ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

If God knows the future thoroughly, why did He regret some things and not know what the reactions of 1 Sam 15:10-35 would be.

1 Sam 15:10-35 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night. 12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.” 13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD.” 14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Be quiet! And I will tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” And he said to him, “Speak on.” 17 So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? 18 “Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 “But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.” 22 Then Samuel said: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.” 24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 “Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.” 26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent. For He is not a man, that He should repent.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

He regretted because He did not know for sure what would happen!

Bob

As to the verses given, thank Bob. I really appreciate when someone does some scripture digging. What I would say is that God is relational as you do:
I know my kids will sin, but I still regret their doing so (isn't foreknowledge, but it is predictive). So even in this OV acceptance, God is not caught off guard or surprised.

I can live with this interpretation, but I don't think it does enough justice to who God could possibly be. I don't know if I could say God knows all future, contingency and all, but there are some scripture passages that fit well with this concept. Conversely, I'm not comfortable drawing a box around this just for logic's sake as the OV seems to do. "God cannot." I'm not very comfortable drawing a solid doctrine around something so complex as future contingency so I lean SV in this specific ideology. I'd rather be more 'open' to what God actually can and cannot do as to His nature and abilities as long as they are scriptural and glorifying. I don't see foreknowledge disparaging as OVers do. It does not negate freewill.

godrulz said:

Is there a reason lonster and monster are only one letter different? :shocked:

What does lonster mean again?

Click to expand...

LOL, I'll take that as a compliment for being tenacious. It is just a nickname from a close friend. It was also a car and a train engine

Knight said:

Agree!

True! Because we are all responsible for our own actions/sin.

Unless of course He ordained it to be that way as settled viewers assert.

Click to expand...

Yes, some do, you are right. "Ordained" is like a stamp of approval. I'm not comfortable with that interpretation. Their argument is a hard one in that their next question is: So He knew about it and "didn't" stamp okay? How could that be? OV has an easier time with this answer than I do. I'm caught inbetween the rock and hard place.

My answer is that God is good, loving, just, right so even if I don't have a good answer, God does. From my perspective it is similar to having the 12 kids. Let's say I knew beforehand that the tenth one would turn out rotten in foreknowledge. I think I'd still have the 12 (providing I could afford such a thing). I'd be crushed by the 10th kid's rebellion, but I'd still want the relationship with him and especially the other 2. I cannot fathom what I'd do in worse case scenarios, but if God has foreknowledge, I believe His purposes and right actions are wiser, more loving, and higher than mine. At any rate, sin is a problematic concept for both of us. A similar question for OV and SV is "If there was a possibility for sin, why didn't God just remove the tree altogether? Why didn't He put the angels who guarded the entrance in charge of the tree?" etc. etc. OV does a nice job of eliminating some of the questions btw. I'm sometimes envious, it just doesn't quite fit with my scriptural understandings.

Knight said:

If your analogy is accurate you do not believe that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge.

A. Do you believe that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
B. Do you believe that there has ever been a time when God did not have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
C. Do you believe that God's foreknowledge is accurate?

Click to expand...

I think you might have a confusion also in this. What I believe you continue to fail to do (not an accusation, I just think it is a logic reasoning tendency) is make the jump from God to the person in question in regards to the question. I'll try again for this in a moment, you are right, I've always said so, analogy will never illustrate, only give plausibility.

I don't understand the 'when' proposition at all. Let's say for a moment that God had exhaustive foreknowledge yesterday. Time does not matter (except where it follows into future considerations). At any rate, exhaustive foreknowledge would have no beginning, just as His nature is eternal, which also troubles my logical capacity to grasp.

