Our Moral God

[Derf]

Well, this doesn't seem to follow to me. Not everything that happens is worked by God for the good of anyone, except perhaps in a very broad, long term, big picture sense.

Yes, that's true, and that's why I suggested we consider the children, which Jesus pointed at and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven."

I mean, babies are murdered every 30 seconds in this country alone.

I'm purposefully conflating righteous people with innocent children.

I can't see any evidence of God working gang activity for the good of anyone much less their seemingly constant victims.

Nor can most believers at the time of the trial/evil inflicted on them. Yet we can trust His promise to us.

God doesn't seem to be working things out for the benefit of the citizens of North Korea under their lunatic ruler.

"Citizens" in general, no. Believers are a different story. How can you deny it, if you believe God's promises? That doesn't mean believers never die at the hands of despotic rulers or violent criminals.

In short, good people have terrible things happen to them all the time and so how would that fact be easier to deal with with if God knows everything there is to know whether He wants to know it or not?

Remember that I was saying all things work together for good for those who love God. Are you saying God doesn't need to know at any moment in time what's happening to those who love Him in order to make all things work together for good? Perhaps you are right, but it makes more sense if it God actually knows what's going on with His children. And if innocent children are His, well, hopefully you're getting the picture.

Further, it's important to not take these ideas too far. No matter the state of God's knowledge, He under no circumstance would be hobbled in His ability to judge rightly. God is still God and has power and resources that I'm sure we cannot even begin to fathom. There's no doubt that God either knows or is able to find out everything He would ever need to know for any purpose.

I wonder, though, if it makes sense to say that someone else knows more about something than God does, at least when it comes to things He will want to know at some time.

You should avoid doing such things as much as possible, especially when dealing with doctrines that we know have pagan origins such as the Omni-doctrines. Interpreting a passage to preserve God's righteous character is one thing because if God isn't righteous then biblical doctrine is a moot subject but doing so to preserve most any other sort of doctrine is called eisegesis and is a mistake.

Right. And neither should we eisegete the other direction either. We're not afraid of finding out that God knows something that we didn't think He knew, if it can be shown from the bible. So we don't assume God doesn't know something just because it appears to support our doctrine.

I don't deny that there were children there but that isn't the reason God wanted them preached to.

I think it is at least one reason, actually given in scripture.

God expected them to repent in response to Jonah's message.

Did He expect them to repent? How do you know that?

Even Jonah expected it which he didn't want to happen and why he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the preaching!

Does that mean God expected it? All prophecy of that type is to bring about repentance. Does God always expect them to repent? Hope, yes, expect, I don't know about that. Did God expect the city of Sodom to repent when Lot preached to them?

Whether He knew or not isn't the point. The point is that Abraham talked with God in a manner that is completely incompatible with there being any notion in his head about God being omniscient in the way that Christians normally believe. God, in the mind of Abraham could be negotiated with and His mind could be changed.

I agree.

As for what it says about God's knowledge, what would have been the point of God choose not to simply tell Abraham, "Look, I'm God okay? I'm telling you right now, there aren't even ten people in that horrible city!"?

I'm not sure. Do you know God's reasons for telling us or not telling us something all the time?

Further, you keep bringing up children. There are millions and millions of children who are murdered all over the world every year. How does your understanding of God's knowledge apply to that modern situation?

God will avenge all those children's murders, at the very least.

Well, first of all God can definitely tell when someone is lying

Do you think that's true in every single case? If so, then why didn't God just ask Abraham if He would sacrifice Isaac, instead of actually waiting until he was about to plunge the knife? When people talk about what they are going to do, can God always tell whether they are lying?

and so this argument wouldn't hold water in any case but that's almost beside the point. As I was saying before, God is not a mere human and would not need to rely on third party testimony. The guilty know that they are guilty and God can know what they know. You can't keep a secret from God and there is no right to remain silent before God.

This might be the right answer. Even if we don't remember something correctly (thinking we are in the right when we're not, for instance), I expect God can determine the truth even from our own memories.

Further, there may be any number of possible means by which God could be made aware of anything He needs to know that we are completely ignorant of. The may be, just to name one possible example, some means by which the events of history are being recorded. That's speculation, obviously, but the point is that there isn't any need for God to be a first person witness to every vile act that springs from the dark hearts of evil men.


This an unanswerable question. Are you suggesting that God would be incapable of devising such a method of reliable record keeping. For all we know, our own minds might be where such things are recorded.


Well, again, we don't know, right? Perhaps there is some aspect to the natural world that we have no idea about. One way or another, God has some means, perhaps multiple means, to find out whatever it is he needs to know.

Which takes me back to the earlier assertion. If God has such a mechanism, then why would He only have access to it at the final judgment, instead of at some intermediate point, like right before He intended to "go down and see" if the outcry is as bad as He heard? And so, if He has access to His own recording device, then He can determine how bad they are, in order to confirm or deny the outcry...without going down to Sodom at all. The only other possibility is if the recording device, like discussion above, is located within the people He is going to see. Maybe that's possible.

 

[Clete]

Yes, that's true, and that's why I suggested we consider the children, which Jesus pointed at and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven."

I'm purposefully conflating righteous people with innocent children.

Nor can most believers at the time of the trial/evil inflicted on them. Yet we can trust His promise to us.

"Citizens" in general, no. Believers are a different story. How can you deny it, if you believe God's promises? That doesn't mean believers never die at the hands of despotic rulers or violent criminals.

As I said, the promise most directly applies in a big picture sense. There are Christian people who are brutally tortured, raped, murdered and otherwise victimized every single day. God very simply is not working every evil act that victimizes a believer toward the good of that believer. That is a horrendously false doctrine that is more akin to superstition that anything biblical.

My father in-law died of prostate cancer in his early 60s because Benny Hinn told him he was healed. Tell me what good has come to him or any member of his family because of that foolish con-artist's lie?

It certainly hasn't worked at all toward my father's benefit except that he gets to be in heaven now. (He really was an actual believer, by the way. He didn't attend any church similar to Benny Hinn's. He was simply scared and ignorant and got duped into believing a lie.) It's given me that opportunity to tell people about how horrible Benny Hinn is! Is that the good of which you speak? I don't get it! I'd rather have my father in-law!

Everyone experiences tragedy of one kind or another in the life and it not these things that the bible is talking about when it says that God works all things toward the good of those who love Him. The "all things" is a figure of speech. It is hyperbole and it is referring to all the normal stuff that happens in your life and not even ALL of that and certainly not the rapes and murders and homosexuals who want to molest your children, etc.

Remember that I was saying all things work together for good for those who love God. Are you saying God doesn't need to know at any moment in time what's happening to those who love Him in order to make all things work together for good? Perhaps you are right, but it makes more sense if it God actually knows what's going on with His children. And if innocent children are His, well, hopefully you're getting the picture.

Okay, so having addressed the nature of "all things", I'll respond here by saying that no one has suggested that God isn't aware of what's going on with his own people or that God is ignorant of the death of the innocent.

I wonder, though, if it makes sense to say that someone else knows more about something than God does, at least when it comes to things He will want to know at some time.

Why wouldn't it make sense?

Does God know what it's like to have homosexual sex? I'm pretty sure that every single pervert on planet Earth knows more about that than God does! Why would God need to know such a thing?

Right. And neither should we eisegete the other direction either. We're not afraid of finding out that God knows something that we didn't think He knew, if it can be shown from the bible. So we don't assume God doesn't know something just because it appears to support our doctrine.

Do you have any evidence that I or anyone else who agrees with me has done such a thing?

NO!

