PDA

View Full Version : Is God Truly All Powerful?



Pages : [1] 2

Ninjashadow
February 1st, 2005, 09:54 PM
Please keep in mind that I am a christian and I believe that God is the most powerful thing that can exist, but it seems to me, strickly from a logical, human standpoint that God isn't all powerful. Now, what I mean by this is that God cannot cease to exist, cannot lie, and cannot sin. All powerful would mean that there is NOTHING that He could not do, so following that chain of logic, is God really all powerful?

Poly
February 1st, 2005, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Please keep in mind that I am a christian and I believe that God is the most powerful thing that can exist, but it seems to me, strickly from a logical, human standpoint that God isn't all powerful. Now, what I mean by this is that God cannot cease to exist, cannot lie, and cannot sin. All powerful would mean that there is NOTHING that He could not do, so following that chain of logic, is God really all powerful?

Those are interesting observations. I believe, as well, that God isn't "all powerful" if by all, it includes the illogical. I believe that God cannot sin because it is against His nature. I tend to put this in the absurd/illogical catagory as well.

Rolf Ernst
February 2nd, 2005, 03:39 PM
Ninjashadow--The fact that God is omnipotent is often understood by people as Him having the power to do anything, but the Biblical concept of God's omnipotence is expressed by Christ--"all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

The sun has no power to shine apart from the power which God gave it. Likewise, He is the source of all other forms of energy. Paul told the Athenians, "He gives to all life, and breath, and all things."

That is true of all things. To the Romans, Paul said, "there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God."
Therefore everyone who believes that they "live" and "move" and "have their being" independently of God are denying to God that reverence which they are obligated to render toward Him, and daring to claim the glory of it for themselves; but as Paul said, "In him we live and move and have our being."

Moses warned the Hebrews not to boast of any of their wealth
"because it is God who gives you power to get wealth."

Therefore the omnipotence of which the Bible speaks is not a power which sometimes slumber but is able to do any feat of power. It is instead the power of God which invigorates and moves all things; without which only death could exist.

God_Is_Truth
February 2nd, 2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Please keep in mind that I am a christian and I believe that God is the most powerful thing that can exist, but it seems to me, strickly from a logical, human standpoint that God isn't all powerful. Now, what I mean by this is that God cannot cease to exist, cannot lie, and cannot sin. All powerful would mean that there is NOTHING that He could not do, so following that chain of logic, is God really all powerful?

i've never heard anyone define "all powerful" as meaning "there is nothing that he could not do".

Mr. 5020
February 2nd, 2005, 07:12 PM
:blabla: How many times have we heard this already?

Ninjashadow
February 2nd, 2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

:blabla: How many times have we heard this already?

sorry, I'm kind of new to the site and I didn't know it had been done before. My apologies.

Mr. 5020
February 2nd, 2005, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

sorry, I'm kind of new to the site and I didn't know it had been done before. My apologies. Actually, I was just :spam:ing.

But I did post a thread like this a while back, quoting the "cannot deny," "cannot lie," and "cannot sin" verses. I think the general consensus is that omnipotent does not mean CAN DO ANYTHING.

However, the question remains: is it that God cannot do these things, or will not do these things?

Rolf Ernst
February 3rd, 2005, 11:42 AM
5020 has no power to draw one breath except by that power given to him by God, the fountain of ALL power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Deny Him the glory for the life He gives you, live as an ingrate, as if you are autonomous, having no need of Him; as if you live, breath and move by your own power--and answer for it on the day of judgment!!

Jackielabby
February 3rd, 2005, 12:27 PM
BTW, when is the day of judgement?

On Fire
February 3rd, 2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Jackielabby

BTW, when is the day of judgement?
Booking early, are we?

Gerald
February 3rd, 2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Booking early, are we? Well, according to the manual, the only unknowns are the day and the hour.

That leaves the year, the month and the week as open game.

Rolf Ernst
February 3rd, 2005, 04:34 PM
Don't worry about when, Jackie. He will see to it that we are there when we are 'pose to be. Sumthin' like an offer we can't refuse, this is one appointment we can't miss.

Sealeaf
March 2nd, 2005, 05:38 AM
A modern philosopher, which one I don't recall, said, "Nonsense, said about God, remains nonsense."

godrulz
March 2nd, 2005, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Mr. 5020

Actually, I was just :spam:ing.

But I did post a thread like this a while back, quoting the "cannot deny," "cannot lie," and "cannot sin" verses. I think the general consensus is that omnipotent does not mean CAN DO ANYTHING.

However, the question remains: is it that God cannot do these things, or will not do these things?

Cannot...it is not a limitation on omnipotence to not do the logically absurd or self-contradictory (creating a square circle or making a rock so heavy He cannot lift it). Omnipotence means to be able to do all that is DOABLE. Likewise, omniscience is to know all that is knowable (hence, Open Theism and not exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingencies). The issue is basic logic and philosophy. How we define and understand terms is important. Omnipotence also does not mean that God does everything that He could possibly do.

freelight
March 9th, 2005, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Please keep in mind that I am a christian and I believe that God is the most powerful thing that can exist, but it seems to me, strickly from a logical, human standpoint that God isn't all powerful. Now, what I mean by this is that God cannot cease to exist, cannot lie, and cannot sin. All powerful would mean that there is NOTHING that He could not do, so following that chain of logic, is God really all powerful?


Greetings ns and all,

I would gather all-powerful means that all power is inherent within Deity as the primal Source of Power in all dimensions of being. God is Power. God is All. If God is the One and Only Supreme Being,....the Sole Intelligence,...Universal Consciousness,....Eternal Spirit,.....Divine Presense,......Mind....that IS......then in this sense of the Omnificence of Spirit...He/She is Omnipotent in the higher, greater absolute realm of That which IS Now...the All-ness of ONE.

Being that we have understood 'power' in proper perspective....we can then give all power, glory, honor and blessing unto God...for He is the Source, mediator, Governor, Master of all these attributes and bestowals. He being Spirit, plus his other omni-attributes: omniscience, omnipresence, omniaction...........renders Him as the Sovereign ONE....God the Whole....the All. Since God is All.....He includes all powers within Him as their only source and substance.

His is Omni-power. To give Him power is to acknowledge that He is the Sole ONE....besides whom there is no other. Nothing exists outside His power or beyond it...since He is the Fullness and totality of all that Exists in Truth. - the one Consciousness, Intelligence, Spirit, Mind, Being, Light, Love, Truth THAT FOREVER IS.


paul

SOTK
March 9th, 2005, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Please keep in mind that I am a christian and I believe that God is the most powerful thing that can exist, but it seems to me, strickly from a logical, human standpoint that God isn't all powerful. Now, what I mean by this is that God cannot cease to exist, cannot lie, and cannot sin. All powerful would mean that there is NOTHING that He could not do, so following that chain of logic, is God really all powerful?

This is an OV/CV debate and I am pretty tired of seeing it actually. Personally, I believe God is all powerful and to say or imply that he isn't is limiting Him. And yes, I feel calling something illogical because we think it's illogical is limiting as well.

That's all I got to say on the matter.

Ninjashadow
March 9th, 2005, 02:24 AM
Well, I started this thread awhile ago. I have a philosophy of religion class and I was just looking for some ammunition.

SOTK
March 9th, 2005, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by ninjashadow

Well, I started this thread awhile ago. I have a philosophy of religion class and I was just looking for some ammunition.

Okay, gotcha. :)

godrulz
March 9th, 2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by SOTK

This is an OV/CV debate and I am pretty tired of seeing it actually. Personally, I believe God is all powerful and to say or imply that he isn't is limiting Him. And yes, I feel calling something illogical because we think it's illogical is limiting as well.

That's all I got to say on the matter.

Omnipotence is being able to do all that is doable. It does not mean that God has to do everything He possibly can do, nor does it mean that He can do logically absurd things. How can black be white at the same time? God is not irrational and there is order in His universe. It is not a limitation on God's omnipotence to not be able to make creation, crucifixion, President Bush, and the Second Coming happen in the same millisecond. This is literally impossible and absurd due to the nature of reality and God's creation. Absurd, contradictory things are excluded from reality and do not impinge on 'all power'. Can God make a car a cow or a person at the SAME time? Nope. We could think of endless examples. 2+2=4 in God's world as well as ours (unless we arbitrarily redefine things to make 2+2= 5 and 2+2= 15 at the same time...sorry, but it is logically impossible).

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 09:29 PM
God is all-powerful.

He is also all-knowing...and everywhere present.

All of His attributes is what He is. And...He never uses any of His attributes against all the other attributes, as though they are each a separate entity.

He is all knowing..and that to me means He cannot fail, and He knows what He's doing, and where we're going.

He is everywhere present...which means there is no place to get away from Him if you try.

And He is all powerful means He upholds all that is, and there is nothing in this universe He created that can ultimately undo His purpose and will.

He is Love...which means all things work together for the good of those who love Him.

Poly
March 14th, 2005, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by logos_x


He is everywhere present...which means there is no place to get away from Him if you try.



Hell would be an exception to that.

Emo
March 14th, 2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Hell would be an exception to that.

Yep, this is the only place that He is not present.

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Hell would be an exception to that.

Really?

Poly
March 14th, 2005, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by logos_x

Really?

Really.

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Really.

How do you know?

Turbo
March 14th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by emohaslove

Yep, this is the only place that He is not present. What about the hearts of unbelievers?

Poly
March 14th, 2005, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by logos_x

How do you know?

Why would an almighty and holy God be in such a place?
He goes to great lengths in the bible trying to get across to us how much He cannot look upon sin. Hell is a place prepared for those who want nothing to do with God. It's a place where they will be seperated from Him for all eternity. Why would He want to go to such a place?

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 10:35 PM
He is also a God of salvation and mercy...and is quick to do just that, if one is repentant and will call upon Him.
Does God cease being God merely because someone failed to recieve Him in this evil age?
His mercy endures forever...and I see no biblical statement that says that a person who goes to Hell must remain there if they repent and turn to His salvation...even there.

If Hell is corrective punishment, rather than the continuation of sin and rebellion under conditions of burning and torture that affects nothing in it's inhabitants...then God is at work even there to bring about salvation for those who respond to His offer of life.

drbrumley
March 14th, 2005, 10:36 PM
Hell is not corrective.

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Hell is not corrective.

How can it not be?

Clete
March 14th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by emohaslove

Yep, this is the only place that He is not present.

God isn't anywhere that He doesn't choose to be.

Emo
March 14th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

What about the hearts of unbelievers?

True, that's another.

What about the hearts of children?

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 10:58 PM
Does He not want to be where redemption is needed?
Does His mercy really endure forever?

Emo
March 14th, 2005, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Clete

God isn't anywhere that He doesn't choose to be.

Can He be in the past or the future?

logos_x
March 14th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by emohaslove

Can He be in the past or the future?

Of course He is!

godrulz
March 15th, 2005, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by emohaslove

Can He be in the past or the future?

No. Time is not space or a place. The future is not yet. The past is fixed and is only a memory.

logos_x
March 15th, 2005, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

No. Time is not space or a place. The future is not yet. The past is fixed and is only a memory.

Well.
There was never a "time" when He was not...nor a "time" when He is not.

godrulz
March 15th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by logos_x

Well.
There was never a "time" when He was not...nor a "time" when He is not.

God exists in an everlasting duration of time (sequence, succession). He is not timeless or in an 'eternal now' (this would make Him impersonal). He is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2), but this does not mean He experiences past, present, and future in one eternal now moment. The past, present, and future are distinct for God as it is for us. He is the God of history. He is from all eternity and will exist trillions of years from now. Only the present is real. The past is a fixed memory; the future is not yet and only potential. Rev. 1:8 uses tensed expressions about God. He was, is now, and is to come (does not mean He is already there in the future).

logos_x
March 15th, 2005, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

God exists in an everlasting duration of time (sequence, succession). He is not timeless or in an 'eternal now' (this would make Him impersonal). He is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2), but this does not mean He experiences past, present, and future in one eternal now moment. The past, present, and future are distinct for God as it is for us. He is the God of history. He is from all eternity and will exist trillions of years from now. Only the present is real. The past is a fixed memory; the future is not yet and only potential. Rev. 1:8 uses tensed expressions about God. He was, is now, and is to come (does not mean He is already there in the future).

I would tend to agree with this on principle..if for no other reason than that history is as it is..and if God were somehow in some sort of "eternal now" meaning actively present in the past...why would he not change the timeline to His liking?

At the same time...there is knowledge about the past and future that God posseses that is well beyond our timeline. He is both part of history..and also beyond it. He knows the end...and He knew it from the beginning, and is beyond our space-time experience.

freelight
March 15th, 2005, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Why would an almighty and holy God be in such a place?
He goes to great lengths in the bible trying to get across to us how much He cannot look upon sin. Hell is a place prepared for those who want nothing to do with God. It's a place where they will be seperated from Him for all eternity. Why would He want to go to such a place?


If God is truly omnipresent, there is no place empty of Him. If we then consider omnipotence which is the subject of this thread...then we must consider divine presence being all-powerful......being the Supreme Power/Reality in all dimensions. God is the only ONE BEING. There is no other. This is true omni-presence/power/science.

David was convinced that if he made his bed in 'hell' (Sheol)...there God would BE. {psalm 139}. There are no degrees to Gods presence. God IS. Nothing can prevent, thwart, annul, cancel out...the IS-ness that IS! This Aliveness of BEING is divine Presence, ever-Being Itself......and is the Sole ONE (all things/beings inhere and have their existence in this ONE...who is the Ground of Being,....therefore it is impossible for anything to exist outside of God).

God remains All-powerful for He is the Infinite, the All-pervading, the Sole Presence, the ONE. God is this Now. This Now-ness pervades all dimensions within the Undimensional ONE. There is no other. This is the View from the Absolute...which posits that 'God is All' , 'God is All there IS'.....and upholds the 3 omni's in their total sense.

