Do the scriptures claim that God is Omniscient?

[throwback]

Where in scripture does it tell us God knows all things? I am aware that our lord knows the end from the beginning, but I am not at least off the top of my head familiar with any scripture that tells us that God is ALL KNOWING. In thinking about starting this thread my first thought was about the relationship between omnipotence (being all powerful) and being all knowing. Are they mutually exclusive or must the be intertwined? At this point I believe they can be mutually exclusive. I also feel that we can glean from scripture that God may not know every detail about every decision each of us will make. The real question I guess is does God every claim to know everything we will do and think before we do or think them?

[throwback]

It seems to me that oftentimes the believer seems to think that GOD would somehow be less "God" if He were not omniscient despite the apparent conclusion the scriptures give us that God may not have ever made such a claim about Himself. Could our need to have God fit into our view of what He should be be us sort of making an idol in our own minds of what we want in our god as opposed to accepting and submitting to who GOD actually is?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Where in scripture does it tell us God knows all things? I am aware that our lord knows the end from the beginning, but I am not at least off the top of my head familiar with any scripture that tells us that God is ALL KNOWING. In thinking about starting this thread my first thought was about the relationship between omnipotence (being all powerful) and being all knowing. Are they mutually exclusive or must the be intertwined? At this point I believe they can be mutually exclusive. I also feel that we can glean from scripture that God may not know every detail about every decision each of us will make. The real question I guess is does God every claim to know everything we will do and think before we do or think them?
Great topic for a thread! I'm currently exploring all the different ways that Christians and others have tried to understand God. I have found that most folks don't really know what they mean by God at all, and that the "professional theologians" usually have a God that is nothing like the God of the Bible. So this is a great topic.

Now before I dig into the various Bible verses that are used to establish the doctrine of omniscience, I want to present the first big problem that arises from it: If God is omniscient, then he never had an opportunity to make any choices about anything because he already knew what he would choose. Think about that for a minute. How can we think of God as a "person" if "he" has never made a decision about anything in the history of the universe? How can we even say that God "chose" us if God is incapable of choosing?

It seems to me that this destroys the "normal" conception of God that most Christians believe in.

[throwback]

Another issue to consider as we delve into this topic is that of the sorrow and apparent regret GOD has at times exhibited.
God has on various occasions "looked down" and been sorrowful that He had allowed certain thinks to transpire. The flood is the first thought that comes to mind, after that we have Babel, and we have God later having to be convinced by Moses not to wipe out the children of Israel to start over with Moses.

[throwback]

In light of what's been said so far, I'd like to lay out some givens. Here goes:

1. God knows the end from the beginning as well as all the possible outcomes of the decisions (paths) man will make but may or may not know which paths man will choose along the way to get to those infinate number of possible outcomes.

2. Man has the ability to choose his own actions BUT has very limited ability to control the consequences of his choices. In other words, man is sentient and free, but limited by his own ability and mortality.

3. God has an expectation of man based on man's God-given potential and holds man accountable for man's decisions and actions.

Now to get to the issue of man's "free agency" and God's Sovereignty I will repost something I said in a thread elsewhere that is relavent to this discussion.



The first thing we realize about our freewill is that it is a function of our ability, resources, influence, and might. We are of course incapable of acting beyond those parameters which have been put in place at the highest perceivable level by natural law (GOD). Now, being confronted with the reality of natural law, we must assume that those laws had to be implemented by something powerful and intelligent that is NOT subject to the natural parameters. Then after coming this far we are left with these questions:

WHY would an intelligent and powerful being design the natural world and have us thrive in it? Did He just make us for the sake of creating something? Is our reality a small part of something much bigger?

Here's where belief comes in (in determining what above listed reason one subscribes to). I personally am persuaded that God created us, our universe, and the laws that govern it for reason's beyond what is contained within our sphere (the 3rd question). In other words, our existence plays a part in something bigger. So in a real since I believe we are the tools, yes I said tools used by God to accomplish something big. He had/has a PURPOSE for our world's creation that will be fully revealed in the course or at the end of what we call time.

