Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
I've been out all morning, and while I was out, I was composing a stunningly clever response to a question that I thought Andúril had asked me. When I sat down to find the question so I could quote it and amaze the thread readers with the sheer brillance of my answer , I found that he DIDN'T ask the question I thought he had, and he was even talking to someone else! Oh well ... further proof that parts of my body (in this case, a few brain cells) have travelled on to heaven ahead of me ....

RÃ*an's stunningly clever response:

*Wonders what on Middle-earth RÃ*an's on about.*

[Rían]

Actually, I just posted the first word (i.e., "no") of my stunningly clever response - the response I had composed contained several sentences and even had a few big words in it. I will reserve the response in case you ever DO ask the question, and then I can triumphantly bring it out, and amaze people not only with the cleverness of it, but with the sheer rapidity with which I answer the question

*aren't women irritating *

[Rían]

Y'know, I just realized that this is the opposite of what usually happens - you know how usually the response is thought of an hour or so later, after the other person has already left? Well, this time, I thought of the response BEFORE the person asked the question! Pretty amazing of me, isn't it!

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

I was raised a reform jew...and i had a bat mitzvah (which was fun ) but now i am seriously considering being a wiccan, i have done a couple of circles, but i have to decide if i want to take it more seriously. Contrary to beleive, wiccans are no satan worshipers...there is a g-d and a g-ddess that we beleive in.
I dont really care wut religion anyone is, because most of us (but not all) beleive in a g-d or g-ds but in a diffrent form

[Andúril]

RÃ*an,

How long until my Silmarillian, Unfinished Tales, and HoME: part 1 arrive? I ordered them from Amazon.co.uk, and you know where I live...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Coney
Does it not really get annoying to think that non-christian friends will end up in Hell?..............personally it would drive me round the loop if I thought that so many folks I love and respect are going to spend eternity in a lava bath
...
Take ya time Rian ............ the clogs are still secure

Oh Coney, Coney the word is NOT 'annoying', it's 'heart-breaking'....

But can you see from our explanations that I really think that it's NOT a case of non-Christians knocking on the door of heaven, begging to get in, but rather a case of a determined refusal on their side to enter heaven, which is where God's reign is completely visible and evident (and it is a joyous thing to have such a great and holy ruler, and nothing but joy for the Christian to be in His presence). Can you get an inkling of that picture at all?

Originally posted by Coney
*tiptoes away from the thread........read quite a bit of the bible last night.....doesn't like it, not at all*

Can you tell me why? I'd really like to know...

Originally posted by Coney
Free will seems to have a few conditions attached to it.

But that is because you're looking at it from the 'there is no absolute truth' angle again - IOW, "if I don't like what reality is, then it doesn't apply to me". That doesn't make sense. That's why math is such a good analogy - it's the same as saying "I don't like that 2+3=5, I think I'll choose a different option." You may certainly choose to do so, but the REALITY is that you are just plain wrong.

The point is that Heaven and Hell are a REALITY (of course, I'm speaking of the Christian point of view (which is right, BTW ) and not speaking that way to force my opinion on everyone - I'm trying to explain how the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell is logical and fair), and God is loving and just and has provided a way for salvation (which happens to mean you will spend eternity in heaven) as a free gift, but the gift CANNOT be forced on people that don't want it - and for those that freely choose to not accept His gift, the only other option is Hell. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Coney
Why the heck should anyone respect a god who treats people with so much disdain?

I have to run off now and pick up the kids from school - is this still a question for you, or have the posts since you asked this been able to show you the great love that God has for people? I'll expand on this if you would like me to.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
RÃ*an,

How long until my Silmarillian, Unfinished Tales, and HoME: part 1 arrive? I ordered them from Amazon.co.uk, and you know where I live...

Well, that wasn't the question I thought you had asked, unfortunately Sorry, I don't have an answer for you , except that classic line: "It's in the mail!"

[HOBBIT]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Rian, not to be rude, but I think that the term Jew is not considered as polite as Jewish person, etc. Of course, I could be wrong about this: Markedel and EG; what is the politically correct term?

eh? theres nothing wrong with saying Jew........

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn
I was raised a reform jew...

[Rían]

Good point, Wayfarer - (it took me a second to get it, tho ) - and looking back over this thread, I see that both EG and markedel said "Jew", too. And I should have added that I'm NOT interested in being PC, but I would want to know if a term is offensive/hurtful to someone that I know - and "Jew" has certainly been used in a derogatory way by certain groups of people, unfortunately.

(ps - has anyone tried out the "nickel, dime and ...." riddle out on anyone? It worked quite successfully for me, when it was spoken - typed didn't work so well!)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Legolas Frodo Aragorn (I guess you don't play favorites, huh? :P), that brings up another question: How is Wiccan pronounced? Since cc is sometimes pronounced as ch and sometimes as k, I've been wondering which it is in Wicca.

