Is ? 's authority based on his omnipotence?
Options
LUClEN
Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've been thinking a lot about the idea of 'might makes right' for awhile now.
That said it seems that if hypothetically there were many celestial beings that exist, and the one referred to as ? was very powerful but less powerful than another we will call Steve, then ? 's authority is jeopardized by Steve's power. If ? were to say 'do not covet your wife' and Steve said 'Covet your wife every day' it makes sense that people would listen to Steve because Steve would have the power to punish you more severely than ? .
I don't think anybody would listen to ? over Steve in this scenario.
That said it seems that if hypothetically there were many celestial beings that exist, and the one referred to as ? was very powerful but less powerful than another we will call Steve, then ? 's authority is jeopardized by Steve's power. If ? were to say 'do not covet your wife' and Steve said 'Covet your wife every day' it makes sense that people would listen to Steve because Steve would have the power to punish you more severely than ? .
I don't think anybody would listen to ? over Steve in this scenario.
Comments
-
It's the one fallacious argument that defines most religions. Ever heard the expression "I don't have a heaven or help to put you in"? They all operate on the idea that their "? 's" ability to give you eternal punishment or reward is what makes their rules right or just.
-
If ? is less powerful than steve then ? is not ? Steve would be ? .
-
Steve created ? so the masses wouldn't have someone tangible to overthrow
-
Who I am or am not banging seems to be a rather petty concern for a being with the power to achieve every goal possible. Both ? and Steve sound like ? .
-
I've been thinking a lot about the idea of 'might makes right' for awhile now.
That said it seems that if hypothetically there were many celestial beings that exist, and the one referred to as ? was very powerful but less powerful than another we will call Steve, then ? 's authority is jeopardized by Steve's power. If ? were to say 'do not covet your wife' and Steve said 'Covet your wife every day' it makes sense that people would listen to Steve because Steve would have the power to punish you more severely than ? .
I don't think anybody would listen to ? over Steve in this scenario.
I think that it would help to understand just what the Bible says about ? . If being omnipotent is just some power play, then just might be that the world needs to follow Steve. But it is not. It's about trusting ? with every aspect our lives; including what is considered good or evil. In the "garden", we didn't do that. There is this saying I got from somewhere is that we really don't break the rules. The rules still stand whether we obey them or not. We break ourselves. -
Well Zombie says that if there is a being stronger than "? " then it would have the be ? .
You do bring up a good point, which I did hope to address. ? is supposed to be the most powerful, the most moral and the most knowledgeable. If he wasn't the most powerful he still could be the most moral and the most knowledgeable. Would his word still have the same authority if a more powerful being existed?
This may be a poor analogy but I imagine it like Mexico where they have a government and a police force that is supposed to be good and wise, but its power is dwarfed by the gangs. So while the government represents a certain perspective there are many who do as the gangs say because of their power. -
Who knows if this being is all powerful? To us he/she/it does because we are weak. If anything iI believe there is not just one higher being.
-
Well Zombie says that if there is a being stronger than "? " then it would have the be ? .
You do bring up a good point, which I did hope to address. ? is supposed to be the most powerful, the most moral and the most knowledgeable. If he wasn't the most powerful he still could be the most moral and the most knowledgeable. Would his word still have the same authority if a more powerful being existed?
This may be a poor analogy but I imagine it like Mexico where they have a government and a police force that is supposed to be good and wise, but its power is dwarfed by the gangs. So while the government represents a certain perspective there are many who do as the gangs say because of their power.
I don't think that the issue is about a show of strength. It is whether or not ? is the reason for why power, morals, and knowledge exist. The Mexican gangs may show that they have power over government and police, but they can't say they brought the concept of power into existence...nor can the good and wise people can say they brought morals and knowledge into existence. -
Hmmmmm..... indeed.
-
I don't think ? 's power is solely based on omnipotence. It's more so based on him being the creator; sort of a filial piety. So because he, theoretically speaking, is the all powerful source of all existence, his word would be miles above anyone else by default.
-
I don't think ? 's power is solely based on omnipotence. It's more so based on him being the creator; sort of a filial piety. So because he, theoretically speaking, is the all powerful source of all existence, his word would be miles above anyone else by default.
If I were to take my hypothetical further then, and say that the competing deity had the power to override "? 's" will, would ? still have the same authority? If Steve could send a good man to hell and a bad man to heaven at whim would ? still command the same respect?
I am inclined to say no. However, I also realize that just because ? may not be able to reward punish as he intends his commands are not any less moral or beneficial.
