Free will vs Omniscience

Whatever happened to "God is everywhere"?

That's not what I said. That's what you keep saying and I keep telling you that's not what I said.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. Why did I have to wade through all of that rubbish when the answer is obvious: Yes.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.

Why? 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. So does God. See the story of the prodigal son. Yes, it's clear that you despise the message. Why? I'm not an ideologue. We do. We're all our brothers' keeper. We're all responsible for the well-being of the least of these.

That's not an answer. 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. Yes. You went back in time to when you were five years old by saying, "I know you are but what am I?" It's Jesus' philosophy that you're calling evil. Yes. I have done, which is why you admit the case can be made. 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. There's no picking and choosing involved. If you can support another reading of the message, do it. You need to learn that fiction has value. We can learn from fiction - but not if we confuse it with reality. 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. So why are you still so arrogant in claiming that I'm wrong about everything (and "evil" to boot)? Of course you are - because that's what it says. No, I have not recognized any exclusivity. None of your quotes 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.

How can you say it explains a lot when it's the very thing that's confusing you?

If you had no problem understanding your dogma, you could explain it instead of just ignoring the objections. Why is that less plausible than a creator that could create itself from nothing?

Irrelevant.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?

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. Even if that was true, what does it have to do with plausibility compared to other religions?

The thread is about omnisience. How on earth could it possibly be irrelevant what God knows?

What does that silly bumper sticker mean? How do we "become decisions"?And our decisions have nothing to do with what God knows. Then God is irrelevant.

Context:

quote:

---

Proverbs 23:6-7 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

---

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. "I never knew you," is an unfortunate phrase for those who are trying to advocate omniscience, isn't it? It's pretty clear that He picks and chooses who has DONE what He wanted them to do. 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. We put the onus on our fellow humans to be responsible for their actions. Why would we expect a lower standard from God? We did invent Him. 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?

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.

Ask Phat. He's the one who presumably thinks God is omniscient, yet is completely innocent about any decisions that we might make.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.

Are you saying we don't know whether He's omniscient or not? We don't know that either.

As I said, your argument is with Phat, not me. He's trying to remove omniscience from God to remove God's responsibility. But you can use it to demonstrate that God is evil.