Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

If makind had, from the beginning, followed God's instructions then I see no reason why these sources of energy could not have been utilised fairly quickly and contributed to our living in the best of all possible worlds.

Do you really believe that the above is a reasonable assertion?!

What instructions did we get exactly?

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

Perhaps PDN is joining the young earth creationists

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

There is also the fact that God never told us how to do this (the Bible is not a science book)

Well, I gather that God was in direct contact before that. Anyway, while I agree with PDN in his overall definition of perfection, I'm not sure that the notion that a harmonised world before the fall makes sense. For instance, surely somebody would be caught on the hop by a falling coconut cracking open their head or an asteroid smashing into the planet.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Nothing you have posted comes close to demonstrating otherwise.

Nothing we say can convince you otherwise though, can it? And beside the point, you make most of your argument about perfection with analogies. I thought you would of known that that is one of the basic mistakes with an argument? If it applies to the teacher, it doesn't mean it'll apply to God.

rockbeer

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Nothing we say can convince you otherwise though, can it? And beside the point, you make most of your argument about perfection with analogies.

Flawed analogies at that:

PDN wrote:

Let's go back to our perfect teacher and her scribbled diagram. I think it is wrong to say that the teacher, by producing a diagram that is less than perfect (in the sense that we can conceive of a more refined diagram) has therefore failed to achieve perfection in all that she does.

It is not wrong to say she has failed to achieve perfection in all that she does. On the contrary, it's quite correct. She has achieved her purpose perfectly, but she has failed to draw a perfect diagram. In this she has merely attained adequacy, not perfection. It doesn't necessarily matter to the teacher (although it matters greatly in the case of god), but it is manifestly not total perfection.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Flawed analogies at that:




It is not wrong to say she has failed to achieve perfection in all that she does. On the contrary, it's quite correct. She has achieved her purpose perfectly, but she has failed to draw a perfect diagram. In this she has merely attained adequacy, not perfection. It doesn't necessarily matter to the teacher (although it matters greatly in the case of god), but it is manifestly not total perfection.

No, that is untue.

The teacher did not try to draw a perfect drawing. She tried to teach the concept of Pythagoras' Theorem - somrthing that she perfectly achieved.

If a perfect God attempted to make something else that was perfect, but failed, then that would indeed render Him imperfect. But that is not what happened.

Anyway, keep going round in circles if you wish.

kelly1

I'm deliberately staying out of this. You just know it's going to go round and round long after the cows have come home. :pac:

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Nothing we say can convince you otherwise though, can it? And beside the point, you make most of your argument about perfection with analogies. I thought you would of known that that is one of the basic mistakes with an argument? If it applies to the teacher, it doesn't mean it'll apply to God.

And would you like to explain, without condemning yourself for hypocrisy, why you suddenly object to me using analogies in this thread yet you raise no objection to the numerous atheist posters (including your good self in post #117) who have used analogies to make arguments?

If it applies to me then it does mean that it applies to you as well.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that mankind has been around for about 500,000 years, suffering at the foot of mother nature, and God's "instructions" materialised about 4,000 years ago, and then only to a select few, it is hard to see how we could have been utilizing these energy sources from the beginning by following God's instructions.

You are confusing God's instructions long after the Fall with the instructions given to humanity before the Fall.

There is also the fact that God never told us how to do this (the Bible is not a science book)

That's rather irrelevant since I wasn't talking about the Bible.

Dades wrote:

Do you really believe that the above is a reasonable assertion?!

Absolutely.

Dades wrote:

What instructions did we get exactly?

Unfortunately, due to the Fall, we don't know what those instructions were, or would have been if they had continued uninterrupted by man's disobedience.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

No, that is untue.

The teacher did not try to draw a perfect drawing. She tried to teach the concept of Pythagoras' Theorem - somrthing that she perfectly achieved.

If a perfect God attempted to make something else that was perfect, but failed, then that would indeed render Him imperfect. But that is not what happened.

Anyway, keep going round in circles if you wish.

