ARCHIVE:God repenting and nacham

[Surly-DwarF]

1013 ...a perverse love of squirrels.

Shame on you Geoff!

 

[Surly-DwarF]

1013 If God's foreknowledge doesn't match an indeterministic future, and the future is indeed indeterministic in the sense that multiple possibilities are open at certain junctions, then God is not omniscient.

This sounds like an open denial of God's omniscience to me.

God has revealed that he changes his plans for those he loves such as moses.

Wrong. That's a totally unsubstantiated assertion. I know I said I was going to cease dialogue with you, Rob, and I am, but that doesn't mean I won't point these things out for the benefit of others.

I chanllenge you as all the others have failed to do (they didn't even try) to offer an alternative explanation that is true to the text.

I haven't been following this thread, but I find the above statement to be highly dubious. In fact, I'm sure it's flatly incorrect, and it's the quintessential example of what I've been talking about the last 3 days.

 

[1013]

mike, at least you have had the decency to apologize when someone has been offended at your behavior. Geoff has never done this.

and yes, this is a perverse love of quarrels. there is no content.

perhaps you wrongfully think I post without a point except to tick people off. admitedly, I have stooped to geoff's level at geoff.

but it is the delema of proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.


atmittedly, my own pride desires to see that goeff is not wise in his own eyes. But that is a fools quest and I am a fool for responding to him at all.

 

[1013]

This sounds like an open denial of God's omniscience to me.

How is it a deniel of God's omniscience to say that He knows all of reality in its entirety as it truly is?

Wrong. That's a totally unsubstantiated assertion. I know I said I was going to cease dialogue with you, Rob, and I am, but that doesn't mean I won't point these things out for the benefit of others.

I'm not worried about substantiating everything in every thread. the issue in this thread is primarily God changes his mind or not. Not the why, but I have supplied a why that is reasonable and its reasonableness can be demonstrated. God's has changed his plans in favor of the desires of those who love him such as moses and hezekiah and he changes his plans for the penitent such the people of Nineveh. He did not change his plans in favor of those who simply desire to manipulate Him such as Balak or saul.

I haven't been following this thread, but I find the above statement to be highly dubious. In fact, I'm sure it's flatly incorrect, and it's the quintessential example of what I've been talking about the last 3 days.

This is an incredible grossly erroneous assessment. GRAY PILGRIM, GEOFF AND KNIGHTOWL HAVE ALL AVOIDED THE TEXTS THAT ARMINIAN AND I HAVE POINTED OUT. I addressed theirs, but they did not address ours. Knightowl attempted one in a another thread elsewhere just before this thread which he didn't try to argue any further.

your post above is the quintessence of the problem here. Look in the mirror for a change.

you say my assertion is dubious. you give no reason why. of course it isn't substantiated ON THIS PAGE because both arminian and I have laboriously done so on the last couple of pages. This isn't a huge thread dwarf.

I haven't been following this thread

and you have attacked my way of doing things.

 

[geoff]

Surly,

perverse love of quarrels? shame on me...

The only perverse thing around here is 1013 (well, not the *only* perverse thing, but you get my meaning).

Harking back to Rob's entry in this forum, it was He who first got in a huff and started calling people 'stupid', 'idiots' etc

Anyway, thats beside the point... his current 'huff' is because I pointed out that GP's language was clear... hmm why should I have to apologise for that? What could possibly be wrong with that? I dunno... Not much of anything he says makes sense to me...

 

[1013]

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.


and now he's a liar

 

[geoff]

"4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

You just did.

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

Sorry, I wasn't seriously saying Shame on you. I guess you guys missed the lil joke I tried there, maybe because the "quote" font type is so small. Rob had said something in an earlier post about you having a perverse love of quarrels, and I immediately, because of my warped brain, thought "perverse love of SQUIRRELS", and said to myself that I had to do a mock quote. But it apparently fell flat, hehe. See?

