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

[walterpthefirst]

Oh well...

 

We will be back here sooner or later, Ed.

 

Ultimately any thread about anything to do with Christianity must return to the origin of suffering.

 

See you whenever that happens!

[Edgarcito]

18 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Oh well...

 

We will be back here sooner or later, Ed.

 

Ultimately any thread about anything to do with Christianity must return to the origin of suffering.

 

See you whenever that happens!

Kind of funny your perspective actually....God has made you a subjectively unique douchebag....  That must suck sir.  Good news is you have your wife....but the situation is still relative....so there's that.

[walterpthefirst]

Do you see what your emotional commitment to your beliefs has done to you, Ed?

 

They've robbed you of the willingness to give honest answers to direct questions.

 

They've filled you with fear that your dearly-held beliefs might be threatened by an honest answer.

 

And this fear has caused you to resort to ad hominems and personal attacks against me.

 

For which I forgive you and ask the Prof to take no action against you.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yeah.  That could have gone differently.  

 

Both of you need to take a break and cool down.  Pick this up later.

 

Thanks.

[walterpthefirst]

Suits me.

[Edgarcito]

Problem is some of us are bent on ending suffering through rebirth while other are still blaming and wanting others to join the suffering.  Thinking this is scriptural...

 

And I shall gladly participate in this idea through faith rather than the alternative here on display...

[walterpthefirst]

Prof,

 

 

What would you like me to do with this thread?

 

I created it for Edgarcito's benefit and now he doesn't seem to want to take any further productive part in it.

 

I have yet to the complete the final stage - a full explanation of how an eternal and unchanging god can appear to interact with and react to humans during the count of time.

 

So, would you like me to finish that?

 

And if so, should I interact with Ed as I do that or just ignore him and finish the job?

 

Please advise and I will do as you would like.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Prof,

 

 

What would you like me to do with this thread?

 

I created it for Edgarcito's benefit and now he doesn't seem to want to take any further productive part in it.

 

I have yet to the complete the final stage - a full explanation of how an eternal and unchanging god can appear to interact with and react to humans during the count of time.

 

So, would you like me to finish that?

 

And if so, should I interact with Ed as I do that or just ignore him and finish the job?

 

Please advise and I will do as you would like.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

You've already answered it you dick.  God, therefore God.  Shut the fuck up already....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@walterpthefirst, I want you both to take a couple of days off.  Calm down and think things through.  Then we (Ed included) will figure out how to proceed.  Thank you. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

You've already answered it you dick.  God, therefore God.  Shut the fuck up already....

Mind out, Ed.  You can talk to me like that; but I won't tolerate you talking to other members that way.

[Edgarcito]

The difference John.  "Devil's advocate" says enough.  His intent is not help people understand God or no God, Christianity, agnosticism, etc., but merely to harass as a point of participation.  It's very easy to see that "do you want me to continue" has little to do with helping anyone, rather harassing me specifically....or Aik, or any of the last several Christian visitors.  Then, capped off with a very simplistic take on the entire Christian religion......God, therefore God.  You don't have to argue ANYTHING with that belief, hence the supposition that his intent is sinister.   

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The difference John.  "Devil's advocate" says enough.  His intent is not help people understand God or no God, Christianity, agnosticism, etc., but merely to harass as a point of participation.  It's very easy to see that "do you want me to continue" has little to do with helping anyone, rather harassing me specifically....or Aik, or any of the last several Christian visitors.  Then, capped off with a very simplistic take on the entire Christian religion......God, therefore God.  You don't have to argue ANYTHING with that belief, hence the supposition that his intent is sinister.   

 

 

Okay, y'all two can work all that out in couples therapy.  But, for now, for this thread, give it a rest and take some time off.  This is neither a request nor a suggestion. 

 

We'll figure it all out when tempers aren't up and emotions aren't raw.

