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

[jeremyp]

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

Still not looking like the creator of the Universe.

[jeremyp]

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.

Nice goalpost move. He is responding to a post in which I ridiculed the idea that God is a human emotion. I suggest he is not a transaction or a commitment either.

[jeremyp]

However, reading Mark in isolation is not reakly an option.

Bullshit.

The author of mark did not know Matthew, Luke or Johh because they weren’t written yet.

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.

I’ll give you Paul’s letters, assuming you are only talking about the seven generally accepted real Pauline letters, but I’m not convinced about 1 Peter and I’d definitely need some evidence that 2 Peter predates Mark. Note that I’d accept a date of early seventies or even late sixties for Mark.

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

“My God, why have you foresaken me”. How could God foresake himself? That’s a slam dunk refutation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still not looking like the creator of the Universe.

And what does the creator of the universe look like then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What the hell was the point in saying "the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it "." if you didn't mean that "god cannot directly know of future events until they happen"?

Jeez, do you have any idea at all what you actually think about god and time or the first clue of which arguments are based on a view that no Christians hold and are therefore straw man arguments, or is the all just hot air and bullshit?

Oh so you admit I never said that God cannot directly know of future events until they happen. Bearing in mind there is no until for God.

I am interested though in what you think was predicted.
When was the prediction made.
Whe you talk of the future is it gods future?
Do you honestly have no objection to the idea of omnipresence.
Why do you effectively rule this out as a reason behind Gods omniscience.

[Anchorman]

Bullshit.

The author of mark did not know Matthew, Luke or Johh because they weren’t written yet. I’ll give you Paul’s letters, assuming you are only talking about the seven generally accepted real Pauline letters, but I’m not convinced about 1 Peter and I’d definitely need some evidence that 2 Peter predates Mark. Note that I’d accept a date of early seventies or even late sixties for Mark.
“My God, why have you foresaken me”. How could God foresake himself? That’s a slam dunk refutation.

   



You go to the heart of the theology of Calvary.
Some contend that for the first and only time in eternity, the Godhead was divided as Christ took on the sin of the world.
Do you wish me to start on the theology of Calvary? It's an exhaustive topic, and demands a new thread, if so.
Others contend that Christ quoted from Psalm 22 - which He did - one of the "suffering psalms"...which ends in triumph.
This can be a very intense topic.

[Stranger]

Oh so you admit I never said that God cannot directly know of future events until they happen. Bearing in mind there is no until for God.

I'll ask again, what did you mean when you said ""the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".""

What was the point of bringing up the growing block universe?

Why did you say (again in the context of omniscience): "If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists." If there's no 'until' for god, what was that about?

You seem to have brought this up after jeremy raised a contradiction (here) and then run away from it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll ask again, what did you mean when you said ""the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".""

What was the point of bringing up the growing block universe?

Why did you say (again in the context of omniscience): "If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists." If there's no 'until' for god, what was that about?

You seem to have brought this up after jeremy raised a contradiction (here) and then run away from it.

I'm just pointing out that anything that knows the past and present entirely can be referred to as omniscient, more so if the future does not exist.

I am not committed to it.

Growing block time if it were true would render God a predictor but the truth of the prediction would not be established by knowledge derived from actually being there and would not be perfect.
I think by now having God predicting the future shows us that it is you proposing a kind of growing block.

Putting The predictive act at the beginning is a deist view.

The Christian basis of omniscience is omnipresence in a future which exists...block time.

Regarding omnipotence that is in Aquinus who states the common view in Christianity that omnipotence means that God candowhatever he can do. There is admission that he cannot sin or do the self contradictory illogical things and that the argument is circular.

That then is counter to the Atheist charge that Christianity believes that God can make square circles etc. A charge used by Dawkins.

Now be so good as to answer my questions.

[Stranger]

I'm just pointing out that anything that knows the past and present entirely can be referred to as omniscient, more so if the future does not exist.

I am not committed to it.

Fine - but I was responding to your comments - none of this is my idea.

Growing block time if it were true would render God a predictor but the truth of the prediction would not be established by knowledge derived from actually being there and would not be perfect.

Why wouldn't it be perfect? See #46

I think by now having God predicting the future shows us that it is you proposing a kind of growing block.

HOW MANY MORE TIMES? I'm just responding to your proposals about there not being a future. I don't believe in any gods, no matter what their relationship with time is. Neither do I believe there is a single Christian view on the matter; and even you don't seem sure what you believe about it (see your 'not committed' comment above).

Putting The predictive act at the beginning is a deist view.

Okay - but that wasn't my idea either. Is it yours?

The Christian basis of omniscience is omnipresence in a future which exists...block time.

So why the fuck have you been wittering on about prediction, the growing block universe, and omniscience not including the future?

Now be so good as to answer my questions.

I don't have answers because I'm NOT making a proposal about god and time - just responding to what you said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine - but I was responding to your comments - none of this is my idea.

