@Alypius and @fredsbend this is a classic example of why Truth questions and answers are off-topic, and why the site guidelines are useful. The only thing that can come from a post like this is debate, which is appropriate for a discussion forum, not a StackExchange site.
Assuming that by "God" you mean an omnipotent, benificent and all-knowing supernatural entity, this question boils down to a rephrasing of the classic problem of "evil". And I think it was argued by Epicur quite sufficently thousand of years ago:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
...
I changed my mind. It's a new user, and I've always felt they deserve some leeway and guidance. I'm voting to reopen, even if I think it's borderline. Part of the problem was just it seemed like a pointless question in addition to the reason I cited, but who am I to judge?
@Alypius I disagree any parable can be about anything. In your Hindu example it would be perfectly acceptable to use that story to teach a lesson that is unrelated to the story being fact or not. That is what a parable is meant to do.
In fact, having it based on fact detracts from the lesson because, as you have done here, you will draw conclusions from it that have nothing to do with the lesson.
@DavidStratton Thank you David. I appreciate your change of heart. I hope it wasn't just because you didn't want to type a rebuttal.
@Alypius Why? It is a parable. Not meant to be taken as fact by definition. Only meant to teach a lesson unrelated to the actual story. That is one reason they are difficult to understand.
@Alypius I mean it the same here. A parable is allegorical, not real, based on fantasy, ... a story. It does not need to reflect reality to accomplish its purpose: Teach morality, a spiritual truth, or illuminate something that is fact, such as the Abraham, Lazarus one.
That fact being that some will not believe no matter what.
You have lessons you want to teach. Then you have the stories that you can use to teach them. Then you have the "realities" that the stories work under.
I'm gonna take a look at the other parables and see if I can find that any teach something heretical. Doubt I can but worth a go. That's gonna take a day or two. Will get back to you then.
Perhaps it could be added that he ended up taking over some of God's duties and did a really bad job. Many people suffered because of his negligence and lack of Godly wisdom. Not a great parable but the lesson is somewhere along the lines that even with God's abilities none can do at good as God because they have no wisdom that compares.
I would not call the parable a heresy.
btw, 4 re-opens on this. I guess my meta post is working.
The lesson in that "parable" was that eating spinach made you really strong.
The way that it was phrased, however, implied that it was possible to be stronger than God.
It is not. Honestly, I feel uncomfortable even typing the "parable" out, and saying "possible to be stronger than God".
@fredsbend Part of your lesson involves the idea that someone can have God's abilities (nobody can, only God), and also that God's "abilities" can be separated from each other (omnipotence becomes separated from omniscience and benevolence), or that God has abilities (God is simple!)
@DanO'Day When I looked at that article, something struck me as oddly familiar. On a hunch, I clicked the "Essays" button on the side, and sure enough, I've seen it before. A few years ago, I think. I haven't read very much though.
@waxeagle ...aw great. You've got me thinking fredsbend was quoting Star Wars, and I don't remember that quote from any Star Wars movie. And I call myself a Star Wars fan. :P
Halo is probably my second-most SciFi nerd area. I've read like half the books and played all the games except Halo 4 (and Halo Wars if you want to count that), yet I don't own any except Halo 1 and 2.
@Alypius Duplicate questions used to have "[closed]" in their title when they were closed. This was recently changed to "[duplicate]", and the post notice at the top changed as well. So questions before that change will have the old version and questions after have the version we see now.
@fredsbend ...so...I took a look at that Wikipedia article, and I read it...and I find that the problem I had with the beginning of time was essentially exactly Kant's first antinomy. Thanks for the link! :P :)
> 2013-02-06: The auto inserted text for questions closed as duplicates has been changed to "This question already has an answer here:" followed by link to the other question and the number of answers it has. The text is no longer edited into the original question but rather displayed externally. [...] Questions closed as duplicate prior to this change still have the old "Possible Duplicate:" text in them.
This is an unofficial list of new features and various changes to Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange network.
It is maintained by the community.
RSS feed for this question
Return to FAQ index
@Alypius I agree, however, I don't think you can argue with the Truth of its lesson. Same that I don't think you can argue with the Truth of the lesson in the parable I made.
@El'endiaStarman Yeah, the article really only hints lightly on antinomy and how it has been used in certain aspects. For Kant, he used it to argue that some things should just not be argued because it is pointless. For Calvin, he used it often to simply not explore different views. He would define antinomy as an observation of two facts that are seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable.
On a different note, I disagree with Kant, because I can simply say one is true or not for the sake of an argument. I freely admit I don't know that it is. So what I do instead is explore both. I tried a similar thing in this answer and this answer
I think it is bad science to not hypothesize because 'assumables' cannot be known. Just explore different assumables and see if the answers are the same.