I'm afraid that there is a lot more to it than you are thinking about. Why did God involve himself more closely with society in the past? That's tied into God's Omniscience. Remember this: God cannot know something unless it's true. Therefore, God had to at some time attempt to direct people and involve himself directly in their lives, so that he would know if it would work. Read the Old Testament, it's fully describes how God tried to get people to believe in him and be faithful, through direct involvement. That doesn't work with people, God called the Israelites "stiff necked". So Jesus had to come to be our savior. Why would God do the direct involvement thing when he knows it doesn't work? Yes, God could save lives, but the Old Testament is a list of lost souls. God's plan is to save as many souls as possible. Not with an occational reminder through a miracle, but through the Holy Spirit dwelling within the human heart continuously.

Does God still do miracles? Yes, he does. But God ensures that there is always plausible deniability. That will change when Israel is attacked by Russia and Iran, but until then, we are all on faith alone.

We could get into a very long discussion about free will and conditioned responses, but would probably need to be a different thread. LOL

Programing and conditioned responses are the backup system.
Free will is our innate inner being coming through.

Otherwise we are no better than robots. If it were true that we were only programed conditioned robots, we might all be pretty much the same.

Jeannie

Jeannie:

In regards to your response,



I would have to disagree with this... here is why,

It is not the commonly used application of the notion, which is what I disagree with.

If 'free will' were our innate inner being coming through, as you suggested, would that mean 'God'?

If so...

I would think that 'free will' then, would be only of an innate and 'Godly' measure. That would also necessitate the inclusion of wrongful choices, unless those would be considered as conditional response. In that respect then, one would need to be able to distinguish between the two, would one not? So then, how would one be able to recognize the difference? Could this possibly be done before the outcome of the choice(s) made? What of the availability to all?

If you would like to begin a new thread, I will follow...



spider:



I disagree, it is quite simple.




Absolutely no relevant information has been provided here or below, which clearly distinguishes a 'Godly' omniscience from any reasonably intelligent human's knowledge. We all know that which comes true, after it comes true. This hardly constitutes omniscience.




Are you kidding me? Surely one cannot even begin to logically presuppose that an omniscient being did not know that which would happen beforehand, and still make a claim of it's omniscience.

This is not even close to an acceptable logical notion.


The rest of your post has been based on the above, which is a 'God' who is omniscient, yet must try things out to see if they work...

A false premise cannot lead one to a true conclusion.

Then follow me young grasshopper.... into the queen's palace. I mean, into the next thread about Free will.

Of course God knew before hand. God knew before hand because it was going to happen. God can only know those things which are true, otherwise, God would know false information.

How can God know what you will do? Because God stands outside of time. But for God to know what you will do, you have to have the chance to do it. If you reject this defintion, then you cannot believe in an omniscient God. If God knows everything, regardless of if it was going to happen or not, then why are we here? Why do we need to live, if God already knows everything we will do, even if we don't live? It's very simple, Paradox. God cannot know something which will never happen. Therefore, everything God knows is the truth and because God doesn't KNOW any lies, God cannot lie.

Some people believe that God just "knows" everything. That's not true. God stands outside of time, so God knows everything which will happen. For God, past, present and future are the same. Since God is fully aware of everything that has happened, is happening or will happen, God knows the past, present and future. God's "plan" is God's character. As a good and merciful God, he takes whatever action he would in the situation based on his character. Even when God knows the outcome will not succeed. Because the only way for God to know what will happen is for God to do what his character dictates and allow his free moral agents to behave as they choose.

DISCLAIMER: This is, of course, my beliefs based on my understanding of the Bible. I don't seek to impose my beliefs on others, I am simply sharing them along with everyone else. I think it's unfortunate that I must place disclaimers into my posts, but nobody said that life is fair.

Sorry - I just don't agree with your reasoning. Any contemplation of the occurance of God's intervention by man has the severe limitation of being done with only the facts at hand, and no comprehention of the potential outcome of the event - with - or without God's intervention. It would be a conclusion based on such a severe ignorance of the overall aspect of the event - that the contemplater is not even worthy of an opinion.

spider:

We all have our beliefs... no one needs a disclaimer... they are beliefs...

Here are some of mine concerning your most recent expressions...



This is in direct conflict with your earlier claim that 'God' had to find out... below is this previous statement from you:



So that 'he' would know if it would work? If a 'God' was omniscient, then that 'God' would have not only already known, but would not have wasted time and effort on an already known effort which would and did fail.

This brings up another illogical notion, also...

A perfect 'Gods' failure?...




This is a complete falsehood.

An omniscient 'God' would know not only that which does and will happen, but also that which will not. One cannot know what will without being able to reason(at least to some extent) that which will not. Unless one does not have the ability to reason. Where would that notion leave your biblical interpretation of what 'God' is?