Are you deliberatly missing the point? Using analogies is pointless in an argument, so I won't. If God created something that's imperfect, willingly or not, then he isn't perfect in every possible way. If you're just looking at the level of perfection of his productions, and one of them isn't perfect, that means in that one single respect he isn't perfect; as all of his productions aren't perfect. It doesn't matter about adequacy, it matters about perfection. This is the most cyclical debate ever, time to let the perfection argument go?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

And would you like to explain, without condemning yourself for hypocrisy, why you suddenly object to me using analogies in this thread yet you raise no objection to the numerous atheist posters (including your good self in post #117) who have used analogies to make arguments?

If it applies to me then it does mean that it applies to you as well.

Yes, you're right. I did use one, but I used it before I realised how pedantic this argument would get. Basing an argument totally on an analogy is pointless, using an analogy to reiterate your point is, relatively, ok.

santing

I know I am going way back to post #125 here, but I think this post shows the impasse JammyDodger's God is in...

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I can't see myself getting anywhere with the absolute perfection must lead to perfection argument. So I'm going to persue another, related line of argument with regards to perfection.

You claim that God is absolutely perfect, in all respects. Yes? I don’t think we’ll have any argument whatsoever about that. You must also concede that absolute perfection entails entirety, wholeness, completeness in all possible senses, at all times. A perfect entity is free of deprivation whatsoever, and therefore lacks nothing, ergo, wants and needs nothing.

A perfect entity cannot have any needs to satisfy, if it does, it surely cannot be perfect. It is a contradiction to say a perfect being has needs or desires. If it has needs or desires, how can it be perfect, as it lacks entirety, completeness, totality. So, I argue, by definition, a perfect being cannot have needs or desires, without a need or desire there can be no purpose (dictionary.com’s definition of purpose: “an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.”; it follows that if a being has no needs or desires, it cannot have an aim, or a goal).

How can you reconcile this with your constant allegations that God has purpose for us all? Either God has no purpose, or he is imperfect.

With the conclusion "Either God has no purpose, or he is imperfect" I think this definition of the perfection of God is finished.

If God has no purpose, and a perfect act has no purpose than the term perfection becomes nonsense, as we must measure the perfection against the purpose, if their is no purpose, there is no perfection.

It is part of the Christian "Mysteries" that God who was perfect and complete in eternity, created time and this universe in which He longs to have fellowship with human-beings, in which He would produce the Church, which is Christ's body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23 ESV). This is all "according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11 ESV)

=====================================
But oh, that God would speak and open his lips to you, and that he would tell you the secrets of wisdom! For he is manifold in understanding. Know then that God exacts of you less than your guilt deserves. "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? It is higher than heaven--what can you do? Deeper than Sheol--what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea.
(Job 11:5-9 ESV)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You are confusing God's instructions long after the Fall with the instructions given to humanity before the Fall.

Possibly. Could you explain what God's instructions before the Fall were, and who "humanity" was before the Fall? And when and where did the Fall take place?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm deliberately staying out of this. You just know it's going to go round and round long after the cows have come home. :pac:

It isn't going "round and round" The Christian side don't have an answer (none that has been put forward yet), nor do they apparently have a way to attack the arguments being put forward, so they are trying to argue something else. PDN's padded cell analogy is an example. Every time the argument is brought back to what the atheists are actually pointing out, it flies off again on some other tangent.

There are more straw men in this thread than a field in Idaho. I would have far more respect if someone just said I don't have an answer to that, yes it is certainly a problem and is troubling, I certainly understand why it would lead someone to conclude atheism is correct, but I continue to believe for reasons unconnected to this particular discussion

What is frustrating is when people try and twist it into not being a problem, through straw men and nonsense and the suggestion that the atheists are just being argumentative with no real substance behind what they are saying.

Zombrex

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

This is the most cyclical debate ever, time to let the perfection argument go?

Again the perfection argument falls down almost at the first hurdle, for a variety of reasons.

For a start, as the Christians themselves are fond of pointing out, we lack the ability to judge God. No one can determine that God actually is perfect, so even if God is a perfect being such knowledge is unknowable to us and as such out of our reach.

