|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will vs Omniscience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Whatever happened to "God is everywhere"? Hell is a place where Gods Spirit is absent."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's not what I said. That's what you keep saying and I keep telling you that's not what I said. If satan were an intrinsic representation of the whole idea of autonomy from the Holy Spirit... It has nothing to do with "autonomy from the Holy Spirit". There is no "Holy Spirit" so autonomy from it is irrelevant. You might as well be talking about autonomy from the Easter Bunny. The "Satan" character plays several roles in the Bible but mostly he represents an alternative viewpoint. Everything isn't black and white. God's viewpoint isn't always "right" - note how He changes His mind from time to time. Reality is more subtle than the simple-minded "spiritual warfare" that you try to push.
Phat writes:
Why did I have to wade through all of that rubbish when the answer is obvious: Yes. If God foreknew that Lucifer would choose to rebel and set up a dualistic good/evil paradigm that would impact human decisions and human events during the entire history of humanity on planet earth, would He be responsible for allowing even the possibility for one of his angelic beings to break free from the monistic authority of a loving Oneness God? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. If God is omnipotent and/or omniscient, yes, He is responsible for everything. That has been answered for you time and time again in this thread. Just look at the hoops you have to jump through just to express your idiotic theology."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why?
My answer is so what? You still owe Him a choice. Phat writes:
Yes. There is nothing inconsistent or complex about that. It's what Jesus said. You're the one who has to jump through hoops, as I said, to make that simple message into your evil theology.
You are the one who thinks you can label Him fiction, live your life your own darn way like the old hippie you are, die without believing He exists, and then at the same time telling us that our God is wrong and that your God would accept you home without casting any of those stubborn little sixties ideological kum ba yah demons of all inclusiveness and everybody is welcome home at the Fictitious Fathers house as they are....no strings attached. Phat writes:
So does God. See the story of the prodigal son.
You despise exclusivity. Phat writes:
Yes, it's clear that you despise the message.
I despise inclusivity. Phat writes:
Why?
You still owe Dad a choice. Phat writes:
I'm not an ideologue.
Are you gonna stay independent from His will or are you gonna shape up and swallow your leftist ideological pride? Phat writes:
We do. We're all our brothers' keeper. We're all responsible for the well-being of the least of these. I am reminded of some of these homeless people who think that we all owe them a meal."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
That's not an answer.
Because He is more than a fictitious character in a book. Phat writes:
On the contrary, the book supports what I say and condemns what you say. That's how we can tell that your reading of the book is wrong.
The fact that you can't see this or grasp the implication is one big reason why you have no business using the words of the book to support your evil theology. Phat writes:
Yes. You went back in time to when you were five years old by saying, "I know you are but what am I?"
see what I did there? Phat writes:
It's Jesus' philosophy that you're calling evil.
Now I must defend the idea that much of Leftist Philosophy is noble on the surface yet evil in practice Phat writes:
Yes.
Oh so *my* Theology is evil because it is exclusivist, right? Phat writes:
I have done, which is why you admit the case can be made.
Now granted you can make a case that simply doing the message will in fact allow for anyone to "know Jesus" and thus know God.In fact, it would be nice if you did so... Phat writes:
Well, I shouldn't have to continually repeat the obvious truth to you but you continually deny, deny, deny without making a case FOR your evil theology.
... rather than continually braying on about how God does not exist, how the Holy Spirit does not exist and how Jesus was nothing more than an Elmer Gantry message boy sent to give the socialists a useful message for a humanist society. Phat writes:
There's no picking and choosing involved. If you can support another reading of the message, do it.
Picking and choosing which stories support your Leftist interpretation of the "message"... Phat writes:
You need to learn that fiction has value. We can learn from fiction - but not if we confuse it with reality.
... will not work when you consider the characters as limited to the book, fictitious, and that the message alone has value. Phat writes:
Nope. Still false, no matter how often you repeat it. And you know it - you don't throw your mail away and keep the envelopes.
The message and the messenger are inseparable... Phat writes:
So why are you still so arrogant in claiming that I'm wrong about everything (and "evil" to boot)?
... and in researching scriptures with which to argue aginst your inclusivity I found that you are right about some things. Phat writes:
Of course you are - because that's what it says.
Thus in trying to defend exclusivity I am finding scripture that supports inclusiveness. Phat writes:
No, I have not recognized any exclusivity.
