The Rambam writes in his Guide for the Perplexed that when the Torah uses figures of speech like "G-ds hand" it does so because there is no other way of relating to the concept of what just happened.
Nice dodge.
You completely side-stepped all of my quotations and replaced with "God's hand," thus not even attempting to answer the question posed to Admiral Naismith. Nonetheless:
So you would say that were I to find a translation anywhere in the Old Testament where God related to either Moses or another prophet or individual that says, "Thou shalt have no other God before me, for I am a Jealous God," or any other portion where the terms
wrath,
vengence, or any adjective that could be described as
emotive... those would be inaccurate, correct?
(Let's try to actually answer this with something resembling a yes or no if possible)
2.Please reformat question.
1st part is not a question, it was a statement and observation. However:
If God is above human understanding, thus preventing
him man from ascribing attributes to his creator, then how does this individual even recognize God's presence in their life?
I don't see how giving us free will makes G-d less Omnipotent.
Alright, let me try to step you through this again:
* Omnipotence means God controls all - (#16) - a statement you agreed to.
* Fee-will and the ability to reject God's covenant - as well as other acts in the Old testament - show the capability for Humans to defy God's will
* ergo - God does not control all
* ergo - God is not Omnipotent, for God (willfully or not) does NOT control all.
Do you have a counter-supposition for this train of statements? If so - then you need to provide for me a counter set that reconciles how God can control all but not the will of Man and still control All.
I don't know what you mean by "chosen".
Chosen: Those who benefit from God's covenant; or those whose souls wind up in [BETTER] in the afterlife; redeemed.
My counter-suggestion - anytime you see a term where you could
potentially infer the meaning I'm driving at, and that meaning would be consistent with the rest of the points/questions I'm asking - if possible, try to give me the benefit of doubt.
Further note: You are cherry-picking statements, assigning them numbers while leaving older numbers which are the same in post - causing potential confusion. I suggest rather than continue with your number assignment after quoting the entire post, which I find adds to the tedium of checking-cross checking to ensure I'm referring to the "right number," that you break up the posts and respond accordingly.
. . .
I'll be frank - at the moment your posts read to me more as efforts of litigious obfuscation rather than moving forward and trying to finalize an agreeable "starting point" progress can be made, as even in your original post - you did not answer either question - but simply asnwered 'yes' or 'not really,' rather than answer questions #2 I have reposted it here to refresh your memory:
What's wrong with the following statements and how do they need to be clarified to accurately reflect the beliefs of the faithful?
Perhaps that's because you're used to the rabid atheists looking to assault your faith, or I could be completely off-base and reading into something that isn't there. Perhaps you think I'm looking to invalidate your faith - which if the 15+ years of engaging in these types of conversations have taught me anything it is that this would be impossible - had I an actual opinion to try and convert you over to.