How can a timeless and unchanging god appear to react and change when interacting with humans?

[Edgarcito]

The next presentation will be John and Walter with their version of the GUT....no, THE GUT,.....no, wait, their version of....

 

Doesn't matter, the Mods and company at ExC are always right....

 

I digress.....morons.

[walterpthefirst]

57 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Time implies change DB.  Walter says God is unchanging yet builds a capsule of change where he is not.  Again how does that work?  Same thing for God as Satan....the spoonfed argument you want me to pursue.  How does God act as deception?  And you said there were many other scriptures to boot.  You're angry because the whole thing is threatening your position.

 

Walter cannot explain how these things work.

 

Nobody can.

 

The examples I give (the man building the house) must necessarily come from our experience within time.

 

And so they cannot be applied literally to god's timeless eternity.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Walter cannot explain how these things work.

 

Nobody can.

 

The examples I give (the man building the house) must necessarily come from our experience within time.

 

And so they cannot be applied literally to god's timeless eternity.

 

 

 

 

THEN YOU OWE A FUCKING APOLOGY TO EVERYONE IN THIS ENTIRE FORUM

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then he needs to correct his logic. 

It's not his logic that applies here, Ed.  He is merely pointing out what your Bible says about your god.  You disagree?  Take it up with jesus.

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You've said that several times.  I'm faithful with regard to scripture that I don't completely understand.  It actually says that we won't.  So either you have an opinion or your mantra is to aggravate....or that you have an opinion.  Logic is an opinion.

 

I wish you were faithful with regard to me.

 

That if you don't understand what I've written, you just say so.

 

But if you are mistaken or misrepresenting me, that is not a problem.

 

 

Even if logic is an opinion (debatable) surely for you, scripture is not?

 

And if scripture says that god does not change, shouldn't you accept that, Edgarcito?

 

As  a Christian?

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then you are claiming that YOU know the predestined parts and none of the rest of us do.  That what you are saying?

 

The mods at ExC knows that Adam and Eve were predestined/controlled by God?

No.  This is another instance of you injecting your own interpretation onto someone else's argument in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

THEN YOU OWE A FUCKING APOLOGY TO EVERYONE IN THIS ENTIRE FORUM

 

No.

 

You took something that was clearly a didactic example literally.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  This is another instance of you injecting your own interpretation onto someone else's argument in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. 

I'm sorry, I forgot you and Walter were incarnate Spocks...my bad.  Live, Life, Logic brother.

[walterpthefirst]

Scripture also tells us that god is eternal and that time itself was created by god.  Being its creator, god is the master of time.  Time is not not god's master.  If we take the analogy of a man building a house, once it is complete the man is not obliged by the house to live within it.  The man is the one with the ability to create, not the house.  The man is the one with the ability to choose, not the house.  The house is just something made by the man to serve him and it has no power over how the man chooses to live.  

 

This is what I wrote.

 

It's a mistake to take an analogy literally.

 

I don't need to apologize for using an analogy in my explanations.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Scripture also tells us that god is eternal and that time itself was created by god.  Being its creator, god is the master of time.  Time is not not god's master.  If we take the analogy of a man building a house, once it is complete the man is not obliged by the house to live within it.  The man is the one with the ability to create, not the house.  The man is the one with the ability to choose, not the house.  The house is just something made by the man to serve him and it has no power over how the man chooses to live.  

 

This is what I wrote.

 

It's a mistake to take an analogy literally.

 

I don't need to apologize for using an analogy in my explanations.

 

 

 

 

So in summary, the created chooses and per John, they are separate.

 

I see this as a Sportsmans Double.  Someone show @sdelsolray my work please.  He will appreciate the quality.

[mwc]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then what parts are predestined? All?  Some?

     I would say all.

 

     From my previous example that you seemed to be on-board with.  If god were to appear to you to tomorrow, and god was always there, then it would be foolish for god to always be there if you're going to be out of town tomorrow.  He would appear to no one.

 

     In order for god to have perfect knowledge across eternity (which includes all points in time) then he would have to know where you will be tomorrow with absolute certainty.  It cannot mean that he discovered this information spontaneously tomorrow even though this sounds reasonable since we tend to acquire information that way.

 

     The reason is if god only discovers this information as needed then that makes god bound to time.  He becomes linear like you.  Carried along the river of time like the rest of us.  So he would be ignorant of the future until he encounters it.  He could be all-knowing of all things of which have happened to some point in time he's been carried along to but no more.  He wouldn't know who is to be born, how they will live, how the world will end.  None of these things.  We're told otherwise though which rules this concept of god out.  He must know more.

