# God's omnipotence and omniscience



## footjunior (Jan 12, 2009)

These thoughts came to my mind when were talking about Noah's ark. Before going on, consider these verses. Genesis 6:5-8

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

God was "grieved that he had made man on the earth". 

The important part here is that the Christian God is omniscient. He is all-knowing.

God, in his omniscience, could see that he would be grieved. He could also see that man would sin. If he regretted making man, why did he create them in the first place?

Some will say that men have the free will to accept or reject god, but this is completely beside the point. The main thing is that God regretted his own actions. The results of his actions he knew. He is, after all, omniscient.

When people choose a god that is omniscient and omnipotent, what do they think of this:

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 12, 2009)

It says that God was grieved, it doesn't say that He regretted His creation.


Also, I have a question for you...can God make a rock too big for Himself to lift?

You should read Matt 4:1-11 and the questions that Satan asked God.  Might enlighten you on His responses.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 12, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> It says that God was grieved, it doesn't say that He regretted His creation.
> 
> 
> Also, I have a question for you...can God make a rock too big for Himself to lift?
> ...



So you don't think that "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." and "for I am grieved that I have made them." means that he regretted making them?

Does the translation have to spell out the actual word "regret" for you to see that he regretted it?

I also fail to see how Matthew 4 answers anything. Those were all hypothetical things that Jesus _could_ have done. Creating mankind is something that God did do, and later "grieved" that he made them.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 12, 2009)

Personally I believe that's one of those questions we'll have to ask God when we see Him.

The Bible holds a lot of mysteries that haven't yet been revealed.

As I've studied even the simplist text like the story of David and Goliath, it took me a long time to actually see how that related to me. I just thought that David was exceptional and he was God's pet, so to speak.

And because of the story of Abraham and Isaaic I ran far away from God, because I thought He would ask me to sacrifice my child as He did Abraham and that was something I knew I couldn't do. And even as I understood it farther where God spared Isaac.....just using that as a test for Abraham, I still didn't get the depth that God was showing Abraham and us how horrible it would be to sacrifice your child, as God did with Jesus.God told Abraham I will provide my own sacrificial lamb...Jesus Christ the Lamb of God. What a revelation for me and I stayed away from God for a long time, because I couldn't fathom having to be tested by God in that way. Duh.
I lost my husband at age 23 and took my child and ran far away from God, almost as far as I could get.

But now that I comprehend the story somewhat more, I can see much more of what a treasure Jesus is, in His Father's eyes.

Sorry, I got carried away on that story.

BOT


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 12, 2009)

I will look at this and try to give an answer later, but let's not miss the forest for the trees...what does this text reveal to us about the nature of God? I think it shows His tender heart toward mankind, even those who have turned away from Him, and even toward those He will judge. God does not delight in the death of the wicked.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 12, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> what does this text reveal to us about the nature of God? I think it shows His tender heart toward mankind, even those who have turned away from Him, and even toward those He will judge.



So a tender-hearted God drowns everyone (not to mention the animals... what did they do wrong anyways?) except for Noah's family?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> (not to mention the animals... what did they do wrong anyways?)



That's why I don't hunt....


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2009)

I "smell what you are stepping in" and my last response to the "is God in complete control" thread explains my belief in God knowing all.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 12, 2009)

Randy said:


> I "smell what you are stepping in" and my last response to the "is God in complete control" thread explains my belief in God knowing all.



So God does not know the future? That's what I gathered from your post.


----------



## Randy (Jan 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> So God does not know the future? That's what I gathered from your post.



Not completely.  At least not IMO.  He does know at some point he will destroy this sinful place, at least I believe He will.  He already got fed up with our crap one time and only Noah saved the world from complete distruction! And Jesus did say He was coming back, at some point.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 12, 2009)

footjunior said:


> So you don't think that "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." and "for I am grieved that I have made them." means that he regretted making them?


Yup.  If He wished He hadn't created mankind, He wouldn't have done it.



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Does the translation have to spell out the actual word "regret" for you to see that he regretted it?


Does anyone have the original Hebrew translation?  Oh wait a minute....I've got it here somewhere.  Hebrew Greek Study Bible to be precise....good tool for those who want to look at the original language.
The word used was Nacham.  Translated means to breathe heavily...to sigh...to pity.

Let me ask you this.  Do you have kids?  If not, you'll not understand.  But when you discipline your kids, I think you'll get just a small glimpse of what this verse means.  You know you must discipline them, but you have a heavy heavy heart.  You look for any excuse not to do it, but you know that if you spare the rod, you hate the child.



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> I also fail to see how Matthew 4 answers anything. Those were all hypothetical things that Jesus _could_ have done. Creating mankind is something that God did do, and later "grieved" that he made them.



I was specifically pointing to verse 7.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 12, 2009)

Randy said:


> Not completely.  At least not IMO.  He does know at some point he will destroy this sinful place, at least I believe He will.  He already got fed up with our crap one time and only Noah saved the world from complete distruction! And Jesus did say He was coming back, at some point.



So he knows some things but not others...?



> Does anyone have the original Hebrew translation? Oh wait a minute....I've got it here somewhere. Hebrew Greek Study Bible to be precise....good tool for those who want to look at the original language.
> The word used was Nacham. Translated means to breathe heavily...to sigh...to pity.