The reasoning displayed by you in this thread have not described an omniscient being, therefore, if one does not accept your definition, then that is what one cannot believe in.




This question could be addressed more directly(by yourself) should your perception of the notion not wander in and out of a logical definition.




The only paradoxical measure(s) I have witnessed in this particular discussion have been in your attempts at clearly explaining what it is you are trying to portray as an omniscient 'God'...





If one knows that a person will be killed tomorrow, then one also knows that this person will not be killed today.

Your reasoning skills puzzle me at times spider...




This is completely illogical in so many respects.

An omniscient 'God' will know just because of the omniscience beforehand...

'Gods' character is 'Gods' plan? Which character would this be? The old or the new? The vengeful or the forgiving? That hateful or the loving? The omniscient or the questioning? The omnibenevolent or the creator of all things? The one who answers innocents' prayers or the one who allows dispicable acts to happen to innocents? The perfect or the mistaken?

Which character would you be referring to?

If time were a non-existance(all the same) to a 'God' then this 'God' would not require a time-table on a human existance for any expected change in behavioural qualities and/or choices. As is depicted in the Bible, and extrapolated upon on several times by yourself during an explanation to another regarding 'Gods' character and/or will, there have been several references to time in which it has been quite clear that this 'God' was well aware of the distinction between references in time...

If Jesus existed prior to man... time is a factor.

If 'God' performed anything in any given order, then time was a factor.

If there is a beginning and an end to mankinds' existance, then time is a factor.

If there is a reference to time, then time is a factor.

If this 'God' which you depict exists and all of time happens simultaneuosly, then time is indeed...non-existant, therefore any reference to this 'God' in a timely measure should be nullified before it is even considered, because it cannot be an accurate depiction.

Eljay:





My reasoning? Could you explain what my reasoning has been perceived by yourself to be?



Then it would follow that any contemplation contained within the Bible is also not even worthy, would it not?

I completely disagree with the notion of a contemplater being unworthy of an opinion, Eljay... completely disagree.

Abra;

Unlike your obsevations of Spider's posts - I usually see him defending Christianity from the standpoint of what another poster claims Christians believe. He's enthusiastic about his defenses - and often does not waste words about it. He supports his defense with scripture, and is not patient with fallacious logic. Sometimes this makes his posts appear unsympathetic, abrupt, and to many - "unloving". However, I wouldn't use "arrogant" to describe him, just solid in what he believes. However.... he gets "ganged up on" and - for lack of a better word - attacked for the way he posts, rather than what he posts. At times, he gets caught up in the attack, and falls off topic. On this particular thread, there are pages of posts negatively directed toward Spider. I don't know. Maybe it's the frog in his avatar.

I will say with confidence that what I believe is influenced little by anything Spider has posted, but I will also admit that the God that he worships, and the Jesus he has put his faith in is the same one I have. I have found no difference in what Spider believes when it comes to the essentials of Christian Doctrine. I tend not to be so quick to defend comments made against Christianity as he is - but that lies more in my picking and chosing battles I wish to enter - based on whether or not I feel I can add anything to the argument that I think might even be heard. Matters of logic concern me more than quibbles over interpretation of scripture, but when someone makes a claim about Christianity - and what I believe about it, I'm generally quick to respond. I'm not quite so sure as you are that Spider is out to convert everyone on the threads to Christianity, but he is fundamental in how he views the scripture. So - this not being a surprise to anyone - why isn't he allowed to believe scripture in his way, as others do in theirs - without people feeling he's trying to convert them?
Do we have to force him to say "Well - I believe..." before every post he makes? I don't think we need any more posts about Spider being a fundamentalist in his interpretation of scripture. Let's just say he is, and move on from there and comment on what he's saying, not how it's said.

I guess that's all I'm trying to point out.

Jeannie;

I suppose getting into an indepth discussion about the semantics of "the word of God" is pretty futile. It's obvious the term means different things to each one of us. But, despite that, I'm not so far off in agreeing with your understanding of God, and what he means in the lives of people. I think you view God in your life with wisdom and understanding, as I like to think I do as well. So - I would just leave it at that.

Oh goody goody! Talk about the nature of Time. I love this.

I have to agree that it is true that time, in truth, does not exist. But time does not "happen" simultaneously. Time does not "happen" at all. It can't because it does not exist.

What does happen simultaneously are events. Everything happens simultaneously.

I know this is really really hard to get your mind around and I will tell you why it is. (why it is hard to grasp)

Because the illusion of "time" exists only within the mind.

We, as consciousness, exist outside of time and outside of the mind. God exists outside of time and outside of the mind.

