Are Christians Re-defining Omnipotance to Avoid Alledged "Incoherence of the Concept?"

Atheists claim that Christians have re-defined omnipotence because God of the OT appears not to be omnipotent and becuase Christians supposedly re-define in terms other than doing anything one can think of or name.


Originally Posted by themuzicman

Yes. In fact, it is a denial of omnipotence to say that God cannot create something that is able to act independent of His control.

In the same way it is a denial of omnipotence to say "he" can't control it.

Backup

Let's face it. The Christian God is not omnipotent. This is why Christians have had to redefine omnipotent to mean something less.

Skylurker (same thread)

would it be denial of God's omnipotence to say that God cannot create something more powerful than itself?

Austine Cline:
About.com, "God is Omnipotent
what does it mean to be 'all powerful.'

Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously. Such a God could be capable of informing humans of certain requirements for attaining heaven and avoiding hell but actually holding to entirely different requirements without ever actually lying.

Webster's isn't much help but it's better than letting atheists assert opinions.


webster's online

1

often capitalized : almighty 1

2

: having virtually unlimited authority or influence omnipotent ruler>

Notice "virtually unlimited" so it means almost but not quite. It also says authority of influence not the ability to do nonsense.


Wallace Smith
How is God Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
extracted from God and the
"Three 'O's in the Living Church News, Sep-Dec 2007).
2007

This is, perhaps, the easiest of the three to answer: Yes, God is omnipotent! There is even a verse that, in the King James Version and New King James Version, uses this very word: “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).

The Greek word translated as “Omnipotent” here is pantokrator, meaning “All-ruling” or (as it is more frequently translated) “Almighty.” When we say God is “Almighty,” we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: “And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’” (Luke 4:6).

So what we see here is that it really refers (at least in Bible) not to unlimited ability to do anything but to authority over everything. Pantokrator, doesn't so much mean the ability to do anything as ruler over all things. 3841. pantokrator, pan-tok-rat'-ore; from G3956 and G2904; the all-ruling, i.e. God (as absolute and universal sovereign):--Almighty, Omnipotent. Strong's Dictionary (Greek Lexicon).

What's really happening is Christians are not re-defining it but they are talking it back from atheists who butchered the meaning of the word. Atheists distorted the meaning so they could ask question like those Cline is asking, not meant to encourage real learning but merely an overture to mocking. Questions like the one about the rock are merely there to create controversy and to create the sense that 'O here's something Christians can't answer." The argument is based upon taking omnipotent to mean "God can do nonsense.

That is no better than saying "if god can smell next Thursday then he's not all powerful so he can't be God." But wait, days of the week don't have smells. It's it a bit silly to require God to smell days of the week. "O no he's supposed to be able to do everything or anything." who says? where does it say God can do nonsense things that are logical absurdities? This is why I say that god is limited to logical necessity. Something that is not logically necessary in the linguistic sense is not a valid concept. Husbands can't be unmarried men. Squares can't be circular.

Many modern theologians no longer use the omnis they speak of "maximal greatness." I vacilate between that opion and just arguing what I'm arguing now that a ture understanding of the term omnipotance (understood as pantokrator) need not include the doing of nonsense.


another issue some have raised is that of free will. If God allows free will then he's limited, if he doesn't then it's not free. The answer is obvious. this is anther attempt to foment difficulty. Voluntary limitation is not a limit on his ability but his own idea. That's not a drain on omnipotence.

Between a Rock and A Hard Place: Toward the Last Battlefield

"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"
is the fourteenth episode of the third
season of Star Trek: The Original Series.
The episode guest-stars Lou Antonio
and Frank Gorshin,



I'd like to say good by to a bunch of my followers.I was thrilled when it hit 38. Too bad I'm about to lose a bunch. The reason is I do every time I talk about politics. A bunch of people get use to following the blog based upon the things I say that are gung ho for the faith, they just assume I share their politics. when they find out I'm a liberal they say "o you spawn of satan I thought where a Christian! You are out doing evil deeds like raising my taxes!" The picture of the yellow dog in the right side bar is there for political reasons (in Texas parlance I am what is called "a Yellow dog" meaning, I'm a democrat and I would vote democrat if they ran a yellow dog. The fact that that particular dog looks just exactly like my dog that I had as a kid and loved so much, "Mutt," is merely icing on the cake).

I must ask that you read what I say before you go. Don't worry it's not a big diatribe about republicans. It's really about Christian fundamentalism and atheism. Christian fundies and and so called "New atheists" (I call "Dawkamentalists" or "Dawkies") are book ends. One is heads one is tails. They are both fundamentalists. We (the American people) are rapidly becoming trapped between two waring camps of extremes that some how resemble each other closely. When I say that I am reminded of the star Trek where the two guys were black on one side and white on the other. Their waring camps killed off their planet. They still fought to the death. I still remember the great eye opening scene where Frank Gorshin (Batman's "Riddler") says "I am white on the left side, and the other guy is white on the right side." Light bulb time, good analogy for showing the stupidity of racism. We the audience (like the crew of the enterprise) for the most part never noticed the difference which to them was paramount. We two have two waring camps in the religious end of things. Although it's a pretty lopsided struggle.