Based on this assumption, I believe that after the creation act, God's only intervention in this world occurs for but 2 reasons. The first being to ensure that His ultimate will is accomplished and secondly, because He loves those He created, and His priority is based on that order (His will followed by His love for us).

To me, that is both a logical and simple explaination of the GOD knowledge God possesses as well as the GOD - man - freewill dynamic and how it affects the parties involved.
So in summation, God has a purpose that WILL BE accomplished as He will insure that it is so. Between the beginning and the ultimate consumation of His purposes a myriad of things can transpire and God may or may not know exactly what decisions will be made in advance though He knows the outcomes of any and every one.

[throwback]

Let us also consider what it is that GOD actually is. From the perspective of logic I believe GOD can be best described initially as the "uncaused cause". That simply means that it is through GOD that existence itself flows and that without GOD there would be no existence though without existence there is still GOD.
The scriptures tell us that GOD is a spirit. What does that really mean? The definition of spirit that would appear most suitable for GOD is that of a spirit being an unseen force or power like the wind or a breath. Thus God is the unseen force or power that caused being to be. The big question this leaves us with is WHY? What is the purpose of being and why did GOD find it necessary to give the gift of life? Was that gift ultimately a gift given to Himself through us, His creations?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So in summation, God has a purpose that WILL BE accomplished as He will insure that it is so. Between the beginning and the ultimate consumation of His purposes a myriad of things can transpire and God may or may not know exactly what decisions will be made in advance though He knows the outcomes of any and every one.
I think that is an excellent explanation. It is how I was thinking about this issue a couple years ago. I used to wonder how God could predict things if he didn't know all the details of the future, but then it became clear that he could use his "God-powers" to ensure they happened when the time came. For example, I could "predict" that there will be paint on the wall tomorrow at noon, and then I can fulfill my own prophecy. And since no one can stop God, his prophecies would always come true.

But I don't believe in that kind of God anymore. It seems we have an absolute argument against the idea that there is a God who "does things" like intervening in human affairs and answering prayer because he does not, as a general rule, intervene or answer prayers. The universe appears to operate on invariant natural laws, which sometimes cause earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes. If we posit a God who intervenes, we are immediately contradicted by the facts which show he does not intervene. So it looks like "case closed" to me.

Of course, I do believe their is a God, but it's not accurately describe by traditional Christian theism. It's more like the Ground of Being of the Perennial Philosophy.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Let us also consider what it is that GOD actually is. From the perspective of logic I believe GOD can be best described initially as the "uncaused cause". That simply means that it is through GOD that existence itself flows and that without GOD there would be no existence though without existence there is still GOD.
The scriptures tell us that GOD is a spirit. What does that really mean? The definition of spirit that would appear most suitable for GOD is that of a spirit being an unseen force or power like the wind or a breath. Thus God is the unseen force or power that caused being to be. The big question this leaves us with is WHY? What is the purpose of being and why did GOD find it necessary to give the gift of life? Was that gift ultimately a gift given to Himself through us, His creations?

I find the "uncaused cause" pretty empty and meaningless. It doesn't have anything to do with my intuitions about "God." It's just philosophical mumbo-jumbo with no meaningful content to me.

I think we should begin with the actual reasons folks believe there might be a God. I'd be very surprised if your concept of God originated with the idea of an "uncaused cause."

I believe there is a God because it is the best explanation for my direct experience. We are little minds existing in a giant MIND, and that MIND is what I call "God."

[throwback]

I find the "uncaused cause" pretty empty and meaningless. It doesn't have anything to do with my intuitions about "God." It's just philosophical mumbo-jumbo with no meaningful content to me.

I think we should begin with the actual reasons folks believe there might be a God. I'd be very surprised if your concept of God originated with the idea of an "uncaused cause."