Everytime we consider God's foreknowledge of the future "as if it already happened" we are still the determining factor of what God knows. We write the book. We in a sense have gotten to 'write' what He knows. The problem is that it is hard to jump back and forth in this reasoning because your next question is "Then God didn't know it before we did it?"
That's the hard part. Remember that old show Time Tunnel? They had an episode for all of these types of considerations and problems with space/time constraints. The questions asked were unanswerable, but when they ripped the fabric of time with their machine, they were caught in a continuous loop. I don't know the answer to this loop, but I'm not happy just to throw out the 'higher math' so to speak, just because it is difficult or confusing or seems illogical. Science points to this truth. Philosophy wrestles with this truth. They aren't necessarily looking to God for this, but they are working on the questions of 'foreknowledge.' What will you do when they write their theory in a tangible way like travelling at the speed of light? Won't it show that God, who is capable of exceeding our physical limitations will also be able to escape time constraints as well?

What will you do with OV once science proves this possibility? Will you be caught unaware like some of the churchmen in Galilleo's day?

RobE said:

I think you are missing the point that God's future actions are definitely foreknown and He will also remain free during His future decisions.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether God chooses freely, but when He chooses. If at time A, God infallibly determines that He will do X at time Y, then He freely chose a time A, not time Y. Once God declares that X will happen at Y, freedom regarding Y is complete.

My point is that freedom does not require the ability to do otherwise. Making premise #9 invalid. It only requires that you are able to do that which you want to do.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's the definition of free will. The fact that a decision to do something doesn't coincide with the time when that decision is executed doesn't matter.

Righteousness requires one to choose right over wrong does it not? If the choice isn't real(according to the premises) then neither is the righteousness according to the definition.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is one reason that OVT deny EDF.

Why not? Isn't God powerful enough to violate His own Word such as He supposedly did in the cases with Nineveh or Tyre?

Click to expand...

God didn't violate His own Word, there. There is such a thing as conditional prophecy

Muz

Bob Hill said:

If God knows the future thoroughly, why did He regret some things and not know what the reactions of 1 Sam 15:10-35 would be.

Click to expand...

And of course we should not leave out His biggest and most shocking regret of all.

Genesis 6:5-7 said:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had mad man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Click to expand...

But then when we consider, any suggestion that God does things despite the fact that He knows He will regret them as Lonster suggests, will not work. It says quite clearly that God's regret is so great that He is sorry that He made them. Does this not mean that if He had known then He would not have created them? We cannot prevaricate this time or try to say that God does not mean what He said when the very next thing that God did was to destroy everything. Even though there was an exception, this does not change the fact that God meant what He said!

Consider,....

In Genesis 1:31, it says "God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good." But then Adam and Eve rejected His instruction and their responsibility for what they had done as well, and this was just the first of a repeated pattern of evil among all their decendants, until "every imagination" of man was "only evil continually". As a result God was brought to do something shocking, something terrible, something rather distasteful to Him. This is made clear afterfwards when God said, in Genesis 8:21, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done." It was man who is evil so why destroy every living thing in the flood? He did it, but afterwards He said "never again". Why would He not do it again? He says because every thought of man is evil (utterly depraved). In other words, mankind just isn't worth it. But that means that it was for the sake of man that God destroyed everything in the flood. But only man was worthy of destruction, while the rest of the earth was good and so destroying the earth and its living creatures was very distasteful to God. And so He vowed that He would not do this for our sake ever again.

But mankind was not complete hopeless because there was one man who was different. Genesis 6:8, "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." And what kind of man was Noah? And oddity. A crackpot. Bulding a boat on dry land far from the sea because "God told him to." Talk about being different, that is just about as different as you can get, don't you think?

So the world begins again with Noah's family instead of the family of Adam and Eve. But has anything changed? Has man's basic nature changed in any way? No. But if that is the case, then what is the point? Well, you see, there is a difference in what happens next.

Genesis 11:1-9 said:

Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had a brick for stone and bitumen for mortar Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad the face of the whole earth." And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, "Behold they are one people, and have all one language and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because the Lord confused the languages of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

Click to expand...