Recently the head of the American Atheist organization, Al Stefanelli, called for the "eradication of Christian fundamentalism." He spoke in very strident and angry terms, clearly seeking to agitate the situation.
Catholic Blog Creative Minority Report

Stefanelli wrote at Atheists.org:

The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along. They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.

They want us to die.

Their interpretation of the Bible and Koran are such that there is no other course of action but to kill the infidel, and if anyone believes otherwise they are only fooling themselves. It is not just in the best interests of atheists to be intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam, but it is also in the best interest of mainstream believers within these faiths, as well. Moderates and even Progressives who stand in support of extremists just because there is a claim to the same deity are not doing themselves any favors. Fundamental Christians make all Christians look bad and radical Muslims make all Muslims look bad.

The growing ranks of fundamental Christians and radical Muslims should be of concern to everyone who is not part of these two groups. Everyone. Again, bigotry, discrimination, hatred, coercion, terrorism, slavery, misogyny and everything else that is part and parcel of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam should not be tolerated and anyone who agrees with this needs to adopt extremist points of view that includes the intolerance of their very existence. The only reason these groups exist is because they are allowed to, and we, as a society, are allowing them to...

But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated. As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.

If we don’t take a stand and, as a society, insist that these doctrines and beliefs are treated just the same as they would be if religion were not part of the equation, we will become extinct not due to natural selection, but at the hands of those who believe that the supernatural has made the selection.

Read more about it on Atheistwatch

Sounds like a paranoid lunatic claiming that Christians want atheists to die. I really never hear them talking about it. I think the right wing extreme tea party Christians are a lot more desirous to see poor people dying then they are of atheists dying. Look at the last claim he makes. We are going to go extinct if we allow people to believe in the supernatural. That paranoid hatred of something and they don't even understand the concept. The idiotic analysis that connects 9/11 to all religious belief. You would think just one atheist would have the brains to research the suicide bombers and see that it's not a religious movement at all. The American media has played a role in glamorizing the myth about how they believe they will go to haven and be attended by 72 virgins. That really has little to do with their motives. It's certainly not as though all Muslims agree with them. The fact of it is it's a political movement and it's tainted and colored by politics. The atheists are no better and have no room to talk. Their track record was the murder of a hundred million people. I am far from being the only one to observe the growing totalitarian threat from atheism:

However, in the worlds of academe and some media, particularly since 9/11, a more strident breed of atheist is being heard. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Chris Hedges, etc. are now arguing that civilized people need to join their "crusade" to end the tolerance of all sorts of "faith," tolerance such as "old atheists" practiced for millennia.

the author goes on to discuss the God delusion and statements about destroying religion completely.

Of cousre the atheists are all a twitter trying to do damage control. They are going on and on about "hey he backed off that, he said he didn't want to kill people." Read my thing on Atheistwatch because I don't think that is exactly the point either. Nixon said he wasn't a crook but I didn't believe him either. He's clearly agitating but not necessarily to produce actual death. He clearly wants a climate of unreasoning hysteria. It's easier to control people in such a climate. The insurance companies started the tea party hysteria about health care with BS about death panels not because they wanted liberals killed but just becuase it's easier to manipulate the masses when they are scared to death. Steffanelli obviously wants to control people. There's no question about that. The atheist working on damage control who say "he just means eradicate the beliefs" never explain how you do that without eradicating those who believe them deeply and passionately. That's the the happiest smiley face one can put on it; it still means control. The best we can hope for form that guy is that when controls and manipulates people maybe he will be nice about it. Sorry but that's just not my vision of a "free thinker."

On the other hand, we got troubles form the other direction. We Christians can throw stones at the atheists and go "aren't they silly, they are all a bunch of freedom crunching fuddie duddies." yet so are we! Chris Hedges Pulitzer prize winning war correspondent had written about the totalitarian methods on both sides. He agrees with the assessment of the so called "new atheists." Atheist leader P.Z. Myers of course mocks and ridicules him.

Hedges has been totally nuts for the last few years: he's got this crazy irrational hysteria about atheists that makes him utterly unhinged whenever he writes about us. His latest is of a piece with his mania:

The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies. The caricature and fear are spread as diligently by the Christian right as they are by atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Our religious and secular fundamentalists all peddle the same racist filth and intolerance that infected Breivik. This filth has poisoned and degraded our civil discourse. The looming economic and environmental collapse will provide sparks and tinder to transform this coarse language of fundamentalist hatred into, I fear, the murderous rampages experienced by Norway. I worry more about the Anders Breiviks than the Mohammed Attas.

What? Muslims riot over cartoons, Breivik massacres young people in the name of reactionary Christian nationalism, and Hedges blames the atheists? Madness. Pure madness.

