Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,645 Year: 4,902/9,624 Month: 250/427 Week: 60/103 Day: 4/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1046 of 1444 (880926)
08-14-2020 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by Phat
08-13-2020 3:31 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Phat writes:
Hell is a place where Gods Spirit is absent.
Whatever happened to "God is everywhere"?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 3:31 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1047 of 1444 (880927)
08-14-2020 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by Phat
08-13-2020 11:40 AM


Re: ** FOREknowledge**
Phat writes:
If satan were an intrinsic representation of the whole idea of autonomy from the Holy Spirit...
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.
Phat writes:
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?
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.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 11:40 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1051 by Phat, posted 08-14-2020 2:54 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1054 of 1444 (880940)
08-14-2020 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Phat
08-14-2020 2:54 PM


Re: ** FOREknowledge**
Phat writes:
My answer is so what? You still owe Him a choice.
Why?
Phat writes:
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.
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.
Phat writes:
You despise exclusivity.
So does God. See the story of the prodigal son.
Phat writes:
I despise inclusivity.
Yes, it's clear that you despise the message.
Phat writes:
You still owe Dad a choice.
Why?
Phat writes:
Are you gonna stay independent from His will or are you gonna shape up and swallow your leftist ideological pride?
I'm not an ideologue.
Phat writes:
I am reminded of some of these homeless people who think that we all owe them a meal.
We do. We're all our brothers' keeper. We're all responsible for the well-being of the least of these.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Phat, posted 08-14-2020 2:54 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by Phat, posted 08-15-2020 6:51 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1056 of 1444 (880962)
08-15-2020 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1055 by Phat
08-15-2020 6:51 AM


Re: Exclusivity versus Inclusivity
Phat writes:
Because He is more than a fictitious character in a book.
That's not an answer.
Phat writes:
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.
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.
Phat writes:
see what I did there?
Yes. You went back in time to when you were five years old by saying, "I know you are but what am I?"
Phat writes:
Now I must defend the idea that much of Leftist Philosophy is noble on the surface yet evil in practice
It's Jesus' philosophy that you're calling evil.
Phat writes:
Oh so *my* Theology is evil because it is exclusivist, right?
Yes.
Phat writes:
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...
I have done, which is why you admit the case can be made.
Phat writes:
... 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.
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.
Phat writes:
Picking and choosing which stories support your Leftist interpretation of the "message"...
There's no picking and choosing involved. If you can support another reading of the message, do it.
Phat writes:
... will not work when you consider the characters as limited to the book, fictitious, and that the message alone has value.
You need to learn that fiction has value. We can learn from fiction - but not if we confuse it with reality.
Phat writes:
The message and the messenger are inseparable...
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.
Phat writes:
... and in researching scriptures with which to argue aginst your inclusivity I found that you are right about some things.
So why are you still so arrogant in claiming that I'm wrong about everything (and "evil" to boot)?
Phat writes:
Thus in trying to defend exclusivity I am finding scripture that supports inclusiveness.
Of course you are - because that's what it says.
Phat writes:
So you are right in that the issue is not black and white. Its both inclusive and exclusive.
No, I have not recognized any exclusivity.
Phat writes:
Scriptures that support 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.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by Phat, posted 08-15-2020 6:51 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1076 of 1444 (881014)
08-16-2020 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1075 by Phat
08-16-2020 2:32 PM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
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...
How can you say it explains a lot when it's the very thing that's confusing you?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1075 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 2:32 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 3:16 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1078 of 1444 (881018)
08-16-2020 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by Phat
08-16-2020 3:16 PM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
I have no problem understanding/describing my dogma. It is you who have problems accepting the plausibility.
If you had no problem understanding your dogma, you could explain it instead of just ignoring the objections.
Phat writes:
Yet you would believe a physicist who claimed that the universe could and will create itself from nothing.
Why is that less plausible than a creator that could create itself from nothing?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 3:16 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1079 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 3:31 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1081 of 1444 (881023)
08-16-2020 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1079 by Phat
08-16-2020 3:31 PM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
Because God never created Himself.
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?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 3:31 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 8:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1090 of 1444 (881041)
08-16-2020 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1088 by Phat
08-16-2020 8:52 PM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
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.
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.
Phat writes:
Also that given human nature, the Christian mythos is rational and has helped social progress more than it has hindered it.
Even if that was true, what does it have to do with plausibility compared to other religions?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1088 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 8:52 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1091 of 1444 (881042)
08-16-2020 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1089 by Phat
08-16-2020 8:58 PM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
It is irrelevant what God knows.
The thread is about omnisience. How on earth could it possibly be irrelevant what God knows?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1089 by Phat, posted 08-16-2020 8:58 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1093 by Phat, posted 08-17-2020 8:44 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1094 of 1444 (881058)
08-17-2020 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1093 by Phat
08-17-2020 8:44 AM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
Because we become the decisions that we make.
What does that silly bumper sticker mean? How do we "become decisions"?
And our decisions have nothing to do with what God knows.
Phat writes:
We do not become the decisions that God has made about us.
Then God is irrelevant.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1093 by Phat, posted 08-17-2020 8:44 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1097 by Phat, posted 08-17-2020 11:15 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1099 of 1444 (881074)
08-17-2020 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1097 by Phat
08-17-2020 11:15 AM


