[general_re]

Power can only do what power can do.

A rather limited sort of omnipotence. Perhaps you're on to something, though, and God is ultimately self-defining. Thus, it is a mistake to try to attach any sort of label at all to God, whether that label be "omnipotent" or "perfectly good" or whatever - IOW, "perfect is as perfect does", which is not likely to be comforting to all those who think they've found the "right" little box to fit God into. And there's certainly no shortage of folks like that, in my experience ;)

[unspun]

I like that phrase, "perfect is as perfect does," as you've said. It grants God his right to be a person (seems the least we can do, since he's pretty much done that for us).

Seems to me that the Infinite has to draw himself down a "bit," in order to relate to anything else. From the perspective of us finite beings, perhaps this is the fist thing we could call a "miracle."

And as it regards the matter of God vs. evil, this attitude about the facts admits to God being 'what' it all begins with (not evil). And that being the case, and he being Infinite God, yet a person who relates to the rest of us, I think it lets us see a more apt picture of the paradox -- bumps Mr. Mills' issue up a notch.

And God being a person relating to {not God}, rules must be established -- good rules, of course.

[stuartcr]

Of course God is self-defining. That's the problem..we can only use our human experiences, logic and observations to make any determinations about God. Gifts given to us by Him, which are extremely lacking when trying to determine the nature of God. If there really is such a thing as original sin, I think this is part of the punishment.

[Diamond]

Perhaps you're on to something, though, and God is ultimately self-defining. Thus, it is a mistake to try to attach any sort of label at all to God, whether that label be "omnipotent" or "perfectly good" or whatever -

I always appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses, general_re.

Yes and no. God is self-defining. And it is true that there are drawbacks to attaching labels to God. Yet if God is truly there and is not silent; that is, if He has spoken and revealed Himself in verbal proposition form, then we can at least confidently say;

1 Corinthians 13
¹²   For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What is the alternative? That our moral impulses are nothing more than electro/chemical reactions in our brains that are nothing but the result of an impersonal, random concatenations of molecules in motion over time? Of what significance are such concatenations? If such were actually the case, why should I feel any obligation to obey such inclinations? Conversely, why does my heart alternately praise of condemn me for either obedience or disobedience to the moral law? (Interestingly, what should I make of my inveterate inclination to DISOBEY the moral law?) In either case, though, what significance would either obedience or disobedience to the moral law ultimately have in a random, impersonal universe?

Cordially,