Notice that sharp analysis. He doesn't consider what he says, the is off template, he is in disagreement with the word of atheism so must be "nuts." Anyone off template is automatically to be ridiculed as nuts. Look at his logic, he builds an analogy bewteen the way both sets of extremists think and so Myers concludes that he's blaming atheist for what the Christian fudnies think. Hey anyone off templte is a fundie. There are two kinds of people, the ideologues who agree with me and the enemy. that's the way Ideology works. Hey he's black on the right side and I'm black on the left side! Cant' you see how important that is?

Its' not as Hedges doesn't give both barrels to the Christian fundies as well. He says the right wing is closing down freedom. Democracy is being dismantled by religious absolutism. He calls them fascists and has book: American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.
In an interview with Amy Goodman he speaks of some of the people he points to:

Democracy Now
Feb 19,2007

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Why did you write this book?

CHRIS HEDGES: Anger. I mean, I grew up in the Church and, of course, as you mentioned, graduated from seminary, and I think these people have completely perverted and distorted and manipulated the Christian message into something that is the very antithesis of certainly what Jesus preached in the Gospels.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are "these people"?

CHRIS HEDGES: These are — you know, they’re not — we use terms like "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" to describe them, and I think that those are incorrect terms. Traditional fundamentalists always called on believers to remove themselves from the contaminants of secular society, shun involvement in politics. Evangelical leaders like Billy Graham’s always warned followers to keep their distance from political power. He, of course, was burned by Richard Nixon, came to Nixon’s defense and then when it publicly came out that Nixon lied, it taught a lesson to Graham.

This is a new movement, as embodied by people like James Dobson or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, who call for the creation of a Christian state, who talk about attaining secular power. And they are more properly called dominionists or Christian reconstructionists, although it’s not a widespread term, but they’re certainly not traditional fundamentalists and not traditional evangelicals. They fused the language and iconography of the Christian religion with the worst forms of American nationalism and then created this sort of radical mutation, which has built alliances with powerful rightwing interests, including corporate interests, and made tremendous inroads over the last two decades into the corridors of power.

AMY GOODMAN: Why the term "dominionist"?

CHRIS HEDGES: It come out of Genesis, you know, where God gives humankind dominion over creation. It’s articulated by ideologues, such as Rousas Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer and others, and essentially is a new concept within the radical Christian right, and it’s used sparingly. And some dominionists don’t like the term, but I think it denotes or is probably a better term for denoting those people who want to take political power.

America's Road to Fascism (Heges)

What do we do? Friend, atheist enemy, loyal reader, and constant irritant "Hermit" said something to the effect why do I not lambast the "other side" meaning the Christian right? I do sometimes. As Stokley Carmichael said (I thin it was him) when ask why he didn't rail agaisnt the viet Kong as enemies of freedom, "The Viet Kong never called me N_____." The religious has not mocked and ridiculed my ideas and told I don't know anything that I didn't really go to graduate school. When I argue with them they are pretty bad, but they don't try to make out like I'm an idiot and I don't know anything. Now they may not value what I know but they do at least allow me to know it. The atheists are a lot worse they would say there's only one source of knowledge and that's us, we are science, and all the while call themselves "free thinkers." I think 1984 is much more insidious than Al Capone. Capone was a thug he lacked the finesse to make you re-describe your whole sense of reality. Although, as Mick Jagger said "a choice of cancer or polio."

I can see that one day I will have to fight either side. It will probalby be the Christian fundies before it's the atheists. The fundies are a lot closing to being in power than the Dawkies. The one thing we can't do at this time is lose our bearing and think that either side represents the lesser of two evils. The lesser evil is still evil. It's the A team and the B team of evil. The only thing we can do is keep our eyes fixed on Jesus and stay true to the faith. The faith is that God bestows free will and gives us freedom. the Gospel is about freedom it's not about being controlled. The truth will set you free, not save your tax burden.

Why we are not Regalining them With Facts About God

Re: atheist nemesis was just joking

CARM atheist "Big thinker" is arguing that there is no God because if there was there would be scientific evidence of God. This discussion was not on CARM bu ton my boards, Doxa forums.

The fact that we are not regaling him with scientific facts about God is proof that there is no God. Of course the assumption he makes is that "scinece is what we use to know things, science is the only knowledge." This led to the use of an analogy by Wordgazer I think about finding air pressure with a ruler. I's the wrong tool, so not all tools are right for all jobs. So BT asserts that she doesn't understand and says a ruler isn't good for finding air pressure you need a bogometer (which is part of science by the way). I try to expalin the analogy to him again: scinece is the ruler, God is the air pressure. So that' where I'm taking up.

by Metacrock on Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:55 am

In answering one who might say there is only scientific knowledge.


"Real factual Knowledge?" So what's a fact? I am sitting in front of something we call a "desk." I'm really here, I'm really sitting in front of a desk. That is a fact, ergo it is knowledge. I know I'm doing, knowledge is anything I know. I did not obtain this "real factual knowledge" through scinece.

