Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
Wonderful. So we've got a special Catholic definition of omnipotence. I was sort of expecting Aquinasfan to post back with this objection - I am familiar with the Summa Theologica, you know. Sometimes being a lapsed Catholic has its advantages ;)
My objection stands. One does not get to redefine inconvenient terms merely to make them more convenient. The fact that the RC Church sanctions such casuistry does not change the nature of it. Clearly the questioner in these passages does not accept such a definition of "omnipotence" - as we are told that he is a non-Catholic, this is hardly a surprise. Nor do I accept it.
You are putting words in my mouth I never said. As I said (and showed) in my post above, your syllogism is garbage. You are totally dishonest in saying the above and we both know it.
You see your problem is that as an atheist you need to try to destroy the truth, so all you can do is play little word games and totally lie about what someone said. It only shows your dishonesty and the utter desperation of your position that you have to waddle in the lowest forms argument in order to try to discredit your opponents.
Maybe it doesn't apply to you any more, since you seem to wish to disclaim your earlier answer, but in your stead, others have signed up for the position that God's law cannot change. Sorry, it's not garbage. It's just pointed elsewhere now.
You are quick to bash religion and could not wait for an answer could you?
I made my post, and you checked out for 12 hours. In the meantime, others objected and I answered them. Sorry - threads don't come with a special gore3000 "pause" button.
That God's law cannot change over time has nothing to do with his being omnipotent or not. He could change it if He wanted to. Thing is he does not want to.
Well, okay, but in that case, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't ask you if God's law WILL change over time, I specifically asked you if it CAN change over time. If you wish to change your answer, I can certainly see why. I'm glad that you agree with me on this point, but there are many here who do not.
Is He though? Or is He just providing inspiration?
To non-believers, such an argument may sound plausible. To those who believe in Him, it is utterly nonsensical. What reason would He have to lie? None at all. He wants man to follow His Word, that is why He sent His only Son to try to lead us down the right path. Why would He make such a wonderful sacrifice if His purpose was to deceive?
It is the obvious logical implication to your (now repudiated) assertion that God's law cannot change. If you don't want me drawing inferences like that from your words, maybe you should be more careful in answering questions posed to you.
You see your problem is that as an atheist you need to try to destroy the truth, so all you can do is play little word games and totally lie about what someone said.
It wasn't a lie at the time I said it. It was based on what you said. You've now apparently changed your mind, so I tell you what, I'll take it back, just to make it clear to everyone what you mean now.
I fully and freely retract what I said about gore3000. Gore3000 cannot believe in the non-omnipotence of God, since he now rejects the notion that God's law cannot change. The previously valid conclusions that I drew from gore3000's statements are no longer valid, as he has changed his mind.
Better? Besides, who says I'm an atheist?
‘But whoever drinks the water that I give him will never thirst.‘ John 4:14)
"The meeting between Jesus and the Samaritan woman had reached a critical point. Jesus would now have her compare two levels of existence. The first answers to her own life so far; a life symbolized by her daily treks to the water supply. The second is an existence in which a person has a water supply within. This water Jesus describes, and offers to her."
"In the Ancient Near East there were only two kinds of water. There was water that had to be trapped in times of rare rain, and kept in cisterns-still water. Then there was spring water; flowing water-living water."
"Spring water is a metaphor for God in the Old Testament. "The Lord is a fountain of life" (Jeremiah 2:13; 17:13). See also the beautiful poem in Isaiah 55: "Come all you who are thirsty, come to the waters. . ." God is water for the thirsty in these passages."
"Jesus language, and grammar further compares two different levels of existence. There are those who drink, and keep on having to drink. On the other hand there are those who having drunk, do not need to drink anymore. The contrast is between a contentment that is, at best, sporadic, and fitful, and one which is permanently fixed."
"The comparison goes further. There is a cure for thirst which is superficial, external. But another medicine for parched souls is "internal." "The water that I give will be in him a spring." Those who come to hope in the God and father of our Lord Jesus, do indeed discover within themselves, a life-giving principle-the Spirit of God."
