> The problem arises out of the word "natural," and is a limitation
> of our language. By natural are we referring to the corruptible
> telestial world, or are we referring simply to the fact that
> there are higher laws which are "natural" but which operate in
> *their* realms, and which we by their and our very nature cannot
> comprehend? I'm using the term in its latter connotation.

I don't disagree with this. My hesitation comes in labelling God as 
something other than omnipotent, even in saying that God isn't 
omnipotent "in the sense the [Roman Catholics] believed". The fact that 
other religions don't understand the meaning of words like "omnipotent" 
does not negate the fact that God is truly all-powerful, far, far beyond 
any remote possibility that we have to imagine it. No, God can't do 
undoable things, like save people in their sins, or make a thing 
simultaneously exist and not exist. But these things are ultimately 
tautologically false; that is, they defy their own definition. I would 
be surprised if any man or woman can name something that God cannot do, 
whether because of the limitations of "natural law" or anything else, 
that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to