The Limits of God's Power

[Dr T]

I just read through this thread, and maybe I don't fully understand what the posters are saying, but i'll give the gist of my understanding. It has been stated that God is omnipotent, and as such he can do crazy things like make 4 sided triangles. I firmly believe that God is omnipotent, but he is in fact constrained by natural laws that either have always existed, or he created. God himself clearly states there are things he cannot do or he would cease to be God. For example, can God defy gravity? I think the answer is no. Take that as you will, but fill in any other natural law and ask yourself if God can change them. I believe he cannot. However, God does know how to work within the constraints of natural laws to accomplish the things he would have done, just as man has learned to do. We can fly, does any one doubt that God can fly? We have learned to work with the laws of gravity, and overcome the constraints presented to us in order to accomplish flight. Why can't God do the same thing, and still have to obey the laws of nature? Saying that God can and does have a better understanding of the laws of nature, and knows how to overcome their constraints is not saying God is not Omnipotent. It is saying he has greater understanding of those things. We do not need to have a perfect knowledge of how he does everything in order to believe he is Omnipotent.

I disagree with that MDF. I do not see God constrained to physical laws. I see Him as "supernatural" and therefore miraculous. Walking on water, controlling the storm with his words, burning bush without it being consumed, rising from the dead, healing the ill, etc. I do not see Him bound in that way.

[mdfxdb]

Just because we cannot expain scientifically what or how God does something does not mean he is not constrained by physical laws. There are no such things as miracles, only those things which are beyond our current understanding. To say that we can understand perfectly, and explain scientifically how he does those things would be arrogance on our part to even try to attempt, but that does not negate the laws of nature. Something as simple flight would have been considered a miracle in the not to distant past, does this negate physics, or gravity? I would state that we have harnessed our understanding of the restraints of those laws in order to achieve our objectives. God works in the same way. Do you not think that if he chose he could explain exactly how he does what he does? Or do you think he would just shrug and say "I don't know it's a miracle"?

[Moksha]

Erratic morality enshrouded by mystery sounds a bit like something one could derive from a literary analysis of War and Peace. The old Ebenezer Scrooge might even chalk erratic morality up to a spot of bad mustard. Perhaps Dr. Spock might link it to overly zealous potty training.

But mystery! Giving a green light to erraticism in God via a lack of understanding of Divine nature, really seems to be rooted in trying to justify troublesome scriptural passages. If one needs these questionable Biblical actions to come from God rather than Man, then God must be forced into an apologetic mystery to enable this idea. Is it fair to God? Is it a true picture of God?

[Snow]

To an extent this is correct. However, we have to distinguish between what we mortals consider as good, and what God considers as good.

Many parents lavish wonderful things upon their children, thinking they are doing good for and by those kids. Some parents are extremely protective of their kids, trying to prevent them from experiencing pain and suffering. Other parents see the need for kids to suffer from their poor choices, so they can grow up to be responsible and capable.

Which way is good?

Is God's "essential nature" such that he is completely blissful? If so, then how can he also weep over our sins? God cannot be totally at bliss and compassionate at the same time. Instead, his "essential nature" is to maximize whatever decision or emotion to the divine goals of his work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).

At times, God reaches his goals by lavishing gifts upon his children. Other times, he must destroy and punish. All of this is done in order to achieve his overall goal of saving his children. In this, he must give up some personal bliss, in order to show compassion. He must also give up always lavishing only good gifts on his children, in order to refine them and save them. A loving father chastises his children.

Snow cannot fully grasp this, which is why he refuses to believe that a good God can destroy a nation, or a person. Or have Moses and Joshua and Nephi do it.

Yet all of this is aimed at saving souls in the long run. A child that grows up in war-torn Somalia, or in the famines of Ethiopia, may seem like evidence that God is not good nor just. After all, why let some children starve or be raped and enslaved, etc., while Bill Gates' children will never go without? Yet, if we look at God's eternal plan, then all tears are wiped off, and all suffering will be replaced with joy a hundred-fold over. THEN we see God's true goodness, justice and love. These sufferings are but a moment, the Lord told Joseph Smith, and then comes the rewards and blessings. Only after such trials can we truly appreciate the release from all struggle and bondage that Christ's atonement gives us. We see the need to embrace the atonement, not just to repent of our own sins, but to be healed of all the evils imposed upon us by this world.

In this, God is good, just, compassionate. And in this is his eternal power.

That's funny ram. I don't grasp how killing innocent babies, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and enslaving is all GOOD, but you (and gatorman) do.

You think your ideas have merit. Try this... next Fast and Testimony Meeting, get up and say something like: I bear fervent witness, that in the right set of circumstance, human slavery and rape are perfectly good options. I testify that, if the situation calls for it, killing babies is an act of goodness and love.