On the contrary, we directly quote passages of scripture that directly indicate that there are things that God does not know and we infer from that, along with the biblical fact that God is a righteous judge, that there are means by which God is able to discover that which He needs to know and we find biblical examples of Him doing precisely that.

I think it is at least one reason, actually given in scripture.

I certainly don't deny that God would prefer the children live than for them to die. That's obviously true, but that isn't the point. The point is that the text of book of Jonah does not indicate it as a reason.

Did He expect them to repent? How do you know that?

The text makes it totally clear!

The fact that God fully expected them to repent as a result of Jonah's message is clearly indicated by how the story goes. As I said, even Jonah himself expected it and that is the reason he didn't want to go because he didn't want God to show them mercy. Jonah wanted God to destroy Nineveh and so didn't want to be giving them an opportunity to repent by preaching God's word to them.

Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!”

4 Then the Lord said, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 So Jonah went out of the city and sat on the east side of the city. There he made himself a shelter and sat under it in the shade, till he might see what would become of the city. 6 And the Lord God prepared a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be shade for his head to deliver him from his misery. So Jonah was very grateful for the plant. 7 But as morning dawned the next day God prepared a worm, and it so damaged the plant that it withered. 8 And it happened, when the sun arose, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat on Jonah’s head, so that he grew faint. Then he wished death for himself, and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.”

9 Then God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”
And he said, “It is right for me to be angry, even to death!”

10 But the Lord said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Does that mean God expected it? All prophecy of that type is to bring about repentance. Does God always expect them to repent? Hope, yes, expect, I don't know about that. Did God expect the city of Sodom to repent when Lot preached to them?

Are you suggesting that Jonah knew more than God did?

I'm not sure. Do you know God's reasons for telling us or not telling us something all the time?

That was as dishonest thing for you to say!

When you have to resort to this sort of tactic, it isn't my doctrine that it impunes but your own.

God will avenge all those children's murders, at the very least.

That doesn't answer my question at all, Derf!

Come on now! Apply your own logic that your using in Sodom's case in an argument for the idea that God must surely know everything to today's current baby murdering situation that is so far beyond what those in Sodom were guilty of that it would have stunned them into incredulous silence!

Do you think that's true in every single case?

Very definitely!

If so, then why didn't God just ask Abraham if He would sacrifice Isaac, instead of actually waiting until he was about to plunge the knife?

Because saying that you're willing to do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Abraham would not have had to lie at all to be wrong. Just like Peter, when He told Jesus that he'd go to his death before denying Jesus. He wasn't lying! He was simply wrong.

When people talk about what they are going to do, can God always tell whether they are lying?

When they are lying, yes! Of course He can! Do you really think that people can fool God by lying to Him?

This might be the right answer. Even if we don't remember something correctly (thinking we are in the right when we're not, for instance), I expect God can determine the truth even from our own memories.

Exactly!
Not only that but I have little doubt that God is able to give us perfect recall of the events of our lives.

Which takes me back to the earlier assertion. If God has such a mechanism, then why would He only have access to it at the final judgment, instead of at some intermediate point, like right before He intended to "go down and see" if the outcry is as bad as He heard? And so, if He has access to His own recording device, then He can determine how bad they are, in order to confirm or deny the outcry...without going down to Sodom at all. The only other possibility is if the recording device, like discussion above, is located within the people He is going to see. Maybe that's possible.

Who said that He didn't have access to it?
God isn't required to take the path of least resistence. Maybe He went down there to see it for Himself simply because that's what He wanted to do and/or because His doing so would accomplish some other side effect that He want to accomplish. There could be a whole list of reasons He chose to do it that way. In short, just because God chose to do it one way, doesn't mean He couldn't have done it another way.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The text makes it totally clear!

The fact that God fully expected them to repent as a result of Jonah's message is clearly indicated by how the story goes. As I said, even Jonah himself expected it and that is the reason he didn't want to go because he didn't want God to show them mercy. Jonah wanted God to destroy Nineveh and so didn't want to be giving them an opportunity to repent by preaching God's word to them.

Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!”

4 Then the Lord said, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 So Jonah went out of the city and sat on the east side of the city. There he made himself a shelter and sat under it in the shade, till he might see what would become of the city. 6 And the Lord God prepared a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be shade for his head to deliver him from his misery. So Jonah was very grateful for the plant. 7 But as morning dawned the next day God prepared a worm, and it so damaged the plant that it withered. 8 And it happened, when the sun arose, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat on Jonah’s head, so that he grew faint. Then he wished death for himself, and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.”

9 Then God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”
And he said, “It is right for me to be angry, even to death!”

10 But the Lord said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

I think it bears clarifying that "expect" comes with a degree of certainty that I don't think the text allows, but certainly, the purpose of God's prophecy was to get them to repent, and if they didn't totally double down in their wickedness, the "expected" result would be their repentance.

That said, He certainly didn't know (at least, not in the settled view definition of the word) that they would repent.

 

[Clete]

I think it bears clarifying that "expect" comes with a degree of certainty that I don't think the text allows, but certainly, the purpose of God's prophecy was to get them to repent, and if they didn't totally double down in their wickedness, the "expected" result would be their repentance.

That said, He certainly didn't know (at least, not in the settled view definition of the word) that they would repent.

I agree that God did not "know" in the "with certainty" sense of that term but I do believe that He fully expected it and I think that expectation is part of why He chose Jonah to do the preaching. He for sure knew Jonah's heart and, I believe, saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone here. He got Nineveh to repent and taught Jonah, as well as the whole of mankind, a terrific lesson about having terribly bad attitude problems!

 

[Derf]

As I said, the promise most directly applies in a big picture sense. There are Christian people who are brutally tortured, raped, murdered and otherwise victimized every single day. God very simply is not working every evil act that victimizes a believer toward the good of that believer.

You're probably right that the "good" is not necessarily for that believer, as it would appear to him in this life. For instance, the martyrs being fed to lions would not experience the good in this life. But that doesn't mean it isn't counted as good for them in some way leading into the next life. And we certainly know that some evil befalling us can be good for those around us. Paul speaks of it:
[Phl 1:21 KJV] For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain.
Either way, God works it for good.

That is a horrendously false doctrine that is more akin to superstition that anything biblical.

Only with the narrow view that it has to be good for them in this life.

My father in-law died of prostate cancer in his early 60s because Benny Hinn told him he was healed. Tell me what good has come to him or any member of his family because of that foolish con-artist's lie?

Are you a member of his family? Aren't you more convinced of Hinn's lies because of it, and able to help other members of the family steer clear of the false doctrine? Oh...you dealt with that in the next paragraph below.

It certainly hasn't worked at all toward my father's benefit except that he gets to be in heaven now. (He really was an actual believer, by the way. He didn't attend any church similar to Benny Hinn's. He was simply scared and ignorant and got duped into believing a lie.) It's given me that opportunity to tell people about how horrible Benny Hinn is! Is that the good of which you speak? I don't get it! I'd rather have my father in-law!

The verse doesn't say we get to choose the way the good works out. That's closer to the name-it-claim-it gospel than I would ever think you would go.

Everyone experiences tragedy of one kind or another in the life and it not these things that the bible is talking about when it says that God works all things toward the good of those who love Him. The "all things" is a figure of speech. It is hyperbole and it is referring to all the normal stuff that happens in your life and not even ALL of that and certainly not the rapes and murders and homosexuals who want to molest your children, etc.

By no means do I want to excuse or even encourage the evil by saying that good will come from it. But is "all things" a figure of speech? Should believers believe that God can only know and therefore redeem some or a few things in a way that benefits them and possibly their families? Read the verse that way:
[Rom 8:28 KJV] And we know that all some a few things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
Is there any real comfort in that? The whole point of the verse is that we can trust God's competence, despite the pain we are either experiencing or about to experience.