How do you know scientific knowledge is real? If you can question the non scientific empiricism knowledge by epistemic wonderment (how do you know you exist ect ect) why can't you question scientific knowledge that way?

The great Genius of the Legion of Super Heroes is Braniac 5 of the planet Calou. That is a fact. Now it's also a fact that the LSH and braniac 5 and Clous are function, but that doesn't mean that my knowledge of their membership is not factual.

you are asserting that the only "facts" worthy of the appellation are those gleaned by science. As long as you assert that you are selective excluding knowledge that doesn't fit your paradigm and thus rendering all possible knowledge subject to your paradigm that's what we call "ideology."

There are facts that are not from science, there are real things that are not given in scinece necessarily (I exist, I am here). These things I know thus they are facts thus all facts are not from scinece:

ergo scinece cannot be the only form of knowledge.

when you say it is you are merely creating a truth regime.

Big Thinker:

No, your analogy is completely incorrect. First of all, the method used to determine anything, including the existence of air pressure, is entirely dependent upon the definition of the claim. I doubt air pressure could be defined in such a way as to make a ruler make any sort of logical sense as a standard of measurement.

Meta (before):

This is typical. The analogy is brilliant. It shows the idea of using the wrong tool for a job that has to be done the right tool, the one in question is not it. To point out the the tool is wrong merely reiterates the point of the analogy and demonstrates that you don't understand it.

God is no able to be found by scinece, because he's the basis of all the stuff that science investigates. he's not part of the things that scinece can tell us about, he's the reaosn they exist. So we find him with scinece, just like you can't find air pressure with a ruler.

This speaks volumes about your acuity, rather lack thereof.

BT:

A barometer would be the obvious device considering the definition of "air pressure".

He's answering an analogy by clarifying the proper tool. That just reinforces the rightness of the analogy. Does this mean he understands what this is doing in the argument? stay tuned, same Bat time, Same Bat channel.

Meta:

Phenomenology is like the barometer. it's the more proper tool for God finding, not scinece. Science is the ruler. see you need to think about the relationships to the argument. That's how one understands analogies.

BT

Also, you since you probably aren't aware of my entire position, I am not the kind of atheist that thinks God does not exist at all.

Meta: as opposed to the kind who think he exists a little bit?

BT:

Rather, my position is that the nature of the existence of God, as described and testified to by those who believe in God is that God is conceptual and exists in the minds of those who believe in him in the same way that say love and justice are conceptual and exist in the mind. So the only reason I would require evidence of the existence of God outside of the mind is if believers claim that God exists outside of the mind.

Meta:

To you that is the same as saying "unreal" isn't it? Unless you are a Platonist. are you a Platonist?

that was exchange 1


exchange 2:

Re: atheist nemises was just joking

by Metacrock on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:29 am

Meta:go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,

BT:Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

Meta:

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

the first time is the one from the beginning that's not here on the page.

(1) Science is not capable of finding God in the first place. so the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence can't be used as an argument because we can't expect to find it.

(2) This is like using the ruler to find air pressure. you wouldn't expect to find it so to say "the ruler can't find air pressure so the ruler is no good as a tool," would be a rash statement wouldn't it? The ruler is not good for finding air pressure but it's good for measuring length. You are not using the right tools.

(3) you are making the leap in logic that becuase scinece is good for producing hard data of an empirical nature than it should be able to find anything, that's false. that doesn't follow.

Meta:and thus the standard of demanding scientific proof for God is phony becuase God is not part of the scientific magerieria.

exchange 3

BT:Again you have completely mis-interpreted everything I have said. I'm not demanding anything. Rather I am pointing out that the lack of evidence for the actual existence of God indicates that God is conceptual. I wish you could get my position right and then address my actual points rather than criticizing what you incorrectly assume is my position.

Meta

ahahahah Again! you just glaze right over the problem without even acknowledging it. you are still just asserting your original argument without any acknowledgment of the problem that scinece isn't suited to epistemological or metaphysical questions.

Meta:I use the analogy of the ruler trying to use a ruler to find air pressure. BT says you have to use a barometer, and thus makes my point for me. Science is no the right tool so what's next? Philosophy, the inverter of scinece.

BT:Science is how we know that God is a concept rather than something that exists outside of the mind.

Meta

But only for things that it's suited to find. Its' not suited to find God becuase God is the basis of reality, scinece can only find empirical things! It doesn't fit.

stop ignoring the issue! say something about it! this is the fifth time you have dropped the argument.

you know what? In high school debate (national forensic league) and in college debate (NDT and CEDA) you don't win an argument by ignoring it. When you ignore an argument you lose it automatically. you have lost this one five times over.

exchange 4

Metacrock wrote:

Meta:go back to the page 3. I argued that God is not given in sense data so science is not the answer for dealing with God,

BT:Actually, science is how we know there is no evidence that actually supports God. You are right that there is not "sense" data and the reason is because God does not actually exist. God DOES exist, however as a concept, as a character in the minds and imaginations of those who believe in him. On both of these points, it seems that you and I agree. And yet for some reason you seem to want to argue about it....

