... I'm not really sure what you are trying to get across? The
supreme deity as omnipotent? That's been around for a lot longer
than 600 years ...
Yes, you are right, the notion of omnipotence has been around a very
long time. My question is whether it is compatible with generic
Western thinking over the past 500 - 600 years?
Human laws are restraints on what we humans may do. By the same
thinking, natural laws are restraints on what God may do. However, an
unrestrained god is not subject to any kind of law. But omnipotence
means one can do anything: no restraints.
Newtonian (as well as post-Newtonian) science means the discovery of
natural laws. A supreme deity that is unrestrained must be able to
produce miracles (although it need not do so often in human terms).
My sense is that a culture that focuses on the `unrestrained' aspect of
its supreme being is less likely to support notions that imply godly
(as well as human political) restraint than an opposing culture.
Is that really true?
And if it is true, over the past 600 or so years, have various Muslim
rather than Christian theologians more often said that their God is
omnipotent and unrestrained?
(Actually, the question has to do more with statements from the
theologians of the the various denominations; obviously, the
denominations are different from one another.)
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