Why wouldn't it be perfect? See #46

HOW MANY MORE TIMES? I'm just responding to your proposals about there not being a future. I don't believe in any gods, no matter what their relationship with time is. Neither do I believe there is a single Christian view on the matter; and even you don't seem sure what you believe about it (see your 'not committed' comment above).

Okay - but that wasn't my idea either. Is it yours?

So why the fuck have you been wittering on about prediction, the growing block universe, and omniscience not including the future?

I don't have answers because I'm NOT making a proposal about god and time - just responding to what you said.

I trust folks to read back your posts to see your perspectives on the various issues here and your refusal to answer questions.

[Stranger]

I trust folks to read back your posts to see your perspectives on the various issues here and your refusal to answer questions.

That's hilarious. I suggest paying more attention to what is actually being said to you...

"Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet."

"Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god."

"Jeez - I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said about god not knowing something (the future, if it doesn't exist)."

"I have no such theories. I'm just pointing out some of the logical consequences to what you (and Steve) said about omniscience not including the future if it doesn't exist."

...and so on back to when you first proposed the idea and then ran away from it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's hilarious. I suggest paying more attention to what is actually being said to you...

"Because YOU said that god might not know the future because it doesn't exist yet."

"Bear in mind that these are all based on your idea that the future doesn't exist, even for god."

"Jeez - I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said about god not knowing something (the future, if it doesn't exist)."

"I have no such theories. I'm just pointing out some of the logical consequences to what you (and Steve) said about omniscience not including the future if it doesn't exist."

...and so on back to when you first proposed the idea and then ran away from it.

I think it's clear now that the atheist conception of the god of the omnis is different from the Christian god.

For starters atheists only deal with 3 and Christians 4 because omnipresence undermines prediction as knowledge as ordination.

[Sebastian Toe]

Jeez, do you have any idea at all what you actually think about god and time or the first clue of which arguments are based on a view that no Christians hold and are therefore straw man arguments, or is the all just hot air and bullshit?

If it helps, I believe that I can decect a strong odour of warm bovine excrement!

[jeremyp]

And what does the creator of the universe look like then?

Not a human emotion which didn't come into existence until about 13 billion years after the creation of the Universe.

[jeremyp]

You go to the heart of the theology of Calvary.
Some contend that for the first and only time in eternity, the Godhead was divided as Christ took on the sin of the world.
Do you wish me to start on the theology of Calvary? It's an exhaustive topic, and demands a new thread, if so.
Others contend that Christ quoted from Psalm 22 - which He did - one of the "suffering psalms"...which ends in triumph.
This can be a very intense topic.

It seems odd to me that an event that is central to the Christian concept of salvation is an exhausting (I assume you meant that rather than exhaustive) topic that requires a high level of intense theology to understand. You'd think God would make it a bit easier for his followers.

[jeremyp]

I'm just pointing out that anything that knows the past and present entirely can be referred to as omniscient, more so if the future does not exist.

No, that's you changing the definition of "everything". However, it doesn't matter because the claim is that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows everything in the present and the past (omniscient) then he can predict the future with perfect accuracy because he is omnipotent. Unfortunately that leads to a logical contradiction which proves that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course, since the argument works for any being that is labelled omniscient and omnipotent, it means that at least one of the two concepts is incoherent.

Regarding omnipotence that is in Aquinus who states the common view in Christianity that omnipotence means that God candowhatever he can do.

Which is a tautology. Anything can do whatever it can do. Either your reading of Thomas Aquinus is wrong or he was an idiot.

[Stranger]

I think it's clear now that the atheist conception of the god of the omnis is different from the Christian god.

Don't be daft, Vlad; you've neither established what "the Christian god" is, nor what "the atheist conception of the god of the omnis" is.

Here's a hint: there isn't just one of either.

For starters atheists only deal with 3 and Christians 4 because omnipresence undermines prediction as knowledge as ordination.

What atheists? Prediction was your idea, not some atheists'...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not a human emotion which didn't come into existence until about 13 billion years after the creation of the Universe.

I thought wed established that it was more than emotion?
We had as they say built on that foundation.
Certainly having given the universe for its own sake rather than his that certainly comes across as love.

Since love is the greatest commandment and nothing non personal can be refered to as love God is love....as God is good or to put it  another way if love is absolute good then God is love.

[jeremyp]

I thought wed established that it was more than emotion?

You think a lot of things that are not true.

I will accept that some other animals behave in ways that suggests that they experience something analogous to love, but I’d love to see you establish it is anything more than something animals do, or feel.

We had as they say built on that foundation.

What did Jesus have to say about houses built on foundations of sand?

Certainly having given the universe for its own sake rather than his that certainly comes across as love.

I’d certainly accept that a god could potential experience love. But your claim is that God is love.

Since love is the greatest commandment and nothing non personal can be refered to as love God is love....as God is good or to put it  another way if love is absolute good then God is love.

Now you are claiming God is a rule. Make up your mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that's you changing the definition of "everything". However, it doesn't matter because the claim is that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. If he knows everything in the present and the past (omniscient) then he can predict the future with perfect accuracy because he is omnipotent. Unfortunately that leads to a logical contradiction which proves that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course, since the argument works for any being that is labelled omniscient and omnipotent, it means that at least one of the two concepts is incoherent.