Why would God do such a thing? What was wrong with what they were doing? Christian tradition likes to add things that are not there imagining that they were idolatrous, prideful or something but just look at the story. What was it that God was objecting to and what did He really stop them from doing? Why did men start building in the first place? This is plainly explained "lest we be scattered abroad the face of the whole earth". Their aim is merely to unite all of mankind. What is wrong with that? Well what does God say? He says, "and this is only the beginning of what they will do". How does God know what they will do? The answer is simple. Because He saw it before. He knows where this is leading because He saw the same thing before the flood. Mankind united results in "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually", and only one nutcase by the name of Noah was any different. I see great irony here that is completely opposite the way of thinking in the world. Always we look for ways of uniting mankind, but God sees no hope in this at all. God only finds hope for mankind in the deviants, in those perverse individuals who refuse to go along with the crowd. But when mankind is united in a single language and way thinking such differences are suppressed and all hope for mankind vanishes. So God becomes the advocate of pluralism, as the only hope for the salvation of mankind!!! :jawdrop:

Lonster said:

My answer is that God is good, loving, just, right so even if I don't have a good answer, God does. From my perspective it is similar to having the 12 kids. Let's say I knew beforehand that the tenth one would turn out rotten in foreknowledge. I think I'd still have the 12 (providing I could afford such a thing). I'd be crushed by the 10th kid's rebellion, but I'd still want the relationship with him and especially the other 2. I cannot fathom what I'd do in worse case scenarios, but if God has foreknowledge, I believe His purposes and right actions are wiser, more loving, and higher than mine. At any rate, sin is a problematic concept for both of us. A similar question for OV and SV is "If there was a possibility for sin, why didn't God just remove the tree altogether? Why didn't He put the angels who guarded the entrance in charge of the tree?" etc. etc. OV does a nice job of eliminating some of the questions btw. I'm sometimes envious, it just doesn't quite fit with my scriptural understandings.

Click to expand...

Lets say you have 11 kids and you know for certain (because you have seen the future in every detail) that if you have the 12th child he will grow up to be evil and 26 years and 3 months after his birth on a Friday night at 6:34PM he will take an axe and murder all of his siblings after a family reunion.

You know all of that in every detail.

Do you still have the 12th child knowing all that????

Lonster said:

Everytime we consider God's foreknowledge of the future "as if it already happened" we are still the determining factor of what God knows.

Click to expand...

That is a logical impossibility.

The knowledge came first, that's why we refer to it as FOREknowldge (as in beFORE), in this case the knowledge came an eternity before the event (at least that's what you are asserting).

The event must adhere to the FOREknowledge (otherwise the foreknowledge isn't accurate and therefore not actually foreknowledge). Therefore the foreknowledge (in the case of the settled view) writes the book for the actuality.

We write the book. We in a sense have gotten to 'write' what He knows.

Click to expand...

That can only be true if the future is open and God's foreknowledge is not EXHAUSTIVE.

There will be a time in your life when you finally realize how EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge settles the future. Until then you will be stuck in confusion as you have admitted elsewhere.

What will you do with OV once science proves this possibility? Will you be caught unaware like some of the churchmen in Galilleo's day?

Click to expand...

:rotfl:

The future does not exist.

The past doesn't even exist (anymore). The only thing that truly exists (as far as time is concerned) is the ever passing moment - the here and now.

Don't put your trust into science fiction. It is after all... fiction.

Please do your best to answer my questions directly, as I do with your questions.

A. Do you believe that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
B. Do you believe that there has ever been a time when God did not have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?
C. Do you believe that God's foreknowledge is accurate?

Lonster said:

Remember that old show Time Tunnel? They had an episode for all of these types of considerations and problems with space/time constraints. The questions asked were unanswerable, but when they ripped the fabric of time with their machine, they were caught in a continuous loop. I don't know the answer to this loop, but I'm not happy just to throw out the 'higher math' so to speak, just because it is difficult or confusing or seems illogical. Science points to this truth. Philosophy wrestles with this truth. They aren't necessarily looking to God for this, but they are working on the questions of 'foreknowledge.' What will you do when they write their theory in a tangible way like travelling at the speed of light? Won't it show that God, who is capable of exceeding our physical limitations will also be able to escape time constraints as well?

