Is the Devil omnipotent?

super_furry

If he's behind temptation in man, then is he everywhere at once, in much the same way God is supposed to be?

Nevyn

Clearly not or otherwise his coup would have been sucessful and he would be regining in heaven.

Mr. Presentable

Thaedydal wrote: »

Clearly not or otherwise his coup would have been sucessful and he would be regining in heaven.

Maybe he is! Seriously, we're told to beware of seeming gods, and he is "the great deceiver"

Run_to_da_hills

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?

Satan is not omnipotent. He cannot do everything he wants to do, and in the case of believers he can do only what God will permit.

The devil is not omnipresent, but he does have the means to reach and lead astray people in every corner of the world. Not only does he have legions of demons working for him, he has also set up a system that strives to bring eternal ruin and destruction to every living soul on earth.

He will use every medium possible to attack people including, Radio, TV and the Internet. And he even has the power to use government institutions to attack and oppress people.

Nevyn

nipplenuts wrote: »

Maybe he is! Seriously, we're told to beware of seeming gods, and he is "the great deceiver"

Well we are assuming that the op is talking about the fallen angel Lucifer and not the silly misrepresentation of various horned gods.

JohnnyBravo

Im a wee bit curious about this
If god has so much control over him
Why would he let him do anything at all

BrianCalgary

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

Im a wee bit curious about this
If god has so much control over him
Why would he let him do anything at all

I wonder about that myself at times. I think it falls into the realm of free-choice and promises.

mossieh

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

Im a wee bit curious about this
If god has so much control over him
Why would he let him do anything at all

He's a handy fall-guy for when the big man screws up. Also, he can open beer bottles with his horns.

philologos

I thought I might just quote from C.S Lewis', Mere Christianity. I've started to read it and there is a lot of note on this topic.

Mere Christianity - CS Lewis page 45 wrote:

To put it more simply still. To be bad he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow and steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are the powers given to it by goodness.

ryoishin

Simply the answer is no.

Your are responcible for any sin in your life. Sure you can be led astray but you are you and have free will.

It comes down to what evil is. Christianity holds that evil is not an entity or force per say. Why would a good God create evil. So evil must be a lack of goodness or a privation of goodness. The choosing to reject that which you are (good) to do that which is not of your nature (not good - as opposed to bad/evil).

Also omnipotent is a difficult concept. If you hold that it means all powerful then he can make you do this or that. But that would go against free will. So I dont think the devil is omnipotent.

Before anyone jumps at me and says you can say the same about God being omnipotent. Thats true but I think that God is more all capable than all powerful. This would nt interfer with free will but still has the view that God can achieve his will.

Soul Winner

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?

The Devil is not all powerful. If he was then God would not have had the input into the history of mankind as revealed in the Holy Writ. For instance His dealings with His people throughout the Old Testament would not have been allowed because God would have been destroyed by the all powerful Devil. In fact there would be no Holy Writ as the all powerful Devil would not have permitted such a thing to be developed in the first place. In fact if the Devil were all powerful then we would not know about God at all because the all powerful Devil would not have allowed that concept to exist as he is the all powerful one now after killing God. I'm deliberately being ludicrous to make a point and I think I did ok The Devil is not all powerful. If he were then things would be different now. God would be a non concept unless it related to the Devil.

The Scriptural references to Lucifer in the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel have him described as one who was created perfect and the most beautiful and talented of all the highest order of Angelic beings, the Cherubs or Cherubim. He became so lifted up in pride that he decided he would be like the Most High and was immediately thrown out of the heavenlies. Jesus described seeing this scene in Heaven as Satan being cast down as lightening to the Earth. When God decided to create Adam and Eve, Satan was already right there in the garden. He beguiled Eve by temping her with being like God as he wanted to be, and to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She believed him and disbelieved God when God said that if you do it you will die and then she tempted Adam and he also ate.

