Wrong premise, again. God didn't declare death good. God declared life -- existence -- good.
Life and existence are also not equivalent terms. Death AND life are both parts of human existence.
Omnipotence doesn't mean what you're trying to twist it to mean.
I have provided sources to show that omnipotence does in fact mean exactly what I have used it to mean. So far you have claimed that "love" = "relationship", "omnipotence" != "able to do anything", and "life" = "existence". Could you please tell me what dictionary and/or language and/or drugs you are using so that we can at least use the same words to have the same meaning? I am (roughly) adhering to
Merriam-Webster and/or
Wikipedia, U.S. American English, and am not using any mind-altering substances.
How about you learn the theological concepts that have been posited, before you begin to misapply them and then refute them?
Sojourner, I may have had better things do than wade through 58 pages of your drivel, but I HAVE read extensively about religion and theology, particularly Christianity. I was raised Christian, and for years I wanted desperately to believe that there was a god but could not find any credible evidence for that assertion. I have spent years of my time and hundreds (possibly even thousands) of dollars on books toward that purpose. So accuse me of being wrong, accuse me of stupidity, accuse me of nearly
anything, but
don't you dare accuse me of not doing my homework on this subject. I would bet money that I am better-read than you on theological topics any day.
You've got an apparent double-negative going on here -- I can't tell what you mean to say. Try again.
The double negative in fact indicates a positive, a correct usage of the double negative. However, I can see how it is unclear, so I'll reword.
No definition of "omnipotence"
here or in any other credible source prevents god from creating weather with whatever traits he wants it to have.
I would posit that it's God's creation, God's universe, and so it's God's perspective -- not your's -- not mine -- that counts. Our job is to trust God.
Ownership over the setting doesn't give anyone the right to cause death. Ethics does not allow one to exert ownership over a sentient being, certainly not to the point of causing their death.
It is an argument, because it's apparent, from your posts, that you're not using your intuition.
Given that, as always, the purpose of debate is to convince your audience, not your opponent, I will present to readers that this obviously amounts only to a personal attack on my mental faculties. It in no way proves that sojourner is able to know that "it's [the weather is] this way for reasons we might not understand" based on his intuition.
As I said, before, omnipotence, as understood by the traditional Church, assumes that God is constrained to the way God does things.
Please provide a reference for this definition. I, for one, have a hard time believing that anyone would use the word in such a meaningless way. By that definition, you and I are also omnipotent, since, for each of us, omnipotence is constrained to the way we do things.
God doesn't gamble with our lives. God leaves our circumstances to the chances of the universe God created, knowing that, ultimately, we are in God's hands and, thus, safe.
How exactly does "leaves our circumstances to the chances of the universe" differ from "gambles with our lives"?
And generally, the definition of the world "safe" does not include "dead".
Furthermore, you merely said that god doesn't gamble with our lives, you didn't answer how what god does is different from what Twoface does. So again I ask: How does your concept of "don't blame the result of the die on the hand that throws it" differ from "don't blame the result of the coin on the hand that throws it"? Both god and a batman super-villain create situations where the life or death of a person is determined by random chance: in one case the weather, in the other case a coin.