"So much of human activity is monotonous and repugnant, like the routine pilgrimage to the water supply. Many people have capacities that are under-utilized because the only work they have ever done is work that has been imposed on them by necessity. They have never 'owned' what they do. They have not drunk from Christ's refreshing... spring---a symbol of spontaneous, self-regulated, and joyous action."
This is also true, at least according to gore3000. Gore3000 tells me that God's law cannot change.
Your conclusion is false and it is not logical. You are changing the words to arrive at it. I did not say that God cannot change His own law. I said that God's law cannot change. Similar but not the same. So you are misrepresenting my statements to arrive at your conclusion. As I explained to you above God can change his own law, but he does not want to. He is not Bill Clinton who changes what he says in the same paragraph. He could deceive, but he does not wish to deceive.
As I've said above, you must be getting pretty desperate in trying to justify your atheism when you have to play word games to bash religion. You are fooling no one.
Are you now retracting your retraction? What's the difference? Either God's law cannot change, period, or God can change it. Make up your mind.
You keep misrepresenting my statements by turning inside out what I said. You did not even wait for me to respond to you you keep misrepresenting what you, in your atheistic mind wished to put in my mouth. Very dishonest.
No it is not as I showed already. But like a mad dog gnawing on a bone you will not let go when proven wrong. You did not wish to discuss issues, you wished to attack me, so you will listen to nothing except to what you already had set out in your mind to put in my mouth. Your dishonesty is obvious. And yes, you are an atheist. Your religious bashing, your insistence on denying the majesty of God proves that beyond a doubt.
LOL!
Do you agree with this statement regardless where it came from?
“The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness.”
Are you an atheist or just plain stupid?
Maybe it doesn't apply to you any more, since you seem to wish to disclaim your earlier answer
I did not disclaim it. You changed my words. You turned 'God's law cannot change' which is what I said, into 'God cannot change his own law'. Completely different as I already showed you. So I am due an apology from you, but of course you will not give it. In fact in post#706, even after admitting that I disclaim your misrepresentation of my meaning, you continue to insist on it. You are totally dishonest.
You are quick to bash religion and could not wait for an answer could you? -me-
I made my post, and you checked out for 12 hours. In the meantime, others objected and I answered them.
But you could argue with them all you wished without misrepresenting my statements, but your whole purpose was to misrepresent my statements because you cannot argue honestly and win so like the rest of the evos you have to lie and put words in people's mouths.
Well, okay, but in that case, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't ask you if God's law WILL change over time, I specifically asked you if it CAN change over time.
Only an atheist, endeavoring to bash religion would come up with the answer you gave as logical. No one who believes that God is omnipotent as I do would believe such a thing was the logical conclusion. Only a word turning atheist would come to such a conclusion, a believer would answer as I have, that God would not wish to change His own law. As I have said, God does not behave like your mass murdering atheist heros.
Are you now retracting your retraction?
I did not retract anything. I am correcting your wishfull, deliberate misrepresentation. God's law cannot change not because God is not omnipotent, but because he does not wish to change it. For an atheist like yourself, the thought of anything being immutable, the thought of anyone not being a deceiver like yourself and your atheist heros Clinton, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sun, Castro and many other scum of the earth may seem inconceivable. However, if you opened your mind to the Truth, if you stopped giving in to your basest wishes and desires and which have caused you to deny Him and His law, you would live a much happier life now and in the hereafter.
I have read three of her novels, and one thing I noticed is that her heros never have a family, they really never love, they have sex, but never love. There are no children either. It is indeed a very selfish world she lives in and one totally devoid of the love and caring for others which makes life beautiful.
To: general_re
Can God's law change over time?
No.
559 posted on 5/22/02 8:08 AM Eastern by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: general_re
Can God's law change over time?
No.
559 posted on 5/22/02 8:08 AM Eastern by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I see no reason to answer such a question. It is obvious that your case is too weak to permit you to act in a reasonable manner, and therefore you must resort to personal attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.