Tribo,

I grow tired of the revisionist history and your constant desire to find things to argue with me about.

Peccy questioned God's ability (assuming an omniscient, omnipotent God) to observe all of humanity. I asked him for logic to support his belief that an omniscient, omnipotent God couldn't observe all of humanity and he refused to do so and responded "common sense".

My logic is easy to follow and is actually transparent based on the words used. Omniscient means that the being is aware of all events in the universe.

Do you know even read this stuff before you jump in? YOU AGREED WITH ME. WTF? I mean seriously. Arguing when you don't even know the topic in question. It's really sad and proves the attitude that you and JB take when reading my posts. Even when you would agree with me you disagree. Read Peccy and my posts on the first page, so you can know what you guys are disagreeing with me about.

So JB jumps in with her nasty comments and attacks to my "logic"...HONEST TO GOD, SHE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT PECCY AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT. Come forward, all those who believe that an omniscient being wouldn't know what all humans are doing. Explain your reasoning. Let's hear it. And don't whine "I don't believe in an omniscient God", because you don't have to in order to answer the question. IF AN OMNISCIENT GOD EXISTED, WOULD SUCH A GOD KNOW WHAT HUMANS ARE DOING?

:frustrated


OH WELL :

Tribo,

I really wish you could look deep down into yourself and find a way to discuss topics while being honest and fair. Neither you nor JB knew why I posted to Peccy, but you both wanted to get in your hits. If that's how you want to behave, then so be it, but both of you are capable of much better.

dear spider, i was being honest and fair, i told you how i see it but you don't get it. It to me is not about what pecci said it is about your take on what you believe and have faith in and how you set up your questions. again - for me to answer your question on - is an omniscient being, omnipotent being as you believe in capable of seeing everything at once, for me to answer you i have to come inside your realm of faith and belief, just as JB, pecci, or others.

Since i don't believe in an all omnipotent god as your god, i have no choice but to enter your world of faith in order to answer you. by doing so as i have i have to set my beliefs aside to do so. when i do that you control the answers by that which you believe. If i stay outside and don't answer, then you feel you have won some type of debate, but you have only won something inside of your beliefs, which does no good for any but you and others of the same mind. it really proves nothing in the long run. Just that your capable of winning a debate when the rules are set forth that one has to think within your faith boundaries.
a better way to have posed your questions would have been - do you believe in a omnipotent all seeing god? if the answer had been yes, then the conversation could have moved forward, if no - then it could have been made a moot point and ended. your phraseology has much to do with the responses you get in return. You can blame us if you want, its OK, but think on this also, most of what you speak of now is off topic to the original post anyway, you would have been better off starting another post with pecci on this if you wanted to discuss it further correct?

Tribo,

You are a human, which means you have the ability of rational thought. You don't have to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God to answer the question. If I asked you "Can man split an atom", you wouldn't have to be an atom or a nuclear scientist to answer the question. Someone could say "If you were a woman, would you get an abortion?" You don't have to be a woman to answer the question, it should be based on your principles and understanding of the concepts. It's called critical thinking, which you are capable of. Your position is fallacious for that reason. You can look at the definitions and answer the question, you have the power. You choose not to, because doing so would cause you to agree with me.

No offense but...

Would an omniscient god care... With the whole universe, everything beyond it, and whatever is beyond that...

Why even bother with a quarrelsome little monkey like humans.

By the way did you know you are adam.

I have not read any of the posts in this thread. I'm just answering the opening post.

There so many divisions because the people who are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, don't let him guide them.
why? simply because of human nature.
we tend to think that we own the truth, we always want what we want and at the time we want it.
so if john doe didn't like what john smith said in the flying pigs church, then john doe opens a new church called the walking dunkeys church.
that is the reason why we see so many subdivisions after Luther's Reformation.
Within the Catholic Church there has been just 2 big schisms:

- The Eastern schism. (a mere diference in rites and ofcourse the old one "The Pope.")

- Luther's reformation (and from Luther and Calvin we have all the other subdivisions)

Yet there is just one Church which has remain intact for 2000 years regardless the schisms, horrific popes, inquisition, crusades, Galileo, and all the atrocities committed.

TLW

It would depend. If the omniscient god was just watching the universe and letting it run itself...no, that god wouldn't. But the God of the Bible who is testing humanity for a greater purpose and eternal reward, YES, absolutely he cares.