From the Relative view wherein all relationships within space and time appear to exist....there is dimension/degree.........apparent limitations on the presumed omni's......qualifications put on God. In this relative View....there are many 'others', 'powers', etc. existing alongside Gods omni-power. Many of these relative views are maintained amid religious beliefs/paradigms.....which deny the Supremacy of the Absolute ONE.

If God fills all that exists....as the ALL,........then how can there be anyone or thing outside of omni-presence/power/science? A presumed 'hell' imagined to be an absence of God could not exist in Truth......where God is Truth...and this living truth is omni. But human minds would object otherwise and make claims based on religious doctrines and traditional ideas about God.

The common christian notion of an eternal 'hell'('hell' as they interpret such) challenges and refutes the very omni's of God that they claim to uphold. It denies Omnipresence and forfeits omnipotency. It claims one can be forever seperated from the ONE! Does anything exist outside of God? How could one escape from omnipresence? How could one eternally combat, withhold itself from omnipower? Furthermore as we consider omniscience....how can anyone/anything be obscured or expunged from the Consciousness of God....as Consciousness(God) includes all things/beings!

I realize that these quest-ions and perspectives will be derived from certain premises - among these being the perspective of the Absolute and the Relative on many planes or dimensions of perception. These considerations may challenge human thoughts, opinions, beliefs........yet God forever remains the Unchallenged ONE...whose infinite fullness, perfection, Love and Light ARE.

Where does hell exist but in the human mind and therefore imposes its play upon the screen of experience. However,...does hell exist in God? Does hell exist in Love, Light, Truth, Heaven? Is not God All-Light? In this Light...there may appear to be dimensions or gradations of light/darkness/shades, etc. - but the darkness and the light are both alike to God....who dwells in all, whose power is all, and who knows all! To deny this...is to deny Gods Omni-ness.....to deny Truth.

God is Now........All. God is ONE. (not two, three or many!). He is the Totality of Existence...forever Being True to Itself....the One Consciousness/Intelligence that perceives/conceives all....the Great Spirit....Mind. Who dreams up a place called 'hell' which denies the omni-ness of God?

At last.......who or what could deny omnipotence, regulate omnipresence or obscure omniscience?


paul

Frank Ernest
March 15th, 2005, 04:51 AM
Matthew 25:31-46

logos_x
March 15th, 2005, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Matthew 25:31-46

Mat 25:31 `And whenever the Son of Man may come in his glory, and all the holy messengers with him, then he shall sit upon a throne of his glory;
Mat 25:32 and gathered together before him shall be all the nations, and he shall separate them from one another, as the shepherd doth separate the sheep from the goats,
Mat 25:33 and he shall set the sheep indeed on his right hand, and the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 `Then shall the king say to those on his right hand, Come ye, the blessed of my Father, inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
Mat 25:35 for I did hunger, and ye gave me to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and ye received me;
Mat 25:36 naked, and ye put around me; I was infirm, and ye looked after me; in prison I was, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 `Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, and we nourished? or thirsting, and we gave to drink?
Mat 25:38 and when did we see thee a stranger, and we received? or naked, and we put around?
Mat 25:39 and when did we see thee infirm, or in prison, and we came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 `And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did it to one of these my brethren--the least--to me ye did it .
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers;
Mat 25:42 for I did hunger, and ye gave me not to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me not to drink;
Mat 25:43 a stranger I was, and ye did not receive me; naked, and ye put not around me; infirm, and in prison, and ye did not look after me.
Mat 25:44 `Then shall they answer, they also, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, or thirsting, or a stranger, or naked, or infirm, or in prison, and we did not minister to thee?
Mat 25:45 `Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of these, the least, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'
Young's Literal Translation


Looking at this parable, don't you notice something peculiar?

The sheep didn't know they were sheep!

And the goats thought they were!

Also..the word translated "punishment" is kolasis
in the greek...which means correction, punishment, penalty. And the related word is kolazō , which means 1)to lop or prune, as trees and wings 2) to curb, check, restrain, and 3) to chastise, correct, punishment, or 4) to cause to be punished.

The word translated as "eternal" is aiōnios, which is the adjective of aiōn, which is translated variously as 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age. It's literal meaning is "age" or "eon".

Robertson's word studies has this to say...

Eternal punishment (kolasin aiōnion). The word kolasin comes from kolazō, to mutilate or prune. Hence those who cling to the larger hope use this phrase to mean age-long pruning that ultimately leads to salvation of the goats, as disciplinary rather than penal. There is such a distinction as Aristotle pointed out between mōria (vengeance) and kolasis.

Nevertheless...we need to be ever vigilant how we treat "the least, the last, the lost"...because we do so unto Him!

Hope this helps
Stephen

godrulz
March 15th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Matthew 25:31-46

The parable refers to the judging of NATIONS, not individual salvation, before the Second Coming of Christ. It is not a blanket teaching on OT and NT saints who die having individually received or rejected Christ in eras besides the Great Tribulation leading up to the Second Coming (see context and chronology of Mt. 25; 26).

logos_x
March 15th, 2005, 01:52 PM
godrulz,

Isn't it amazing how some lump all judgement together and try to apply it all to individuals?
You are correct of course...it even directly says at the beginning of the parable He is talking about all nations being gathered....
You will also notice that they are gathered..and He separates them like a shepherd...
so..the obvious conclusion would be that both the sheep and the goats are HIS!

There are a lot of things in this parable that seems to just float over the heads of most readers..just so they can use it as "proof" of eternal torment as a blanket judgement upon all who don't agree with them.

Humanoid
April 16th, 2005, 01:54 PM
I have a question which has been going on in my head for a while and I would like to get some opinions, some thoughts on this matter, please.

My question is: Can God see the future? Does he know everything that will happen in someone's life, from start to finish?

If he can, than what is the point of creating "bad" people? I mean if he know that this soul will be foreever tormented in hell (or perhaps not forever, seems to me in 2000 years people should at least have agreed on that), but even if hell is just temporary punishment, why create this soul in the first place?

If God KNEW that this person would kill or hurt other people?

Furthermore, if we each have a destiny, than saying we have free will is kind of pointless isn't it? If I were to tell someone: Listen, in about 3 years from now something is going to happen to you and you will kill 10 people.
They'll say, no way, that can't be me. But ofcourse, it's your destiny. NOTHING you do, even knowing what I've just told you, will change that. It's your future, it's your only future because that's what God has seen. And God cannot be wrong.

So this is all very confusing........ :alien:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:02 PM
God exists in an everlasting duration of time (sequence, succession). He is not timeless or in an 'eternal now' (this would make Him impersonal). He is from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2), but this does not mean He experiences past, present, and future in one eternal now moment. The past, present, and future are distinct for God as it is for us. He is the God of history. He is from all eternity and will exist trillions of years from now. Only the present is real. The past is a fixed memory; the future is not yet and only potential. Rev. 1:8 uses tensed expressions about God. He was, is now, and is to come (does not mean He is already there in the future).
To suggest that God does not exist outside of time is to suggest that he is bound by his own creation. He's not bound by the physical or spiritual aspects of his creation, why should he be bound by the temporal?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:04 PM
I have no trouble subscribing to the "ever-present now" theory. As temporal beings, it's difficult for us to comprehend, but if God created time (we can all agree on that, right?), I see no reason that he would constrain himself within his own creation.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:05 PM
As far as omnipotence goes, this is the old "Can God make a rock so big that He can't even lift it?" scenario. And any discussion I've ever had to this effect leads to the idea that God simply doesn't do things that God doesn't do. Or in otherwords, God is bound by His own nature.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:15 PM
I would tend to agree with this on principle..if for no other reason than that history is as it is..and if God were somehow in some sort of "eternal now" meaning actively present in the past...why would he not change the timeline to His liking?
Who says the timeline isn't already exactly to his liking? Or if it isn't who says he doesn't routinely change it and just make the changes unnoticeable to us, his worthless, worm-like creatures?

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 03:19 PM
To suggest that God does not exist outside of time is to suggest that he is bound by his own creation. He's not bound by the physical or spiritual aspects of his creation, why should he be bound by the temporal?


You are still confusing time with a place or a thing. Time is an aspect of any personal being's existence (succession, duration, sequence). God is NOT bound by space nor time. He is infinite and can be in more than one place at one time and do more than one thing at a time. The reason time is a limitation for us is that we are finite, limited, and mortal on earth. God is uncreated and experiences an everlasting duration of time. Timelessness is incoherent. Time is not a limitation for God, but He does not have to be 'outside' it for that to be true. Will, intellect, emotions require time to be experienced. God is dynamic, not static. Just because He experiences personal attributes and relations in sequence (time), it is not a limitation on Him, is it?

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Who says the timeline isn't already exactly to his liking? Or if it isn't who says he doesn't routinely change it and just make the changes unnoticeable to us, his worthless, worm-like creatures?


Speculation that has a simpler explanation: God is not timeless. The past is fixed, the present is reality, the future is not yet. Time is unidirectional. The timeline of everlasting duration is still moving into the blank future.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 03:23 PM
You are still confusing time with a place or a thing. Time is an aspect of any personal being's existence (succession, duration, sequence). God is NOT bound by space nor time. He is infinite and can be in more than one place at one time and do more than one thing at a time. The reason time is a limitation for us is that we are finite, limited, and mortal on earth. God is uncreated and experiences an everlasting duration of time. Timelessness is incoherent. Time is not a limitation for God, but He does not have to be 'outside' it for that to be true. Will, intellect, emotions require time to be experienced. God is dynamic, not static. Just because He experiences personal attributes and relations in sequence (time) is not a limitation on Him, is it?
Rep points for you!!! :BRAVO:

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 03:34 PM
I have a question which has been going on in my head for a while and I would like to get some opinions, some thoughts on this matter, please.

My question is: Can God see the future? Does he know everything that will happen in someone's life, from start to finish?

If he can, than what is the point of creating "bad" people? I mean if he know that this soul will be foreever tormented in hell (or perhaps not forever, seems to me in 2000 years people should at least have agreed on that), but even if hell is just temporary punishment, why create this soul in the first place?

If God KNEW that this person would kill or hurt other people?

Furthermore, if we each have a destiny, than saying we have free will is kind of pointless isn't it? If I were to tell someone: Listen, in about 3 years from now something is going to happen to you and you will kill 10 people.
They'll say, no way, that can't be me. But ofcourse, it's your destiny. NOTHING you do, even knowing what I've just told you, will change that. It's your future, it's your only future because that's what God has seen. And God cannot be wrong.

So this is all very confusing........ :alien:

I struggled with the same confusing thoughts years ago. When I found an alternate view to the classic timeless, 'eternal now' view, things became clear. There are several threads here that have explored these issues (Open Theism).

The future is not there to 'see'. Time and history is unidirectional, moving from the potential future into the fixed past through the present moment. The film is not already made. The future is not fixed, but is mostly unsettled and open. Determinism/fatalism wrongly assumes a closed future.

God knows the possibilities of our lives, but He correctly sees them as potential, not actual or certain before many moral and mundane choices are made (free moral agency; self-determination). He knows all that is logically knowable. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies (may or may not happen) is an absurdity or logical contradiction.

God knows some of the future as certain and settled. These are the things He will bring to pass by His ability (not foreknowledge) regardless of our choices (see Is. 46; 48, etc.) e.g. First and Second Coming of Christ; future judgments in Revelation, etc. These do not necessarily include every detail (like where a bird will fly in 5 years). He can bring His purposes to pass creatively and responsively without controlling details.

If God knew for certain every detail, it does lead to apathy, confusion, no responsibility/accountability, etc. It becomes like a weird back to the future sci-fi movie that does not make rational sense. This is why time travel is absurd. The future is not yet and the past is fixed.

Determinism would make God responsible for heinous evil, which would be contrary to His revelation and character. We would not have genuine freedom (image of God) and would be mere robots.

Change would be impossible if the future was fixed and known. Your questions would continue to be perplexing and irrational.

So, the key to clear the cobwebs is to recognize that God is not timeless. Time is unidirectional and is succession, sequence, duration. The future is not yet, and thus is not knowable. Some of the future is settled, but much of the future is open (especially relating to free choices).

Every day is an exciting adventure for God and us. What we do or do not do (prayer, evangelism, social responsibility, etc.) can and does make a difference. Fatalism is a Muslim concept. Unfortunately, Calvinism falls into the same trap (though trying to claim we have free will...logically we do not in a deterministic system).

God did not create bad people. He created man with the potential to chose good or evil. Lucifer became Satan. Adam fell. God did not desire nor cause this.

Modal logic (necessities, certainties, possibilities, probabilities) and quantum mechanics (chaos; random) are relevant to these issues.

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 03:42 PM
I have no trouble subscribing to the "ever-present now" theory. As temporal beings, it's difficult for us to comprehend, but if God created time (we can all agree on that, right?), I see no reason that he would constrain himself within his own creation.


This is another wrong assumption. Time was not created, because it is not a thing. Our measure of time by the sun, moon, stars, clocks, etc. are unique to creation, but succession/sequence/duration predated creation. The triune God experiences sequence from everlasting to everlasting. He would not have will, intellect, emotions if He was timeless, whatever that means.

Time is not a constraint for God. The reason the Bible shows God experiencing His Story is that He is a covenantal, relational God, not a removed Deist entity. A timeless being would not relate or experience.

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 03:44 PM
As far as omnipotence goes, this is the old "Can God make a rock so big that He can't even lift it?" scenario. And any discussion I've ever had to this effect leads to the idea that God simply doesn't do things that God doesn't do. Or in otherwords, God is bound by His own nature.

The problem is not with God. This is a mutually exclusive, logical contradiction, absurdity. The problem is with the illogical question, not with God. It is like saying: Can God make 2+2=4 and 2+2= 10 at the same time? This is not a limitation on omnipotence, but a stupid question.