It has been postulated that the power and dominion God hath given to Adam and Eve over this Earth defaulted to the tempter after their fall from grace. They’ve been dying ever since and it doesn’t take a genius to see that over the history of mankind it has been the evil one who has had the most influence over man on this Earth. We see it today; people are more concerned with getting on down here than they are with storing up treasure in Heaven. In fact those who claim to store up treasure in Heaven are laughed to scorn by those who would rather spend it all down here. You can see the spirit of Satan at work when the subject of Giving to God is raised. I can nearly feel it as I type this that there are some that will retract into their seats and put up defences because someone is talking about Giving money to God. No other subjects causes more revulsion from the world in general than this one. And Jesus says that the love of money is the root of all evil. I bring that up to make the point that the devil is at work on this Earth, he is invisible, powerful, relentless and is more active in bringing down the plan of God (not yet fulfilled) than most Christians are at building it up.

Christianity for the most part has played right into the Devil’s hands because they’re more concerned with what the world thinks of them than they about what God thinks of them. Christianity is spiritual warfare. The Devil and his minions are our enemies but he is not all powerful and does not know everything. He can only act when God’s speaks. His temptation of Eve started with the words “Did God really say…?” That’s why we must have faith in what God Says, His Word, His Promises. The only time in the scripture where Satan comes to a man not in disguise is when he face Jesus in the wilderness. He knew no disguise would work on Jesus so he was straight up with him, no disguise. And what was the weapon he tried to use to dislodge Jesus from His path? The Word itself. God’s Word. He actually tried to catch the Word Incarnate out with the Word itself? If he had the moxy to do this then what do you think he’ll do with us?

Without Christ we would be doomed. Satan will not come along and tell you “Worship Satan”, he will come along and say “Please yourself, do what you want to do” which is the essence of sin, “All we like sheep have gone astray, we’ve turned, everyone, to our own way” Satan will win more souls than God will in the end but God is making up His number and He will fill that void left in Heaven by Satan and his Angels and will have the last laugh on the Devil.

JohnnyBravo

I just have one last question
Hasnt the church come out and said that adam and eve is not actually factual but more of a metaphor on morality...or was that just a misguided religion teacher of mine

yes they have , there is alot the church are coming out with. There will be alot more coming to i believe. The other thing will be that the devil doesnt exist .

Soul Winner

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

I just have one last question
Hasnt the church come out and said that adam and eve is not actually factual but more of a metaphor on morality...or was that just a misguided religion teacher of mine

I'm sure there are some churches that hold this position but whether you take the story as myth or reality the principle of the tree in the garden remains valid. It is God's right as The Boss to say "NO" to certain things. That's what made that tree so attractive especially to Eve. In the story Satan catches her looking at it and then begins his beguiling. I mean how big was the garden? Pretty big I bet and yet Satan tempted Eve while she was looking at this one tree. He didn’t force her to eat off it. He lied to her telling her that she’s be like God if she ate from it. Knowing good and evil and choosing the good and not the evil. Without God’s Spirit in us we cannot choose the good and not the evil. We can only be evil. The source of life (God Himself) is gone because of sin which in essence is doing our own will and not God’s will. It’s the same today. There’s very little faith in God’s Word these days. Only saved by works doctrine which again is the lie form the garden. That to know good and evil is to be like God. That’s why God gave the Law, to show man that he cannot do it and thus drive him to the statement of Romans 7. “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

JohnnyBravo

If the story is indeed based on morality or even if it is based on fact. Why is the tree there and why were they told they couldnt touch it, If god created adam and eve surely he knew of their aspirations, their faults, their curiosity for isnt curiosity the thing that makes us most human, to always ask why?
If the garden of eve was supposed to be paradise why was the devil allowed in there, surely god wouldnt allow him into his paradise knowing of his evil
So we have the apple tree (the forbidden fruit) and the tempter and we have an Omnipotent compassionate being who is supposed to care for humanity but has left all of these unanswered questions. Doesnt it seem like he set the whole thing up to be a test, a test with a predetermined result.
By Making Man Kind curious hasnt he in effect failed us before we even got started