Okay, so having addressed the nature of "all things", I'll respond here by saying that no one has suggested that God isn't aware of what's going on with his own people or that God is ignorant of the death of the innocent.

Ok, good.

Why wouldn't it make sense?

Does God know what it's like to have homosexual sex?

God knows how our bodies work. God knew what Adam and Eve would experience when they disobeyed Him in the garden, which I believe gave them some insight into sexuality, since shame of nakedness quickly followed.

I'm pretty sure that every single pervert on planet Earth knows more about that than God does! Why would God need to know such a thing?

So, I think you're right about the individual's actual experience, though God knows all the nerve endings and hormonal/chemical /biological/mental changes that will occur, including those that are harmful to the participants.

Do you have any evidence that I or anyone else who agrees with me has done such a thing?

This thread.

NO!

On the contrary, we directly quote passages of scripture that directly indicate that there are things that God does not know and we infer from that,

The inference is that He doesn't know something that is currently true. You take the inference and propagate to more inferences, based on your theology. Instead, I've provided a way to read the scripture that makes more sense of God's current knowledge, including the plight of the innocent that you agreed with me on, above.

along with the biblical fact that God is a righteous judge, that there are means by which God is able to discover that which He needs to know and we find biblical examples of Him doing precisely that.


I certainly don't deny that God would prefer the children live than for them to die. That's obviously true, but that isn't the point. The point is that the text of book of Jonah does not indicate it as a reason.

It does. I quoted it. You quoted it below.

The text makes it totally clear!

The fact that God fully expected them to repent as a result of Jonah's message is clearly indicated by how the story goes. As I said, even Jonah himself expected it and that is the reason he didn't want to go because he didn't want God to show them mercy. Jonah wanted God to destroy Nineveh and so didn't want to be giving them an opportunity to repent by preaching God's word to them.

Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!”

4 Then the Lord said, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 So Jonah went out of the city and sat on the east side of the city. There he made himself a shelter and sat under it in the shade, till he might see what would become of the city. 6 And the Lord God prepared a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be shade for his head to deliver him from his misery. So Jonah was very grateful for the plant. 7 But as morning dawned the next day God prepared a worm, and it so damaged the plant that it withered. 8 And it happened, when the sun arose, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat on Jonah’s head, so that he grew faint. Then he wished death for himself, and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.”

9 Then God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”
And he said, “It is right for me to be angry, even to death!”

10 But the Lord said, “You have had pity on the plant for which you have not labored, nor made it grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”


Are you suggesting that Jonah knew more than God did?

No. Aren't you?

That was as dishonest thing for you to say!

It was a question. Unless you're talking about "I'm not sure." Why is that dishonest? What it tells me is that you have inferred something the text does not explicitly say. And anytime we do that, we should question whether it is because the information really is in the text in some less-than-explicit form, or if the information we are inferring is only available from our theological system, and we implant it into the text.

When you have to resort to this sort of tactic, it isn't my doctrine that it impunes but your own.


That doesn't answer my question at all, Derf!

Hmmm. I thought it did. Are you saying vengeance isn't God's, nor will He repay?

Come on now! Apply your own logic that your using in Sodom's case in an argument for the idea that God must surely know everything to today's current baby murdering situation that is so far beyond what those in Sodom were guilty of that it would have stunned them into incredulous silence!

I think I have. Tell me why my logic doesn't work in those cases you mention.

Very definitely!


Because saying that you're willing to do something isn't the same as actually doing it. Abraham would not have had to lie at all to be wrong. Just like Peter, when He told Jesus that he'd go to his death before denying Jesus. He wasn't lying! He was simply wrong.

But he believed it, don't you think? And if he wasn't lying, but also wasn't telling the truth, does God need to see him (or Abraham) go through with it to determine if he really was or wasn't telling the truth? Peter's case tells us "No." Abraham's case tells us "Yes." Which are we to believe?

When they are lying, yes! Of course He can! Do you really think that people can fool God by lying to Him?

I don't think they can, but if God doesn't actually have that information to compare with the information they are giving Him, what is He doing, using a lie detector? Checking to see if they are sweating? Some people are really good at lying, such that they fool themselves, even.

Exactly!
Not only that but I have little doubt that God is able to give us perfect recall of the events of our lives.

Yes, He could, I suppose, if the information is available somewhere. But if the information is stored in synapses in the brain, and the brain has turned back into dust, I think He has to reload our memories from some source. Rev 20 talks about "the books", and "those things which were written in the books", which seems to accord with "their works".
[Rev 20:12 KJV] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Apparently God brings receipts.

Who said that He didn't have access to it?
God isn't required to take the path of least resistence. Maybe He went down there to see it for Himself simply because that's what He wanted to do and/or because His doing so would accomplish some other side effect that He want to accomplish. There could be a whole list of reasons He chose to do it that way. In short, just because God chose to do it one way, doesn't mean He couldn't have done it another way.

And for that reason, you can't use the fact that He went down there to prove your doctrine that He didn't know a past fact about their behavior. Thanks.

 

[Clete]

You're probably right that the "good" is not necessarily for that believer, as it would appear to him in this life. For instance, the martyrs being fed to lions would not experience the good in this life. But that doesn't mean it isn't counted as good for them in some way leading into the next life. And we certainly know that some evil befalling us can be good for those around us. Paul speaks of it:
[Phl 1:21 KJV] For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain.
Either way, God works it for good.

Right. As I said, in a big picture, over the long term sort of way.

Only with the narrow view that it has to be good for them in this life.

Are you a member of his family? Aren't you more convinced of Hinn's lies because of it, and able to help other members of the family steer clear of the false doctrine? Oh...you dealt with that in the next paragraph below.

The verse doesn't say we get to choose the way the good works out. That's closer to the name-it-claim-it gospel than I would ever think you would go.

By no means do I want to excuse or even encourage the evil by saying that good will come from it. But is "all things" a figure of speech?

Yes, "all things" is clearly a figure of speech. The bible is not a law book, right? God is allowed to speak in generalities.

Should believers believe that God can only know and therefore redeem some or a few things in a way that benefits them and possibly their families? Read the verse that way:
[Rom 8:28 KJV] And we know that all some a few things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
Is there any real comfort in that? The whole point of the verse is that we can trust God's competence, despite the pain we are either experiencing or about to experience.

God is perfectly well capable of knowing what He needs to know, Derf!

No one here is arguing that God is so ignorant of what's going on that your point here could possibly have any relevance. We fully believe and acknowledge that God knows most everything. What we are objecting to is the ridiculous idea that says that God has to be a first person witness to every event in all of existence or else He'd break and could no longer be considered God.

God does not need to know about every event that occurs in the back rooms of all the gay bars in America.
God has no need to keep track of how many photons leave the surfaces of all the stars in heaven and in which precise direction they flew off in.
And a million other things that God has no need to know.

God knows how our bodies work. God knew what Adam and Eve would experience when they disobeyed Him in the garden, which I believe gave them some insight into sexuality, since shame of nakedness quickly followed.

Derf, I can't even believe that you wrote this. This, in the context of what I asked, is blasphemy! You know fully well what I was talking about!

So, I think you're right about the individual's actual experience, though God knows all the nerve endings and hormonal/chemical /biological/mental changes that will occur, including those that are harmful to the participants.

You "think" I'm right?

Derf, you really need to learn that God's reputation is more important than your personal convictions. Don't be afraid to stand on the foundation of God's righteous character.
Sheesh! I mean if you cannot know with absolute certainty that God has no experiential knowledge of sexual perversion then what in the world are you doing showing up to debate Christian doctrine?