Humanoid
April 16th, 2005, 04:22 PM
godrulz, thank you very much for your post! This is what I've been telling myself also. It is totally illogical to speak of free will and destiny at the same time.

So let me see if I got this right. We now have three "beliefs":

A. God IS omnipotent and knows exactly who will end up in hell, and they will suffer there eternally.

B. God IS omnipotent and knows exactly who will end up in hell, and they will suffer temporarily, and from time to time will have a chance for a new "appeal".

C. God is NOT omnipotent, doesn't really know who will end up in hell, but the ones that do will suffer there eternally.

D. God is NOT omnipotent, doesn't really know who will end up in hell, the ones that do will from time to time have a chance for a new "appeal".

I think I summized all of the beliefs there?

Well, it seems to me that the only option where God is good and we have free will is option D. But it still looks in my eyes as greatly irresponsible. I mean surely in his vast wisdom he would have thought of the possibility of creating such people as Hitler, Stalin.....

Can't good exist without evil?

Humanoid
April 16th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Oops, 4 options.....:) Can't I edit my posts?
Reminds me of that monty python joke with the spanish inquisition lol......

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 05:24 PM
godrulz, thank you very much for your post! This is what I've been telling myself also. It is totally illogical to speak of free will and destiny at the same time.

So let me see if I got this right. We now have three "beliefs":

A. God IS omnipotent and knows exactly who will end up in hell, and they will suffer there eternally.

B. God IS omnipotent and knows exactly who will end up in hell, and they will suffer temporarily, and from time to time will have a chance for a new "appeal".

C. God is NOT omnipotent, doesn't really know who will end up in hell, but the ones that do will suffer there eternally.

D. God is NOT omnipotent, doesn't really know who will end up in hell, the ones that do will from time to time have a chance for a new "appeal".

I think I summized all of the beliefs there?

Well, it seems to me that the only option where God is good and we have free will is option D. But it still looks in my eyes as greatly irresponsible. I mean surely in his vast wisdom he would have thought of the possibility of creating such people as Hitler, Stalin.....

Can't good exist without evil?


Omnipotent= all-powerful (this does not mean God does the logically impossible nor that He does all that can possibly be done all the time).

Omniscient= knows all that is knowable.

The only way for good and love to exist without selfishness and evil is to create robots who do not have choice. The possibility of love implies the equal possibility of evil. It is not necessary, but it is very possible.

God did not create Hitler or Stalin. They were born as innocent babies without moral or mental capacity until they grew. They created themselves through their own evil choices. They did not have to become what they became. They rejected God and suffered the consequences.

In the beginning, God said creation was 'very good.' It was perfect. The Fall of man through rebellion changed it to the point God regretted making man.

Option D sounds sentimental but denies God's power and justice. The Bible (OPTION E) affirms that God is all-powerful, but created other free moral agents with the possibility of love or hate. Because some men chose to rebel against God's holiness, the consequence is separation from Him for eternity. There are no second chances. He did not know for sure who would end up in hell even before they existed. Once they died and fixed their destiny, He would know for certain that they were in hell (some people repent and trust Christ in their last breath).

God demonstrates His love and goodness by coming in the person of Jesus Christ to die for us. This satisfies His love, justice, and mercy. It retains our free wills in that we may receive or reject Christ. He voluntarily limited His power by giving us genuine freedom (i.e. He does not control every moral and mundane choice in the universe). God remains perfect and good and all-powerful even if we do not meet the conditions of appropriating HIs perfect provision (repentant faith in Christ and His finished work).

Summary: God is good; God is all-powerful, but is not the only free moral agent in the universe (He voluntarily limits His sheer power and does not always exercise His potential power); man is a free moral agent; if they reject Him, they suffer the consequences forever. This is not God's fault. He died for us, so we must now live for Him instead of Self. We are without excuse if we reject His love; He remains perfect whether we serve Him or not.

Clete
April 16th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Omnipotent= all-powerful (this does not mean God does the logically impossible nor that He does all that can possibly be done all the time).

Omniscient= knows all that is knowable.

The only way for good and love to exist without selfishness and evil is to create robots who do not have choice. The possibility of love implies the equal possibility of evil. It is not necessary, but it is very possible.

God did not create Hitler or Stalin. They were born as innocent babies without moral or mental capacity until they grew. They created themselves through their own evil choices. They did not have to become what they became. They rejected God and suffered the consequences.

In the beginning, God said creation was 'very good.' It was perfect. The Fall of man through rebellion changed it to the point God regretted making man.

Option D sounds sentimental but denies God's power and justice. The Bible (OPTION E) affirms that God is all-powerful, but created other free moral agents with the possibility of love or hate. Because some men chose to rebel against God's holiness, the consequence is separation from Him for eternity. There are no second chances. He did not know for sure who would end up in hell even before they existed. Once they died and fixed their destiny, He would know for certain that they were in hell (some people repent and trust Christ in their last breath).

God demonstrates His love and goodness by coming in the person of Jesus Christ to die for us. This satisfies His love, justice, and mercy. It retains our free wills in that we may receive or reject Christ. He voluntarily limited His power by giving us genuine freedom (i.e. He does not control every moral and mundane choice in the universe). God remains perfect and good and all-powerful even if we do not meet the conditions of appropriating HIs perfect provision (repentant faith in Christ and His finished work).

Summary: God is good; God is all-powerful, but is not the only free moral agent in the universe (He voluntarily limits His sheer power and does not always exercise His potential power); man is a free moral agent; if they reject Him, they suffer the consequences forever. This is not God's fault. He died for us, so we must now live for Him instead of Self. We are without excuse if we reject His love; He remains perfect whether we serve Him or not.

Nice! :thumb:

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 07:06 PM
Nice! :thumb:
I agree. I usually enjoy Godrulz posts.

freelight
April 16th, 2005, 07:52 PM
. He voluntarily limited His power by giving us genuine freedom (i.e. He does not control every moral and mundane choice in the universe). God remains perfect and good and all-powerful even if we do not meet the conditions of appropriating HIs perfect provision (repentant faith in Christ and His finished work).

Summary: God is good; God is all-powerful, but is not the only free moral agent in the universe (He voluntarily limits His sheer power and does not always exercise His potential power); man is a free moral agent; if they reject Him, they suffer the consequences forever. This is not God's fault. He died for us, so we must now live for Him instead of Self. We are without excuse if we reject His love; He remains perfect whether we serve Him or not.

Indeed for absolute free will to exist in free moral agents.....an extension of power was issued from God to other conscious beings(creatures) thereby giving them a sovereignty of will. In this bestowal, God gave up the total supremacy of Himself being the Sole One Being with free-will Sovereignty. This does not disqualify God as being omnipotent within the ethical consitution of His government but simply shows that He will not coerce any of his creatures to do anything against their will. (assuming free will is absolutely sovereign with regards to the station, condition and destiny of the individual soul).The gift of free will-agency then can be a blessing or a tragedy......as the potential for sin enters into such freedom. However views vary about free wills place of influence in the the souls destiny as schools of theology/philosophy may have a cosmology where its conditional factors may place limitations on free will and/or assume divine Will as ultimately Soveriegn even concerning the destinies of Gods creations (universalism, arminianism, calvinism, etc.). Whether hell exists as an eternal lake of fire are also subject to inspection.....as well as the illogicity and cruelty of the doctrine of eternal conscious suffering/punishment of souls imposed by Deity.

So.....we would beg to explore free wills dimensions and powers within a respective context. God is All-powerful primally in the sense that All power resides and originates in His Eternal BEING. How much power he gives to free-will creatures that may oppose his power or divine Will is also open to inspection. If we maintain the absolute free-will sovereignty of a soul, then its power can only ultimately affect its own station, condition and final destiny. Of course the Will of God remains eternally constant. This however does cause one to question the risk taken by God if he knew that free-will creatures would oppose His will (or even have absolute power to do so!) therefore setting himself up for grief or disappointment...assuming some souls can reach a place of no return with no chances for rescue, recovery, restoration whatsoever. I still hold to a kind of Universalism where ultimately divine Will is triumphant in every-thing and being.....because God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent........ABSOLUTELY. If we are to maintain that God is OMNI-potent...then we must assume His Will is. We also must assume that no part of God will be lost or indeed can be lost! But this gets into more dimensions of course.



paul

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 07:54 PM
I agree. I usually enjoy Godrulz posts.

I always enjoy your spirit, attitude, and thoughts. Clete is also one of the sharper tools in the shed. Hey, is this fellowship week again?

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 08:01 PM
I always enjoy your spirit, attitude, and thoughts. Clete is also one of the sharper tools in the shed. Hey, is this fellowship week again?
:chuckle: One can only hope not!

Humanoid
April 16th, 2005, 10:37 PM
Summary: God is good; God is all-powerful, but is not the only free moral agent in the universe (He voluntarily limits His sheer power and does not always exercise His potential power); man is a free moral agent; if they reject Him, they suffer the consequences forever.

Ok, so lets call this option C2 then. Recall option C was:

C. God is NOT omnipotent, doesn't really know who will end up in hell, but the ones that do will suffer there eternally.

So according to you, option C2 is:

God is omnipotent (this ofcourse implies omniscient), but chooses not to see the ultimate fate of everyone (although he could if he wanted to) to respect their free will. Some people will go to heaven, while a great deal will instead be forever tormented in hell.

Is this correct?

If so then then again this begs the question, why would he even risk ONE soul being forever tormented? How could you enjoy anything knowing that one of your children is forever suffering?

To me this isn't just a "point of discussion", it is extremely grave question!

Please excuse any errors, english is not my first language....but it's not my last either :dunce:

godrulz
April 16th, 2005, 10:50 PM
Ok, so lets call this option C2 then. Recall option C was:

C. God is NOT omnipotent, doesn't really know who will end up in hell, but the ones that do will suffer there eternally.

So according to you, option C2 is:

God is omnipotent (this ofcourse implies omniscient), but chooses not to see the ultimate fate of everyone (although he could if he wanted to) to respect their free will. Some people will go to heaven, while a great deal will instead be forever tormented in hell.

Is this correct?

If so then then again this begs the question, why would he even risk ONE soul being forever tormented? How could you enjoy anything knowing that one of your children is forever suffering?

To me this isn't just a "point of discussion", it is extremely grave question!

Please excuse any errors, english is not my first language....but it's not my last either :dunce:

I do not believe God choses not to see the fate of everyone. He knows that many will reject Him, but this does not mean He knows which individuals will reject Him trillions of years before they even existed. Once alive and hardening their hearts, He would be able to see the potential outcome of their choices, yet His mercy and conviction can still reach them. It is not a foregone conclusion what their destiny will be until the end. So, it is not that He decides not to see their fate, it is that He cannot see their fate before they were born unless He predestined or caused it negating their choice and responsibility. Even in the original 'very good' creation, it was God's expectation that man would not rebel. He was genuinely grieved and had a change of disposition after the fact. He knew the possibility of hell, but not the certainty.

What is your first language?

God in His wisdom felt it was a higher good and glory to create rather than not create. He also felt the risk of free will was more important than creating robots. It breaks His heart when His creation perish apart from Him. However, His love for life, truth, holiness, etc. outweighed the alternative of no life or robots who could not love and live. If we understood God's love and holiness and wisdom we would know that hell and creation flow out of the love and holiness of God. He will have a people for Himself. This brings great joy to Him. Hell was for Satan. Jesus died to save us. Man does not need to go to hell. If he rejects God, God's truth will triumph still.

"Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. 18:25

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 12:50 AM
My first language is romanian, not a very expansive language lol.....

Your views on God surprise me, how many christians do you think share a view like yours? I think I can safely assume you are a minority.

This sounds very contradictory to me:
"Even in the original 'very good' creation, it was God's expectation that man would not rebel. "

and

"He also felt the risk of free will was more important than creating robots."

By rebelling you mean it from the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Why would a quest for knowledge, curiosity be considered rebelling? Don't you think that's a rather unfair and unrealistic rule for God to impose on his creations?

It doesn't make sense to me that he cherishes our free will so much, to the point that it overwhelms his pain about all those eternally damned, yet expected Adam and Eve to refrain from such an overwhelming temptation. After all, they were only humans :) You don't expect a 4 year old to NOT eat the plate of chocolate cookies you place in front of his nose do you? And then when he does, punish him in a manner like he had the comprehension to understand the consequences of his actions.

I just don't buy it that God has such poor judgement.........on people of all things :)

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 12:52 AM
aah, I can't seem to edit my posts.....
I wrote: ...you mean it from the fruit....." ofcourse i meant "eat from the fuit".....

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 01:03 AM
Also:
"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

How would Adam have any idea what dying ment?

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 01:05 AM
I am not sure where Godrulz deviates from the norm on this, but of course it is ridiculously late and I may just be missing it. God did not set us up for failure. He does not want us to fail. But stopping us from being able to make a choice is a greater failure, I think.

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 01:19 AM
I have a question which has been going on in my head for a while and I would like to get some opinions, some thoughts on this matter, please.

My question is: Can God see the future? Does he know everything that will happen in someone's life, from start to finish?

If he can, than what is the point of creating "bad" people? I mean if he know that this soul will be foreever tormented in hell (or perhaps not forever, seems to me in 2000 years people should at least have agreed on that), but even if hell is just temporary punishment, why create this soul in the first place?

If God KNEW that this person would kill or hurt other people?

Furthermore, if we each have a destiny, than saying we have free will is kind of pointless isn't it? If I were to tell someone: Listen, in about 3 years from now something is going to happen to you and you will kill 10 people.
They'll say, no way, that can't be me. But ofcourse, it's your destiny. NOTHING you do, even knowing what I've just told you, will change that. It's your future, it's your only future because that's what God has seen. And God cannot be wrong.

So this is all very confusing........ :alien:
To clear this all up, the answer to your first two questions is, "No."

