I NOT ROBOT

[Eli_Cash]

Wrong Hell.

Prove it. I know that "sheol" means "the grave" literally, but "gehenna" also means "trash pit" literally. Nevertheless "gehenna" was used by Jesus do refer to Hell. How is this any different? And if God would not want to be in a toilet, as you say, then why would he want to be in a grave?

He knew what would have happened, because He knew the people He was speaking of. Because they had existed. He cannot say if the people of Wonderland would act a certain way if He performed miracles there. And that is my point.

But it didn't happen. Yet he knew it. Which undermines your contention that God cannot know something that doesn't exist. That event doesn't exist, regardless of whether the people in it do.

Because He had the information He needed. You're really stupid.

Why would he have the information at that point but not before? Abraham still had the ability to change his mind, so according to the open view God could have still been wrong about Abraham. The only way he would know for sure is by letting Abraham go through with it. Then he could have raised Isaac from the dead.

And further proof of your stupidity.

The Angel was quoting God, you moron. God told the angel what to say. He told the angel to tell Abraham that He now knew.

Where does it say that the Angel was quoting God at this point? In this passage he refers to himself in the first person and to God in the third person. However, later on when He is quoting God He is explicit about it, saying "says the Lord". So it seems that you are adding something to the passage that isn't there.

Prove it.

I think I did. If the Law in question was given by God before the events recounted in Jeremiah, then it seems clear that God knew that men were capable of such a thing.

How convinced are you that Leviticus was completed before God said this?

When Leviticus was composed is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not God gave that law in the time of Moses. I think most conservative Christians believe that he did. If you have a different view I'd like to hear it.

All He really had to do was remind these people that Peter was a disciple of Jesus. And when three people had asked, He was done.

So then he knew for a fact that three people would be willing to confront Peter about this?

This foreknowledge is not determinate.

So Jesus could have been wrong? Was He guessing or not?

It also must be noted that this does not mean that God knows specifically when I will have that choice.

That may be, but Jesus had a good idea of the time frame for Peter's denial. Before the rooster crowed.

Time travel does not, and will not ever, exist. It is an impossibility due to the non-existence of any time other than the present.

This is what confuses me about your position. Here you say that no time other than the present exists. But later you say that the past is set in stone. If the past doesn't exist, then how can it have any content or attributes?

And I don't know the first word. This is the first time I have ever heard/seen it.

Simpliciter basically means "simply" or "without qualification". It is used to contrast with the idea of tensed existence, or existence at a time.

I don't really see how I have not explained myself.

Because you seem to be switching between two incompatible theories of time.

The future is open. It is not set in stone. The past is not open. It cannot be changed. It has already happened. It is set in stone.

OK. This is basically the open-future or growing-block theory of time. My point is that you reject the possibility of time travel into the past due to the past being fixed. This is no different from the tenseless theory that is employed by the settled view. So if time travel is a logical absurdity in your theory, then it is in mine as well.

Have I sufficiently answered your question? If so, please answer mine.

If I remember correctly, the Bible says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.

[Lighthouse]

Prove it. I know that "sheol" means "the grave" literally, but "gehenna" also means "trash pit" literally. Nevertheless "gehenna" was used by Jesus do refer to Hell. How is this any different? And if God would not want to be in a toilet, as you say, then why would he want to be in a grave?

It was a figure of speech. David was one of God's chosen people. So, of course, God would find David, wherever David made his bed. It was an exaggeration to make a point. Like saying 110%.

God is not present in the Hell where the demons were cast.

But it didn't happen. Yet he knew it. Which undermines your contention that God cannot know something that doesn't exist. That event doesn't exist, regardless of whether the people in it do.

No it doesn't, you idiot. Jesus was referring to what could/would have happened. Not what has not come anywhere near happening. He knew this in the same way He knew Peter would deny Him if confronted.

Why would he have the information at that point but not before? Abraham still had the ability to change his mind, so according to the open view God could have still been wrong about Abraham. The only way he would know for sure is by letting Abraham go through with it. Then he could have raised Isaac from the dead.

You're an idiot.

Where does it say that the Angel was quoting God at this point? In this passage he refers to himself in the first person and to God in the third person. However, later on when He is quoting God He is explicit about it, saying "says the Lord". So it seems that you are adding something to the passage that isn't there.

Moron.