Let me know how that goes.

[Snow]

Erratic morality enshrouded by mystery sounds a bit like something one could derive from a literary analysis of War and Peace. The old Ebenezer Scrooge might even chalk erratic morality up to a spot of bad mustard. Perhaps Dr. Spock might link it to overly zealous potty training.

But mystery! Giving a green light to erraticism in God via a lack of understanding of Divine nature, really seems to be rooted in trying to justify troublesome scriptural passages. If one needs these questionable Biblical actions to come from God rather than Man, then God must be forced into an apologetic mystery to enable this idea. Is it fair to God? Is it a true picture of God?

That's the answer to everything - appeal to the dogma of mystery. It's not subject to facts, it's not subject to reason or logic, it's not subject to ethics, it's not subject to science or history or anything real.

In the mind of the dogmatist, evidence AGAINST the dogma simply gets repackaged as evidence FOR the dogma.

For example... It's doubtful that God killed innocent people because God is just and compassionate... becomes in the mind of the dogmatist: SEE! God loved them so much that He did them the favor of killing them so they wouldn't have to grow up in a bad home.

[Dr T]

Just because we cannot expain scientifically what or how God does something does not mean he is not constrained by physical laws. There are no such things as miracles, only those things which are beyond our current understanding. To say that we can understand perfectly, and explain scientifically how he does those things would be arrogance on our part to even try to attempt, but that does not negate the laws of nature. Something as simple flight would have been considered a miracle in the not to distant past, does this negate physics, or gravity? I would state that we have harnessed our understanding of the restraints of those laws in order to achieve our objectives. God works in the same way. Do you not think that if he chose he could explain exactly how he does what he does? Or do you think he would just shrug and say "I don't know it's a miracle"?

No God might say, "You really think I used to be a man like you?" Then follow it with "I'm God." He doesn't need to explain himself to us sir/maam.

[Snow]

What about this...

A young man wishes to get married... to a young lady who will only marry a virgin. Unfortunately, the young man, who is not repentant, does not qualify. He prays that God will - not grant him forgiveness - but rather that God will change history and make it so that the act never happened.

Can God change the past?

[Seminarysnoozer]

What about this...

A young man wishes to get married... to a young lady who will only marry a virgin. Unfortunately, the young man, who is not repentant, does not qualify. He prays that God will - not grant him forgiveness - but rather that God will change history and make it so that the act never happened.

Can God change the past?

If He could how would you know it happened?

[rameumptom]

That's funny ram. I don't grasp how killing innocent babies, raping, stealing, kidnapping, and enslaving is all GOOD, but you (and gatorman) do.

You think your ideas have merit. Try this... next Fast and Testimony Meeting, get up and say something like: I bear fervent witness, that in the right set of circumstance, human slavery and rape are perfectly good options. I testify that, if the situation calls for it, killing babies is an act of goodness and love.

Let me know how that goes.

That's emotional hogwash, and you know it. Try actually discussing the merits, rather than just tossing out disbelief. This is getting tedious, much like trying a discussion with an anti-Mormon. You give them evidence, and they scoff at it, also.

How about you go up on the next Fast and Testimony meeting and testify how you are glad that the Bible is pretty much all allegory? No division of the Red Sea. No Flood. No Creation. No talking donkeys. No miracles of God through Moses in Egypt.

I'm thinking if I got up and testified that God has a plan, and sometimes that requires God to destroy with Flood or armies, members would accept it. I wouldn't couch it in the terms you placed it, because that was a straw man, and you know it. I do not like the idea of babies dying. But you know what? They do. The question is whether God commanded Moses and Joshua to slay cities or not; or if God slew the first born of Egypt. If God did, then you are obviously wrong. If God didn't, then the Bible and Book of Mormon are obviously wrong on key issues of belief, and why the heck are we Christians for, if those things are wrong?

It is one thing to allegorize talking donkeys, although I don't see why it has to be, given God has the power to do so. It is another thing to take key components of the scripture, agreed upon by both Bible and Book of Mormon, and allegorize it, simply because it doesn't match up with your view of what God should be like!

[john doe]

Let's stop the trash talk about each other and civilly discuss the topic or I will close it. No more inferences about others' testimonies or what to do at church. If you can't be nice while talking about the subject, then refrain from posting in the thread.

[mdfxdb]

No God might say, "You really think I used to be a man like you?" Then follow it with "I'm God." He doesn't need to explain himself to us sir/maam.

As to whether or not God was a man like me is a subject for perhaps another thread. I do not have any expectation that God needs to explain himself to us. However, if he chose to do so, then he could, and it would be a rational explination totally in conformance with natural laws as he understands them and conforms to them. Why do his works have to be a total mystery or "miracle"? I believe that even though we may not fully understand how he does or did some of his "miracles" that does not mean they are not fully explainable to us given a proper understanding of his constraints and what it takes to overcome said constraings.