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 01:20 AM
Also:
"And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

How would Adam have any idea what dying ment?
He obviously did not understand that well! In the end, even those of us that live with death don't really get it all that well, though. All God had to do with Adam is make it clear that he would come to an end, cease to be. After that, the word for "death" took on a clearer meaning.

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 01:21 AM
To clear this all up, the answer to your first two questions is, "No."
Yeah, God knows what is knowable. You can't know things that are just unknowable, or you are dealing with something completely irrational.

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 01:22 AM
To suggest that God does not exist outside of time is to suggest that he is bound by his own creation. He's not bound by the physical or spiritual aspects of his creation, why should he be bound by the temporal?
He is bound by the physical and spiritual. He is also bound by the temporal.

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 01:29 AM
But stopping us from being able to make a choice is a greater failure, I think.

I agree, but why do you stop there? Isn't it reasonable that in order to give someone freedom of choice, you also have to give them the reasoning capabilites to make a choice? I just don't see how Adam could have had the capacity or precedent to understand the threat of punishment such as "you will die if you do this". He or Eve did not know or understand what death was.

Furthermore it makes no sense to me that God specifically forbade them to understand the difference between good and evil, yet the reason we have free will apparently is so that we choose to go to God willingly, because our free will has taught us the difference between good and evil, and that evil is bad, is death, torment etc....

You see what I mean? Why make a rule to forbid them knowing the difference between good and evil if that knowledge is the only sincere way of going to God and understanding his goodness?

Can Adam understand the goodness of God without understanding what evil is? If so, then why create evil, why not let us understand by some other means besides death, evil and torment?

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 01:37 AM
All God had to do with Adam is make it clear that he would come to an end, cease to be. After that, the word for "death" took on a clearer meaning.

Actually no, he would not understand, how could he comprehend "come to an end, cease to be"? How would God possibly explain to him this concept???

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 01:39 AM
I have no trouble subscribing to the "ever-present now" theory. As temporal beings, it's difficult for us to comprehend, but if God created time (we can all agree on that, right?), I see no reason that he would constrain himself within his own creation.
No, God did not create time.

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 01:50 AM
It has occured to me that God's omnipotence effects what He can do, thus the fact that He can not lie is because He is powerful enough to not lie.

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 01:53 AM
I agree, but why do you stop there? Isn't it reasonable that in order to give someone freedom of choice, you also have to give them the reasoning capabilites to make a choice? I just don't see how Adam could have had the capacity or precedent to understand the threat of punishment such as "you will die if you do this". He or Eve did not know or understand what death was.

Furthermore it makes no sense to me that God specifically forbade them to understand the difference between good and evil, yet the reason we have free will apparently is so that we choose to go to God willingly, because our free will has taught us the difference between good and evil, and that evil is bad, is death, torment etc....

You see what I mean? Why make a rule to forbid them knowing the difference between good and evil if that knowledge is the only sincere way of going to God and understanding his goodness?

Can Adam understand the goodness of God without understanding what evil is? If so, then why create evil, why not let us understand by some other means besides death, evil and torment?
There is a misunderstanding here. Adam and eve knew right from wrong. That is apparent in how they approached the Serpent. And God expected obediance, and must have had a reason to do so. What they did not understand is the full scope of evil. Is sex okay? Or is it inherently evil? What we have in the world now is a good and pure thing that has been made perverse by our knowledge of perversion. Adam and Eve understood sex, and all the good things of it, without knowing about perversion. Just as a child may lie out of fear, so to did Eve. What she did not do was lie to God out of an effort to hurt Him, as the serpent did. Adam and Eve understood things in the light of a perfect garden, and as children (as Christ would refer to later). They did not understand was how things work in our world, as fallen adults. This is not a black white issue of logic (like assuming that they knew absolutely nothing), but an issue of degrees (they did not know what we know, but something entirely different).

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 02:21 AM
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Lovejoy, you are not answering specifically my questions.....

"we have in the world now is a good and pure thing that has been made perverse by our knowledge of perversion. Adam and Eve understood sex, and all the good things of it, without knowing about perversion."

Are you then saying Adam and Eve understood what is "good", without necessarily understand the "bad"?

We can understand what is good, be good, without an understanding of what is evil?

We can understand the goodness of God, without knowing hell?

Then what is the purpose of evil?

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 02:34 AM
Why do you conclude Adam and Eve knew right from wrong? A child simply does (most of the time) as you tell him, but in doing so does not prove he understands WHY his obedience is good, and his disobedience is bad.

At first he learns it's bad, because he is punished, so he obeys not because he realizes why something is bad for him but because he wants to avoid the punishment. Then only later as he grows and learns and becomes wiser does he understand why his actions are bad, and doesn't need punishment to be "good".

So that is why I say, how can God expect Adam and Eve to obey this command when they have no understanding of good or bad, right from wrong. And why such a harsh punishment when God should have said: You know what, it's my fault, I expected too much from you, and it was unrealistic.

So far in this thread I've learned that:

God is not omnipotent
God doesn't know how you'll end up
God wouldn't know the first thing about raising children
Evil seems to have been invented by God as a trap for man to fall into, and then God blames man for falling into the trap and punishes him for it!

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 02:41 AM
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying Lovejoy, you are not answering specifically my questions.....

"we have in the world now is a good and pure thing that has been made perverse by our knowledge of perversion. Adam and Eve understood sex, and all the good things of it, without knowing about perversion."

Are you then saying Adam and Eve understood what is "good", without necessarily understand the "bad"?

We can understand what is good, be good, without an understanding of what is evil?

We can understand the goodness of God, without knowing hell?

Then what is the purpose of evil?
We are not approaching this on the same belief system. I do not think that evil must exist for good to exist. I think evil and sin are just concepts describing an absence of God and righteousness. Just as dark and cold are not a thing unto themselves, but rather a lack of light and heat. Only, in this case God is what is natural and right, and evil is alien. What you seem to want is to have an answer that satisfies your philsophy, your approach. I can't do that. I don't think things balance the way you do. All I can say is that in the new earth, in God's kingdom, we will not know evil or understand it (I don't think). Evil is here because all fall short of God. It is not as powerful as God, and it has no chance of winning. Hell is just a destination for those things that do not end up being Christ's. Evil is just an effort of willful disobediance to what is right. As it happens, God can use it for the purposes of growing those that are His, testing us.

Anyway, we have different world views, and that is a fact. Maybe in the morning I will make more sense.

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 03:39 AM
Well, no, I'm not trying to satisfy my philosophy, just want to understand the thinking. Because I keep hearing:
"Why does God let people suffer? The Bible will tell you".
"Why does God allow evil? The Bible will tell you".

Obviously your answer is: God gave us free will.

At the cost of thousands of eternally tormented souls. Isn't there a better way? Why was this era necessary?

"All I can say is that in the new earth, in God's kingdom, we will not know evil or understand it (I don't think)."

But that would mean you will have no memories of your time now, on this earth, along with evil. If you will have no memories of it, what was the point? If the point was just a sort of test to see who would willingly choose God and who would not, because he loves our free will so much, then what was Gods plan with Adam and Eve, why didn't they have to willingly choose him? It seems for them they only needed to obey God, not willingly choose him.

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 03:47 AM
But they did have a choice. A choice between submission to God, or to listen to a serpent who offered to make them self sufficient.

As to our memories, all it says is that we will not remember pain, but there will also be no evil there. I have not idea how much of our unique identiies will remain. Much of the testing that we go through now has to do with our earthly ministries, and helps us to bring others to Christ. God does not love our free will, He loves us and wished for us to love Him freely in return.

I am sorry, but I do not have all the answers, not even to my own belief system. I promise I will get back to this tomorrow when I am a little clearer. It is 3:00 AM here.

Humanoid
April 17th, 2005, 04:17 AM
Ok Lovejoy, have a good night and thank you for your replies and patience :)

My final thought for today (early morning here):

A repition really but I find it completely irrational of God to put so much blame on Adam and Eve's mistake, when clearly they couldn't have any idea of what their disobedience would mean.

We do, and even we disobey, severely. We are taught of hell, we are taught of death, of eternal punishment, all these deterents and still we disobey. What were Adam and Eve told?

-Don't eat this or you will surely die.
-I will what?
-Die, cease to be.
-Cease to be?

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 05:00 AM
I'm sure God allowed Adam and Eve to understand the concept of death. Either that or the original text says that they would be seperated from God, as Romans 6:23 implies, since none of us is saved from physical death.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 08:37 AM
No, God did not create time.
Come on!!!! Then who did? Really. Time is a part of the created universe. I think Einstein proved that a long time ago.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 08:39 AM
He is bound by the physical and spiritual. He is also bound by the temporal.
This is ridiculous. Do you even believe in God? How could God be bound by his own creation? I'm not saying God can't intervene. The stories of the Bible show a lot of divine intervention, but to insist that God is bound by the constraints of his own creation seems ludicrous to me.

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 08:41 AM
Come on!!!! Then who did? Really. Time is a part of the created universe. I think Einstein proved that a long time ago.

Einstein did no such thing. He didn't even prove that time exists, never mind that it was created.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 08:42 AM
Speculation that has a simpler explanation: God is not timeless. The past is fixed, the present is reality, the future is not yet. Time is unidirectional. The timeline of everlasting duration is still moving into the blank future.
I would disagree. If you believe in an omnipotent creator, then the future is fixed as well. As far as God is concerned, it's already happening. Now and always. All things are before him at once.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Einstein did no such thing. He didn't even prove that time exists, never mind that it was created.
He proved that time has properties apart from merely a manmade perception of the passage of events. From a Chrisitian point of view, how can you NOT believ that God created time?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 08:44 AM
The problem is not with God. This is a mutually exclusive, logical contradiction, absurdity. The problem is with the illogical question, not with God. It is like saying: Can God make 2+2=4 and 2+2= 10 at the same time? This is not a limitation on omnipotence, but a stupid question.
I agree with you on that one. I think we are both saying the same thing with different words.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 08:57 AM
Caledvwlch-
Time is not a thing that could be created. Duration and succession have always existed. And time is nothing more than duration and succession. Since God has always existed, then the succession of events has always existed. And that is what we call time. Time that has passed is no more, and time that has not come... wel, it has not come. Therefore it does not exist, and can not be known. God knows His plans, and How He is going to end things, but He does not know what I will have for supper tonight. He also does not know who I am going to marry. Or if I ever will get married. Time is not something God can look at, and see all of at once. Because it is a non-entity.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Caledvwlch-
Time is not a thing that could be created. Duration and succession have always existed. And time is nothing more than duration and succession. Since God has always existed, then the succession of events has always existed. And that is what we call time. Time that has passed is no more, and time that has not come... wel, it has not come. Therefore it does not exist, and can not be known. God knows His plans, and How He is going to end things, but He does not know what I will have for supper tonight. He also does not know who I am going to marry. Or if I ever will get married. Time is not something God can look at, and see all of at once. Because it is a non-entity.
You seem to be trapped by your own limitations, as we all are. But to assign your own limitations on God just seems wrong to me. Even when I was a Christian, my opinion on this point was the same.

For example:

In Sunday School once, we were discussing what happened to the Old Testement saints when they died. People were throwing out all kinds of silly ideas (they stayed in a temporary "Paradise" or quasi-heaven, or inverse pergatory). I put out the idea that spiritual beings are not bound by time, and therefore, when an OT saint died, he left the constraints of time and was immediately with God. Nobody has been able to provide me with a better explanation, using the Bible or anything else.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 09:39 AM
Come on!!!! Then who did? Really. Time is a part of the created universe. I think Einstein proved that a long time ago.


Time is not a created thing. It is succession, duration, sequence. It should not be confused with space. Einstein is not a philosopher-theologian. He was a speculative, theoretical physicist. The measure of time is subjective, but the reality of it has always existed. The uncreated God experiences an endless duration of time with no beginning and no end. He is not timeless. Can you see time under a microscope? It is a concept, not a created thing. J.R. Lucas' "A Treatise on Time and Space" may be helpful to confirm this.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 09:44 AM
I would disagree. If you believe in an omnipotent creator, then the future is fixed as well. As far as God is concerned, it's already happening. Now and always. All things are before him at once.

This is an indefensible, problematic assumption. The only way this could be true (not even then) is if God predestines and fatalistically determines every moral and mundane choice of every creature and atom in the universe. Quantum mechanics and chaos theory refute this. Every moral and mundane choice you make shows that we are self-determining, free moral agents. Contingencies are genuine. If something may or may not happen, it is not knowable as a certainty until it happens. The future is genuinely open for God and us. He is responsive and omnicompetent, not a brute force dictator. Omnipotence does not mean that He does everything possible all the time. He chose to not exercise His sheer power and gave us creative freedom and responsibility. This resulted in God not controlling everything (it is more glorious and difficult to bring your purposes to pass despite millions of contingent choices by other moral agents) and thus knowing some things as possible rather than actual or necessary before they come into being.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 09:49 AM
You seem to be trapped by your own limitations, as we all are. But to assign your own limitations on God just seems wrong to me. Even when I was a Christian, my opinion on this point was the same.

For example:

In Sunday School once, we were discussing what happened to the Old Testement saints when they died. People were throwing out all kinds of silly ideas (they stayed in a temporary "Paradise" or quasi-heaven, or inverse pergatory). I put out the idea that spiritual beings are not bound by time, and therefore, when an OT saint died, he left the constraints of time and was immediately with God. Nobody has been able to provide me with a better explanation, using the Bible or anything else.

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (or hell for unbelievers). In heaven, thinking/feeling/acting will require duration. We will not be limited, but this does not mean that we will not experience past, present, and future.

What are you now? What was your denominational background previously? What went wrong?

Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:8 God is everlasting duration vs timelessness.

Rev. 6:10; 8:1; 22:1,2 There is time in eternity/heaven.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 09:52 AM
You seem to be trapped by your own limitations, as we all are. But to assign your own limitations on God just seems wrong to me. Even when I was a Christian, my opinion on this point was the same.

