Originally posted by whiterose
Omnipotence, as defined by the dictionary, means having unlimited power. Having to act according to anything is a limit on power. If God has unlimited power, then He can do ANYTHING, including murdering people. If, on the other hand, he has a benevolent nature, then He cannot murder someone as His benevolent nature constrains him from doing so.

Anyway, how can it be benevolent to send someone to Hell?

Omnipotence, as defined by the dictionary, means having unlimited power. Having to act according to anything is a limit on power.

Quite obviously such a definition of omnipotence is meaningless if God cannot act according to his own nature. To clarify, one's nature is the source of one's actions. I may act out of my compassionate nature. Tigers lash out from their instinctual nature. Omnipotence, however, is an attribute. We tend to say God acts from his omnibenevolent nature through his omnipotent attribute. If God were to act against his nature (essentially, who he is) that would presuppose a power over him that forces him to do that. Not acting benevolently, assuming He has an omnibenevolent nature, would contradict His omnipotence.

As I indicated before: the definition you have for omnipotence is a distortion of its original use. God's omnipotence means he can do anything - but things that are logically impossible (like a four sided triangle, or contradicting His will) are nothing, and to put a different spin on the theology, nothing is imposible to God.

If God has unlimited power, then He can do ANYTHING, including murdering people.

Yes, of course He can. But he won't because He has an omnibenevolent nature.

If, on the other hand, he has a benevolent nature, then He cannot murder someone as His benevolent nature constrains him from doing so.

No, it is rather that he will not. Since he has an omnibenevolent nature, He wills not to. God cannot contradict His will. That would be meaningless.

EDIT: and I would prefer to avoid any theological discussions on why some theists beleive that God sends people to Hell. The popular theology is that if ytou choose yourself over God, you get yourself, and only yourself. If you reject yourself, then you get God. It is the person's choice not God.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Omnipotence, as defined by the dictionary, means having unlimited power. Having to act according to anything is a limit on power.

Quite obviously such a definition of omnipotence is meaningless if God cannot act according to his own nature. To clarify, one's nature is the source of one's actions. I may act out of my compassionate nature. Tigers la ...[text shortened]... only yourself. If you reject yourself, then you get God. It is the person's choice not God.[/b]

I am simply using the dictionary definition of omnipotence. If God has a nature similar to that seen in humans and other animals, then it certainly precludes omnipotence as he would, in fact, have to act according to his nature.

As far as I know, the bible says that when you die you will be judged and sent to Hell. However, I suppose a literal interpretation of the bible is not a prerequisite for being a Christian.

Originally posted by whiterose
I am simply using the dictionary definition of omnipotence. If God has a nature similar to that seen in humans and other animals, then it certainly precludes omnipotence as he would, in fact, have to act according to his nature.

As far as I know, the bible says that when you die you will be judged and sent to Hell. However, I suppose a literal interpretation of the bible is not a prerequisite for being a Christian.

I am simply using the dictionary definition of omnipotence. If God has a nature similar to that seen in humans and other animals, then it certainly precludes omnipotence as he would, in fact, have to act according to his nature.

Omnipotence then is simply impossible. It is an oxymoron. One can only act according to one's nature (except under coercion), simply because one is their nature. It is meaningless to object that God has "to act according to his nature". 'I guess I'm weak and pathetic because I have to be nice to people, simply because I'm a nice person, with a generous and kind nature, if only I had no nature, acted randomly, then I would be all-powerful!' - do you see the problem with that sort of logic?

As far as I know, the bible says that when you die you will be judged and sent to Hell. However, I suppose a literal interpretation of the bible is not a prerequisite for being a Christian.

Old theologians like Augustine and Thomas of Aquinas argued that one goes to hell by their own choice is a philosophical extrapolation from scripture. It has nothing to do with a literal interpretation.

I hope you realize that I never stated that scripture denies that when you die you are judged and sent to Hell. Your comment seems to be a non sequitur.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I am simply using the dictionary definition of omnipotence. If God has a nature similar to that seen in humans and other animals, then it certainly precludes omnipotence as he would, in fact, have to act according to his nature.

Omnipotence then is simply impossible. It is an oxymoron. One can only act according to one's nature (except under coerc ...[text shortened]... at when you die you are judged and sent to Hell. Your comment seems to be a non sequitur.[/b]

Of course omnipotence is possible. Humans can only act according to their natures, but why should God be restricted to having a nature akin to that of a human? I think it is you who have the faulty logic. I am not asserting that something with no nature must be all-powerful, but that something that is all-powerful must have no nature.

If you are judged by God and sent to Hell, then God sends you to Hell. That would be a literal interpretation. However, theologians have extrapolated that it is your own choice.

Originally posted by ParanoidAndroid
Thus to kill another, for any reason, is wrong in today's society.