[Rían]

***********
* . POST . IS.*
* DONE NOW*
***********
**
**
**
**
\\\\**//////

(ps - that's grass growing at the bottom of the post) (stupid space-remover algorithm - I can't center it like I want to)

Now I'm going to go back to the post that I posted a few days ago but got interrupted and asked people to not comment on it and you-know-who commented on it anyway and I whacked him over the head for it with my LoTR book ... (whew)

"weak" omnipotence????
What I'm going to talk about in this post (and maybe more, if I hit the post length limit) is my objection to your "weak omnipotence" and "strong omnipotence" terms. I think that they are entirely irrelevant to what we are discussing (as I will explain below).

I'm going to take quotes from two of your posts; they both may be found on page 4 of this thread.

-------------------------------------

by Andúril (reference numbers added by RÃ*an, because she likes to do these types of things and Andúril has no authority to stop me (have I mentioned that before? j/k j/k) ) (please note the matching opening and closing parenthesis - the mark of a true computer person)

(1) The term "all-powerful" refers to strong omnipotence - the ability to perform any describable (syntactically possible) action. (2) An entity who is all-powerful can do all things.

(3) The pool of abilities that are open to such a being include such illogical things as creating a vegetable that is both fully an apple and granadilla at the same time. (4) In light of this, the concept of weak omnipotence was adopted: the ability to perform all actions without extending to illogical scenarios. (5) A weakly omnipotent being cannnot create a vegetable that is both fully an apple and granadilla at the same time.

(6) A strongly omnipotent being can lie. (7) A weakly omnipotent being's pool of abilities depends on
The amount of independant illogical scenarios that exist, and
the attributes of the being
(8) What was intended by apologists as a handy concept to explain away the blatant problems of the illogic involved, this concept unfortunately encompasses far more than "God", and is now practically useless as a stand-alone characteristic.

(9) It is clear that you are talking about strong omnipotence (unless you actually meant "God is kinda All-Powerful").
(10) If God is all-powerful, then he can lie.
(11) God cannot lie.
(12) Therefore, God is not all-powerful.
(13) additional premise a: "God is all-powerful" is included in the syllogism, then "God" becomes an illogical concept.

(14)Weak omnipotence can help you out.

by Andúril (emphasis added by RÃ*an)

(15)Some define "God" with incompatible attributes. (16)In the same way that an object that is both a square and a circle cannot exist in reality,(17) proposed deities with definitions that involve illogic cannot exist.

-----------------------------------------
RÃ*an's responses: (out of order, just for the fun of it)

(10) - (12), (6), (13) : What you're missing in this whole thing is the difference between "can" - have power to; and "can" - to be likely to (both defs are in Webster's dictionary). God is physically able to lie, of course; however, because of his holy character, He CANNOT lie (i.e., He is absolutely not likely to). There is NO incompatibility in these statements; therefore, your (12) is not a valid conclusion.
Let me give a real-life example. I don't know if you have a sister or not in real life. Let's pretend that you do, if you don't, and what's more, that you love her more than anyone else in the entire world. Can you torture, rape and murder her? Yes, you are physically able to (unless you are paralyzed or stopped by some physical disability, which I assume you're not). BUT - can (in the other since of 'are you likely to') you torture, rape and murder her? Of course not - it is COMPLETELY against your character and desire! It is absolutely NO diminution of God's omnipotence to say that He CANNOT do something against His character! This logic also kills (6) and (13).

(I better start another post, I can tell this next one is going to be long...)

[Rían]

(1) I thoroughly disagree with this statement - where did you get the term "strong omnipotence", BTW? Out of what dictionary or widely-accepted textbook? (BTW, your link just seems to refer to a post that YOU made on another thread on a Christian discussion board; is that correct?) How can "all-powerful" be related to something that is sheer nonsense, even if it is "syntactically possible"? YOU YOURSELF said in (16) that illogical things CANNOT EXIST IN REALITY, and I completely agree with that. Let us stick to the realm of reality here - I'm not interested in talking about things that are not real.

C.S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, deals with this subject very well, IMO, and I'll quote him here (italics are his):

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can'. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

And frankly, I think that really deals with the rest of your post, so I won't bother to refer to the remaining numbers. I see nothing in your post that I haven't logically refuted between the two discussions I presented. If you disagree, then feel free to let me know what you think.

And actually, I think I'll close with a comment on your (14) by saying: I'm sure glad that neither 'weak omnipotence' nor 'strong omnipotence' are helping ME out - but REAL omnipotence!

And I'm done editing both posts now - I'll leave my sign up, though, because it came out so cute, IMHO, but I'll change the wording on it.

[Andúril]

I'll begin my response by providing my understanding of those concepts that I have referred to. I'll reply to your posts afterwards.

