Random Musings

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Since things are slow...

I've often heard definitions of "limited" omniscience that say that God is
still omniscient even if he can't do paradoxical or contradictory things
(ie, make a stone so big he can't move it, make a square triangle,
mistakenly overdraw his bank account) but why is that reasonable? Given that
logic is nothing more than an intellectual construct, why is it that it is
not unreasonable to expect an omnimax being to be capable of violating laws
of physics (like gravity & planck's constants) but yet he cannot break our
made-up rules of logic? Remember, this is a being whose very definition
(three-beings-but-one-being) is a logical contradiction, so why is it
unreasonable to use immovable objects & irresistible forces to show how
absurd the whole concept is?

Secondly, just recently we heard (as we often do) about how someone's close,
personal relationship with Jesus proves the existence of God, but isn't that
dangerously close to the heresy of Gnosticism? Isn't it reasonable to point
out that the Bible is to be the sum of God's revelation to man (woe to he
who adds words to this book, as Revelations says), and that those with close
personal relationships are in fact heretics?

I realize these are both weak, ill-thought out points, but just thinking out
loud on a slow day.

B.

• Previous message: The Testimony of the 3 and 8 Witnesses to the BoM
• Next message: Random Musings
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]