This thread.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf.

You've gotta remember that this whole entire thread is still right here for everyone to read!

The inference is that He doesn't know something that is currently true. You take the inference and propagate to more inferences, based on your theology. Instead, I've provided a way to read the scripture that makes more sense of God's current knowledge, including the plight of the innocent that you agreed with me on, above.

It is not an inference, Derf! That's what the text itself says!

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

There is no need to infer anything, just read it and have the courage to believe what it says! The only inferring that's going on is with those who believe that God knows absolutely everything. They start with that premise and infer that this passage means the opposite of what it says.

It does. I quoted it. You quoted it below.

You're saying that "Those who don't know their right hand from their left" is a euphemism for children. Perhaps it is. I had never made that connection.

Why didn't you mention the cattle as being a reason, I wonder?

No. Aren't you?

What are we even talking about, Derf?
I'm the one saying that God fully expected Nineveh to repent and you are the one throwing cold water on that idea.

It was a question. Unless you're talking about "I'm not sure." Why is that dishonest?

Because it was a rhetorical question intended to make a point that you knew was dishonest when you wrote the question, that's why.

[ignored nonsensical giberish]

I'm not going to go down ever rabbit hole of insanity that you bring up.

I think I have. Tell me why my logic doesn't work in those cases you mention.

No need. The point has been made and any third grade child can understand it. Pretend like you don't get it if you want but I'm not going to play along.

But he believed it, don't you think? And if he wasn't lying, but also wasn't telling the truth, does God need to see him (or Abraham) go through with it to determine if he really was or wasn't telling the truth? Peter's case tells us "No." Abraham's case tells us "Yes." Which are we to believe?

I just cannot understand how your mind works, Derf!

The two situations are not identical and neither case gives us the "yes" or "no" that you suggest anyway. The situations were more complex than God getting a "yes" or a "no". God was teaching Abraham and Peter and through them, the entire world for the rest of history, important things about a viarety of issues none of which require anyone to believe that God didn't mean what He explicitly said. And there's certainly there is no reason to think that what God said was somehow the opposite of reality

I don't think they can, but if God doesn't actually have that information to compare with the information they are giving Him, what is He doing, using a lie detector? Checking to see if they are sweating? Some people are really good at lying, such that they fool themselves, even.

I mean, I seriously cannot fathom the low view you have of God's abilities and wisdom.

Yes, He could, I suppose, if the information is available somewhere. But if the information is stored in synapses in the brain, and the brain has turned back into dust, I think He has to reload our memories from some source.

Our minds are not physical, Derf.

Rev 20 talks about "the books", and "those things which were written in the books", which seems to accord with "their works".
[Rev 20:12 KJV] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Apparently God brings receipts.

Exactly!
So, how is that single verse not sufficient to asway your trepidation about God being able to judge rightly?
Why would such a book even need to be written if God knows absolutely everything?

And for that reason, you can't use the fact that He went down there to prove your doctrine that He didn't know a past fact about their behavior. Thanks.

What I can use is the verbatim text of the bible which puts the following words into God's own mouth!

Genesis 18:20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

 

[Derf]

Right. As I said, in a big picture, over the long term sort of way.


Yes, "all things" is clearly a figure of speech. The bible is not a law book, right? God is allowed to speak in generalities.


God is perfectly well capable of knowing what He needs to know, Derf!

How does He know what He needs to know if He doesn't know all? This seems like a legitimate question to me. Follow me on this...if God has not determined to know all about a particular person, then that person does something that warrants God's attention (good or bad). If God isn't "paying attention" to that person's activities, then it is incumbent on someone (or something, like a video recording system with not only facial recognition, but activity recognition software) else to tell God that the person did something noteworthy. Maybe, the noteworthiness raises a flag in God's throne room or something, to tell God, "You better watch this guy." Otherwise, God would have to know everything in order to know what things He doesn't want to know.

No one here is arguing that God is so ignorant of what's going on that your point here could possibly have any relevance. We fully believe and acknowledge that God knows most everything. What we are objecting to is the ridiculous idea that says that God has to be a first person witness to every event in all of existence or else He'd break and could no longer be considered God.

I offered in an earlier post that God could gain information from someone else about events. But I'm also wondering how far can that go? Is it His angels that are observing all humans and writing "the books" with all the deeds of human kind in them? Or are the deeds merely a noteworthy subset, as suggested above? The bible appears to require that all our deeds are written that are judge-worthy.
[2Co 5:10 NASB20] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds [done] through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.
[Rev 20:12 NASB20] And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

If an angel or set of angels are doing the writing/recording, would you think they are more able to see and hear than God? Or they just don't have anything better to do than watch us and write down all of our activities.

God does not need to know about every event that occurs in the back rooms of all the gay bars in America.

What if one of those events was a perverted sexual act perpetrated on a small child? Does God need to know that, at least for a final judgment day scene?

God has no need to keep track of how many photons leave the surfaces of all the stars in heaven and in which precise direction they flew off in.

Maybe He doesn't. But such sounds less onerous than actually being the one that causes every photon that leaves any star's surface.

And a million other things that God has no need to know.


Derf, I can't even believe that you wrote this. This, in the context of what I asked, is blasphemy! You know fully well what I was talking about!


You "think" I'm right?

Derf, you really need to learn that God's reputation is more important than your personal convictions. Don't be afraid to stand on the foundation of God's righteous character.
Sheesh! I mean if you cannot know with absolute certainty that God has no experiential knowledge of sexual perversion then what in the world are you doing showing up to debate Christian doctrine?


Saying it doesn't make it so, Derf.

You've gotta remember that this whole entire thread is still right here for everyone to read!


It is not an inference, Derf! That's what the text itself says!

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

There is no need to infer anything

I think there is, and you have done so.

, just read it and have the courage to believe what it says! The only inferring that's going on is with those who believe that God knows absolutely everything. They start with that premise and infer that this passage means the opposite of what it says.

To me, the passage allows for God to have perfect past (and present) knowledge, and limits God's future knowledge. In other words, He's going to do something there that will allow Him to find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know. Yet, if He already knows everything He needs to know about their past activities, because He is going to use those to judge them, you seem to be saying that His knowledge is incomplete in an area that needs to be complete, in order for Him to judge righteously.

You're saying that "Those who don't know their right hand from their left" is a euphemism for children. Perhaps it is. I had never made that connection.

At the very least, it refers to innocent people.

Why didn't you mention the cattle as being a reason, I wonder?

It doesn't seem important for this conversation. But for other conversations, it seems that God cares even about cattle, and He considers them innocent of the sins of Nineveh.

What are we even talking about, Derf?
I'm the one saying that God fully expected Nineveh to repent and you are the one throwing cold water on that idea.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "fully expected". One way it can be used is to describe the "right answer". I.e., "the expectation for all humanity is that they will never commit murder", vs. "the expectation that some humans will commit murder". One is a stated goal, and the other is a realistic understanding of human nature.

Because it was a rhetorical question intended to make a point that you knew was dishonest when you wrote the question, that's why.


I'm not going to go down ever rabbit hole of insanity that you bring up.


No need. The point has been made and any third grade child can understand it. Pretend like you don't get it if you want but I'm not going to play along.


I just cannot understand how your mind works, Derf!

The two situations are not identical and neither case gives us the "yes" or "no" that you suggest anyway. The situations were more complex than God getting a "yes" or a "no". God was teaching Abraham and Peter and through them, the entire world for the rest of history, important things about a viarety of issues none of which require anyone to believe that God didn't mean what He explicitly said. And there's certainly there is no reason to think that what God said was somehow the opposite of reality


I mean, I seriously cannot fathom the low view you have of God's abilities and wisdom.


