Who is this "God of the Omnis"......

[jeremyp]

God has power, but is love.

God is a human emotion. I have to say that sounds like bollocks.

[jeremyp]

   


....His incarnation....the act of God becoming present in man?
If Christ is God - the One who is Creator and Sustainer of all that is, then He was God before anything was, He is God now, and will be God after anything is not.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the authors of the books of both Old and New Testaments believed God was creator and sustainer of all that is.
What makes you think they were wrong?

Got any evidence for that? Even your own Bible isn’t in complete agreement on the subject. For example, if you read Mark in isolation, the implication is that divinity was conferred on Jesus at his baptism and deserted him (perhaps temporarily) during the crucifixion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God is a human emotion. I have to say that sounds like bollocks.

Is it just an emotion? Is it also a transaction and interaction, a commitment?

[SteveH]

Is it just an emotion? Is it also a transaction and interaction, a commitment?

You often post bollocks, but this time you're spot-on. Love as Jesus meant it is an act of will, not an emotion, though the emotion may follow. Otherwise we couldn't be commanded to love - you can't command an emotion.

[Anchorman]

Got any evidence for that? Even your own Bible isn’t in complete agreement on the subject. For example, if you read Mark in isolation, the implication is that divinity was conferred on Jesus at his baptism and deserted him (perhaps temporarily) during the crucifixion.

However, reading Mark in isolation is not reakly an option. Even though we now have a frgment suggesting it was writteh well before AD 90, still the Pauline letters and at least 1 Peter (probably 2 Peter aswell) predate it.
The theology of Jesus taking on "The full nature of God" and God being 'in Christ', were therefore in wide circulation; Mark does not refute them, but his description of Christ's actions  - parables of deeds rather than words - show His nature to those Jewish listeners steeped in the O.T.
And the concept of 'sustainer' - God who  maintains, upholds,and is active in His creation is implicit in Christ - as second person of the Trinity....Paul makes that very clear in Colossians.

[SteveH]

However, reading Mark in isolation is not reakly an option. Even though we now have a frgment suggesting it was writteh well before AD 90, still the Pauline letters and at least 1 Peter (probably 2 Peter aswell) predate it.
The theology of Jesus taking on "The full nature of God" and God being 'in Christ', were therefore in wide circulation; Mark does not refute them, but his description of Christ's actions  - parables of deeds rather than words - show His nature to those Jewish listeners steeped in the O.T.
And the concept of 'sustainer' - God who  maintains, upholds,and is active in His creation is implicit in Christ - as second person of the Trinity....Paul makes that very clear in Colossians.

Wish I could believe all that.

[Anchorman]

Wish I could believe all that.

 


If I accept Christ was and is who He claimed to be, then I have no issue in accepting the theology.

[SteveH]

 


If I accept Christ was and is who He claimed to be, then I have no issue in accepting the theology.

Bit difficult squaring epidermolysis bullosa, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ichneumon wasps and other things with it.

[Anchorman]

Bit difficult squaring epidermolysis bullosa, Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Ichneumon wasps and other things with it.

Not really.
I can manage to square MSand congenital blindness with the concept without any problem.
After all, there are clues in Acts and the later Pauline letters that Paul himself was either losing his sight or had lost it, before his death.
If he could live with the concept, then so can I.

[trippymonkey]

If I accept Christ was and is who He claimed to be, then I have no issue in accepting the theology.

And who exactly did this Christ claim to be then?
He may well have said 'I & God are One' but this doesn't mean 'I AM God' ?!??!?

[Stranger]

Copied from Is there such a thing as New Atheism?.

Anyone who is committed to a God forced by circumstances to bake in or run the universe on some kind of super prediction made at the beginning is better defined as a deist.

Possibly, possibly not, but you seem to be confusing me with such a person. This despite the fact I keep on pointing out that the notion of the future not existing and hence omniscience not applying to it came from you and Steve, not me. I just responded to it.

Can we direct omni discussions to the appropriate thread?

Okay - I'll copy this response to the other thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Copied from Is there such a thing as New Atheism?.

Possibly, possibly not, but you seem to be confusing me with such a person. This despite the fact I keep on pointing out that the notion of the future not existing and hence omniscience not applying to it came from you and Steve, not me. I just responded to it.

