Does God have foreknowledge the not see could be construed the Nazi?

M a r t i n M i c h a e l M u s a t o v

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 12:21:09 PM9/2/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

What is spoken interpreted in different context when written (also
with respect to order of events).

If it was true God did have knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge,
would it necessarily be true god did have foreknowledge?

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 12:53:22 PM9/2/12

to

if you write a post that predicts the date, time and place

you will post another post, and you post that post when

and where you said you would

would you say that you had foreknowledge of a future event?

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:04:53 PM9/2/12

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Sep 2, 7:21 pm, M a r t i n M i c h a e l M u s a t o v

Well according to the Ibrahemic religions they explicitly say that he
has foreknowledge. Also if you think of God as the sole Creator of the
universe out of nothing and the sole keeper since then, then of course
it would be expected that he would have absolute knowledge and power
over it, and of course he must be assumed to be Just and Merciful
since assumption to the contrary is not bearable to have faith in.
Moreover Christianity added "Loving" as another attribute which seems
rational too. If your idea of God is something like those of Plotinus
then accordingly God is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient, but he is
Omnibenevolent, so he doesn't have foreknowledge, neither did he
create the universe out from nothing, he only arranged a pre-handed
material that is essentially chaotic and he is since ever trying to
tame it succeedingly so till perfection is reached ultimately. Physics
didn't even reach near the point to solve such deep questions, we are
not sure if this universe is the only one or if there are others and
if so if there is a beginning in time of all possible universes.
However I personally believe that infinite regress of universes cannot
be real, and so I believe in an initiator that made the universe(s)
out of nothing and that he keeps them through strict laws of nature,
and I do think that he is Just and Loving, and I also believe in an
afterlife where Justice will be met. Of all Ibrahemic religions I
think Christianity is the nearest in spirit to the Divine beatitude.

Zuhair

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:21:51 PM9/2/12

to

one should like to avoid bringing preconceived
notions with them in a reading of the bible,

because these could cloud your understanding
and get you to see a thing that may not really
be there in the text and this would be an
intrusion by the puffed up carnal mind into
things that he has seen but does not understand
fully of himself and also one who may speak of
things he has not seen. Colossians 2:18

just take for example this
thing called 'omniscience'

-before- one looks at the pages of the bible
how can one establish that God is omniscient?

all man has to go on is that some
phenomenon called knowledge exists,
and that he has some smattering of it,

so, he questions whether
God may have 'all' knowledge.

what he should do next is see if
it is possible to -test- this hypothesis.

can man devise a test that will tell
him whether God is omniscient or not?

it doesn't appear to be probable because
man is not omniscient and so, lacks the
actual datum by which to compare God's
overall knowledge,

so, man cannot credibly test any
claim that God may be omiscient.

all you can really say is
that God -may- be omniscient,

but this surmise is not useful in building
a larger picture of God's own nature,
simply because it is untestable by man.

one should avoid assuming the conclusion.

having said that;

now, picking up a bible and scouring through
it looking at verses which mention God's knowedge
base, should not be viewed through man's axiomatic
-assumption- that God =is= omniscient when in fact,
all man can say is that God -may- be omniscient.

and so, while we can conclude that God's
knowledge of God and the creation is
comprehensive,

we can also acknowledge that God can grant
the creation some very definite ability
to act on its own without all such action
being absolutely known before hand.

this is knowing all things that are known
as opposed to the idea of "exhaustive omnicience"

also, while we can acknowledge that
there may be options open to the creation,

we can just as easily say that God would
know what -could- be the outcome of all options.

so, you can easily see that God -could- say;

"if A then B
and
if C then D

where God knows both B and D

but where God has left the option
of A or C to the creation.

so this still shows that God can know
all possible outcomes without suggesting
that God forces a specific outcome.

when this concerns molecular machinery
that doesn't seem to operate by any
specific choice of its own, you
don't -have- to say that God configures
each snowflake each time one appears,
but you can if you like,

and when it concerns a man's optional
involvements, in his own destinations
we don't -have- to suggest that God
has preconfigured a man's life but
you can say this if you want to.

because certainly, you can dig up bible
verses that have a man's hand in his
own lot as effective in many ways.

==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21

15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.

19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: �The Lord knows those who are His,�
and, �Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice.�

21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==

==
2 Peter 1:5-10
For this very reason, make every effort to add
to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;
and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control,
perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and
to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly
kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities
in increasing measure, they will keep you from being
ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have
them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten
that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make
your calling and election sure. For if you do these
things, you will never fall, and you will receive
a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
==

i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:30:20 PM9/2/12

to

> one should like to avoid bringing preconceived
> notions with them in a reading of the bible,

my bottom line is, that,

if you have a Primary God who is at war with itself

then, it would be unable to act forever frozen in undecidability,

and we wouldn't be here. we are here, so,

a Primary God cannot be at war with itself.

so, such a God does not likely;

say "no" mean "yes" and slap you silly

for doing what it forced your hand to do...

by Divine Foreknowledge...

Immortalist

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:37:26 PM9/2/12

to

On Sep 2, 9:21 am, M a r t i n M i c h a e l M u s a t o v

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

A) Examination of the Concept of a Supreme Being

1) The Supreme Being Is All-Good

...whatever the supreme being wills or commands
or does is the right thing to do. Thus whatever
God decides, does, or commands is
morally right...

2) The Supreme Being Is Omnipotent

...the supreme being has the ability to do anything
at all. But this definition is too loose, because it
does not decide the issue of whether God can
do something that involves a logical
contradiction...

3) The Supreme Being Is Omniscient

...the Supreme Being knows everything. But again
we must be careful, because not even God can be
said to know a falsehood. Thus, it would be better
to say that a supreme being knows all truths....

4) Other Characteristics of a Supreme Being

...There seem to be four additional properties;

- Because the supreme being is all-powerful,
he can be neither -created nor -destroyed,
and is therefore eternal.

- he is the creator of "heaven and earth and
all things" who loves and cares about the
creatures he creates.

- God is holy.

--------------------------------------------

A) Examination of the Concept of a Supreme Being

The problem before us is to characterize adequately a being we would
call God. We already have some idea where to begin, because the word
'supreme' is involved in the concept we are characterizing. Our
question is the following: "Supreme in what regard?" Surely not
supreme in evil, or merely in physical size or prowess, or even in
physical beauty. We generally mean supreme in those characteristics or
properties that make a being more perfect than it would be if it
lacked them, so that we would call a being God only if it were the
most perfect being of which we could conceive. Consequently, we would
claim that the supreme being is one who is supreme in his ability to
perform actions and to know what occurs, and who is certainly supreme
in goodness. Thus we think of God as the being who is all-good, all-
knowing, and all-powerful. That is, he is supreme in goodness,
knowledge, and power. Let us then consider these three characteristics
separately.

1) The Supreme Being Is All-Good

We can understand the statement that the supreme being is all-good to
mean that whatever the supreme being wills or commands or does is the
right thing to do. Thus whatever God decides, does, or commands is
morally right. In addition, however, he always has good motives, for
willing, doing, or commanding in the way he does, because he is a
loving God who cares about the world and its inhabitants. Thus God
does not do the right things with the wrong motives, nor does he have
good motives but mistakenly do the wrong things. Let us take the
statement 'God is good' to mean that God has good motives, and
whatever he wills, does, or commands is morally right. There is,
however, a problem about how to interpret this. We could interpret it
to mean that if the supreme being wills or commands or does something,
then by definition this is the right thing to do. On another
interpretation, the statement means that if the supreme being wills or
commands or does something, then as a matter of fact this is the right
thing to do. Which interpretation should we use? It has been claimed
that neither alternative is appealing, because each is faced with a
problem. If we accept the first interpretation, then if the supreme
being willed or commanded that someone wantonly inflict pain on
innocent babies, or inflicted such pain himself, then inflicting pain
on innocent babies would be defined as being the right thing to do.
Although we shall not consider moral problems in any detail until
Chapter Six, it surely seems that if wantonly inflicting pain on
innocent babies is morally right, then nothing is morally wrong. We
want to deny that this could be morally right. Yet, if a supreme
being's doing or commanding it, which is surely possible, entails that
it is right, we cannot justify such a denial. If it be objected at
this point that God would not engage in or command wanton infliction
of pain, we can ask, "Why not?" The answer cannot be that he could not
because he is good and inflicting pain is wrong. For if he were to
inflict pain, then, on this view, it would follow that doing this is
right. Nor can we find a more helpful answer. This view, therefore,
seems faced with an insoluble problem.

Let us turn to the second alternative. On this view, it is possible
for God to do wrong, although as a matter of fact what he does always
turns out to be right. Thus, although it is true that if God does or
commands an act then it is right, it does not follow that if God were
wantonly to inflict pain, then that would be right. We can say that in
that case he would do wrong, but that, as a matter of fact, God never
would inflict pain needlessly. Thus the second interpretation avoids
the problem facing the first interpretation. However, some people have
objected to one consequence of this view. It is claimed that if God
does not prescribe the standard of what ought to be done, then there
is a moral standard that exists independently of God, so that he can
be judged by reference to it. Surely, it is argued, something has gone
wrong with a view if it entails that we can judge the moral worth of
the supreme being. However, it is not clear why anyone objects to a
view that entails that it is logically possible to judge God's
commands and acts by a standard. If the view entailed that it is not
only logically possible but also morally permissible for a human being
to judge God, then it might well be objectionable. But the view does
not entail that statement. The second interpretation, then, seems to
avoid the objection to it. Let us, therefore, define the sentence 'The
supreme being is all-good' as 'All motives of the supreme being are
good and all acts the supreme being wills, does, or commands are, as a
matter of fact, the right things to do.'

2) The Supreme Being Is Omnipotent

The quickest way to define this statement is by saying that it means
that the supreme being has the ability to do anything at all. But this
definition is too loose, because it does not decide the issue of
whether God can do something that involves a logical contradiction.
Does God, for example, have the ability to make the mercury in a
thermometer be one inch from the bottom of the thermometer at the same
time that it is two inches from the bottom? Does he have the ability
to make a lake frozen at the same time that there is no ice on it?
Some have argued that if we claim that God does not have the ability
to do something involving a logical contradiction, then we must
conclude that he does not have the ability to do everything and thus
is not omnipotent. However, there seems to be no reason why it would
be limiting God's power to say that he is able to do anything that it
is logically possible to do. This rules out nothing that has been
claimed to be among God's acts, including creation out of nothing. It
rules out only acts the descriptions of which involve a contradiction.
Let us therefore try the following: 'The supreme being has the ability
to do anything that it is logically possible to do' as the definition
of the 'The supreme being is omnipotent,' (all-powerful).

At first glance this definition surely seems satisfactory, but we
shall have to make another revision. Consider the act of sitting in a
chair at a time when God is not sitting there. It is clear that you,
I, and almost everyone are able to sit in a chair at a time when God
is not sitting there. But is God able to do this? Is God able to sit
in a chair at the same time God is not sitting there? Clearly not,
and, because it is logically possible to do it (you and I do it), we
must conclude by the preceding definition that God is not omnipotent.

It does not seem, however, that because neither God nor anyone else
can both be at one place and not be there at the same time, this is
any limitation on his power. It is, therefore, not the kind of
inability that should be allowed to count against his omnipotence. Let
us, consequently, revise the definition as follows: 'The supreme being
is omnipotent' means 'The supreme being has the ability to do anything
that it is logically possible that he do.' Using this definition we
can avoid concluding that God is not omnipotent because of the above
inability. The sentence

The supreme being is sitting in a chair at a time when he is not
sitting there.

is a self-contradiction, and so it is logically impossible that God
perform this act.

The definition we have settled on not only avoids the preceding
problem, but also allows us to solve an ancient puzzle. Consider a
boulder so heavy that God does not have the ability to lift it. Does
God have the ability to create such a rock or not? If he has this
ability then there is something else God cannot do, namely, lift the
rock. But either he has the ability to create the boulder or he does
not. Therefore there is something God does not have the ability to do:
both to create and to lift a certain boulder. Therefore God is not
omnipotent.

How might we refute this argument? First, notice that it contains two
conclusions: that there is something God is unable to do, and,
consequently, that God is not omnipotent. We must surely accept the
first, simply because there are many things God cannot do (that is,
whatever involves a logical contradiction). But because God's
inability to do self-contradictory things does not limit his power, we
should question whether we can draw the second conclusion that his
inability both to create and lift this boulder limits his power. Using
the preceding definition, the question is whether or not the statement
that God does these tasks is self-contradictory. If his doing at least
one of them is self-contradictory, then it is fallacious to draw the
conclusion that God is not omnipotent. There seems to be no
contradiction involved in saying that God creates a rock he is unable
to lift, so we must insist that an omnipotent God is able to create
the rock. The question, then, is whether it is logically possible that
God lift such a boulder. That is, is it logically possible that God
lift a boulder that he is unable to lift? The answer is clearly that
it is logically impossible for God to perform this act, and,
therefore, his inability to lift it does not limit his power. We can,
therefore, avoid the conclusion that God is not omnipotent by agreeing
that God is unable to lift such a rock, because such an inability does
not limit his power.