I'm not a monkey or Adam, I'm somewhere in-between.

but your still not seeing that to answer this i had to enter your take on who and what god is, therefore putting my beliefs aside- do you get that? It's not that i'm not capable of answering you i have already - within your belief your god can see all things because of the attributes you hold to be true of him. but this is only within your take on your god that the question can be answered. Personally i dont believe your god is omnipotent or omniscient or all anything you believe (my opinion only). so as i say, it's only within your beliefs i can answer the way you think i, or any other rational being should.

You didn't have to put your beliefs aside, that's a fallacious statement. You can think critically without changing your beliefs. DOES THE WORD OMNISCIENT MEAN AWARE OF EVERYTHING? YES? Then you have your answer. How you can claim to have to put your beliefs aside to admit that is beyond me. "Oh no!! I don't believe that words have meanings, so I have to change my whole belief system to answer a question!!!". Do you like rice? Is that another question that requires that you give up your whole diet to think about? Would you like to go on vacation? Don't tell me you will have to quit your job to answer me...

no spider - i can only answer that inside your beliefs, sorry - as i stated if one doesnot believe that your god has those qualities, then he has to answer inside your beliefs, the other straw questions you put forth are outside of your beliefs not within.

Tribo,

Words have meanings. You are capable of critical thinking. What are you missing here? I would guess nothing, it's just an obstinate desire to disagree with me. I'm glad that I don't have too much pride to agree with someone who has different beliefs.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
just my point.
what is suppose to be a debate in which points of view are interchanged. with no need to agree or disagree becomes in a personal back and forth issue.

no disrespect intended.

both of you gentlemen are considered good friends by me.

TLW

TLW,

This isn't a question of "agreeing". Agreeing would imply opinion. I'm not discussing opinions, but the definition of the word "omniscient", which Tribo claims he can't understand the definition unless he "puts his beliefs aside".

spider thats not true, you still are not getting what i'm saying. sigh - i totally understand the word omniscient - all knowing , omnipotent - all powerful, its not - not knowing the definitions or meanings, its the context of what you ask that i reply to you what i have replied. When, as i have already, state to you - yes your god would be able to see everything thats going on, i gather that you take that as the answer, if not,then i dont know what else to say?? But what i'm getting at is that to answer you in that way i have to leave my beliefs aside to do so. thatys all. do you understand that? i hope so - if not well i'm truly sorry, i will drop the subject all together.

sorry TLW, i'm not ignoring you i will post back in a while my friend.

hi TLW, i would just as soon not be talking with spider on this at all, it has nothing to do with my OP. but as normal and i'm just as guilty of it to, these thing's happen. i will try to do as i told you and either ignore off topic responses or ask that those doing so start another post to discuss that/those matters there. I think that is the best way to handle such things, any opinion's??

I sort of stopped trying after I read the part that was attempting to define god.

I actually find it somewhat amusing to hear people making such attempts. The fact is that any defintion of a god, can't be god inspired unless the god can be proven.

The fact is that humans created language as a way to communicate about this physical world we are part of. All language is merely a way to create a symbolic representation of what the messenger wants to communicate to the receiver, verbally.

The messenger has encoded the language using definitions they believe are correct and easily understood by the receiver. The receiver takes the message in as symbols and then defines the symbols according to their own understanding.

The game of telephone comes to mind.

So getting back to the definition of god - first one has to believe in a god, which makes very little sense to begin with, considering that the attributes of god can only be the creation of man, as there has never been any proof whatever that a god exists, or that such a being would have the attributes that only man has defined.

Therefore, I'm amused when I see arguments regarding the definition of and attributions assigned to any god.

Obviously, this makes the Holy Spirit an individual spriritual proposition, unlikely to be similiar to anyone elses belief of experience and thus can only provide each with their own personal understanding as they 'symbolically' define it for themselves.

Thanks Tribo for trying to explain what I was attempting to say to Spider.

It does not matter what Spider and Pecci were discussing. The subject is not the point at all.

Spider accepts (on faith) certain things and states these things as truth. Nothing wrong with that, we know what his authority is, ~~The Bible, which he believes ... on faith.

When I do make statements he (and others) have demanded that I present evidence or proof of my assertions or logical reasons for my beliefs.

What they are looking for is an authority that they can compare with the Bible. If you give them the name of a book or a website, they then proceed to attempt to discredit your authority, or your reasoning or what ever. They want to assure themselves that your authority is less believable than theirs.

Of course they believe that their authority is written by the all Mighty God himself, so they believe that authority beats any other authority out there.... even science.

