could give me.

This is not to say that a loving relationship doesn't consist of giving and receiving gifts, but it is to say that a truly loving relationship isn't exclusively based on what one can receive or what one can give.

It's based on sincerely desiring to see the person that you love happy, even when at times giving this other person happiness may cause you much misery. It also consists of "righteousnous" and will not turn a blind eye to a friend in need, particularly a friend who has been the victim of evil circumstances. This type of love is demonstrative of what the God of the bible exemplifies.

All this being stated, for those of you who disagree with the above - please extrapolate on why you believe desiring to have a loving relationship with someone is a sign of weakness, as oppossed to a strength.

I don't see a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw, I see it as an impossibility. Also, a true omnipotent god would not want to be worshiped. A true god would not want period.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't see a loving God's desire or wanting to have a relationship with us is a flaw, I see it as an impossibility.

Why do you see it as an impossibility?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, a true omnipotent god would not want to be worshiped. A true god would not want period.

I think "worship" in God's case, refers to a humble respect. Similar to that a parent would have with a child. If you had a loving relationship with your parent, you will always carry a certain amount of respect and reverence for them.

But even though God is worthy of worship, I sincerely doubt that his main desire is for us to worship him. He wouldn't call us "friends", if that's really what he wanted, and quite frankly he could easily force us all to worship him if he so desired.

I believe his main desire is for us to be loving children, and to share this love with him.

Originally posted by Thundar
Why do you see it as an impossibility?

The only way we can understand something is to make an image of the thing we are trying to understand in our minds. This image is a model that we can use to predict outcomes. All models have a common problem. At the edge of our understanding the predictions brake down and paradoxes arise. A fundamental rule to remember is that a model never completely reflects the true nature of reality (or God). You can never accurately describe to me the true nature of reality (or God). An all loving god and a omnipotent god is a paradox.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The only way we can understand something is to make an image of the thing we are trying to understand in our minds. This image is a model that we can use to predict outcomes. All models have a common problem. At the edge of our understanding the predictions brake down and paradoxes arise. A fundamental rule to remember is that a model never completely reflects the true nature of reality (or God). You can never accurately describe to me the true nature of reality (or God). An all loving god and a omnipotent god is a paradox.

So basically you're expressing your belief with the above, or specifically the ideal that you place your faith in. My belief is obviously very different than yours, as I believe that although one may not be able to completely understand reality (or God) in this lifetime, they can still know that reality(or Love) exists.

The only time the paradox comes into play is when you express yourself as not being able to grasp the true nature of reality, but then go on to say that reality (or God) cannot be completely loving. How would you know such a thing, if it is impossible for one to discern the true nature of God? So as you can see, you've essentially contradicted yourself with such a stance by inadvertently(or purposefully) defining the nature of reality as not "completely loving."

Moving back to the original topic - aside from what you believe to be logical or paradoxical, what motivates you to worshipping a limited God, one that can only bring death to you upon the end of this life?

Originally posted by Thundar
So basically you're expressing your belief with the above, or specifically the ideal that you place your faith in. My belief is obviously very different than yours, as I believe that although one may not be able to completely understand reality (or God) in this lifetime, they can still know that reality(or Love) exists.

The only time the paradox comes into play is when you express yourself as not being able to grasp the true nature of reality, but then go on to say that reality (or God) cannot be completely loving. How would you know such a thing, if it is impossible for one to discern the true nature of God? So as you can see, you've essentially contradicted yourself with such a stance by inadvertently(or purposefully) defining the nature of reality as not "completely loving."

Moving back to the original topic - aside from what you believe to be logical or paradoxical, what motivates you to worshipping a limited God, one that can only bring death to you upon the end of this life?

I never defined the nature of reality. My only point is that the true nature of reality cannot be understood or communicated. In other words, you don't know what the truth this, but nether do I.

Originally posted by Thundar
Why do you see it as an impossibility?

Like Shaky said, a "God" wanting anything is a contradiction. Omnipotence cannot desire anything, for omnipotence has all, omnipotence is complete and infinite.

