|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 11, 2018 19:29:13 GMT
Terrapin Station That was not what you were asking and to verify that all you have to do is go back and quiote each time you asked the question. Again, you had a two part question that doesn't jibe together. I had already answered the first part of that question and even now you are assuming the 1st part of the question is both parts of it. Hewre are your two questions you are trying to make into one. Pay attention to the answers this time: Yes No Neither of those questions tie into his standards which yu asked here and somehow think are identical to the previous two questions: No The reason? Because he has obligated himself to follow his own standards without exception which is what leads us to the ransom. If the reason seems like it's voluntary, then the answer may be yes but unlikely. In practice, it doesn't matter he still won't deviate from his standard. "The world" - philosophy speak for ontological facts. God's standards are part of the world.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 11, 2018 20:36:17 GMT
...and STILL no reply to me from Cool GJS answering my points about the omniscience of his God in two separate posts.
It seems there is no answer when you look at the convoluted and contradictory answers he is currently giving Terrapin! It points out further one of the main flaws in the God debate ie if God has the power, why doesn't he use it for good, instead of setting humans up to fail?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 20:47:05 GMT
I want to return to my first point as it relates to religion. Weiss expresses concern for “free speech rights” she thinks liberals deny to people who get wide exposure and support in the media, especially from Christian conservative or “libertarian” sources like the AEI and The Federalist Society. I have written about how much of what Christ said, according to scripture, seems to primarily be from a Grower’s standpoint. Yet his words and “biography” were easily co-opted since at least Paul’s day. This appropriation can be attributed to its base in the Old Testament, which had enabled an elite through forcing the idea of a simultaneously perfect/finished and omnipotent God on their subjects. The myth of a gentle savior, once co-opted by elites, allowed them to have it both ways – those so inclined could serve them while still believing they were rebelling against them – Thus you get bizarre concepts like postfeminism and “anarcho”-capitalism. 7/11/20: I had the same cartoon as on page 3 here previously; I thought it would be better to add an illustration to distinguish this post from that one:
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2018 20:55:16 GMT
...and STILL no reply to me from Cool GJS answering my points about the omniscience of his God in two separate posts. It seems there is no answer when you look at the convoluted and contradictory answers he is currently giving Terrapin! It points out further one of the main flaws in the God debate ie if God has the power, why doesn't he use it for good, instead of setting humans up to fail? I didn;t know I was required to respond to you. Am I required to respond to you?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 11, 2018 21:39:05 GMT
...and STILL no reply to me from Cool GJS answering my points about the omniscience of his God in two separate posts. It seems there is no answer when you look at the convoluted and contradictory answers he is currently giving Terrapin! It points out further one of the main flaws in the God debate ie if God has the power, why doesn't he use it for good, instead of setting humans up to fail? I didn;t know I was required to respond to you. Am I required to respond to you? Of course you are not required to, yet you did, and STILL didn't answer my questions. It seems more and more that it is because you can't. I can live with that.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2018 21:41:46 GMT
I didn;t know I was required to respond to you. Am I required to respond to you? Of course you are not required to, yet you did, and STILL didn't answer my questions. It seems more and more that it is because you can't. I can live with that. Where did I respond to you and not answer the question in relation to omniscience?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 11, 2018 22:20:56 GMT
Of course you are not required to, yet you did, and STILL didn't answer my questions. It seems more and more that it is because you can't. I can live with that. Where did I respond to you and not answer the question in relation to omniscience? Your last post to this. The trend continues! lol
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2018 23:47:43 GMT
Where did I respond to you and not answer the question in relation to omniscience? Your last post to this. The trend continues! lol I found it, I think, but I'm not sure why you are thinking it's a conundrum for me considering I answered much of it prior to your asking and I have explained in details the notion of omnicience. However, you perfectly within your rights to assume that me not responding means a win for you, so congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 12, 2018 0:03:26 GMT
What was the question?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 12, 2018 0:20:21 GMT
If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment ?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 12, 2018 8:18:15 GMT
From me, it was basically 'Is God omniscient or not'? CoolGJS has said both yes and no in the recent pages of this thread. From previous
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 12, 2018 12:46:31 GMT
gozWho said the ultimate truth was the omniscience of God?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 12, 2018 14:48:45 GMT