Strong Omnipotence

This concept refers most often to:

• the power to perform any syntactically possible action.

Some define it as:

• the power to bring about any state of affairs.

Derived from past theologians and religious philosophers who liked to attribute God with infinite power, strong omnipotence has been dropped in favor of the more rational concept of weak omnipotence.

Strong omnipotence is an illogical concept. It encompasses actions and states of affair that lack logical integrity, as it is clear that all describable actions and things, and all states of affair are not necessarily coherent.

This characteristic is not always mentioned explicitly, but very often implicitly. For example, some refer to a God that can perform actions that would fall outside even the realm of logical possibilities, suggesting that God created this realm and can change it at will. They do not always refer to this ability by the name "strong omnipotence", but that is exactly what it is.

An interesting scenario would be the hypothetical encounter of two strongly omnipotent beings (B and N). B wishes to walk in a straight line, but N desires to stop B from doing so. Now what?

To sum up, strong omnipotence fails to exclude actions that are inherently illogical and scenarios that are logically impossible.

Weak Omnipotence

Very often referred to as:

• the ability to perform any logical action

...or...

• the ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs

One problem that many have when appealing to the first definition is that they fail to recognize that an action cannot be labeled "logically possible" without taking into account the agent in question. For instance, someone might say "It is logically possible to tell a lie", indicating that "to tell a lie" is an action that is inherently logically sound, and remains sound regardless of the agent's attributes.

This, however, is not the case. Consider a being that is defined as omniscient. Since this being already knows the truth value of all propositions, it is impossible to learn additional truth values. When someone asks "can an omniscient being learn?" the act of learning is assumed to be an concept that remains coherent regardless of the scenario. But, since there exists no propositions of which the truth value is not known by an omniscient being, the act of "learning" for such a being is rendered meaningless. It is not rendered meaningless for other non-omniscient entities, only those for whom there exists no realm of unknown facts.

Therefore, for an omniscient being X to learn, it requires that X perform an illogical action. It is impossible for X to learn anything if everything there is to be known is known by X. Strong omnipotence must be used if X is to learn.

The second definition is very similar, but it takes into account the issue of logical relativity by refering to the inclusive nature of a state of affairs as opposed to the exclusive nature of the agent and action.

In order to determine what a weakly omnipotent being can do, one must be aware of two things:

• concepts and scenarios that are inherently illogical, exclusive of the agent.
• the attributes of the agent.

Concepts that are inherently illogical include the famous square circle, colourless red apples, etc.

Consider this: X has previously been defined as omniscient. Since X knows everything there is to know, to X there no longer exists anything that is unknown, and this renders meaningless "to learn" relative to X because learning requires something to be unknown.

If X is not defined as omniscient, then there exists things which are not known to X, and the act "to learn" becomes a logical possibility (unless additional attributes/scenarios negate that act).

The more attributes a being has, the more scenarios (or states of affair) cross over into the realm of illogic.

[Andúril]

The major problem with weak omnipotence is that it includes such agents as humans. When you take into account weak omnipotence principles by taking those concepts and scenarios that are inherently illogical, and adding them to the realm of illogic that has been essentially "created" by the human attributes (and in keeping with the relativity issue, the attributes of individual humans), you end up with weakly omnipotent humans.

Weak omnipotence does not indicate a set amount of power or ability. It is a relative concept, and in essence means: The ability to perform any action that can be performed by that agent. Using less strict phraseology, we come to the conclusion: A weakly omnipotent being can do what it can do.

Thus weak omnipotence is largely useless. It is a tautological concept, involving the equations: (Let S = set of abilities)

• S = S
• S = ~~S
• ~S = ~S

Conclusion

According to my understanding of these concepts, some characteristic other than strong or weak omnipotence (as discussed here) must be attributed to God in order to define a being that is supposed to be much more powerful than humans.

[Lizra]

Well, the way I read that, there is no logical way there can be a God. Wishful thinking on the human beings part?

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

its wicca(wika) im at school..so i gtg..sorry to not explain anything more

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
(1) I thoroughly disagree with this statement - where did you get the term "strong omnipotence", BTW? Out of what dictionary or widely-accepted textbook?

I initially came across the terms at both secular and religious discussion boards, and found them to be used by people far more knowledgeable than myself in this area.

More:
(BTW, your link just seems to refer to a post that YOU made on another thread on a Christian discussion board; is that correct?)

Correct. It concerns atheism, so I don't understand why you have brought it up in the midst of a discussion about omnipotence.

More:
How can "all-powerful" be related to something that is sheer nonsense, even if it is "syntactically possible"?

Answered above in my explanation of strong omnipotence. Additionally, it is not uncommon for people to speak of God's infinite power. How Christians infer this from biblical passages does not fall under the scope of this reply. The fact remains that it has been inferred.

More:
YOU YOURSELF said in (16) that illogical things CANNOT EXIST IN REALITY, and I completely agree with that.