It just seems that if there is a competing power ? 's rightness is undermined and therefore not as powerful. -
Well according to Christian theology, humans have free will independent of ? 's will. Even though, in theory, this idea of free will falls apart given what ? is, if humans have the ability to decide their fate regardless of what ? may have intended, there is already an example of gods will not being absolute in some sense however, he has absolute authority.
-
Take one of the Genesis stories for example..
? 's will was that Adam and Eve live free of sin. Yet, they, independent of his will, disobeyed but his authority deemed the disobedience as punishable by exile. Again, this relationship is held together by ? being creator, similar to that of parent and child. -
Sovereignty of ? , ever heard of it?
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Sovereignty of ? , ever heard of it?
tell us about it instead of being a pompous ? . -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Sovereignty of ? , ever heard of it?
tell us about it instead of being a pompous ? .
All I did was ask a question my friend. I don't know how you can interpret that as being "a pompous ? ", but I do apologize if I offended you.
But anyways the sovereignty of ? overrules everything under His feet. That means that ? is the supreme ruler and He can do and will do anything that pleases Him without anybody having the power to stop His will, plan, or purpose from being accomplished.
-
Sounds like arrogance and definite ESTJ mindset.
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Sovereignty of ? , ever heard of it?
tell us about it instead of being a pompous ? .
All I did was ask a question my friend. I don't know how you can interpret that as being "a pompous ? ", but I do apologize if I offended you.
But anyways the sovereignty of ? overrules everything under His feet. That means that ? is the supreme ruler and He can do and will do anything that pleases Him without anybody having the power to stop His will, plan, or purpose from being accomplished.
was his plan for all of mankind to go to heaven? -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Sovereignty of ? , ever heard of it?
tell us about it instead of being a pompous ? .
All I did was ask a question my friend. I don't know how you can interpret that as being "a pompous ? ", but I do apologize if I offended you.
But anyways the sovereignty of ? overrules everything under His feet. That means that ? is the supreme ruler and He can do and will do anything that pleases Him without anybody having the power to stop His will, plan, or purpose from being accomplished.
was his plan for all of mankind to go to heaven?
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9
? wants to save every human being, but ? will not force anyone to love Him. ? gave man a will to choose. He will not impede upon mans choice to love Him or hate Him. Thus ? demonstrates His love in order that man will choose the right path, and He demonstrated His love like this:
"But ? demonstrated his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8
Will you choose life today my friend?
-
Okay so if ? 's plan was for everyone to enter into heaven, and there are souls who are not in heaven, obviously and contrary to what you said, what ? wants to happen can indeed be stopped.
-
Okay so if ? 's plan was for everyone to enter into heaven, and there are souls who are not in heaven, obviously and contrary to what you said, what ? wants to happen can indeed be stopped.
Where do you see "plan" in the scripture quoted? It says ? "wants" no one to perish, but all to repent! That means that man is responsible for repenting, not ? .
The plan of ? is to save those who will repent. Thus ? says this:
"Everyone living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life. That book belongs to the lamb who was slaughtered before the creation of the world." Revelation 13:8
The context is ? saying that everyone in the last days will worship the antichrist except for those people whose names are in the book of life, which means believers in Jesus Christ.
But the point I want to highlight is that the lamb, Jesus Christ, was slain before the foundation of the world! Thus ? knew that ahead of time, because He knows the end from the beginning, that He would have to incarnate Himself in order to redeem mankind! That was part of the plan of ? ! To redeem a people for His name! To save those who would freely choose to love Him, accept Him, and obey Him!
And part of that plan also included the allowance of sin to come into the world in order to seperate the wheat from the tares. To seperate those who would freely choose to love ? from those who would freely choose to hate ? . -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Okay so if ? 's plan was for everyone to enter into heaven, and there are souls who are not in heaven, obviously and contrary to what you said, what ? wants to happen can indeed be stopped.
Where do you see "plan" in the scripture quoted? It says ? "wants" no one to perish, but all to repent!
Main Entry: will
Pronunciation: \ˈwil\
Function: noun
1 : desire, wish:
-
If ? wants to save every human and his wish is that they join him in heaven, that is his will.
His will is not absolute is every human does not enter into heaven. -
If ? wants to save every human and his wish is that they join him in heaven, that is his will.
His will is not absolute is every human does not enter into heaven.
No. ? wants to see no one perish, but everyone come to repentance. Read the scripture my friend.
The want of ? must be followed by the action of man! How many times must I tell you that we are not robots! ? will not impede on mans choice to repent. It is up to us to decide if we want ? or not.
Thus the plan of ? still stands, which is to make all things right, abolish sin forever, destroy the works of the devil, make all things new, be glorified in His saints, and subdue all things under His feet. That's just a brief synopsis though. Amen.
-
? wants man to choose to come to him