Okay - I'll copy this response to the other thread.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

[Stranger]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_block_universe

What about it? This appears to be an example of a no future model but are you proposing it? Do you think therefore that omniscience doesn't include the future?

On a technical note, the wiki article doesn't say how the proponents of this view square it with the relativity of simultaneity...

[Anchorman]

And who exactly did this Christ claim to be then?
He may well have said 'I & God are One' but this doesn't mean 'I AM God' ?!??!?

     

Actually, He DID claim identity as God - and His hearers threw a wobbly.
In John 8, He claimed the "I AM" name for Himself. Not only did He use the Name that no 'righteous' Jew would utter openly, part of the Tetragrammaton; He used it of Himself.
He also said "I and the Father are One".
Pretty convincing that he thought Himself God.
Then there were the miracles thing. Many of them were 'parables in picture' and illustrated things only God was supposed to do...a fact that, on one occasion, left His disciples petrified AFTER the event.
Scripture records that, after Jesus calmed the storm - AFTER - the disciples were afraid.
Why?
Because, steeped in the psalms as they were, they would know that that kind of thing was Gods' province alone...as, by the waqy, was forgiving sin, which Jesus did on several occasion, to the rage of His detractors.

[Roses]

If god exists maybe the universe is just one of the projects it completed before moving on to the next. If that is the case the past, present and future are all done and dusted. We just stand on our own particular timeline doing the bit we were created to do.

[trippymonkey]

I and the Father are One does not mean ONE personage. Two in MY book, sorry.

[ekim]

     

Actually, He DID claim identity as God - and His hearers threw a wobbly.
In John 8, He claimed the "I AM" name for Himself. Not only did He use the Name that no 'righteous' Jew would utter openly, part of the Tetragrammaton; He used it of Himself.
He also said "I and the Father are One".
Pretty convincing that he thought Himself God.

He also is supposed to have said:  "Why do you call me good? There is only one Good and that is God." which implies a distinction.  "I and my father are one" could mean 'in essence' not 'identical', just as the essence in a wave is the same as that in the ocean, but a wave is not the ocean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about it? This appears to be an example of a no future model but are you proposing it? Do you think therefore that omniscience doesn't include the future?

On a technical note, the wiki article doesn't say how the proponents of this view square it with the relativity of simultaneity...

I am not committed to it. But nothing is committed to having knowledge of everything...or being slated for not being omniscient because they do not have knowledge of that which doesn't exist.

That there is or might be a future is completely, in Christianity in Gods hands. He is not in Christianity obliged to continue the existence of the universe..

With regard to the relativity of simultaneity if that is so you are merely placing God at the beginning of all timelines rather than one absolute timeline. That would not change the deistic nature of the God proposed.In fact where you place him and his act of perfect prediction would not be subject to the relativity of simultaneity at all which is why your inclusion of it is non sequitur to your argument.

[SteveH]

He also is supposed to have said:  "Why do you call me good? There is only one Good and that is God." which implies a distinction.

Not necessarily. He could have been pointing out the implication of the other person's statement, i.e. "You call me good; only God is good; therefore...". The other interpretation would lead to the conclusion that Jesus was not only not God, but not good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If god exists maybe the universe is just one of the projects it completed before moving on to the next. If that is the case the past, present and future are all done and dusted. We just stand on our own particular timeline doing the bit we were created to do.

I think you have encapsulated the deist point of view very succinctly.

[Anchorman]

I and the Father are One does not mean ONE personage. Two in MY book, sorry.

   



That quote comes from the first part of the tenth chapter of John.
I try not to take verses in isolation...this is a prime example.
Jesus has just made the breathtaking claim to be "The Good Shepherd".
Breathtaking?
Well, His hearers were Jews. They knew perfectly well that,several times in the OT, 'Shepherd' is applied to God...Ps 23, the "Shepherd of Israel", Ezekil, etc. And Jesus takes on the role ascribed to God...and at the same time states "I and the Father are One".
That must have made the Pharisees think a bit.

[Stranger]

I am not committed to it. But nothing is committed to having knowledge of everything...or being slated for not being omniscient because they do not have knowledge of that which doesn't exist.

As I explained before, this doesn't make much difference to the omniscience. If (note the 'if', this is your idea, not mine) there is no future and there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the future will happen for some of the following reasons.