3) The Supreme Being Is Omniscient

We can begin our definition of the sentence 'The supreme being is
omniscient' as we did the previous definition-that is, by saying that
it means that the Supreme Being knows everything. But again we must be
careful, because not even God can be said to know a falsehood. Thus,
it would be better to say that a supreme being knows all truths. There
is, however, still a problem that should be considered. If God knows
all truths, then he knows truths about the future, that is, he knows
what will happen. But, it has been claimed, if God knows that
something is going to happen before it happens-for example, that I
will write the word 'thus' at the beginning of the next sentence-then
it follows that I must write 'thus' there. Thus, God's foreknowledge,
and hence his knowledge of all truths, is incompatible with my free
will. Consequently, either no one has free will, or God cannot foresee
all future events and he is not omniscient. Must we surrender our
belief that human beings have free will in order to guarantee God's
omniscience? We can avoid this because, in the premise "if God
foresees that I do something then I must do it," the word 'must'
indicates that the consequent follows logically from the antecedent.
So the premise can be restated as "It is logically necessary that if
God (or anyone else for that matter) foresees that I do something then
I will so it." But it does not follow from the fact that I will do
something that I must, in the sense of being coerced or forced to do
it against my will. Thus it does not follow, from foreknowledge of
what I will do, that I will not do it of my own free will.

At this point someone might try a new line of attack. If someone has
foreknowledge of what I do, then he can correctly predict what I will
do. But he can correctly predict what I will do only if what I will do
is causally determined and thus predictable on the basis of causal
laws. Consequently, foreknowledge of what I do is not compatible with
my doing it of my own free will. The first thing that can be said here
is that the conclusion follows only if free will and causal
determinism are incompatible. But we have previously found reason to
deny this. Secondly, there is no reason to think that someone can make
a correct prediction only on the basis of causal laws. We often
justifiably predict that, for example, Jones will decide to forgive
his wife her latest infidelity because we know what he will decide. In
addition, it is not clear that "foreknowledge" correctly describes
God's knowledge of my future. It has been claimed that for God the
whole of the temporal span of the universe-past, present, and future-
is like a brief moment of time for us, and thus God knows what I will
do in the way I know what I am doing now. No prediction is involved.
Thus there are reasons for rejecting this second line of attack upon
the compatibility of God's foreknowledge with our free will.

Before we move on, we should consider one other problem concerning
God's omniscience. Let us say that at a certain time, t(n), God
decides for the first time to do something (for example, create a
particular universe). If at that time, t(n), God decides for the first
time to create this world, then at no time before t(n) did God know
what his decision at t(n) would be, because if he did, then he would
not have decided for the first time at t(n) But if God is omniscient,
then there is no time at which he does not know all truths; so if God
is omniscient, then at every moment before t(n) he knows what he
decides for the first time at t(n) to do. Thus, if God decides for the
first time at t(n) to do something, then God is not omniscient, for
there is a time before t(n) at which he did not know what he would
decide. There are several ways to avoid this conclusion. One is to
deny there is a time at which God first decides to do something. Two
different reasons have been given for this. The first is that, no
matter how far back in time you might go, God has already made all his
decisions. The second is that, unlike us, none of God's decisions are
made at some time, because God is not a member of the world of
temporal objects.

There is another way to avoid this problem. This is to deny that it is
impossible for anyone to know at t(n) what he will do and at a later
time, t(n) + 1, to decide for the first time what he will do. Such a
situation is odd, but, according to this proposal, it is not logically
impossible. It surely seems possible, for example, that Jones knows
now that he later will decide for the first time to forgive his wife
her latest in a series of infidelities, although he is firmly resolved
not to forgive her now. He knows this on the basis of what he has done
in the past, each time resolving not to forgive her but each time
finally giving in. If Jones can know beforehand what he will decide to
do, then surely God can. There is no contradiction here.

We can finally rest content with the definition of 'The supreme being
is omniscient.' It means that the supreme being knows all truths.

4) Other Characteristics of a Supreme Being

We have discussed three essential characteristics of a supreme being-
the characteristics of supreme goodness, omnipotence, and omniscience.
The question now arises of whether there are any other characteristics
an entity would have if he were the supreme being. There seem to be
four additional properties. Because the supreme being is all-powerful,
he can be neither created nor destroyed, and is therefore eternal.
Furthermore, he is the creator of "heaven and earth and all things"
who loves and cares about the creatures he creates. And, finally, God
is holy. There is no problem about what it means to say that God is
loving. In being all-good, he is not merely fair and just, but also
benevolent and merciful toward his creatures, and deeply concerned
about their welfare. The only problem about what is meant by calling
the supreme being the creator of everything is whether this means that
he created what there is ex nihilo (that is, out of nothing) or
whether he created what there is out of some primordial chaos. Because
there is disagreement about which is the correct interpretation, let
us leave the question open by defining 'The supreme being is the
creator of heaven and earth and all things' as 'The supreme being
caused heaven and the physical universe to exist in their present
form.' Thus we have not decided by definition whether nor not God's
created everything ex nihilo.

There are two possible ways to interpret 'The supreme being is
eternal.' The first is that as a matter of fact the supreme being
never begins to exist and never ceases to exist. The second
interpretation is that it is logically necessary that the supreme
being neither begins nor ceases to exist. You will notice that neither
interpretation begs the question of whether or not God exists, because
his neither beginning nor ceasing to exist is consistent both with his
always existing and with his never existing. There is, however, an
important difference between the two interpretations. On the first
interpretation, it is logically possible that God be created and
destroyed, but on the second, it is logically impossible that anything
create or destroy God. Let us characterize the two interpretations of
'The supreme being is eternal' by saying that, on the first, if he
exists then he always exists, whereas on the second, if he exists then
he necessarily exists.

Which interpretation shall we choose? Although some people have argued
for the first interpretation, the following, which echoes the
ontological argument that we shall consider later in this chapter,
will justify our choosing the second. We have said that any being we
would call God must be the being supreme in perfection, so that if we
can think of a being more perfect than some particular being, then we
would not call the latter one God. Furthermore, if it is logically
possible that something create or destroy God, then we can think of a
being more powerful and therefore more perfect than God, namely, a
being that it is logically impossible to create or destroy. Therefore
we can conclude that it is logically impossible that anything create
or destroy God. We want, then, to characterize God in such a way that
it is logically impossible that he be created or destroyed. However,
if his eternality is merely a factual contingency, then it is
logically possible that something create or destroy him. But if he is
necessarily eternal, then this guarantees that it is not possible that
anything create or destroy him. Therefore, in order to have this
guarantee, let us use the second interpretation.

The last characteristic of a supreme being that we have to consider is
that such a being is holy. It is perhaps the hardest of all the
characteristics to define. When we say that God is holy we are trying
to express something of our feeling that God is worthy, even more than
worthy, of our full devotion, adoration, and reverence; that God is
that being whom we should worship, honor, and obey. This
characteristic is important for our purposes, because it can be used
as a test of the adequacy of the sum total of the other
characteristics that we have ascribed to the supreme being. If we have
provided an adequate characterization, then the quality of holiness
should really be redundant, because the total of the other
characteristics should include all and only those that would make any
being having them the being most worthy of our worship. In line with
this, let us define 'The supreme being is holy' as 'The supreme being
is that being who is most worthy of the complete devotion and
reverence of humanity.'

We have characterized the supreme being as the eternal, loving, and
holy being who created all things out of his omniscience, omnipotence,
and supreme goodness, and we have analyzed what we are to mean by
these terms. The question now before us is whether or not there is any
reason to think that this concept of the supreme being, which we have
carefully tried to analyze, applies to anything; that is, whether
there is a supreme being in the sense we have described. We are taking
this question as equivalent to asking whether there is any reason to
think that God exists since, in the major Western religious traditions
(Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), God is understood to be the
supreme being we have just described and defined. Certainly many
people believe that God, or the supreme being, exists. It is also true
that many people deny that there is a supreme being. The question
before us is which, if either, is the more reasonable.

A final clarificatory point is in order. Some people mean by the term
'God' such things as this: 'the force for love in the world,' or 'the
original cause of things,' or 'that which sustains the physical
universe,' or 'the transcendent object of ultimate concern.' Other
similarly vague definitions of the term 'God' are often proposed. We
are not asking the question whether God in any of these latter senses
of the term exists. We are not even considering the question. We are
concerned solely with whether God, considered as the supreme being,
exists.

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:37:53 PM9/2/12

to

There is no contradiction between saying that God has knowledge of
everything in advance and between free will. He knew in advance all of
what free will beings will do out of their free will, there is no
forcing neither limitation on free will implied by forknowledge per
se.

Zuhair

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:40:44 PM9/2/12

to

On Sep 2, 8:21 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:

That God has foreknowledge is explicitly "stated" in those books
unequivocally, this is what is said in those books, whether we can
fathom it, prove it or disprove it by using unaided human thinking?
this is entirely another issue.

Zuhair

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 1:59:41 PM9/2/12

to

Zuhair wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > one should like to avoid bringing preconceived
> > notions with them in a reading of the bible,

> > because these could cloud your understanding
> > and get you to see a thing that may not really
> > be there in the text and this would be an
> > intrusion by the puffed up carnal mind into
> > things that he has seen but does not understand
> > fully of himself and also one who may speak of
> > things he has not seen. Colossians 2:18

> That God has foreknowledge is explicitly "stated" in those books
> unequivocally, this is what is said in those books, whether we can
> fathom it, prove it or disprove it by using unaided human thinking?
> this is entirely another issue.

show me in the bible where it says that "God"
knew beforehand that Adam would take from
the tree he was told not to take.

and also, please explain this
in terms of God's "foreknowledge"

YHWH God speaking through the prophet Jeremiah;

===
Jeremiah 32:35
They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom
to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek,

though I never commanded �nor did it enter my mind� <===

that they should do such a detestable
thing and so make Judah sin.
===

here YHWH God seems to be saying that a thing
that was devised by man did not come from God
and never entered God's mind that such
a thing should be devised.

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 2:22:17 PM9/2/12

to

It is written explicitly in the Qur'an. The verses you mentioned from
the Bible is to be understood metaphorically of course.

Zuhair

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 2:28:37 PM9/2/12

to

show me the statements in the Qur'an and
lets see if those are to be understood
"metaphorically" after all, the statements
from Jeremiah seem to be rather explicit.

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 2:59:31 PM9/2/12

to

No, your method of understanding those books is erroneous (from my
point of view), you cannot just go pick a statement here and there in
those books and then see how explicit it is and then go say such and
such. Those books have a central idea around which they evolve, you
need to know the spirit that those books are speaking about and then
after that give an interpretation to individual verses and statements
in "accordance" with the main message those books are entitled to. In
the Qur'an there are tens of verses speaking of God "All Knowing",
that nothing happens in this word that he doesn't know or never knew
about, even it is said to be "written" in a book etc.., same thing in
the bible I'm sure, there are prophecies in the Bible and God telling
prophets what would happen in the future, many many examples, How that
fits your claimed restricted knowledge of God. What I understand is
that Catholic church explicitly mentioned that God is the Omnipotent,
Omniscient and All Good, I think these are basic lessons of Theology
in Christianity and actually all the Ibrahemic religions, and those
are reasonable assumptions actually, if you are believing in a God who
made that universe out of "nothing" and who have complete control over
it, and that there is no other God in existence then it doesn't make
sense to believe that he will give free will to some of his creatures
to the degree that he won't know of what the'll decide (out of their
complete free will) in advance, this is ridiculous, actually time and
space has no dominion over God, to God everything is known to him in a
timeless manner, he knows everything was, is and to come, there is no
doubt that this is at the essence of what those books are saying, God
is unlimited in everything, this is actually mentioned tens if not
hundreds of times in the Qur'an and I'd expect something like that in
the Bible and Torah.

Zuhair

Bart Goddard

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 4:12:01 PM9/2/12

to

Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in news:50439E8D.7EB0
@lycos.com-:

> Jeremiah 32:35
> They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom
> to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek,
>

> though I never commanded -nor did it enter my mind- <===

>
> that they should do such a detestable
> thing and so make Judah sin.
> ===
>
> here YHWH God seems to be saying that a thing
> that was devised by man did not come from God
> and never entered God's mind that such
> a thing should be devised.

You're imposing your understanding of the English idiom
"it never entered my mind" on the passage. It may not
mean, "It didn't occur to me", but rather, "I would never
condone, let alone command, such a thing."

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 4:54:53 PM9/2/12

to

so, does God, according to you, already know how you
will answer this post or if you will answer this post at all?

and so, if someone just happened to want to stick

up a grocery store and kill ten people in a movie theater

could that person say;

"i only did what God predetermined me to do and so,

i bear no responsibility for these actions?