I think I did. If the Law in question was given by God before the events recounted in Jeremiah, then it seems clear that God knew that men were capable of such a thing.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your assertion.

When Leviticus was composed is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not God gave that law in the time of Moses. I think most conservative Christians believe that he did. If you have a different view I'd like to hear it.

I'm still waiting for you to provide scripture.

So then he knew for a fact that three people would be willing to confront Peter about this?

No. He didn't need to know that. All He needed to know was that people are generally curious if they recognize a person that has some semblance of fame. And all He had to do then was call people's attention to Peter until three people had asked him [Peter] if he was one of the disciples of Jesus.

So Jesus could have been wrong? Was He guessing or not?

Idiot.

Determinate means that the foreknowledge dictates the action. His foreknowledge does no such thing.

That may be, but Jesus had a good idea of the time frame for Peter's denial. Before the rooster crowed.

So?

This is what confuses me about your position. Here you say that no time other than the present exists. But later you say that the past is set in stone. If the past doesn't exist, then how can it have any content or attributes?

It cannot be changed because it no longer exists, it is gone.

You're not very smart, are you?

Simpliciter basically means "simply" or "without qualification". It is used to contrast with the idea of tensed existence, or existence at a time.

The past once existed, because it was once the present. It no longer exists, because it has passed. It is gone. Not even God can go back to it.

Because you seem to be switching between two incompatible theories of time.

Only because you're an idiot.

OK. This is basically the open-future or growing-block theory of time. My point is that you reject the possibility of time travel into the past due to the past being fixed. This is no different from the tenseless theory that is employed by the settled view. So if time travel is a logical absurdity in your theory, then it is in mine as well.

It is not due to the past being fixed. It is because of the reason the past is fixed; it's non-existence.

If I remember correctly, the Bible says that God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.

OK. So why does it say that if God already knew what Adam would name them?

[Eli_Cash]

It was a figure of speech. David was one of God's chosen people. So, of course, God would find David, wherever David made his bed. It was an exaggeration to make a point. Like saying 110%.

God is not present in the Hell where the demons were cast.

That's your interpretation, but it's hardly beyond dispute.

No it doesn't, you idiot. Jesus was referring to what could/would have happened. Not what has not come anywhere near happening. He knew this in the same way He knew Peter would deny Him if confronted.

Jesus was referring to a set of circumstances that never obtained, and said what the consequences would have been without any hint of doubt.

You're an idiot.




Moron.

I take it then that you don't have a legitimate response to either of my questions. I stand by my points. God did know Abraham's heart before he acted, and I see no evidence that the Angel of the Lord was quoting God in this passage.

I'm still waiting for you to prove your assertion.


I'm still waiting for you to provide scripture.

Leviticus 18:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

The chapter in Leviticus is addressed to Moses. I'm pretty sure that Moses predates Jeremiah. Thus it doesn't matter when Leviticus was composed. If Leviticus is accurate, then the commands were given to Moses.

No. He didn't need to know that. All He needed to know was that people are generally curious if they recognize a person that has some semblance of fame. And all He had to do then was call people's attention to Peter until three people had asked him [Peter] if he was one of the disciples of Jesus.

So he could have been wrong?

Idiot.

Determinate means that the foreknowledge dictates the action. His foreknowledge does no such thing.

That's not an answer to my question. Could Jesus have been wrong?

(Also, I was using "determinate" in the sense of "definite". I'll try to avoid the ambiguity henceforth.)

And if definite foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures is possible, then why do open theists seem so intent on claiming that freedom and foreknowledge are incompatible?

So?

So you said that God doesn't know when you will make the choice but it seems that this wasn't true in Peter's case.

It cannot be changed because it no longer exists, it is gone.

You're not very smart, are you?


The past once existed, because it was once the present. It no longer exists, because it has passed. It is gone. Not even God can go back to it.


Only because you're an idiot.


It is not due to the past being fixed. It is because of the reason the past is fixed; it's non-existence.

But the future doesn't exist either, but i doubt you would say that the future is fixed.

OK. So why does it say that if God already knew what Adam would name them?

Because He hadn't seen it actually come to pass yet.

[Lighthouse]

That's your interpretation, but it's hardly beyond dispute.

Jesus was referring to a set of circumstances that never obtained, and said what the consequences would have been without any hint of doubt.