Soul Winner

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

If the story is indeed based on morality or even if it is based on fact. Why is the tree there and why were they told they couldnt touch it, If god created adam and eve surely he knew of their aspirations, their faults, their curiosity for isnt curiosity the thing that makes us most human, to always ask why?
If the garden of eve was supposed to be paradise why was the devil allowed in there, surely god wouldnt allow him into his paradise knowing of his evil
So we have the apple tree (the forbidden fruit) and the tempter and we have an Omnipotent compassionate being who is supposed to care for humanity but has left all of these unanswered questions. Doesnt it seem like he set the whole thing up to be a test, a test with a predetermined result.
By Making Man Kind curious hasnt he in effect failed us before we even got started

Like I said God established His right to say No to one thing. The tree. Now you might not like that but that is besides the point. The reason God put the tree there was because He wanted to put it there. The reason He created Adam and Eve was because He wanted to create them. The reason He allowed Satan in the garden is because He wanted to allow him there. The lesson of the tree is that God can do whatever the heck He wants to do. He is God not anyone else. Now you can either like that or not but the fact remains, He is the Boss, the Big Gun, and so on. He is not asking you to accept it, He is telling you to. If you don't like that then that is your problem. If you don't like a God like that then that is your problem. It's either get on God's side or don't. And as He is the source of all life then it will be you that will die in the end not He.

Here's an interesting passage from Luke which I think fits here:

"There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:1-5

You see its all about attitude. The questions should not be putting God on trial rather they should be inward focused. Instead of judging God about how He operates we should look to ourselves and ask the question. Why does God let me hang around? as apposed to why does God let Satan hang around? God is not out there looking for frineds despite what the traditional view of Jesus is in this World, where they have Him knocking on our hearts door begging to be let in. He's not begging anyone to let Him in. You're the luckiest person in the world if He'll let you in. He is the one in control. We are lost not He. He came to seek and save that which was lost. How dare we put Him to test.

"To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest." Psa 95:7-11

The Garden of Eden was paradise in that Adam and Eve had everlasting life. The fact that Satan was there didn’t alter that fact. Satan had no hold over them until they believe his lies. Who knows how long they were there as measured by time before succumbing to the temptation and disobeying God's order. Yeah God knew they would sin, that's why Jesus is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. He was God's fail safe plan should they fail. The first type of Christ typified by the God Himself is when He slew the animal and allowed it’s blood to spill on the ground and then covered Adam and Eve's shame with its skins. This act is the beginning of all the types of Christ in the Old Testament. There are multitudes more but this was the first. Christ fulfilled them all when He Himself died for the sins of the world. Christ died to cover our shame.

JoeB-

As before it all comes down to Gods ego and his inability to provide any meaningful evidence which would begin to prove his existence. This allows humans to say anything they want, hence the concept of the Devil. The devil is an invention of humans who use him to explain away the problem of evil... the only problem is that God, as an omnipotent being, comes across as quite powerless in his own created universe. After all he only wants to be loved, adored, idolated, worshipped, obeyed etc etc... he created us solely to do these things and yet many people couldn't care less about his overbearing and controlling manner. Quite incompetent really, maybe this is his first universe...

Black Swan

If the Devil was omnipotent, do you think you would be asking this question on boards.ie?

Soul Winner

JoeBallantine wrote: »

As before it all comes down to Gods ego and his inability to provide any meaningful evidence which would begin to prove his existence. This allows humans to say anything they want, hence the concept of the Devil. The devil is an invention of humans who use him to explain away the problem of evil... the only problem is that God, as an omnipotent being, comes across as quite powerless in his own created universe. After all he only wants to be loved, adored, idolated, worshipped, obeyed etc etc... he created us solely to do these things and yet many people couldn't care less about his overbearing and controlling manner. Quite incompetent really, maybe this is his first universe...

If that is your real opinion then you're entitled to it. The Holy Spirit is actively working today and God's is making up His number. Just because this is invisible to the human eye does not mean that it is not happening. Just because you cannot see the devil's hand in history again doesn't make it untrue. Just because YOU are unable to see something does not mean its not there. The mistake you are making is thinking it all revolves around whether you believe it or not. If God is then He is. You believing or disbelieving in it is not going to change that fact. I bet if God Himself came down today and stood in front of you to show you He exists you would fob it off and just view it as another un-explained phenomenon.