Our minds are not physical, Derf.

No, but non-physical information is always stored on physical hardware, at least for every instance WE know about in our world.

Exactly!
So, how is that single verse not sufficient to asway your trepidation about God being able to judge rightly?
Why would such a book even need to be written if God knows absolutely everything?


What I can use is the verbatim text of the bible which puts the following words into God's own mouth!

Genesis 18:20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”​

Which, as I've pointed out, CANNOT mean that God is going to go find out what happened in the past, but is going to find out something else that confirms what He already knows about the people of Sodom, in order for Him to judge righteously. That's why I say He is going down to see if what He has heard (maybe already observed) is still true--that they are too wicked to allow to continue to exist any longer.

And we know at least some of the events that unfolded that allowed God to determine what He needed to know: the 2 angels went into the city, planning to sleep (or whatever angels do) in the public square. Lot knew what the men of the city would do, and begged them not to place themselves in harm's way.
[Gen 19:2 NASB20] And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said, "No, but we shall spend the night in the public square."
The angels saw how all the men of the city were about to harm Lot and his family, despite Lot's clear message telling the people not to act that way.
[Gen 19:2 NASB20] And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said, "No, but we shall spend the night in the public square."
[Gen 19:4 NASB20] Before they lay down, the men of the city--the men of Sodom--surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

In other words, the angels looked for a change in the men of Sodom when presented with
1. a scenario where they could act wickedly or righteously, and
2. with a preaching of righteousness from a man of God, calling for repentance (even if it seems a little watered down).
[Gen 19:7 NASB20] and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
[Gen 19:9 NASB20] But they said, "Get out of the way!" They also said, "This one came in as a foreigner, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them!" So they pressed hard against Lot and moved forward to break the door.

Plus, they saw that "all the men of the city" were involved, "all the people from every quarter", which tells us that God did not find even 10 people that were righteous.

Did you ever wonder why Abraham stopped at 10? I think it's because he thought there were 10 righteous. Here's how I count it. Lot and his wife=2. Lot's 2 daughters=2, total 4 (everybody agrees so far). In addition, there are "sons-in-laws":
[Gen 19:14 KJV] And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
Two sons-in-law would get the total up to 6.

Different versions handle the sons-in-laws differently. Some say that these were the ones who planned to marry (were betrothed to) his daughters. The KJV seems to infer that he had sons-in-laws of already married daughters.

What if Lot actually had 4 daughters, 2 of which were already married (accounting for the sons-in-laws), and 2 which were of marriageable age (and thus could be "offered" to the crowd of sex perverts). Abraham might have thought they were betrothed or married by now, or might even have heard of the betrothals. That adds 4 more to make a total of 10. Lot
might not have cared too much about the betrothed ones, but he certainly cared about his two daughters that would be destroyed with the city, so he went to the sons-in-law and warned them, hoping to save his daughters. His married daughters were under the authority of their husbands, and not his authority, so he couldn't just take them away with him.

One last thing. If there were 2 daughters that were still in the city as Lot and his family were fleeing, then Lot's wife, caring very much for her daughters, would no doubt look back at the city when she heard the sounds of destruction, turning into a pillar of salt.

 

[Clete]

How does He know what He needs to know if He doesn't know all? This seems like a legitimate question to me.

What He doesn't know, He is able to find out, Derf!

Seriously now, how is that a difficult concept? By what means do you believe it even possible to keep a secret from God? Guilty people know what they've done and God is definitely able to know the thoughts of men. We've already discussed the existence of some sort of record keeping that is being done by some means and so where is the problem here?

Follow me on this...if God has not determined to know all about a particular person, then that person does something that warrants God's attention (good or bad). If God isn't "paying attention" to that person's activities, then it is incumbent on someone (or something, like a video recording system with not only facial recognition, but activity recognition software) else to tell God that the person did something noteworthy. Maybe, the noteworthiness raises a flag in God's throne room or something, to tell God, "You better watch this guy." Otherwise, God would have to know everything in order to know what things He doesn't want to know.

You give too much power to the likes of mere men. Men are capable of certain things and incapable of others and it is God who has set those boundaries. To the degree He ignores what some men do, He is fully competent to know that they cannot escape the boundaries which He has set nor would they even be able to approach those boundaries without it being noticed by God. The building of the Tower of Babel being a good case in point.

I offered in an earlier post that God could gain information from someone else about events. But I'm also wondering how far can that go? Is it His angels that are observing all humans and writing "the books" with all the deeds of human kind in them? Or are the deeds merely a noteworthy subset, as suggested above? The bible appears to require that all our deeds are written that are judge-worthy.
[2Co 5:10 NASB20] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for his deeds [done] through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.
[Rev 20:12 NASB20] And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

So what's the problem?

If an angel or set of angels are doing the writing/recording, would you think they are more able to see and hear than God? Or they just don't have anything better to do than watch us and write down all of our activities.

Anything better to do?

Ever thought that maybe God created them for that purpose or that they were simply assigned that job by God?

What if one of those events was a perverted sexual act perpetrated on a small child? Does God need to know that, at least for a final judgment day scene?

Not first hand He doesn't need to know it and He couldn't keep from knowing it on judgement day because the pervert and the child would both know it, not to mention the books that are being written that you just made reference to.

Maybe He doesn't. But such sounds less onerous than actually being the one that causes every photon that leaves any star's surface.

You understand that even this much of a concession on your part explodes the notion of omniscience, right?

If you're willing to go that far, then you are forced to go the rest of the way. I mean, either God knows absolutely everything there is to know or He doesn't and if He doesn't then He must surely be able to pick and choose what He's going to pay attention to and what He's not and has the power and the competence to preserve for Himself means by which He can find out that which He doesn't already know should the need arise.

I see no other rational alternative other than to deny that God know much of anything at all and might be found fumbling around in the dark on judgment day, which is obviously in contradiction to scripture and therefore false.

I think there is, and you have done so.

To me, the passage allows for God to have perfect past (and present) knowledge, and limits God's future knowledge. In other words, He's going to do something there that will allow Him to find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know.

So, before reading further, read those two sentences to yourself and see if you don't see the contradiction....

"To me, the passage allows for God to have perfect past (and present) knowledge, and limits God's future knowledge. In other words, He's going to do something there that will allow Him to find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know."​

In the first sentence you present the premise that God has "perfect past (and present) knowledge"
In the second sentence you state that God is going to "find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know".

How is that not a contradiction?

Yet, if He already knows everything He needs to know about their past activities, because He is going to use those to judge them, you seem to be saying that His knowledge is incomplete in an area that needs to be complete, in order for Him to judge righteously.

All men deserve death and so right judgment isn't really the issue here necessarily but regardless of that precise point, it isn't me that is saying it. Again, I am making no inferences here. The text itself quotes God Himself as saying that "I will go down now and see whether.....and if not, I will know.” and I simply take that to mean what it says.

At the very least, it refers to innocent people.

It doesn't seem important for this conversation. But for other conversations, it seems that God cares even about cattle, and He considers them innocent of the sins of Nineveh.

You missed the point. The point is that it isn't relevant.

Again, there are MILLIONS of babies murdered all over the world to a far greater degree today than anyone in either Nineveh or even Sodom could have comprehended, and yet God stays His hand. Meaning simply that it isn't about the innocent people who are caught up in the destruction of these cities. God is able to preserve the innocent for Himself - meaning that just because they die physically, doesn't mean that God sends them to Hell forever.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "fully expected". One way it can be used is to describe the "right answer". I.e., "the expectation for all humanity is that they will never commit murder", vs. "the expectation that some humans will commit murder". One is a stated goal, and the other is a realistic understanding of human nature.