What will you do with OV once science proves this possibility? Will you be caught unaware like some of the churchmen in Galilleo's day?

Click to expand...

:squint: :crackup:

I hope this is a red flag to people out there with some sense showing that you have to nearly throw your brain out the window to believe this doctrine. :doh:

Bye bye, brain!! :wave2:


:chz4brnz:

themuzicman said:

The fact that a decision to do something doesn't coincide with the time when that decision is executed doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

With this in mind, couldn't we conclude that seeing the execution of the action before it happens doesn't coincide or have anything to do with the decision being executed?

God didn't violate His own Word, there. There is such a thing as conditional prophecy

Muz

Click to expand...

I actually don't remember you using these examples to defute foreknowledge, but it's good to know you see the difference here.

Sorry, but that's the definition of free will.

Click to expand...

It certainly is one definition. My question is that the ability to do otherwise is used as a necessary condition of free will in these arguments.

I see God's refusal to sin being done freely even though He is unable to do otherwise. It seems to me that the ability to do otherwise is unecessary when that one option is the one we want to do. The scripture, as Lee Merrill pointed out to me, says God is unable as incapable; not unable as in unwilling.

With this in mind then premise #9.....


.....makes a false assumption and is invalid. The fallacy arises because it states that doing otherwise when you act is necessary.

Rob

mitchellmckain said:

I call this modified version, Orthodox Open Theism, because this lack of knowledge is a matter of choice rather than inability.

Click to expand...

This approach would certainly avoid many of the pitfalls I see within the o.v.

Since God is not aloof but intimately involved in our lives, our choices cannot be independent of God's involvement, which means that if God knows what we will do as a result of His involvement then the manner in which He chooses to involve Himself effectively controls what we will do.

Click to expand...

Unless we are correct in assuming that God chooses not to influence to the point of control. I know you feel that God's foreknowledge would mean that the control would necessarily exist. I see the foreknowledge as allowing Him the ability to temper the influence to the point where free will truly existed without exerting control intentionally or accidentally. Giving each man the specific amount of Grace required for each man's nature to reach the point of sufficiency.

Therefore the only way that God can both be intimately involved in our lives and yet not control our choices is if He does not know how we will respond to the manner in which He chooses to involve Himself.

Click to expand...

This blind approach would seem to leave God guessing and able to make mistakes. Sufficiency for each essence would be unmeasurable within this system.

I suppose it can be argued that He does know but refuses to allow that knowledge to affect His decisions. But this is beyond belief.

Click to expand...

Impassive maybe.

NO!!!!!! His Grace only needs to bring liberation from the enslavement to the habits of sin to a sufficient degree and span of time that we have a free choice. Grace therefore actually obliterates the "foreknowledge" that arises from the predictable nature of our sinful habits. In other words it is just the opposite of what you say. Grace requires the removal of foreknowledge.

Click to expand...

My question would be --- How does God know the quantity of Grace is sufficient without knowing the outcome of its dispensation? In other words, without foreknowledge wouldn't a loving, relational Father always make His Grace irresistable just in case? God must know the effect of His influence to be assured that the decision for relationship comes from man's free will and not His influence.

God's Grace is sufficient because acceptance brings a living relationship with the living God who is sufficient for the solution of any problem. But that relationship is only offered and is therefore subject to our refusal. God does not know in advance whether His influence will result in our salvation or not (because it is our free will and choice which decides this). To know that would be irresistable Grace.

Click to expand...

To over influence would be irresistable Grace and does not account for man's cooperation in the process of salvation.

You've given me much to think about,
Rob

patman said:

I already know he can't. It has to be a real choice. Foreknowledge at creation makes that choice impossible because every single choice already exists, creation is just a machine running like it's creator foresaw it would.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Every single choice is known before its existence. This isn't the same as those choices already existing. The choices will be made by the choosers once they do exist, but that really has nothing to do with knowledge at all. Theory and practice.

