Why don't you actually read posts before saying things like this that make you look like a literal buffoon? I mean, seriously!
On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Why don't you actually read posts before saying things like this that make you look like a literal buffoon? I mean, seriously!
I know the drill of those that discredit every scripture they disagree with. It goes like this it isn’t in the original languages scripture was written in. Hello ! What do you think the Majority texts are , and what do you think bibles prior to the onslaught of the corrupted minority texts were translated from ? Thank God He preserved His word it exposes the god complex that many have who are supposedly depending on, following , and have placed their faith in who actually follow themselves, sadly.
Why don't you actually read posts before saying things like this that make you look like a literal buffoon? I mean, seriously!
Once again, you should read the posts that are written to you before saying stupid things.
I responded directly and in context to the specific passage that you quoted. I cited credible sources that you have no basis to even question, never mind refute.
King James Onlyism is utterly stupid nonsense that has been fully, completely and utterly refuted....
Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today? Battle Royale XIV
Hey if you want to go back to Rome bye. Scripture , correct scripture that is, says are saved, while modern translation say being saved just like the RCC teaches. The RCC has never placed one of their edicts against modern translations but they have placed several against the KJV.
Okay, none of that made any sense whatsoever. Try again.
There are actually only two bibles 1. Syrian stream 2 Alexandria stream. If you believe gnostics from Egypt translated the scriptures correctly I have some ocean front property in Nevada for sale at a great price.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You said, "I don't care what you believe, I care about what you can establish with scripture and plain reason."
I do make actual arguments. Not my fault that you don't listen.
Rhetorical or not, it's a stupid question. "Do you suppose God would have broken.....? I openly scoff at your stupid question. It doesn't deserve an answer. Oh, and my "snarkily repeating" what you say ad nauseum must have gone over your head. Have you lost touch with the real world while wandering through your made up world?
I know what God's plan was because it makes complete logical sense. Unlike whatever it is you're trying to put forth.
You underestimate our Great God. Even a fool would know that they would eat of the fruit.
Adam was not created with a sinful nature....nor are we born with a sinful nature. Children are just as "very good" as Adam was. You've fallen for the Catholic lie.
You're completely stupid for thinking God wasn't well aware Adam would sin.
Ah, "the slightest ability to obey". You're lowering the bar quite a bit there, Clete. God knew what you clearly aren't taking into consideration. He knew that man would need some incentive to love Him and put all his faith in Him. God knew it was a matter of growth for all of mankind.
You're a fool. You can't even follow the Bible on this one. TRAIN up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it. You go right ahead and tell your little boy to walk beside you and don't step away for any reason. Beat him til he's black and blue, and then weep tears of sorrow if he follows a cat out into the street to save it and gets hit by a car.
I didn't once say I had no expectation of obedience from my children, but I am smart enough to be honest on a forum, unlike you, Mr. Perfect.
All my kids grew up to love the Lord, and my grandkids mind as good as your children. But I have to laugh at your incredible EGO.
His love is indeed amazing.
What's more amazing is someone who claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit can be filled with such PRIDE that he can't even carry on a conversation without making false accusations based on his own inability to understand what is being said.
Where has your peace gone, Clete?
No you don't! 99 & 44/100% of what you do is to flatly state what you believe, not why you believe it. And then when pressed to explain the "why", you call the questions asked in that direction, "stupid".
See, here's a great example of you doing exactly that...
I told you in advance, one might say that I "declared from the beginning" that you wouldn't answer the question!
You're such a buffoon! Why believe things that you have no ability or even desire to actually defend?
I say it as often as I am presented with statements that are presented without foundation. I say it to point out unsupported personal opinions. Just the very thing you implied a moment ago that you don't do but this very typical post of yours proves that you do all the time.
Saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz!
It doesn't make "complete logical sense" just because you show up here and make the claim!
If it makes sense then make the argument! Show me how it makes "complete logical sense"! That would be interesting! That would be fun! That would be something that we could have a substantive two-way debate about! Wouldn't that be something?!
Saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz!
Saying it doesn't make it so, glorydaz!
Where are all these arguments you claim to make?
If anything your own statements about children's behavior contradicts your own doctrine here. If children are not born with a sinful nature (i.e. not at all the same as the doctrine of "Original Sin", which I fully reject, by the way) then why is it that children do not have to be taught to lie? Why is it that children need to be trained to obey their parents? Why is it their instinct to disobey and to do wrongly if they have no sin nature?
WHY?
That's what I want to hear from people on this website! WHY? All you offer and most all I ever get from anyone who disagrees with me is WHAT they believe. The what is fine so long as it is accompanied by why they believe it but getting anyone to answer WHY is all but impossible.