Nacham- to be sorry, console oneself, repent, *regret*, comfort, be comforted

   1. (Niphal)
         1. to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
         2. to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
         3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
         4. to comfort oneself, ease oneself 
   2. (Piel) to comfort, console
   3. (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
   4. (Hithpael)
         1. to be sorry, have compassion
         2. to rue, repent of
         3. to comfort oneself, be comforted
         4. to ease oneself

I used the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon, which supposedly gives the definition in use when the scriptures were written. Regardless of which OT Hebrew dictionary you want to believe, my main point is that God created man and was grieved that he had created them. Did God know that he would be grieved? If he knew, then why did he create them? If he didn't know, then he isn't all-knowing.



> I was specifically pointing to verse 7.



Could you elaborate on why verse 7 is important in our discussion? I've read it twice now, and I have been unable to see the point.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Nacham- to be sorry, console oneself, repent, *regret*, comfort, be comforted
> 
> I used the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon, which supposedly gives the definition in use when the scriptures were written. Regardless of which OT Hebrew dictionary you want to believe, my main point is that God created man and was grieved that he had created them. Did God know that he would be grieved? If he knew, then why did he create them? If he didn't know, then he isn't all-knowing.


I agree with you in the fact that the Lord grieved.  And yes, He knew He would be grieved.  Why did He still create us?  Because He wanted to and it brought Him glory.  I don't think He regretted it, I don't see that in the text.  But regardless, God saved Noah and his family because He had a plan for mankind.  That is the same reason that we are still around today.  He has a plan for us.  Whether we bring Him glory in our devotion to Him or allow Him to show His righteous judgement when we die, we are all here for a purpose.



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate on why verse 7 is important in our discussion? I've read it twice now, and I have been unable to see the point.



It was a response for this question in your original post.



footjunior said:


> Can omniscient God, who
> Knows the future, find
> The omnipotence to
> Change His future mind?



Don't put God to the test.  Do you understand now?


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> So he knows some things but not others...?


Correct.  He knows your heart and you thoughts.  He even knows what you will probably do based on his knowing your heart and thoughts.  But I do not believe He knows what your choice will be until you make it.  He probabbly has  good idea based on your past actions but until you do something he does not know what you will do.  At least that is my belief.  Obviously not everybody's.

Some people believe He knew billions of years ago or when ever "the begining was" that Hitler was going to come here and kill thousands of people.  I believe God knows there is always that possibility wiht man but I do not believe He allows a person to be born knowing that person is set to destroy half the world.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> So a tender-hearted God drowns everyone (not to mention the animals... what did they do wrong anyways?) except for Noah's family?



Yes. Your assumption in your reply, of course, is that "all those innocent people" didn't deserve it. Gen 6:5

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 

Do you expect a just God to permit evil? 

Do you want to live in a country that excuses and does not punish evil?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I agree with you in the fact that the Lord grieved.  And yes, He knew He would be grieved.  Why did He still create us?  Because He wanted to and it brought Him glory.



Don't you think "He wanted to" is a bit of a cop-out? So it brings him glory to create a perfect human/world, then he allows Satan to corrupt the humans even though he already knows they will give in and already knows all the suffering humans will endure? Then he is so merciful and loving that he pre-ordains certain humans (most of them come from Christian countries) to go to Heaven. And this merciful and loving God knows which humans will reject them, he allows them to be born and suffer, then they go to he11.



> But regardless, God saved Noah and his family because He had a plan for mankind.  That is the same reason that we are still around today.  He has a plan for us.  Whether we bring Him glory in our devotion to Him or allow Him to show His righteous judgement when we die, we are all here for a purpose.



So, under that line of reasoning, we could say something about the Holocaust. God allowed the Holocaust to happen because he had a plan for the Jews? The plan was to bring them back to Israel. My question is why does a "tender-hearted",  caring, loving, *omnipotent* and omniscient God decide that killing off half the world's Jews (his chosen people) and creating a World War which killed 60 million people is a great way for them to get their homeland back?



> It was a response for this question in your original post. Don't put God to the test.  Do you understand now?



It's not a "test" for God, it's a logical problem for Christians. Unless they don't want to answer, that is.



> Do you expect a just God to permit evil?



I think everyone has come to expect that. Just look at human history.


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2009)

Had you rather someone look up to you and love you because they had to or because they had a choice to and chose to?

I believe God could, if He wanted to, make this place perfectly sin free or destroy it completely but he chooses to allow us and gives us the free will to choose Him, or not.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Don't you think "He wanted to" is a bit of a cop-out? So it brings him glory to create a perfect human/world, then he allows Satan to corrupt the humans even though he already knows they will give in and already knows all the suffering humans will endure? Then he is so merciful and loving that he pre-ordains certain humans (most of them come from Christian countries) to go to Heaven. And this merciful and loving God knows which humans will reject them, he allows them to be born and suffer, then they go to he11.



Nope.  Not a cop-out.  He wanted us to see His mercy through the sacrifice of His Son.  What better picture of Grace/Mercy?  When you have kids, you'll understand better. 



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> So, under that line of reasoning, we could say something about the Holocaust. God allowed the Holocaust to happen because he had a plan for the Jews? The plan was to bring them back to Israel. My question is why does a "tender-hearted",  caring, loving, *omnipotent* and omniscient God decide that killing off half the world's Jews (his chosen people) and creating a World War which killed 60 million people is a great way for them to get their homeland back?



