|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 20:31:16 GMT
Well, we may agree that the notion of an omniscient God is kinda stupid and nonsensical. Otherwise, I do not have any reason to believe God is omniscient based on how you view it. We seem to agree that it is logically ridiculous for an omnisicent god to ever be in a position to change it's mind. I can only assume that we disagree that God of the Bible can change his mind without making errors.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 20:36:28 GMT
We seem to agree that it is logically ridiculous for an omnisicent god to ever be in a position to change it's mind. I can only assume that we disagree that God of the Bible can change his mind without making errors. It depends very much on the definition of "God of the Bible", many people think that the God of the Bible is flawlessly omniscient.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 20:51:47 GMT
I can only assume that we disagree that God of the Bible can change his mind without making errors. It depends very much on the definition of "God of the Bible", many people think that the God of the Bible is flawlessly omniscient. And I would care about this why?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 21:19:53 GMT
It depends very much on the definition of "God of the Bible", many people think that the God of the Bible is flawlessly omniscient. And I would care about this why? so that you can argue about the thing that is being discussed with accuracy. Half of our conversation was you not being clear that you dismiss an omniscient God and arguing with my outcome when I clearly base it on the assumption that God is omniscient. Defining common usage of terms is an important step in conversations.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 19, 2018 21:33:27 GMT
tpfkar Wonder why you changed your go-to sound source. For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.The buzzer sound is for when people lose. The fart noise is for when people say something they think is smart or great, but it isn't. Did that also come to you in a dream? babble, babble toil and trabble.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 21:36:03 GMT
tpfkar The buzzer sound is for when people lose. The fart noise is for when people say something they think is smart or great, but it isn't. Did that also come to you in a dream? babble, babble toil and trabble.Your post makes no sense and it's a little creepy that you're responding to something I said three days ago that has nothing to do with a relevant discussion today. Stalk on, stalker.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 21:37:34 GMT
And I would care about this why? so that you can argue about the thing that is being discussed with accuracy. Half of our conversation was you not being clear that you dismiss an omniscient God and arguing with my outcome when I clearly base it on the assumption that God is omniscient. Defining common usage of terms is an important step in conversations. We are not arguing omniscience. After all, there already is a correct definition of omniscience and it does not include a time component so I could be discussing that but you are discussing something way different and far more debilitating. of course God can;t change his mind since God can't think.From my very first statement, you know I thought omniscience as you see it was silly. As always, I am fine with the notion that the conversation is finished and we can pretend that I didn't poke holes in your position.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 19, 2018 21:40:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 19, 2018 21:53:12 GMT
We are not arguing omniscience. I've always been in the "If God exists, then he existed before the physical universe.. and therefore outside of time and space.. so time doesn't really exist for Him.. So He can see the future as well as the past" camp But, let's say.. Maybe, time does exist for Him. Maybe God is soooooo powerful that - although not seeing the future - He knows that nothing could exist that could change His plans... So He 'knows' the future... but maybe not the exact details. So something could surprise Him and "change" His mind.. Not that He was "wrong" about whatever He planned to do.. He just took new information into account and adapted. All that aside: There are far too many interpretations of theological words to have a normal conversation of this nature without it turning into an argument over semantics and personal opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 22:16:22 GMT
Your post makes no sense and it's a little creepy that you're responding to something I said three days ago that has nothing to do with a relevant discussion today. Stalk on, stalker. He was sitting on that brilliant zinger for days. And then, from outta nowhere... You will never recover.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 22:17:33 GMT
We are not arguing omniscience. I've always been in the "If God exists, then he existed before the physical universe.. and therefore outside of time and space.. so time doesn't really exist for Him.. So He can see the future as well as the past" camp But, let's say.. Maybe, time does exist for Him. Maybe God is soooooo powerful that - although not seeing the future - He knows that nothing could exist that could change His plans... So He 'knows' the future... but maybe not the exact details. So something could surprise Him and "change" His mind.. Not that He was "wrong" about whatever He planned to do.. He just took new information into account and adapted. All that aside: There are far too many interpretations of theological words to have a normal conversation of this nature without it turning into an argument over semantics and personal opinion.Good observation. In fact nearly all arguments break down into semantics when theology is concerned, I suppose that is the nature of the beast somewhat, I wonder if that is why there is a significant portion of the judeo-christian stream that just consider God the unknowable
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 19, 2018 22:18:40 GMT
so that you can argue about the thing that is being discussed with accuracy. Half of our conversation was you not being clear that you dismiss an omniscient God and arguing with my outcome when I clearly base it on the assumption that God is omniscient. Defining common usage of terms is an important step in conversations. We are not arguing omniscience. After all, there already is a correct definition of omniscience and it does not include a time component so I could be discussing that but you are discussing something way different and far more debilitating. of course God can;t change his mind since God can't think.From my very first statement, you know I thought omniscience as you see it was silly. As always, I am fine with the notion that the conversation is finished and we can pretend that I didn't poke holes in your position. Wow, arrogant much? Sure lets go with you won. I don't really consider people with that mindset very worth my time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 22:20:34 GMT
Your post makes no sense and it's a little creepy that you're responding to something I said three days ago that has nothing to do with a relevant discussion today. Stalk on, stalker. He was sitting on that brilliant zinger for days. And then, from outta nowhere... You will never recover. Lol, don't worry, he's not stalking. He's calling it his "backlog." I'd hate to see what euphemisms he has for his torture rack and I don't mean this kind:
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 19, 2018 22:21:35 GMT
He was sitting on that brilliant zinger for days. And then, from outta nowhere... You will never recover. That is the funniest thing!!