I take it then that you don't have a legitimate response to either of my questions. I stand by my points. God did know Abraham's heart before he acted, and I see no evidence that the Angel of the Lord was quoting God in this passage.

Idiot.

Leviticus 18:1
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

The chapter in Leviticus is addressed to Moses. I'm pretty sure that Moses predates Jeremiah. Thus it doesn't matter when Leviticus was composed. If Leviticus is accurate, then the commands were given to Moses.

But the passage in Jeremiah was speaking of a time before that.

So he could have been wrong?

That's not an answer to my question. Could Jesus have been wrong?

Are you asking if Peter could have recalled Jesus' words, and decided not to deny Him? Yes. He could have. But there is also no reason to believe he would have, because he was too weak.

(Also, I was using "determinate" in the sense of "definite". I'll try to avoid the ambiguity henceforth.)

And if definite foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures is possible, then why do open theists seem so intent on claiming that freedom and foreknowledge are incompatible?

We don't. It's the "exhaustive" foreknowledge that's the problem.

So you said that God doesn't know when you will make the choice but it seems that this wasn't true in Peter's case.

Because He worked to bring it to pass.

But the future doesn't exist either, but i doubt you would say that the future is fixed.

Because it hasn't happened.

Because He hadn't seen it actually come to pass yet.

Bingo!

[Eli_Cash]

But the passage in Jeremiah was speaking of a time before that.

The law of Moses was given before they entered the land, whereas the passage in Jeremiah refers to sins that they committed in the land.

Are you asking if Peter could have recalled Jesus' words, and decided not to deny Him? Yes. He could have. But there is also no reason to believe he would have, because he was too weak.

So the you believe that Jesus could have been wrong?

We don't. It's the "exhaustive" foreknowledge that's the problem.

What does it matter if the foreknowledge is exhaustive?

Because He worked to bring it to pass.

Why can't that be the case with your choice of ice cream?

Because it hasn't happened.

You said that non-existence was the reason for the past's being fixed. This is also something that you hold to be true of the future also, so it seems that you should say that the future is fixed as well. I don't see how the distinction between happened/hasn't happened is any different from the fixed/open distinction, ontologically. So invoking this distinction begs the question of what makes the past fixed.

Bingo!

Your point?

[Lighthouse]

The law of Moses was given before they entered the land, whereas the passage in Jeremiah refers to sins that they committed in the land.

The passage in Jeremiah is not referring to the Israelites.

So the you believe that Jesus could have been wrong?

He wouldn't have been wrong.

What does it matter if the foreknowledge is exhaustive?

The only way it can be exhaustive is if that which has yet to come to pass already existed to be known, i.e. has already happened. It's a paradox.

Why can't that be the case with your choice of ice cream?

Why would it be? What would be the purpose?

You said that non-existence was the reason for the past's being fixed. This is also something that you hold to be true of the future also, so it seems that you should say that the future is fixed as well. I don't see how the distinction between happened/hasn't happened is any different from the fixed/open distinction, ontologically. So invoking this distinction begs the question of what makes the past fixed.

No. I said the reason it is fixed is because it already happened and no longer exists. Both things together. The future is not fixed, because it has not yet happened.

Your point?

It hadn't happened yet. God did not know what Adam was going to name the animals.

[Eli_Cash]

The passage in Jeremiah is not referring to the Israelites.

Wrong.

Jeremiah 32:30-35 KJV
For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD. For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face, Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
[emphasis mine]

He wouldn't have been wrong.

Then he knew definitely that it would happen. And yet this was a moral choice on the part of Peter. So it seems that the Bible does teach definite foreknowledge of free moral actions.

The only way it can be exhaustive is if that which has yet to come to pass already existed to be known, i.e. has already happened. It's a paradox.

That depends on perspective. It hasn't happened from our point of view, but this doesn't mean that it isn't fixed from God's perspective. So the "paradox" is illusory.

Why would it be? What would be the purpose?

To be all-knowing.

No. I said the reason it is fixed is because it already happened and no longer exists. Both things together. The future is not fixed, because it has not yet happened.

What do you mean by "happened"? Earlier in this post you seemed to claim that "happened" is synonymous with existing to be known. It seems to me that existing to be known is no different than being fixed. In which case you still haven't explained how the past can be fixed, but not the future.

It hadn't happened yet. God did not know what Adam was going to name the animals.

It doesn't say that God didn't know what he would name them.