Not sure why He did it that way.  But it wasn't the first time that God used warfare to bring His people back together.  The OT is littered with stories of how the Jews left there first love and God used trials/tribulation to bring them back together.



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> It's not a "test" for God, it's a logical problem for Christians. Unless they don't want to answer, that is.



No....it is a test.  You see, your world is governed by logic.  Man's logic....which is flawed.  I know as a smart engineer student, you've got the laws of science and certain rules that can't be broken.  But God is perfect.  He doesn't have to live by these "rules."  He created them...he can change them.  We have no right to question them.

Another kid example.  When you were growing up, when your parents asked you to do something...did you do it or did you question it?  I questioned it a few times.  Then I got tired of getting punished and the response..."because I said so."  As a human, we have no right to question God.  Sure, we do, and sometimes He gives us the answer.  But sometimes He says, because I said so.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope.  Not a cop-out.  He wanted us to see His mercy through the sacrifice of His Son.  What better picture of Grace/Mercy?  When you have kids, you'll understand better.



A scenario: You are omniscient. You have the absolute knowledge to know that if you have a child, that child will go to he11.

Now, the question: Would you have a child?



> No....it is a test.  You see, your world is governed by logic.  Man's logic....which is flawed. But God is perfect.  He doesn't have to live by these "rules."  He created them...he can change them.  We have no right to question them.



How is man's logic flawed? What other device do we have to measure truth? Emotion? Faith? Are these things more accurate than logic? No.

Faith is used when the logic of an idea is flawed. It is called upon when needed. Do engineer's require faith when they design a building? No. They have logic and math.

This reminds me so much of what Dan Dennett was saying in his video that I posted a while back. "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense." "Don't question God." "We don't have the right to question the word of God." This mindset is what allows religions to continue to exist. It allows Muslims to become suicide bombers. It allows ridiculous memes such as young earth creationism to flourish.

In fact, I think the meme of "do not question God" is perhaps Christianity's greatest contribution to religion. It is extremely powerful. If any future religions wish to be successful they would do well to adopt this into their memetic structure. Whenever Christians don't know the answer or don't want to know the answer, they can invoke this meme as an escape route.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> A scenario: You are omniscient. You have the absolute knowledge to know that if you have a child, that child will go to he11.
> 
> Now, the question: Would you have a child?



Well, I'm not omniscient, so I can't answer that...but I'll answer you this question.  I don't have absolute knowledge that my two kids will go to Heaven and I had them.  Does that make me an evil person?




			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> How is man's logic flawed? What other device do we have to measure truth? Emotion? Faith? Are these things more accurate than logic? No.
> 
> Faith is used when the logic of an idea is flawed. It is called upon when needed. Do engineer's require faith when they design a building? No. They have logic and math.


  Sounds just like what the engineers said about the Titanic.  Or, a little bit closer to home, the WTC.  They were to withstand arial attack.  Was it a design flaw that caused the steel girders to bend under the extreme heat...causing them to collapse on eachother?



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> This reminds me so much of what Dan Dennett was saying in his video that I posted a while back. "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense." "Don't question God." "We don't have the right to question the word of God." This mindset is what allows religions to continue to exist. It allows Muslims to become suicide bombers. It allows ridiculous memes such as young earth creationism to flourish.


Or the athiest who says, I believe in nothing so you must prove everything to me. 

Funny thing is, you believe in a religion just like me.  However, you have no answers, just questions.  Frustrating to you isn't it?


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Well, I'm not omniscient, so I can't answer that



This is yet another cop-out. I think you understand that is is a hypothetical scenario, yet you do not answer the question.

A modified scenario...

You are not omniscient, but you have absolute knowledge that if you have child, that child will go to he11.

Would you have the child?



> Sounds just like what the engineers said about the Titanic.  Or, a little bit closer to home, the WTC.  They were to withstand arial attack.  Was it a design flaw that caused the steel girders to bend under the extreme heat...causing them to collapse on eachother?



Please quote me where I said that engineering designs were perfect. Were the Twin Towers made to withstand burning jet fuel? Did the engineers of the Titanic really believe that it was unsinkable, or was it an exaggeration created by the present day media?



> Funny thing is, you believe in a religion just like me.  However, you have no answers, just questions.  Frustrating to you isn't it?



Do you honestly consider things like, "Because God wanted to." or "Not sure why He did it that way." adequate answers? Seems like you have potential questions, you simply choose not to ask them.

I would also love to hear your explanation of how I have a religion.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> This is yet another cop-out. I think you understand that is is a hypothetical scenario, yet you do not answer the question.
> 
> A modified scenario...
> 
> ...


If I'm not omniscient, how would I have absolute knowledge that my child will go to he11?



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Please quote me where I said that engineering designs were perfect. Were the Twin Towers made to withstand burning jet fuel? Did the engineers of the Titanic really believe that it was unsinkable, or was it an exaggeration created by the present day media?



You said this in a previous post implying that Math and Science were not flawed.

"Faith is used when the logic of an idea is flawed. It is called upon when needed. Do engineer's require faith when they design a building? No. They have logic and math."



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Do you honestly consider things like, "Because God wanted to." or "Not sure why He did it that way." adequate answers? Seems like you have potential questions, you simply choose not to ask them.
> 
> I would also love to hear your explanation of how I have a religion.



