Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Is the Devil omnipotent?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sdep wrote: »
    Reigning in Hell and commanding a host of demons.


    This is a great delusion. There is no reigning in hell, there is only eternal burning in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels and anyone who rejects Jesus' atoning provision. In order to a grab hold of the Gospel and cling to it with all your being you must first realise your need of it. Most people don't even know they are lost never mind their need of the Gospel of Christ. How can you convince someone to want the Gospel? You can't. Without faith it is impossible to please God and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, and no man comes to the Father save the Spirit draws him.


  • Options
    #33
    JohnnyBravo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 537 ✭✭✭JohnnyBravo


    I am curious soul do you believe the adam and eve story to be factual or just a good moral tale


  • Options
    #34
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    super_furry wrote: »
    If he's behind temptation in man, then is he everywhere at once, in much the same way God is supposed to be?
    I think you mean omnipresent not omnipotent.

    I think the Devil of most Christianities is indeed omnipresent.


  • Options
    #35
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    Regarding the book of Job. Most theologians agree that this is not the satan in the sense of the devil/lucifer. The role of the satan in Job is more of a cort jester who plays on God. Logically why would God even entertain this. It comes down to it being a literary divice used by the author. This does nt take away from the text being a divine inspiration.

    The focus of Christianity is not the devil But God. Its human nature to focus on the bad guy. In hamlet everyone focuses on Claudius as the most interesting figure. It would be wiser to focus more on God.

    orogionally posted by Soul Winner

    "You see there are people who God just doesn't want."

    To create something that is of no use is a result of imperfection. God is not imperfect. This is certanly not a Chrisitian idea and does not come from Scripture even in the most twisted and spin doctored take on Scripture. The only time I heard some one say that was from a scientologist. I dont mean any offence.


  • Options
    #36
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ryoishin wrote: »
    Regarding the book of Job. Most theologians agree that this is not the satan in the sense of the devil/lucifer. The role of the satan in Job is more of a cort jester who plays on God. Logically why would God even entertain this. It comes down to it being a literary divice used by the author. This does nt take away from the text being a divine inspiration.

    You wanna tell Job that Satan was court Jester for God? Job who lost everything including his family, health and possessions and nearly his life because of this court Jester.

    ryoishin wrote: »
    The focus of Christianity is not the devil But God. Its human nature to focus on the bad guy. In hamlet everyone focuses on Claudius as the most interesting figure. It would be wiser to focus more on God.

    Speak for yourself but personally I find God much more interesting than the devil. The devil might be a lot of things but creative he's not. The only time I can sort of admire him is when he took on Jesus in the wilderness without a disguise. That takes moxy at least.
    ryoishin wrote: »
    orogionally posted by Soul Winner

    "You see there are people who God just doesn't want."

    To create something that is of no use is a result of imperfection. God is not imperfect. This is certanly not a Chrisitian idea and does not come from Scripture even in the most twisted and spin doctored take on Scripture. The only time I heard some one say that was from a scientologist. I dont mean any offence.

    Ok so where is your verse of scripture to support your theory that God wants everybody? He died for everybody but that does not mean he wants every body. Ever read the parable in Matthew 13:44?

    "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field."

    Christ died for the whole world (the field) to get the treasure (his chosen) out of the field. He doesn't want the whole field sorry. Why do you think the lake of fire was created? And who are they in Revelation 20:12-15 that get thrown into it?

    "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

    And what about what Jesus says here?:

    "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Amtt 7:13-14

    Am I still twisting the scriptures???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    TheThing!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭TheThing!


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Yes, but they wouldn't be that stupid.

    Eh...what?

    My earlier statement was refering to the omnipotence paradox, which indicates the problems associated with the fictional notion of omniptence. If god can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it then he is not omnipotent, and if he cant make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it...then he is not omnipotent


  • Options
    #38
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    TheThing! wrote: »
    My earlier statement was refering to the omnipotence paradox, which indicates the problems associated with the fictional notion of omniptence. If god can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it then he is not omnipotent, and if he can make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it...then he is not omnipotent

    A paradox. Mutually contradictory yet true.

