I Knew That I Was Going To Like This Guy

[oldr_n_wsr]

Some are closer to The Truth than others.

we just don't know who they are.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--that sounds like a wager between satan and god to me; god says, go ahead, show me. Granted, their was no money or other ante involved, but it is much like a bet between kids ("go ahead, I dare you to prove it")--. One would think god clearly cared about the outcome--unless you think god just let all those miseries be visited upon job for laughs. It was done to shut satan up. And yes, I agree it's a story, an allegory, and not a factual account, but then it's rather easy to claim that anything that supports your thesis is factual and should be taken as such, anything that is problematic is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.

As for satan's rebellion, I think that is more part of literature than the bible. There's hardly much discussion of something that one thinks would have been as important as that.

As far as omniscience, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

We may well disagree about omniscience. But the point is not whether or not there was a "wager" or the details of Satan's rebellion. The point is that you put forward an argument: at one time God was not omniscient because if He had been, then Satan would not have bothered trying to subvert Job.

But you fail to support your argument with any evidence that God made any "omniscient" statement to Satan such that the latter would know he was bound to fail. God never once said to Satan "I know for a fact that you can never succeed". Indeed, Satan goes away with every confidence that he can, as with all other men, succeed in subverting Job's faith. All your argument shows is either that Satan may not believe/know/admit God is omniscient or that Satan is not omniscient or that he heard no omniscient statement (which the Bible demonstrates was not made).

Finally, my point about the possibility that the book of Job does not describe an actual event but is an extended allegory or parable had nothing to do with my argument. It has everything to do with yours - you are citing a story you believe not to be true as evidence for an argument about the truth or lack of truth in God's eternal omniscience! It's rather as if I cited a Keystone Cops movie as evidence that United States police forces are hopelessly slapstick.

Meade

[Big RR]

It's rather as if I cited a Keystone Cops movie as evidence that United States police forces are hopelessly slapstick.

well, this is something I never thought I see; you likening a biblical writing, allegorical or not, to a keystone cops movie.

[Big RR]

Big RR where do you get the notion that there was some great attempt to over throw God for one.

Not from the Bible, Satan tempted and man succumbed to the that temptation and sin entered into the world.

Satan put himself at odds with God, where is mentioned some great revolution?

Well, I didn't say there was; I was responding the Meade's assertion [quote Presumably since he started a rebellion in Heaven, he might have reasoned that his action took God by surprise - else why didn't God stop him? He just can't accept that his free will decision to rebel was/is/will be known by God because then it wouldn't be his choice, would it? (I speak of his viewpoint, not mine).
][/quote]

Indeed, that's why I was asking Meade where that was referred to in the bible. I don't see it described anywhere, nor do you, if I understand your post.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's rather as if I cited a Keystone Cops movie as evidence that United States police forces are hopelessly slapstick.

well, this is something I never thought I see; you likening a biblical writing, allegorical or not, to a keystone cops movie.

Oh Big RR..... where did I liken any part of the Bible to a KSC movie? I likened your argument to one in which a Keystone Cops movie was cited to be evidence of real police work.

You've again chosen to avoid the substantive points and go for a misunderstood (accidentally?) peripheral, which I am sorry for - I much prefer your real discussion of the issue you raised. What actual evidence have you that God was (at some point in time?) not omniscient? You've cited Job and that shows nothing of the sort. What else ya got?

I prefer not to get drawn into a side discussion about Satan's rebellion against God (time place and circumstance) in this thread; but if you'd like to start another one, I'll join in. I believe that Satan was once an angel and that he took a third of the angels with him in that rebellion (Rev 2 is it?) but I don't mind if others don't think that's the case. As CP said, it's not the basis of any doctrine but is rather an interesting topic of no particular import. I think your reply to Rick was correct and fair.

Meade

[RayThom]

Not another God thread. The righteous cannot be contained.

[dales]

Even the stones shall cry out!

[Big RR]

It's rather as if I cited a Keystone Cops movie as evidence that United States police forces are hopelessly slapstick.

well, this is something I never thought I see; you likening a biblical writing, allegorical or not, to a keystone cops movie.

Oh Big RR..... where did I liken any part of the Bible to a KSC movie? I likened your argument to one in which a Keystone Cops movie was cited to be evidence of real police work.

You've again chosen to avoid the substantive points and go for a misunderstood (accidentally?) peripheral, which I am sorry for - I much prefer your real discussion of the issue you raised. What actual evidence have you that God was (at some point in time?) not omniscient? You've cited Job and that shows nothing of the sort. What else ya got?

I prefer not to get drawn into a side discussion about Satan's rebellion against God (time place and circumstance) in this thread; but if you'd like to start another one, I'll join in. I believe that Satan was once an angel and that he took a third of the angels with him in that rebellion (Rev 2 is it?) but I don't mind if others don't think that's the case. As CP said, it's not the basis of any doctrine but is rather an interesting topic of no particular import. I think your reply to Rick was correct and fair.

Meade

OK Meade, it was a bad attempt at a joke--sorry.