No, as a Christian the answer is God.  As an athiest, you don't have that as a potential answer.

Yes, you as an athiest have a religion.  What is a religion...a belief system.  You choose to believe to ignore the proof of a greater force....of God.  You choose to turn your back on Him and reject Him.  You can't explain things, so you choose to believe that it is impossible for God to do it.  

Sounds like religion to me.  Sounds like faith to me.


----------



## Randy (Jan 13, 2009)

There are many things God does or has done that I can not explain.  There are many things in the Bible I have yet to get answers too.  Yes I still have many many questions.  Yet there is not one that is so questionalble as to cause me to question if there really is a God!  Maybe I just feel it in my soul?  Maybe it was my raising?  I have many questions but "is there a God?" Is not one of them.

I still hold that we are born knwing there is a higher being.  Even civilizations that never heard of my God new deep down inside that there was a greater being.  They may have even thought there was more than one but they knew there was/is a greater power than themselves.  I don't see how anybody can not feel that.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> If I'm not omniscient, how would I have absolute knowledge that my child will go to he11?





Again... it's a hypothetical scenario. There are two premises in this hypothetical situation:

1. You are not omniscient.
2. You know that if you have a child, the child will go to he11.

PLEASE NOTE THAT PREMISE 2 DOES NOT PREVENT PREMISE 1 FROM BEING TRUE. In other words, knowing that your child is going to he11 does not necessarily mean that you are omniscient.

The question... again...

Would you have a child?



> You said this in a previous post implying that Math and Science were not flawed.



Math and Science are two completely different things. 

Science is often wrong:The Earth is round, not flat.

Math is never wrong: 2+2 always = 4.



> No, as a Christian the answer is God.  As an athiest, you don't have that as a potential answer.



You are correct. Faith in God is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.



> What is a religion...a belief system.



Debatable, but ok.



> You choose to believe to ignore the proof of a greater force....of God.  You choose to turn your back on Him and reject Him.  You can't explain things, so you choose to believe that it is impossible for God to do it.
> 
> Sounds like religion to me.  Sounds like faith to me.



Could you provide me with one example of the "proof of a greater force" which you assume I'm ignoring?

Just because I don't explain things on threads in this forum doesn't mean that I cannot explain things. Is it not acceptable to ask questions to better understand other people's explanations?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Math and Science are two completely different things.
> 
> Science is often wrong:The Earth is round, not flat.
> 
> Math is never wrong: 2+2 always = 4.



Never wrong?


x/0= ?

solve for ?


----------



## farmasis (Jan 13, 2009)

He destroyed it because the world became wicked. I think he regreted making man, eventhough he knew it would turn out this way. I think it saddened him to destroy what he loved, but didn't love him. But, Noah found favor in God. He saved him and his family. He started it over again. He gave us another chance and he proved that he would not tolerate evil. It now serves as an example. 

I think it is all part of the bigger picture. Man will become wicked without him. Man cannot save himself. God will provide a boat.

He knew he would destroy the world before he made it. He also knew his son would be sent to die before he made it. He made it anyway, because he loves us.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Never wrong?
> 
> 
> x/0= ?
> ...





I like.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

farmasis said:


> He destroyed it because the world became wicked. I think he regreted making man, eventhough he knew it would turn out this way.



You nailed the core of the problem...

Can an omniscient God regret his decisions?


----------



## farmasis (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> You nailed the core of the problem...
> 
> Can an omniscient God regret his decisions?


 
Maybe regret is the wrong word.

It saddened him, but I don't think he was sorry that he made man, or he would not have allowed mankind to continue.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 13, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Maybe regret is the wrong word.
> 
> It saddened him, but I don't think he was sorry that he made man, or he would not have allowed mankind to continue.





Ok then... "saddened" it is.

Can an omniscient God be saddened by his decisions?


----------



## farmasis (Jan 13, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Ok then... "saddened" it is.
> 
> Can an omniscient God be saddened by his decisions?


 
Yes.

And no it didn't suprise him, and yes he knew he would be sad..


----------



## footjunior (Jan 14, 2009)

farmasis said:


> And no it didn't suprise him, and yes he knew he would be sad..



Why did he do something that would make him sad?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 14, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Again... it's a hypothetical scenario. There are two premises in this hypothetical situation:
> 
> 1. You are not omniscient.
> 2. You know that if you have a child, the child will go to he11.
> ...


Well, I'll answer it to the best I can.  I know that if my child does not believe in Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour, they will go to he11 and my wife and I had two kids.  So, I guess that is a partial yes.



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Math and Science are two completely different things.
> 
> Science is often wrong


I agree....look at global warming and evolution.




			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Could you provide me with one example of the "proof of a greater force" which you assume I'm ignoring?



Creation...this world...that nagging inside of you that makes you search for answers and wonder "why?"



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Just because I don't explain things on threads in this forum doesn't mean that I cannot explain things. Is it not acceptable to ask questions to better understand other people's explanations?



Sure...you can ask questions to better understand other people's explanations.  But it appears that you are asking questions to cause doubt in other's, not seeking answers, but seeking to confuse.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Well, I'll answer it to the best I can.  I know that if my child does not believe in Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour, they will go to he11 and my wife and I had two kids.  So, I guess that is a partial yes.