    I understand the angle you were coming from? Omnipotent means "able to deal with all matters." Does creating a rock so big that you cannot move it fall into this category. I don't believe so. Why would God do it? Because someone asked if He could? Could he do it? I believe yes He could but that's just like asking Him to not exist? Can He not exist? No. So there's something else He cannot either.

    Here's a paradox for ya. Aristotle’s logic tell us that A cannot be A and not A at the same time. But Christianity professes that Jesus was God (A) and Man (not A) at the same time. Not sometimes man and sometimes God but God and man at the same time all the time. I like that one better :)


  • Options
    #39
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote:
    Mutually contradictory yet true.
    Logic 101 - if two states are mutually exclusive, then both of them cannot be true at the same time by definition.

    Simply saying that they are both simultaneously true indicates that you don't understand mutual exclusivity or truth.


  • Options
    #40
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Logic 101 - if two states are mutually exclusive, then both of them cannot be true at the same time by definition.

    Simply saying that they are both simultaneously true indicates that you don't understand mutual exclusivity or truth.

    Or maybe it's just you who doesn't understand what a paradox is

    Paradox noun: a statement that sounds absurd or seems to contradict itself but may in fact be true. Compact Oxford English Dictionary

    par-a-dox noun: a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. www.dictionary.com

    A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. www.wikipedia.org

    In any case I never said mutually exclusive I said mutually contradictory.


  • Options
    #41
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    SW wrote:
    In any case I never said mutually exclusive I said mutually contradictory.
    Mutually exclusive is what you actually meant, and it's what TheThing! is talking about. The three definitions of paradox are not consistent either, btw.

    You can only resolve the omnipotence paradox either by abandoning logic and agreed meanings, and thereby entering the realm of the meaningless, or else, as you've done, by concluding that god is not omnipotent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I think you mean omnipresent not omnipotent.

    I think the Devil of most Christianities is indeed omnipresent.

    I don't think Christians think about it very much, but I certainly have never heard any Christian express the idea that Satan is omnipresent. Any teaching on the subject I have ever encountered stresses that he is finite and limited - something which I also believe.

    The thought that all Christians are tempted by Satan is similar to saying that millions of Allied servicemen joined up "to fight Hitler" during World War II. It does not mean that Hitler had to be simultaneously present in France, North Africa, in the skies over London etc. individually fighting each allied serviceman.


  • Options
    #43
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Mutually exclusive is what you actually meant

    You can read minds as well then? Well you're wrong that is not what I meant. That's what you think I meant. You cannot force on me something you think I meant sorry. I said mutually contradictory and I meant mutually contradictory.
    robindch wrote: »
    The three definitions of paradox are not consistent either, btw.

    You'll have to get onto Dictionary.com, Wikipedia.org and the Oxford Dictionary section to complain about that.
    robindch wrote: »
    You can only resolve the omnipotence paradox either by abandoning logic and agreed meanings, and thereby entering the realm of the meaningless,

    Sorry you lost me there you'll have to break that down for me a bit. Agreed meanings? Agreed by whom? Abandoning logic? Define logic please. The realm of the meaningless? Where's that? The same things have different meanings to different people. Take Christmas for example, to Christians it is a very special time of year but to Jews (by faith) it has no meaning at all.

    Ever hear of Epistemology? It’s the branch of Philosophy that deals with knowledge. Most of the far eastern languages are idealist in their epistemology whereas the western languages are realist in their epistemology. Our actual language structure governs our frame of reference. For instance in the far eastern religions there is no dialogue with ultimate reality. You cannot even use language to define it. It is simply “the that which is behind all that” Idealism says we are all but waves in the ocean of relationships only distinguishable from wave to wave but indistinguishable from the ocean. In the western language frame we are Realist in our epistemology. Realist meaning we are separate entities having relationships. We are separate from the ocean so to speak. God is indistinguishable from his creation in the East whereas in Christianity/Judaism/Islam he is the great other. Which fits in with our language frame because the core of the Christian to Christ relationship is one of dialogue. The reason I bring this up is because meanings are not universally agreed upon.
    robindch wrote: »
    or else, as you've done, by concluding that god is not omnipotent.