You are using circular reasoning. You are basing your assertion upon a standard I already disproved then pretending that the disproved basis is enough to ground the opinion. You are merely refusing to answer the argument I made. This is the third time we have gone around in this circle. You yet to answer the argument, I wonder if you even understand it?

BT
Can you be more specific? What argument have you made?

meta
(1) Science is not capable of finding God in the first place. so the fact that there is no direct scientific evidence can't be used as an argument because we can't expect to find it.

BT:

Science is capable of telling us if there is evidence of God or not. So far, not.

meta
(2) This is like using the ruler to find air pressure. you wouldn't expect to find it so to say "the ruler can't find air pressure so the ruler is no good as a tool," would be a rash statement wouldn't it? The ruler is not good for finding air pressure but it's good for measuring length. You are not using the right tools.

notice he gives no data or any sort of scientific evidence to prove that scinece is the only form o knowledge. He's merely asserting it because it works well for the things that works well for. He's assuring it must be all knowing such that if it doesn't' provide data then the thing that is not demonstrated by that data is just not existent.

4th time we've gone over this same ground.

BT

First of all, there are two parts of this. The first part deals with whether or not science is the right tool. Science deals with and assesses evidence. As it stands, there is no evidence that supports the actual existence of God. This is a scientific conclusion, since science deals with evidence. The second part deals with the nature of God. As it turns out, there is sufficient evidence that God is a concept, a belief, a character that exists in the minds of those who believe in him.
So it turns out that science tells us that there is no evidence for the actual existence of God AND that the evidence that does exist indicates that God exists as a concept.

Meta
(3) you are making the leap in logic that becuase scinece is good for producing hard data of an empirical nature than it should be able to find anything, that's false. that doesn't follow.

That's a very interesting paragrph. Notice he goes from (1) scinece deals with evidence that's his answer to weather or not it's the right tool. It deals with evidence therefore it must be right tool regardless of what kind of evidence would be needed. Then he moves to (2) mo evidence for God (3) therefore since science is the way to deal with evidence and there's none for God then scinece disproves God. Then (4) he asserts God is a concept and has no evidence so it's only a concept and is not outside the head.

Also notice his opinion and science have been melded into one so with no proof of his assertion about no evidence his on opinion has become a scientific authority.

Do you see the mistake here? He's leaping over a grand canyon of logic to assume that if scinece is the only way to deal with evidence, and since it is then it must be perfect and all encompassing, there could be no corner of reality where scinece can't go.

above in no 3 I accuse of making this leap and what does he say in the 5th go round?

BT

Nope, I am not making that leap. Sorry, try again. Meta, it would be much easier for you if you simply read and comprehended my statements. If you are confused about anything all you have to do is ask.

Right after making the leap he say "I'm not making the leap," then of course charges that I don't comprehend it. I'm not bowing down to his ignorance and arrogance so therefore I don't understand. He's supposed to be the King!

Meta:and thus the standard of demanding scientific proof for God is phony becuase God is not part of the scientific magerieria.

BT:That is correct, the reason is because God does not actually exist, God is a concept.

Its perfect! what could be more fitting then that he doesn't understand what magisteria is so he just utters "that is correct." He undoes his whole argument with his ignorance and still blusters in arrogance.

why doesn't God heal stupidity?

suffering




About three years ago I wrote a post, so long ago I was in my old family home. The post was about he website "why does God hate amputees" and I called it "why does God hate stupidity?" I staled it that not because I think having doubt is stupid, not because I think the problem of pain is not a very serious and very important question that should make us all think but becasue I find this guys approach insulting and obnoxious. Every so often some of his fans still respond to that post and say things about how brilliant he is and how stupid and evil I am for not seeing that is so great. This morning I got a comment form someone who I thin is sincere so I decided to answer it here in the major section.

This post came under the heading of "Anonymous" but it's not by the regular nemesis who posts by that name. Even though I have a rule against publishing comments by anyone using that name, I will make an exception because the poster probably did not know. but I ask him, I would like to hear from him, but please use another name. Even a number will do, but "Anonymous 1" is taken.

It is probably pointless for me to post this, but stupidity calls. I haven't read the site myself, so let me just say that first. But I get the gist of it as it was pointed out to me by a friend. I admit the reasoning is flawed, and it's a classic case of good observation leading to a bad conclusion.

Well no, not really. It's really a matter of the guy is totally insulting, filled with ridicule and refuses to think deeply about any of it because he assume Christians are stupid as shit and he doesn't have to think deeply, all he has to do is make fun.

But in that site, I don't see stupidity, I see pain.

You said you had not looked at the sight. So do you know? I have pain. I have loads of pain. I have so much pain in my life my favorite song is called "Pack your Sorrows" by Richard Farina (Author of the novel Been Down so Long it looks like Up To Me, think about it). The song says:

If somehow could pack up your sorrows
and give them all to me,
you would lose them,
I know how to use them,
give them all to me.