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 19, 2018 22:26:20 GMT
tpfkar Your post makes no sense and it's a little creepy that you're responding to something I said three days ago that has nothing to do with a relevant discussion today. Stalk on, stalker. He was sitting on that brilliant zinger for days. And then, from outta nowhere... You will never recover. Hug it out, grannies. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 19, 2018 22:27:01 GMT
VegasTo be clear, I'm not saying he can't see in the future. He's just not required to. Most prophecy is directly tied to what will happen to his followers and by extension those who are against them plus he has the power to make sure it happens which is more than just seeing into the future, it's manipulating it. Further, there's no indication his power can change the past, so even if he is above it, he works within the confines of it when dealing with us...At least for now. I think time is irrelevant to God but that doesn't mean time has any link to his knowledge. He certainly has the capacity to know everything and the ability to make the future whatever he wants it to be to ensure it matches up to his plans. I think things exist that change his plans all the time because free will messes stuff up. In Genesis alone, it mentions at least 3 separate times that his plans were so completely screwed up that he had to directly intervene or Satan would win. In Exodus he was flat out about to destroy the Israelites for being stupid and had his mind changed by Moses (This was not an error because he had the justifiable right to kill them) It's not a fluke that Jesus was the one used as a ransom because anyone else was corruptible while Jesus was a sure thing. God understands stakes plus he loves his worshipers so much that he'll do anything for them including killing anyone else to ensure their survival to some degree. But you're right, his overall goal was never going to change because he can always fix the external variables. Although i agree there are some parts of the Bible that are open to interpretation simply because of cultural changes or misunderstanding in translation (Or prophetic stuff), I don't believe the big stuff is horribly confusing. It's just a matter of making giant leaps in assumption along with sticking to what we grew up with. To me, if it doesn't say something and the thing being brought out doesn't make sense, then it can be dismissed like one would do in any book. omniscience that includes a time component is as weird to me as the trinity.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 19, 2018 23:24:51 GMT
tpfkar He was sitting on that brilliant zinger for days. And then, from outta nowhere... You will never recover. That is the funniest thing!! And the stuck buffalo rounds out the granny klatch. IT BURNS US
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 20, 2018 0:53:07 GMT
We are not arguing omniscience. After all, there already is a correct definition of omniscience and it does not include a time component so I could be discussing that but you are discussing something way different and far more debilitating. of course God can;t change his mind since God can't think.From my very first statement, you know I thought omniscience as you see it was silly. As always, I am fine with the notion that the conversation is finished and we can pretend that I didn't poke holes in your position. Wow, arrogant much? Sure lets go with you won. I don't really consider people with that mindset very worth my time. It's not arrogance. It's accuracy and consider your time wasted with a boatload of it. Arrogance would be pretending your stance is the correct when its been shot full of holes, then call it a tie, & then actually believe it.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 20, 2018 1:51:25 GMT
For the record, I only judge the things people say and do. If you claim to believe that Christ is your savior, that you have repented of your sins and that you have requested God's grace through the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus, then you are a Christian by my standards, no matter how many tenets you don't follow that I think you should. I never judge the heart. I only judge the fruit. Do you understand what that means? I don't.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 20, 2018 2:01:43 GMT
Do you understand what that means? I don't. Yeah I know what that means. Although it is a bit odd. But he is saying intentions do not matter, only results.
|
|