A3

Hi K

A3: Looks to me like we might meet again in the wherever Swedenborg often writes that there is nothing wrong with positive doubt and scepticism. We can only believe what we believe is the truth. To believe something just because we are told would be “blind faith.” To follow mindless in the footsteps of our parents he calls “historical faith.” Neither is a saving faith because it isn’t our choice. Whatever we have examined and don’t see as truth we shouldn’t believe, period. This isn’t just with religion, this applies everywhere in life, even science. Religion cannot claim its own definition or version of what “believe” really is.
What I would ask of you, however, is to keep an open mind and to not throw out the real God with the bathwater. Because if our interpretations are wrong, it is our fault, not His. I know we cannot really love something or someone we don’t understand; conversely, why reject something we don’t understand? I hasten to add that it would seem less important what we believe then what we actually do with what we believe, and history seems to bear this out. So many religions exists, denominations galore, and because they can’t possibly all be right I cannot for a second believe that a loving God would keep the few that would be right and discard the other many millions. But if we honestly and sincerely believe something and apply that in our life I think we’ll be just fine. However, if we do take things out of context to suit our own agenda, we are not being honest. If we have to justify our own actions by some mental calisthenics, we are not being sincere to ourselves or anybody else. I feel this applies to every individual as well as to any church organization.

Regards
Adriaan

Guttersnipe

Provided the theist doesn't find that consequence of the definition of omnipotence unacceptable, then she is in the clear. It seems to me that this problem arises due to a confliction between the stipulated definition and the way in which we commonly understand omnipotence. While the theist is in her rights stipulating terms as she sees fit, is it perhaps misleading to call God 'omnipotent' and then define it in a manner that allows a man only able to scratch his ear to be called such?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Guttersnipe:

"While the theist is in her rights stipulating terms as she sees fit, is it perhaps misleading to call God 'omnipotent' and then define it in a manner that allows a man only able to scratch his ear to be called such?"

It's more than misleading; it's absurd. To define omnipotence that way is obviously incorrect, goes the argument, because it leads to the unacceptable consequence that McEar is omnipotent. (In fact, McNothing, a being who cannot do anything, is similarly omnipotent.)

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

Guttersnipe

Thomas Metcalf: Obviously incorrect only to theists who find the consequence unacceptable -- such is the nature of defeaters. The theist would probably not want to open up the definition to allow for ontological or logical contradictions, because then they would have to deal with a slew of fatal atheistic arguments and problematic paradoxes. If I were a theist, I would probably concede that McEar is omnipotent and refute claims of absurdity by questioning the authority of our commonsensical notions of omnipotence.