 

[geoff]

ahh i c... yeah it is small.. hehe... and I just looked back at the original post to see what he said instead of reading your post... more fool me

 

[Surly-DwarF]

1013 mike, at least you have had the decency to apologize when someone has been offended at your behavior. Geoff has never done this.

Rob, I did what I felt I needed to do, and will again if need be.

How is it a deniel of God's omniscience to say that He knows all of reality in its entirety as it truly is?

I'm tempted to say nevermind because now I understand what you meant, namely that God does have omniscience, just not EDF, but as I reflect on the entire statement I find it very difficult to see how you can claim to believe God has anything remotely approaching real Omniscience that is greater than any mere mortal possesses. But, whatever. I really am not looking to debate on this thread right now.

I'm not worried about substantiating everything in every thread. the issue in this thread is primarily God changes his mind or not. Not the why, but I have supplied a why that is reasonable and its reasonableness can be demonstrated. God's has changed his plans in favor of the desires of those who love him such as moses and hezekiah and he changes his plans for the penitent such the people of Nineveh. He did not change his plans in favor of those who simply desire to manipulate Him such as Balak or saul.

All right. In light of what I just said, I'm going to let it slide, even though I strongly disagree that God has changed His mind/plans in the way you claim. I may come back here and get into it with you if and when other things are slow and I have the time.

This is an incredible grossly erroneous assessment.

Whose word should I take for it...yours or mine?

GRAY PILGRIM, GEOFF AND KNIGHTOWL HAVE ALL AVOIDED THE TEXTS THAT ARMINIAN AND I HAVE POINTED OUT. I addressed theirs, but they did not address ours. Knightowl attempted one in a another thread elsewhere just before this thread which he didn't try to argue any further.

Ok, if you say so. I won't contradict you since I haven't gone back and read it all yet, but I do still doubt it. I can't really see those guys slinking away with their tails tucked between their legs like a pack of whooped mongrels because you and Arminian gave them hell and they were dumbfounded. Sorry, I just can't.

your post above is the quintessence of the problem here. Look in the mirror for a change.

I'll try, but I'm not so purty.

 

[1013]

I'm tempted to say nevermind because now I understand what you meant, namely that God does have omniscience, just not EDF

great, I'm really glad you see where I'm coming from, (at least on this small account.)

but as I reflect on the entire statement I find it very difficult to see how you can claim to believe God has anything remotely approaching real Omniscience that is greater than any mere mortal possesses.

there is a vast amount of knowlege to be had on what is settled that is not available to us. Furthermore, in an indeterministic universe, there is far more to know in terms of what possibilities will be open to the future. In a deterministic universe, God only has to know what events will occur for him to be omnisicient. But in an indeterministic universe, God has to know possible alternatives (which in many, if not all cases is not infinite in number but extrememly large) and that exponentially increases the amount of knowledge to be had, far beyond that necessary in a deterministic universe, that we mortals could never hope to acheive, in order for him to be omniscient.

But foreknowledge isn't the primary issue here in this thread. After all, arminian, subscribes to EDF.

Whose word should I take for it...yours or mine?... Ok, if you say so. I won't contradict you since I haven't gone back and read it all yet, but I do still doubt it.

read it and weep.

I just read it all this morning for review (in less than half an hour, maybe even 15 min) these are not long posts. Knightowl, focuses on numbers 23, which I address, and Gray pilgrim focuses also on numbers 23, in particular the syntactal issues, which I also address. Nobody tries to address the passages that Arminian and I discussed at length. At most Geoff, said that the way we handle it creates theological difficulties. (of course it does, for him) but he offered no alternative way to take them. Of course had he done so, someone else would've had to take that up because then, I was not responding to geoff, not directly because I was sick of him and his tom foolery even then.

It has been a pretty assymetrical discussion.

 

[Knightowl]

GRAY PILGRIM, GEOFF AND KNIGHTOWL HAVE ALL AVOIDED THE TEXTS THAT ARMINIAN AND I HAVE POINTED OUT. I addressed theirs, but they did not address ours. Knightowl attempted one in a another thread elsewhere just before this thread which he didn't try to argue any further.

