• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Monotheism Poll

Is Your 'God' A Surmountable Force?

  • Yes; Free will allows me to subvert God's will.

  • No; God's will is insurmountable.

  • Yes, And No; God permits His subversion.

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Standard monotheistic definition of God:


Creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
@Sleeppy , you may want to indicate in the thread title that the poll is for monotheists specifically.

Unless it is not, of course.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I voted "other".
I don't think God has a will any more than gravity does. God just is. Will is something limited beings like humans have.
Tom
 

DawudTalut

Peace be upon you.
Yes, And No; God permits His subversion
---in the sense that God has destined certain things which are unchangeable, eg, God and His Prophets will surely prevail.

but, when a person repents, God forgive him and cancel the comming punishment eg. people of Jonah/Yunus Prophet repented and were forgiven.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Yes, And No; God permits His subversion
---in the sense that God has destined certain things which are unchangeable, eg, God and His Prophets will surely prevail.

but, when a person repents, God forgive him and cancel the comming punishment eg. people of Jonah/Yunus Prophet repented and were forgiven.


My question to you:

When 'God' is no longer supreme (i.e. God), but subverted by His creation, is He also ignorant of His creation?
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Standard monotheistic definition of God:


Creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
I believe permission does not subvert His will but it is His will for the short term. Granted that His long term goal is submission to His perfect will and permission temporarily disrupts his perfect will.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I believe the Bible says otherwise
The Bible says many things, lots of which are very wrong. That's because the people who wrote it were primitive and ignorant. They didn't know as much as I do, and there are lots of people who know far more than I do.
what other source would there be?
Evidence, reason, and logic, AKA science. Taking into account the vastly improved store of knowledge and wisdom we have, and that the ancients simply didn't have, can give us far better results than relying on Scripture.
Tom
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
I believe permission does not subvert His will but it is His will for the short term. Granted that His long term goal is submission to His perfect will and permission temporarily disrupts his perfect will.


James 1:1-8

All joy count [it], my brethren, when ye may fall into temptations manifold; knowing that the proof of your faith doth work endurance, and let the endurance have a perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire -- in nothing lacking; and if any of you do lack wisdom, let him ask from God, who is giving to all liberally, and not reproaching, and it shall be given to him; and let him ask in faith, nothing doubting, for he who is doubting hath been like a wave of the sea, driven by wind and tossed, for let not that man suppose that he shall receive anything from the Lord -- a two-souled man [is] unstable in all his ways.


2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow in regard to the promise, as certain count slowness, but is long-suffering to us, not counselling any to be lost but all to pass on to reformation.



Why is it preferable to divide God's will into two?
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The Bible says many things, lots of which are very wrong. That's because the people who wrote it were primitive and ignorant. They didn't know as much as I do, and there are lots of people who know far more than I do.

Evidence, reason, and logic, AKA science. Taking into account the vastly improved store of knowledge and wisdom we have, and that the ancients simply didn't have, can give us far better results than relying on Scripture.
Tom

Right.

We know that the universe expanded from a single point; the singularity. Our physical laws rely on this. So are you suggesting that the singularity is not the sole source, i.e. that the singularity is not itself the will of our existence?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The Bible says many things, lots of which are very wrong. That's because the people who wrote it were primitive and ignorant. They didn't know as much as I do, and there are lots of people who know far more than I do.

Evidence, reason, and logic, AKA science. Taking into account the vastly improved store of knowledge and wisdom we have, and that the ancients simply didn't have, can give us far better results than relying on Scripture.
Tom


The Bible told us that the universe had a creation event (something atheist scientists opposed for a long time)- that the Earth was once entirely water, and once one great land mass and one great ocean, that animal life first appeared in the ocean, developed in distinct stages- not slow gradual changes- and that Man came last. It describes the unfolding of larger dimensions from smaller to create space/time and correctly compares the number of stars in the universe to the grains of sand on Earth

If they were ignorant, they sure made a lot of extraordinarily lucky guesses!
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If they were ignorant, they sure made a lot of extraordinarily lucky guesses!
They made a lot of vague assertions that can easily be reinterpreted to mean whatever someone wants them to mean. Same with the ethical teachings, which is a much bigger problem.
Tom
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
They made a lot of vague assertions that can easily be reinterpreted to mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

Scientists would never do that!

IPCC-2014-synthesis-report.jpg
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Scientists would never do that!

IPCC-2014-synthesis-report.jpg
Scientists don't claim to have Truth in any absolute sense. They are always open to change based on more and better data and analysis.
Unlike religious people who commonly schism and start wars and such rather than admit when a religious belief doesn't match reality or is illogical.
And you kinda skipped over the "ethical" part of my post.
Tom
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Scientists don't claim to have Truth in any absolute sense.

Are you kidding?

that's why questioning their opinions makes you a DENIER OF FACT!?

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact... Dawkins

Doesn't get much more gogmatic than that does it?

They are always open to change based on more and better data and analysis.

cobblers!, if you don't mind me saying so

Unlike religious people who commonly schism and start wars and such rather than admit when a religious belief doesn't match reality or is illogical.
And you kinda skipped over the "ethical" part of my post.
Tom


I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, how about you?

On ethics. Atheists Stalin, Mao, Il Sung, killed more people in a single generation, than every religious conflict in the history of humanity combined. There is nothing more dangerous than replacing personal ethics derived from faith, with those of a tyrant.
 
Last edited:
Top