The assertion that God is perfect can be therefore ignored, since by definition no one can actually determine this in any measurable fashion. This includes by the saw God telling us he is perfect. Again the truth of this statement is unknowable and should be ignored. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying, he might believe himself to be perfect and be wrong, he might not exist at all etc etc

That is before one gets into an argument about what we even mean by perfect, which again falls down because (again by definition) we can't define the perfection of God, we can't define what that would mean irrespective of whether it is true or not.

The position that God is perfect because he is better than anything else that could exist is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Again the perfection argument falls down almost at the first hurdle, for a variety of reasons.

For a start, as the Christians themselves are fond of pointing out, we lack the ability to judge God. No one can determine that God actually is perfect, so even if God is a perfect being such knowledge is unknowable to us and as such out of our reach.

The assertion that God is perfect can be therefore ignored, since by definition no one can actually determine this in any measurable fashion. This includes by the saw God telling us he is perfect. Again the truth of this statement is unknowable and should be ignored. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying, he might believe himself to be perfect and be wrong, he might not exist at all etc etc

That is before one gets into an argument about what we even mean by perfect, which again falls down because (again by definition) we can't define the perfection of God, we can't define what that would mean irrespective of whether it is true or not.

The position that God is perfect because he is better than anything else that could exist is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless.

I totally agree with that post. I agree we can draw no conclusions about gods perfection, nor are we fit to measure perfection itself.

But, I can't see the Christians agreeing to what you've said. They'll just dismiss it with some, what we judge to be, nonsensical statement.

Mal-Adjusted

This thread is going nowhere. FAIL!

Zombrex

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

This thread is going nowhere. FAIL!

I'm about ready to call it for the atheists ... :P

Mal-Adjusted

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm about ready to call it for the atheists ... :P

there's a shocker...:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

there's a shocker...:rolleyes:

lol :cool:

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm about ready to call it for the atheists ... :P

I'd call it for you in relation to the perfection arguement, but jammy's posts keep undoing any good your posts are doing!

Biro

Biro wrote: »

I'd call it for you in relation to the perfection arguement, but jammy's posts keep undoing any good your posts are doing!

Oh do they? I guess I'll have to refrain from posting about anything, lest I undo the good work of other posters.

Call Me Jimmy

put them claws away ladies!

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Again the perfection argument falls down almost at the first hurdle, for a variety of reasons.

For a start, as the Christians themselves are fond of pointing out, we lack the ability to judge God. No one can determine that God actually is perfect, so even if God is a perfect being such knowledge is unknowable to us and as such out of our reach.

The assertion that God is perfect can be therefore ignored, since by definition no one can actually determine this in any measurable fashion. This includes by the saw God telling us he is perfect. Again the truth of this statement is unknowable and should be ignored. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying, he might believe himself to be perfect and be wrong, he might not exist at all etc etc

That is before one gets into an argument about what we even mean by perfect, which again falls down because (again by definition) we can't define the perfection of God, we can't define what that would mean irrespective of whether it is true or not.

The position that God is perfect because he is better than anything else that could exist is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless.

In that case, Wicknight, you have just admitted defeat and the moderator calls it for the Christians. :P

Let me explain. And hopefully my explanation will help us to understand why so often philosophersw suck at science and scientists suck at philosophy.

Arguments will go on forever between atheists and theists where one group, in order to be argumentative, will attack the beliefs of the other. As we know from previous threads the issue of measurability and scientific proof etc comes up often. Such arguments are inconclusive as many things turn out to be demonstrably true which could not, at some previous stage in history, be measured or proved (eg black holes), and also because there is a huge difference between something not being proven as true and it being proven to be false (not proven /= not guilty).

The whole point of the benevolent yet omnipotent God that permits evil in the world debate is that it tries a different tack. It involves leaving aside the issues of proof and measurability while atheists attempt to demonstrate, as an a priori argument, that the belief system of Christianity is inherently self-contradictory.