In other words, I know what it is suffer. But, that does not mean that mocking and ridiculing the attempt to have faith in the face of adversity is in anyway intelligent. It is not intelligent, is nothing more than cruel and selfish. If suffering people need God to get them through, who are you take that away from them and crush their hope with cruel mocking?

One of that guy's major attempts at dismissing faith is this, he say "close you eyes real tight and wish real hard for a candy bar or a Milk shake, did you get it? No, why, because there is no God there to give you a milk shake." No that's my paraphrase but he does say exactly that. Now do you really think that is a fair way to look at the problem of pain? God wont give you a candy bar on demand, so there is no God. Now is that really your idea of fair? Do you really think that's an intelligent way to think about the issues? If i said "Ok let's get a magnifying glass now look at your class of water, do you see any bugs? no? that's because science is crap, there are no germs." Would that really be a fair way to think about science?

I am a Jesus person facing the same exact questions as this guy (from what I understand from a cursory knowledge of the site) and if I am to find any silver lining in my trials, is it that I know exactly what it feels like to be an unbeliever.

So do I. I was an atheist, the kind of atheist who loved to argue with Christians and thought they were real stupid and loved to make them feel stupid. But I was never the kind who childishly mocked anything he could at any price.

Before you point the finger at "stupidity," do you consider that someone does not create a site like that without tremendous pain and legitimate disappointment with God.

We still have a responsibility to deal with our pain in ways that does not hurt others. To mock and ridicule religious people becasue they turn to God for support in times of pain is sick and stupid. He's trying to crush the hope of suffering people to make himself feel superior.

How do you then, as a believer, respond to someone who has been hurt in that way by calling them stupid?

Because his words are stupid. he has put no thought of any kind into his mocking and ridicule. The whole site from start to Finnish is simple minded, narrow, hateful, he has nothing of any kind of value to say.

Even if you were right, what does that do for the Kingdom? I hope you don't pass through these trials yourself, so you'll never know this firsthand

too late!

but the truth is, there's a lot of bad teaching in churches that is well meant, but it's based on our American ideas, and not on what God really taught us in the Bible. That kind of bad teaching has caused Christians to make a lot of excuses for God that He doesn't need, and that leaves others rightly skeptical. And it's left a lot of people disillusioned and wounded. So before diagnosing this guys stupidity, consider the possible source. And consider what will expand the Kingdom.

that is a very good statement. I agree with you completely. Good point, bravo. Unfortunately that amputee site does absolutely nothing to foster any kind of serious about the issues. The function of it in atheist circles is to give them an  excuse to disregard any kind of answer or argument that Christians give. I went on that guy's board. I posted tons of material and got no serious thought out of them. The only thing they ever said was "show me an expmle of God healing an amputee. just one come on where is it? you don't have one so God is a lie. nothing you can say you matters becasue God is just a big alie in the sky because you can't show me a heald amputee." Even I laed evidence on them of healed amputees they still continued to harp that "that's a lie, that didnt' happen, you can't prove that."

I had good science to prove the miracles of Lourdes. they just continued to squawk, no healing is a miracle until you have an amputee. even a guy growing a new pair of lungs did not impress them because it's not an amputee. So that sight is not furthering the conversion its' closing down the conversation and all it does is give them a chance to squawk and feel superior. They want to boil all of philosophy and all of religion down this one question, no amputee = no God that's it no thought necessary!

That's why it's stupid. Becasue it's simplistic and shallow and it's only advanced as an excuse to ignore all of Christian thoguht.

Up until The Dawkamentalists came on with their hate group act, a lot of Christian apologists kicked ass all over the net. But since atheists learned that it was much more effective to drop the pretense of real thought just vent their hatred there has been an ever shrinking discourse. I now think there are no messages boards anywhere on the net that are worth looking at. none of them at all reflect any sort of intellectual discussion about religious ideas. It is sights like this that are to blame for this state of affairs.

There are a couple of good sites you should look at. One is God is not imaginary, Marshal Brian is Ignorant These guys have done the body of Christ the service of spending their time answering everything thing the guy says, wow! I can't imagine wasting my line on that polavor, but I thank them for doing it.

The other is my own very serious attempt to answer the theodicty question: I advance my own version of the free will defense, which I think has a unqiue angel if I may so, called Soteriological Drama

Doherty part 6: From Group Leader to Cosmic Christ

Finally, Doherty brings up the lack of suffering in Q sayings:

But the most telling feature of the Q Jesus has proven to be the most perplexing, for he seems to bear no relationship to Paul's. Scholars continue to puzzle over the fact that Q contains no concept of a suffering Jesus, a divinity who has undergone death and resurrection as a redeeming act. Q can make the killing of the prophets a central theme (e.g., Luke 11:49-51) and yet never refer to Jesus' own crucifixion! Its parables contain no hint of the murder of the Son of God.