For example:

In Sunday School once, we were discussing what happened to the Old Testement saints when they died. People were throwing out all kinds of silly ideas (they stayed in a temporary "Paradise" or quasi-heaven, or inverse pergatory). I put out the idea that spiritual beings are not bound by time, and therefore, when an OT saint died, he left the constraints of time and was immediately with God. Nobody has been able to provide me with a better explanation, using the Bible or anything else.
God limits Himself. And Jesus' parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus says that Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom, which is not "with God." Of course, now that Christ has died, they were released to be with God. Since Christ is the only way to the Father, then Christ had to die in order for any human to ever be with God.

And time is not an entity which someone can exist outside of. Time is not a thing that can bind, we, and God, are bound by existence. God can only exist within that which exists. The present is the only point in time that exists.

servent101
April 18th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Lighthouse
And time is not an entity which someone can exist outside of. Time is not a thing that can bind, we, and God, are bound by existence. God can only exist within that which exists. The present is the only point in time that exists.

This is a statement, with no reason or logic - it is your word, that this is so, or at least this is presented as such, do you really want to let this statement stand - simply on the basis that you said it?

This may seem strange to you, but the concept that we exist in tiny wedges of space and time is one that is lost when we look at the more infinite attributes of God - that God is not confined to what we perceive space and time as - even the new physics, the String theory suggests otherwise.

Do you want to admit that you just do not know what you are talking about, that you have no source other than your own speculative ideas?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 10:05 AM
Serpent-
You're full of crap. God existing within that which exists is straight from the Bible. And present being the only point in time that exists is from the Bible as well. Get a clue.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 10:09 AM
Serpent-
You're full of crap. God existing within that which exists is straight from the Bible. And present being the only point in time that exists is from the Bible as well. Get a clue.


How did you get so many rep points? Can you give them to yourself if you are a subscriber (haha)? I'm jealous. :sam:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Obvioously this is going nowhere. And since it doesn't really matter whether or not God is bound by His creation, I'm not going to waste anymore keystrokes.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Obvioously this is going nowhere. And since it doesn't really matter whether or not God is bound by His creation, I'm not going to waste anymore keystrokes.

Theology, the Queen of sciences, is worth wrestling with. God is not bound by His creation. He is sovereign over it. This does not mean that He is not immanent as well as transcendent. He is not a Deist god, nor is He a finite god. He is God Almighty, the uncreated Creator, ruler of heaven and earth.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 10:28 AM
godrulz-
I believe my subscriber status has something to do with it, but no, I can not give them to myself. However, what shows up on my posts is rep power. My points are 1066.

Cal-
God is not bound by His creation. But He is bound by Himself, and anything else that is not a created thing.:D

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Are there any Christians out there who know where I'm coming from with this argument? I simply think that it's bizarre to think that time is not a created thing.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 10:38 AM
Prove that time is a created thing. Prove that the Bible teaches God knows, exhaustively, everything that will happen. Prove that there was a time when time did not exist...

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Prove that time is a created thing. Prove that the Bible teaches God knows, exhaustively, everything that will happen. Prove that there was a time when time did not exist...
That's kinda silly, don't you think? While I'm at it, do you want me to prove that God exists? And prove that there was a time when time didn't exist. That's ridiculous. Not in this universe, granted. But in the eternity of God, there is no time... hence eternity.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 10:43 AM
Are there any Christians out there who know where I'm coming from with this argument? I simply think that it's bizarre to think that time is not a created thing.

Many Christians have not thought this concept through. They assume time is created 'in the beginning'. The only thing created was star, sun, moon, that provided a newtemporal measure of the already existing duration.

"God and Time: 4 views" ed. Ganssle, IVP will help you appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of various views on the subject of time, eternity, etc. This is somewhat philosophical, since Scripture does not give a systematic thesis on the subject (though it shows God experiencing an endless duration of His Story/history).

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:45 AM
Many Christians have not thought this concept through. They assume time is created 'in the beginning'. The only thing created was star, sun, moon, that provided a newtemporal measure of the already existing duration.

"God and Time: 4 views" ed. Ganssle, IVP will help you appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of various views on the subject of time, eternity, etc. This is somewhat philosophical, since Scripture does not give a systematic thesis on the subject (though it shows God experiencing an endless duration of His Story/history).
Exactly. Scripture does not give a systematic thesis on the subject. So why is lighthouse poking me with his truth stick? His dogma is so thick he can't even allow for variations where the Bible does.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 10:53 AM
That's kinda silly, don't you think? While I'm at it, do you want me to prove that God exists? And prove that there was a time when time didn't exist. That's ridiculous. Not in this universe, granted. But in the eternity of God, there is no time... hence eternity.


Platonic (pagan Greek philosophy) sees eternity as timelessness. Augustine was influenced by this. The Hebraic view is that eternity is an endless duration of time. I gave you verses to show that God is tensed (past, present, future) and that there is time in heaven.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 11:09 AM
Cal-
You obviously never read your entire Bible, yet you argue as if you know it.:nono:

godrulz is right. There are verses in the Bible that show there is time in heaven, and that God experiences the passing of time, and gains knowledge as time passes. The Bible does not allow for variations here. And one of these days that stick is gonna smack you upside your head, and God will be holding it.:Clete:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Cal-
You obviously never read your entire Bible, yet you argue as if you know it.:nono:

godrulz is right. There are verses in the Bible that show there is time in heaven, and that God experiences the passing of time, and gains knowledge as time passes. The Bible does not allow for variations here. And one of these days that stick is gonna smack you upside your head, and God will be holding it.:Clete:
You're kinda cute when you're threatening violence.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 11:17 AM
I threatened no such thing. In fact, didn't even threaten you. I just said that the Truth would smack you upside the head, one day, and that God is the One Who will be wielding it.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:19 AM
I threatened no such thing. In fact, didn't even threaten you. I just said that the Truth would smack you upside the head, one day, and that God is the One Who will be wielding it.
Ok fair enough. Anyway, back to business, shall we? Just as I cannot prove that God is not bound by time, neither can you prove that He is. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Can you prove the Biblical stance on this issue? Does the Bible show a God bound by time, or not bound by time? Can you at least answer that question?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:36 AM
Can you prove the Biblical stance on this issue? Does the Bible show a God bound by time, or not bound by time? Can you at least answer that question?
The Bible doesn't say either way... does it?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 11:43 AM
That's just sad. You argue against the Bible, and have no idea what it says.:nono:

Yes, the Bible does say.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:45 AM
That's just sad. You argue against the Bible, and have no idea what it says.:nono:

Yes, the Bible does say.
Ok, help me out then. Point me in the right direction. Where does it say that God is bound by time?

And as a side note... on this thread, I'm not arguing against the Bible. This is an argument I always enjoyed back in the day... so for the purpose of this thread, the Bible counts for me.

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 11:56 AM
He proved that time has properties apart from merely a manmade perception of the passage of events.
He thought he did but he didn't. You do not understand what Einstien did. I recommend you drop this part of your argument.


From a Christian point of view, how can you NOT believe that God created time?
Because to say that He did is a contradiction on it's face. All one would need to do in order to demonstrate the contradiction is to ask a single question; a question which lighthouse has already asked. Was there a time when time did not exist? If time was created that would have to be a yes, but there can't be a yes because that would require more time. It's circular as can be and irrational.
Time does not exist. Duration and succession exist and it is those things which we call time but just because we refer to time in the way we do doesn't mean that time exists as a separate thing through which we all travel. You can’t see time, you can’t detect it in a laboratory, it has no mass or energy. You can’t feel, touch, smell or hear its passing. Time is simply an idea, it’s a frame of reference by which we keep track of duration and sequences, nothing more.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:02 PM
He thought he did but he didn't. You do not understand what Einstien did. I recommend you drop this part of your argument.


Because to say that He did is a contradiction on it's face. All one would need to do in order to demonstrate the contradiction is to ask a single question; a question which lighthouse has already asked. Was there a time when time did not exist? If time was created that would have to be a yes, but there can't be a yes because that would require more time. It's circular as can be and irrational.
Time does not exist. Duration and succession exist and it is those things which we call time but just because we refer to time in the way we do doesn't mean that time exists as a separate thing through which we all travel. You can’t see time, you can’t detect it in a laboratory, it has no mass or energy. You can’t feel, touch, smell or hear its passing. Time is simply an idea, it’s a frame of reference by which we keep track of duration and sequences, nothing more.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ok, I'll drop Einstein.

As for the rest of it, how can you assume that God did not create time along with everything else? It doesn't seem fair to assign restraints on a limitless, infinite, unfathomable God.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:07 PM
There is time in heaven:
"And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour."

-Revelation 8:1

God changes His mind:
"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them."

-Jonah 3:10

God does not know the future, exhaustively:
"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

-Genesis 2:19

Also, don't forget that God tested Abraham's faith, by asking him to sacrafice Isaac. God did not know if Abraham would do it, or else the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Ok, I'll drop Einstein.

As for the rest of it, how can you assume that God did not create time along with everything else? It doesn't seem fair to assign restraints on a limitless, infinite, unfathomable God.
Because time is not a thing, like "everyTHING else".
And who said God is limitless? God cannot do the undoable (i.e. the absurd). He cannot go to a place that doesn't exist (like the past or the future for example), He cannot know what is unknowable, etc. God can do all that is doable that He wants to do. He doesn't have to do everything that He can do. For example God can be everywhere that exists simultaniously IF HE WANTS TO. He does not have to be somewhere He doesn't want to be (like the Lake of Fire for example). Nothing in the Bible suggests otherwise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:13 PM
Ok, I'll drop Einstein.

As for the rest of it, how can you assume that God did not create time along with everything else? It doesn't seem fair to assign restraints on a limitless, infinite, unfathomable God.
Can God limit Himself?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:13 PM
There is time in heaven:
"And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour."

-Revelation 8:1
Ok, cool. John was still a man. His perception would still be temporal at this point.


God changes His mind:
"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them."

-Jonah 3:10

God does not know the future, exhaustively:
"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

-Genesis 2:19
This doesn't mean that God didn't already know what Adam would call them.


Also, don't forget that God tested Abraham's faith, by asking him to sacrafice Isaac. God did not know if Abraham would do it, or else the whole thing is an exercise in futility.
Again, this doesn't prove anything, other than God was testing Abraham. It was for Abraham's benefit, not for God's. God still knew he would make the right choice, otherwise he wouldn't have promised Abraham that his seed would be like the sands, etc.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Can God limit Himself?
Why would he?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:23 PM
Ok, cool. John was still a man. His perception would still be temporal at this point.
:bang:


This doesn't mean that God didn't already know what Adam would call them.
Then why does it say, "to see what he would call them?" Huh?


Again, this doesn't prove anything, other than God was testing Abraham. It was for Abraham's benefit, not for God's. God still knew he would make the right choice, otherwise he wouldn't have promised Abraham that his seed would be like the sands, etc.
God knew that if Abraham were to actually go through with it, that He would stop him, as He did. But the fact that He had to test Abraham's faith shows that God did not know if Abraham would go through with it. You say that God knew that Abraham trusted Him, yet God tested Abraham to see if he did. If God knew, then why the need to prove it? Why would He have had to prove it to Abraham?:confused: As far as Abraham was concerned, he trusted the Lord. What purpose would the whole thing have served if God already knew what Abraham would do?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Why would he?
That isn't the question. We can save that for later. Right now, I want to know if you think that God has the ability to limit Himself.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:26 PM
:bang:


Then why does it say, "to see what he would call them?" Huh?


God knew that if Abraham were to actually go through with it, that He would stop him, as He did. But the fact that He had to test Abraham's faith shows that God did not know if Abraham would go through with it. You say that God knew that Abraham trusted Him, yet God tested Abraham to see if he did. If God knew, then why the need to prove it? Why would He have had to prove it to Abraham?:confused: As far as Abraham was concerned, he trusted the Lord. What purpose would the whole thing have served if God already knew what Abraham would do?
Like I said. The testing was for Abraham's benefit, not for God's.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:27 PM
That isn't the question. We can save that for later. Right now, I want to know if you think that God has the ability to limit Himself.
Not really. Nor do I see that God would have the need to limit himself.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:31 PM
Abraham did not need his faith prven to him, so your argument falls flat on it's face.

And why do you think the Omnipotent God is unable to limit Himself? Isn't He all powerful?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Abraham did not need his faith prven to him, so your argument falls flat on it's face.

And why do you think the Omnipotent God is unable to limit Himself? Isn't He all powerful?
Don't you think God's testing of Abraham made him stronger? Do you think God would have made a promise to Abraham, not knowing if it was really going to come true?

God limiting himself would be the same as God making Himself less powerful.

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 12:37 PM
Like I said. The testing was for Abraham's benefit, not for God's.
The text says otherwise.

Genesis 22:12
And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

The text says that God now knew since (because) Abraham had not withheld his son from Him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is where you say that Gen 22:12 is a figure of speech.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:41 PM
The text says otherwise.

Genesis 22:12
And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

The text says that God now knew since (because) Abraham had not withheld his son from Him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is where you say that Gen 22:12 is a figure of speech.
No, you make a good point. But where I get shady is God's creatures claiming to know the nature of God well enough to limit Him to temporal constraints. The whole point of this disgusting episode was to make Abraham stronger in his faith.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:41 PM
I just realized something. The reason you guys don't like my theory is because it belies predestination. Why is that?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Don't you think God's testing of Abraham made him stronger? Do you think God would have made a promise to Abraham, not knowing if it was really going to come true?
No, I don't. God knew He would keep His promise.:duh: But God also declared that He would destroy Nineveh, yet He repented of that, because they repented.


God limiting himself would be the same as God making Himself less powerful.
So? Is it within His power to limit Himself?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:50 PM
The whole point of this disgusting episode was to make Abraham stronger in his faith.
Wrong.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:54 PM
No, I don't. God knew He would keep His promise.:duh: But God also declared that He would destroy Nineveh, yet He repented of that, because they repented.