You're over thinking it.

Do you fully expect that when you turn a door knob that it will allow the door to open?
Do you fully expect that when you walk across the room that your dog will move out of the way?
Do you fully expect that when you cross a bridge that it will remain intact during and after the crossing?
Do you fully expect to receive a gift on your birthday?

Just "full expect" in the normal sense of the way that phrase is used in every day language. God was not surprised by Nineveh's repentance.

No, but non-physical information is always stored on physical hardware, at least for every instance WE know about in our world.

When discussing the mind, I bet you'd be shocked by the lack of evidence for this assertion. We have no idea how memories are stored or if they are stored at all in the brain. The hippocampus plays a role (as do other portions of the brain) but that's just about the extent of what we know. Are the memories stored in the brain or are the areas associated with memory simply accessing the memories that are stored in our minds? The simple fact is that we simply do not know how the brain/mind interface works and anyone who claims otherwise is either a liar or simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Which, as I've pointed out, CANNOT mean that God is going to go find out what happened in the past, but is going to find out something else that confirms what He already knows about the people of Sodom, in order for Him to judge righteously. That's why I say He is going down to see if what He has heard (maybe already observed) is still true--that they are too wicked to allow to continue to exist any longer.

And so, by your own reasoning, there are gaps in God's knowledge!

And we know at least some of the events that unfolded that allowed God to determine what He needed to know: the 2 angels went into the city, planning to sleep (or whatever angels do) in the public square. Lot knew what the men of the city would do, and begged them not to place themselves in harm's way.
[Gen 19:2 NASB20] And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said, "No, but we shall spend the night in the public square."
The angels saw how all the men of the city were about to harm Lot and his family, despite Lot's clear message telling the people not to act that way.
[Gen 19:2 NASB20] And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said, "No, but we shall spend the night in the public square."
[Gen 19:4 NASB20] Before they lay down, the men of the city--the men of Sodom--surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;

In other words, the angels looked for a change in the men of Sodom when presented with
1. a scenario where they could act wickedly or righteously, and
2. with a preaching of righteousness from a man of God, calling for repentance (even if it seems a little watered down).
[Gen 19:7 NASB20] and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
[Gen 19:9 NASB20] But they said, "Get out of the way!" They also said, "This one came in as a foreigner, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them!" So they pressed hard against Lot and moved forward to break the door.

All of this seems to support my understanding of what God knows and what God is able to find out.

Plus, they saw that "all the men of the city" were involved, "all the people from every quarter", which tells us that God did not find even 10 people that were righteous.

Did you ever wonder why Abraham stopped at 10? I think it's because he thought there were 10 righteous. Here's how I count it. Lot and his wife=2. Lot's 2 daughters=2, total 4 (everybody agrees so far). In addition, there are "sons-in-laws":
[Gen 19:14 KJV] And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
Two sons-in-law would get the total up to 6.

Different versions handle the sons-in-laws differently. Some say that these were the ones who planned to marry (were betrothed to) his daughters. The KJV seems to infer that he had sons-in-laws of already married daughters.

What if Lot actually had 4 daughters, 2 of which were already married (accounting for the sons-in-laws), and 2 which were of marriageable age (and thus could be "offered" to the crowd of sex perverts). Abraham might have thought they were betrothed or married by now, or might even have heard of the betrothals. That adds 4 more to make a total of 10. Lot
might not have cared too much about the betrothed ones, but he certainly cared about his two daughters that would be destroyed with the city, so he went to the sons-in-law and warned them, hoping to save his daughters. His married daughters were under the authority of their husbands, and not his authority, so he couldn't just take them away with him.

One last thing. If there were 2 daughters that were still in the city as Lot and his family were fleeing, then Lot's wife, caring very much for her daughters, would no doubt look back at the city when she heard the sounds of destruction, turning into a pillar of salt.

I would think that looking back in worry about her daughters would not have ended up with her being turned into a pillar of salt. It seems, based on the fact that she shared in the destruction of the city that she looked back toward the city, not so much her daughters. Either way, Lot and his wife were specifically commanded not to look back and she chose to disobey, the motive is unstated. It could be that the motive is irrelevant and that she was punished for disobedience, regardless of the motive.

 

[Derf]

What He doesn't know, He is able to find out, Derf!

How does He know what He doesn't know and needs to find out? This is not an off-the-wall question. I asked my teenaged daughter this question, and she said, "He would have to know what He doesn't know, in order to know whether He needed to know it or not."

Seriously now, how is that a difficult concept? By what means do you believe it even possible to keep a secret from God?

You're the one who is suggesting it is possible to do so. I don't know how to do it.

Guilty people know what they've done and God is definitely able to know the thoughts of men. We've already discussed the existence of some sort of record keeping that is being done by some means and so where is the problem here?


You give too much power to the likes of mere men. Men are capable of certain things and incapable of others and it is God who has set those boundaries. To the degree He ignores what some men do, He is fully competent to know that they cannot escape the boundaries which He has set nor would they even be able to approach those boundaries without it being noticed by God. The building of the Tower of Babel being a good case in point.


So what's the problem?


Anything better to do?

Ever thought that maybe God created them for that purpose or that they were simply assigned that job by God?

Yes, that's possible. And they might have to follow everyone around to do that. So, if the perverted actions and thoughts of perverse men are too wicked and sinful for God to want to know about them, why does He subject His angels to them? Are they sort of like wine tasters for a king...they watch/listen to determine if the actions/sounds are too awful for His delicate eyes and ears and might cause Him to barf (in a spiritual sense)?

Not first hand He doesn't need to know it and He couldn't keep from knowing it on judgement day because the pervert and the child would both know it, not to mention the books that are being written that you just made reference to.


You understand that even this much of a concession on your part explodes the notion of omniscience, right?

Well, not if in delving into the depths of His omniscience, we find out that He is really omniscient after all. I'm just not ready to jump on the backwagon that says God doesn't know something I might know. Experiential knowledge might be a case of that, but that's not the kind of knowledge that explodes the notion of omniscience.

If you're willing to go that far, then you are forced to go the rest of the way. I mean, either God knows absolutely everything there is to know or He doesn't and if He doesn't then He must surely be able to pick and choose what He's going to pay attention to and what He's not and has the power and the competence to preserve for Himself means by which He can find out that which He doesn't already know should the need arise.

If that's true, then I can't see how we can reach the conclusion that He is not omniscient about past and present, based on my daughter's response, above.

I see no other rational alternative other than to deny that God know much of anything at all and might be found fumbling around in the dark on judgment day, which is obviously in contradiction to scripture and therefore false.

Right...that's where I am, too. If God is not omniscient about things that have occurred or are occurring, then your description seems plausible.

So, before reading further, read those two sentences to yourself and see if you don't see the contradiction....

"To me, the passage allows for God to have perfect past (and present) knowledge, and limits God's future knowledge. In other words, He's going to do something there that will allow Him to find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know."​

In the first sentence you present the premise that God has "perfect past (and present) knowledge"
In the second sentence you state that God is going to "find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know".

Right, like He did with Abraham. You would agree that God was going to find out something about Abraham that He didn't already know...whether He was really willing to sacrifice Isaac. God didn't know that. This is not really past or present knowledge, because Abraham has never been required to sacrifice Isaac before.

How is that not a contradiction?


All men deserve death and so right judgment isn't really the issue here necessarily but regardless of that precise point, it isn't me that is saying it. Again, I am making no inferences here. The text itself quotes God Himself as saying that "I will go down now and see whether.....and if not, I will know.” and I simply take that to mean what it says.