[walterpthefirst]

What Is the Omnipotence of God? Definition and Bible Meaning (christianity.com)

 

Our English word “omnipotence” originates from Latin. “Omni” means all, and “potent” means power. Thus, when we speak of the omnipotence of God, we declare Him All Powerful or All Mighty.

Three “omnis” of God credit to Him, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. These three acknowledge Him as All-Powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Present (or everywhere present). All three involve the other two as a whole and are inseparable attributes of God.

 

 

Why is this so?  Why are god's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence inseparable?  I will explain.

 

If god were not omnipresent that would mean that there was a location, somewhere in the universe, where god is not.  Not being present there would mean that he wouldn't have the ability to know everything about that location.  So, by not being omnipresent, he ceases to be omniscient.  And then, because he isn't at this location and doesn't know everything about it he couldn't exercise complete power (omnipotence) in that location, over that location.

 

This is what King David was alluding to in Psalm 139.

 

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.  

 

So, if we say that god is not greater than and master of time, we are demoting god and promoting time, making it the master.  This is clearly contrary to scripture.  A god who is forced to live within time by time itself would be a slave and a servant to it, unable to be omnipotent.  After all, if god is limited to functioning within the count of time, who has the omnipotence?  The all power?  God or time? 

 

Not god.  Time would be the true master of all things, including god.  

 

Therefore, since the idea of god being limited to working within time is both anti-biblical and contrary to the logic of scripture, we can discard this idea.  

 

God must therefore be eternal and timeless, just as the bible says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@Edgarcito

 

You almost made a very good point on the page prior to this one. I thought of it as well. And I hope you bring it back up. I would like to see how Walter counters it. I think you are going to have to answer his question first. As to if God knew what would happen and let it happen? The obvious answer if you believe God is all knowing is yes. But there are reasons that there are 38,000 Christian denominations. It doesn't say just one thing. You have grounds for a counter argument. You might need to actually crack open the bible tho. 

 

I applaude Walter's explanation of this point. It has been phenomenal in my opinion. Having never been a calvinist myself but being confused while I was a believer about this subject, I also took the "primarily " free will stance.  But had always seen the scripture that looked like it talked about predestination. I greatly enjoy learning the ins and outs of beliefs I never held, especially now as a none believer. Because for me it all gives credence to what scholars have been discovering over the past few hundred years. There are conflicting ideologies within the leather bound pages of the Bible. And church leaders were all trying to get their opinions and personal theologies accepted. And a lot of that mixed bag of ideas made it in. 

 

I know your probably not done @walterpthefirst but I've really enjoyed learning this from you. 

 

Sincerely,

Dark Bishop

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

@Edgarcito

 

You almost made a very good point on the page prior to this one. I thought of it as well. And I hope you bring it back up. I would like to see how Walter counters it. I think you are going to have to answer his question first. As to if God knew what would happen and let it happen? The obvious answer if you believe God is all knowing is yes. But there are reasons that there are 38,000 Christian denominations. It doesn't say just one thing. You have grounds for a counter argument. You might need to actually crack open the bible tho. 

 

I applaude Walter's explanation of this point. It has been phenomenal in my opinion. Having never been a calvinist myself but being confused while I was a believer about this subject, I also took the "primarily " free will stance.  But had always seen the scripture that looked like it talked about predestination. I greatly enjoy learning the ins and outs of beliefs I never held, especially now as a none believer. Because for me it all gives credence to what scholars have been discovering over the past few hundred years. There are conflicting ideologies within the leather bound pages of the Bible. And church leaders were all trying to get their opinions and personal theologies accepted. And a lot of that mixed bag of ideas made it in. 

 

I know your probably not done @walterpthefirst but I've really enjoyed learning this from you. 

 

Sincerely,

Dark Bishop

I don't think we have enough information DB.  No one that I know or have read can give reasoning to the snake's extra information in Eden.  Is there some entity capable of deception and still in the presence of God.....and all the questions that arise from that.  I understand everyone's point, but the questions I ask seemingly get glossed over.  