So? Is it within His power to limit Himself?
That doesn't mean that God didn't know that Ninevah would repent.

If God limited himself, he would cease to be God. God is limitless, God does not limit himself. I don't understand why you're pushing the question. If God is limited, then he is not omnipotent, and therefore not God. If God is bound by time, then he is not omnipotent, and therefore not God. Just because this theory adds credence to predestination theory doesn't mean it's wrong.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:54 PM
I just realized something. The reason you guys don't like my theory is because it belies predestination. Why is that?
:darwinsm:

Are you really that stupid?!

:darwinsm:

The idea that God does not know the unknowable future is the antithesis of exhaustive predestination! I do not beleive in exhaistive predestination, and neither do Clete or godrulz!

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:57 PM
:darwinsm:

Are you really that stupid?!

:darwinsm:

The idea that God does not know the unknowable future is the antithesis of exhaustive predestination! I do not beleive in exhaistive predestination, and neither do Clete or godrulz!
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. You've answered all my questions. You set temporal constraints for your God, because you can't stomach the idea of predestination, but in doing so, you put limits on your God, and strip Him of His omnipotence.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 12:59 PM
That doesn't mean that God didn't know that Ninevah would repent.
Yes, it does. He changed His mind. If He knew they would repent, His mind would have already been made up.


If God limited himself, he would cease to be God. God is limitless, God does not limit himself. I don't understand why you're pushing the question. If God is limited, then he is not omnipotent, and therefore not God. If God is bound by time, then he is not omnipotent, and therefore not God. Just because this theory adds credence to predestination theory doesn't mean it's wrong.
How do you know God does not limit Himself? Is the fact that He can not sin a limit? Did He place that limit on Himself? And time is not a thing that God can be bound by it.

I think I may have misunderstood. Which argument are you saying leans towards predestination?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Yes, it does. He changed His mind. If He knew they would repent, His mind would have already been made up.


How do you know God does not limit Himself? Is the fact that He can not sin a limit? Did He place that limit on Himself? And time is not a thing that God can be bound by it.

I think I may have misunderstood. Which argument are you saying leans towards predestination?
As far as God sinning, nothing God does is a sin, because God does it. It's not that God can't sin, he just defines what is and is not sin, therefore everything God does is not sin.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. You've answered all my questions. You set temporal constraints for your God, because you can't stomach the idea of predestination, but in doing so, you put limits on your God, and strip Him of His omnipotence.
I didn't set anything. Pagans came up with the idea of a timeless eternal now. It is nopt found in the Bible. In fact, teh Bible shows the opposite. Omniscience is knowing all tha can be known. Omnipotence is being able to do all that can be done. And Omnipresence is being able to be everywhere that exists.

Is God in Wonderland?

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. You've answered all my questions. You set temporal constraints for your God, because you can't stomach the idea of predestination, but in doing so, you put limits on your God, and strip Him of His omnipotence.
Our view of God is Biblical. It is not contrived to rid ourselves of predestination. We believe in predestination as it is taught in the Bible, not as it is taught by Calvinism. God is holy and He is therefore just and He loves us. This is our (or at least my) primary starting point with my view of God. Anything that would render this meaningless or incorrect must be wrong. Calvinisms version of predestination definately makes God unjust (for several reasons) and it is therefore wrong. But as for the existence of time and God being outside of it, I reject that purely on the basis that it is irrational and that the Bible simply doesn't demand that we believe such things. The whole idea is derived from the faulty premise that God is immutable. Faulty premise, faulty conclusion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 01:06 PM
As far as God sinning, nothing God does is a sin, because God does it. It's not that God can't sin, he just defines what is and is not sin, therefore everything God does is not sin.
:dizzy::hammer::bang::doh::kookoo:

If that's not circular reasoning, I don't know what is.

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 01:08 PM
As far as God sinning, nothing God does is a sin, because God does it. It's not that God can't sin, he just defines what is and is not sin, therefore everything God does is not sin.
This is also irrational. Ever heard of Euthephro's dilemma?
God is not arbitrary. If He were, He would be unjust. God cannot become a man and act like Hitler and remain a holy God. That would be irrational.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 01:10 PM
:dizzy::hammer::bang::doh::kookoo:

If that's not circular reasoning, I don't know what is.
It's not circular reasoning. God simply is, correct? Everything God does is just and holy. Sin is defined on the basis of God's holiness.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Thanks guys. I'm done here. Good talk as always.

Peace

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 01:23 PM
Are you saying that God can murder, and it is not wrong? Or that God can not murder, because He is righteous?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 01:24 PM
Are you saying that God can murder, and it is not wrong? Or that God can not murder, because He is righteous?
Both. We don't need to understand it. He's God.

Humanoid
April 18th, 2005, 01:39 PM
Well, eternal punishment, isn't that murder?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 01:51 PM
Both. We don't need to understand it. He's God.
:darwinsm:

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Well, eternal punishment, isn't that murder?
No.

1] Murder requires death. Eternal punishment requires that there is no ultimate death [destruction].
2] God is not responsible for people going to hell.
3] Not all Christians beleive in eternal conscious torment.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 01:55 PM
:darwinsm:
:nananana:

Humanoid
April 18th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Ok, murder requires death, but don't you think if you had the choice between being murdered or to be forever in torment, you would not prefer murder? Eternal punishment is much worse than death is it not?

"2. God is not responsible for people going to hell"

Well this brings forth an interesting arguement I read in another thread. The arguement that if you knew your future child would be forever in torment, would you still conceive that child?

Now, this is not a question of responsibility, nor is it a question of knowing for certain.

Think about it, say you want to have 10 kids, but you knew for certain that SOME of those kids, actually perhaps as many as half of them, perhaps even more, would be forever tormented in hell, would you still go ahead and have ANY kids??

I certainly would not. Do you understand why I would not?

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:03 PM
Cal-
What you said was a cop out, and you know it.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 02:05 PM
It wasn't a cop-out. Who are we to fathom God? Not believing in predestination is a cop-out. You have two choices. A God who is all-knowing and all-powerful, who predestines people to burn and hell. Or you have a God who is not all-powerful, and historically speaking is kind of helpless, and therefore not God at all.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:08 PM
Ok, murder requires death, but don't you think if you had the choice between being murdered or to be forever in torment, you would not prefer murder? Eternal punishment is much worse than death is it not?

"2. God is not responsible for people going to hell"

Well this brings forth an interesting arguement I read in another thread. The arguement that if you knew your future child would be forever in torment, would you still conceive that child?

Now, this is not a question of responsibility, nor is it a question of knowing for certain.

Think about it, say you want to have 10 kids, but you knew for certain that SOME of those kids, actually perhaps as many as half of them, perhaps even more, would be forever tormented in hell, would you still go ahead and have ANY kids??

I certainly would not. Do you understand why I would not?
Yes, I understand completely. But that would pretty much mean not having any kids at all, wouldn't it?

Anyway, I am one of the Christians that doesn't believe in eternal punishment. I believe in the ultimate destruction of all that is not in Christ.

I also believe that God does not know who will and who will not go to hell. Well, He knows who is His, and that none of them will go to hell. But He doesn't know who will be His, until they are His.

Humanoid
April 18th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Funny how dictionaries have it all wrong lol......

God
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:12 PM
It wasn't a cop-out. Who are we to fathom God? Not believing in predestination is a cop-out. You have two choices. A God who is all-knowing and all-powerful, who predestines people to burn and hell. Or you have a God who is not all-powerful, and historically speaking is kind of helpless, and therefore not God at all.
That's complete and utter crap. God knows all that can be known, and can do all that can be done. And that means knowing more than us, and being able to do that which we can not do. But it does not mean He can know that which can not be known, nor than He can do that which can not be done. You still haven't answered my question: Is God in Wonderland?

Humanoid
April 18th, 2005, 02:13 PM
Yes, I understand completely. But that would pretty much mean not having any kids at all, wouldn't it?
Anyway, I am one of the Christians that doesn't believe in eternal punishment. I believe in the ultimate destruction of all that is not in Christ.

I would like to ask this question then to someone who does believe in eternal punishment. I would be very interested in hearing their thoughts on this.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:15 PM
Funny how dictionaries have it all wrong lol......

God
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
That's correct. God is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He is the creator and ruler of the universe.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 02:17 PM
That's complete and utter crap. God knows all that can be known, and can do all that can be done. And that means knowing more than us, and being able to do that which we can not do. But it does not mean He can know that which can not be known, nor than He can do that which can not be done. You still haven't answered my question: Is God in Wonderland?
You've redefined omnipotence to fit your shaky theory.

Humanoid
April 18th, 2005, 02:25 PM
No, I understand what lighthouse means. Omnipotence means being able to do all that is doable. Same with omniscient, to know all that is knowable.

But there's something wrong here......I need to get some sleep and try to articulate what I'm thinking :)

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:25 PM
It's not a theory. It's Biblical. And it's logical. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done. We just don't agree what can and can not be done.

Now, answer the question.:rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 02:26 PM
I have got a boil on my...

woops. Wrong thread.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:31 PM
I'm still waiting...

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 02:36 PM
I'm still waiting...
There is no Wonderland. But there is a plane of existence outside of the constraints of time. God exists on this plane.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 02:41 PM
So, there is no Wonderland, therefore God does not exist in Wonderland, right? So, it would stand to reason that if there is not a plane of existence outside of time that God would not be there?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 02:45 PM
So, there is no Wonderland, therefore God does not exist in Wonderland, right? So, it would stand to reason that if there is not a plane of existence outside of time that God would not be there?
Sure, but if there is, he would be.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 03:02 PM
I cna agree with that. Now, why do you think there is such a plane?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 03:08 PM
I cna agree with that. Now, why do you think there is such a plane?
Because God created the universe. Outside of the universe (in the realm of God, I suppose) there is no time. This is strictly speculative on my part, but not more speculative than assuming that God is bound by time.

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Because God created the universe. Outside of the universe (in the realm of God, I suppose) there is no time. This is strictly speculative on my part, but not more speculative than assuming that God is bound by time.
Why do you ignore what I've said about what time is? Is there any reason other than your Calvinist theology, any Biblical reason to believe that there is something outside of time? How long would you say that such a place has existed?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Why do you ignore what I've said about what time is? Is there any reason other than your Calvinist theology, any Biblical reason to believe that there is something outside of time? How long would you say that such a place has existed?
I wouldn't say it has existed for any amount of time. I wouldn't say God has existed for any amount of time. God simply is. We can't fathom the possibility, neither can I. I simply think it's unfair to bring God down to our minor understanding of the nature of eternity. I don't believe eternity is forever so much as it is an abscence of time (or freedom from time). I don't have anything to base this on other than speculation, as I've already said. But it seems to make sense that if God is not bound by physical constraints, why should he be bound by the temporal?

Clete
April 18th, 2005, 04:02 PM
I wouldn't say it has existed for any amount of time. I wouldn't say God has existed for any amount of time. God simply is. We can't fathom the possibility, neither can I. I simply think it's unfair to bring God down to our minor understanding of the nature of eternity. I don't believe eternity is forever so much as it is an abscence of time (or freedom from time). I don't have anything to base this on other than speculation, as I've already said. But it seems to make sense that if God is not bound by physical constraints, why should he be bound by the temporal?
If you admit that you do not base your beliefs about the nature of time on the Bible and the Bible clearly describes God in terms of duration and sequence as well as in out right terms of time, why cling to the belief? By your own admition, the belief is not Biblical; that by itself should be enough cause to rid yourself of it. The fact that such a belief is logically incoherent is only icing on the cake.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 04:04 PM
If you admit that you do not base your beliefs about the nature of time on the Bible and the Bible clearly describes God in terms of duration and sequence as well as in out right terms of time, why cling to the belief? By your own admition, the belief is not Biblical. That by itself should be enough to rid yourself of it. The fact that such a belief is logically incoherent is only icing on the cake.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Hmmm... I'll have to get back to you on this. The passages that lighthouse gave me didn't necessarily prove anything. I'll have to go back and check out the ones you put forward.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 06:40 PM
Both. We don't need to understand it. He's God.


Cop out...God's truth is reflected in reality or we cannot know anything for sure. God wants to communicate truth, not have us shrug our shoulders if we cannot figure it out immediately.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 06:43 PM
It wasn't a cop-out. Who are we to fathom God? Not believing in predestination is a cop-out. You have two choices. A God who is all-knowing and all-powerful, who predestines people to burn and hell. Or you have a God who is not all-powerful, and historically speaking is kind of helpless, and therefore not God at all.


Logical fallacy warning: false dichotomy. These are not the only possibilities. It is possible to be omnipotent and omniscient without predestining individual's to hell. The problem is with your understanding of His character and ways. All-powerful does not have to mean a cosmic control-freak. God can rule responsively and providentially. He does not have to rule with meticulous control.

godrulz
April 18th, 2005, 06:46 PM
There is no Wonderland. But there is a plane of existence outside of the constraints of time. God exists on this plane.

Speculation vs revelation.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 07:17 AM
Revelation is speculation. Speculation mixed with dogma, I suppose, but speculation nonetheless.

godrulz
April 19th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Revelation is speculation. Speculation mixed with dogma, I suppose, but speculation nonetheless.


I am talking about revelation from God, not the book of Revelation (which is also HIs Word). God's self-revelation is objective truth and reality. Our interpretation of it may be subjective and speculative, but the Spirit desires to illuminate HIs inspired revelation that it would lead to transformation.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 07:26 AM
I am talking about revelation from God, not the book of Revelation (which is also HIs Word). God's self-revelation is objective truth and reality. Our interpretation of it may be subjective and speculative, but the Spirit desires to illuminate HIs inspired revelation that it would lead to transformation.
Yeah, that's what I meant. What you call the Spirit's illumination, I call dogmatic indoctrination.

servent101
April 19th, 2005, 09:34 AM
Caledvwich
Yeah, that's what I meant. What you call the Spirit's illumination, I call dogmatic indoctrination.