You see there are people who God just doesn't want. Jesus spoke in parables because there where some that He didn't want to understand it. Paul wrote to the Romans explaining that those who don't give God glory because they fail to see His hand in just the created universe are turned over to forces greater than themselves which said turning over results in the sins as outlined on the latter part of Romans chapter 1. The judgment is not a result of the sins, the sins are result of God letting them go. How do you know that God doesn't keep the devil around to do His will? God could destroy the devil with a spit if He wanted. He keeps Him around because whether the Devil knows it or not he is part of God's plan to make up God’s number. But he (the devil) won't be around for ever. There is a lake of fire somewhere that God has prepared for Satan and his angels and anyone else not found written in the book of life. Once thrown in there you'll find out very fast how loving God really is. If you don't want to accept His Grace provided in Christ then that's you're problem. Don't go blaming God. I bet by the first millennial anniversary in the lake all who are there will have changed their tune about God. But by then it will be too late.

TheThing!

If either god or the devil were omnipotent, could either of them make a stone so heavy that they themselves could not lift it?

Soul Winner

TheThing! wrote: »

If either god or the devil were omnipotent, could either of them make a stone so heavy that they themselves could not lift it?

Yes, but they wouldn't be that stupid.

JohnnyBravo

But if he is such a kind and caring god why do it
Why play with people the way he has if this is supposed to be an actual event
If it is supposed to be a tale of morality, What is the lesson to be learned from this fable
Is it we are supposed to suppress our curiousity when told on command like a dog
Is it that god views us as something to be toyed with and when you dont obey him/her then punishment is administered as he sees fit

Vengeance

JohnnyBravo wrote: »

But if he is such a kind and caring god why do it
Why play with people the way he has if this is supposed to be an actual event
If it is supposed to be a tale of morality, What is the lesson to be learned from this fable
Is it we are supposed to suppress our curiousity when told on command like a dog
Is it that god views us as something to be toyed with and when you dont obey him/her then punishment is administered as he sees fit

*Lights up a cigarette*

Perhaps the answer to this is that God and the Devil merely had a falling out, and that they disagree over the way the world was made. Then God tarnished the Devil's name so people would not understand his cause.

Perhaps the Devil knows something humans do not. And so does God. I doubt an autocrat such as God would be beyond a degree of propaganda. If he even had a hand in writing the bible, much of which is logically human origin.

Also, Soulwinner, does your quote mean you are a deist? May i ask your religious affliation?

Again, i stress that i do not wish to offend anyone by playing 'devil's advocate' and saying this stuff. And unless the quotations are incredibly relevant and you don't interpret it in a tangential way then any argument against this mere musing thought will be met with a reasonable response.

I figured i'd put that disclaimer there because i have seen many a silly argument about beliefs erupt on these forums, and i have no desire to hear the 'wit' that emerges at such times.

PDN

TheThing! wrote: »

If either god or the devil were omnipotent, could either of them make a stone so heavy that they themselves could not lift it?

No. I believe the law of non-contradiction is binding even upon an omnipotent deity.

You have to love this quote: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." (Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher)

sdep

There was a program on Radio 4 a few years back looking at the origins of the Devil. You can hear it at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20031211.shtml

The program suggests a very limited role for the Devil in the Old Testament, where if he features at all, it's as an agent of God, doing His bidding. The 'tempter' of Jesus in the New Testament may be acting likewise. The panellists argue that, in Christianity, the Devil only really came into his own as a powerful rival force to God during medieval times, when the faithful needed an explanation for the dual crises of the Black Death and the Western Schism in Christianity.

Soul Winner

sdep wrote: »

The program suggests a very limited role for the Devil in the Old Testament, where if he features at all, it's as an agent of God, doing His bidding. The 'tempter' of Jesus in the New Testament may be acting likewise. The panellists argue that, in Christianity, the Devil only really came into his own as a powerful rival force to God during medieval times, when the faithful needed an explanation for the dual crises of the Black Death and the Western Schism in Christianity.

