emur

Once again, so much for omnipotence!

Mel

Asha'man

So, to bring this back to the original topic, I think we have a perfect example here of how fundies deconvert people.

They latch on to an absurd piece of dogma, and are unable to let go. Common sense won't budge them, formal logic won't sway them, emotional arguments won't work. They continue to preach the same nonsense, ignoring all objections that their message has a huge gaping hole in it.

Eventually, the audience realises that the fundy isn't thinking, he is just parroting. There is no basis to accept his words, it's all just blind assertions. The audience can then reject the message, and a deconversion begins.

Cross Examiner

emur,

Omnipotence aside. God can make you believe in Him. He will not though. You will or will not seek God. If, once, you sought God and did not find, it does not mean He is not. Perhaps you need to continue to seek and pay close attention to the location and methodology of your search. Despite best efforts, you will not catch Monarch Butterflies by setting bear traps in Antarctica.

Regards,
BGiC

emur

I'm not talking about forcing someone to believe. Instead, I am talking about God's ability at communication. It's most problematic to have an omnipotent God's desire to communicate to someone overcome by that person's supposed lack of communication skills where God is concerned.

If God cannot communicate with a person because that person isn't "communicating by the rules", then God is not omnipotent. If God chooses not to even though he could, then God's character is in question. (It's like a dysfunctional family where communication is often tied up in games where one member tries to get another member to get a certain message by pouting, the silent treatment, etc. Much is left to guesswork.) Either way, you lose.

Mel

Cross Examiner

emur et al.,

God can ensure you that hear His call but cannot ensure that you listen to what you've heard, since human free agency precedes that activity. For example, if God gives you the Bible as His communique, you can choose to ignore it. If you do not ignore it but simply find it insufficiently evidential to be God's Word...well, then that is a different issue altogether.

Based on the above, I think it safe to say we let our analogies get too far from the real issue. I've seen this discussion before, it leads to arguments over what is sufficient evidence to convince a man that the Bible is the Word of God. So, to readjust, do you doubt the Bible is the Word of God?

Regards,
BGic

winstonjen

Those that aren't fundies, anyway.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled apologetics.

winstonjen

Right. So he cares more about 'free will' than about stopping people going to hell. Well, now that we know his priorities, we can conclude that he isn't very loving.

emur

I find the bible insufficient to be from God. So yes, I believe without question that the bible is not the word of God. If God wants someone to get some message, God isn't limited to a book composed by many authors and bearing all the marks of a human work written 2 to 3 thousand years ago. An omnipotent God would assure that a seeker got the message. Such a God would not be confined to the pages of a book.

Mel

Cross Examiner

winstonjen,

Interesting analysis but you assume that self-determination is a lesser good for man than security or comfort.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

emur/mel et al.,

An interesting topic that I won't get into here, now. Soon, I will start a thread on the Resurrection at BC&H, the crux of the matter, you will be welcome to join then.

Which begs, how would you have gotten the Word out to Man if you were omnipotent God?

Ah. But who is the seeker? Seeking is not merely an action but is also a condition of the heart (character/will/conscience etc). I submit that even the man himself does not truly know his own heart as well as he thinks he does. God knows fully well though. Each seeker gets what he truly seeks for.

Regards,
BGic