What I call dogmatic indoctrination is taking something that was written, and taking the information out of context, and deriving some doctrine that the writer was not addressing. All in all no Author of any of the Christian Scriptures has ever addressed the questions you have been discussing on God and His Existence outside of what we perceive as Time, Space, and this physical manifestation of material Energy – There are other Scriptures that do touch on these – but as most orthodox minded Christians think, since Jesus said He was the only way, this means if the closed canon doesn’t contain the information, then it is obviously not from Him. (ridiculous)

Anyways – lighthouse keep up the closed mind in the closed book attitude, after all you might have a chance this way – you will argue against what you are doing, since I told you to do it.

When reaching out to these people, one has to improvise.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Caledvwich

What I call dogmatic indoctrination is taking something that was written, and taking the information out of context, and deriving some doctrine that the writer was not addressing. All in all no Author of any of the Christian Scriptures has ever addressed the questions you have been discussing on God and His Existence outside of what we perceive as Time, Space, and this physical manifestation of material Energy – There are other Scriptures that do touch on these – but as most orthodox minded Christians think, since Jesus said He was the only way, this means if the closed canon doesn’t contain the information, then it is obviously not from Him. (ridiculous)

Anyways – lighthouse keep up the closed mind in the closed book attitude, after all you might have a chance this way – you will argue against what you are doing, since I told you to do it.

When reaching out to these people, one has to improvise.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101
Nicely put. The scripture doesn't address the issue, and while it's kind of silly to argue about it, I find it to be a refreshing and dynamic discussion which pushes us to try to imagine things beyond the scope of that which we cannot understand. Lighthouse doesn't seem to be willing to do that. His loss, I guess.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 03:05 PM
I am talking about revelation from God, not the book of Revelation (which is also HIs Word). God's self-revelation is objective truth and reality. Our interpretation of it may be subjective and speculative, but the Spirit desires to illuminate HIs inspired revelation that it would lead to transformation.
Jesse Jackson, is that you?

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Caledvwich

What I call dogmatic indoctrination is taking something that was written, and taking the information out of context, and deriving some doctrine that the writer was not addressing. All in all no Author of any of the Christian Scriptures has ever addressed the questions you have been discussing on God and His Existence outside of what we perceive as Time, Space, and this physical manifestation of material Energy – There are other Scriptures that do touch on these – but as most orthodox minded Christians think, since Jesus said He was the only way, this means if the closed canon doesn’t contain the information, then it is obviously not from Him. (ridiculous)

Anyways – lighthouse keep up the closed mind in the closed book attitude, after all you might have a chance this way – you will argue against what you are doing, since I told you to do it.

When reaching out to these people, one has to improvise.

Without Christ’s Love

Serpent101
!!!!First off, since the Freak thread got closed, I'll respond to your last post form there, here: Go ahead and put me on your buddy list. I don't care.

Now, on this topic, the Bible is very clear that God operates within the confines of time. And get off your whack job rant about closed canon. I don't beleive God is done talking to us, I just don't beleive He will ever contradict Himself, idiot. Get a clue

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:20 PM
!!!!First off, since the Freak thread got closed, I'll respond to your last post form there, here: Go ahead and put me on your buddy list. I don't care.

Now, on this topic, the Bible is very clear that God operates within the confines of time. And get off your whack job rant about closed canon. I don't beleive God is done talking to us, I just don't beleive He will ever contradict Himself, idiot. Get a clue
I've got to hand it to you, lighthouse. Every time I read one of your posts, I know I've made the right decision.

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 03:22 PM
I've got to hand it to you, lighthouse. Every time I read one of your posts, I know I've made the right decision.
Good excuse...... :rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Good excuse...... :rolleyes:
I don't need excuses... I was just trying to rub it in.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Good excuse...... :rolleyes:
Yeah, I can just see God buying that one.

Cal: It's lighthouse's fault.

God: Oh. Okay. You can come into my Kingdom, then.:freak:

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Yeah, I can just see God buying that one.

Cal: It's lighthouse's fault.

God: Oh. Okay. You can come into my Kingdom, then.:freak:
That would be pretty funny though. No, like I said, I don't need excuses. I'm just glad I'm not on your team anymore.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 03:38 PM
That would be pretty funny though. No, like I said, I don't need excuses. I'm just glad I'm not on your team anymore.
It's a good thing you don't need excuses, because you don't have any.

And you were never on my team.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:40 PM
It's a good thing you don't need excuses, because you don't have any.

And you were never on my team.
Sure I was. Waving the flag, beating the book, eating the bread, drinking the wine, reciting the creed. Yup. I was definitely on your team.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 03:54 PM
No, you weren't.

godrulz
April 19th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Jesse Jackson, is that you?


Sorry, I am slow. I do not get the joke. :Patrol:

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Sure I was. Waving the flag, beating the book, eating the bread, drinking the wine, reciting the creed. Yup. I was definitely on your team.
You may have thought you were on the team, but it turns out you were just sitting on the bench..... :chuckle:

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Sorry, I am slow. I do not get the joke. :Patrol:
The last sentence in your post rhymed. It made me think of Jesse Jackson. You do know who that is, don't you? Since you're Canadian, you may not.

Clete
April 19th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Sure I was. Waving the flag, beating the book, eating the bread, drinking the wine, reciting the creed. Yup. I was definitely on your team.
If those are the things that you think made you a member of "our team" you are sadly mistaken.

Since the topic at hand has sort of disintigrated allow me to ask you a question unrelated to the topic of the thread. What do you think Christianity is? I know there are about a million variation of Christian but all the real Christians share a core doctrine in common. Can you articulate what you think that core doctrine is?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I don't want you to feel like I'm interogating you, that's not the point at all. I just thought it would be intersting given your claim to have been a Christian at one time, that's all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
April 19th, 2005, 06:22 PM
The last sentence in your post rhymed. It made me think of Jesse Jackson. You do know who that is, don't you? Since you're Canadian, you may not.

I get TIME magazine and TV. My igloo has electricity.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 06:36 PM
I get TIME magazine and TV. My igloo has electricity.
:crackup:

godrulz
April 19th, 2005, 11:14 PM
:crackup:

The funniest thing is actual quotes from Americans about their perception of Canada.

e.g. They want to know if we know so and so from Toronto (millions of people in the city in a country with 30 million people).

Ninjashadow
April 19th, 2005, 11:42 PM
Hey godrulz, do you know Larry Walker?

godrulz
April 20th, 2005, 12:44 AM
Hey godrulz, do you know Larry Walker?


He is my next door neighbour. He and I just chased a polar bear down the street. :Shaggy:

Our national animal is the beaver. What's with that? You guys have an eagle.

Ninjashadow
April 20th, 2005, 12:51 AM
Hey, beavers are an industrious people.

godrulz
April 20th, 2005, 12:55 AM
Hey, beavers are an industrious people.

They have buck teeth instead of beaks. :baby:

Ninjashadow
April 20th, 2005, 12:57 AM
Dam.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 08:50 AM
If those are the things that you think made you a member of "our team" you are sadly mistaken.

Since the topic at hand has sort of disintigrated allow me to ask you a question unrelated to the topic of the thread. What do you think Christianity is? I know there are about a million variation of Christian but all the real Christians share a core doctrine in common. Can you articulate what you think that core doctrine is?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, I don't want you to feel like I'm interogating you, that's not the point at all. I just thought it would be intersting given your claim to have been a Christian at one time, that's all.

Resting in Him,
Clete
*clears throat*
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. And the third day he rose again, according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

That was from memory... sound about right?

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 08:55 AM
Unless mixed with faith, they're just words, even though true, begging one point: Catholic or Protestant, Christians are God's Temple, not an institution or a building.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 09:00 AM
Unless mixed with faith, they're just words, even though true, begging one point: Catholic or Protestant, Christians are God's Temple, not an institution or a building.
I had faith too. It just went away. Faith is not nearly the all-consuming fire you people think it is. It's a clever deception. A blindfold.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 09:02 AM
That wasn't faith, that was adherence. When you have faith, it stands. Faith believes God, when all of your senses tell you otherwise. God is The All-consuming Fire. He can only be found by those who seek for Him with all of their heart. Any less is merely playing religion.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 09:11 AM
That wasn't faith, that was adherence. When you have faith, it stands. Faith believes God, when all of your senses tell you otherwise. God is The All-consuming Fire. He can only be found by those who seek for Him with all of their heart. Any less is merely playing religion.
I fhtat's what you want to believe, my friend, have at it. But you didn't live my life so I would say that makes you highly unqualified to make such a statement. You weren't there, there's no way you can know if I had faith or not.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 11:12 AM
Faith isn't deception, it's knowledge of Truth, and belief that The One Who authored that Truth will not fail, especially when the darkest of circumstances point in the other direction, and even after following those circumstances to yet another dead end.

godrulz
April 20th, 2005, 11:13 AM
I had faith too. It just went away. Faith is not nearly the all-consuming fire you people think it is. It's a clever deception. A blindfold.

Faith must be based on facts or it is presumption, the existentialist 'blind faith' that is feeble.

Faith is only as good as the veracity and object that we trust in.

Lighthouse
April 21st, 2005, 01:00 AM
Cal-
Answer this for me, if you will...

The Biblical definition of Christian is one who is in Christ, correct? If so, according to the Bible, were you ever a Christian?

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 01:03 AM
Cal-
Answer this for me, if you will...

The Biblical definition of Christian is one who is in Christ, correct? If so, according to the Bible, were you ever a Christian?

The Riddler...nana na na nana Batman!

God_Is_Truth
April 21st, 2005, 02:05 AM
I had faith too. It just went away. Faith is not nearly the all-consuming fire you people think it is. It's a clever deception. A blindfold.

i like how sozo defined it awhile back. he said faith was "complete, unequivocal, and absolute surrender to God".

Lighthouse
April 21st, 2005, 02:35 AM
I like that too, GIT. I also like what the Bible says, because it denies that faith is a belief without grounds. It is the evidence of things unseen, and the substance of things hoped for. It can't be those things, if there are no grounds for it.

Caledvwlch
April 21st, 2005, 07:02 AM
I like that too, GIT. I also like what the Bible says, because it denies that faith is a belief without grounds. It is the evidence of things unseen, and the substance of things hoped for. It can't be those things, if there are no grounds for it.
The "evidence of things unseen"? If that isn't an oxymoron... "The evidence of that for which there is no evidence" in other words.

Caledvwlch
April 21st, 2005, 07:03 AM
Cal-
Answer this for me, if you will...

The Biblical definition of Christian is one who is in Christ, correct? If so, according to the Bible, were you ever a Christian?
Yes. Absolutely.

Clete
April 21st, 2005, 07:08 AM
*clears throat*
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. And the third day he rose again, according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

That was from memory... sound about right?
Good greif man, I didn't ask for a recital. And no, frankly, I don't think it sounded about right at all. Many of the right words are there but nothing of the substance, the heart of it. This might as well have been a recital of the third paragraph of the 7th chapter from 'War and Peace'. Memorization or intellectual agreement is not what makes a Christian.

Let me ask again in a different way and maybe we can make better progress.

Do you now or have you ever believed....

that God created the universe and everything in it?

that this same creator became a man like one of us yet without sin?

that Jesus is that man?

that you are an evil sinner and deserve to be punished by God for your sin?

that Jesus suffered and died in order to take the punishment you deserve upon Himself?

that God raised Jesus from the dead?


Any person who answers "no" to any one of these questions, as asked, IS NOT A CHRISTIAN and is not saved and never was, period.

On the other hand, if you ever did believe these things and truly accepted what Jesus did at Calvary as payment for your own sin, then not only were you saved and given eternal life but you are saved and have eternal life.

Which group are you in?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
April 21st, 2005, 07:22 AM
Do you now or have you ever believed....

that God created the universe and everything in it?

that this same creator became a man like one of us yet without sin?

that Jesus is that man?

that you are an evil sinner and deserve to be punished by God for your sin?

that Jesus suffered and died in order to take the punishment you deserve upon Himself?

that God raised Jesus from the dead?

I used to believe all of these things. I just don't buy it anymore. How did we get on this topic, by the way? I thought we were talking about meaningless abstracts concerning eternity and time... I love that stuff.

Clete
April 21st, 2005, 07:35 AM
I used to believe all of these things.
Then regardless of what state of rebellion you are in now, God's grace is sufficient for you.


I just don't buy it anymore.
2 Timothy 2:13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.


How did we get on this topic, by the way? I thought we were talking about meaningless abstracts concerning eternity and time... I love that stuff.
Well I just brought it up because the others had gotten away from the subject and you had brought up having once been a Christian so I thought it would be a good opportunity to find out whether you were ever saved or not. Looks like you were and therefore are and so I'm glad I brought it up. We can continue this or we can talk about the nonexistence of time, whichever you prefer.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Caledvwlch
April 21st, 2005, 07:43 AM
Then regardless of what state of rebellion you are in now, God's grace is sufficient for you.


2 Timothy 2:13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.


Well I just brought it up because the others had gotten away from the subject and you had brought up having once been a Christian so I thought it would be a good opportunity to find out whether you were ever saved or not. Looks like you were and therefore are and so I'm glad I brought it up. We can continue this or we can talk about the nonexistence of time, whichever you prefer.

Resting in Him,
Clete
It doesn't matter to me. It's all about the post count in the end, isn't it? I don't think we were getting anywhere with the time discussion, anyway, and since we seem to have morphed another thread into the same discussion, we might as well continue it there.

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 11:41 AM
i like how sozo defined it awhile back. he said faith was "complete, unequivocal, and absolute surrender to God".


Faith is more than 'easy believism'.