Yet it is not sure that Q doesn't refer to Jesus' suffering or death. Suffering and death are implied all over Q as David Seely ("Jesus Death in Q") tells us (see page 4). Death is frame by cynical view point that reflects the current events through the lives of the prophets of the past. That would be a good reason why the Q saying source does not refer one.

(Doherty goes on) "About the resurrection, Q breathes not a whisper. Jesus makes no prophecies of his own death and rising, as he does in other parts of the Gospels. Note that in a Q passage in Luke 17, the evangelist has to insert into Jesus' mouth a prophecy of his own death (verse 25); it is not in Matthew's use of the same passage" (24:23f).

Of course these scholars make an arbitrary assumption that the saying is placed in Jesus' mouth just Matt didn't use it. The idea that there is no resurrection in Q is not in line with the view of James M. Robinson, who is certainly a much more renown Q scholar than is Doherty:

The Real Jesus of the Sayings "Q" Gospel

by James M. Robinson

James M. Robinson is the Arthur J. Letts Professor of Religion and Director of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at the Claremont Graduate School and Co-chair of the International Q Project.

Religion online

Although the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories, this omission does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Q people knew nothing of Jesus' fate or had never thought about where it left them. It is hardly probable that his death was not quickly rumored among his followers, even into the most obscure corners of Galilee. But then, after his death, was not the only sensible thing to do, to give up the whole thing as some tragic miscalculation, a terrible failure? Jesus had assured them, "the Father from heaven gives good things to those who ask him," and yet his last word according to Mark was "My God, My God, why have you left me in the lurch?" (Mark 15:34). What was there left to proclaim?

The emergence of the Sayings Gospel was, to put it quite pointedly, itself the miracle at Easter! Rudolf Bultmann formulated a famous, or infamous saying to the effect that Jesus rose into the kerygma. But perhaps we would do better to say: Jesus rose into his own word. The resurrection was attested, in substance at least, in the Q community, in that his word was again to be heard, not as a melancholy recollection of the failed dream of a noble, but terribly naive, person, but rather as the still valid, and constantly renewed, trust in the heavenly Father, who, as in heaven, will rule also on earth.

There are a few sayings in Q that are best understood in terms of such a "resurrection" faith. "What I say to you in the darkness, speak out in the light; and what you hear whispered into your ear, preach from the rooftops" (Q 12:3/Matt. 10:27). This sounds as if Jesus had rather secretively only whispered his message and left the spreading of the good word to his disciples. We would have expected it to be just the reverse. Surely Jesus said it better, louder, and clearer than anyone! But perhaps such a saying reflects the recollection that his message was suppressed by force and thus obscured but then became all the brighter and louder as it was nevertheless revalidated and reproclaimed.

Q is that material which is shared by Matthew and Luke and not by Mark. But the tomb and the cross are in all four Gospels, so ex hypothesis we must regard them as not in Q. The fact is they may well have been part of Q. They are by definition not Q simply because they are shared by all four Gospels. Since we don't have a copy of Q there's no way to know. At this point scholars weed out connections between early Q and Messiahood by arbitrary and circular means. Speaking of that, Doherty has gone a long way on sheer conjecture about the contents of a document the existence of which we can't even begin to verify. Now I'm a liberal and I'm a good sport Q wise. I think there probably was a Q document, in fact I'm inclined to think it was Matthew's "Logia."

Doherty continues:

Most startling of all, the Jesus of Q has no obvious significance for salvation. Apart from the benefits accruing from the teachings themselves, scholars admit that there is no soteriology in Q, certainly nothing about an atoning death for sin. The "Son who knows the Father" (Luke 10:22, a late saying recast from an earlier Wisdom saying) functions as a mediator of God's revelation—simply personifying what the Q community itself does. The Gospel of Thomas is similarly devoid of any reference to Jesus' death and resurrection.

Funny he should mention the Gospel of Thomas. Soteriological implications are all over Q and they are not hard to find. But be that as it may, Thomas is looked to as a backing for Q in many ways, it supposedly implies that the saying source was a prior form of the narrative Gospel, and it uses many Q sayings. But in Thomas there are clear statements of Soteriological value, and of the deity of Christ:

saying no.28: Jesus said, "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."

In terms of Q's soeteriology, or alleged lack thereof, Doherty has simplified the issues. It is not true that Q has no Soeteriology, it more the case that the Soteriology of Q is not Pauline and is very Jewish, very law oriented, so says John Kloppenborg, the scholar who first began the emphasis on Q's lack of a cross or a tomb (see Formation of Q 1987). In terms of Soeteriology we know that the early church was confused. Jesus was not a system builder, he was concerned with modeling behavior and with impressing upon people how to live a godly life. God drafted Paul to be the first systematic Christian theologian, that's why he wrote so much of the NT. So it was Paul who sorted out what it all meant and how all the pieces fit and there's nothing wrong with that. As Christians we should just accept that God chose to do it that way. But the issue in terms of Q is how much of Q do we have? Do we have all the pieces in Matt and Luke? Kloppenborg argues that we do because Matt uses all of Mark so why wouldn't he use all of Q. But he can only rest on that answer if we can be sure that Matt always used every source the same way; Mark was a narrative and Q a saying list.