As for omniscience, I have no proof, but then I don't really have a definition of omniscience to work with. The fact that god can exist outside of our space time does not automatically mean that he know everything in that locus as well; one could still call god omniscient if he knew everything contained within our space/time continuum.

[RayThom]

Maybe they got no satisfaction.

The Jehovahs Witness know God best. God every day... no CEOs in the bunch. Hallelujah!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchto ... ll-Cry-Out

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK Big RR - sorry I didn't realise it was a joke. Not a bad one actually - just unidentified as such! Perhaps also I should not have said "proof" when what I meant was "what gives you reason to believe that God was not omniscient?" - what's your evidence?

This is how the argument goes as I would state it: Here's a definition. If omniscience is knowledge of "all things" then what things do you think that "all things" may not include?

OMNISCIENCE — a theological term that refers to God’s superior knowledge and wisdom, His power to know all things. God is the Lord who knows our thoughts from afar. He is acquainted with all our ways, knowing our words even before they are on our tongues (Ps. 139:1–6, 13–16). He needs to consult no one for knowledge or understanding (Is. 40:13–14). He is the all-knowing Lord who prophesies the events of the future, including the death and resurrection of His Son (Isaiah 53) and the return of Christ at the end of this age when death will be finally overcome (Rom. 8:18–39; 1 Cor. 15:51–57). Only the all-knowing and all-powerful God can guarantee real freedom from sin, decay, and death. He can begin a process of change in believers during the present age; for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).

Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary.; Nashville, T.Nelson

Omniscience is one of the 'natural' attributes of God which in Him are perfect and without fault or weakness, according to the Bible and that is really the entirety of it - our arguments are human and interesting (except to RayThom) but secondary to what God Himself has revealed. If it is said that at one time God was not omniscient, then aside from violating the meaning of language, that contradicts another Biblically revealed attribute which is that God is changeless.

Psalm 102:24-27: “O my God,” I say, “take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!” Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment.
Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end. (RSV)

Semantically and theologically, that which is changeable cannot be the self-existent necessary but must be contingent. That which is contingent cannot be the creator God at all.

The fact that god can exist outside of our space time does not automatically mean that he know everything in that locus as well; one could still call god omniscient if he knew everything contained within our space/time continuum

Another Biblical doctrine threatened? God is omnipresent - there is no place where God is not. All things that are not-God were created by God. "Where" He exists does not automatically mean anything - I agree. What means something is what God has revealed of Himself in nature and in the Bible. He said it; it's true; I believe it. (Not "I believe God said it, so it's true').

No, if there is something that God does not know or did not know (ever, at any time or non-time), then He is not omniscient and furthermore that 'god' would be non-existent - or rather, not "God". Actually I think even many atheists could accept the possibility that some form of finite "god", a creature of nature, time and chance, could exist somewhere, as yet undetected by science since in their own view no person has perfect knowledge of all things.

Does not the Christian believe that God does have perfect knowledge of all things? Or perhaps I should ask, does not Christ believe that?

Regards as always
Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

I've been following this thread but now my eyes are glazing over. Carry on, I'll be taking a nap.

[Rick]

Another Biblical doctrine threatened? God is omnipresent - there is no place where God is not. All things that are not-God were created by God. "Where" He exists does not automatically mean anything - I agree. What means something is what God has revealed of Himself in nature and in the Bible. He said it; it's true; I believe it. (Not "I believe God said it, so it's true').

I do agree that a fact is a fact whether one believes it or not.

As for Rev. 2 are you certain (not to start another topic)? That's not what I see...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes an error of memory there. Rev 12:3-4 is what I was (not ) thinking of The book of 1 Enoch (not canonical) is the most clear (?!) relating of the tale. Isaiah 14:12–15 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 have been held to allude to it, despite being applicable to kings of Babylon and Tyre in the immediate sense.

[Econoline]

That awkward moment when the primitive tribe you have come to convert to Christianity, instead converts you to atheism:

[Lord Jim]

Not another God thread. The righteous cannot be contained.

Yes, imagine yet another thread about religion in a forum room with the name, " Philosophy and Religion"...

The cheek of some people....

Personally, I find these discussions about theology to be some of the most interesting and thought provoking things we've got going on this board...

[Crackpot]

it's obvious it belongs in news and suggestions.

[RayThom]

My objection is that just one thread goes on and on and on and on with endless pedanticism. It's as if this didactic exercise was designed so that a freethinker or secular humanist will be sucked in and somehow understand the errors of their ways. (Maybe that's the philosophical side of the forum?)

With this kind of one dimensional writing -- that God and freewill exists, and that's that -- only one thread is needed in the entire forum. Same ol' same ol' -- if the thread carried on for ten thousand pages I'd understand and not bother with my personal insight on my beliefs. Some variation of thematic change into a new thread is called for at some point -- but it never seems to comes. It's the repetitive, goose stepping, similarity that breeds my contempt. Let it rest for God sake and go on to some other aspect of your "stream of unconsciousness."

What hath God wrought? Nothing new, that's guaranteed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Rick]

I can't help myself I'm a drama queen...

[Rick]

I was compelled to post that...