 

I put Walter on ignore....the ignore function is now working thanks to one of the mod's help.  I can see when he posts but don't intend on any interaction in the near future.  I commented so you could understand the status..Thanks!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No one that I know or have read can give reasoning to the snake's extra information in Eden. 

I feel like the real reason you're stuck on this question is because it keeps you from asking, "Why did Adam not have that extra information directly from god?"  Lucifer was originally an angel; it's not illogical to assume he was privy to god's plan and the information involved.  Even before he was cast out of heaven. 

 

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Is there some entity capable of deception and still in the presence of God

As we have seen in several recent threads, god himself is capable of deception.  I'm assuming god is always in his own presence.  So, yes, god is an entity capable of deception while still in the presence of god.

 

...

 

I know these are "easy" answers; and you know it, too.  Which is why I conclude you refuse to accept these answers; because as long as you can keep asking questions, you don't have to face the truth.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

43 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I feel like the real reason you're stuck on this question is because it keeps you from asking, "Why did Adam not have that extra information directly from god?"  Lucifer was originally an angel; it's not illogical to assume he was privy to god's plan and the information involved.  Even before he was cast out of heaven. 

 

As we have seen in several recent threads, god himself is capable of deception.  I'm assuming god is always in his own presence.  So, yes, god is an entity capable of deception while still in the presence of god.

 

...

 

I know these are "easy" answers; and you know it, too.  Which is why I conclude you refuse to accept these answers; because as long as you can keep asking questions, you don't have to face the truth.

 

 

Again John, because you have "concluded" doesn't mean that the truth is anywhere close to your conclusion.  

 

But let's follow your trail as it's always an interesting exercise.  So let's place all these things under the heading God.  And let's also place them as manifestations of God....as well as we can.  Good, neutral, and evil.  And let's assume God is placed neutral man in the path of his testing his own manifestation of good and evil.  

 

So now we have manifestations in the Garden....Good God, God as the snake, and God as humanity.  

And skipping right to the end, we know that Good God manifestation wins through the ultimate end of the snake manifestation and portions of the once neutral human manifestation.  In your opinion, Good God doesn't actually suffer, through Christ, but not really, yet God as humanity damn sure does....(which doesn't count as God actually suffering.... because you have conveniently now separated the manifestations), and the snake doesn't suffer until later.

 

So in the early garden we had good, neutral, and evil manifestations, And in the end we have good and neutral converted to good.....and the end of the evil.  

 

We can assume God suffers because we suffer.

 

Anything you wish to add amigo?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But let's follow your trail as it's always an interesting exercise.  So let's place all these things under the heading God.  And let's also place them as manifestations of God

Don't know whose trail you're trying to follow here; but it ain't mine.  I place nothing under the heading "god", except, you know... god.

 

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And let's assume God is placed neutral man in the path of his testing his own manifestation of good and evil.  

No.  I do not agree to that assumption.  It's merely your personal interpretation; not what the scripture actually says.

 

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

So now we have manifestations in the Garden....Good God, God as the snake, and God as humanity.  

Again, not my trail you're following here.  This is,  again, merely your assertion based on your personal interpretation, not based on what scripture actually says.

 

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And skipping right to the end, we know that Good God manifestation wins through the ultimate end of the snake manifestation and portions of the once neutral human manifestation. 

"Wins" by condemning said manifestations to eternal damnation.  Yeah, a real good god you have, there, sport.

 

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

In your opinion, Good God doesn't actually suffer, through Christ, but not really, yet God as humanity damn sure does....(which doesn't count as God actually suffering.... because you have conveniently now separated the manifestations)

I haven't separated them, Ed.  god  has.  god is the one who has declared that he is above us, that we are made lower than the angels, that his ways are not our ways.  You disagree with scripture?  Welcome to ex-christian.  We all do too.

 

17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So in the early garden we had good, neutral, and evil manifestations, And in the end we have good and neutral converted to good.....and the end of the evil. 

Ed, so long as billions of people are suffering for all eternity, evil will never end.  Until the god who designed such infinite suffering is no more, evil will never end.