I believe there is a God because it is the best explanation for my direct experience. We are little minds existing in a giant MIND, and that MIND is what I call "God."

For me, I am a person who needs for everything I subscribe to to be in some way, shape, or form, logical. Though I was raised in fundie christianity, as I grew older and begin to seek answers or at least logic in what I had been taught I had to throw some things out and make sense of others. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that there had to be an intelligence that exists and existed beyond or outside of of universe that was the catylst for the creation of our universe and its laws. I do not see how that intelligence can be a part of our universe as it makes sense to me that that intelligence must exist outside of our realm and therefore it is not subject to the laws that govern the inhabitants of our universe thus making it (the intelligence) supernatural.

So to sum this up, I believe that in order for there to be existence which includes both life and non life, that an outside force had to institute it. So in other words there must be a GOD because there is existence.

[throwback]

But I don't believe in that kind of God anymore. It seems we have an absolute argument against the idea that there is a God who "does things" like intervening in human affairs and answering prayer because he does not, as a general rule, intervene or answer prayers. The universe appears to operate on invariant natural laws, which sometimes cause earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes. If we posit a God who intervenes, we are immediately contradicted by the facts which show he does not intervene. So it looks like "case closed" to me.

Of course, I do believe their is a God, but it's not accurately describe by traditional Christian theism. It's more like the Ground of Being of the Perennial Philosophy.

Believe it or not we are in a bit of agreement as it pertains to your highlighted statement. The scriptures themselves act as evidence that GOD is not in the habit of being overly involved in human affairs. The Israelites cried for hundreds of years before God acted on their behalf if you recall and His liberation of them was done in large part to insure that HIS plan for "the seed" would come to fruition.
Based on studying the scripture as unbiased as I know how I have concluded and currently believe that GOD only intervenes for but two, possibly three reasons and one takes priority over the other.
The number one reason HE intervenes is to insure that HIS will is accomplished and the other reason is due to the love HE has for the race created in HIS image. The other possible reason HE intervenes is to keep promises HE made in the past as HE has bound HIMSELF to HIS word.

So we may disagree on whether or not HE does intervene as I say yes, and it sounds like you say no. I believe the correct answer is in fact yes, but on extremely rare occasions.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So to sum this up, I believe that in order for there to be existence which includes both life and non life, that an outside force had to institute it. So in other words there must be a GOD because there is existence.
I believe there is a God, but I think your logic is fallacious. Folks used to argue that there must be a Designer because life looks like it was designed, but that argument fails for those who believe that evolution explains the apparent design. I have the same problem with your argument. Sure, the existence of Life, the Universe, and Everything staggers the mind and seems to demand a Designer, but so did lightening stagger the minds of our primitive ancestors and caused them to invent various gods such as Thor, Jupiter, and Zeus. I have no sense that God "designed" anything. I'd say that we are a product of Mind but we were not designed per se. We evolved in the Cosmic Mind, and in many ways Reality is to God as a Dream is to a Dreamer. No "conscious mind" "designed" it, but it has a plot and a plan that is highly intelligent. The idea is that Intelligence (Mind) underlies reality, but it is not well-described using the traditional concepts of Christian theism.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But I don't believe in that kind of God anymore. It seems we have an absolute argument against the idea that there is a God who "does things" like intervening in human affairs and answering prayer because he does not, as a general rule, intervene or answer prayers. The universe appears to operate on invariant natural laws, which sometimes cause earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes. If we posit a God who intervenes, we are immediately contradicted by the facts which show he does not intervene. So it looks like "case closed" to me.

Of course, I do believe their is a God, but it's not accurately describe by traditional Christian theism. It's more like the Ground of Being of the Perennial Philosophy.
Believe it or not we are in a bit of agreement as it pertains to your highlighted statement. The scriptures themselves act as evidence that GOD is not in the habit of being overly involved in human affairs. The Israelites cried for hundreds of years before God acted on their behalf if you recall and His liberation of them was done in large part to insure that HIS plan for "the seed" would come to fruition.