You know fire creates heat. That doesn't mean you make the heat which fire creates. Knowledge is often far different than action. :think:

You might light a fire to procure the heat, just as God created to procure His own.

God creating to produce free will agents who would love Him despite those who would reject Him doesn't make Him responsible for their rejections. His desire for those who were His was greater than His grief for those who were not. :juggle:

Your desire to procure heat was greater than your concern for the fuel which was expended in doing so.

Rob

Rob and Lonster

Rob and Lonster

I wanted to say the same thing to both of you. You both seem to be on the same page. Lonster, you seemed to see some of the issues, or at least admit something is there, but the more that is said, the more you are just challenged to find ways around it... Rob, you try to break apart arguements that have little to do with the meat of the problem with the S.V., and that makes you think you are right...

RobE said:

God creating to produce free will agents who would love Him despite those who would reject Him doesn't make Him responsible for their rejections. His desire for those who were His was greater than His grief for those who were not. :juggle:

Your desire to procure heat was greater than your concern for the fuel which was expended in doing so.

Click to expand...

Lonster, keep reading...

Rob, I agree with the first paragraph I quoted, and the second one made me shake my head.

And I am glad you can say he isn't responsible, but you will never fully appreciate the Bible or justice with the idea of God's exhaustive foreknowledge.

You both are a lot more intelligent than the average smoe, but you allow this theology to blind you. It is like you are in love with it, nothing anyone can say to you will ever convince you how wrong it is for you. I wish you would appreciate the complications there are with the S.V.. Any non bias person sees great issues with them.

I want both of you to read this quote found on atheist.org:

ON HUMAN SACRIFICE

"... Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God..." -- Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] "... If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering" (Judges 11:30-31).

[The terms were acceptable to god -- remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future -- so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] -- Judges 11:29-34

Click to expand...

Even the atheist can see the vast massive contradictions produced in the word when we go around adding ideas, such as exhaustive future knowledge to it.

Remember, exhaustive is the key word. The Bible does teach of foreknowledge, but for years people have taken that foreknowledge WAY to far. And it is a shame to me.

What is a shame? This is -> someone who knows there is no Bible verse that says there that God has exhaustive foreknowledge preaches to others as if it did.

I already asked and asked and asked... AND asked again. No one has the verse that says that. Lonster submited a few verses in answer to the question, but I hope you both realize they do not answer the question by a long shot.

And then several on here have shown verses that show God changing his mind, being sorry, regretting even his own actions... And we show verses where God completely didn't even fulfill the prophecy he proclaimed he would fulfill.

There are only two answers... and they are "Sure, they were fulfilled(I hope)," that is usually Lonster's.. Or we get Rob's, which was, "God changed the future, so the prophecy outcome would be different."

Lonster's is simply a leap of faith, one he uses to hold on to the theology of S.V.. Rob's always frustrated me because of it's obvious holes. Well, obvious to me anyway. Rob, if God knew the entire future extensively, he would have foresaw himself changing the future and altering the outcome. So the same problem still exists.

Why is this theology sooooo important? No Bible verse to support it, leaps of faith to believe it, and asserted impossible ideas to support it.

What is so wrong with the O.V.? It unifies the scripture, and it shuts the mouth of the atheist who sees the holes that would exist in the word had exhaustive foreknowledge actually been included.

The O.V. will be a revolutionary change for the church one day. It will usher in many converts to Christ who would have denied him before because the S.V. theology. I wish you guys would see the simple fact that with no bible verse for it(Lonster, my PatPowers tell me I should add this -> not only is there no verse, there is only shaky evidence for it, and plenty of contrary evidence for the best supporting evidence, just look at any of Bob Hill's recent posts for that) and because there is no verse, those who believe it are actually putting words in the Bibles mouth, adding to scripture.

I know this is longer than usual for me. I am not always able to write this much here lately, lots of stuff going on. So forgive me if you write a novel back and I reply very little to it later on..... But maybe, just maybe, you will really consider it and there won't be any more disagreement between us?