You are no exception!
Prove me wrong by answering the question.
You won't do it.
Saying it doesn't make it so!
I explained clearly that God wasn't surprised or caught off gruard by his disobedience but that isn't good enough for you. You must have it that God absolutely knew without any question or doubt that Adam would, without fail, eat of that Tree. You believe that God was incapable of making an Adam with any such ability. Either that or that He intentionally chose to make Adam such that He could not but sin. Either way, in what way would it make any sense at all to call such a creature "very good"?
That's another question you won't answer.
Are you suggesting that Adam COULD have not eaten that fruit?
Are you actually saying that God wanted Adam to sin?
If you ever state or even imply that I beat my children until they are black and blue again, I will not stop until I have successfully gotten you permanently banned from this website.
And my kids were very well trained to stop dead in their tracks whenever they heard either me or any other adult yell, "Stop!".
Trained, Glorydaz, trained. Do you understand the concept of training? We practiced it. We practiced when there was no danger at all. Just the same way the military trains for combat when there is no enemy around, or how folks who carry guns on their person go to the gun range and shoot at paper pictures of bad guys.
Yes you did say that!
You said "I would not for a minute expect my child to obey....especially if they were young."
That is a verbatim quote, gloydaz! You have to remember two things...
1. I respond to what people actually say.
2. The entire thread is still here for the whole world to read and refer back too!
I never even implied that I'm perfect! I simply raised my kids based on biblical principles and have them as proof that those principles work and that any parent that "would not for a minute expect their child to obey....especially if they were young" doesn't know how to be a good parent and therefore is not one.
Incidentally, I suspected at first that you weren't a parent at all when you made that statement, at least not of teenagers anyway because anyone who has raised children knows that the younger they are, the easier it is to get them to obey you. They get more rebelious as they get older, not less. Girls in particular, seem to lose their minds between the ages of 12 and about 18 to 20 or so. Then they turn back into normal people again.
Laugh all you like. My comments were in reaction to your own claims about your own relationship with your own kids. If you raised your children with no expectation of obedience then how is it that those same children have an expectation that their kids will obey them?
Did you lie when you stated that you would not for a minute expect your children to obey?
I'm at total peace, glorydaz! It's laughable the way people take straight talk from a man who knows what he's saying to be an expression of anger or hostility. Thin skinned cry babies annoy me to death!
And, as I explained already, I respond to what people actually say. I am not responsible for what you "mean" if it is something other than what you write. We are talking here, first and foremost, about the nature of God and this discussion about expecting our kids to obey is being held in the context of what God would have expected of Adam and so when you claim that God knew with absolute certainty that Adam would disobey the first and only command that he got, and then try to support that belief by making a parallel between that and the fact that you "would not for a minute expect [your] child to obey....especially if they were young", then how else am I to respond to that other than the way I did? If the fact is that you actually did have some normal expectation that you kids would obey you more often than not then how would that not only agree with what I said about the raising of my own children but also agree with what I am saying God expected of Adam?
Do you see, the point I'm making there, glorydaz?
No, I know you don't. Let me explain....
The point, in addition to what I just said about it's connection to the overall discussion, is that I very much can carry on a conversation and keep full track of what is being said and why! The fact is that it is you who can't keep you eye on the ball and instead react emotionally to my direct, factual and biblical responses to your own claims!
Clete
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
This right here is undoubtedly why TOL is not vibrant anymore.
I don’t see how anyone could read scripture and not see that God is immutable. I would have to believe they have no spiritual eyes to see the truth. You know ever learning and unable to arrive ar the truth, sadly.
You are such a buffoonish waste of time!
Why do you even bother coming here? If you cannot articulate WHY you believe what you believe then you are literally wasting both your time and everyone else's you interact with here!
Despite the fact that we have shown you repeatedly from scripture that God does, in fact, change in some ways?
"Immutable" deities are from pagan greek philosophy, LN, not the Bible.
God mocks the stone idols because they are immutable, while He is the living God.
Maybe you should remove the beam that's in your own eyes, before trying to remove the mote in other people's eyes, hypocrite.
Well, let me pull some scripture from a totally obscure passage in the book of Nahum that hardly anyone has ever read...
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
18 I (Jesus) am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.
Oh, wait! Those might not be from Nahum!
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh, I'm making Clete unhappy. Woe is me.
I come here in spite of you being here, Clete, because I am long-suffering, and because there are others here who actually aren't pigs.
You can whisper in someone's ear and get me banned, if I'm so hard for you to tolerate.