Your refusal to completely answer the hypothetical question says a lot.

I think that what you do not want to say is that an omniscient and loving God would never allow he11-destined children to be born. The only way he would allow this is if he is not loving and/or not omniscient. Or if God could find the omnipotence to change omniscience later on, which raises logical problems.



> Creation...this world...that nagging inside of you that makes you search for answers and wonder "why?"



So God creates a man and woman who are "perfect." He then purposely creates a tree inside of a perfect garden which contains a magic apple. Then, he allows a talking snake to come along and convince the people to eat the magic apple. An omniscient God, who knew what was going to happen anyways, gets angry and throws them out of the garden.

This satisfies you on our creation? How does this differ from other ridiculous, ancient creation myths found in other religions?

Curiousness is part of being a Great Ape.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 14, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Your refusal to completely answer the hypothetical question says a lot.



Most hypotheticals of this nature make assumptions that are patently false and in this case, the response of a man to the premise has no bearing on how God behaves or views things.



footjunior said:


> I think that what you do not want to say is that an omniscient and loving God would never allow he11-destined children to be born. The only way he would allow this is if he is not loving and/or not omniscient. Or if God could find the omnipotence to change omniscience later on, which raises logical problems.



I would not say that, because it is untrue. 

The omniscient and loving God would  and does allow he11-destined children to be born. 
All are initially headed to destruction and His love was poured out at Calvary to provide a way of escape from that destination. The fact that some will not repent and receive is their choice, not His desire, but then He doesn't force His will upon any of us.





footjunior said:


> So God creates a man and woman who are "perfect." He then purposely creates a tree inside of a perfect garden which contains a magic apple. Then, he allows a talking snake to come along and convince the people to eat the magic apple. An omniscient God, who knew what was going to happen anyways, gets angry and throws them out of the garden.



Baiting? Trolling?
Yours is a rather pointed and obvious characterization that is unworthy of this forum. 
Never the less, two trees are specifically mentioned and were there before A & E. Rules were quite simple: Eat one; you're barred from the other. No anger, just enforcing His rules. God did exactly what He said He would do. He always keeps His word. They got the "prize" behind door #2 because they thought they would upgrade to a bigger, better possession rather than remaining stewards.



footjunior said:


> This satisfies you on our creation? How does this differ from other ridiculous, ancient creation myths found in other religions?



Yep, satisfied, even though God is under no obligation to satisfy me or anyone.

It differs in that it is true, regardless of whether one takes it literally, as historical fact or as allegory.



footjunior said:


> Curiousness is part of being a Great Ape.



If this explains your curiosity, I will not argue the point. You are probably correct on this one.

Peace.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 14, 2009)

Again, footjunior is making futile stabs at understanding the Almighty God.
Live your life for Him and stop confusing yourself and others.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 14, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Baiting? Trolling?
> Yours is a rather pointed and obvious characterization that is unworthy of this forum.
> Never the less, two trees are specifically mentioned and were there before A & E. Rules were quite simple: Eat one; you're barred from the other. No anger, just enforcing His rules. God did exactly what He said He would do. He always keeps His word. They got the "prize" behind door #2 because they thought they would upgrade to a bigger, better possession rather than remaining stewards.



Baiting? Trolling? Isn't my characterization basically what happened in the garden? 



> Yep, satisfied, even though God is under no obligation to satisfy me or anyone. It differs in that it is true, regardless of whether one takes it literally, as historical fact or as allegory.



So it sounds ridiculous like all the other ones, but it's true because you were indoctrinated to believe it?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 14, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Most hypotheticals of this nature make assumptions that are patently false and in this case, the response of a man to the premise has no bearing on how God behaves or views things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Ronnie T said:


> Again, footjunior is making futile stabs at understanding the Almighty God.
> Live your life for Him and stop confusing yourself and others.



I couldn't have said it better myself.  Thanks guys.


----------



## footjunior (Jan 14, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself.  Thanks guys.



My hypothetical question is still out there, and you only have to answer it on the two premises given. It's a very simple question. Would you rather answer the question or continue to evade it?

Your silence is deafening.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 14, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Baiting? Trolling? Isn't my characterization basically what happened in the garden?
> 
> 
> 
> So it sounds ridiculous like all the other ones, but it's true because you were indoctrinated to believe it?



1) Highly biased, my friend.
2) "Sounds ridiculous" is your opinion. Carries no more weight than than the opinion of any one else. It is true, not because I believe it or say it, but because God said it. It does not even matter what your opinion is, so take whatever position on the subject you choose.

Peace.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 14, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The fact that some will not repent and receive is their choice, not His desire, but then He doesn't force His will upon any of us.



Not fact at all. Not Scriptural at all.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 14, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> Not fact at all. Not Scriptural at all.




Well sure it is scriptural.
Over and over again the New Testament urges everyone to "come" to God.  
To "Receive" the gospel.  
To "Accept" Jesus Christ.
To "Turn not away".
To "Choose the narrow road rather than wide.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 15, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Well sure it is scriptural.
> Over and over again the New Testament urges everyone to "come" to God.
> To "Receive" the gospel.
> To "Accept" Jesus Christ.
> ...



That is quite a "to do list" for a dead man.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will) but I've always been under the assumption that according to the Christian Bible, Jesus:

1. Created everything that has been, is and will ever be. I take this to mean that nothing will exist without Him making it. (OK so far?)


2. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will ever happen. Meaning, There are no surprises to Him. (Still OK?)

So, would it be a reasonable illustration to say that God is like a writer and he wrote this book called "The Story of Everything". This book has always existed in its completeness from before time (kinda whacky concept for me...) and on some page is the story of MY life. He should be able to point out the line on the page where it either says: "Ambush received the lord today and is promised a seat in Heaven." or "Ambush rejected the Lord and was thrown into the Pit of Eternal Suffering."

Remember, God is never surprised 'cause he knows everything.

Like in "Goldilocks". The bears come home and, "Oh my gosh! Someone ate my porridge!" But, we all know that the porridge is going to be eaten, furthermore we know that Goldilocks is sleeping in baby bears bed. The bears will be surprised (as they always will be when they find her). She will eat the porridge every time. She HAS to. And they will ALWAYS find her in baby bears bed. They HAVE to because the story's already written.

Tell me where my analogy fails.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 15, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will) but I've always been under the assumption that according to the Christian Bible, Jesus:
> 
> 1. Created everything that has been, is and will ever be. I take this to mean that nothing will exist without Him making it. (OK so far?)
> 
> ...



I think that is obvious. You are not a character in a novel, but a living organism. You are sentient and have free will. You have a soul. Jesus came so you might have eternal life.

Both Goldilocks and the bears are the mental constructs of a writer, expressed in written words. They are not sentient. They are not living entities and they do not have free wills or souls. Jesus did not come to save them.

Peace.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I think that is obvious. You are not a character in a novel, but a living organism. You are sentient and have free will. You have a soul. Jesus came so you might have eternal life.
> 
> Both Goldilocks and the bears are the mental constructs of a writer, expressed in written words. They are not sentient. They are not living entities and they do not have free wills or souls. Jesus did not come to save them.
> 
> Peace.



But am I right or wrong about "The Story of Everything" written by God?   

Does he have  a copy or doesn't he?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jan 16, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will) but I've always been under the assumption that according to the Christian Bible, Jesus:
> 
> 1. Created everything that has been, is and will ever be. I take this to mean that nothing will exist without Him making it. (OK so far?)
> 
> ...





gtparts said:


> I think that is obvious. You are not a character in a novel, but a living organism. You are sentient and have free will. You have a soul. Jesus came so you might have eternal life.
> 
> Both Goldilocks and the bears are the mental constructs of a writer, expressed in written words. They are not sentient. They are not living entities and they do not have free wills or souls. Jesus did not come to save them.
> 
> Peace.



I know this is just an analogy...and this is where gtparts and I will disagree...I don't believe in Free Will, so Ambush, I think your analogy is a pretty good one.

Oh boy, why do I feel like I'm stepping into something


----------



## gtparts (Jan 16, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I know this is just an analogy...and this is where gtparts and I will disagree...I don't believe in Free Will, so Ambush, I think your analogy is a pretty good one.
> 
> Oh boy, why do I feel like I'm stepping into something



Whether I have free will or the false perception of free will is really no biggie for me as long as I have Jesus and He has me.
My personal thoughts on the analogy is that existence is more "fluid" than a "scripted" book. Say I have 17 shirts in my closet. You're the accountant. How many permutations (options) do I have from wearing no shirt to wearing all 17 at once? Now figure the permutations based on the order of putting them on.. .... just kidding. I believe God has foreknowledge of all the possible ways in which I might  employ my shirt wardrobe and all possible consequences of the actions I might ultimately face as a result of that selection. I view it as a closed system, upon which He has set all limitations. Within that system, I have free will and He has the power and authority to override or tweak as He sees fit the circumstances to achieve His desired outcome.

That being said, I repeat.  

Whether I have free will or the false perception of free will is really no biggie for me as long as I have Jesus and He has me.

As for ambush80's analogy, I'll paraphrase a refrain from a song by Billy Joel:

"You may be right, I may be crazy
But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for
Turn out the light, won't try to save you
You may be wrong for all I know, but you may be right"

Peace.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 17, 2009)

gtparts said:


> As for ambush80's analogy, I'll paraphrase a refrain from a song by Billy Joel:
> 
> "You may be right, I may be crazy
> But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for
> ...



Be honest. Was anybody able to read that without hearing Billy Joel and putting it to music?


----------



## Israel (Jan 17, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> That is quite a "to do list" for a dead man.




Here I find myself in a quandry.

I believe GTparts is a spiritual man. (As are several others I believe, and I understand my opinion means nothing.
But because I believe I have been given the spirit of faith, I speak.)

Likewise, what few posts I have read by Gem I find inspired.

But I find that a recent terse response to GT by Gem may seem dismissive:

"Not fact at all. Not Scriptural at all. "

...well, I guess terse says what I mean.