Which is a tautology. Anything can do whatever it can do. Either your reading of Thomas Aquinus is wrong or he was an idiot.

Yes Aquinus himself said it was a circular argument which I mentioned.......you must have missed that bit.........in fact you've missed a lot.........in fact you miss most of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You think a lot of things that are not true.

I will accept that some other animals behave in ways that suggests that they experience something analogous to love, but I’d love to see you establish it is anything more than something animals do, or feel.
What did Jesus have to say about houses built on foundations of sand?
I’d certainly accept that a god could potential experience love. But your claim is that God is love.
Now you are claiming God is a rule. Make up your mind.

A rule? No .................a standard or an example if you like.

[Anchorman]

It seems odd to me that an event that is central to the Christian concept of salvation is an exhausting (I assume you meant that rather than exhaustive) topic that requires a high level of intense theology to understand. You'd think God would make it a bit easier for his followers.

   



Nope.
I meant 'exhausting'.
Once you've had your brain fried with theologians from Augustine to Anshelm, Oestrigen to Neimuller, you seek relatively easier pastures in Stott, Green, Barcly and the rest, in an effort to drain some of the former stuff from your mind.
I remember Willie Barclay saying in a lecure;
"Read my books...read everyone elses'...then thank God you follow the New Testament and not us."
Works for me.

[jeremyp]

   
Nope.
I meant 'exhausting'.
Once you've had your brain fried with theologians from Augustine to Anshelm, Oestrigen to Neimuller, you seek relatively easier pastures in Stott, Green, Barcly and the rest, in an effort to drain some of the former stuff from your mind.
I remember Willie Barclay saying in a lecure;
"Read my books...read everyone elses'...then thank God you follow the New Testament and not us."
Works for me.

And we're back to the beginning. You can't follow the New Testament because it is confused and self contradictory in parts. If you read Mark's gospel, you get the impression that divinity was conferred upon Jesus at the time of his baptism. If you read John's gospel, you get the impression that Jesus has been divine since the beginning of time. It's a confused mess, which would not be surprising if it were written by a number of different authors working in different times in different places with word of mouth being the primary means of communication. If on, on the other hand, it is the insuredinspired word of God, it is surprising.

Edit: insured? WTF

[Dicky Underpants]

   



Nope.
I meant 'exhausting'.
Once you've had your brain fried with theologians from Augustine to Anshelm, Oestrigen to Neimuller, you seek relatively easier pastures in Stott, Green, Barcly and the rest, in an effort to drain some of the former stuff from your mind.
I remember Willie Barclay saying in a lecure;
"Read my books...read everyone elses'...then thank God you follow the New Testament and not us."
Works for me.

My reaction to this is similar to Jeremy's. I find it odd coming from you, considering your much more critical attitude to the Old Testament. However, I suppose it is not so odd in the light of your strong faith - which I could uncharitably say confers a great deal of confirmation bias.
However, in one matter alone - the comparison of the Synoptics with John's Gospel, we are faced with irreconcilable contradictions. Even if the authors of the Synoptics did arrive at the conclusions that Jesus was "the Son of God" (in some sense of incarnate divinity), the words of Jesus himself as recorded don't provide much corroboration that the gospels give a unified message on the matter. In John, Jesus shouts his unity with God from the rooftops, in the Synoptics, he urges his disciples to be quiet about such things (and of course,it is only in the notorious exchange with Peter in Matthew's gospel that we find the affirmation "Christ, the Son of the living God" - the other Synoptics merely have Peter saying "the Christ".
No doubt many of the other contradictions have been argued out here before, but they are so abundant as to make none of the gospels compelling as truthful narrative - least of all John (except, probably, over the details of the Passion story).
That is why I find such claims as "Jesus said he was God" utterly absurd - and I'm surprised that other well-meaning non-believers even try to give a 'metaphorical' interpretation of such statements as "I and the Father are one"*.
I'm definitely with Gordon (as well as JP) on the question of the reliability of the original text.

*e.g. trippymonkey

[Anchorman]

 The synoptics DO, in fact, give clues - lots of them - as to who Jesus thiught he was/is. Trouble is, we're not first dcentury Jews, steeped in the Old Testament and, to some extent, what we now call Apocrypha. To His followers, and His opposition, the clues were there. Some were scandalised by them; others frightened. Those clues were visual- sometimes backed up with teaching, sometimes not - but visual parables; Healing the paralytic - as a sign that Christ could forgive sin...only God forgives sin. Calming the storm...terrifying the disciples in the process; they knew from the Psalms that only God controlled the weather. Feeding the five thousand - however it was done - alluding to Moses asking God for manna in the wilderness. Raising Jairus' daughter to life....hearkening back to Elijah; referring to God as "Abba" - innocent enough for us today; revolutionary, intimate and self-identification with God in a unique way to His follower...etc, etc The clues WERE there in the synoptics for those who dared to see them. The Pharisees did...and the implications staggered them so much that they plotted His death.