> that nothing happens in this word that he doesn't know or never knew
> about, even it is said to be "written" in a book etc.., same thing in
> the bible I'm sure, there are prophecies in the Bible and God telling
> prophets what would happen in the future,

and also that such a God is alive and able to make
things come to pass that said GOD tells the
prophets in advance about.

this is generally the case, where God will tell a
prophet what God is going to do in the future
and then does it.

you could say;

"i'm going to plant some corn seed and in 6 months eat corn on the cob"

but if -you- died before your 'prophecy came to fruition,

then, it would not happen.

that's one difference.

> many many examples, How that
> fits your claimed restricted knowledge of God.

i don't -have to- say that God already knows
that i will finish the crossword puzzle today

and then, not finish it because i
lost interest in it, and call God a liar.

i could only know these things after the fact

to say that God knows i will do the puzzle beforehand is useless.

this is not limitting God in any way reasonable.

> What I understand is
> that Catholic church explicitly mentioned that God is the Omnipotent,
> Omniscient and All Good,

I don't see the word "omniscient" in teh bible.

categorically, it can be twisted to mean things that it does not say.

> I think these are basic lessons of Theology
> in Christianity and actually all the Ibrahemic religions, and those
> are reasonable assumptions actually, if you are believing in a God who
> made that universe out of "nothing"

define "nothing" knowing that God is present before such a creation.

> and who have complete control over
> it, and that there is no other God in existence then it doesn't make
> sense to believe that he will give free will to some of his creatures
> to the degree that he won't know of what the'll decide (out of their
> complete free will) in advance, this is ridiculous,

so, you think "free will" is ridiculous?

can i decide whether or not to finish the crossword puzzle today?

does God already know this?

prove it

> actually time and
> space has no dominion over God, to God everything is known to him in a
> timeless manner, he knows everything was, is and to come, there is no
> doubt that this is at the essence of what those books are saying, God
> is unlimited in everything, this is actually mentioned tens if not
> hundreds of times in the Qur'an and I'd expect something like that in
> the Bible and Torah.

God does not lie. do you believe this?

etc.

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 12:21:42 AM9/3/12

to

Bart Goddard wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > i said nothing at all about there being a contradiction
> > in Jeremiah or Genesis as far as what God was purported
> > to have said and what effect it had.

> It's an example of how the way God reveals Himself can
> be paradoxical to how He is "in His hidden Majesty."
> It can be quite logically consistent for Him to
> foreknow and even fore-ordain an event and yet reveal
> plainly that the event was contrary to His will.

first of all, the initial pondering in this thread was,

"If it was true God did have knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge,
would it necessarily be true god did have foreknowledge?"

to which i replied;

""if you write a post that predicts the date, time and place
you will post another post, and you post that post when
and where you said you would
would you say that you had foreknowledge of a future event?"""

and in another place, i said;

you could say;

"i'm going to plant some corn seed and
in 6 months eat corn on the cob"

and said that God can predict future events,
primarily because God is there to see the
event through to completion, somewhat
like the corn bit.

so, to me, the idea of "foreknowledge" is not
in itself outlandish and beyond the pale.

but, when it comes to the notion that God, in essence,
programmed all actions and events beforehand -because-
of this other notion of 'exhaustive omniscience' that
i see no need to maintain as necessary and/or sufficient.

to -me- this would tend to suggest that God...

-thinks- like the 'carnal mind of man'

that the thoughts and subsequent
actions of the 'carnal mind of man'

are -actually- the thoughts and
actions of the Mind of God.

and this would lead to some problems in that 'revealed'
knowledge seems to suggest that the carnal mind of man
cannot rightly comprehend the LAW nor the Mind of God.

does this make any sense to you?

the special case of Jesus Christ can be addressed later

because we have this notion of Holy Spirit guidance...etc.

> A smithy can forge a sword and then to test it,
> smack it several times on a rock. What is his will?
> He doesn't want the sword to break, but he tries to
> break it. If it breaks, then that still is
> according to what his (implicitly) stated goals are.

consider this;

==
1 Corinthians 10:13
No trial has overtaken you except such as is common to man;
but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tried beyond
what you are able, but with the trial will also make the
way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
==

> My main point here is that language often fails us.
> Look at how we shudder when the science reporter
> from the local newspaper comes to interview the
> professor who proves a long-standing, famous conjecture.
> We know he's not going to get it right. We just
> hope it won't be too embarrassing. It takes years
> of immersing oneself in the ideas and jargon of
> math or physics in order for two scientists to
> communicate adequately with one another. So, again,
> why are we surprised when the same thing happens
> in theological matters? Even if we take "never
> came into My mind" to mean "it never occured to Me",
> it is not necessarily implied that God didn't
> foreknow the event.

well, before i would suggest that God
lead a people in to a circumstance on purpose
as some sort of object lesson, i'd consider this;

==
James 1:13-14
Let no one say when he is tempted,
�I am tempted by God�; for God cannot
be tempted by evil, nor does
He Himself tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted when he is
drawn away by his own desires
and enticed.
==

does this mean that God never tries people?

no i wouldn't say that.

but i would say that man can lead himself
in to circumstances that are harmful to him
without being able to suggest that
God lead him there.

ok?

Virgil

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 12:35:40 AM9/3/12

to

In article <XnsA0C2E705EF042go...@74.209.136.89>,

Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in news:504405D0.68F0
> @lycos.com-:
>
> > i said nothing at all about there being a contradiction
> > in Jeremiah or Genesis as far as what God was purported
> > to have said and what effect it had.
> >
>
> It's an example of how the way God reveals Himself

As far as I can see, no god has ever given us any objective physical
evidence of his/her/its existence, and without such evidence, I see no
reason to suppose any such a thing as a god does exist.
--

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 7:30:13 AM9/3/12

to

The point you are not getting is that there is NO relation between the
foreknowledge of God about what his creatures would do and between
their free will. Suppose I chose to do such and such, I still have
done it out of my complete free will and yet God knew what I would
choose since ever, and God's foreknowledge of what I chose didn't at
all interfere with my decisions. Suppose I somehow knew that you are
going to rub a bank tomorrow, suppose I saw that in a dream, just
suppose that, should that mean that I forced you to rub the bank? In
somehow similar manner God knew since ever that Adam will eat from the
forbidden tree at such and such moment of time, he knew everything
since ever, but still this doesn't mean that Adam was "forced" in any
sense to eat from the that tree. Free will exists and God knew all its
decisions in advance and without interfering in that free will. I hope
you can get that point.

When God speak in a metaphorical manner he is definitely not lying.
For example, when God said: Adam where are you? do you think that this
mean that God didn't know where Adam is? of course not, of course God
knew very well where is Adam, but he is testing what Adam would say.

Anyhow this subject is not easy to fathom and it does need some deep
insight into it, you cannot ever resolve such questions by merely
picking up some verses here and there in the Bible or the Qur'an or
the Torah and try to build some convictions upon what appears to you
to be clear enough to justify that interpretation. You need a much
more comprehensive work than that.

Anyhow one last word I must say, all books of Ibrahemic religions have
the basic message that God is good, merciful and Just, and encourage
good deeds and discourage evil deeds and gives a hope for the good
people that their good deeds will be rewarded ultimately and assures
the bad ones of punishment for their bad deeds in a just and merciful
court. God exerts value on this word and gives a good cause for
existence of an individual and exerts a shining light of value on the
whole existence.

Now these subjects of Free will versus Forknowledge, What God can do
and what he cannot, the nature of God etc.... all would be
controversial and actually they are not concrete parts of those
messages although there is fairly common expectation of those matters
in all three Ibrahemic religions.

The main thing is that people should do Good deeds and hope for the
best and always treat others with full respect and never harm them
(unless in overt self defense) one should respect what people believe
(including your believe of a limited God) as far as those believes are
not obviously harmful to one's self or to the society.

Religion must encourage harmony between the individual and one's self
and between the individual and others and between the individual and
society and the world. That is the basic content of all Ibrahemic
Religions and perhaps even some philosophical hindu accounts and
Buddist\ Confuciusist\Taoist religions.

Everything else other than the basic message of love and respect is
just open to many interpretations that will never be resolved until
God wishes one day for them to be resolved.

Zuhair

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 7:39:58 AM9/3/12

to

On Sep 3, 7:35 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article <XnsA0C2E705EF042goddardbenetscape...@74.209.136.89>,
> Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote in news:504405D0.68F0

> > @lycos.com-:
>
> > > i said nothing at all about there being a contradiction
> > > in Jeremiah or Genesis as far as what God was purported
> > > to have said and what effect it had.
>
> > It's an example of how the way God reveals Himself
>
> As far as I can see, no god has ever given us any objective physical
> evidence of his/her/its existence, and without such evidence, I see no
> reason to suppose any such a thing as a god does exist.
> --

Well this is a point of view, I respect it. But also the same argument
can be used to the contrary. There is no objective evidence that God
doesn't exist, so unless objective evidence is there one is then
justified to have faith in the existence of God as far as he deems
this faith necessary for his well being and his relationship to his
surroundings. Faith in God is almost "necessary" to have a kind of
universal value in existence, it cause a feeling of satisfaction in
one's existence and the whole existence of the universe that no other
idea can evoke. Some people seem to think that such enlightening of
the existence they are living is Necessary for them to continue to
thrive and communicate and do good, if so then I see their faith in
existence of God justified as far as no objective evidence to the
contrary is presented and as far as it meet its aims.

Zuhair

Bart Goddard

unread,

-i- can know things beforehand at
or above the 95% confidence interval.

-i- can 'predict' that if i stand atop
the tower of pisa and drop a lead weight,
that it will hit the ground xx.xx seconds later.

[xx.xx is some number which i can calculate
based on the knowledge of past events.}

i drop the weight, as i click my
little stopwatch, and lo and behold

the 'thud' happens xx.xx seconds later.

i can get someone else to drop it and me stand
at the bottom to get what may be a more precise
rendering of the exact time of the thud.

none of these machinations leave me
in any sort of contradiction

> All this blather about pre-destination/free-will
> only happens when someone wants to stand with
> one foot in time and the other in eternity.

that God can be said to not age and die because God
is not composed of materials which undergo entropic
effects and such does not suggest that God
cannot interact with a materials based
universe in some timely manner.

that God may very well be able to
"declare the begiing from the end"

says more to the presumption that God is -there-
present at a beginning and what may be called an 'end'

and does not necessarily suggest that
such an 'end' has already happened

even if, one may suggest that God can have a
comprehensive comprehension of what that
'end' may be like, and not even that there is an end of all ends

but perhaps, ends to new beginnings, like

"well, i set out to do such and such, and
now that's finished so, i can close that
door and open up another, etc etc etc"

still no inescapable contradictions present.

> If you step outside of time, it becomes plain
> that both the concepts of pre-determination and
> free will are overly simplistic AND hardly cover
> the spectrum of possible scenerios.

-i'm- not 'limitting' God to any sort

of mechanical type of behavior.

i'm speaking of a God who is aware of God

is personal and has a will to act or not act.

> As I keep saying, you have a severe language problem.

you haven't shown a language problem
in things that i have actually said.

> Language should serve the user, not
> beat him to a pulp. Words carry much unintended,
> unrecognized baggage. One can't avoid the baggage,
> but he can recognize it for what it is.

i'm not feeling any ill effects at this time.

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 11:21:39 AM9/3/12

to

http://tinyurl.com/cv94zkr

Virgil

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 3:05:28 PM9/3/12

to

In article <5044CB...@lycos.com->,
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:

What gods does TS allege?
--

Virgil

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 3:14:29 PM9/3/12

to

In article
<f4c2fc6e-db1b-43f7...@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Since well over 90% of the members of the British Royal Society and of
the American Academy of Science are openly non-believers in any gods, I
see no reason to suppose that belief in any gods is even beneficial,
except possibly in societies so mired in poverty as to have nothing else
to live for.

Religions as sops do not recommend themselves to me.
--

Virgil

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 3:20:12 PM9/3/12

to

I find that an axiom system that demands the existence of a god is
neither necessary, or, for most of humanity these days, useful.

And certainly is neither in alt.math
--

Wally W.

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 3:41:32 PM9/3/12

to

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:7&version=KJV
seek, and ye shall find

WM

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 3:55:26 PM9/3/12

to

On 2 Sep., 19:37, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no contradiction between saying that God has knowledge of
> everything in advance and between free will. He knew in advance all of
> what free will beings will do out of their free will, there is no
> forcing neither limitation on free will implied by forknowledge per
> se.

There is no contradiction in assuming that every stone can decide
whether it will fall up or down. There is no contradiction that we
know that every stone will decide to fall down. Every stone has its
free will nevertheless. (You have very well learned your lesson of
excluding contradictory results in set theory.)