Re: Sheep & Goat Behavior and Gods Foreknowledge
Phat writes:
ringo writes:
How do we "become decisions"?
Proverbs 23:7
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.
Phat writes:
Has not God said to some, "Depart from me, I never knew you?"
"I never knew you," is an unfortunate phrase for those who are trying to advocate omniscience, isn't it?
Phat writes:
Do you imagine that God picks and chooses whom He knows...
It's pretty clear that He picks and chooses who has DONE what He wanted them to do.
Phat writes:
or is it more likely that we(whom He never knew) never fulfilled our part of the communion?
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.
Phat writes:
You always place the onus on God to rescue us from everything harmful as if it is His human derived duty to do so...
We put the onus on our fellow humans to be responsible for their actions. Why would we expect a lower standard from God?
Phat writes:
... forgetting that we didnt invent Him...
We did invent Him.
Phat writes:
ringo writes:
Then God is irrelevant.
That type of thinking is also a choice and decision that YOU have made.
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?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1097 by Phat, posted 08-17-2020 11:15 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1129 of 1444 (881192)
08-19-2020 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1127 by Phat
08-19-2020 10:08 AM


Re: Is This How You Treated Each Other On The Porch Discussions?
Phat writes:
We have no idea what God knows, knew, or will know.
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.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1127 by Phat, posted 08-19-2020 10:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1131 by Juvenissun, posted 08-19-2020 1:12 PM ringo has replied
 Message 1134 by Phat, posted 08-19-2020 2:49 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1132 of 1444 (881198)
08-19-2020 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1131 by Juvenissun
08-19-2020 1:12 PM


Re: Is This How You Treated Each Other On The Porch Discussions?
Juvenissun writes:
That is very good. Do you want to serve a God who knows less than that?
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.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1131 by Juvenissun, posted 08-19-2020 1:12 PM Juvenissun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1140 by Juvenissun, posted 08-19-2020 9:55 PM ringo has replied
 Message 1162 by Phat, posted 08-20-2020 3:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1137 of 1444 (881208)
08-19-2020 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1134 by Phat
08-19-2020 2:49 PM


Re: Is This How You Treated Each Other On The Porch Discussions?
Phat writes:
If He is omniscient, it is true that He knows. We dont know, however.
Are you saying we don't know whether He's omniscient or not?
Phat writes:
He is not a subset of our minds. He exists apart from us....
We don't know that either.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1134 by Phat, posted 08-19-2020 2:49 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1146 of 1444 (881226)
08-20-2020 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1140 by Juvenissun
08-19-2020 9:55 PM


Re: Is This How You Treated Each Other On The Porch Discussions?
Juvenissun writes:
God must be omniscient. Otherwise, it is not a qualified god and is not God.
As I said, your argument is with Phat, not me. He's trying to remove omniscience from God to remove God's responsibility.
Juvenissun writes:
You can not use free will issue to deny God.
But you can use it to demonstrate that God is evil.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1140 by Juvenissun, posted 08-19-2020 9:55 PM Juvenissun has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1148 by Phat, posted 08-20-2020 10:19 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024