Ok, if you say so. I won't contradict you since I haven't gone back and read it all yet, but I do still doubt it. I can't really see those guys slinking away with their tails tucked between their legs like a pack of whooped mongrels because you and Arminian gave them hell and they were dumbfounded. Sorry, I just can't.

Sometimes, RL is just too demanding. At times like those, arguing with Flat-Earthers and their theological equivalents just isn't worth it.

 

[1013]

I'm starting to think that you are knowingly lying to yourself intellectually knightowl.

So frequently you post absolutely nothing when you don't know what to say to a good arguement. some dumb assesment that attempts to demonstrate nothing is often what you end up offering.

It is a glaring omission that none of you have addressed our passages.

For all those flat earthers we've got mathematics and empiracle data. It can be shown that the earth is round. You can't even show a reasonable explanation for the obvious and most natural implication of the passages we've raised that confilict with your view.

if anyone should be compared to flat earther's it's you and your ridiculous "moses knows God pretends to change" argument that you didn't dare pursue in this thread. I addressed that attempt and it is really bad. Real flat earth quality. So you can can be mature enough to honestly deal with the all too natural and normal implications that we raised with our passages.

lets cut the junior high antics and honestly address the issue. No one should place their faith in your assessment. give an explanation or hold your peace. This is a discussion forum for discussion.

 

[1013]

bump

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Ok Rob,

Sooo, I'm only able to come here rather sporadically of late and have limited time, but I'll try to carry on this thread with you as I'm able if no one else wants to. At least to a certain point. I'll give my best answers to any questions/arguments, as long as we don't keep covering the same old ground and as long as I detect no evasion, double-speak etc. But, since I haven't been one of the main players here and the thread is cold, I don't know where to begin. You said you and Arminian had some verses that no one was able give a reasonable accounting for. Do you want to talk about one of those or what? Ball's in your court.

Mike

 

[geoff]

Surly,

A reasonable accounting was given to the verses, 1013 arbitrarily decided that the evidence was insufficient... You could do it all again, with, indubitably the same result, I guess.

 

[1013]

Ball's in your court.

Despite four pages this is a very short thread. It will take you 20 minutes or less.

I'll give my best answers to any questions/arguments, as long as we don't keep covering the same old ground and as long as I detect no evasion, double-speak etc.

Don't worry. I don't do that. maybe someone has a perception problem :noid:

I'll give my best answers to any questions/arguments

remember that I decide what I find compelling and that is not arbitrary. If you have answers that satisfy you, bueno, but don't demand that I think with your reasoning.

 

[Surly-DwarF]

Geoff,

Uh, yeah, you're probably right and I'm beginning to have second thoughts, but just for kicks I might read through the whole thing when I get a chance and see if there's any point to it.

 

[1013]

Wow mike. You worry that I might be evasive and excercize double speak and yet here you are once again prejudging before examining the evidence.

Are you serious about this or are you going to read this just for kicks. But when you read through it and can honestly recognize the evasions, you'll get a kick alright.

But there is a point to it. Remember, I did not start this thread. Gray Pilgrim did and he nor anyone else defended that position as biblically consistent (our passages were not addressed) nor necessarily arising from the text, (you could take his view on the particular passages that were discussed by the immutabilists here, but on account of rules written by the grammarians and the treatment of other experts, there is room for disagreement) and account of the former, the classical position has failed as far as this thread is concerned.

It's all there plain as day.

By the way, the meat and potatoes of this thread is only 2 pages plus a couple more posts. Time constraints really are no excuse.

 

[geoff]

Mike:

1013 said

remember that I decide what I find compelling and that is not arbitrary. If you have answers that satisfy you, bueno, but don't demand that I think with your reasoning.

Ie:

It doesnt matter waht you say, or what evidence you produce, I am going to believe what I believe regardless.