You missed the point. The point is that it isn't relevant.

If that's the point, why did God use it in His conversation with Jonah? Of course its relevant. The kids and cattle both. It shows God's sense of justice, and sympathy.

Again, there are MILLIONS of babies murdered all over the world to a far greater degree today than anyone in either Nineveh or even Sodom could have comprehended, and yet God stays His hand. Meaning simply that it isn't about the innocent people who are caught up in the destruction of these cities. God is able to preserve the innocent for Himself - meaning that just because they die physically, doesn't mean that God sends them to Hell forever.

Well, I agree. But there is still something bad about bringing destruction on a city full of innocent children, according to God. So He doesn't do it lightly.

You're over thinking it.

Do you fully expect that when you turn a door knob that it will allow the door to open?

Not when it's locked.

Do you fully expect that when you walk across the room that your dog will move out of the way?

Not when he's asleep.

Do you fully expect that when you cross a bridge that it will remain intact during and after the crossing?

Not when it's rotting away.

Do you fully expect to receive a gift on your birthday?

I'm too old to expect that.

Just "full expect" in the normal sense of the way that phrase is used in every day language. God was not surprised by Nineveh's repentance.

No, I don't think He was.

When discussing the mind, I bet you'd be shocked by the lack of evidence for this assertion.

That may be so, because we aren't real sure how the brain and mind interface. I'm offering the best humankind knows about recording data.

We have no idea how memories are stored or if they are stored at all in the brain. The hippocampus plays a role (as do other portions of the brain) but that's just about the extent of what we know. Are the memories stored in the brain or are the areas associated with memory simply accessing the memories that are stored in our minds? The simple fact is that we simply do not know how the brain/mind interface works and anyone who claims otherwise is either a liar or simply doesn't know what he's talking about.


And so, by your own reasoning, there are gaps in God's knowledge!

Yes. He doesn't know whether we will repent or not...kind of like Nineveh.

All of this seems to support my understanding of what God knows and what God is able to find out.

Only if you agree with my previous statement, and that's what God was trying to find out by "going down to Sodom".

I would think that looking back in worry about her daughters would not have ended up with her being turned into a pillar of salt. It seems, based on the fact that she shared in the destruction of the city that she looked back toward the city, not so much her daughters. Either way, Lot and his wife were specifically commanded not to look back and she chose to disobey, the motive is unstated. It could be that the motive is irrelevant and that she was punished for disobedience, regardless of the motive.

Perhaps. Or maybe God didn't want them to yearn for their lost daughters, sort of like God didn't want Aaron to grieve for his sons, Dathan and Abihu, when they were killed for bringing strange fire into the temple worship.

This was just for discussion. I'm not committed to it.

And, I appreciate your willingness to discuss God's omniscience in the way you/we have. I think these are important conversations. And if we don't scrutinize our doctrine more than anyone else, we are liable to cling to false doctrine.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does He know what He doesn't know and needs to find out?

Because God doesn't exist in a vacuum!

Things don't happen in a vacuum!

For example, God watches one man for a bit, then leaves him alone for a few years, and commes back to find that the man had become a murderer. God can look at the memories of those around that man from the years He was not watching to find out what He missed.

God can use the context of events to determine the details. He's smart enough and capable enough to do so!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Experiential knowledge might be a case of that, but that's not the kind of knowledge that explodes the notion of omniscience.

"omni-" = all
"-science" = knowledge

There's no caveat for experiential knowledge in the classic sense of the word, where God LITERALLY knows everything.

Experiential knowledge does in fact explode into oblivion the concept of classical omniscience!

Not when it's locked.

Not when he's asleep.

Not when it's rotting away.

I'm too old to expect that.

All of these are you missing the point.

He doesn't know whether we will repent or not...

Thank you for conceding the entire discussion on whether God is omniscient (has all knowledge).

 

[Derf]

Because God doesn't exist in a vacuum!

Things don't happen in a vacuum!

Sure. But the non-vacuum seems to be filled with creatures that are not so holy that they can handle perversity, while God cannot. This doesn't make sense to me.

For example, God watches one man for a bit, then leaves him alone for a few years, and commes back to find that the man had become a murderer. God can look at the memories of those around that man from the years He was not watching to find out what He missed.

Yes, that is possible. And it's possible that angels are watching and reporting everything to Him. Perhaps there's a threshold...when a person, or a city, or nation, reaches a threshold of wickedness, then God hears about it. Or if a person reaches a threshold of righteousness or belief, then God hears about it.

Does God have the capability to be wherever every believer is, as Ps 139 speaks about David? Even if every person in the whole world decides to believe in Him? And so, He stands off from unbelievers until they believe? I guess that can work with most scriptures. Do you think the following allows for it:
[Isa 29:15 KJV] Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Is not the right answer to "Who sees us?" God, since they are seeking to hide their counsel from Him? I guess the attendant angel for every person would report to God what they are doing in secret.

But I think we're only talking about the mechanism for God's present/past knowledge, not that it doesn't apply. How quickly do those angels report to God what is going on? Can we determine such things?

God can use the context of events to determine the details. He's smart enough and capable enough to do so!

How does He know the context of events? Are you saying He is watching the events, then turns His eyes away when a child is about to be raped?

"omni-" = all
"-science" = knowledge

There's no caveat for experiential knowledge in the classic sense of the word, where God LITERALLY knows everything.

Experiential knowledge does in fact explode into oblivion the concept of classical omniscience!

Classical omniscience isn't the issue, once we reject His omniscience of the future. All Open Theists are already past that barrier.

All of these are you missing the point.



Thank you for conceding the entire discussion on whether God is omniscient (has all knowledge).

I'm already conceding that God does not know the future, except where He has decided what it will be. I'm not yet ready to concede that God doesn't know the past and present. "Whether someone will repent" is obviously future knowledge by sentence structure.

Experiential knowledge is definitely something to think about, but if God made us all unique, then experiential knowledge would also be unique. I can't tell whether God knows all experiential things (i.e., knows the feelings we have, for instance). If it is impossible for God to experience what we experience in the same way, because we are unique individuals, then I'm comfortable leaving that part of omniscience out. For instance, does God know what it is like to be me? I don't have an answer for that, either yes or know. To suggest that because you can conceive of an experience that is abhorent to God, that God doesn't have experiential knowledge is like saying that God can't abide sin in any form. Yet He talked with Adam after the fall. He met with Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, etc. These were not perfectly sinless men.

But if He experiences what some of us experience and not what others experience, and it is because some sins are more heinous than others, well that suggests, I think, that those that commit such heinous sins aren't redeemable. Yet I don't see those sins on the "unforgivable" list.

 

[Clete]

How does He know what He doesn't know and needs to find out? This is not an off-the-wall question. I asked my teenaged daughter this question, and she said, "He would have to know what He doesn't know, in order to know whether He needed to know it or not."

Nonsense.

Do you believe that God is the only person in all of existence or what?

Is there a thousand different possible sources of such information or is the number ten thousand or is it ten million or even billions?

I mean, you seem to think that God is stupid or something!

Think it through, Derf. Can you even think of even a totally hypothetical situation where God might have left Himself so ignorant that it would impossible for Him to discover a needed piece of information? Go ahead and try it. Just give me one situation where God might find himself hamstrung by the fact that He isn't a know-it-all.

You're the one who is suggesting it is possible to do so. I don't know how to do it.

So, you knew that this was false when you said it, Derf. That's that last lie you get to tell. One more will end this discussion permanently and you can go believe whatever stupid nonsense you want to believe and I won't lose one single wink of sleep over it.