Or maybe I am just going on blind faith too...

patman.... :first:

Lonster said:

Naw, this was a good example because it is actually what does happen in the automotive industry. They are not executed. They just do the recall and hide the paperwork of defect until after the fact "we just discovered it after the cars were sold." Maybe it's just the starter? That doesn't create deaths. I don't know, I'm just assuming you went for the worst case scenario. In our case, it isn't a defective part, it is user/driver abuse. We took a Cadillac offroad. This is the reality. It wasn't that God created defective people. He created people to not do something and they were tempted to do it anyway by the deceiver. It is just like taking a cadillac offroad, a no-brainer. "Don't do it."
Tree-garden, "Don't do it."

Click to expand...

Lonster,

I am just so at a loss. It is like the answer is just staring you in the face, but your desire to explode the truth into something more than it is is your downfall.

If God wanted us to think he knew absolutely every future event, wouldn't he just say it, You almost act is if there some great magic trick only he knew the secret to? You may not see what I mean by this. So again, I am at a loss.

Lets examine analogy and show why it isn't good. The car maker only made a car that wasn't designed to go off-roading. Ok, that is God designing us not to sin. Well he knows that EVERYONE will go off-roading. If everyone everywhere is going off-roading, and lets face it, like we really can get a Range-rover instead..(OK, we are all born human, what other choice have we?)

Why not just make it so everyone can safely go off-roading by WISLEY making Range Rovers instead of Cadillacs? Then everyone can REALLY drive anywhere with their great and wonderful freewill.

Knight said:

patman.... :first:

Click to expand...

I tried to rep one of your recent ones to Lonster... I don't spread it around enough apparently

Would someone Rep #5409 for me?

Knight said:

Lets say you have 11 kids and you know for certain (because you have seen the future in every detail) that if you have the 12th child he will grow up to be evil and 26 years and 3 months after his birth on a Friday night at 6:34PM he will take an axe and murder all of his siblings after a family reunion.

You know all of that in every detail.

Do you still have the 12th child knowing all that????

Click to expand...

It is jaw dropping that people really think God couldn't resist creaing such evil.

:jawdrop:

Knight said:

Lets say you have 11 kids and you know for certain (because you have seen the future in every detail) that if you have the 12th child he will grow up to be evil and 26 years and 3 months after his birth on a Friday night at 6:34PM he will take an axe and murder all of his siblings after a family reunion.

You know all of that in every detail.

Do you still have the 12th child knowing all that????

Click to expand...

This just goes to show how insane and illogical this idea of knowing the future is. If you don't have the 12th child then you did not see the future, but if you did see the future then you have no free will and there is nothing you can do about it at all. Both of these options are nonsensical and the root problem comes from the idea of knowing the future absolutely. Therefore most ideas of such future knowledge see it as conditional - a view of what might happen depending on what we do. Your own post suggest this very thing by asking if we would still have the 12th child? But if this future vision is not absolute then it is possible that not having the 12th child is not the only solution. But if I truly believed that this was the only solution, then no I would not have the 12th child. Would you?

Knight said:

Lets say you have 11 kids and you know for certain (because you have seen the future in every detail) that if you have the 12th child he will grow up to be evil and 26 years and 3 months after his birth on a Friday night at 6:34PM he will take an axe and murder all of his siblings after a family reunion.

You know all of that in every detail.

Do you still have the 12th child knowing all that????

Click to expand...

This example is clever in its simplicity. We know for example the story in Macabees of the mother and her sons where her sons are put to death for their defiance. Would they have been better off not going through their suffering? Should their mother have had them to begin with?

The problem isn't as simple as is illustrated through the example. We might ask questions like: What influence did the 12th child have on those around him? What influence did his axe murder have on those who learned of it? Did the 12th child have any enjoyment in his life up to the murders? Will the murder of his siblings cause a change in him towards the good?

The ability to create good out of bad for a purpose. When considering foreknowledge and evil aren't we concerned with the overall results for all of mankind despite the individual? In other words, did Jesus Christ crucify himself? :think:

Rob