This is why this is one of the classic philosophical arguments against faith. If it can genuinely be demonstrated that the Christian God is a logical contradiction, indeed a logical impossibility, then the entire case for Christianity is seriously weakened. Therefore the purpose of theodicy (justification of God) is to counter this attack. If Christians can demonstrate that other areas of their belief system provide a plausible explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by a benevolent omnipotent God then the a priori argument falls flat on its face. However, if the atheists then start attacking those other aspects of Christian belief on the basis that they cannot be proved or measured then that is, in itself, an admission that they cannot win this argument on a priori grounds alone. Again, in that case, the a priori argument falls flat on its face.

Wicknight, by trying to dismiss something (perfection) purely on the grounds of the difficulties in defining it, or its immeasurability, you are in effect admitting that you cannot make an a priori case against the Christian God.

In fact, you have disqualified yourself from any meaningful participation in this debate. The very arguments you use to dismiss the concept of perfection (It cannot be defined in a measurable fashion. It is empty because we don't know about everything that could exist so again such a statement is worthless) can equally be applied to the concepts of omnipotence and to being all-loving. Therefore, it would be the rankest hypocrisy to mount an a priori challenge to Christian belief with an argument alleging contradiction between two divine attributes which you yourself admit as "empty" as "worthless" and as "incapable of being defined".

In fact, your behaviour in this debate is uncannily similar to that of another poster in another thread on this board:
1. The Argument in that thread is that the Genesis account of Creation is entirely consistent with the physical phenomena we can see in the earth. Therefore, leaving aside issues of faith, it is claimed to be possible to say that we can argue, by scientific means alone, for Young earth Creationism.
2. When faced with with challenges a certain poster abandons the grounds of the original argument (scientific grounds alone) and responds by quoting Scripture.
3. That same poster then pronounces himself the winner of the debate and claims to have confounded all his opponents.

Dades

I never put much truck in the whole perfection debate tbh. Too much semantics.

Can we get back to natural disasters now? *


* Actually no, it's the weekend and we all have better things to do!

toiletduck

Dades wrote: »

* Actually no, it's the weekend and we all have better things to do!

What? Am I the only one house bound (i.e. internet day) by manflu?!

Biro

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Oh do they? I guess I'll have to refrain from posting about anything, lest I undo the good work of other posters.

Only in the last few posts on this thread!

Biro

Biro wrote: »

Only in the last few posts on this thread!

Well, sure whatever your opinion is, you're entitled to it. I don't think I've damaged the argument, I can't see how I have.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As we know from previous threads the issue of measurability and scientific proof etc comes up often. Such arguments are inconclusive as many things turn out to be demonstrably true which could not, at some previous stage in history, be measured or proved (eg black holes)

I wish I was a moderator, I would ban anyone putting "science" and "prove" together in the same sentence. :pac:

Arguments about scientific theories are always inconclusive because, as you are no doubt aware, science doesn't prove things.

Nothing has ever turned out to be demonstrably true. That is a misrepresentation of science, something which, again, I'm sure you are aware of, or at the very least should be aware of considering the vast amount of times this has been explained on this forum.

PDN wrote: »

It involves leaving aside the issues of proof and measurability while atheists attempt to demonstrate, as an a priori argument, that the belief system of Christianity is inherently self-contradictory.

No, actually that isn't it at all.

The a prior assertion is that God is perfect and good (something you can't determine through experience), God created the universe (something you can't determine through experience), God must have created the universe for a righteous purpose (something you can't determine through experience)

The atheist position is that these a prior assertions are contradicted by experience. The atheists are making a call to experience, rather than a prior assertion.

PDN wrote: »

Therefore the purpose of theodicy (justification of God) is to counter this attack.

No, you have it the wrong way around.

You guys put forward assertions that a) you can't know to begin with and b) are contradicted by evidence. You then introduce convoluted answers to get around objections to this.

PDN wrote: »

If Christians can demonstrate that other areas of their belief system provide a plausible explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by a benevolent omnipotent God then the a priori argument falls flat on its face.

Not in the slightest. I'm surprised at such an assertion from you PDN

Christians can provide any explanation to any problem that an atheist comes up with their assertions. They can provide this because anyone can provide any explanation to anything. It is limited only by their imagination.