Yes, that's possible. And they might have to follow everyone around to do that. So, if the perverted actions and thoughts of perverse men are too wicked and sinful for God to want to know about them, why does He subject His angels to them?

He doesn't!

Okay. This is gone on long enough. You're being idiotic now. I'm not reading another word. Don't bother answering the question I asked above, I won't read that either.

Good bye.

 

[Derf]

Nonsense.

Do you believe that God is the only person in all of existence or what?

Is there a thousand different possible sources of such information or is the number ten thousand or is it ten million or even billions?

I mean, you seem to think that God is stupid or something!

Think it through, Derf. Can you even think of even a totally hypothetical situation where God might have left Himself so ignorant that it would impossible for Him to discover a needed piece of information?

No, I can't. That's why I keep bringing up these questions, because it doesn't make sense that God would not know something, but He knows He doesn't know it, and He knows how bad it is (without knowing about it), so that He can then deal with it at the proper time.

Go ahead and try it. Just give me one situation where God might find himself hamstrung by the fact that He isn't a know-it-all.

So, you knew that this was false when you said it, Derf. That's that last lie you get to tell. One more will end this discussion permanently and you can go believe whatever stupid nonsense you want to believe and I won't lose one single wink of sleep over it.

Well, that's one way to handle something you can't answer.

He doesn't!

Okay. This is gone on long enough. You're being idiotic now. I'm not reading another word. Don't bother answering the question I asked above, I won't read that either.

Oops, I already answered it.

Good bye.

So, I think you're saying that God has a source of knowledge that is not one of His messengers/angels, and it's not Himself, and it can't be the wicked people, because He doesn't want to watch or listen to them. Who is His source of knowledge that will flag His attention when something bad happens? Is it only righteous people? I think that's the only possibility left.

 

[Clete]

No, I can't. That's why I keep bringing up these questions, because it doesn't make sense that God would not know something, but He knows He doesn't know it, and He knows how bad it is (without knowing about it), so that He can then deal with it at the proper time.

It makes perfect sense, Derf! You really are acting as if God is a mere man. You don't have any idea the extent of God's resources nor even the nature of those resources.

This is what we know. The bible clearly teaches that God does not know everything there is to know.
God is just.
There will be no one that gets away with any sin they commit.
Why isn't that good enough for you?

Well, that's one way to handle something you can't answer.

I don't tolerate lying, Derf. If you want to double down then you can find yourself on my ignore list along with all the rest of the stubborn liars that I've encountered on this website.

So, I think you're saying that God has a source of knowledge that is not one of His messengers/angels, and it's not Himself, and it can't be the wicked people, because He doesn't want to watch or listen to them. Who is His source of knowledge that will flag His attention when something bad happens? Is it only righteous people? I think that's the only possibility left. Do you think that

That isn't even close to the only possibility left. We've already discussed other possibilities. If you've forgotten then just reread the thread. In addition to those we've already discussed, there may be dozens of other possibilities that we have no concept of. The bottom line is that I don't know, nor do I really care because it isn't any of my business how God is going to pull of Judgement Day. All I do know is that God is just and that the wicked are going to get everything they deserve by the power of the only Just God!

 

[Derf]

It makes perfect sense, Derf! You really are acting as if God is a mere man. You don't have any idea the extent of God's resources nor even the nature of those resources.

This is what we know. The bible clearly teaches that God does not know everything there is to know.

This is what we've been arguing about. I don't know that I agree with you that's what the bible teaches.

God is just.

Yes, I agree.

There will be no one that gets away with any sin they commit.

Yes, I agree.

Why isn't that good enough for you?

See above where I didn't agree with you.

I don't tolerate lying, Derf. If you want to double down then you can find yourself on my ignore list along with all the rest of the stubborn liars that I've encountered on this website.

That isn't even close to the only possibility left. We've already discussed other possibilities. If you've forgotten then just reread the thread. In addition to those we've already discussed, there may be dozens of other possibilities that we have no concept of. The bottom line is that I don't know, nor do I really care because it isn't any of my business how God is going to pull of Judgement Day. All I do know is that God is just and that the wicked are going to get everything they deserve by the power of the only Just God!

Ok.

 

[Clete]

This is what we've been arguing about. I don't know that I agree with you that's what the bible teaches.

It is what the bible explicitly states, Derf! I mean, how much clearer do you need it to be?

Do remember the contradiction for yours that I pointed out several days ago, where, in reference to Genesis 18:21, you said, "To me, the passage allows for God to have perfect past (and present) knowledge, and limits God's future knowledge. In other words, He's going to do something there that will allow Him to find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know."?

You never responded to that point except to change the subject to a different passage. It seems to me that you're stuck with either choosing to contradict the plain reading of the passage, or to contradict yourself if you want to maintain this idea that God has "perfect knowledge" of even the past and the present, never mind the future.

 

[Derf]

It is what the bible explicitly states, Derf! I mean, how much clearer do you need it to be?

Do remember the contradiction for yours that I pointed out several days ago, where, in reference to Genesis 18:21, you said, "To me, the passage allows for God to have perfect past (and present) knowledge, and limits God's future knowledge. In other words, He's going to do something there that will allow Him to find out something about Sodom that He doesn't currently know."?

Yes.

You never responded to that point except to change the subject to a different passage. It seems to me that you're stuck with either choosing to contradict the plain reading of the passage, or to contradict yourself if you want to maintain this idea that God has "perfect knowledge" of even the past and the present, never mind the future.

Sorry for not responding back then. I don't always remember to go back and reply to everything.

I don't understand why you take my words as if God didn't have perfect knowledge of the past and present in that case. What He didn't know, just like He didn't know with Abraham and Isaac's sacrifice that Abraham would follow through, is whether Sodom would repent or not. His going down there was to see if they would continue in their sinful ways even when encouraged not to do it by Lot. God knew what they had done, as we both agree, but He didn't know what they would do, as we both agree I think.

 

[Clete]

Yes.

Sorry for not responding back then. I don't always remember to go back and reply to everything.

I don't understand why you take my words as if God didn't have perfect knowledge of the past and present in that case. What He didn't know, just like He didn't know with Abraham and Isaac's sacrifice that Abraham would follow through, is whether Sodom would repent or not. His going down there was to see if they would continue in their sinful ways even when encouraged not to do it by Lot. God knew what they had done, as we both agree, but He didn't know what they would do, as we both agree I think.

That isn't what the text says! The text says the God was going to see if it was actually as bad as He'd been told. It doesn't say that He was going to investigate whether they'd repent or not. It doesn't say that at all!

More directly to the point, even if the text was somehow compatible with your proposed interpretation, which it isn't, how would the condition of their collective hearts, whether toward or away from repentance, not be a point of CURRENT knowledge that you insist God's already knows all about? What would there be for God to investigate other than information that was currently true?

Perhaps you're saying that God wasn't going down to investigate anything but just going down to watch and see what was going to happen. But, why would He need to do that if what you're saying about God's knowledge is true? If what you're suggesting is correct, then whatever they do becomes current information that God has perfect knowledge of as they do it, right? So where's the need for Him to "go down as see" it, as the text explicitly states?

In short, there is no avenue from which your position can be approached that doesn't either contradict itself or the scripture itself or both.

 

[Lon]

That isn't what the text says! The text says the God was going to see if it was actually as bad as He'd been told. It doesn't say that He was going to investigate whether they'd repent or not. It doesn't say that at all!

It be a whole different conversation with me involved. Psalm 139:7,8 for example... However I'm trying to follow this regarding God's Morality? Appreciate a bit of the big picture of the tie-in as I'm lost on this finer point anyone? Please and thank you in advance anyone (not just for Clete but certainly).