tpfkar That is not the same thing as "Can God have His standards be whatever He'd like them to be?"since the world would be a subset of his standards and part of his standards would include freedom of his creation to have independence of thought which means they may not want to live by his standards. Did he choose to slaughter countless children & infants? Did he choose to create evil? Did He choose to give some but not all the traits they needed to get into heaven? All that part of his and Cthulhu's "standards"? And I will kill her children with pestilence and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 12, 2018 20:24:57 GMT
Is it not goz Who said the ultimate truth was the omniscience of God? Is it not?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 12, 2018 20:30:06 GMT
Is it not goz Who said the ultimate truth was the omniscience of God? Is it not? Theophobiacs can't even understand what omniscience means so I hardly see how they can determine that as the ultimate truth. In any event, you never heard me say that so I'm not sure why I am expected to answer a question on that basis.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 12, 2018 20:35:30 GMT
tpfkar Theophobiacs can't even understand what omniscience means so I hardly see how they can determine that as the ultimate truth. In any event, you never heard me say that so I'm not sure why I am expected to answer a question on that basis. Irritation level stratospheric! Your impotent version of god ain't most's. However, this word is no big deal. It took me forever to find it after being chastised for using the h-word.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 12, 2018 20:50:00 GMT
Theophobiacs can't even understand what omniscience means so I hardly see how they can determine that as the ultimate truth. In any event, you never heard me say that so I'm not sure why I am expected to answer a question on that basis. What I think (presuming you think me a theophobic) is irrelevant to the discussion. I was asking you. Is God omniscient? So far in this discussion you have sort of said he is because he sets the standard and sticks to it ( something about the sovereign ruling absolutely) then that he isn't because he has 'options' or something. I repeat, in your opinion, is God omniscient?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 12, 2018 21:18:14 GMT
Theophobiacs can't even understand what omniscience means so I hardly see how they can determine that as the ultimate truth. In any event, you never heard me say that so I'm not sure why I am expected to answer a question on that basis. What I think (presuming you think me a theophobic) is irrelevant to the discussion. I was asking you. Is God omniscient? So far in this discussion you have sort of said he is because he sets the standard and sticks to it ( something about the sovereign ruling absolutely) then that he isn't because he has 'options' or something. I repeat, in your opinion, is God omniscient? What you think is relevant since we may be going off two views of what omniscience is and we likely are if you are thinking that it is pertinent to my comments. What do you think omniscience means and then I can determine whether or not I even think God is omniscient based on the answer. I'm so nice. I have no idea why i have to keep explaining this to people with profoundly short term memories. You have to treat theophobiacs gently though. They have such delicate natures...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 12, 2018 21:38:43 GMT
What I think (presuming you think me a theophobic) is irrelevant to the discussion. I was asking you. Is God omniscient? So far in this discussion you have sort of said he is because he sets the standard and sticks to it ( something about the sovereign ruling absolutely) then that he isn't because he has 'options' or something. I repeat, in your opinion, is God omniscient? What you think is relevant since we may be going off two views of what omniscience is and we likely are if you are thinking that it is pertinent to my comments. What do you think omniscience means and then I can determine whether or not I even think God is omniscient based on the answer. I'm so nice. I have no idea why i have to keep explaining this to people with profoundly short term memories. You have to treat theophobiacs gently though. They have such delicate natures... WTF? Why would I give you a definition which you have already dismissed out of hand before I even attempt it? I can't believe you are this arrogant, illogical and stupid. YOU made this claim about me, the burden of proof and explanation is on YOU as to what the definition of Omniscience of God is, ten you might deign to tell me whether you subscribe to that definition. Thus far you have said BOTH yes and no to similar questions so I await your exposition on the ominiscience of God.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 12, 2018 23:01:57 GMT
What you think is relevant since we may be going off two views of what omniscience is and we likely are if you are thinking that it is pertinent to my comments. What do you think omniscience means and then I can determine whether or not I even think God is omniscient based on the answer. I'm so nice. I have no idea why i have to keep explaining this to people with profoundly short term memories. You have to treat theophobiacs gently though. They have such delicate natures... WTF? Why would I give you a definition which you have already dismissed out of hand before I even attempt it? I can't believe you are this arrogant, illogical and stupid. YOU made this claim about me, the burden of proof and explanation is on YOU as to what the definition of Omniscience of God is, ten you might deign to tell me whether you subscribe to that definition. Thus far you have said BOTH yes and no to similar questions so I await your exposition on the ominiscience of God. Uhoh. If you don't answer that means you lose or are scared or something... They weren't similar questions and if they weren't exact then why would they have the same answer anyway? I don't get why I need to expound on something you introduced that has nothing to do with what I said.
|
|