Can God create a creature of which he does not know how it will
decide?

Why should God create only creatures which do exactly what God knows?
Mustn't it be very boring to be a God?

Did God know all evil that happens because he made humans so bad?
If so, why should his son resolve men from exactly that sin that God
knew would happen because he made men as bad he did?

Regards, WM

Virgil

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 4:19:39 PM9/3/12

to

In article
<ed4c96e0-9ccf-4b6d...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

What objective physical evidence does anyone have that
(1) any gods exist?
(2) that any such gods, if extant, in any way
conform to our imaginings of them?

Absent any such objective physical evidence, religions need no more
necessary contact with reality that do axiom systems, which can be
totally arbitrary.

Though through long experience mathematicians have developed some
mathematical axioms systems which are of some mathematical, even if not
of much theological, interest.
--

Virgil

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 4:21:28 PM9/3/12

to

In article <no1a48legp6d45ut9...@4ax.com>,

Thanks, but I have found that everything I need can be based on
objective physical evidence, of which you have none.
--

Transfer Principle

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 4:22:57 PM9/3/12

to

On Sep 2, 9:21 am, M a r t i n M i c h a e l M u s a t o v
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is spoken interpreted in different context when written (also
> with respect to order of events).

> If it was true God did have knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge,
> would it necessarily be true god did have foreknowledge?

The good news: this is shaping up to be a delicious debate thread.
The bad news: of course, the topic has to be _religion_ -- since
religion seems to generate more heated debates than mathematics,
even here on sci.math.

In this thread, Bart Goddard calls atheists "new Flat-earthers"
(at approx. 1PM Greenwich), and then Virgil refers to religions as
"sops" (approx. an hour before this post). And even zuhair adds
some information from the Qur'an. But in no case does anyone ever
accuse his opponents of not understanding _religion_, in the same
way that posters in math threads accuse their opponents of not
understanding math.

Of course I myself won't be choosing sides among atheism, Islam,
or Christianity in this thread. I just wish that there were more
math debate threads like this religious debate thread.

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 11:03:41 PM9/3/12

to

Timothy Sutter wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/cv94zkr

i'm not very interested in posting all the materials
found in this thread http://tinyurl.com/cv94zkr
again in this thread.

this thread asks a question about God,

i replied to it.

if you want to pore over http://tinyurl.com/cv94zkr

go right ahead.

if not, don't.

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 2:10:32 AM9/4/12

to

NO, mostly likely this is not the case. I know what you are trying to
do, but this just wont work. You are speaking of a limited God. You
are simply not distinguishing between metaphorical speech and direct
speech. These matters are really tricky that anyone can slip into
misunderstanding about them, there are lots of verses like those ones
you are mentioning all to be understood metaphorically. Anyhow this
topic itself is not the main message of the Bible, the main message is
Moral-Ethical one stimulating Good cause and refraining from Evil
doings. Those theological matters are mind shuttering matters that no
real agreement will be reached about really. For example the standard
line of thinking in those ibrahemic religions are totally on the
opposite side to what you are writing here, yet that by itself doesn't
make them (and I of course) more right than you on such an issue, but
it does let your stance non-standard as far as common understanding of
the Bible entailed.

Do you think God truly didn't know where Adam was when he said: Adam
where are you?

Do you think God sleeps? Do you take it literally that the shouts of
sons of Israel awoke him from his slumbers?

Those are examples among vastly many others of what is written in the
Bible and it is generally understood in a metaphorical manner.

Zuhair

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 2:20:33 AM9/4/12

to

I don't have full answers to those and I don't think anyone has. By
the way I don't know why people are considering themselves as "Bad",
most people are Good, that some are Bad doesn't impart that most are
so. And I don't know if God really had sent his son to save us, or
that he even has a son, but let's assume all of that, then there must
be a reason he saw that important. We really cannot understand the
Divine will, to ask those questions is really interesting but I don't
think anyone will ever find final answers to them in this life I
mean.

Zuhair

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 2:28:10 AM9/4/12

to

On Sep 3, 11:19 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article

> <ed4c96e0-9ccf-4b6d-8523-5ab51e3c7...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

There are many situations in this life where we don't have any so
called "objective" evidence and yet we have faith in and our stance
turns to be correct. The question about the rule of having faith in a
Just God and morality and ethics is still unsolved, there is no
objective evidence that believing in a Just and Loving God will not
promote Good doings. So I cannot advocate to forsake such a belief
later to find that it is morally supportive, then I'd be knowing the
lesson in the hard way.

The proper statement is to promote Religious Freedom, as far as this
freedom is not of harm to oneself and the society and nature.

Zuhair

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 2:56:36 AM9/4/12

to

On Sep 3, 11:22 pm, Transfer Principle <david.l.wal...@lausd.net>
wrote:

Well in the Real world Religious differences produced disasters. On
the other hand mathematics really was at the core of human's
scientific success.

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 2:58:35 AM9/4/12

to

On Sep 3, 11:19 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ed4c96e0-9ccf-4b6d-8523-5ab51e3c7...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well that's not so bad at all, you can consider them nice dreams,
although sometimes they turn to be nightmares really.

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 3:08:00 AM9/4/12

to

what is not likely the case?

do you say that God has 'free will' or not?

> I know what you are trying to
> do, but this just wont work.

> You are speaking of a limited God.

==
Titus 1:2
in hope of eternal life which God,
who cannot lie, promised before time began,
==

do you consider this a limitation?

if you do, i can tell you why i think that
it is not a limitation on God to not lie.

> You
> are simply not distinguishing between metaphorical speech and direct
> speech.

so, in Joel when YHWH says God is gracious and merciful,

Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm.
Who knows if He will turn and relent,

And leave a blessing behind Him�

you say;
"yes, God is merciful, i like that part
as literal but all the rest must be
interpretted as metaphor."

seems like you want to pick and choose how to 'interpret'
the bible to fit your own preconcieved notions about God
that you developed on your own, and when they don't match,
you favor your own opinion to what is clearly stated
in the biblical texts.

i don't do that.

> These matters are really tricky that anyone can slip into
> misunderstanding about them, there are lots of verses like those ones
> you are mentioning all to be understood metaphorically. Anyhow this
> topic itself is not the main message of the Bible,

i'd probaly like to avoid this sort of thing;

---
Colossians 2:4-9

Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with
persuasive words. For though I am absent in the flesh,
yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your
good order and the steadfastness of your faith
in Christ. As you therefore have received Christ
Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built
up in Him and established in the faith, as you
have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy
and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,
according to the basic principles of the world,
and not according to Christ. 9For in Him dwells
all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10and you
are complete in Him, who is the head of
all principality and power.

<...>

Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight
in false humility and worship of angels, intruding
into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed
up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head,
from whom all the body, nourished and knit together
by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase
that is from God.
===

> the main message is
> Moral-Ethical one stimulating Good cause and refraining from Evil
> doings. Those theological matters are mind shuttering matters that no
> real agreement will be reached about really.

when a person says ;

"good is me getting what i want, and bad is me not getting what i want"

that person may classify God as 'bad' because that person didn't
get what they wanted, and yet, such would not be the case.

can you comprehend this?

> For example the standard
> line of thinking in those ibrahemic religions are totally on the
> opposite side to what you are writing here, yet that by itself doesn't
> make them (and I of course) more right than you on such an issue, but
> it does let your stance non-standard as far as common understanding of
> the Bible entailed.

i didn't get my doctrine from men or by consulting with flesh and blood.

> Do you think God truly didn't know where Adam was when he said: Adam
> where are you?

i already said this;

"God may have wanted to find out if Adam knew where Adam was."

don't you think i meant what i said?

> Do you think God sleeps? Do you take it literally that the shouts of
> sons of Israel awoke him from his slumbers?

would you accuse yourself of limitting God in some manner if
you said that it was impossible for God to turn a deaf ear
to people for a while as though sleeping?

> Those are examples among vastly many others of what is written in the
> Bible and it is generally understood in a metaphorical manner.

sure there is allegory and metaphor in the bible

but i'm asking you a straight up question;

do you think tha God has "free will?"

yes or no?

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 4:52:45 AM9/4/12

to

Yes, of course he has.

Zuhair

Message has been deleted

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 6:57:39 AM9/4/12

to

On Sep 4, 10:07 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:

>

> do you think tha God has "free will?"
>
> yes or no?

Of course God has free will, and even humans have to some degree a
free will, still all of that is not in contradiction with the
Foreknowledge of God.

Now in order to have a restricted will there must be restricting
factors external to you, where your will is a consequence of the
action of those. Now there is nothing external to God that can force
him to do what he is doing or what he will do, so it is a prima facia
that God will have a free will, since there are no other Gods.

Again God has a free will, and also he has absolute Foreknowledge of
all deeds of what he created and this Foreknowledge is not limiting
the free will his creatures have nor is it limiting his own free
will.

As I maintain that God has a Foreknowledge that is NOT in any way
interfering with the free will of his "creatures". And also his
Foreknowledge of his own deeds is not interfering at all with his own
free will.

YOUR problem is that you think that if God has foreknowledge then
this
would interfere with the free will of his creatures and with his own,
this is your problem, to you if we say that God has foreknowledge of
everything humans does then this mean that humans are dictated by
this
foreknowledge of God, that's the ideational mistake occurring in your
argumentation, and that's what I'm trying to get you overcome.

Again I maintain the following

(1) God has an absolutely Free Will

(2) Man will is sometimes Free

(3) God has absolute Foreknowledge of all deeds of himself and his
creatures

(4) God's Foreknowledge doesn't in any way limit his absolute freedom
nor does it in any way limit Man's freedom of willing.

(5) All of the above is the common stance of most of scholars of all
Ibrahemic Religions and even some Hindu scripts.

That some people (like you) will have other convictions, that's OK,
actually it is expected, since this matter is not easy to handle
anyway. And after all the opinion of most thinkers of the script in
those Religions might turn to be wrong and yours might be right, yes
this might be the case. Why not?

The point is No one whether You or Me or the scholars of any religion
has the right to FORCE others into believing into what they believe.

You said your side, it is crystal clear, to me it is dam erroneous,
you are simply confusing metaphorical for direct speech. You also
think I'm erroneous, you are thinking that I'm into forcing prior
convictions of mine on the Bible etc... which is not the case.

Many people have difficulty in handling metaphorical speech, that's
not a surprise at all. Again I don't say that God is lying at all,
actually I behold that God is all Good, he never lies, but the
problem
is that some of metaphorical speech in reference to him causes a lot
of misleading interpretations like those ones you had here.
Metaphorical confusion is expected, actually this is written in Qur'an
as well, that many verses
would be interpreted wrongly, and that people must hold to the very
crystal clear ones. This occurs will every scripture about God's and
the alike.

I don't honestly think we'd change our convictions anyway.

Thanks for your correspondence.

God Bless you.

Zuhair

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 7:30:07 AM9/4/12

to

Zuhair wrote:

> Again I maintain the following

> (1) God has an absolutely Free Will

> (2) Man will is sometimes Free

> (3) God has absolute Foreknowledge of all deeds
> of himself and his creatures

this is an unnecessary assumption;

==
Ezekiel 28:14-16

14 �You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

16 �By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.
==

now, yuo'd be saying that God, before creating this creature,
knew that God would be 'finding' injustice in this creature,
which would practically speaking be saying that God -placed-
the injustice within this creature, therevy saying that the
injustice was in God before the creation of this creature
who merely exhibits this injustice that is present in God.

metaphorical or not, i wil;l steer clear of placing an injustice
in God that isn't there, because as i mentioned earlier, if God
was in some interminable struggle with God, then
no creation would be possible.

may God bless you...

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 7:31:30 AM9/4/12

to

Zuhair wrote:

> You said your side, it is crystal clear, to me it is dam erroneous,
> you are simply confusing metaphorical for direct speech. You also
> think I'm erroneous, you are thinking that I'm into forcing prior
> convictions of mine on the Bible etc... which is not the case.

check this out...

see, God is already perfectly
reflected in God's own Word.