Now, I know I am not going to solve or even adequately answer any of the divine mysteries of "being", and if one has not considered the mystery of being, it will all seem rather foolish anyway. 
Self awareness, or consciousness of being seems to be, for me, a rather fascinating and integral part of my faith.
The most amazing thing I usually come up against when I do stop to consider "being" is how absolutely prone I am to taking it for granted. I know this sounds silly on the face of it, for the only reason I can consider being is because "I am". I am totally incapable of considering me "not being"...indeed, it is a total contradiction and absurd statement for one to even think he can imagine "not being" for in the very imagining he must be.
Now I do not construct God (though some might disagree and say he IS just my construct, but be that as it may) on the basis of this. But what I do believe I receive is some understanding/revelation of why the Lord is "I am" to Moses, to us. 
He is the one who "is"...and our being if you will, because I do sense the tentativity of it, is less. 
For even though I can say "I am"... apart from God, I know my "am(ming)" is running out. I know I sound goofy. 
But I can perceive, (though for me all creation began personally when I became conscious) that there was a time when I "was not" (yes, there was a 1945, a 1611, a 33 AD...and there is soon coming a time when I "will not be" (here, or in any sense I can grasp)...yet despite this, there is something incontrovertible within me that states "being" exists.
And even though I cannot fathom not being I do believe being can, and will, go on without me.
For me then, it is no wonder God describes himself to us as the "I am", for he is the one who is, without time before (before is a funny word to God) or after (likewise comical).
Also, no wonder he is (described as, for he truly is!) all loving and gracious, to invite my little bit of being into his so it can be just as "amming" as he.
It's like, take your little bit of being, that short thing you perceive, protect, cherish, worship (but which every molecule of your being is screaming "I'm running out!!!") and by way of the cross, let it go, and I'll show you what real BEING is! (We know Jim Elliot grasped, and said it well.)
If we can say, like Paul, "I am what I am by the grace of God" (and I believe God wants that for each of us) we have said quite a bit.

I love the lavish extravagance of the Lord's death. (Some are in love with the "L" in tulip), but it is the utter, complete, total, unreserved abandonment by God of his "being" in every way so as to let men absolutely be free to show who "they are". In one real sense, by God getting completely "out of the way" if you will, men could not even fall back upon the canard of rebellion (and every one of us knows that compulsion to say...well, it's true it's a sunny day as you say, but I do see a cloud over there) That thing in us that always want to have the last word.
He who is life, died.
He who is righteousness became sin.
He who is above all and before all, and after all and through all, became subject as a creature, and as that creature, didn't come as a King, or even a merchant or householder, but the lowliest of the low, a servant... friend of lepers and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. (like me)
 God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. Receiving all back into himself that came out of himself, even receiving the death we had embraced instead of him (so as to safely separate us from it), and swallowing it all up in victory. And so complete a death and laying aside of glory that absolutely no one, not one, even those who may not be found in the "L" will have no response....except...You are indeed Lord.
Depart from me, I never knew you.

Now, we bathe in the comfort of the Holy Spirit.
Even the most depraved of us, demon possessed of us, demon agreeing, loving, worshiping of us, Christ denying of us, Christ mocking, hating, ignoring of us...swim in the currents of the Holy Spirit who is here. Just as we cannot imagine "non being", we know nothing of being separated from God and the hope that is in him. 
But Jesus said 

John 3: 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.John 3: 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.John 3: 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Men will get what they love.
Men will show who they are, and to whom they belong.
What belongs to the Father recognizes the Son.
What does not, cannot.

Galatians 1: 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen...

Paul wrote.

(so that the lightbulb may go off in them, too, if God will...but regardless, Christ is to be preached)

The word of God is just that...having all the power of God to accomplish his desire whether it be through Paul's mouth, or Jesus.
The physical mouth does not matter...only the origin of the word.
The difference with Jesus is we discover none of his words were his own. All originated through that faithful mouth in the Father. (and if you have not yet considered what Jesus' "own words" which he refused to utter may have been...just take up the cross and follow...you will learn the difference between what God says and what _you would say._ One has to die for the other to come forth. 

Paul again came to know very well what it meant to always be bearing the Lord's death so that life might be at work in others.

Speak what comes casually and makes you feel good, or righteous or, as GT understands, a christian "He man", and death will work. Bite your tongue, let the Lord's death stifle those words and wait for the Lord to open your mouth...and behold life. 
No more "fun" for us than it was for Jesus...but when the joy of life is beheld... fun and our own silly pleasure take their proper place in our consideration.

So, as usual, here I sit, thinking at first I was addressing perhaps a terseness from one brother to another that could be hurtful, and am left instead considering all the foolhardiness in which I so often indulge myself that is perfectly useless and void of the spirit.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 17, 2009)

Israel said:


> Likewise, what few posts I have read by Gem I find inspired.
> 
> But I find that a recent terse response to GT by Gem may seem dismissive:
> 
> ...



Israel, I appreciate that. Dismissive is not what I was after but terse is a good fit. I don't want folks to check their brains in at login. 

I am always glad to elaborate to the best of my ability if there is interest. I will take a curious person anytime over a know it all.

If I see a spark, I will fan the flame. That being said, the Gospel is offensive to many and I have offended plenty.

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## Israel (Jan 17, 2009)

gemcgrew said:


> Israel, I appreciate that. Dismissive is not what I was after but terse is a good fit. I don't want folks to check their brains in at login.
> 
> I am always glad to elaborate to the best of my ability if there is interest. I will take a curious person anytime over a know it all.
> 
> ...




Primarily just a response, maybe even an appeal, to a "newcomer"...not to the Lord, but here. (and forgive me if I have been missing your posts, or if you have been here for a while under another nic, or have returned to post after a silent period.)

