Romans 2:14-15 "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Where? Where is that bigoted or hateful in any manner?
The fact that anyone here has "opinions" on verses from a single reading is worrying, although understandable and I'm not trying to upset anyone...however the bible is sooo complicated I really doubt anyone here has studied it enough to pass comment on the meanings.
Entire books can be written on single lines from the bible...the depth is far beyond anything you can get from reading it and maybe a single commentary...its imperative that you get some Readers to go along with...solid theology.
Its like arguing about a set of statistics when you don't actually know the conditions the poll was taken in, where it applies too, what it actually means, who took part in it, who conducted it...etc etc
You're making shakya's oft-repeated point for him. All this just means that finding absolute meaning from such vague drivel is impossible. And if you really think any amount of scholarly insight into the insanity of the Old Testament is worthwhile, you're far removed from anything resembling compassionate thought (since many of the stories are anything but). I can find self-help books written by frauds that are more useful as moral manuals than the Bible.
And what is "solid theology"....because I guarantee you there are as many versions of "solid theology" as there are denominations who use the Bible as a reference.
untrue, where moral law is concerned societies have similarities as far as patriarchy and inequality and high headedness is concerned. however, since youa re considering only societies in parts of asia/europe etc im sure you wudnt realise how DIFFERENT other people's ideas of morality/sex etc actually are. there is NO significant similarities between MORAL law of people. furthermore, you only choose the morals of the places in the TIMES where christian thought{or abrahamic thought} was dominant so it doesnt hold.
the commonalities exist due to the general coarse socities take for the survival of societies{i.e. wars, high headedness, male dominance etc} and of logical thought. it has NOTHING to do with a law written on people's hearts or souls. you are being so silly in argumentation here it isnt even funny
idiot. omnipotince IS a quality of god
if god has no free will than he is not omnipotent. if he is not omnipotent than he is not the god of the bible. hence you = fail . omnipotence is not a time dependant quality which can be turned on and off. dont start playing with words like jia.
it isnt a false premise. omnipotence has always been a claimed and central aspect of the christian god. as has omniscience. what do you mean by almighty then? how is it semantically different from omnipotence? which scripture do you base this on and does this have no constradictions with the overall picture of god in the bible? why is it that your interpretation is so very different from those of the vast majority of prevailing christian schools of thought and prctices and those that HAVE prevailed?
i really think your trying to hard to justify an obviously flawed/self contradictory and wrong concept.
{also. zeal's time dependant argument/ conditional omnipotence fails as he fails to take into account the definition of omnipotence}
First, find the word omnipotence in the Bible and we'll discuss it's validity. Omnipotence as you are defining it has never been ascribed to God because it can't exist. Being almighty is different, though being very similar, from omnipotence. You need to stop with the generalizations unless you are going to back up your statement that omnipotence is the prevailing idea with concrete fact.
I used two sentences. I'm not trying too hard.
He's using the practical definition because the definition you are trying to impose is absolutely useless in every which way. Hence, why you are being unproductive.
and you and zeal are the only christians on this forum that i know of that go for such an idea. it has long been the stance of theists and churches{to this day} that god is omnipotent{yes that is a fact that your personal view can not change}. you represent a minority of liberal christians and followers of neo theistic philosphy.
he is supposed to be the creator of EVERYTHING, including ideas and this world and laws. on this ground most claim that he can trancend logical paradoxes with his power. you are proposing that he is bound by these contradictions which would not only make him not omnipotent, but also make him a slave to his own creation{which even YOU can not agree with as ALMIGHTY wud atleast have to be above all his creation} .
on the other hand, the above is a superphilosophy, untestable and backed up by ZERO evidence for it and lots of evidence against it. so really, your stance does not hold up either way.
as i said before, you are trying too hard to prove an obviously flawed concept.
So now you are calling it a concrete fact that they believe what you are saying? Prove it please. Please show me just one official statement from any major denomination that supports your argument. I'm not a liberal Christian by any definition I've heard.
Detail how it makes God a slave of His own creation (even though that's not what I'm actually saying, but I'd like to see the logic). I'm not saying He is bound by His creation. I am saying that He the paradox of omnipotence makes omnipotence impossible and an impractical term. So, why don't we move to and define practical terms instead of being unproductive with utterly useless ones?
And I'm not trying to prove anything. If I were, you could name it.
the first pagaraph is not even worth getting into. there is a reason why the omnipotence paradox exists and why most relegious scholars have never given satisfactory answers to it and why it concerns reasons for abrahamic relegions not being true.
i already described how god is responsible{and i think you will agree} for creating EVERYTHING according to you. that includes ideas, for him to be bound by his own ideas{i.e. logic and paradoxes} makes him lesser than his creation. hence your argument of ALMIGHTY fails too even if god isnt omnipotent{which he is in abrahamic relegions} , as he isnt even above his own creation.
and what you are doing by trying to define PRACTICAL terms is changing the content of what the relegion originally claimed. in that way, you are changing the interpretation and meaning based on no scriptural evidence and trying to reconcile it with worldly observations. that is no way to measure the credibility of a relegion. you measure it based on the original claims, not by changing the claims to suite observation- which is what ou are doing .
You are assuming that God is bound by His creation? I never said that. I'd leave it open that He can supersede the logic paradoxes, but I'd also say that it is perfectly reasonable to assume He works within His creation.
How can I possibly do that when the religion never claimed that. Again.
If it was claimed you will prove. I am, in fact, using every scripture that calls God almighty while ignoring the ones that call Him omnipotent (which don't exist).
KMC Community Forums
Dec 11th, 2007 07:01 PM