 

     So god always possessed (and possesses) this information.  He doesn't learn anything.  In order to meet you he has always known he will meet you and where.  You cannot, by any means, deviate from what god knows.

 

           mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm sorry, I forgot you and Walter were incarnate Spocks...my bad.  Live, Life, Logic brother.

That doesn't address the fact that I made no such argument as you claimed I made, Ed.  Not trying to imply that you're intentionally being deceitful here (we both know you are); but you really should stick strictly to the arguments people actually make.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That doesn't address the fact that I made no such argument as you claimed I made, Ed.  Not trying to imply that you're intentionally being deceitful here (we both know you are); but you really should stick strictly to the arguments people actually make.

No John, I'm being as honest in understanding as I can.  Even more so, trying to create a scenario that explains your position as I understood it.  I see what Walter did as very nice.....similar to what Wheezer did several months back....a sincere disclosure.  Which helps me trust and change my attitude.  I appreciate what Walter did.  

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I would say all.

 

     From my previous example that you seemed to be on-board with.  If god were to appear to you to tomorrow, and god was always there, then it would be foolish for god to always be there if you're going to be out of town tomorrow.  He would appear to no one.

 

     In order for god to have perfect knowledge across eternity (which includes all points in time) then he would have to know where you will be tomorrow with absolute certainty.  It cannot mean that he discovered this information spontaneously tomorrow even though this sounds reasonable since we tend to acquire information that way.

 

     The reason is if god only discovers this information as needed then that makes god bound to time.  He becomes linear like you.  Carried along the river of time like the rest of us.  So he would be ignorant of the future until he encounters it.  He could be all-knowing of all things of which have happened to some point in time he's been carried along to but no more.  He wouldn't know who is to be born, how they will live, how the world will end.  None of these things.  We're told otherwise though which rules this concept of god out.  He must know more.

 

     So god always possessed (and possesses) this information.  He doesn't learn anything.  In order to meet you he has always known he will meet you and where.  You cannot, by any means, deviate from what god knows.

 

           mwc

 

Not sure I have a problem with this in my cursory reading.  I've never been a pantheist even though Antlerman really would have preferred I believed that way....and Josh.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No John, I'm being as honest in understanding as I can.  Even more so, trying to create a scenario that explains your position as I understood it.  I see what Walter did as very nice.....similar to what Wheezer did several months back....a sincere disclosure.  Which helps me trust and change my attitude.  I appreciate what Walter did.  

None of that is relevant; but, okay, glad you and Walt have found an understanding. 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

None of that is relevant; but, okay, glad you and Walt have found an understanding. 

My answer was directly relevant to you calling me deceitful.  Thanks. With regard to your arguments.  You and Walter are about the same on that.  One minute it's "my Bible" regardless of whether it's your logic applied to "my Bible".  Same with you.  You just default to science.  I didn't say that from me as I only go as far as science allows.

 

What the fuck ever dude...

[mwc]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Not sure I have a problem with this in my cursory reading.  I've never been a pantheist even though Antlerman really would have preferred I believed that way....and Josh.

     Well, I am most certainly not making a case for pantheism.

 

     But maybe there's some confusion?  Very simply put pantheism would be that god is everything or that the universe is a manifestation of god.  If this isn't how you understand it then it would be helpful if you explained.

 

     All physical or spiritual beings and/or objects are only god when they are defined as god otherwise they are unique unto themselves.  So in xian theology only the triune-godhead is god all else is not god.

 

          mwc

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I digress.....morons

 

You're the one with a made up personal theology because you can't comprehend, defend, or give up the bible. And we are morons........ ? 

 

Ok.... yeah thats the only possible conclusion  

 

If you're a true southerner, then you probably know what I'm saying when I say:

 

Bless your heart Ed! You are a VERY special person. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

33 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Well, I am most certainly not making a case for pantheism.

 

     But maybe there's some confusion?  Very simply put pantheism would be that god is everything or that the universe is a manifestation of god.  If this isn't how you understand it then it would be helpful if you explained.

 

     All physical or spiritual beings and/or objects are only god when they are defined as god otherwise they are unique unto themselves.  So in xian theology only the triune-godhead is god all else is not god.

 

          mwc

 

I didn't mean to imply you did.  I do see God as omnipresent.  I see God as omnipotent but not always choosing to use that power.  I even believe omnibenevolent.... that we could comprehend that.  I can rationalize creation being itself God but more see nature and us as separate.  