 

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

We can assume God suffers because we suffer.

No, we cannot.  Because god is the cause of our suffering.  He designed it.  He has the power to stop it, but refuses to do so.  The god of the bible is simply evil, Ed; none of your cherry-picking and personal interpretating is going to change that.

 

21 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Anything you wish to add amigo?

No.  You? 

[Edgarcito]

Somewhere in there we need to incorporate power and capability hierarchy.  That might be the tough part given it's all God.  But shoot, let's give it that ole college try.

 

One thing we can rule out is humanity....we are already declared as "in the image", and can't see totally, and lower than.  Except for God/man, Jesus.  He's fully man, fully God, but not neutral man.

 

And I only have my personal thoughts about Good God.....that of formless basically, just something, not sure what.  Certainly he wins the power battle.  And back to the crux, what capabilities does the snake manifestation have, that we all essentially have agreed is Satan.  I personally can't see him as on the same level as Good God, but it's on record that Good God has given control over to him.

 

Gonna stop there for a moment as my brain is tired.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Somewhere in there we need to incorporate power and capability hierarchy.  That might be the tough part given it's all God.  But shoot, let's give it that ole college try.

 

One thing we can rule out is humanity....we are already declared as "in the image", and can't see totally, and lower than.  Except for God/man, Jesus.  He's fully man, fully God, but not neutral man.

 

And I only have my personal thoughts about Good God.....that of formless basically, just something, not sure what.  Certainly he wins the power battle.  And back to the crux, what capabilities does the snake manifestation have, that we all essentially have agreed is Satan.  I personally can't see him as on the same level as Good God, but it's on record that Good God has given control over to him.

 

Gonna stop there for a moment as my brain is tired.

I thought you wanted to talk about why the talking snake had extra information.  Weren't you whining just a little while ago that everyone glazed over your questions?  Well, I gave you an answer; but you're completely ignoring it in favor of these word salads about manifestations, and snake gods, and humanity gods.  Damn.  Bad enough you avoid our questions; now you're avoiding your own. 

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I thought you wanted to talk about why the talking snake had extra information.  Weren't you whining just a little while ago that everyone glazed over your questions?  Well, I gave you an answer; but you're completely ignoring it in favor of these word salads about manifestations, and snake gods, and humanity gods.  Damn.  Bad enough you avoid our questions; now you're avoiding your own. 

No, I'm just actually trying to go down the road of discussion that you say I am avoiding.  So here's your or anyone's chance to talk about it.  

 

For example, good and evil.  There's no separation in the ExC mind because the argument is God created evil.  So here I am entertaining just that.  Evil would HAVE to be a manifestation of God....no separation.  How may one be solely responsible for all creation yet a part of it not be a manifestation of itself?  Hence my scenario God is doing battle with himself with humanity as a component of the battle.  

 

It's not word salad at all John.  Either you're smart enough to imagine the scenario or not.  

[Edgarcito]

Walter is essentially saying there is no separation, predestined, God knew, yet God still somehow reacts in real time as separate entities.  And he wanted to explain that so that I might understand.  Apparently you don't understand either.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter is essentially saying there is no separation yet God still somehow reacts in real time as separate entities.  And he wanted to explain that so that I might understand.  Apparently you don't understand either.

Mmmmmmmm maybe you shouldn't have muted him before his last post. Because that's not what he said.

 

 

Basically for God everything has already been done. He has seen the whole future and decided how he wanted it to go. To the end of revelations I suppose. Therfore he is unchanging even if he appears to have changed through the scripture. The past, present, and future are set in stone and unchanging. 

 

Therefore predestination.

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

15 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Mmmmmmmm maybe you shouldn't have muted him before his last post. Because that's not what he said.

Pr maybe I missed something while trying to hit the highlights. 

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

Pr maybe I missed something while trying to hit the highlights. 

I don't have a problem with what you interpreted.  One would have to gather that God is watching our real time happen outside of time?