Nothing ever happens in the future. Nothing ever happens in the past. Things can only happen now in this present moment.

You cannot exist in the past or the future. You can only exist now in this present moment.

There is no entity called "time" existing in space.

Time is dependent on the movement of bodies through space.
Space is created by the mind.

Jeannie
Rev High Priestess of the Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.

creativesoul,



Why do we exist, if God knows what we will do in life, without us living?

I say that God knows what will happen, because God has seen it happen. God is outside of time and can observe the universe as a whole. What is your reasoning that God knows "everything"? What is your reasoning for why we exist, if God already knows what we will do?



That's correct, what's your point?



I think you are missing something, because what you said in no way refutes what I posted.



Read the Old Testament or the New...same difference. I can see no way how someone can read all of the Old Testament and see anything but a picture of a loving, merciful God. Yes, take a couple verses out of context and you have your "evil" god, but put them into context and you see the punishments of a righteous and loving God. A God who gives chance after chance to even the most reprobate sinners.

Take Jericho for instance. How does the good of the people of Jericho become more important than the good of all other people? How does the fact that Jericho was covered by a spirit of fear, which brought with it knowledge that God had given that land to the Israelites get turned into the Israelites or God being "evil"? What about the fact that the people of Jericho worshipped Ba'al? Ba'al worship required child sacrifices. That part somehow always gets left out. Canaan was the only land route between Africa and the Middle East, the worship of Ba'al was exported across the world from there, by the people of Jericho. The people of Jericho were responsible for the brutal sacrifice of untold numbers of children. God's punishment was to execute everyone in the city. All of the people had been warned to leave, that's exactly what Rahab told the Israelite spys. Not warned by a messenger, they all knew that God had warned them. God's judgement upon those people saved the children (if any were killed, the Bible doesn't say one way or the other) from growing up to be murderers and Ba'al worshippers themselves. You may concern yourself with their lives, but God is concerned with their souls. Many also forget the Gibeonites who made peace with the Israelites and were nearly destroyed by the remaining Canaanites because of it. The Isrealites came to the aid of the Gibeonites and saved them from the Canaanites.

The truth is, that all of the Canaanites knew what was happening and knew that all they had to do was leave or surrender. But they choose to say and fight.

That never gets left out. In fact I hear that all the time. So they worshiped a different God. So what? Oh yes, I forgot, yours is a jealous God. "Thou shall not worship any other Gods before me."

So how does that religion sound any better than one that requires the son of a God to be sacrificed? It of course was supposed to be the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Still, it was a sacrifice.

Both religions, blood cults, who require sacrifice to appease their god for their sins. One is no better than the other IMO.

So, to save the poor children that might be sacrifice to their God, Joshua decides to behead them all. How kind and thoughtful of him.

Jeannie

god created satan...has the most beautiful of his creations...he was kicked out of heaven for pride...then when adam and eve was created and fell by eating the forbidden fruit...satan the fallen angel was given control...when jesus came to earth and died as a man...still being god...then christians was given the right to take domimion of the earth back...in that since god created evil...and i believe that satan can only do as much harm on this earth has god will let him....

Nothing is futile except resistance itself. (You would have to read "The law of Attraction" by Esther and Jerry Hicks to understand the joke in that.)

You have heard from me and what I believe is, (in as simple terms as I could manage) what the "word" of "God" is.

Now I would like you to answer these questions for me. I sincerely want to know. As simply as you can put it.

1. Do you believe the Bible is the "Word of God?"
2. Do you believe God "wrote" (authored) the Bible?
3. If the answer is yes or No to #1: Why?
4. If the answer is Yes or No to #2: Why?

Jeannie

Jesus was a willing sacrifice. Jesus was the only valid sacrifice ever. How many of those babies wanted to be cooked alive on the altar of Ba'al? How many sins did that cooked babies wash away? They weren't even sacrificed for salvation, they were sacrificed for personal monitary gain.

spider:

Logic has refuted your perceptual connotations... clearly so.

Since you must say this:



What point have you clearly made?

I remember this:



And this:



To which I replied as such...very clearly logically refuting your above claims...



How much clearer can a logical refutation be?

You, my friend, refute yourself often enough. Disturbing are your illogical interpretations which are spoken as if they merit value when in regards to being an accurate description of 'God'. The value I have found is in direct correlation with that which you have mirrored.

In no way have you even begun to make a complete, logical, and comprehensive thought when it concerns 'God' or 'Gods' will.

I have learned from interactions with you spider, how to be a better man.

It is quite obvious to anyone who holds a reasonable measure of discernment in regards to this conversation that the only water which flows is through the sein in which you attempt to contain our 'God'...

'God' cannot be painted into a human, no matter how hard one tries...