That will be a work of yours that needs to be burned at the Bema Seat.
But, I'll be fine. Don't worry.
You do know while Jesus was on earth that God the Father was unchanging in heaven right ?
Last edited:
You do understand that while Jesus was on earth that God the Father was in heaven unchanging right ?
Last edited:
You do understand that while Jesus was on earth that God the Father was in heaven unchanging right ?Mal 3:6 - For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. You might want to check that beam in your own eye.
Did you forget about the incarnation of Christ, which we discussed earlier in this thread?
Did you forget to read post #388? Post in thread 'On the omniscience of God' https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1831913
Are you ignoring the fact that Jesus, God the Son, becoming a man means that the Father changes from being the Father of the Son who was never a man, to being the Father of the Son who is now and forevermore both God AND man?
Your claim that "God does not change" is false on its face.
God says He doesn't change... In His NATURE! He does not say that He doesn't change at all (immutability).
Last edited:
If God changed then based on what He said of Himself In scripture He would be a liar and I do not believe God is a liar .Mal 3:6 - For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. You might want to check that beam in your own eye. God said nothing about nature in Malachi 3:6 that is what YOU added.
Again, I am giving you many verses that show that God DOES IN FACT CHANGE in some ways.
On the omniscience of God
Saying it doesn't make it so, Arial. In fact, it's worse than that. Saying time was created is, itself, illogical, because time is a PRECONDITION of creating. As Clete said: "Creation" of ANYTHING implies a "before" and "after." a sequence of events relative to each other, a "before the...
theologyonline.com
You, however, are ignoring them, in favor of a single verse that says more than you want it to, but you ignore that part because it doesn't make your point. It's called special pleading. It's a logical fallacy for a reason!
Observe:
"Therefore [the] sons of Jacob are not consumed."
What's the "therefore" there for?
Why are the sons of Jacob not consumed? Because God doesn't break His promises. In that way "I am the LORD, I change not."
In addition to that, GOD THE SON CHANGED! HE BECAME A MAN.
Again, you and I had this conversation already. You agreed that God the Son was not a man, and then became a man.
That's a change, whether you like it or not.
And on top of that, because GOD THE SON changed, therefore, the FATHER also changed related to His relationship with His Son.
Or what, do you deny the Incarnation of CHRIST!? Do you deny that the incarnation was a change in God the Son?
Don't be like James White and R. C. Sproul, Jr., LN!
Again, special pleading is a fallacy. You're ignoring other verses.
God is not a liar. He doesn't change in His character or nature. But He DOES CHANGE in OTHER WAYS!
Here is the scripture that shows God changing in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS that DO NOT INVOLVE His character or nature.
Nor do I!
Your snark is unnecessary.
"Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Why?
Because God doesn't break His promises.
Go read: https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1831913
You cannot seem to accept or understand that while Jesus walked the earth that God the Father was in heaven and NOTHING for the Spirit of God changed, and not one verse of scripture says He changed.Again, I am giving you many verses that show that God DOES IN FACT CHANGE in some ways.
On the omniscience of God
Saying it doesn't make it so, Arial. In fact, it's worse than that. Saying time was created is, itself, illogical, because time is a PRECONDITION of creating. As Clete said: "Creation" of ANYTHING implies a "before" and "after." a sequence of events relative to each other, a "before the...theologyonline.com
You, however, are ignoring them, in favor of a single verse that says more than you want it to, but you ignore that part because it doesn't make your point. It's called special pleading. It's a logical fallacy for a reason!
Observe:
"Therefore [the] sons of Jacob are not consumed."
What's the "therefore" there for?
Why are the sons of Jacob not consumed? Because God doesn't break His promises. In that way "I am the LORD, I change not."
In addition to that, GOD THE SON CHANGED! HE BECAME A MAN.
Again, you and I had this conversation already. You agreed that God the Son was not a man, and then became a man.
That's a change, whether you like it or not.
And on top of that, because GOD THE SON changed, therefore, the FATHER also changed related to His relationship with His Son.
Or what, do you deny the Incarnation of CHRIST!? Do you deny that the incarnation was a change in God the Son?
Don't be like James White and R. C. Sproul, Jr., LN!
Again, special pleading is a fallacy. You're ignoring other verses.
God is not a liar. He doesn't change in His character or nature. But He DOES CHANGE in OTHER WAYS!
Here is the scripture that shows God changing in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS that DO NOT INVOLVE His character or nature.
Nor do I!
Your snark is unnecessary.
"Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."
Why?
Because God doesn't break His promises.
Go read: https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1831913