Based on studying the scripture as unbiased as I know how I have concluded and currently believe that GOD only intervenes for but two, possibly three reasons and one takes priority over the other.
The number one reason HE intervenes is to insure that HIS will is accomplished and the other reason is due to the love HE has for the race created in HIS image. The other possible reason HE intervenes is to keep promises HE made in the past as HE has bound HIMSELF to HIS word.

So we may disagree on whether or not HE does intervene as I say yes, and it sounds like you say no. I believe the correct answer is in fact yes, but on extremely rare occasions.
OK - I think I understand you, but your position (see highlighted words) directly contradicts the Bible and the teaching of every Christian I have ever met. Specifically, the Bible teaches that we should pray, and that God will then answer our prayers if we believe:
Matt 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
See those words? All things. Whatsover ye shall ask. Ye shall receive. And there are many other verses that promise the same thing. And besides that, the entire religion (except for the Calvinist version) says that salvation depends upon prayer. You pray for God to save you and he will. But if he does not answer any other prayers, why should anyone believe he would answer the prayer for salvation? Indeed, why should anyone believe he exists?

So how do you deal with this contradiction? Is the Bible wrong when it promises that will answer prayers?

[throwback]

OK - I think I understand you, but your position (see highlighted words) directly contradicts the Bible and the teaching of every Christian I have ever met. Specifically, the Bible teaches that we should pray, and that God will then answer our prayers if we believe:
Matt 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
See those words? All things. Whatsover ye shall ask. Ye shall receive. And there are many other verses that promise the same thing. And besides that, the entire religion (except for the Calvinist version) says that salvation depends upon prayer. You pray for God to save you and he will. But if he does not answer any other prayers, why should anyone believe he would answer the prayer for salvation? Indeed, why should anyone believe he exists?

So how do you deal with this contradiction? Is the Bible wrong when it promises that will answer prayers?

According to scripture and despite what man's religious institutions promote, praying for salvation/asking Jesus into one's heart is not in scripture. As far as the supposed contradiction is concerned I do not see it. Here's why. This, like the "many mansions" promise of John 14 and the "place at the table in the kingdom" promise of Luke 22 was not given to all believers of all times. These words were spoken to a specific group of 1st century saints and to apply them to other prties is to mispply them completely.

One thing I've noticed is that the individuals who were filled with God's Holy Breath like the prophets, saints, and Apostles seemed to be more likely to have their prayers responded to throughout the scriptures.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

According to scripture and despite what man's religious institutions promote, praying for salvation/asking Jesus into one's heart is not in scripture. As far as the supposed contradiction is concerned I do not see it. Here's why. This, like the "many mansions" promise of John 14 and the "place at the table in the kingdom" promise of Luke 22 was not given to all believers of all times. These words were spoken to a specific group of 1st century saints and to apply them to other prties is to mispply them completely.

One thing I've noticed is that the individuals who were filled with God's Holy Breath like the prophets, saints, and Apostles seemed to be more likely to have their prayers responded to throughout the scriptures.
OK - I get two things from your answer.


Christianity as taught by "man's religious institutions" (which represents 99% of all "Christianity" I suppose) is full of false teachings and should be rejected.
The "promises" in the Bible (like the promise of salvation?) are not generally meant for modern readers.

Well alrighty then! And if I add in KJ's doctrine that the only parts of the Bible applicable to modern readers are the parts of Paul's letters that remain after clipping out the "carnal passages" like 1 Tim 2:12-15 and a chunk of 1 Cor 11, I arrive at the stunning conclusion that almost everyone who has ever believed in "Christianity" has been grievously wrong, and this implies either that God has a very small list of the "elect" or he has utterly failed in getting his message across. In either case, it doesn't seem to matter much, does it? I see no reason for a rational person to be concerned about the truth or falsehood of traditional Christian teachings if they are are too confused to be believed even if someone wanted to!