Just that I believe you would find GT to be amongst the very thoughtful brothers, and not one given to offhandedness, especially in matters pertaining to the Lord.
All of the pitfalls inherent in communication are magnified online, and I believe you would find him more than ready and adequate to defend/explain anything he posts.

Willingly and without rancor.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 17, 2009)

Israel said:


> Primarily just a response, maybe even an appeal, to a "newcomer"...not to the Lord, but here. (and forgive me if I have been missing your posts, or if you have been here for a while under another nic, or have returned to post after a silent period.)
> 
> Just that I believe you would find GT to be amongst the very thoughtful brothers, and not one given to offhandedness, especially in matters pertaining to the Lord.
> All of the pitfalls inherent in communication are magnified online, and I believe you would find him more than ready and adequate to defend/explain anything he posts.
> ...



Understood and appreciated. I am new to this section and do not have a history in regards to anybody here. I realize while scrolling through the threads that I am seeing a small part of a persons understanding.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 17, 2009)

For what it is worth, dear brothers, I was not offended nor considered gem's reply offensive. Rightly or wrongly, I took his response to be from the Calvinist perspective and while I find ample scripture to support my understanding, I also appreciate that there exists a body of scripture and thought that lends support to the opposing view. It is not nor should be an issue that Christians use to abuse each other. If we have Christ and He us, then we should also have each other.

Peace.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 18, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Whether I have free will or the false perception of free will is really no biggie for me as long as I have Jesus and He has me.
> My personal thoughts on the analogy is that existence is more "fluid" than a "scripted" book. Say I have 17 shirts in my closet. You're the accountant. How many permutations (options) do I have from wearing no shirt to wearing all 17 at once? Now figure the permutations based on the order of putting them on.. .... just kidding. I believe God has foreknowledge of all the possible ways in which I might  employ my shirt wardrobe and all possible consequences of the actions I might ultimately face as a result of that selection. I view it as a closed system, upon which He has set all limitations. Within that system, I have free will and He has the power and authority to override or tweak as He sees fit the circumstances to achieve His desired outcome.
> 
> That being said, I repeat.
> ...




So you understand that the bears will ALWAYS be surprised that Goldilocks is sleeping in baby bear's bed and that in fact Goldilocks will ALWAYS end up in baby bears bed?  NO deviation?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 18, 2009)

gtparts said:


> That being said, I repeat.
> 
> Whether I have free will or the false perception of free will is really no biggie for me as long as I have Jesus and He has me.
> 
> ...



The lyrics are:

"You may be right
I may be crazy
But it just may be a lunatic you're looking for
Turn out the light
_Don't _try to save _me_
You may be wrong for all I know
But you may be right"

A very different concept entirely.


----------



## Israel (Jan 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> The lyrics are:
> 
> "You may be right
> I may be crazy
> ...



Origin and Meaning of the Name Joel


Gender: Boy

Origin: Hebrew

Meaning: The Lord is God

Since we are on Billy Joel and divine inspiration I proffer these lyrics...



If you search for tenderness
it isn't hard to find.
You can have the love you need to live.
But if you look for truthfulness
You might just as well be blind.
It always seems to be so hard to give.

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

I can always find someone
to say they sympathize.
If I wear my heart out on my sleeve.
But I don't want some pretty face
to tell me pretty lies.
All I want is someone to believe.

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.

I can find a lover.
I can find a friend.
I can have security until the bitter end.
Anyone can comfort me
with promises again.
I know, I know.

When I'm deep inside of me
don't be too concerned.
I won't ask for nothin' while I'm gone.
But when I want sincerity
tell me where else can I turn.
Because you're the one I depend upon.

Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you. 

Those lyrics always hit me in the heart, for the search for comfort always seems to be at odds with the search for truth.
Yet we discover in the Lord that the hard truth that steals our comfort is precisely what we need to expose the shallow, temporal ease we are inclined to pursue and reveal the eternal and immeasurable pleasures of knowing God.

There's no "bad" news in the good news, just the very minor discomfort of being woken from a dead sleep.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> So you understand that the bears will ALWAYS be surprised that Goldilocks is sleeping in baby bear's bed and that in fact Goldilocks will ALWAYS end up in baby bears bed?  NO deviation?



I think I have a rudimentary grasp of both fairy tales and the instability of written words. Until and unless modified , I would expect that the bears will ALWAYS be surprised that Goldilocks is sleeping in baby bear's bed and that in fact Goldilocks will ALWAYS end up in baby bears bed.

Now , my question to you is this: Do you realize the slight change in the lyrics was intentional on my part? (rhetorical, thank you)
 I also understand it is not a true paraphrase, but rather an alteration to more accurately characterize the particular circumstance.

Peace.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 21, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I think I have a rudimentary grasp of both fairy tales and the instability of written words. _Until and unless modified _,
> 
> So in regards to the "Book of Life", which I assume is never modified, there is a record of  everything that is, was or will ever be.  Therefore, there must be some line on some page that documents the time and cause of my death as well as the condition of my "soul" at that moment.
> 
> ...




I didn't know that your changing of the lyrics was intentional.

Actually, I think the most relevant part of those lyrics (in regards to the topic of this thread) is:  

"You may be wrong for all I know but you may be right"  

That's how I operate.  

What would be the result of everyone adopting that attitude towards people of other faiths and beliefs?


----------