God is Breathing, eternally, God.

when the breathing Spirit moves forward
in some utterance, this Word brings
the Spirit in to a 'new place'

a 'new place' that comes in to being
simultaneously with the utterance.

before this beginning, God knows God
as the private inspiration of God.

before this beginning, Love is a
private matter known only in God.

one can suggest that The Word which is
always present in Spirit and with Spirit
summarily formulates an encapsulation
of God's own Spirit, and,
as God speaks
this unseen Word, that which was not seen,
becomes seen, and God is beginning to show
that which God has always known.

in this beginning, of material and
non-material structures, is seen the
evidence of the unseen Word
and, as
the unseen Word is made manifest,
so also, the Spirit is realized
in this 'new place'

a replication of Structure
in a 'new' structure

strange is the singular declaration
made by God and conceived in
the human Mary,
is
different from the multiple
declarations made by God which
resulted in the material universe.

which is to say: the material universe
is brought forth in discrete stages,
whereas
Jesus,
that ultimate manifestation of The Word,
came about in one complete declaration.

one minor detail;

there is first, a declaration which
results in the conception in Mary,

and later, two declarations
of support for the human
being so formed,

which is to say, the thunder
from the blue which states;

"this is My Son in whom
i am well pleased"

and then;

"this is My Son, listen to Him"

and then, Jesus is -declared-

"first born from the dead"

but each time here,
it's stamping the same
general remark upon
the human race.

a remark of God's own completeness and
Holiness upon a material creation that
was made to stand apart from God, suffered
paling anguish in comparison to God, and
is redeemed to a station of Unity in God.

if we say that each declaration made by God
carries an exacting image of God's own presence,
then, the multiple declarations made in bringing
forth the material universe, each resemble
particular manifestations of Theistic attribution,

whereas, that singular declaration which
conceives Christ, is the Spirit made Word
made material.

God has taken hold of this 'new place' and

the multiple manifestations all reside as One.

The Word made manifest is God,

but, a summed duplication of God is not God,

this drama serves first to demonstrate
with crystal clarity that God is God
and there can be no other God.

while God knew that God's own Spirit
would be presented with undeniable
clarity in God's own Word,

God can also be aware that any summation
of all Theistic attribution would remain
short of the Fullness of Deity in Love,

but, any lack of recognition of God's
Ultimate Preeminence in All
found in any summed
duplication of God's attributes must
be met with the strictest Judgement
until such time as God's own Mercy
is to be correspondingly bestowed.

to be 'not God' is not a crime.

to be 'not God' and not comprehend,
must be treated as a crime.

such chastizement is unutterably profound

subsequently, the removal of all blot is

Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.

God acts according to God's own Will
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.

God spins out a governing authority
as independant Beings.

before we examine the purpose to which
these independant Beings were spun out,

we would consider that in spinning out
these structural elements as independant
characteristics, these elements first take
on the attribute of 'not God' inasmuch as
they become as creations, and therefore,
God must redeem these structural elements,
themselves, in to full unity with God.

what could be considered strange, is that
any of these God breathed characteristics
could turn around, and view God as subject
to -it's- authority.

so, now, looking at this view, we can
easily see a potential for God's own
creation to turn on God and convince
itself that God belongs in
-its- dominion.

the Creator being ruled by a creation.

such authority as God already possesses
in God's own Perfect Will in Love.

God acts according to God's
own Will founded in Love.

such a turnaround could found a Selfish
elevation which would nullify �that�
creation's claim to Love, the defining
characteristic of God.

should such a turnaround occur, its reckoning
as a potential hazzard would already have been
recognized, but still, it will remain as a
controversy in any creation that would desire
to subjugate that perfect Will of God.

in so doing,

�that� creation stymies its own freedom.

in so doing,

�that� creation distorts it's
view of Self to deny that
perfect Will of God.

in so doing,

�that� creation captures itself in a snare.

to aspire to God by denying that to which it aspires
it must deny it's own God breathed characteristics
and distort it's own view of it's own authority.

meanwhile, God is still God and only Loves.

[yes, God's disdain -for- hatred is because
it doesn't -match- God's Love]

[a subtle distinction]

but, �that� unruly ruler has fallen headlong
in to a morass of irrational justifications.

whereas, ideally it would have it's
independant will in submission to
the unity of God's perfect
Will in Love,

it now has two �competing� wills

it has birthed an indecisive
competition with it�self which
it also translates into an
adversarial position against
God, its Creator.

Self destruction is immenent

freeze it there for a while...

> God acts according to God's own Will
> founded in that Love which human beings
> aspire to comprehend.

we could call this True autonomy.

behaving independantly according to personal will,
coupled with designs only to carry those admirable,
harmless and benevolent actions borne out of Love.

as God grants autonomy to its creations, we would
not consider it harmless and benevolent to allow
any creation to fixate on its own attributes
to the point of self destructive idolatry.

and so, should such a situation arise, during the
subsequent course of extracting such a creation
from it's self induced strugglings, if God appears
to 'smite' that creation with harsh criticisms,
we may still conclude that these criticisms are
borne out of an admirable Love.

even if that criticism involves removal
of autonomy and exacting demonstrations
of shortfall.

so, we should conclude that God's meting
out Justice is itself borne out of Love
and alone accomplishes the most Merciful ends.

it is not that God's work is purposefully 'booby-trapped'
but it is as if, in spinning out autonomous figures,
God stands at the door when those autonomous figures
seek an immediate return to the domain of God,

and now, God at the door represents a stumbling stone.

there is no way around God at the door,
because God is the door, and the desire
towards True autonomy is all pervasive.

there is this fine line tripwire which
is simply inherent in the situation.

in God as perfect Unity in Love the good
of the neighbor is exactly the good of God,

but, as God spins out these autonomous figures,
these new creatures must confront the motivating
forces towards True autonomy coupled with the
overriding necessity to cede 'all others' their
own personal autonomy.

and so, when these newly spun autonomous figures
are able to see their own good in and as the good
of all others, they succeed, but as any see their
own personal good as of primary and even sole
importance, they fall short.

and i mean, fall headlong over the stumbling stone.

and so, what may seem to us as
unbearably harsh chastizements,

is simply God falling with the stumbler,
and being there to lift 'it' back up
in newness of Life.

God never pushed it down, it fell.

and God alone can make it rise again.

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 10:33:40 AM9/4/12

to

On 4 Sep., 08:20, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't have full answers to those and I don't think anyone has. By
> the way I don't know why people are considering themselves as "Bad",
> most people are Good, that some are Bad doesn't impart that most are
> so. And I don't know if God really had sent his son to save us, or
> that he even has a son, but let's assume all of that, then there must
> be a reason he saw that important. We really cannot understand the
> Divine will,

The reason is the same why we cannot well-order most real numbers.
They do not exist.

> to ask those questions is really interesting but I don't
> think anyone will ever find final answers to them in this life I
> mean.

Here is the final answer: If God knows everything, then he knows also
everything he will ever do and ever know. All that God would have
planned, initialized and known. From the beginning he would have known
who has to be punished at the end with eternal damnation. If he knew
all, then he knew what would spring off from his creation.
nevertheless he did not improve it. Therefore he is responsible for
all the evil in the world.

His only excuse is his non-existence.

Regards, WM

WM

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 10:34:39 AM9/4/12

to

On 4 Sep., 08:28, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are many situations in this life where we don't have any so
> called "objective" evidence and yet we have faith in and our stance
> turns to be correct. The question about the rule of having faith in a
> Just God and morality and ethics is still unsolved, there is no
> objective evidence that believing in a Just and Loving God will not
> promote Good doings. So I cannot advocate to forsake such a belief
> later to find that it is morally supportive, then I'd be knowing the
> lesson in the hard way.
>
> The proper statement is to promote Religious Freedom, as far as this
> freedom is not of harm to oneself and the society and nature.

The proper action is to educate superstitious people.

Regards, WM

WM

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 10:37:50 AM9/4/12

to

On 4 Sep., 12:57, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 10:07 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
>
>
>
> > do you think tha God has "free will?"
>
> > yes or no?
>
> Of course God has free will,

If he knows all, then he knows what he would do next. He cannot
deviate from the screenplay. Or he wouild have to cheat and to adjust
his memory. Can God cheat?

and even humans have to some degree a
> free will, still all of that is not in contradiction with the
> Foreknowledge of God.

If God knows how the created people will behave, then they have no
choice but to act in exactly the way God knows, Free will means that
not every decision is known in advance. That is the definition of free
will. Everything else is predetermination. Free will in a
predetermined world is a contradiction.

>
> Now in order to have a restricted will there must be restricting
> factors external to you, where your will is a consequence of the
> action of those. Now there is nothing external to God that can force
> him to do what he is doing or what he will do, so it is a prima facia
> that God will have a free will, since there are no other Gods.

Who has told you? There is a hierachy of Sets and of Gods.

>
> Again God has a free will, and also he has absolute Foreknowledge of
> all deeds of what he created and this Foreknowledge is not limiting
> the free will his creatures have nor is it limiting his own free
> will.

That sound like a communist surrounding. There all people have the
free will to do what the governmet wishes.

>
> As I maintain that God has a Foreknowledge that is NOT in any way
> interfering with the free will of his "creatures". And also his
> Foreknowledge of his own deeds is not interfering at all with his own
> free will.

Your free will is like that of stone. The stone always decides to fall
down.

>
> YOUR problem is that you think that if God has foreknowledge then
> this
> would interfere with the free will of his creatures and with his own,
> this is your problem,

No it is the problem of many philosophers, in principle it is the
problem of all philosophers who have not been taught the lessons by
Löwenheim-Skolem and Banach-Tarski. After that you are immune to
contradictions.

to you if we say that God has foreknowledge of
> everything humans does then this mean that humans are dictated by
> this
> foreknowledge of God, that's the ideational mistake occurring in your
> argumentation, and that's what I'm trying to get you overcome.

If all is known in advance, then it cannot happen in any other way.
Then you have predetermination. Whether it occurs on "ree will"or not
is of no interest for the facts.

But to avoid sophisticated wording, let us say: It is impossible that
any creature deviates from its screenplay that is written and known by
God.

Do you agree?

Regards, WM

Richard Tobin

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 10:41:04 AM9/4/12

to

In article <21ee685f-f24a-4e47...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>If all is known in advance, then it cannot happen in any other way.

What if it's known in advance, and then forgotten?

-- Richard

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 12:57:39 PM9/4/12

to

The point I'm trying to make here is that God can do things that we
cannot contemplate, or at least seem no intuitive at all to us,
sometimes even appears to us Paradoxical, but to God it is not,
because he is above the terrain of logic and possibility. You cannot
limit any of God's attributes to Logic at all. Yes I do agree with you
that superficially speeking God's Foreknowledge seems to be dictative
since as you say all future behavior of God and his creatures should
abide by it, so as you say it would be Pre-determination and this is
frankly against free will. This argument is falcious because it simply
restrict God to logical maxims which is not the case, God is above
logic, reason and possibility, We will never fully understand his
essence or his attribute, all what we can do is to present it in words
that indeed appears paradoxical (although they are not, they are
really counter-intuitive), our intutions about God's nature will
expectdly fail because we are not in his shoes or even had ever lived
a similar environment.

The idea of a Just and Loving ONE God is not mythical.

Zuhair

Zuhair

unread,

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 4:24:26 PM9/4/12

to

In article
<4c7fc272-46c7-47b0...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

The judgement that something is "evil" is a purely human judgement, and
differs widely from religion to religion, and even within a given
religion from person to person.

Societies can have moral codes and impose them on their members, but an
individual human in total isolation from any society of other humans
does not need one.

There is, as far as I can see, no objective physical evidence supporting
any claim of 'supernatural' existence, so I do not choose to believe in
any. Though, also for lack of evidence, I also do not claim certainty
of its nonexistence.

And I find the arguments about things supernatural to be like arguments
in useless axiom systems in which I have no interest.
--

Bart Goddard

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 4:49:28 PM9/4/12

to

Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in news:5044C998.4E23
@lycos.com-:

> you haven't shown a language problem
> in things that i have actually said.

Let's see, I gave at least 4 examples of language
not behaving as you used it to conclude that God
might not omniscient. I pointed out specifically
that the problem was that you were using temporal
language to try to answer transtemporal questions.
Yet you think I haven't shown you your difficulty?

As I said, I know you can't hear me. I suppose it's
the noise of all the rabbit holes.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Zuhair

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 5:24:12 PM9/4/12

to

On Sep 4, 11:24 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article

> <4c7fc272-46c7-47b0-b860-75cbb5c4a...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Well Ethics and Morality is a deep subject, I do think that "Good",
"evil" or "bad" etc.. do have an objective reality and can be
characterized even in scientific terms, but a lot of work is needed at
the formal and experiential level. I do think that humans do have
common features in their body built as well as their mind tendencies
(instincts, emotions, ideas, etc...) and the physical world and living
kingdom all have lows, so there will expected to be "beneficial laws
of interaction of humans and their surroundings" and I think those
laws are as objective and real as the physical laws are, since they
are part of them actually. Those objective beneficial laws are the
base from which ethics springs. This will need an immense work up in:
Psychology, Sociology, Politics, Economy, Morality, Ecology, etc...
all of which is to be done in a scientific manner.

Up till now I agree with you that Ethics and Morality is somewhat not
fully scrutinized, much have been done, but still a lot to be
discovered. Those societies that have the nearer moral and ethical
code to the objective one are the societies that achieve more harmony
on both individual and society level from one side and the environment
they are living in on the other side, and those societies are the one
who evolved and improved more than the other ones who followed a moral
code and ethical teaching that are further from the objective real
code.

