P1: Jehovah demands that humans forgive each other without bloodshed.
P2: Jehovah would not demand something that is not possible.
P3: Forgiving without bloodshed is possible. (P1 & P2)
P4: Jehovah cannot forgive without bloodshed. (Hebrews 9:22)
P5: There is something possible that Jehovah cannot do. (P3 & P4)
CONCLUSION: Jehovah is not omnipotent.
The bible clearly states that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Why? And why can (and must) humans forgive without shedding blood? Absurd. Especially in the face of claims of Jehovah’s love for humankind.
Filed under: Divine Impotence, forgiveness, jehovah, omnipotence
P2: -> is referring to man [being able to forgive without bloodshed], not God.
P3: -> I think our forgiveness of each other is based on God’s forgiveness of us. So I think our forgiveness of each other is going to ultimately be based on Jesus death.
P4: -> I think a way to understand what it means that God can’t do something is: God doesn’t do things that are against his nature because he chooses not to – because it wouldn’t be right. When God “can’t” do something, it is because it is against his nature, and God is consistent in his nature.
Thanks for your focused comments, Matt. Your comments are indented below.
If you are arguing that forgiving without bloodshed is possible for humans but not possible for Jehovah, you’ll need to argue why.
Do you then think that genuine forgivness from humans who have not received forgiveness from Jehovah is impossible? If we have freewill, what prevents us from forgiving others independent of what Jehovah does?
The problem is that there is no logical reason why Jehovah cannot forgive without bloodshed. This is an arbitrarily appended part of Jehovah’s nature that is not necessarily so.
However, let me accept your premise that the claim of omnipotence must take into account the nature of god. Based on this assumption, I’d like to propose the following argument.
P1: God is omnipotent in respect to everything within his nature.
P2: God’s nature is not determined logically, but by what God claims about his nature.
P3: God claims his nature does not include forgiving without bloodshed.
P4: Not being able to forgive without bloodshed does not diminish God’s omnipotence. (P1 – P3)
P5: I am omnipotent in respect to everything within my nature.
P6: My nature is not determined logically, but by what I claim about my nature.
P7: I claim my nature does not include making donkeys talk.
P8: Not being able to make donkeys talk does not diminish my omnipotence. (P5 – P7)
CONCLUSION: Both God and I remain omnipotent consistent with our respective natures. (P4 & P8)
Does the term “nature” have any real non-arbitrary meaning? Is it not tautologous to merely state “I can do anything I can do”?
If you can give up the traditional christian claim that your god is omnipotent, you’ll have one less absurd claim to defend.