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 11:42 AM
The "evidence of things unseen"? If that isn't an oxymoron... "The evidence of that for which there is no evidence" in other words.

This is presumption. Biblical faith does have historical evidence. We know the evidence of God though many spiritual things are unseen to the physical eye. They are still real like the wind or electricity.

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 11:43 AM
Yes. Absolutely.


This is possible, but the OSAS people cannot accept this. Regardless, he needs to repent and renew his relationship and commitment. God's grace is sufficient, but we must yield to it. Salvation is not coerced.

godrulz
April 21st, 2005, 11:47 AM
Good greif man, I didn't ask for a recital. And no, frankly, I don't think it sounded about right at all. Many of the right words are there but nothing of the substance, the heart of it. This might as well have been a recital of the third paragraph of the 7th chapter from 'War and Peace'. Memorization or intellectual agreement is not what makes a Christian.

Let me ask again in a different way and maybe we can make better progress.

Do you now or have you ever believed....

that God created the universe and everything in it?

that this same creator became a man like one of us yet without sin?

that Jesus is that man?

that you are an evil sinner and deserve to be punished by God for your sin?

that Jesus suffered and died in order to take the punishment you deserve upon Himself?

that God raised Jesus from the dead?


Any person who answers "no" to any one of these questions, as asked, IS NOT A CHRISTIAN and is not saved and never was, period.

On the other hand, if you ever did believe these things and truly accepted what Jesus did at Calvary as payment for your own sin, then not only were you saved and given eternal life but you are saved and have eternal life.

Which group are you in?

Resting in Him,
Clete

False dichotomy (logical fallacy) if OSAS is not true. Mental assent to doctrine does not make one saved. There must be head and heart trust. The third option would be that he once believed and trusted these truths and was saved, but now has renounced them and is no longer a believer. He is an agnostic or an unbeliever by definition. What we are years ago, may or may not be what we are now. This has been hashed out on other threads, so let us keep on topic about God's power.

Lighthouse
April 21st, 2005, 04:27 PM
The "evidence of things unseen"? If that isn't an oxymoron... "The evidence of that for which there is no evidence" in other words.
No. Air is unseen is it not? Love is unseen. There may be evidence of it, in actions, but the love itself is not tangible. Get the picture?

Clete
April 22nd, 2005, 07:13 AM
False dichotomy (logical fallacy) if OSAS is not true. Mental assent to doctrine does not make one saved. There must be head and heart trust. The third option would be that he once believed and trusted these truths and was saved, but now has renounced them and is no longer a believer. He is an agnostic or an unbeliever by definition. What we are years ago, may or may not be what we are now. This has been hashed out on other threads, so let us keep on topic about God's power.

I suppose you just glazed over where I said "Memorization or intellectual agreement is not what makes a Christian." as well as points 4 & 5 of my list of beliefs, eh?

Why do you display such keen ability to think and reason clealy nine days out of ten and then when this subject comes up you lose all sense of intellectual honesty? I don't get it. It's very disapointing really. :nono:
I've said nothing here that isn't the very gospel itself...

Rom. 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Resting in Him,
Clete

servent101
April 22nd, 2005, 08:29 AM
Lighthouse
the Bible is very clear that God operates within the confines of time. And get off your whack job rant about closed canon. I don't beleive God is done talking to us, I just don't beleive He will ever contradict Himself, idiot. Get a clue

No – you get a clue, the Bible does not address that question – yes there are some mentions of length of time in Scripture – but you seem to reason that God either does or does not function in Time as we know it, which is illogical, since God can do both, not one or the other. But the more ludicrous claims by you – thinking that the Bible addresses these issues – so you get a clue and stop trying to make the Bible the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge – this is where you get mixed up, for to make the Bible seem like the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge you take what it says and apply it to a subject that the author was not addressing.

As well as a literal interpreted book – everyone who seems to take it this way – literal – trying to worship the god of the literal eternal and literal hell and brimstone – it simply cannot be done, one cannot worship such a diabolical monster and stay sane.

This is not a put down post Lighthouse, you are taking what is not even remotely addressed in Scripture and building a case on illogical logic.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

servent101
April 22nd, 2005, 08:34 AM
Clete
I've said nothing here that isn't the very gospel itself...

Actually the very word gospel does not exist - the word is devised to take the place of Good News, for when the exegesis of the Scripture was accomplished, they had a hard time to say Good News to people, what they called a so called responsible exegesis of the Scripture was anything but Good News, so they coined the word Gospel to sort of keep the people from asking questions about what was so called orthodox doctrine.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

servent101
April 22nd, 2005, 08:48 AM
Caledvwitch
Nicely put. The scripture doesn't address the issue, and while it's kind of silly to argue about it, I find it to be a refreshing and dynamic discussion which pushes us to try to imagine things beyond the scope of that which we cannot understand. Lighthouse doesn't seem to be willing to do that. His loss, I guess.

Thanks, the concept of arguing about the fact that Scripture does not address the issue, to me is worth pointing out, as there is so much that Scripture is used to deduce doctrine on that it does not address – the so called people who do such exegesis come up with the excuse that Scripture is absolute and inerrant in all situations, and go on to say that if there is a doctrine that is not there, there is a reason for that, and that it should be left out – but when I point out that their
Scripture is absolute and inerrant in all situations is in fact not there in the Writings … they start to quote some Old Testament Verse, like lean not on your own understanding … and when I point out the fact that they are leaning on their own understanding… well I do see that there in a tizzy, unable to reason, so I dig deeper, and conclude that anyone who tries to worship the literal god of eternal searing flesh and torture… that those who attempt to worship this god of the literal interpretation of Scripture, that it drives them insane.

As for lighthouse, as much as he will not like me for it, I do have to say that he is well on his way to living a life of complete and utter incoherency, and this is actually hell. His torment shows in the very arrogant name-calling and degenerate almost obscene behavior he shows towards other posters on the board – but what can I do? He feeds off the energy, it is a physical addiction to the chemicals that are produced by his feelings of indignation, and a lot of them suffer from that here at TOL –

For myself I try to realize how aweful it is to carry on such discussions, I take no pleasure in such posting whatsoever, I sort of threaten myself that if I enjoy such discourse with people like Lighthouse, that I could be punished by being reincarnated as the bacteria in stool.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 08:52 AM
Lighthouse

No – you get a clue, the Bible does not address that question – yes there are some mentions of length of time in Scripture – but you seem to reason that God either does or does not function in Time as we know it, which is illogical, since God can do both, not one or the other. But the more ludicrous claims by you – thinking that the Bible addresses these issues – so you get a clue and stop trying to make the Bible the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge – this is where you get mixed up, for to make the Bible seem like the definitive source of all Spiritual knowledge you take what it says and apply it to a subject that the author was not addressing.
You really don't think there is any evidenmce in scripture that God does not operate outside of the succession of events? Do you really think time was created? No, the Bible does not say either way, but anyone with half a brain can deduce that time is not something tangible, nor dimensional where it can be existed outside of. And the source of Spiritual knowledge is the Holy Spirit of God. I trust Him, even when it comes to the Bible. Because not every interpretation is correct, and only He knows what He was saying.


As well as a literal interpreted book – everyone who seems to take it this way – literal – trying to worship the god of the literal eternal and literal hell and brimstone – it simply cannot be done, one cannot worship such a diabolical monster and stay sane.
Do you really think that's how I see God? Yes, I believe there are literal things in the Bible, but there are symbolic things as well. And when I trust in the Spirit, He leads me into the truth, so I know the difference.


This is not a put down post Lighthouse, you are taking what is not even remotely addressed in Scripture and building a case on illogical logic.
And? So what if it isn't addressed in Scripture? Should I just ignore it? I thought the canon wasn't closed.:rolleyes: Of course, how sure are you that it isn't addressed in Scripture?

godrulz
April 22nd, 2005, 10:16 AM
I suppose you just glazed over where I said "Memorization or intellectual agreement is not what makes a Christian." as well as points 4 & 5 of my list of beliefs, eh?

Why do you display such keen ability to think and reason clealy nine days out of ten and then when this subject comes up you lose all sense of intellectual honesty? I don't get it. It's very disapointing really. :nono:
I've said nothing here that isn't the very gospel itself...

Rom. 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Please, meester, sir. Do not take away my rep points
:dizzy:

Aimiel
April 22nd, 2005, 11:31 AM
...when I point out...
...they are leaning on their own understanding…
so I dig deeper, and conclude...
For myself I try to realize...Wait a minute, who is leaning on their own understanding here? Servent seems to think that he can 'dig deeper' into his own understanding of his 'interpretation' of The Word of God and conclude that everyone but himself is in error. Aren't we supposed to obey The Lord, Who said, "Come, let us reason together?" He also said we shouldn't lean on our own understanding. Not being in a relationship with The Lord, Servent doesn't understand The Word of God, but merely gives it lipservice.
With Christ’s Love

Servent101Hogwash. There's no one on TOL who shows less love for those who truly are Christ's than Serpent101!!! :Servent:

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 11:35 AM
Hogwash. There's no one on TOL who shows less love for those who truly are Christ's than Serpent101!!! :Servent:
Balderdash! It's just fun to say.

Clete
April 22nd, 2005, 11:41 AM
Clete

Actually the very word gospel does not exist - the word is devised to take the place of Good News, for when the exegesis of the Scripture was accomplished, they had a hard time to say Good News to people, what they called a so called responsible exegesis of the Scripture was anything but Good News, so they coined the word Gospel to sort of keep the people from asking questions about what was so called orthodox doctrine.

With Christ's Love

Servent101
This could be the stupidest post of all time! :darwinsm:

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 11:47 AM
This could be the stupidest post of all time! :darwinsm:
I thought the post was fairly astute.

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 12:00 PM
I thought the post was fairly astute.
It was fairly uh stupid.

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 12:12 PM
It was fairly uh stupid.
Well sure, you can say that, but you haven't really given any constructive argument against it.

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 01:36 PM
Yes. Absolutely.
You were in Christ? You had a relationship wiht Christ?

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 01:38 PM
You were in Christ? You had a relationship wiht Christ?
Um... I'm sure we've been over this before, but I like Granite's take: Since I don't believe anybody can have a relationship with Christ, then no, I didn't.

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 01:39 PM
Good greif man, I didn't ask for a recital. And no, frankly, I don't think it sounded about right at all. Many of the right words are there but nothing of the substance, the heart of it. This might as well have been a recital of the third paragraph of the 7th chapter from 'War and Peace'. Memorization or intellectual agreement is not what makes a Christian.

Let me ask again in a different way and maybe we can make better progress.

Do you now or have you ever believed....

that God created the universe and everything in it?

that this same creator became a man like one of us yet without sin?

that Jesus is that man?

that you are an evil sinner and deserve to be punished by God for your sin?

that Jesus suffered and died in order to take the punishment you deserve upon Himself?

that God raised Jesus from the dead?


Any person who answers "no" to any one of these questions, as asked, IS NOT A CHRISTIAN and is not saved and never was, period.

On the other hand, if you ever did believe these things and truly accepted what Jesus did at Calvary as payment for your own sin, then not only were you saved and given eternal life but you are saved and have eternal life.

Which group are you in?

Resting in Him,
Clete
I have to disagree with you here, Clete.

Belief is not faith. And Cal had no faith. And I am about to show that.

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 01:40 PM
I have to disagree with you here, Clete.

Belief is not faith. And Cal had no faith. And I am about to show that.
This is going to be AWESOME.

godrulz
April 22nd, 2005, 01:51 PM
I have to disagree with you here, Clete.

Belief is not faith. And Cal had no faith. And I am about to show that.

You must define belief vs faith. Both words are used prominently in the NT in a positive way. Belief can also mean mere head knowledge (devil). The context determines the use, not just the word by itself.

e.g. John 3:16 uses 'believe' not 'faith' as necessary for salvation.

Cal may have had mere intellectual belief. This falls short of the full meaning of faith. Belief is a part of saving faith, but not the only necessary component (remember the Latin theologians: notitia, assensus, and fiducia).

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 01:53 PM
Um... I'm sure we've been over this before, but I like Granite's take: Since I don't believe anybody can have a relationship with Christ, then no, I didn't.
Exactly.

You never had a relationship with Christ. You were never in Christ, so, by the Biblical definition, you were never a Christian.

Thank you.

:bow:

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 01:55 PM
:bow:
I appreciate the gesture.

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 02:00 PM
You must define belief vs faith. Both words are used prominently in the NT in a positive way. Belief can also mean mere head knowledge (devil). The context determines the use, not just the word by itself.

e.g. John 3:16 uses 'believe' not 'faith' as necessary for salvation.

Cal may have had mere intellectual belief. This falls short of the full meaning of faith. Belief is a part of saving faith, but not the only necessary component (remember the Latin theologians: notitia, assensus, and fiducia).You know what I meant, and Clete will when he reads it. I was going to post that last night, but I got disconnected, and had to be somewhere, so I didn't have time to reconnect and get it done.

Lighthouse
April 22nd, 2005, 02:06 PM
I appreciate the gesture.
Do you agree with what I said? That according to the Biblical definition of Christian, you never were one?

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 02:09 PM
Do you agree with what I said? That according to the Biblical definition of Christian, you never were one?
Sure. According to some interpretations of the Biblical definition, I never was a Christian, because God's saving grace couldn't possibly be inneffectual, therefore I must not have been saved to begin with. To this I say... EFF that. I was a Christian with all the warm and fuzzies you're supposed to have.

God_Is_Truth
April 22nd, 2005, 02:34 PM
Sure. According to some interpretations of the Biblical definition, I never was a Christian, because God's saving grace couldn't possibly be inneffectual, therefore I must not have been saved to begin with. To this I say... EFF that. I was a Christian with all the warm and fuzzies you're supposed to have.

why did you leave?

Caledvwlch
April 22nd, 2005, 02:38 PM
why did you leave?
Oy... it's a long story, and hardly on topic.