If that is the case then how come he (Satan) tunrs up in one of the oldeset Books of the Bible? The book of Job. This was written long before Jesus walked the Earth never mind medieval times. The panelists obviously didn't do their homework if this is how they argued.

PDN

sdep wrote: »

There was a program on Radio 4 a few years back looking at the origins of the Devil. You can hear it at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20031211.shtml

The program suggests a very limited role for the Devil in the Old Testament, where if he features at all, it's as an agent of God, doing His bidding. The 'tempter' of Jesus in the New Testament may be acting likewise. The panellists argue that, in Christianity, the Devil only really came into his own as a powerful rival force to God during medieval times, when the faithful needed an explanation for the dual crises of the Black Death and the Western Schism in Christianity.

So the Book of Revelation (along with other passages of the New Testament) was presumably written in medieval times as an explanation for the Black Death? Licence fee payers in the UK should demand a refund.

Soul Winner

Vengeance wrote: »

Also, Soulwinner, does your quote mean you are a deist? May i ask your religious affliation?

What quote are you referring to? If by Deist you mean do I believe in an all powerful creator that does not intervene in the universe then no I am not a Deist. My religious affiliations are to a Church in Ireland that I will not disclose here. All I will say is I am not Catholic as you have probably already gathered if you’ve read any of my previous posts.

sdep

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that is the case then how come he (Satan) tunrs up in one of the oldeset Books of the Bible? The book of Job. This was written long before Jesus walked the Earth never mind medieval times. The panelists obviously didn't do their homework if this is how they argued.

To be clearer, the speaker on this point (theologian Martin Palmer) does talk of the figure of Satan (taken from the Hebrew word for 'a stumbling block') who tempts Job. But he states that Satan here is acting under the control of God. He contrasts this view with what he claims is a later understanding of the Devil as a rival to God, reigning in Hell and commanding a host of demons.

Soul Winner

sdep wrote: »

To be clearer, the speaker on this point (theologian Martin Palmer) does talk of the figure of Satan (taken from the Hebrew word for 'a stumbling block') who tempts Job. But he states that Satan here is acting under the control of God. He contrasts this view with what he claims is a later understanding of the Devil as a rival to God.

In either case it puts to rest the theory that he (Satan) only came along in the medieval times doesn't it?

Satan does not have equal power with God. He can only do what God allows him to do. If he could do what he wanted then we'd have a different kind of devil now, for one we'd most likely be wiped out as this has been his desire from the start, so would God be wiped out if he could manage it. Satan has limited power, for instance he lost the battle with Michael the Arch Angel over the body of Moses as Jude points out in the New Testament. He has access back to the heavenlies as seen in the book of Job most probably due to the default of power given to him by the fall of Adam. Before that he was limited to the earth as he will be when Michael throws him out again as described in the book of Revelation. He is also there in Zechariah’s vision where he accuses Joshua the High Priests. In that vision God tells him to shut his mouth then clothes Joshua with new clothes. Since the ascension of Christ into Heaven in the New Testament Christ is now also there in his resurrected body, seated at the right hand of God making intercession for us sinners. He is the first born of many brethren. Satan can no longer accuse those in Christ because Christ paid the penalty for their sins. But only those who have Faith in this atoning work are covered. The ones who don’t accept this covering are still I their sins and Satan is still there accusing them. It is the role of the Church to preach the Gospel of Christ to the world, it's up to the world to either accept or reject it. Either way God has made provision and provided grace to be attatined through faith in the boold of Christ. You cannot say to God when you get there that you didn't know. It's been there to know for centuries.

sdep

PDN wrote: »

So the Book of Revelation (along with other passages of the New Testament) was presumably written in medieval times as an explanation for the Black Death? Licence fee payers in the UK should demand a refund.

Oddly, Revelation didn't get a mention, though apocryphal books describing Satan in Hell are touched on.

In defence of In Our Time (one of the crown jewels of Radio 4), I think the main aim was to show how believers at different times have broadly viewed the Devil, rather than carry out a close scriptural analysis.

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.

JohnnyBravo

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

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.

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.

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???

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?