The fact that you can come up with an explanation is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is if you can demonstrate these as actually having any bearing on explaining stuff.

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight, by trying to dismiss something (perfection) purely on the grounds of the difficulties in defining it, or its immeasurability, you are in effect admitting that you cannot make an a priori case against the Christian God.

I'm not trying to make a priori case against God. I'm saying the a priori case for Gods existence falls down.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not trying to make a priori case against God. I'm saying the a priori case for Gods existence falls down.

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread is all about Mr Pudding's citing of the a priori argument of the existence of evil in a world created by a benevolent omnipotent God, and the Christian defence of free will.

No-one, as far as I am aware, has tried to make an a priori case for God's existence in this thread at all.

Now stop wasting all of our time. :mad:

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Now stop wasting all of our time.

Indeed ... do you actually have something you want to discuss with me or would you like to continue inventing straw men to beat? :rolleyes:

As for being in the wrong thread PDN you seem to have consistently made comments that don't relate to what anyone is actually saying in this thread (your little rant earlier being a prime example)

So I can't help feel perhaps you are in the wrong thread and would prefer to be in a thread that you would find easier to argue in.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight, by trying to dismiss something (perfection) purely on the grounds of the difficulties in defining it, or its immeasurability, you are in effect admitting that you cannot make an a priori case against the Christian God.

Perhaps I should clarify this in case someone reading just reads PDN's post and assumes this is actually what I'm trying to do rather than reading my own posts and seeing that this is just a straw man to beat me with.

I'm not dismissing perfection. I'm dismissing our ability to determine perfection.

I'm saying that the statement "God is perfect" is indeterminable by humans. It might be true, but to determine it is true one would have to be a god (ie have access to all knowledge about God) in order to assess every aspect of God to determine He is actually perfect. Interestingly enough this point is often made by Christians themselves when someone dares to say they don't think God is perfect, the idea that we lack the knowledge to judge God imperfect, right before the Christians go back judging God to be perfect.

Such an assertion as "God is perfect" is ultimately pointless for a human to make since they can't possible know it is true.

The second point, stemming from that, is that it is impossible to define perfect in relation to God anyway because we have nothing to judge it by, no standards to determine it. We don't know what "perfect" is in relation to a god. We don't have an imperfect god to compare God to and say he is better.

Neither of these points dismiss perfection. God may exist and may well be perfect. But no human can determine this so it is rather irrelevant from the point of view of humans discussing stuff with other humans.

I'm always fascinated by the focus on this forum about what can exist, largely at the expense of the question of does it exist and can you determine this.

It is almost as if people think that if something can exist (and lets be honest everything imaginable could theoretically exist) this is some how the end of it and we can all go back to happily worshipping what ever we like to believe is real.

God could exist. To me the far more interesting question is can we determine he does and can we determine anything about him in any meaningful way.

This thread is a response to assertions about God's existence and his properties made by Christians. It is a response to those assertions and the purpose I assume (Mr Pudding correct me if I'm wrong) is to raise issues about potential flaws in those assertions.

So I don't in anyway mind if PDN thinks there are flaws and problems with what I'm saying. But it would be polite if he could stick to what I'm actually saying for a minute. We might actually get some where then.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

So I don't in anyway mind if PDN thinks there are flaws and problems with what I'm saying. But it would be polite if he could stick to what I'm actually saying for a minute. We might actually get some where then.

I'm polite enough to discuss the issue of theodicy which is the subject of this thread. I see little merit in discussing your off-topic rants just because you've lost the real debate.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I see little merit in discussing your off-topic rants just because you've lost the real debate.

you think my posts are off-topic rants of such little merit you see little point in discussing them which is why you keep replying to them with big long posts (which include things I didn't even say) even the ones not directed to you specifically ... ok then, glad we cleared that up then.

Moving on.

The perfection of God is central to the issue of theodicy because the "problem of evil" is only a problem when one asserts that God is both perfect and good. Given that it is not possible to actually determine either of those statements it isn't really a problem if one simply assumes that God could be imperfect or could be evil.

