Originally posted by patman
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...

Originally posted by RobE
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.

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

Context