[Moksha]

I believe in miracles, but I realize there is more behind them than magic. Understanding the mechanics of the Universe was taught to some extent in school, but there are so many parts we have yet to learn and some parts that are beyond our abilities to grasp. What we do not grasp is not magic, but rather information and understanding that is waiting for our evolved selves.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Can God create spirits with specific traits? Seems like that's out of His power, don't know. But it would seem to me if He could, He would make all spirits the same, like our older brother. This goes back to our discussion of different Intelligences, seems like we started out different. If we were all the same seems nobody or everybody would have ultimately followed Lucifer, let alone there being a Lucifer in the first place.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Seminarysnoozer
typo

[Snow]

That's emotional hogwash, and you know it. Try actually discussing the merits, rather than just tossing out disbelief. This is getting tedious, much like trying a discussion with an anti-Mormon. You give them evidence, and they scoff at it, also.

How about you go up on the next Fast and Testimony meeting and testify how you are glad that the Bible is pretty much all allegory? No division of the Red Sea. No Flood. No Creation. No talking donkeys. No miracles of God through Moses in Egypt.

I'm thinking if I got up and testified that God has a plan, and sometimes that requires God to destroy with Flood or armies, members would accept it. I wouldn't couch it in the terms you placed it, because that was a straw man, and you know it. I do not like the idea of babies dying. But you know what? They do. The question is whether God commanded Moses and Joshua to slay cities or not; or if God slew the first born of Egypt. If God did, then you are obviously wrong. If God didn't, then the Bible and Book of Mormon are obviously wrong on key issues of belief, and why the heck are we Christians for, if those things are wrong?

It is one thing to allegorize talking donkeys, although I don't see why it has to be, given God has the power to do so. It is another thing to take key components of the scripture, agreed upon by both Bible and Book of Mormon, and allegorize it, simply because it doesn't match up with your view of what God should be like!

Ram,

You seem upset. Breath slowly and get a grip... though the "anti-Mormon" thingy was a super touch. Just super.

So - over the last 5 years I've been a regular speaker in Sacrament Meeting and taught, oh, maybe a couple of hundred priesthood lessons. You'd better believe that I talk consistently about these things. Occasionally or at least once someone, got his knickers in a bunch and complained to the Bishop. The result? They promoted me to President and then I taught 3 times a month instead of twice.

You know, when people hear that it was a probably mistranslation and should likely have been Sea of Reeds, they go, ah - well that's more like it. That makes sense.

... and in answer to your question - I really don't know why you Christian. Only you can answer that but it seems to me that some of your believes don't match up with all facets of the gospel.

[Misshalfway]

Only you can answer that but it seems to me that some of your believes don't match up with all facets of the gospel.

We all have deficiencies in our testimonies, Snow. Pointing it out in someone else is like the pot calling the kettle. Don't you think?

It's so interesting to me that all of us.....myself included....have such a need to be superior. It kinda feels like that pride before the fall thing.

[Snow]

We all have deficiencies in our testimonies, Snow. Pointing it out in someone else is like the pot calling the kettle. Don't you think?

It's so interesting to me that all of us.....myself included....have such a need to be superior. It kinda feels like that pride before the fall thing.

Oh - I more than readily admit that some of my views are well outside the mainstream - but the point is that the poster in question is haranguing me for not accepting the mainstream view when in fact he is the pot calling kettle black. Rocks and glass houses - and all that.

[Misshalfway]

Oh - I more than readily admit that some of my views are well outside the mainstream - but the point is that the poster in question is haranguing me for not accepting the mainstream view when in fact he is the pot calling kettle black. Rocks and glass houses - and all that.

I know. I know.

We could....I don't know....stop throwing the rocks.

It's just an idea I think I read about somewhere.

[rameumptom]

Snow,

I have no problem with you having a different view than anyone else. It isn't that you have a different viewpoint. It is how you express it. You have been very insulting to several people on this thread, causing several of us to lose our tempers. That is not discussion. That is just belittling people into winning the discussion.

So, I'm done with the trash talk. You win. Your views are your views, and you outlasted me on this thread.

[Snow]

Snow,

I have no problem with you having a different view than anyone else. It isn't that you have a different viewpoint. It is how you express it. You have been very insulting to several people on this thread, causing several of us to lose our tempers. That is not discussion. That is just belittling people into winning the discussion.

So, I'm done with the trash talk. You win. Your views are your views, and you outlasted me on this thread.

It's America. If you choose to be insulted, that's your business. As for me, I don't think any less of you for not agreeing with me.

[rameumptom]

This thread has long run its course and gone way off topic. I'm closing it.