They are not seeking truth or understanding. They already feel that they have it. They are defending what they believe, probably because they themselves have questions and doubts or because it puzzles them why if they have the absolute gospel truth why on earth doesn't everyone believe it?

That is the big question in their minds. Why can't or why don't other people believe this? They feel that others are so misguided, and others are so blind. Do they ever stop to consider that maybe there is a good reason other people don't believe what they do? Maybe for a second, but they are so afraid that people would accuse them of not having enough FAITH.

And then god won't answer their prayers. If you don't have enough faith, god will not help you. Heaven forbid you loose your faith!

So the faithful test their own faith, they go to church, they talk to other believers, they test their faith with non-believers, they need to feel that they can win an argument and that they have all the answers to their own and everybody else's questions.

Jeannie

here is something i found of interst also just to change the subject a little, this article points out that the recieved text (textus receptus) used by most greek scholars for translation may be copied from original text in aramaic, they give hundreds of examples of scribal mistakes thrugh out the greek text, nothing earth shaking but still showing how many mistakes have been made, ill post others if i find interesting.


World or land of Israel? – Acts 11:28
The KJV says: “And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there
should be great dearth throughout ""all the world"": which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.”
Acts 11:27-30 [KJV]
27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great
dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren
which dwelt in Judaea:
30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.


Now this doesn't make sense at all, why would those in Antioch send relief to those dwelling IN JUDEA
if the famine was to strike all "THE WORLD", They would be facing famine themselves. The Jewish New
Testament version (JNT) translates the Greek word as "throughout the Roman Empire" but this has the
same problem, since Antioch and Judea were both in the Roman Empire. The solution lies in the fact
that the word for "WORLD" in the Aramaic manuscripts is ERA (Strong's #772) the Aramaic form of
the Hebrew word ERETZ (Strong's 776). This word can mean "world" (as in Prov. 19:4) "earth" (as in
Dan. 2:35) or "land" (as in Dan. 9:15) and is often used as a euphemism for "The Land of Israel" (as in
Dan. 9:6).
09r0 is misunderstood by Zorba (meaning the greek scribes and translators), to mean "world" when here it actually means "land" and is used as it
is so often as a Euphemism for the "land of Israel".


THUS: future ist arguements over seeing christ return and rapture once agian are belied by others who say that the world reffered to was the "Land of israel" not the present day whole world we know now. hmmmm????

more of the same, on this point i was taught that the eye of the needle was a small opening near the gate that would have been almost impossible for a camel to go through, this is a better understanding of that meaning by far in the original aramaic:


3. Camel or rope? – Matthew 19:24 / Mark 10:25 / Luke 18:25
The KJV says (Matthew 19:24): “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
The KJV says (Mark 10:25): “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
The KJV says (Luke 18:25): “For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
The Greek, reads "καμηλον" (kamélon) which is the accusative form of "καμηλος" (kamélos). This
word, in Greek, only means "camel" and sometimes can mean "pack animal" however, if we take a look
at it's Aramaic equivalent, we find the word gamlo' ( 0lmg ) is the only word in Aramaic to describe a
generic camel (without getting specific, ie we have the words "colt," "foal," "mare," and "stallion," to
describe types of horses, but one general word for the species, "horse").
However, gamlo', has a double meaning. As Aramaic evolved separately from Hebrew, it picked up new
idioms and meanings to it's vocabulary. gamlo' is a perfect example, for Aramaic speaking peoples
fashioned a rough, thick rope from camel's hair that had a very decent tensile strength, and after a while,
it became to be known as, you guessed it, gamlo'. For example, modern-day society has the same
phenomena where a product or item is referred to by the first name introduced, regardless of what brand
it is. Millions of Americans still ask for a "Kleenex" instead of a tissue, the word for "razor" in Brazil is
"Gilette," and an "IBM Computer" still refers to any Windows-compatible machine.
54
We appear to have come across an idiom long lost in the Greek translation of an Aramaic original.
Although it doesn't really change the meaning of the parable, it grants us insight into how in tune with
his audience the Messiah actually was.
A 10th-century Aramaic lexicographer, Bar-Bahlul, says of “Gamla” (same word as gamlo’) in his
Aramaic dictionary:
"Gamla is a thick rope which is used to bind ships"
Considering that Jesus was speaking to fishermen, this meaning of Gamla seems more appropriate, and I
think is a fantastic proof that the Greek was translated from an Aramaic original.