Is YHVH Omni-Anything?

[Tumah]

Explain.

I think what you mean to say is

Would you mind explaining that a little clearer?
​

Sure! No problem.
The difference between what we are discussing and satan, would be the difference between the natural laws that govern a system and the specific ways that a given part of the system manifests those laws. For example: (whether you agree or not, consider conceptually) the rule is that G-d caused a will to be benevolent. And the way that manifests, is by creating a system allows for man to be rewarded for the hard work of overcoming satan's enticements. Essentially, satan is a tool, yes, through which G-d can reward people. But until now, we were discussing the rules of the systems (G-d is vengeful), not the details of how it manifests (destructive angels mete out punishment).

 

[ThirtyThree]

I think what you mean to say is

Would you mind explaining that a little clearer?
​

Sure! No problem.
The difference between what we are discussing and satan, would be the difference between the natural laws that govern a system and the specific ways that a given part of the system manifests those laws. For example: (whether you agree or not, consider conceptually) the rule is that G-d caused a will to be benevolent. And the way that manifests, is by creating a system allows for man to be rewarded for the hard work of overcoming satan's enticements. Essentially, satan is a tool, yes, through which G-d can reward people. But until now, we were discussing the rules of the systems (G-d is vengeful), not the details of how it manifests (destructive angels mete out punishment).

Is all this for YHVH's amusement?

 

[Tumah]

Is all this for YHVH's amusement?

The answer to this question should be self-evident after everything I've written to you.

G-d is not amused.

 

[ThirtyThree]

The answer to this question should be self-evident after everything I've written to you.

G-d is not amused.

So why create?

 

[Tumah]

So why create?

Do you not recall asking me this question?

You: Why even create Adam, or anything?
Me: Ultimately? If I can't even begin to comprehend G-d's existence, how can I comprehend G-d's thought?​

 

[ThirtyThree]

Do you not recall asking me this question?

You: Why even create Adam, or anything?
Me: Ultimately? If I can't even begin to comprehend G-d's existence, how can I comprehend G-d's thought?​

Yes, I asked this before. I asked again because the answer was terrible. This is like someone saying YHVH is only love, and they ignore obvious examples of his hatred in Scripture.

 

[Tumah]

Yes, I asked this before. I asked again because the answer was terrible. This is like someone saying YHVH is only love, and they ignore obvious examples of his hatred in Scripture.

For one thing, Isa. 55:8 literally says the exact same thing. So my response with regards to G-d's reason for causing, is completely Scriptural. For another, its inline with the apophatic theological approach. I suggest you read the article I linked earlier.

 

[12jtartar]

ThirtyThree,
God created because He wanted to have living beings enjoy life, and all the blessings that a loving, caring Father could bestow on His obedient creation.
After YHWH created Jesus, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, He created all other things through and For Jesus, Colossians 1:16, John 1:1-3, 1Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:1,2. Jesus is called The Only Begotten Son because, when God created Jesus, there was nothing material or spiritual in existence. After God created Jesus, He allowed Jesus to help in all other creations. They were made through him.
If you go to Proverbs 8:22-30, which Scriptures are believed by most Scholars to be speaking of Jesus, as wisdom, Jesus is called the Master worker of God. God made all things through Jesus and FOR, Jesus, for Jesus is the heir of all things, Hebrews 1:2.

 

[Kirran]

It seems to me there's a strong predilection, and one which is understandable if not conducive to dialogue, for those debaters who are arguing against theistic ideas to do so from the standpoint that all theists, or all those being debates, are seeing God in a reductively classical monotheistic sense i.e. an entity external to us who has created us but is in some way a bigger version of a human being, who is doing stuff and an actor alongside us in the world, albeit a very powerful one.

Taking a step back and trying to get a better understanding of apophatic theological approaches is a good step in understanding a little more about the depth and variation found within theistic thought.

 

[Kemosloby]

Is YHVH Omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Any one, or all of the above?

I do not believe so, as it makes no sense, in my opinion, for YHVH to have created man, knowing man would grieve him enough for him to cause the flood, then regret causing it, then promise not to cause it again.

Because God has a sense of humor. It all leads to the punchline, God promised not to destroy mankind with a flood ever again. God created the rainbow to remind man that never again will God destroy all of mankind with water. Next time He'll do it with fire. LMAO

 

[Shad]

Is YHVH Omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Any one, or all of the above?

I do not believe so, as it makes no sense, in my opinion, for YHVH to have created man, knowing man would grieve him enough for him to cause the flood, then regret causing it, then promise not to cause it again.

Certainly not omniscient as God is clueless a few times in the bible. Adam, Eve and the Serpent is an example.