If your God "wants" anything, than this being is limitted.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think "worship" in God's case, refers to a humble respect. Similar to that a parent would have with a child. If you had a loving relationship with your parent, you will always carry a certain amount of respect and reverence for them.

I agree, however, a loving parent would never send thier child to Hell for disobeying them.

Originally posted by Thundar
But even though God is worthy of worship, I sincerely doubt that his main desire is for us to worship him. He wouldn't call us "friends", if that's really what he wanted, and quite frankly he could easily force us all to worship him if he so desired.

Like I said before....If God was truly omnipotent, he/she would have no desire.

Originally posted by Thundar
I believe his main desire is for us to be loving children, and to share this love with him.

The Christian perception of what Love is, is a whole other story, but like me and Shaky are saying...for God to want anything makes him/her limitted.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never defined the nature of reality. My only point is that the true nature of reality cannot be understood or communicated. In other words, you don't know what the truth this, but nether do I.

Yeah, but you see you continue to just contradict yourself and create another paradox. If truth can't be understood or communicated, then how are you communicating with me right now, or how is one to now assume what you've stated above to be true? You see where I'm going with this?

Your rationale is extremely illogical at this point. Sure, we may not have a complete grasp of everything that represents truth, or perhaps it would be more accurately described as us not being able to "handle the truth" - but one can definitely know that truth exists, and the basic things that it is comprised of. Logically - neither of us would be able to continue this argument if it didn't exist in some shape or form.

Originally posted by Thundar
Yeah, but you see you continue to just contradict yourself and create another paradox. If truth can't be understood or communicated, then how are you communicating with me right now, or how is one to now assume what you've stated above to be true? You see where I'm going with this?

Your rationale is extremely illogical at this point. Sure, we may not have a complete grasp of everything that represents truth, or perhaps it would be more accurately described as us not being able to "handle the truth" - but one can definitely know that truth exists, and the basic things that it is comprised of. Logically - neither of us would be able to continue this argument if it didn't exist in some shape or form.

You should talk Whob.....

You who have stated that what you speak is "truth" because your "faith" makes it true. The most illogical and unsupported statement I have ever read. 👇

Originally posted by Thundar
Yeah, but you see you continue to just contradict yourself and create another paradox. If truth can't be understood or communicated, then how are you communicating with me right now, or how is one to now assume what you've stated above to be true? You see where I'm going with this?

Your rationale is extremely illogical at this point. Sure, we may not have a complete grasp of everything that represents truth, or perhaps it would be more accurately described as us not being able to "handle the truth" - but one can definitely know that truth exists, and the basic things that it is comprised of. Logically - neither of us would be able to continue this argument if it didn't exist in some shape or form.

That is why we need to stick with those things we know for sure.

The ten factors are as follows:
(1) Appearance: attributes of things discernible from the outside, such as color, form, shape, and behavior.

(2) Nature: the inherent disposition or quality of a thing or being that cannot be discerned from the outside. T'ien-t'ai characterizes it as unchanging and irreplaceable. The nature of fire, for instance, is unchanging and cannot be replaced by that of water. He also refers to the "true nature," which he regards as the ultimate truth, or Buddha nature.

(3) Entity: the essence of life that permeates and integrates appearance and nature. These first three factors describe the reality of life itself.

The next six factors, from the fourth, power, through the ninth, manifest effect, explain the functions and workings of life.

(4) Power: life's potential energy.

(5) Influence: the action or movement produced when life's inherent power is activated.

(6) Internal cause: the cause latent in life that produces an effect of the same quality as itself, i.e., good, evil, or neutral.

(7) Relation: the relationship of indirect causes to the internal cause. Indirect causes are various conditions, both internal and external, that help the internal cause produce an effect.

(8) Latent effect: the effect produced in life when an internal cause is activated through its relationship with various conditions.

(9) Manifest effect: the tangible, perceivable result that emerges in time as an expression of a latent effect and therefore of an internal cause, again through its relationship with various conditions. Miao-lo (711-782) regarded the Buddhist law of causality described by the four factors from internal cause to manifest effect as the distinctive characteristic of the ten factors. It concerns the cause and effect for attaining Buddhahood.