That was a pretty quiet death of an erstwhile illustrious religion.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

According to scripture and despite what man's religious institutions promote, praying for salvation/asking Jesus into one's heart is not in scripture. As far as the supposed contradiction is concerned I do not see it. Here's why. This, like the "many mansions" promise of John 14 and the "place at the table in the kingdom" promise of Luke 22 was not given to all believers of all times. These words were spoken to a specific group of 1st century saints and to apply them to other prties is to mispply them completely.

One thing I've noticed is that the individuals who were filled with God's Holy Breath like the prophets, saints, and Apostles seemed to be more likely to have their prayers responded to throughout the scriptures.
There seems to be a fundamental problem with your answer. Are you saying that all these verses "do not apply" to modern believers?

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

1 Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Colossians 4:2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;

Etc., etc., etc. ...

Why does the Bible constantly exhort us to pray to a God who does not, as a general rule, answer those prayers?

[throwback]

OK - I get two things from your answer.


Christianity as taught by "man's religious institutions" (which represents 99% of all "Christianity" I suppose) is full of false teachings and should be rejected.
The "promises" in the Bible (like the promise of salvation?) are not generally meant for modern readers.

Well alrighty then! And if I add in KJ's doctrine that the only parts of the Bible applicable to modern readers are the parts of Paul's letters that remain after clipping out the "carnal passages" like 1 Tim 2:12-15 and a chunk of 1 Cor 11, I arrive at the stunning conclusion that almost everyone who has ever believed in "Christianity" has been grievously wrong, and this implies either that God has a very small list of the "elect" or he has utterly failed in getting his message across. In either case, it doesn't seem to matter much, does it? I see no reason for a rational person to be concerned about the truth or falsehood of traditional Christian teachings if they are are too confused to be believed even if someone wanted to!

That was a pretty quiet death of an erstwhile illustrious religion.

What I am saying is that Christendom stands on a false pretense and that pretense is that the church organization is in fact the same thing as the called out congregation (ekklesia) mentioned in scripture. So yes, the church makes a false claim by calling itself the bride of God's Anointed One and the "gateway" by which men must enter to get to God. Thus the modern concept of church is an unnecessary addition to what is called for men to to be in scripture.
The promises made in scripture must be viewed in and understood in the proper context. First we have the promise made a Abraham that through his SEED all men of all nations would be blessed. We know the SEED was Jesus and that the way he blessed all men was by making it possible that he "sting of death" would not be man's ultimate end. This salvation from death was a promise made available to all men.
We then have promises of kingdom authority, being clothed with immortality, judging angels, being the Lamb's Bride, reigning with Jesus 1000 years, etc. that were made to specific groups.

I believe you are correct in concluding that there is but a very small list of those who are among the elect and chosen. We must be specific though as we identify WHAT this small number was elected to. I believe the elect are those who are given authority with Jesus' kingdom as opposed to what churches teach about the elect being the saved of all times. The number of the elect seems to be made up from only certain groups which include the saints (the sanctified ones of the 1st century), the prophets, the Holy Ones, and those spoken of in Revelation 20 as well as Matthew 23:37.

As far as God's message. Shall we attempt to properly identify it? Is it that He has a church organization that we need to join or is it the good message of the Kingdom of Heaven that has a risen king sitting on its throne who has defeated death and holds the gift of life that is available to all who believe in him. So though the church may promote itself and other things falsely (unbeknowst to most of its members sadly) it has done a great job of making sure the message of Jesus being God's Anointed One is heard.

[throwback]

There seems to be a fundamental problem with your answer. Are you saying that all these verses "do not apply" to modern believers?

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

1 Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Colossians 4:2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;

Etc., etc., etc. ...

Why does the Bible constantly exhort us to pray to a God who does not, as a general rule, answer those prayers?

What we see in scripture is that the petitions of the righteous can persuade God to act. We read that the fervent prayers of the righteous do have an impact so I do not wish to discount what prayer CAN do in the least bit, but at the same time I don't want to overstate what the scriptures show us we should expect from prayer in terms of God's response to it.