Humans have discovered that Love, Honesty, Compassion, Mercy, Helping,
Respect, Tolerance, etc... all constitute part of the Good conduct,
while the opposite to those is part of the Evil conduct, and those are
true statements as far as experience can tell us, the first ones
promote beneficial interplay between humans and their surroundings
while the others destroy such interplay and lead to disasters for ones
self and the others (i.e. non beneficial).

In short I do think there are objective grounds for Good and Evil.

Zuhair

WM

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 8:50:41 AM9/5/12

to

On 4 Sep., Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in several postings:

Z: The point I'm trying to make here is that God can do things that

we
cannot contemplate, or at least seem no intuitive at all to us,
sometimes even appears to us Paradoxical, but to God it is not,
because he is above the terrain of logic and possibility. You cannot
limit any of God's attributes to Logic at all.

WM: God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5 in human mathematics.
God cannot make ((A ==> B) & B) ==> A in human logics.
And if he allowed for that conclusion with himself he probably would
not exist for long.

Z: Yes I do agree with you

that superficially speeking God's Foreknowledge seems to be dictative
since as you say all future behavior of God and his creatures should
abide by it, so as you say it would be Pre-determination and this is
frankly against free will. This argument is falcious

WM: That is nonsense. You can at most say that you don not believe in
that argument. But that does not make is false.

Z: because it simply

restrict God to logical maxims which is not the case, God is above
logic, reason and possibility

WM: First, there is no certainty that God is at all. Second if you
wish to "argue" in that way you should choose another place but not
sci.logic.

Z: We will never fully understand his

essence or his attribute, all what we can do is to present it in
words
that indeed appears paradoxical (although they are not, they are
really counter-intuitive),

WM: That is the typical insulting arguing used by matheologians.
It has nothing to do with intuition that God cannot change human
logic.

Z: The idea of a Just and Loving ONE God is not mythical.

WM: You accuse me of being intuitive.
You abolish logic.
You believe in things which you cannot name.
Nevertheless you call my arguments fallacious.
You don't know anything of God.
On the other hand you claim to know a lot of God.
Your "arguments" are unchallengeable. You would make a very good
matheologian. Alas in matheology we have to observe logic at least.

WM: But to avoid sophisticated wording, let us say: It is impossible

that any creature deviates from its screenplay that is written and
known by God. Do you agree?

Z: Yes I agree but this impossibility came out of FREE will, that

doesn't
mean at all that there is a pre-determination.

WM: No matter where it came from. If everything is known in advance
and cannot be changed, then it is known and cannot be changed. That is
but another word for predetermined. No matter how you try to escape
this clear conclusion.

WM: Why did he rest at the 7th day?

Z: Another metaphorical issue!

WM: At the time when the Bible has been written it was not meant
metaphorically. Neither was the mentioning of the whale "fish" meant
metaphorically. The Bible has been written by men. And these men
wanted to increase their credibility by knowing this big "fish". Today
they are devoid of any credibility in scientific circles because of
such mistakes.

Z: But you need to know when superstition starts.

WM: Superstition starts with the belief in a God or a Goddess as they
are described in the Bible and related books. A God, for instance, who
created men with foreskin but does only love those without, should not
be worshipped. Either he is evil or stupid or both.

Z: The judgement that something is "evil" is a purely human judgement,

and
differs widely from religion to religion, and even within a given
religion from person to person.

WM: Something is evil if it hurts or tortures a feeling being. The
world is evil because a cat kills a mouse torturing it.

Z: The question of evil is a very deep one, I don't have a final

answer to that, but definitely God has

WM: You claim without any reason. This is not approriate for
sci.logic.

Z: To me these unfinished answers are not a justification for
falsifying the concept of a Just and Loving God.

WM: Nobody can disprove the existence of one or more Gods and
Goddesses.
Everytime when I come to chapter IX of my lesson on the history of the
infinite, namely the infinity in celstial spheres, I explicitly
encourage every student who believes in a God to remain so.
It is advantageous to believe to be protected by a loving God as it is
advantageous for a student to believe that he will pass the exam over
believing that he will fail.
And I conclude this chapter with Feynman who said: One can neither
prove nor disprove God.
But I can prove that he is not infinite in all respects.
God cannot make a stone too heavy to lift it and nevertheless lift it.
God cannot know everything in advance and nevertheless make a creature
that has the choice to do something else.
God cannot finish the unfinishable.
I do not believe in any Gods because I prefer science. Science means
to doubt even the believable whereas religion means to believe even
the doubtful.
But I am sure: If it turns out that there is a God, then this being
will be intelligent enough to recognize that my position is by far
preferable over any blind believer. And he will not punish me for not
believing. He will share my position that it is ridiculous to believe
without any evidence and in particular to believe that believers are
in any way necessary or satisfying for God.

Regards, WM

Shmuel Metz

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 5:57:49 AM9/5/12

to

In <XnsA0C4A0FA3D285go...@74.209.136.92>, on 09/04/2012

at 08:49 PM, Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> said:

>Let's see, I gave at least 4 examples of language
>not behaving as you used it to conclude that God
>might not omniscient.

There are three more fundamental problems:

The subject doesn't reflect a particular theology, so
alt.bible.prophecy and the biblical quotes are irrelevant.

Neither sci.logic not sci.math is relevant; the question is a
theological one.

None of the bibilical quotes was in the original languages.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 2:26:18 PM9/5/12

to

something concerning the 'law'

oh, don't worry, i may just post it again,
in some obscure section all by itself.

if one looks at this with some care,
and not just a casual glance read

you will see that this is

a more advanced "Law"

to notice first, the people have had
the Law read to them, and they all
agree to carry it out, [exodus 19:7-9]

and -then- we see a stipulation

[Numbers 15:22-31]

that maintains that an individual or a crowd
can transgress this law "unintentionally"
or by 'accident' and be forgiven,
and not stoned.

and we see that this is so,
because in Ezekiel 18
YHWH [YehFeh] says in no uncertain terms

that a 'wicked' man, -can- 'turn from is wickedness'
and be forgiven and his sins remembered no more.

and one of the 'sins' enumerated -is-
a death penalty sin, id est, "adultery"

now, obviously, if a man, who is an adulterer,
-can- turn from his ways and 'see the light'
as it were, then he -obviously- was -not-
to -be- stoned to death on first report

or else he could -never- possibly turn
from his 'wickedness' and be forgiven,

and this, -after- having had the Law
read to him and agreeing to abide in it.

meaning, it is -possible- that a person
could have the Law read to him, and he agree
to abide in it, and -still- not understand it,
and commit a violation 'unintentionally'
or 'by accident' and be 'forgiven'

albeit, this is no lisence game and it is
serious and you -could- get busted
up side the head with a rock.

and that's what we see later, when the people

are sick and YehFeh says that he doesn't
get a kick out of the blood of bulls
and goats... Isaiah 1

and then, you see Jesus saying this;

===
John 9:40-41

Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him
heard these words, and said to Him, �Are we blind also?�
Jesus said to them, �If you were blind, you would
have no sin; but now you say, �We see.�
Therefore your sin remains.
===

see, Jesus suggests, -as does- the Law

that you can be 'blind' and therefore,
not fully accountable for your actions
a diminished capacity defence fo adults

because it isn't always so clear why YehFeh
should care what a man does in his spare time...

but anyway, these other characters say that they =see=

and yet, -there- sin remains

and -then- you start wondering

if their sin is "intentional"

for which, forgiveness may not be so easy

inasmuch as they have held YehFeh up to scorn.

anyway, try not to just see
the -method- of execution

and say, "bad"

when the entire enterprise goes to great lengths
to elicit the proper response which is to turn
correctly towards God and see Holiness and be blameless.

no, This Law is -not- a "thrill kill"

and is -not- hanging people for teh thrill
of watching a man dangle by a thread

and is -not- putting bullets into a man
over a fitty cent debt forsome crack

or killing over tennis shoes, etc.et. etc.
or any number of the ways in which man kills
other men over trivialities.

This Law is -already- a "Grace"

and -not- 'lisence' as we see
that the children of Israel

become sickened when they seem
to -treat- it as a lisence.

much the same way as "many become sick"
when they take the communion without
having properly inspected themselves...

it's just that people fail to -see- It, Grace,

in the Law because of the 'veil' worn by Moses.

albeit, we recognize that the blood of bulls
and goats can never cleanse the conscience
of unrighteousness in te manner which
Christ's own Holy Wine, can.

but, also, that the blood of bulls and goats
was a shadow anda temporary entitlement for
the peculiar people of Israel, and that, at least,

Mary was brought forth from that strange milieu

somehow, without spot...

etc.

no, it's actually quite advanced,

if you see it more clearly.

of course, it still may be possible

to step on God's es,

even if you see God through a polished lens

but, try to avoid doing so.

apparently, God has a Way and an Image

that is not to be trifled with....

but someone can read to you and you can
agree to its genuine Good and blameless holiness

and still, fall short of a thorough understanding

and ...transgress YehFeh's territorial imperative.

you wonder who -would- transgress
on purpose with full knowledge...

but apparently, it's possible...

and then, getting busted up side
the head is a merciful end,

because they'd be in conflict with Life itself.

it definitely deserves

more than just a casual glance...

==========
Exodus 19:7-9

So Moses came and called for
the elders of the people, and laid
before them all these words which
YehFeh commanded him. Then all
the people answered together and said,
�All that YehFeh has spoken we will do.�
So Moses brought back the words of the
people to YehFeh. And YehFeh said
to Moses, �Behold, I come to you in the
thick cloud, that the people may hear
when I speak with you, and believe
you forever.� So Moses told the words
of the people to YehFeh.

==

they all agree to it...

and then, =if= transgression is unintentional...

===

Numbers 15:22-31

"'Now if you unintentionally fail
to keep any of these commands YehFeh
gave Moses- any of YehFeh's commands
to you through him, from the day YehFeh
gave them and continuing through the
generations to come-
and if this is done unintentionally
without the community being aware of it,
then the whole community is to offer
a young bull for a burnt offering as
an aroma pleasing to YehFeh, along
with its prescribed grain offering
and drink offering, and a male goat
for a sin offering. The priest is
to make atonement for the whole
Israelite community, and they will
be forgiven, for it was not intentional
and they have brought to YehFeh for
their wrong an offering made by fire
and a sin offering. The whole
Israelite community and the aliens
living among them will be forgiven,
because all the people were involved
in the unintentional wrong.
"'But if just one person sins unintentionally,
he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering.
The priest is to make atonement before YehFeh for
the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when
atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven.
One and the same law applies to everyone who sins
unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite
or an alien.

"'But anyone who sins defiantly, whether
native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD,
and that person must be cut off from his people.
31 Because he has despised YehFeh's word
and broken his commands, that person must
surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.' "

===

Ezekiel 18

1 The word of YehFeh came to me:
2 "What do you people mean by quoting
this proverb about the land of Israel:

"'The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?

"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign YehFeh,
you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
For every living soul belongs to me, the father
as well as the son�both alike belong to me.
The soul who sins is the one who will die.

"Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.

<chorus>
He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife
or lie with a woman during her period.

He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

He does not lend at usury
or take excessive interest.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between man and man.

He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign YehFeh.
</chorus>

<...>

"Suppose he has a violent son, who
sheds blood or does any of these
other things (though the father
has done none of them):

<...11-13 chorus...>

Will such a man live? He will not!
Because he has done all these detestable
things, he will surely be put to death
and his blood will be on his own head.

"But suppose this son has a son who
sees all the sins his father commits,
and though he sees them, he does not
do such things:

<...15-17 chorus...>

He will not die for his father's sin;
he will surely live. But his father
will die for his own sin, because he
practiced extortion, robbed his brother
and did what was wrong among his people.

"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share
the guilt of his father?' Since the son
has done what is just and right and has
been careful to keep all my decrees,
he will surely live.

The soul who sins is the one who will die.
The son will not share the guilt of the father,
nor will the father share the guilt of the son.
The righteousness of the righteous man will be
credited to him, and the wickedness
of the wicked will be charged against him.

<<<<now the big key element>>>>

"But if a wicked man turns away from all
the sins he has committed and keeps all
my decrees and does what is just and right,
he will surely live; he will not die.

None of the offenses he has committed
will be remembered against him. Because
of the righteous things he has done,
he will live.

Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?
declares the Sovereign YehFeh. Rather, am I not
pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

===========

John 9:40-41
40 Then some of the Pharisees who were with Him
heard these words, and said to Him, �Are we blind also?�
41 Jesus said to them, �If you were blind, you would
have no sin; but now you say, �We see.�
Therefore your sin remains.

Matthew 12:7
But if you had known what this means,
�I desire mercy and not sacrifice,�
you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Hosea 6

1 Come, and let us return to YehFeh;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.

3 Let us know,
Let us pursue the knowledge of YehFeh.
His going forth is established as the morning;
He will come to us like the rain,
Like the latter and former rain to the earth.