    You could say I was anthropomorphising God there :). I can only tell you what I would do if I were God. You would have to ask him yourself if He could make a rock so big that He cannot move it. I'm with Paul, we see through a glass darkly but then face to face. Why do people assume that it's possible to understand everything about God? Could it be remotely possible that He might just be too big for our minds to comprehend?


  • Options
    #44
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    To soul winner:

    Id say Job knows already. I dont think the point of Job is to argue how the satan role came into the text (because the text itself suggests that there was an origional then at a later stage the devil role was added in, but thats only a possibility that I dont think effects the text) but more the relationship man has with God with the knowledge that there is pain in life.

    I agree that God is much more interesting but I think people always look for the negative side. You only have to look on this forum, it does nt matter the topic eventually hell and the devil come up.

    Im not going to quote a Scripture to back up my belief that God wants everyone to embrace redemption. I believe that all of Scripture expresses this. Why would Christ died and rise again for all if he did nt want everyone. I believe that while God wants everyone he has given people the gift to reject the gift of Himself. But thats a personal decision and not a rejection on the part of God.

    The story of Adam and Eve is a story for all of humanity. While Adam and Eve sinned against God they were the totality of humanity at the time and so what God bestowed on them he bestowed on all of humanity past and present and future and unborn. The message that God gives to Adam and Eve that there will be reconciliation is for everyone not for Adam and not Eve or visa versa (in the sense of their descendance).

    I dont agree with your interpritation of those quotes.

    I dont mean to offend I just disagree with your theology. apologies for the bad spelling.


  • Options
    #45
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ryoishin wrote: »
    I agree that God is much more interesting but I think people always look for the negative side. You only have to look on this forum, it does nt matter the topic eventually hell and the devil come up.

    To be fair it is always the same one poster who brings it up each time.


  • Options
    #46
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ryoishin wrote: »
    I dont agree with your interpritation of those quotes.

    I dont mean to offend I just disagree with your theology. apologies for the bad spelling.

    You're not offedning me in the least. No problem, let us agree to disagree so but I didn't interperate those quotes I just quoted them and then expanded on them.

    I'll do one more:

    "The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Matthew 10:14


    And for your benfit Ryoishin because you're a really nice person :)

    "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways" Why will you die, O house of Israel?" Ezek 33:11


  • Options
    #47
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Our actual language structure governs our frame of reference.
    In academia, that's called the strong version of the Sapir and Whorf hypothesis and it's widely considered to be largely false.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The reason I bring this up is because meanings are not universally agreed upon.
    In religion, indeed they're not. Actually, religious disagreements about the meaning of various religious texts are quite common and frequently the cause of upset and occasionally, death.

    In mathematical logic however (what we were discussing), less excitable minds prevail and meanings are agreed upon and progress is made from time to time.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Why do people assume that it's possible to understand everything about God? Could it be remotely possible that He might just be too big for our minds to comprehend?
    Or indeed, could the concept of god that you accept be so bereft of any fixed meaning, that you are able to fix your own imagination's requirements onto the thousand imagination hooks that thousands of years of cultural evolution has placed there for you?


  • Options
    #48
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    In academia, that's called the strong version of the Sapir and Whorf hypothesis and it's widely considered to be largely false.

    Well now I'm hooked, please do go on.

    robindch wrote: »
    In religion, indeed they're not. Actually, religious disagreements about the meaning of various religious texts are quite common and frequently the cause of upset and occasionally, death.

    Can you provide an example for the not so well informed please?
    robindch wrote: »
    In mathematical logic however (what we were discussing)

    Were we? I thought we were discussing the meaning of the word paradox and the omnipotence of God?
    robindch wrote: »
    ...less excitable minds prevail and meanings are agreed upon and progress is made from time to time.