• According to rules (physical laws) this god has ordained and understands perfectly and can hence perfectly predict.
  
  
• According to some 'supernatural' interventions that this god decides to make.
  
  
• According to some element that this god has decided it will remain in ignorance of.

If god knows its own mind, then 2 is just as perfectly predictable to it as 1. If the 3 is true, then god has, effectively, given up omniscience. Hence, if a god is omniscient, it knows the future just as well if it doesn't exist yet as if it does (and god can perceive it directly).

That there is or might be a future is completely, in Christianity in Gods hands. He is not in Christianity obliged to continue the existence of the universe..

See point 2 and subsequent comment.

With regard to the relativity of simultaneity if that is so you are merely placing God at the beginning of all timelines rather than one absolute timeline. That would not change the deistic nature of the God proposed.In fact where you place him and his act of perfect prediction would not be subject to the relativity of simultaneity at all which is why your inclusion of it is non sequitur to your argument.

I'm not placing god anywhere, Vlad; THIS IS YOUR IDEA. All I'm doing is pointing out that a proposing a non-existent future makes no difference to omniscience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I explained before, this doesn't make much difference to the omniscience. If (note the 'if', this is your idea, not mine) there is no future and there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the future will happen for some of the following reasons.

• According to rules (physical laws) this god has ordained and understands perfectly and can hence perfectly predict.
  
  
• According to some 'supernatural' interventions that this god decides to make.
  
  
• According to some element that this god has decided it will remain in ignorance of.

If god knows its own mind, then 2 is just as perfectly predictable to it as 1. If the 3 is true, then god has, effectively, given up omniscience. Hence, if a god is omniscient, it knows the future just as well if it doesn't exist yet as if it does (and god can perceive it directly).

See point 2 and subsequent comment.

I'm not placing god anywhere, Vlad; THIS IS YOUR IDEA. All I'm doing is pointing out that a proposing a non-existent future makes no difference to omniscience.

Sorry

But you are still doing it.
Mentioning prediction.

Prediction is an act on a timeline concerning a future point on that timeline.

Atheists claim that this act of prediction, which they have already confused with knowledge is also an act of ordination. There is thence massive confusion between ordination, prediction and knowledge.

Gods omniscience though is down to omnipresence. What then is it you think God has chosen to remain ignorant of?

[Stranger]

Sorry

But you are still doing it.
Mentioning prediction.

Prediction is an act on a timeline concerning a future point on that timeline.

Yes, Vlad, I'm mentioning it because it negates your claim that omniscience wouldn't involve the future if the future doesn't exist.

Atheists claim that this act of prediction...

What atheists? I don't suppose for a moment nobody has thought if this before, but I was just responding in a logical way to your claim. I didn't read this anywhere (not that I remember anyway).

...which they have already confused with knowledge is also an act of ordination. There is thence massive confusion between ordination, prediction and knowledge.

Only in your mind. If you think there is a problem with the reasoning I produced then say what it is. Just claiming there is confusion is a just an assertion.

Gods omniscience though is down to omnipresence.

Fine, but what is the actual model you are making this claim about? What do you think the implications are? You keep on making these isolated statements and then telling everyone they have it wrong.

As I said in the other thread, why won't you come out with the full picture of what you think and what you think "the Christian" view is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Vlad, I'm mentioning it because it negates your claim that omniscience wouldn't involve the future if the future doesn't exist.

What atheists? I don't suppose for a moment nobody has thought if this before, but I was just responding in a logical way to your claim. I didn't read this anywhere (not that I remember anyway).

Only in your mind. If you think there is a problem with the reasoning I produced then say what it is. Just claiming there is confusion is a just an assertion.

Fine, but what is the actual model you are making this claim about? What do you think the implications are? You keep on making these isolated statements and then telling everyone they have it wrong.

As I said in the other thread, why won't you come out with the full picture of what you think and what you think "the Christian" view is?

I'm not going to revisit your unwanted redefinition of omnipresence and omniscience or prediction.
However if you want a Christian view try omnipresence which is good for any theory of time, eternalism, growing block or presentism.

If God is everywhere anytime then he has knowledge of everything.

In terms of the universe God can therefore grant freedom and yet still have knowledge by dint of omnipresence.

There is also the point that up to now with the exception of God everything has been a physicalist view of the universe.