Dennis Ingolfsland

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,
Jun 2003

Kloppenborg's stratification of Q
and its significance for
historical Jesus studies

The second reason Kloppenborg cites for believing that virtually all of Q can be recovered is Kilpatrick's argument that the disappearance of Q was explicable only on the assumption that it was almost completely absorbed in Matthew and Luke.27 Some have objected, however, that by this logic Mark might have been expected to disappear also, since virtually all of Mark is included in Matthew. In Excavating Q, Kloppenborg responds to this objection by citing Luhrmann who proposed that Mark's survival and Q's disappearance are simply accidents of history in that Mark's Gospel happened to be carried to Egypt where it was copied and Q was not. Moreover, responding to Dunn who argued that Q may have disappeared for theological reasons, Kloppenborg writes, "In fact we do not know why Q disappeared."28

Kloppenborg is right, of course, but he seems unaware that in arguing that Q's disappearance may have been an accident of history and by admitting that we frankly do not know why Q disappeared, he has contradicted one of his own primary reasons for assuming that we know the extent of Q, that is, that the disappearance of Q "was explicable only on the assumption that it was almost completely absorbed in Matthew and Luke."29 Therefore, the main reasons Kloppenborg proposes for assuming that virtually all of Q can be reconstructed have been successfully refuted by his own arguments.

At this stage he returns to his bread and butter, spinning moonbeams about Paul.

How is this radical divergence between Paul and Q explained? It shows, say the scholars, the differing responses by different circles to the man Jesus of Nazareth. But they founder when they try to rationalize how such a strange phenomenon could have been possible. Besides, the documents reveal many more "responses" than just two. We are to believe that early Christianity was wildly schizophrenic. First Paul and other epistle writers abandoned all interest in the earthly life and identity of Jesus, turning him into a cosmic Christ who created the world and redeemed it by his death and resurrection. The Q community, along with that of the Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, decided to ignore that death and resurrection and preserve the earthly teaching Jesus, a preacher of the coming end of the world.

Doherty contradicted by Koester, again

Of course that little fantasy is dispelled by my list, which I take from Helmutt Koester, that shows Paul's deep dependence upon Gospel sayings. It's a total myth to assume that he never quotes a Q saying. Yes Doherty tries to say that Paul never quotes Q, but the man he uses as an authority, Helmutt Koester, says Paul quotes Q quite a bit and that Q was widespread.

Helmut Koester comments on the provenance of Q (Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 164):

"Even the sayings used for the original composition of Q were known and used elsewhere at an early date: they were known to Paul, were used in Corinth by his opponents, employed perhaps in eastern Syria for the composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and quoted by 1 Clement in Rome at the end of the 1st century. The document itself, in its final redacted form, was used for the composition of two gospel writings, Matthew and Luke, which both originated in the Greek-speaking church outside of Palestine."

Koster latter theorizes that Paul had the Q saying source with him and this is what he calls "my Gospel." It's equally foolish to assume that he doesn't mention the cross or resurrection. Of course because he doesn't anticipate Doherty 2000 years latter and say "O by the way, this was in real flesh and blood on earth in history" then he couldn't have believed it? That's where Doherty wins his fan base, by appealing to the Christ haters who want to destroy Christianity and the mythers who care nothing for facts of reality. By appealing to those who love to fill the cracks in knowledge with their dreams.

view this as a nice chart (scroll down)

Just a small part of the list linked to above:
The last supper (1 Cor 11:23ff)
Confessed his Messiahship before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13)
Died for peoples' sins (Rom 4:25, 1 Tim 2:6)
He was killed (1 Cor 15:3, Phil 2:8)
Buried (1 Cor 15:4)
Empty tomb is implied (1 Cor 15:4)
Jesus was raised from the dead (2 Tim 2:8)
Resurrected Jesus appeared to people (1 Cor 15:4ff)
James, a former skeptics, witnessed this (1 Cor 15:7)
as did Paul (1 Cor 15:8-9)
This was reported at an early date (1 Cor 15:4-8)
He ascended to heaven, glorified and exalted (1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:6f)
Disciples were transformed by this (1 Tim 3:16)
Disciples made the Gospel center of preaching (1 Cor 15:1-4)
Resurrection was chief validation of message

We see that Paul does quote Q and he does refer to crucifixion, resurrection, and even soteriology. He makes all sorts of references which Doherty denies, to Jesus blood line, his life on earth, alludes to the empty tomb, to his crucifixion to his Messiahship. On the next page I will examine more closely Doherty's allegations about the contents of Q and Pauline theology vis, alleged Gnosticism. I will argue that the theology is very Jewish not Gnostic.