    Oh really, please give me an example of one such occurrence. In any case you could argue that the same thing could be said about the study of botany.
    robindch wrote: »
    Or indeed, could the concept of god that you accept be so bereft of any fixed meaning, that you are able to fix your own imagination's requirements onto the thousand imagination hooks that thousands of years of cultural evolution has placed there for you?

    That is quite possible, but I don't think you meant that as a question though, comes across more like a slur to me. But then that's probably just my own imagination.


  • Options
    #49
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote:
    Well now I'm hooked, please do go on.
    You can read up more on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on its Wikipedia page. In short, it's generally accepted by most, that language does not control our ability to comprehend the world. Although the use of specific linguistic features can help to direct people's thoughts in one direction or another. Stephen Poole's ideas on unspeak (and especially the book of the same name) cover this area pretty well. Stephen Pinker, who's in fashion at the moment, rejects SWH energetically and possibly excessively.
    Soul Winner wrote:
    Oh really, please give me an example of one such occurrence. In any case you could argue that the same thing could be said about the study of botany?
    That's the point I was making. In science and maths, we agree on the meanings of terms and we move forward in understanding. In religion, there exist (fairly) static religious texts, the meaning of which is endlessly argued about and progress, in the sense of new understandings or insights about the world we live in, and how to deal with it, are limited to the point of almost total non-existence.
    Soul Winner wrote:
    That is quite possible, but I don't think you meant that as a question though, comes across more like a slur to me.
    No offense was meant and I was asking the question seriously because that's how religious belief looks to me.


  • Options
    #50
    Helper_Monkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Helper_Monkey


    Answer me this paradox:

    If god is all powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe; Why did he create evil, or allow the creation of a being that was capable of evil.

    Surely if he is all knowing he would forsee the future evil arising and the suffering it would bring.

    Seemingly he is not perfect since his creation is infested by the parasite that is evil?

    So either god isnt perfect as previously thought or he doesnt exist. Starting with the premise he does exist (which you will anyways :-p ); is there a reasonable explination?


  • Options
    #51
    Helper_Monkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭Helper_Monkey


    And to follow up; if the devil does exist and is doing evil things on earth (or tricking people into it), and this doesnt please god, why is god allowing him this power? Why doesnt god use his omnipresence and potency to stop evil before it starts, or rather rid the world (and the other realm) of the devil?

    Maybe our loving god wants a devil?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    Depends on what you believe evil to be. Your dead right to say why would a good God create evil. If evil is the abscence of goodness and not some supernatural force then this would allow for both a good God and the fact that there is evil. The devil in his creation is good but chooses to reject that goodness.

    (I think)


  • Options
    #53
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Helper_Monkey wrote: »
    Answer me this paradox:

    If god is all powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe; Why did he create evil, or allow the creation of a being that was capable of evil.

    Surely if he is all knowing he would forsee the future evil arising and the suffering it would bring.

    Seemingly he is not perfect since his creation is infested by the parasite that is evil?

    So either god isnt perfect as previously thought or he doesnt exist. Starting with the premise he does exist (which you will anyways :-p ); is there a reasonable explination?

    The most common explanation is that of free will. It goes something like this.
    1. Free will is something precious and important. People value it so much that they are willing to be tortured and killed rather than submit to enslavement.
    2. Free will involves the ability to choose between good and evil. Therefore God had to permit the possibility of evil if he were to create man with free will.
    3. A world with free will and evil is better than a world without evil yet without free will.

    If you want to study this subject more I would recommend reading some of Alvin Plantinga's works.


  • Options
    #54
    Vengeance
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭Vengeance


    About a month ago i asked soulwinner was he a deist. It was basically just asking was the quote from Thomas Jefferson an affirmation of Jefferson's beliefs.Happy argumenting!


  • Options
    #55
    Nerin
    Registered Users Posts: 10,523 ✭✭✭✭Nerin


    why would god create him? because the devil makes god look great.
    i like the paradise lost version of the devil,he's basically a teenager


Advertisement