4 �O Ephraim, what shall I do to you?
O Judah, what shall I do to you?
For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud,
And like the early dew it goes away.
5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,
I have slain them by the words of My mouth;
And your judgments are like light that goes forth.
6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

7 �But like men they transgressed the covenant;
There they dealt treacherously with Me.
8 Gilead is a city of evildoers
And defiled with blood.
9 As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man,
So the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem;
Surely they commit lewdness.
10 I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel:
There is the harlotry of Ephraim;
Israel is defiled.
11 Also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed for you,
When I return the captives of My people.

===
Isaiah 1

1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz,
which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem
in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz,
and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

<...2-10...>

�To what purpose is the multitude
of your sacrifices to Me?�
Says YehFeh.

�I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight
in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats.
�When you come to appear before Me, Who has
required this from your hand,
To trample My courts? Bring no more
futile sacrifices; Incense is
an abomination to Me.
===

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 2:28:15 PM9/5/12

to

Mercy does not reside within
the material nature, but YHWH
can be every bit as strict and
harsh as an unforgiving
material nature.

as Love, YHWH is the only
True source of Mercy, but
in the demand for Justice
there is no wavering.

matter knows no forgiveness.
you can not reason with matter.
when you fall from a great height,
your bones will be crushed.

and without ever having fallen,
you know with a surety that
to walk off a high place,
you risk certain death,
and so, you refrain.

if you placed this much certainty
in the words of your God, you would
tread lightly about the serpent's tail.

but your God is more sure than
a nickel plated revolver, and
not one to be trifled with.

it seems harsh, but you forget where you are,

the material nature can not forgive,
it is not possible for the material nature
to forgive, forgiveness does not reside within
the material nature, mercy does not live there.

also, no injustice nor ill manner
reside within YHWH, but all manners
of YHWH are perfect towards Life.

in fact, a split weight is abhorent to YHWH.

you may not see your bones being crushed,
in an instant, under the weight of your
own unequal balances, your own merciless
detachment from Love, but you do gather
in the deadly stain and none can remedy.

you do see your lives being torn from you.

you do see your vital force ebbing away.

you walk in a manner in which YHWH can not
look upon nor take part, and thereby, you
evict Life from your premises.

you invite sickness and every
ill manner upon yourselves.

you do forsake that fountain of Living Waters

and you do, make attempts at fashioning
counterfeits which hold no water at all.

and Mercy does not dwell in your midst.

not even a token.

so, what hope is there?

same as ever,
your hope resides within
the very Mercy which is YHWH.

YHWH swallowed whole that harsh
and cruel reward that the human
race has amassed for itself.

the material nature has no mercy
and has no forgiveness, and as such
the entire human race may as well
be anihilate.

but YHWH, your Creator, your firmness,
your steady and unmovable anchor, took
the full brunt of an unforgiving nature
in a cup filled with blood, drank it down
to the dregs, and completed your destiny.

and in an act of untold kindness,

offers you Mercy.

accept this life.

so, you accept God's Mercy, so what?

first, recognize that this mercy is not
suggesting that you pursue the manner
that would lead to death while expecting
God to perpetuate your life from within
this miserable state.

this mercy is letting you see that
YHWH is Life and the source of all
things good, and then leading you
by the hand in to a fullness that
is beyond your ability to recognize
and realize for yourself.

God is not picking at every little detail
that distances you from God, and suggesting
that this separation can never be overcome.

yes, there is a distinction

you are not God but you may become like God.

so now, how do you seek this good for
yourself while simultaneously rooting
out your self centered want?

how do you seek to be like God without
remaining exactly like who you already are?
spiralling in to the abyss.

God will accomplish a thing for you,
and the only way you can fully appreciate
this is by you doing something for God.

the goal is that you lack nothing and
attain that full stature of God in you,

and the full stature of God is not a Being
who makes perpetual requests for favors but
One who perpetually seeks the Good for "the other"

you want to learn how
to dance on the head
of a pin.

and so, back to rudiments for a moment;

as you would see progression,
you would seem to get something
for something, something from God
in return for something from you,

but the something that you offer up to God
for that something in return from God, is
something that God gave you in the first
place, and further blessing will be
predicated upon your rightly accepting
and administering a previous blessing.

"well, i 'merited' some good thing
by virtue of my proper and useful
acceptance of some thing that i
could never have merited."

yeah, sure, fine.

you made a progression,

cock-a-doodle-do,

oops, now you slipped back under the water.

just remember, even when
you almost start to forget,

God is

and you do not proceed towards praise
from human beings, even yourself.

the way God praises you is by laying
another new unmerited blessing upon you
which draws you ever closer to God's
own personal identification.

God sees you in appreciation of God's
benevolence and mercy, in thanksgiving
and praise of God, and steps closer to you
with a furtherance of that understanding
of which you could never gain access by
your desire to find out.

this is your substance.

# this mercy is letting you see that
# YHWH is Life and the source of all
# things good, and then leading you
# by the hand in to a fullness that
# is beyond your ability to recognize
# and realize for yourself.
# God is not picking at every little detail
# that distances you from God, and suggesting
# that this separation can never be overcome.

now you get in to all these bits about
how God knows the heart and mind of the
human beings and you cannot know the
hearts and minds of each other.

human beings are not able to empathize
in a direct manner with each other.

you get this problem set up whereby
you only can know yourself and then
you only can use that measuring wand
to judge everyone else but even your
self knowledge tends towards an
incomplete understanding.

and situations like these arise;

you pick at shortfall in everyone else
that you fail to see in your own self.

obvious blindness.

no mercy

you imagine that everyone else has
the same shortfall or trouble that
you presently experience, and you let
yourself off the hook and even seek
to magnify that sense of shortfall
in other people so you can feel more
justified in letting yourself
off the hook.

and then, when that sense of your shortfall
is firmly implanted within other people, you
go back to judging them for carrying out a
thing which you consider to be a wrong in
everyone else except your own self.

selective vision; you see what
you want to see and not what
you don't want to see, and you
don't know what you want to see,
still resembles blindness.

no mercy

you damn yourself in shortfall and
believe that you are uniquely and
tragically flawed, essentially removing
all possibility of empathic understanding
of anyone else, because you have assigned
yourself as un-like anyone else in your
own special shortfall.

total internal reflection.
in this case, seems like
another form of blindness.

no mercy

there may be more such
situations but we'll
stop at these.

so, if these are working in some
manner within the lives of all
human beings, the overall effect
can be nothing but damaging.

it cannot, yet, even be relevant to suggest
that people treat other people the way
they would like to be treated themselves
when they are not even able to recognize
how they would like to be treated.

the fact, is, that you do, already,
treat other people in the very
manner that you treat your self.

and you have no mercy on yourselves,
until you do but you don't and you are
trapped in this quagmire where you can
show youself a false sense of mercy at
the cost of condemning other people
for your own special offense.

a quilting bee of patchwork justifications.

so, God -tells- you that such
a thing as mercy is possible.

and, at first, that's all you have to go on.

mercy exists.

long story short,

as God's cleanses your consciousness
of separatory shortfall, you can begin
to see other people in that same light.

now God is showing you mercy, and you
can add that to your idea that something
such as mercy may exist.

now you see that mercy does exist.

and with an increase in mercy,

...peace walks in as well.

real peace, not a bellicose cry for a
cessation of open hostilities so you
can go right back in to condemnation.

and like charity, which begins
in the household of God, the
apple of your peace can
feed a multitude.

walk in that.

mercy

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 2:36:03 PM9/5/12

to

Zuhair wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > Zuhair wrote:

> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > > > do you think tha God has "free will?"
> > > > yes or no?

> > > Yes, of course he has.

> > there will be no opposition in God to God,
> > and so, the creation is purified of its
> > oppositional nature and brought
> > in to the unity of God.

> > and further...

> A lot of nice speech, what's your point of all that?

philosophically and theosophically speaking,
there is mathematical logic in the issues
i've addressed here some of which, have
a biblically prophetic perspective.

for instance;

i don't preach the hell of eternal torment at people

certain death is a distinct possibility.

God seems to go to great lengths to give every opportunity
for the agreement of true repentance to be realized.

God desires mercy from us all.

Mercy is said to triumph over judgement;

==
James 2:13
For judgment is without mercy
to the one who has shown no mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgment.
==

Nebuchadnezzar was driven into the wild for 7 years
after such time as his reason returned to him and
he proclaimed that YHWH was the Most High.

someone -could- suggest that "=Satan="
could be tossed into the Lake of Fire,
but that "HeylEl" will rise as the 'Firebird'
cleansed of all unrighteousness.

note: [HeylEl = 'Lucifer']

but i offer that up only for those who have ears for it.

i have no intention of being screeched at
by man's summary judgements...on what
-they- see as Justice.

for if -i- was given a seat at the judgement

and i was told to judge Satan after Satan is fully exposed

as the childish little brat that Satan had -become-,

a lie derived from within Satan's -own- 'resources'

i would show Mercy... even if i was apprised
that Satan was directly responsible for
crimes against humanity.

if YHWH in all Glorious Sublime and Pre-eminent manifold Wisom

saw otherwise, i would certainly defer, but,

something tells me that Jesus done a =very= good thing...

will i argue incessantly over "alien" visions of "hell"

no, i think not.

i simply will not -preach- it at people myself.

and i think i have God's word on the matter...

certainly, not everone who reads this will grasp
the mathematical logic philosophically and
theosophically portrayed, but, if they diligently
persevere, they may see things that are not
obvious at first glance, then again, some
people may see the relevance right off.

none of which is a problem for me, personally.

and, if someone sees no relevance at all,

they are free to ignore such postings from this point forward,

as i shant be adding disclaimers to all of my posts.

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 2:36:51 PM9/5/12

to

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 3:03:53 PM9/5/12

to

Zuhair wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > and further...
>
> Too lot sayings, I'm not sure if I'll agree with it since its wording
> is not so clear, some of it is good and other parts are vague, what
> unity with God the author is speaking about? what adversary he means.

yes, i wrote it. oh, i'll address the unity bit later.

> Adversary means a kind of enemy, and I don't think that God really has
> an "enemy" in the real sense of the word, there is nothing comparable
> to God so that it can be an enemy. There are stray creatures who made
> wrong decisions, but to call them Adversaries to God, I think this is
> ridiculous. They are just stray creatures that might ultimately find
> their way to God, possibly through many lives, possibly in another
> way, I don't know, but I do think that ultimately stray creatures will
> come back to God, ALL of them.

this first.

it's a few years olde, but it's sort of about
this "adversary" who is not a credible "enemy" to God
but is sort of trapped in a struggle with itself.

where part of that struggle sets it at odds with God.

==

this resembles the rather large Idol
that Nebuchadnezzar dreamt of and
Daniel interpretted.

the Idol represents a
government system
of sorts.

and it counterfeits
the Kingdom of God.

and i asked a while back;

"if it's a very good
counterfeit, what's
the problem?"

as an aside, "Love" entirely washes the
concept of 'good and evil in perpetual
struggle' out completely.

and 'good and evil in perpetual
struggle' represent the second
empire, Medo-Persia

"mene tekel upharsin"

"-your- kingdom, oh Great One,
King of Confusion, has been wrested
away from you and split apart"

hearken back, the King of Confusion [Babylon]
is the Golden Head atop the Idol.
he awoke from his madness and
gave honor to the Most High.

the split kingdom of the Medes and
Persians is the chest and arms of silver.

we may begin to recognize the
trouble with this counterfeit.

just remember how Lucifer covetted
a crown that could not ever be his.

it's Lucifer's psyche
we are punishing here.
like one punishes the air
when he uses his hands
to talk.

remember;
King of Babylon [Confusion] began
to take personal credit for a city
he didn't build.

so look, Lucifer becomes an Adversary [Satan]
and brings a darkness into the situation.

but Lucifer still remembers
his days as the Fair One.

and in his little world,
he's now a two headed coin.

one "side" all "evil" and
the other "side" all good.

it is Lucifer who is in an
interminable struggle with Satan.

Lucifer is a House Divided
which -must- Fall. the Zoroastrian
imperative does not represent God,
but Lucifer and Satan.

