Senate Christianity Discussion Thread

I have to admit to being remarkably confused by this passage. In the first place, I don't understand their "analogy." What type of power is picking up a piece of paper supposed to imply? More importantly, how is it the "only" sort of power an omnipotent being would be able to display? Why or how does it automatically preclude the notion of emotional or psychic influence? In the second, in what way does omnipotence remove power from relationships?

 

his analogy was a little confusing, so i can't really speak for what he means.

but as far as i'm concerned, the power alluded to in omnipotence is a kind of mechanical power. if god is omnipotent, this implies that he could decide to separate my head from my body on a whim, or make a mountain move over a couple inches. relational power falls under this view, but the omnipotence is certainly not limited to relational power.

process, on the other hand, suggests that god's power is only relational and expressional. by expressing her character (through creation or the bible or artistic muse or whatever) god can influence the emotions of people. at the very least, that's the kind of power that god exercises, whether or not mechanical power is also available.

 

So whenever I'm crying uncontrollably, it's God's fault?

 

To piggy-back (and expand off), I Are's question, when is something an example of God's relational power versus someone else's? Is all inspiration or emotion an act of God? How can you tell the difference, if not?

 

i'd say that god is present whenever inspiration is present and emotion are present. inspiration and emotion may lead to undesirable things (like, if i had the emotional inspiration to go kill my cat or mom or something), but the consequences of certain emotions are separate from the source of the emotions.

and before you argue that if god is the source of all emotions she is also responsible for the outcome of all emotions (even the negative ones), i will say that i don't believe god chooses which emotions to manifest or impress on others or whatever. i think that our emotions are us responding to gods self-expression in the material world, and i don't think that god's self-expression is a choice that god makes. i think it's just a law of nature. just as evolution isn't a choice that certain species make. it's just a law of nature. god is self-expressing, which is the source of our emotions.

 

Why not just do what religion's done for centuries - make up the answer?

Prenntecost, it's an interesting theory - no denying it. But I think the issue for me is that it still feels like people working backwards from a conclusion. i.e. There's ample evidence to suggest the "science" of the Bible and God is at best dubious - think of the impact biology, geology and physics have had in that regard - and therefore a reasonable conclusion might be that much of what we "know" about God is guesswork. Elegant guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless. So when you reach that fork in the road, you either conclude that because of the inconsistencies, errors and fabrications a) god does not exist or b) we just don't understand God and maybe Her power is expressed in different terms. Hence, I suppose, the lack of visible miracles on par with those recorded in the Bible.

So while I applaud and am intrigued by the deeper thinking and refusal to be tethered by dogma, I think the conclusion is a bit like intelligent design - evidence says this Biblical narrative could not have occurred, so weighing up the evidence... x = god!

 

This is a lot of retconning guys.

 

I'm not sure how he derives his view. Nor is it particularly relevant to me. I'm just trying to figure out more information about what it is.

My major question at this point would be the implication of categorically negative emotions. While things like anger and sadness are appropriate in certain contexts, what about things like hatred? And what does it imply for god to spontaneously inspire, for instance, ethnic hatred? Even if not acted on, it's still not something that could be called positive.

 

But how is this question not also, equally validly, asked of mainstream Christianity?

 

Because mainstream Christianity does not hold that God is the direct source of all human emotions, and thus can't be said to be the literal source of all hatred?

 

but mainstream christianity does hold that god is omnipotent, and thus can be held responsible for the consequences of all hatred.

i'll respond to the other points in a bit! sorry -- busy day.

 

If God is all-powerful, that doesn't mean God uses all of his power. Free will, etc.

 

Your "thus" has a huge number of embedded assumptions for a single word. As I am certain you are aware, there is a huge amount of thought and literature dedicated to theodicy. A wide array of answers purport to resolve the question without implying anything negative about the nature of the deity.

By contrast, a deity that produces clearly negative emotions by "spontaneous self-expression" is sort of implied to have an element of evil in much more direct fashion.

 

Oh that's right. Good emotions and positivity, that's god and not human spirit. Negative is Satan tempting you.

 

God didn't inspire "ethnic hatred", at least, not in the way you perceive it. The Book of Enoch, I believe, goes into that a bit, but it's been a while since I've read it. When the fallen angels mated with human women, the nephilim were created, and the different tribes of these were what God wanted utterly destroyed, e.g. the Canaanites, Amalekites, etc.

 

lmao

 

Er, the Book of Enoch? Jabba-wocky, you were talking about things mainstream Christianity (and Judaism) generally doesn't accept. Maybe it's time to turn away from PRENN for a while.

 

Hey. It was asked, that's the answer.

 

and your answer was a hilariously modern dodge-interpretation of a genocidal fairy tale that, at the time it was written, would have needed no such justification

 

Even though it was the truth, and was revealed to be as such when they found Gilgamesh's tomb?

 

It's feeling like an episode of Supernatural in here.

 

ill bite

 

The bigger problem I have with it is that it just doesn't seem to gel well with the rest of the scripture. As far back as Abraham, God is explaining that the occupation of Palestine will be delayed because "the iniquity of Amorites is not yet full." This was book-ended by specific warnings that the Hebrew inheritance had nothing to do with their own behavior, but the continuing misdeeds of the land's current occupants. That makes a pretty robust, clear rationale for the incursion into Canaan, and has nothing to do with half-breed beings. Similarly, the particular tribes targeted for the harshest treatment (eg Amalekites) have specific rationales for that, too. The full explanation is offered by Samuel, who reminds us, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt." Again, nothing to do with hybrid super humans. They just horribly mistreated Israel and attacked a fleeing civilian population unprovoked.

 

well duh wocky, its bible fanfic, like the rapture, or mormonism. i dont know what you're expecting at this point

 

* Holocaust excepted