 

If we are all physical then we are subject to that which subjects us.  So we then would need to disregard our objective nature as just a property.

 

If our objective nature is more than physical, then I believe there is more to our subjection....more that just subjection to the environment/universe.  

 

I think as we are both objective and subjective in nature, then we are more than just subjective alone.  The key is if we "transcend", then what is it we are transcending with.  Pantheism appears to be a constant transcendence.  I don't feel nor see that.  I do think that whatever it is that is there is always there and interjecting sometimes on request and sometimes just randomly. 

 

So I'm with Forrest Gump.....I think it's a little of both...

[Edgarcito]

Just now, DarkBishop said:

 

You're the one with a made up personal theology because you can't comprehend, defend, or give up the bible. And we are morons........ ? 

 

Ok.... yeah thats the only possible conclusion  

 

If you're a true southerner, then you probably know what I'm saying when I say:

 

God Bless you Ed. You are a VERY special person. 

 

DB

Actually it's "bless your heart"  But I got it lol, thanks.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Actually you're right. My bad. I've heard it both ways. But that one is better. 

 

I will immediately correct my mistake.  

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

55 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

My answer was directly relevant to you calling me deceitful.  Thanks. With regard to your arguments.  You and Walter are about the same on that.  One minute it's "my Bible" regardless of whether it's your logic applied to "my Bible".  Same with you.  You just default to science.  I didn't say that from me as I only go as far as science allows.

 

What the fuck ever dude...

Okay.  This tells me that you still don't understand.  That's unfortunate. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

So in summary, the created chooses and per John, they are separate.

 

I see this as a Sportsmans Double.  Someone show @sdelsolray my work please.  He will appreciate the quality.

 

I can't understand what you mean here, Ed.

 

Sorry.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

     I would say all.

 

     From my previous example that you seemed to be on-board with.  If god were to appear to you to tomorrow, and god was always there, then it would be foolish for god to always be there if you're going to be out of town tomorrow.  He would appear to no one.

 

     In order for god to have perfect knowledge across eternity (which includes all points in time) then he would have to know where you will be tomorrow with absolute certainty.  It cannot mean that he discovered this information spontaneously tomorrow even though this sounds reasonable since we tend to acquire information that way.

 

     The reason is if god only discovers this information as needed then that makes god bound to time.  He becomes linear like you.  Carried along the river of time like the rest of us.  So he would be ignorant of the future until he encounters it.  He could be all-knowing of all things of which have happened to some point in time he's been carried along to but no more.  He wouldn't know who is to be born, how they will live, how the world will end.  None of these things.  We're told otherwise though which rules this concept of god out.  He must know more.

 

     So god always possessed (and possesses) this information.  He doesn't learn anything.  In order to meet you he has always known he will meet you and where.  You cannot, by any means, deviate from what god knows.

 

           mwc

 

 

My thanks to mwc for elegantly expressing the concept.  He is bang on target!

 

 

I will add only this.

 

According to scripture, god MUST know the future in advance and MUST know it perfectly.  Otherwise, King David, writing down the words of Psalm 139, under the guidance of the holy spirit, would be declaring false information about god.  And how then can the bible be inerrant and infallible if it contains false information about god?

 

Psalm 139 : 16

Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.

 

Another example of how god MUST know the future perfectly is the role his prophets play in predicting the coming of Jesus Christ.  If god did not know every detail of future events then he couldn't inform his prophets to foretell the circumstances of Jesus' birth.

 

Isaiah 7 : 14

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

 

God himself even describes his foreknowledge of the future and how he causes things that he has ordained to happen to come to pass.  If he had no knowledge of the future the following verse would be a lie.  

 

Isaiah 48 : 3

 I foretold the former things long ago,
    my mouth announced them and I made them known;
    then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass.

 

This confirms it. 

Because god is omniscient he has perfect foreknowledge of everything he has ordained to happen within the count of time.  He is not reacting to events he had no knowledge of, as they happen.  Instead he is acting on the plan of ordained events that he decided long ago.

 

The Bible is telling us, directly from god's own mouth that he MUST know the future.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     Well, I am most certainly not making a case for pantheism.

 

     But maybe there's some confusion?  Very simply put pantheism would be that god is everything or that the universe is a manifestation of god.  If this isn't how you understand it then it would be helpful if you explained.

 

     All physical or spiritual beings and/or objects are only god when they are defined as god otherwise they are unique unto themselves.  So in xian theology only the triune-godhead is god all else is not god.

 

          mwc

 

 

Again, my thanks go out to mwc for elegantly expressing the concept.