Omnipotence

[pammalamma]

I think the Catholic church has an interesting definition:

"Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

This gets around the old "square circle" objection.  I would define it more like "nothing is too difficult for God." Ah Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens

Comments

Also open to discussion...

[tcpip]

if God were to allow unrepentant sinners into heaven, or even have mercy on them after they have rejected forgiveness through his son, that would be inconsistent with his character, because he is just.

Just to clarify the Christian Universalist position did not dispute the existence of divine punishment, they just rejected the idea of eternal punishment.

I also have problems with the idea of divinity that is apparently (even if consistently) morally inferior to many mere mortals who are prepared to forgive.

Google "omnibenevolent," and you see that it's not used by Christians much.

Orthodox Christians anyway. Universalists and progressive Christians might differ...

Re: Also open to discussion...

[pammalamma]

I've been thinking about this a lot in the past couple of days after that long argument the other day, and here are some more thoughts I've come up with:

I posted on Facebook yesterday, "I find the things people don't do just as interesting as the things they do. Noticing what people don't do can tell you a lot about them." For example, someone had posted this article about a racist remark and failed to notice that the remarks are not just racist, they are sexist. Saying that women are better than men is sexist. I hate man-bashing, so I picked up on that. But the person who posted the link is a minority, so she's sensitive to the remarks about race

Part 2

[pammalamma]

(Stolen from Max Lucado) God isn't just "holy." He isn't just "holy, holy." He is "holy, holy, holy." He's so much better and holier than us, we can't even imagine it. But we can try: Imagine someone who is so far separated from sin and so powerful that nothing imperfect or slightly flawed can exist in its presence. That is the awesome power and holiness of God (of course, I speak as an evangelical Christian, because it would be dishonest of me to do otherwise

Re: Part 2

[tcpip]

Furthermore, in my belief a person has to do only one thing to go to heaven: believe that Jesus is the son of God.

Well, not according to the Book of James in any case :)

But don't you think it is troubling that extremely good Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, even Unitarian Christians would be excluded from heaven simply because such a proposition doesn't make sense to them? I would be profoundly unhappy with any deity that placed such criteria on salvation.

Different faiths have different ideas over this matter. As I have discussed elsewhere, "evil" (both human-made and 'natural') is an immediate and practical problem. Regardless of beliefs of the extra-natural world, I find solace in concentrating on those issues here and now. Hopefully, if there is a higher being, they will recognise these actions....

[bojojoti]

I don't have a problem with the word, because I can see the intent behind the actions and realize that even those things that may seem harsh are allowed out of concern and love. But I have no objection to the more easily understood terms of "righteous" or "just," either.

A parent who allows a child to endure a natural consequence of his bad behavior isn't cruel. Some might argue she isn't benevolent to allow her child to experience discomfort, but I maintain that as the Bible teaches that when we hold back discipline, we ruin a child. What could be more benevolent that assisting a child to live up to his potential?