God responded to fervent prayers such as those of Israel when they were in bondage (took a while though), Moses (who petitioned God not to destroy the Israelites and start a new nation with him), Hannah (who was barren and wanted a son), Hezekiah (who had 15 years added to his life), as well as Simeon (who prayed that he would see God's Anointed One before he died), and others. But we also have examples of prayers unanswered like Jesus' request to have the "cup pass" from him in Gethsemane and Paul's asking to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What I am saying is that Christendom stands on a false pretense and that pretense is that the church organization is in fact the same thing as the called out congregation (ekklesia) mentioned in scripture. So yes, the church makes a false claim by calling itself the bride of God's Anointed One and the "gateway" by which men must enter to get to God. Thus the modern concept of church is an unnecessary addition to what is called for men to to be in scripture.
The promises made in scripture must be viewed in and understood in the proper context. First we have the promise made a Abraham that through his SEED all men of all nations would be blessed. We know the SEED was Jesus and that the way he blessed all men was by making it possible that he "sting of death" would not be man's ultimate end. This salvation from death was a promise made available to all men.
We then have promises of kingdom authority, being clothed with immortality, judging angels, being the Lamb's Bride, reigning with Jesus 1000 years, etc. that were made to specific groups.

I believe you are correct in concluding that there is but a very small list of those who are among the elect and chosen. We must be specific though as we identify WHAT this small number was elected to. I believe the elect are those who are given authority with Jesus' kingdom as opposed to what churches teach about the elect being the saved of all times. The number of the elect seems to be made up from only certain groups which include the saints (the sanctified ones of the 1st century), the prophets, the Holy Ones, and those spoken of in Revelation 20 as well as Matthew 23:37.

As far as God's message. Shall we attempt to properly identify it? Is it that He has a church organization that we need to join or is it the good message of the Kingdom of Heaven that has a risen king sitting on its throne who has defeated death and holds the gift of life that is available to all who believe in him. So though the church may promote itself and other things falsely (unbeknowst to most of its members sadly) it has done a great job of making sure the message of Jesus being God's Anointed One is heard.
OK - I understand your doctrine, and if I were a Christian I would be inclined to think along similar lines, except in some specifics such as your suggestion that not all believers would be "clothed with immortality." I don't see how anyone could be a Christian and believe that.

I like your suggestion that we should attempt to identify "God's Message." :thumb:

So why is it important that a person "hear" about Jesus if it is mixed in with all the false interpretations of the Bible put forth by the wild variety of Christian religions? How much of the "correct" message must be "received and believed?" And why? This seems to be a fundamental problem.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There seems to be a fundamental problem with your answer. Are you saying that all these verses "do not apply" to modern believers?

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

1 Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Colossians 4:2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;

Etc., etc., etc. ...

Why does the Bible constantly exhort us to pray to a God who does not, as a general rule, answer those prayers?

What we see in scripture is that the petitions of the righteous can persuade God to act. We read that the fervent prayers of the righteous do have an impact so I do not wish to discount what prayer CAN do in the least bit, but at the same time I don't want to overstate what the scriptures show us we should expect from prayer in terms of God's response to it.

God responded to fervent prayers such as those of Israel when they were in bondage (took a while though), Moses (who petitioned God not to destroy the Israelites and start a new nation with him), Hannah (who was barren and wanted a son), Hezekiah (who had 15 years added to his life), as well as Simeon (who prayed that he would see God's Anointed One before he died), and others. But we also have examples of prayers unanswered like Jesus' request to have the "cup pass" from him in Gethsemane and Paul's asking to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed.
All the stories about prayers that were "answered" in Scripture may or may not be true. There is no way to know. But there are two things we do know:

1) The Bible emphatically exhorts believers to pray continuously.

2) God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.