To me theodicy is a useful process, not as an argument against God, more as a demonstration of how much religious people profess knowledge of things they can't possible determine are true.

The concept of perfection and theodicy are inextricably linked. I definitely don't see any problem in bringing up the issue of perfection when talking about theodicy; I don't see how it could considered an "off topic rant".

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

The concept of perfection and theodicy are inextricably linked. I definitely don't see any problem in bringing up the issue of perfection when talking about theodicy; I don't see how it could considered an "off topic rant".

There's no problem with bringing up the issue of perfection. We have been discussing the issue of perfection for several pages of posts.

It is an off topic rant if a poster is asserting that perfection (and by implication omnipotence and being all-loving) are empty and meaningless terms. Such a claim, if admitted, effectively ends the debate in favour of the Christians since, if such terms are meaningless, they cannot be used in an a priori argument against Christianity.

Just think about this for a moment, and you will see that it is self evidently true. The theodicy argument is essentially saying that A+B cannot in any circumstances equal C (where A stands for God's perfect power, B for his perfect love and C stands for a universe where evil exists). If you claim that A or B are empty and meaningless terms then you can no longer argue that A+B≠ C. Therefore the Christian has no need to respond to a meaningless and empty argument and the debate has been effectively been conceded by the atheist side.

Are any posters out there interested in discussing theodicy any further? the questions posed by Mr Pudding in his OP are interesting and, at least in the days when I was at College, were considered one of the most pressing issues in our Philosophy of religion class.

Mr Pudding raised the issue of how can the existence of evil in the world be reconciled with the Christian belief in an all-loving yet all-powerful God. He also challenged the standard Christian defence of free will by asserting that this limits God's power. There have been good contributions from either side of the debate, and some bracing disagreements, and I for one would be interested in seeing how that discussion continues.

If anyone else genuinely wants to discuss the separate issue of evidence for Christian beliefs then I suggest they start a new thread rather than derailing this one.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote: »

I wish I was a moderator, I would ban anyone putting "science" and "prove" together in the same sentence. :pac:

Careful what you wish for:P

MrPudding

Noel brings brought up an interesting point in Darragh's "moving to CoI" thread.

kelly1 wrote: »

The immaculate conception means that Mary was humanly conceived without any stain of original sin and was so filled with God's grace that she never sinned.

I know that giving birth to god/son of god/holy spirit was a great honour, but is it not a bit unfair that Mary had no free will?

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

Noel brings brought up an interesting point in Darragh's "moving to CoI" thread.


I know that giving birth to god/son of god/holy spirit was a great honour, but is it not a bit unfair that Mary had no free will?

MrP

If it were true.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

If it were true.

On a related question to MrPuddings: Had Mary a choice in the conception of Jesus, or was it predestined (Even if you don't know, just your opinion counts)?

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

On a related question to MrPuddings: Had Mary a choice in the conception of Jesus, or was it predestined (Even if you don't know, just your opinion counts)?

It sounds like it was pretty much presented to her as a fait accompli. But who knows, if she had stamped her feet and objected enough maybe He could have picked someone else?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

It sounds like it was pretty much presented to her as a fait accompli. But who knows, if she had stamped her feet and objected enough maybe He could have picked someone else?

But, perhaps Mary was the only person born immaculately; that's what we're lead to believe. If she was, that would indicate that God had her in mind all along, wouldn't it? And, if she was the only person born immaculately, perhaps there could have been no one else who could have taken her place?

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

But, perhaps Mary was the only person born immaculately; that's what we're lead to believe.

It's certainly not what I was lead to believe, but then I get my beliefs from the Bible. Probably better to take this up with a Roman Catholic.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is an off topic rant if a poster is asserting that perfection (and by implication omnipotence and being all-loving) are empty and meaningless terms.