So you are right in that the issue is not black and white. Its both inclusive and exclusive. Phat writes:
None of your quotes support exclusivity. Scriptures that support exclusivity: The "broad road that leadeth to destruction" is the "mainstream" theology that you keep touting. It's the theology of the Pharisees. Note that when Jesus was asked if only a few would get to heaven, He didn't say yes. He told people to choose the hard way, the way of blood, sweat, toil and tears. If anybody is to be excluded, it's the exclusvists."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
How can you say it explains a lot when it's the very thing that's confusing you? I still dont get it. Lets get back to the dogma that is Lucifer/Satan. I know you think its silly, but it explains a lot..."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If you had no problem understanding your dogma, you could explain it instead of just ignoring the objections.
I have no problem understanding/describing my dogma. It is you who have problems accepting the plausibility. Phat writes:
Why is that less plausible than a creator that could create itself from nothing? Yet you would believe a physicist who claimed that the universe could and will create itself from nothing."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Irrelevant. Because God never created Himself. It's the same scenario: "something" exists without a creator. Why is it more plausible that that something should be an unevidenced god and less plausible that it should be something that definitely DOES exist?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's not an answer. WHY is it more plausible? How are you measuring plausibility? I'm saying that something that DOES exist is a more plausible cause than something that might exist.
Because it is more plausible that a Creator is running things than that human wisdom should be the preferred tool for the explanation of all seen and unseen. Phat writes:
Even if that was true, what does it have to do with plausibility compared to other religions? Also that given human nature, the Christian mythos is rational and has helped social progress more than it has hindered it."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The thread is about omnisience. How on earth could it possibly be irrelevant what God knows? It is irrelevant what God knows."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What does that silly bumper sticker mean? How do we "become decisions"? Because we become the decisions that we make. And our decisions have nothing to do with what God knows.
Phat writes:
Then God is irrelevant. We do not become the decisions that God has made about us."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Context:
ringo writes:
Proverbs 23:7 How do we "become decisions"?quote:That proverb isn't about decisions. It's about whom we associate with. Remember Luke 15? When the Pharisees complained about Jesus eating with publicans and sinners, He told three parables about how the one lost sheep is more treasured than the ninty-nine homies, the one lost coin is more treasured than the other nine and the prodigal son is more welcomed than the obedient one.
Phat writes:
"I never knew you," is an unfortunate phrase for those who are trying to advocate omniscience, isn't it?
Has not God said to some, "Depart from me, I never knew you?" Phat writes:
It's pretty clear that He picks and chooses who has DONE what He wanted them to do.
Do you imagine that God picks and chooses whom He knows... Phat writes:
Remember the prodigal son? There is no "our part of the communion". God doesn't approve of you on the basis of communion with HIM. He approves of you on the basis of your communion with the least of these.
or is it more likely that we(whom He never knew) never fulfilled our part of the communion? Phat writes:
We put the onus on our fellow humans to be responsible for their actions. Why would we expect a lower standard from God?
You always place the onus on God to rescue us from everything harmful as if it is His human derived duty to do so... Phat writes:
We did invent Him.
... forgetting that we didnt invent Him... Phat writes:
That's a conclusion drawn from YOUR statement that, "We do not become the decisions that God has made about us." If God's decisions about us don't relate to us, what is His relevance? ringo writes:
That type of thinking is also a choice and decision that YOU have made. Then God is irrelevant."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If He is omniscient, we know; He knows EVERYTHING - everything we know, everything every human being knows or knew or will ever know, everything that has happened or will happen, every decision that we will ever make. Everything. We have no idea what God knows, knew, or will know."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Juvenissun writes:
Ask Phat. He's the one who presumably thinks God is omniscient, yet is completely innocent about any decisions that we might make. That is very good. Do you want to serve a God who knows less than that? Myself, I don't see what serving somebody has to do with what they know or how much they know. We tend to serve our children and other loved ones based on criteria other than their knowledge."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Are you saying we don't know whether He's omniscient or not?
If He is omniscient, it is true that He knows. We dont know, however. Phat writes:
We don't know that either. He is not a subset of our minds. He exists apart from us...."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Juvenissun writes:
As I said, your argument is with Phat, not me. He's trying to remove omniscience from God to remove God's responsibility.
God must be omniscient. Otherwise, it is not a qualified god and is not God. Juvenissun writes:
But you can use it to demonstrate that God is evil. You can not use free will issue to deny God."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024