(10) Consistency from beginning to end: the unifying factor among the ten factors. It indicates that all of the other nine factors from the beginning (appearance) to the end (manifest effect) are consistently and harmoniously interrelated. All nine factors thus consistently and harmoniously express the same condition of existence at any given moment.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Like Shaky said, a "God" wanting anything is a contradiction. Omnipotence cannot desire anything, for omnipotence has all, omnipotence is complete and infinite.

If your God "wants" anything, than this being is limitted.

Omnipotence could consist of "desire" for all you or I know. Neither of us can completely say what it consists of, as we are limited beings. This has been repeated to you many times, in many threads -- but you just don't seem to get this rather simple concept. Since you believe that omnipotence does not exist anyway, your point is a rather moot one.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree, however, a loving parent would never send thier child to Hell for disobeying them.

Buddha's harry ass man, get another argument dude. I'm tired of you posting this same one in every thread. If you can't understand how Love can't exist apart from righteousnous you're a lost cause. I refuse to respond to this argument anymore, as it has already been refuted multiple times to you and others in many other threads. Stay on topic with this one or else face being reported.

Originally posted by Thundar
Omnipotence could consist of "desire" for all you or I know. Neither of us can completely say what it consists of, as we are limited beings. This has been repeated to you many times, in many threads -- but you just don't seem to get this rather simple concept. Since you believe that omnipotence does not exist anyway, your point is a rather moot one.

God Whob, your hypocrisy is alarming...

First you claim to know absolute truth because of your Faith, now you are arguing that we cannot know Absolute Truth because we are limitted.

Omnipotence by definition lacks desire, however, now you mean to change the definition, arguing that omnipotence can contain desire....desire is a force for the limitted.

To want something in turn means you DONT HAVE SOMETHING

If there is something you LACK then you are NOT truly omnipotent. It's that fkn simple.

Originally posted by Thundar
Buddha's harry ass man, get another argument dude. I'm tired of you posting this same one in every thread. If you can't understand how Love can't exist apart from righteousnous you're a lost cause. I refuse to respond to this argument anymore, as it has already been refuted multiple times to you and others in many other threads. Stay on topic with this one or else face being reported.

This is the most cowardly answer I have ever read on KMC, congradulations.

👇

The question was never truly answered, and your beleif in "righteousness" is nothing more than a human fabricated idea of "justice" which does not exist in nature.

TORTURE IS NOT AN ACT OF LOVE

THAT ****ING SIMPLE....YOU DO NOT TORTURE SOMEONE YOU LOVE....NO IF'S, AND'S, OR BUT'S.

IF GOD CAN TORTURE ANYONE, OR ALLOW SOMEONE TO BE TORTURED, THEN HE IS NOT LOVE....

*************

And report me all you want Whob, you'd be banned for socking first.

On topic, for those who believe in a limited God, what motivates you to follow a limited God..knowing that only death awaits those who follow such a God?

Originally posted by Thundar
On topic, for those who [b]believe in a limited God, what motivates you to follow a limited God..knowing that only death awaits those who follow such a God? [/B]

I don't think anyone believes in a limited god. I think a lot of people think the god that you worship is a limited god. There is a big difference.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God Whob, your hypocrisy is alarming...

First you claim to know absolute truth because of your Faith, now you are arguing that we cannot know Absolute Truth because we are limitted.

Knowing truth(or God) and completely understanding what makes up truth(or God) are two different things. For example, I can know someone, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I have a complete understanding of that someone. The understanding part comes with building a relationship with that someone, and whether or not that individual at some point chooses to share everything there is to know about themselves with myself. This is a rather simplistic premise, which I'm surprised you haven't been able to pick up on within the context of any of our other debates.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Omnipotence by definition lacks desire, however, now you mean to change the definition, arguing that omnipotence can contain desire....desire is a force for the limitted.

To want something in turn means you DONT HAVE SOMETHING

If there is something you LACK then you are NOT truly omnipotent. It's that fkn simple.

The point I have always made is that you and I are not omnipotent nor are we omniscient, so we do not have the ability to state what is possible to do with omnipotence or omniscience. Again, another simple concept that seems to have alluded you. All of this is a very moot point anyway, as you have already vehemently denied either of these two things existing.