Lucifer makes the grab and dooms
himself to an unwinnable war with
his own Selfish expectation.

from this point of view, what do you
think we should say when we get to the
belly of the statue, and find it
corresponds to a winged leopard
with 4 heads?

the golden head was like a lion

the silver chest and arms was like a bear

and now, the brass torso is
like a winged leopard with 4 heads.

excuse me, i've seen a lion before,
and i've seen a bear, but i have,
as yet, not seen a living leopard
with wings and 4 heads.

but, aside from the fact that greece
disintegrated into 4 smaller kingdoms
almost immediately upon assuming the Empire,

we do have Zeus and Hera,
a brother and sister act,

and Artemis and Apollo,
another brother and sister act.

once upon a time they were falling in love
and now they're only falling apart.

just remember one thing,
or maybe two things,

the Delphic pronouncement
was "Know who you are"

but look, if someone else knows
who you are and knows what makes
you tick, this knowledge can
be used to manipulate you.

if this knowledge can be kept in
the hands of the few, the few
can manipulate the many.

one trouble is, Adam and Eve became
ashamed of some certain knowledge
of themselves.

and we can even backtrack
that to Lucifer if we like.

well, we can if we like.

even if Lucifer is associated with
the Divining Serpent in the garden.

but look, obviously this shame stands
in the way of any usefulness coming
from a knowledge of self, and actually,
can make it easier for you to
be manipulated. even if it's
an unconcious fear.

no, God isn't trying to manipulate you
into a corner, that should be well
established in your minds.

:::refrain:::
if God were interested in automatic actions,
God wouldn't use conditioned response, God
would have made automated creatures.

remember, Eve said she felt tricked.

it can be stated with some certainty
that the Divining Serpent knew Eve
better that she knew herself.

and she was easily manipulated in
to doing a thing that furthered the
Divining Serpent's ends and bringing
a harm upon herself.

wonder what the Divining Serpent's
state of mind was at that time.

what if our little friend Lucifer became
like a candle that had no Fire, only as
[he] considered [himself], he carried around
the memory of his diminished brilliance.

our little friend Lucifer
"darkened his understanding"

but Lucifer apparently remains
attached to a life but with
the Light removed.

God being the ultimate source of the Light.

Satan is a blown out candle.

if they blew -your- candle out, you'd be dead.

what if, now our little friend
is only perpetuated by this
-illusion- of brilliance.

and, this Satan seeks to purloin
and use -your- temporary flame to
feed and perpetuate [his] illusion.

that is, you are born with an evanescent
flame from God, one which is as the grass
of the field, here today and passed tomorrow,

and Satan can transfix -his- illusion
of Self over -your- temporary existance.

what God seeks to accomplish is to annoint you
with oil, and burn the Fire of the Holy Spirit
in your midst with the intent of a full duplication
of God's character in unique identity parameters.

Satan is a phantom thief

God is a Living Presence

you are a host with a temporary dwelling

obviously, the fire that alit on the disciples
on the Day of Pentacost or "First Fruits"
did not burn them to death or even
wound them in any way.

but they saw what appeared
to be fire alighting on people.

so, don't get too hung up on
"consuming fire" as if it must,
therefore leave a pile of
ashes behind.

not always.

the Fire of God can anihilate -and- make alive.

a directive intelligence.

this is sort of what the
entire offer thru Christ is;

a Gift of Spiritual Integrity.

and, that is not something that
human beings are born with.

human beings are born with a
small glimpse of understanding.

and human beings cannot will themselves
to live or raise themselves up after
that life on loan fizzles out.

and yeah, sure, this flesh existance
does, somewhat, resemble a crucible.

==

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 3:05:40 PM9/5/12

to

don't say;

"well, i have to go thru
the meat grinder to get made"

no.

the meat grinder doesn't make you.
you could be spared the meat grinder.
you will try to forget it later.

if you can get God to start stacking
bricks on your basis, you are going
to become smaller and smaller anyway
so, you don't need to get ripped to
shreds by the meat grinder to start
walking with God.

God can -use- the remnants of
the meat grinder and lift you up,

but God doesn't need to use the
meat grinder to get the final
product of God's synthetic
methodology.

God can assemble a good person and
strong from an innocent babe who
has never seen hurt nor destruction.

it isn't the meat grinder that
makes you strong and good, but
God in God's craftmanship.

Virgil

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 3:06:47 PM9/5/12

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 3:27:05 PM9/5/12

to

just remember, we don't
"anthropomorphize" God,

no, we 'deomorphize' human beings,
that is, we reckon that human beings
have characteristic -potentials- 'like'
God and that -these- are the traits
which are to be magnified.

so, if we suggest to you that God has form
this need not be considered as abstracting
an Image of God from humanity, and neither
will we be found demoting God to a lessened
image of the Creation and neither will we
be found relegating God exclusively to some
amorphous aetherial quality that simply
hangs on the air like a mist.

where God, may, in part, have all such
qualities and attributes, which, when
taken by themselves, would not be a
complete portrait of God.

that is, God may very well be said to have
form and fully 'resemble' -things- which
we can, in fact, see and hear and taste
and smell and touch.

and that God -can- and -does-

see and hear and taste and

smell and touch.

God is aware

God is aware if God

God is -aware- of all things
including that which is -not- God

God is not just some pipeline
of amenities in to which you
may tap, even if God -is- a
pipeline of amenities into
which you -must- tap.

just remember Jesus, and how he felt
a 'virtue'[dunamis] flow from him when
a woman who was beleaguered by a discharge
touched his garment. [Luke 8:43-48]

[a dunamis is a sort of ability capability
power influence type of thing that is
translated as 'virtue' in some instances]

in that instance, that woman used a
belief to tap in to a 'virtue' that was
operating thru Jesus, the man, but that
Jesus stopped and pursued her so as
to reckon the personal identification
of the source of that 'virtue'

she saw that she had been noticed and
came trembling to Jesus and he made
very certain that she knew exactly
what happened and how it happened.

and in certain respects, you may be able
to tap into God's 'virtues' but you can
be sure that God's Presence will not be
off in the distance oblivious to your existance.

and/or that you will be able to tap
into the Holy Spirit like Simon [Acts 8:9-25]
the sorcerer who wanted to buy it from
the apostles so as to use it in the
furtherance of his own ends.

point being, God may not necessarily
have to be the sole -directing- influence
of God's own 'virtues' in that, -you- have
access to that Faith which carries curative
emblems, but also, that you won't be able
to mock God by suggesting that God is impersonal.

---
Ezekiel 47:9
And it shall be that every living thing
that moves, wherever the rivers go, will
live. There will be a very great multitude
of fish, because these waters go there;
for they will be healed, and everything
will live wherever the river goes.

Isaiah 58:8
Then your light shall break forth like
the morning, Your healing shall spring
forth speedily, And your righteousness
shall go before you; The glory of YHWH
shall be your rear guard.

Psalm 67:1-3
God be merciful unto us, and bless us;
and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah.
That thy way may be known upon earth, thy
saving health among all nations. Let the
people praise thee, O God; let all
the people praise thee.
---

# just remember, we don't
# "anthropomorphize" God,
# no, we 'deomorphize' human beings,
# that is, we reckon that human beings
# have characteristic potentials 'like'
# God and that these are the traits
# which are to be magnified.

aside from the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit, one is not
a "christian" at all.

the indwelling -is- that substantial
Faith which is Christ's own Faith which
is given to human beings, and is not
simply some academic exercise nor
the product of man's own accomplishings.

the "charisms" are the
"gifts" of the Holy Spirit.

based on two things,
which are these...;

"Jesus ascended into the
heavenly places and gave
gifts to human beings"

and

[Jesus speaking]
"I will not leave you without comfort"

...one may examine themself and determine
whether they are, indeed, a "christian"

as i said, the charisms are the gifts,
and the gifts are given by Christ.
and the gifts provide the essential
knowledge of God which is comforting
so that you can be assured in your own
mind that God is present in your midst
and is actively concerned with your life.

alright, then there's the notion of
"evidence" and this evidence is twofold,
the 'ethereal' and the tangible and substantial.

it's funny, because the charisms play
a sort of intermediary role between
the intangible Comfort of the Holy Spirit
and the substantial fruit bearing
offspring of the Presence.

ok, so fine, here are a few of the manners
that human beings are born with naturally,
having inherited them directly from our
progenitors, 'Adam and Eve.'

and by the way, these things are at
enmity to God, and can be likened
as "fruit" of the 'sin consciousness'
and the 'self in want'

here's a few;

quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness,
slander, gossip, conceit, disorder,
fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
idolatry, drug abuse, enmity, strife,
dissension, party spirit, envy,
drunkenness, carousing and the like.

this sort of behavior and attitude
applies to all human beings living
aside of God's Presence, and as no
human being, aside from Jesus, is
born the first time from their mother
as also "begotten of God" we can say
that this applies to all human beings.

[right here is where the bits with the
diagrams about Adam and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil some of those
related texts and the bits about Jesus
and YHWH would fit in case those questions
re-arise and it seems as if i haven't
addressed them here and now]

anyway;
two things: just saying to yourself,
"my conscience does not bother me about
them" and "oh, that's not me" won't
make them go away, but they do stand
in your way to a clear vision of God,
and so, -if- you -want- to draw nearer
to God and gain and maintain a clear
vision of God, these must decrease
while the following bits must increase,

and so, as we draw nearer to God and God
draws nearer to us, we replace that stuff
which doesn't profit, with attitudes and
actions that were God's intention for us
to walk in in the first place.

may take some time, so, the sooner
you get started, the better as the
more ingrained -that- stuff becomes,
the more difficult it wil be to clean
it away.

miracles happen, but you're likely to
carry around memories of the old man
and you may just give up because
things hurt, and so, if you get
on your way early you can use that
gungho youthful exuberance to get
yourself off to a flying start,
Christ willing and Christ is willing.

i may look at this little
detail, in more depth, later,
if i haven't already.

anyway;

the 'fruit' of the Spirit:

love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control;

against -these- behaviors and attitudes,
there is no law, and when it comes down
to it, as far as character traits are
concerned, -these- are by far the
Superior traits and to be desired.

those other attitudes -are- the easy
way out and lead you directly to ruin.

alright, so now we've taken up our cross
and put away that tired old man who was
born at enmity to God thru Adam, and
replaced him with a new creature in Christ.

now we can start to unwrap and make use
of some of the Presents that the Presence
has offered to me.

and here is a listing of gifts of the Spirit.

the utterance of wisdom,
the utterance of knowledge
faith by the same Spirit,
gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
working of miracles,
prophecy, speaking the truth
the ability to distinguish between spirits,
various kinds of tongues,
the interpretation of tongues.

and these are the charisms.

and they most certainly are an outward
substantial show of an inexplicable
supernatural inward affair.

trust in Christ to bring the good work
that Christ began to fruition, and
Christ will not let you down.

here's a few scrittures;
[yes, scrittures]
1 Corinthians 12:1-11
Galatians 5:13-26
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Hebrews 2:4

Virgil

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 4:09:06 PM9/5/12

to

In article <5047A7...@lycos.com->,

Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:

> when some say that God has not been
> 'proven' to exist, they mean they have
> no referrence to mechanical measuring
> devices which detect God;

Nor any of the effects of any gods in action.

That which is so totally undetectable as
your alleged gods need not be regarded
as relevant agencies.

And if Evolution is true, just when in that
process did some mutation produce souls?
--

Virgil

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 4:13:08 PM9/5/12

to

In article <5047A7...@lycos.com->,
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote:

> so, some will state that the only
> "knowledge" one may possess is
> in the form of:
>
> "empirical sense perception memory impressions"
>
> that's it, that's your knowledge,
> that's all you can ever know.
> memories of objects you have seen,
> heard, smelled, tasted and or touched.

That is a fool position to take when posting
to sci.math, sci.logic or alt.philosophy,
as they are all 3 areas studying things
which one cannot physically sense: ideas.
--

Timothy Sutter

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 4:23:43 PM9/5/12

to

we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.

so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in

a struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth and

slowly losing its diversity, functionality and

survivability -to- this Earth, [note, the cheetah]

this -fits- a model for "special creation"

meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity
and are =losing- functionality and adaptability
to forces of environmental decay.

so, what one may consider is this as an example;

in breeding a pekinese out from a more
genetically diverse 'proto-canine'

that, some, maybe much, genetic information is lost,
in such a way as, -if- all dogs except the pekinese
were suddenly killed, that it would be much more difficult
to breed a malamute from the pekinese as it would be
to breed a malamute from the 'proto-canine'

and so, dog breeds who came forth from the pekinese
as sole progenitor, would have a more difficult time
'adapting' to the wider range of environments to which
'the dog' now is capable of adapting,
and would become 'endangered'

see, in breeding out the pekinese, breeders pick out
specific traits, isolate them, and even euthanize
individuals which express traits they, the breeders,
are not seeking, and so, after many successive generations,

the -genetic- trait structures that constitute
the malamute's -expressed- trait structure,
may become, essentially, 'lost' to the pekinese,

and, reconstituting the 'proto-canine'
from the pekinese alone, may be
simply impossible, and

in this way, 'divergences' =decrease= survivability.

which is to suggest that;
'proto-canine' had a good 'global' survivability
-because- it could 'diverge' into a variety of expressions,
each adapted to a more specific environment, or 'niche'
but, as these 'divergences' -lose- genetic information,
each individual 'breed' is tending towards a lesser degree
of suvivability in the overall global environment of the earth,

and, this sort of phenomenon, if occuring in all global species,

is a slow losing battle to the environment.