~ All the best,

So from the religious point of view, do you think it's wrong for the authority to hang, say, a convicted serial killer?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
So from the religious point of view, do you think it's wrong for the authority to hang, say, a convicted serial killer?

who are they to judge? they could be wrong

Originally posted by ivanhoe
A Christian can never claim that it is God's will to kill a murderer or a rapist. Neither can a Christian claim that it is God's will to kill an unborn child, a disabled person, an ill person or a dying person.

If he or she insists claiming this, then you know the person is seriously erring, meaning that he doesn't understand Christ's teachings, or that h ...[text shortened]... s suffering from some kind of delusions, too much fantasy or that he or she is simply lying.

Yet at one time God drown everyone except for a few chosen ones, and pairs of all the animals. There were no statistics on those who died in the flood. But I'd imagine that amongst them were unborn children, disabled persons, and ill persons or dying persons.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
who are they to judge? they could be wrong

OK, never mind about all those legal technicallity. Let's just assume that by means of DNA evidence or other conclusive evidence, i.e. the criminal's own act of admitting the crime without duress. What I'm saying is that in cases where the crime has been proven and/or admitted by the criminal. In such a case, is the authority wrong to hang such criminal?

Originally posted by whiterose
Of course omnipotence is possible. Humans can only act according to their natures, but why should God be restricted to having a nature akin to that of a human? I think it is you who have the faulty logic. I am not asserting that something with no nature must be all-powerful, but that something that is all-powerful must have no nature.

If you are judged ...[text shortened]... be a literal interpretation. However, theologians have extrapolated that it is your own choice.

Of course omnipotence is possible. Humans can only act according to their natures, but why should God be restricted to having a nature akin to that of a human? I think it is you who have the faulty logic. I am not asserting that something with no nature must be all-powerful, but that something that is all-powerful must have no nature.

A thing without a nature is nothing. A thing without a nature cannot act, it cannot be. How is such a thing omnipotent?

And I never said God's nature is restricted to "having a nature akin to that of a human". But God (we'll assume that this God exists) does have a nature (because it is a logical necessity). One's nature is not a restriction. One is one's nature. Such a thing is not a restriction. And you never answered my question, how could God be omnipotent if he can't be omnibenevolent when he wants to be?

If you are judged by God and sent to Hell, then God sends you to Hell. That would be a literal interpretation. However, theologians have extrapolated that it is your own choice.

The judgement of God refers to the doctrine of the eschaton (the end of the world) where it is held that our bodies are resurrected and we are judged according to our acts of charity. The sending of one to heaven or hell is a completely different scenario. In Catholic teaching when one dies one undergoes a particular judgement and then enters either heaven, purgatory or hell. Then follows a universal judgement (which you were referring to) whereby souls, rejoined with their bodies, are sorted into either heaven or hell. I really don't know why you bring all of this up.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Yet at one time God drown everyone except for a few chosen ones, and pairs of all the animals. There were no statistics on those who died in the flood. But I'd imagine that amongst them were unborn children, disabled persons, and ill persons or dying persons.

If you restrict yourself to a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If you restrict yourself to a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

What's that supposed to mean? A different type of interpretation would result in a different type of teaching? Well, how many types of interpretations are there anyway? Which one should be the correct one? So which part(s) of the bible should be interpreted using such type? Did all those 5,000 people really shared those few loaves of bread and a few fish, with 12 baskets leftovers in the end? Was Mary really a virgin when she had Jesus? Did Jesus really revive a dead person?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
What's that supposed to mean? A different type of interpretation would result in a different type of teaching? Well, how many types of interpretations are there anyway? Which one should be the correct one? So which part(s) of the bible should be interpreted using such type? Did all those 5,000 people really shared those few loaves of bread and a few fish, w ...[text shortened]... in the end? Was Mary really a virgin when she had Jesus? Did Jesus really revive a dead person?

It's called hermeneutics.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It's called hermeneutics.

Umm... You'll have to forgive me, but English isn't my first language. My English is only about 10 years old. I'm looking up for the word in my 6th Edition Oxford Dictionary here, but for some strange reasons, it's not here! Could you please elaborate on the word 'hermeneutics'?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Umm... You'll have to forgive me, but English isn't my first language. My English is only about 10 years old. I'm looking up for the word in my 6th Edition Oxford Dictionary here, but for some strange reasons, it's not here! Could you please elaborate on the word 'hermeneutics'?

The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.

From: http://www.answers.com/hermeneutics&r=67

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Of course omnipotence is possible. Humans can only act according to their natures, but why should God be restricted to having a nature akin to that of a human? I think it is you who have the faulty logic. I am not asserting that something with no nature must be all-powerful, but that something that is all-powerful must have no nature.

A thing with ...[text shortened]... are sorted into either heaven or hell. I really don't know why you bring all of this up.[/b]

Why is having a nature a logical necessity for God? To answer your question, if God is omnipotent, then He should be able to be benevolent whenever He wants. The problem lies in the "omni" part of omnibenevolent, as He should also be ale to be malevolent whenever He wants.

I bring up sending people to Hell because I don't see how this is consistant with benevolence.