So what's up with this? The operation of the universe appears to be identical to a universe in which there is no God who intervenes or answers prayers. Therefore, what is the purpose of the exhortation to "pray continuously?" When I was a Christian, I believed the purpose was to establish a relationship with God. If we did not pray, then how could God answer? I just assumed that the traditional Christian interpretation was true: God always answers prayer with a Yes, No, or Wait. It just so happens that No and Wait are the answers about 99.9% of the time, and this is indistinguishable from the stats we would get if there were no God. How convenient is that?

[throwback]

OK - I understand your doctrine, and if I were a Christian I would be inclined to think along similar lines, except in some specifics such as your suggestion that not all believers would be "clothed with immortality." I don't see how anyone could be a Christian and believe that.

I like your suggestion that we should attempt to identify "God's Message." :thumb:

So why is it important that a person "hear" about Jesus if it is mixed in with all the false interpretations of the Bible put forth by the wild variety of Christian religions? How much of the "correct" message must be "received and believed?" And why? This seems to be a fundamental problem.

I struggle with the immortality thing myself but as I study what is actually taught in scripture it seems like all the resurrected ones are not clothed with immortality the way the saints Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 15 were. I say this because of the apparent need that thse who have access to the city but not a place in the reign with Jesus seem to need access to the trees and rivers of life. With death destroyed as the scriptures say, then I guess immortality would be automatic, so maybe people will need access to these things of life to stop the aging process, but who know really?

As far as why hearing about Jesus is important, it seems that belief in him being who and what the scriptures say he is was necessary in order for one to have life through the ages as a citizen in the kingdom of God.
But one can even make the case from scripture that belief in Jesus is not necessary for one to be given life in the age for the patriarchs like Job expected to be raised to life but died without knowing of Jesus and Jesus himself when asked what must be done to receive age lasting life said the following in Luke 10:
Then, {Look!} a man who knew the Law very well stood up, and to test [Jesus], he asked, ‘Teacher, what must I do to inherit life in the age?’ And [Jesus] replied, ‘What is written in the Law… what have you read?’ So he answered, ‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ And [Jesus] replied, ‘That’s the right answer. Keep on doing that and you’ll live.’

[throwback]

All the stories about prayers that were "answered" in Scripture may or may not be true. There is no way to know. But there are two things we do know:

1) The Bible emphatically exhorts believers to pray continuously.

2) God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.

So what's up with this? The operation of the universe appears to be identical to a universe in which there is no God who intervenes or answers prayers. Therefore, what is the purpose of the exhortation to "pray continuously?" When I was a Christian, I believed the purpose was to establish a relationship with God. If we did not pray, then how could God answer? I just assumed that the traditional Christian interpretation was true: God always answers prayer with a Yes, No, or Wait. It just so happens that No and Wait are the answers about 99.9% of the time, and this is indistinguishable from the stats we would get if there were no God. How convenient is that?

So I guess the question that an honest believer should ask himself is this:
How can I distinguish an answered prayer from an outcome affected only by time and chance?
RAM, I honestly cannot answer that question sufficiently as virtually any attempt will be purely subjective and therefore meritless. The only answer I can give that would over any varifiable evidence that the result was due to God answering prayer would be if something truly miraculous happenned to bring about the petitioned outcome.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So I guess the question that an honest believer should ask himself is this:
How can I distinguish an answered prayer from an outcome affected only by time and chance?
RAM, I honestly cannot answer that question sufficiently as virtually any attempt will be purely subjective and therefore meritless. The only answer I can give that would over any varifiable evidence that the result was due to God answering prayer would be if something truly miraculous happenned to bring about the petitioned outcome.
Thanks for the honest answer.