I'm glad you do.

More:
Let us stick to the realm of reality here - I'm not interested in talking about things that are not real.

If I was a strong atheist I would have had something clever to say right now.

More:
C.S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, deals with this subject very well, IMO, and I'll quote him here (italics are his):

As you can see, in his opening statement Lewis stipulates a slightly modified version of the first definition I provided of weak omnipotence.

But very soon after this, he switches to a version of strong omnipotence. By saying that there is no limit to God's power, he is admitting that God has infinite power. One wonders if Lewis ever considered if God's power was constrained to logically possible acts...

Indeed he has! Instead of explicitly mentioning illogic or logical impossibility or incoherency, etc., he uses the word "nonsense". Thus God's power is limited to that which is not nonsensical. So God's power is limited, and Lewis has contradicted his prior statement.

Lewis has swung from weak omnipotence, to strong, and back to weak. Such re-defining involves rare skill.

RÃ*an, just out of curiousity, did Lewis back up his assertions with scripture, or is that passage meant to stand on its own?

[Coney]

But can you see from our explanations that I really think that it's NOT a case of non-Christians knocking on the door of heaven, begging to get in, but rather a case of a determined refusal on their side to enter heaven, which is where God's reign is completely visible and evident (and it is a joyous thing to have such a great and holy ruler, and nothing but joy for the Christian to be in His presence). Can you get an inkling of that picture at all?

Well I can certainly get an inkling......it's the full picture I'm having trouble with. This religion seems to demand that you love and trust in your God and even if you live a truly, honest, charitable and pure life then there will be no reward in the afterlife unless you worship God (in fact failure to love God will result in punishent (hell) ).............in fact you can lead as sinful a life as you desire and as long as you repent and accept Jesus as your saviour then heavenward you'll be bound. The only punishment in Christianity is doled out to unbelievers. How can I accept a God who will punish good-hearted folk who do not choose to worship Him while he'll accept the most black-hearted who repent and do worship him?

God cast down the only being brave enough to question his judgement (Lucifer) and it seems that he will cast down anyone else who will not blindly follow his desires.......God is vengeful especially to those who will not bow in supplication.

Can you tell me why? I'd really like to know...

*sigh* where to start?

We'll start at the tip (so to speak).....Circumsicion...Sorry but anyone who takes a blade and mutilates a perfectly healthy 8 day old baby is sick...if this is how God recognises his true children then the being needs to have serious words with himself.

All the omni's ....... this just makes me laugh to be honest. From the Apple feast in the Garden of Eden to Cain killing Able right through to the worship of Baal by Gods Chosen.......Where was God? The same God whom populated the earth then ignored man until he felt the need to flood the entire earth and start from scratch......The same God who waited until his people were hunted battered and starved before he finally decided to give them direction by handing the Ten Commandments to his followers.......if God does have the power to be ever-present and all-knowing then he has a very perverse way of using this power.
I wouldn't sit and watch a child playing in the highway.....I can predict the outcome, dead kid..........God is all knowing yet never once did he prevent Genocide and mass murder.......in fact he often caused the events Himself.

The Lord is My Shepard I shall not want..........if you ask me he left the penn open and sent the wayward flocks to the slaughter house.

To Be Continued......

[Coney]

But that is because you're looking at it from the 'there is no absolute truth' angle again - IOW, "if I don't like what reality is, then it doesn't apply to me". That doesn't make sense. That's why math is such a good analogy - it's the same as saying "I don't like that 2+3=5, I think I'll choose a different option." You may certainly choose to do so, but the REALITY is that you are just plain wrong.

Actually I tend to view it as there are many truths.....only The Bible refuses to allow to me to follow this belief. If you take Heaven, Earth and Hell there are in fact three "truths" yet god gave us this mortal coil and forced us to decide on his truth or Lucifers fate......Sorry but anything mathematical is a terrible analogy......mathematics is pure logic, based in fact........religion isn't.........The Caballa (Jewish Tradition) has tried to use mathematics to find an answer to the question of God for millenia.....as far as I'm aware they havn't succeeded yet.

The point is that Heaven and Hell are a REALITY (of course, I'm speaking of the Christian point of view (which is right, BTW ) and not speaking that way to force my opinion on everyone - I'm trying to explain how the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell is logical and fair), and God is loving and just and has provided a way for salvation (which happens to mean you will spend eternity in heaven) as a free gift, but the gift CANNOT be forced on people that don't want it - and for those that freely choose to not accept His gift, the only other option is Hell. Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense although I can't agree with it........it is my nature to question and examine any kind of authority laid onto me and I can only love and respect those whose actions I feel make a good example as to why I should love and respect them........the Bible gives me no such reasurrance for me the 11th commandment should have been "Thou shalt do as I say, not as I do"

yrs piously

Coney!