And as soon as you have found that poster I'm sure we can all gather around and mock him for this :rolleyes:

The point I raised, which you apparently ignored for your far easier to argue against straw man, is not that perfection is meaningless, but that the state of perfection is unknowable

This doesn't stop someone making a prior arguments for or against a perfect God, but it certainly does stop anyone actually determining if God is in fact perfect

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

This doesn't stop someone making a prior arguments for or against a perfect God, but it certainly does stop anyone actually determining if God is in fact perfect

And nobody, as as I am aware, has said anything about determining if God is in fact perfect.

As a moderator I'm asking you for the last time to please stop this off topic nonsense. If you want to engage in the theodicy debate then do so. If you want to start a thread about determining if God is perfect then do so and, if others want to debate that, then they may respond.

This thread is not about how we determine if God is in fact perfect (or all-loving, or omnipotent). It is about whether those qualities are reconcilable with the existence of evil in the world, and whether the free will defence is, in fact, a denial of omnipotence by placing limits on God.

sukikettle

Mary wasn't immaculate...that is a catholic doctrine

sukikettle

sukikettle wrote: »

Mary wasn't immaculate...that is a catholic doctrine

On what grounds can you claim she wasn't?

Zombrex

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

On what grounds can you claim she wasn't?

Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception of Jesus. This is mentioned in the Bible. The "Immaculate Conception" is the RCC doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without the "stain" of original sin. God provided her with grace, grace the rest of us lack due to the Fall.

This is never mentioned in the Bible. The Catholic doctrine originated in the 9th century.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

This is never mentioned in the Bible. The Catholic doctrine originated in the 9th century.

Oh right right, I've just always assumed that it was mentioned in the Bible somewhere or other. Thanks for the clarification.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As a moderator I'm asking you for the last time to please stop this off topic nonsense. If you want to engage in the theodicy debate then do so. If you want to start a thread about determining if God is perfect then do so and, if others want to debate that, then they may respond.

I have no interested in engaging in a debate about the perfection of God, particularly when I have already taken the position that the perfection of God is unknowable.

JammyDodger (after debating the nature of the perfection of God for 5 pages with, among other posters, your good self) made the comment that this is debate was simply going around in circles. I posted one post in reply to him that said yes it was, and that ultimately such a debate is pointless anyway because it is impossible for a human, any human, to determine if God actually is perfect or not.

Apparently this comment was so off topic that it required far more than the usual PM or red card caution from a moderator, but in fact a 590 word post debating the points I had mentioned and how they damn the atheist argument completely.

In fact it was such an infringement it required a 590 word post debating what was actually a fictitious straw man version of the points I had made that didn't actually contain my points at all but instead contained a total misrepresentation of it, along with a comment that I was behaving like JC on the Creationist thread (given your posts in the Creationist thread I'm not sure if that was a complement or not), and the assertion that I either suck a science or philosophy.

Now while most other reasonable posters would have determined from such a post that the topic was clearly, to the moderators mind, off topic I am apparently pretty dumb, because when the moderator of the Christian forum proceeds to debate with other posters about the nature of God's perfection, and then proceeds to post a long, detailed, and some what insulting reply to my brief comments on the subject, I didn't realise that this was him in fact warning me and everyone else that the issue and my comments were off topic and not to be discussed at all.

So, in my stupidity I responded to this long and detailed post, pointing out what I believed were the flaws in it and, among other things, that he was totally misrepresenting my position to arrive at a conclusion I did not feel was warranted.

The moderator obviously took pity on my spectacular stupidity at this point by explicitly declaring that discussion of this was off topic (he did some what confuse the matter by declaring the exact opposite here but I'm a bit dumb so I'm sure the reason for that was clear to everyone else but not me)

This topic (as Mr Pudding has no doubt been complaining to PDN already) is nothing to do with the issue of the perfection of God and my comments that came at the end of a long discussion about the perfection of God were totally off topic and irrelevant to anything anyone else were discussing.

I humbly apologise to Mr Pudding for dragging his thread so off topic, and humbly hope he can forgive me. I'm sure his comments have caused him great annoyance.

Now, with this mess behind us we can get back to the issues at hand. What were we discussing? ... oh yes, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, a topic quite relevant and important to the existence of evil in the world and the limitations of God's power ...