quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent.
Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him.
Are you sure you've read around this?

Sorry, I still don't see the connection that all powerful has to do with free will, all knowing yes, all powerful no.

Something being all powerful precludes anything else having free will, because if anything else has free will than its power over that is limited.
Simple, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent.
Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him.
Are you sure you've read around this?

Sorry, I still don't see the connection that all powerful has to do with free will, all knowing yes, all powerful no.

Something being all powerful precludes anything else having free will, because if anything else has free will than its power over that is limited.
Simple, no?

Okay but I think we may be talking about two different things. When think of omnipotence I think of abundant dynamic energy but you seem to be talking about a type of "rulership" or as you say "power" over another and to me that is not included in omnipotence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence.

In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence.

In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership.

Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence.

In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership.

Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican.

How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse".

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence.

In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership.

Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican.

How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse".

What have you published on the subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I'm afraid that the "rulership/power" thing is the definition of omnipotence that is traditionally used by the church and its religious philosophers. I might be being unfair over this, but I think that's a bit more relevant to any argument about the nature of theodicy and why God is massively underperforming in His job than new-agey euphemisms.

Not being a member of "the church" and not being a big fan of its "religious philosophers" I wasn't aware of their deciding to change the meaning of omnipotence to rulership or to include rulership in the meaning of omnipotence.

In any case, I still don't see how God's rulership and Free Will are contradictory. Why would anyone believe that God would have to rule every facet of a person's life or even want to. God allowing someone to choose what shirt to wear rather than choosing for him does not diminish God's rulership.

Tell you what: name me an exponent of the theodicy excuse who wasn't a member of an established church, and then we can leave the churches that produced Augustine, Irenaeus, Leibniz, Weber, Kempf and Hick (who converted to some evangelical heresy or other, but was raised Catholic). Hard as it may be to credit, most of those who make excuses for God tend to be either Catholic or Anglican.

How about me, I'm neither Catholic or Anglican, although I wouldn't exactly call myself an "exponent of the theodicy excuse".

What have you published on the subject?

Are you going to discuss this or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
If all you're going to do is avoid answering any points that are made by insisting that words don't mean what they're normally agreed to mean if them meaning that doesn't suit your argument, then there isn't a lot of point in my bothering, is there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

If all you're going to do is avoid answering any points that are made by insisting that words don't mean what they're normally agreed to mean if them meaning that doesn't suit your argument, then there isn't a lot of point in my bothering, is there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Those who tell me I need to have a savior, those that denigrate with such as, I lead a desolate and hateful life because I feel I don't need a savior. Those that continue to contend that I (and others) are somehow morally or socially defective because I/we are non-believers.

That's who and what they do that at times...makes me mad. In fact, in my lifetime, it is the believers that get mad at me for...not believing, just like them.