When I was a Christian, I had a "collection" of answered prayers that would "keep me going." Some were very dramatic and really left an impression of God intervening in my life. But then I read Autobiography of a Yogi, and saw how a Hindu had exactly the same style of experiences that I had that were just as convincing to him as mine were to me. And I knew the same thing was true of Muslims. They claimed to feel the "presence" of Muhammad at their prayer meetings and to smell a special aroma like holy incense when he was near. And then I went back and watched all the "healings" produced by the stage hypnotist Benny Hinn and I finally realized that my "collection" of "answered prayers" may (or may not) represent some sort of real "encounter" with the Divine, but there was no reason to think it proved Christianity any more than a Hindu's "answered prayers" proved Hinduism.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As far as why hearing about Jesus is important, it seems that belief in him being who and what the scriptures say he is was necessary in order for one to have life through the ages as a citizen in the kingdom of God.
But one can even make the case from scripture that belief in Jesus is not necessary for one to be given life in the age for the patriarchs like Job expected to be raised to life but died without knowing of Jesus and Jesus himself when asked what must be done to receive age lasting life said the following in Luke 10:
Then, {Look!} a man who knew the Law very well stood up, and to test [Jesus], he asked, ‘Teacher, what must I do to inherit life in the age?’ And [Jesus] replied, ‘What is written in the Law… what have you read?’ So he answered, ‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.’ And [Jesus] replied, ‘That’s the right answer. Keep on doing that and you’ll live.’
That's a very intelligent response to the problem of those who died without having an opportunity to hear about Jesus. When I was a Christian I held the same view, arguing from John 14:6 that Jesus is indeed the way, but a person did not have to have conscious knowledge of the name of the way to be saved by him. Proof was simple, since most Christians would agree that babies could be saved by God without them knowing the name of Jesus or even "choosing" to be saved.

This contrasts sharply with the argument put forth by "Bible Answer Man" Hank Hanegraaff (Hanky Panky) who says that God has given every person equal opportunity to be saved. He says that if a native American in the year 1073 really "responded to the light he was given in creation" then God would give him "more light" so that he could be saved by Jesus. He says that God could accomplish that through dreams or visions. What unmitigated bullshit! I can just see it now. I get a time machine and interview every native American who ever lived before the Gospel came to America and I would find exactly ZERO that had conscious knowledge of Jesus Christ. Arguments like this have earned him his nickname "Hanky Panky." He prostitutes his mind for the purpose of upholding traditional Christian doctrines no matter how false they may be.

[throwback]

That's a very intelligent response to the problem of those who died without having an opportunity to hear about Jesus. When I was a Christian I held the same view, arguing from John 14:6 that Jesus is indeed the way, but a person did not have to have conscious knowledge of the name of the way to be saved by him. Proof was simple, since most Christians would agree that babies could be saved by God without them knowing the name of Jesus or even "choosing" to be saved.

This contrasts sharply with the argument put forth by "Bible Answer Man" Hank Hanegraaff (Hanky Panky) who says that God has given every person equal opportunity to be saved. He says that if a native American in the year 1073 really "responded to the light he was given in creation" then God would give him "more light" so that he could be saved by Jesus. He says that God could accomplish that through dreams or visions. What unmitigated bullshit! I can just see it now. I get a time machine and interview every native American who ever lived before the Gospel came to America and I would find exactly ZERO that had conscious knowledge of Jesus Christ. Arguments like this have earned him his nickname "Hanky Panky." He prostitutes his mind for the purpose of upholding traditional Christian doctrines no matter how false they may be.

The lengths we go through to defend our culture, our faith, and ultimately ourselves...........
Hanky Panky did (I believe) get one thing right when he said God gives every person who's ever lived (maybe angels too Colossians 1:20 when you get a chance) a chance to be saved in Jesus. His problem like that of most of christianity is equating salvation to Heaven as opposed to equating it with what the scriptures show being SAVED is and that is victory from the wages of sin which of course is death.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The lengths we go through to defend our culture, our faith, and ultimately ourselves...........

And the sad joke is that you don't really start living until you quit trying to defend the "ego" that you think your are.



Hanky Panky did (I believe) get one thing right when he said God gives every person who's ever lived (maybe angels too Colossians 1:20 when you get a chance) a chance to be saved in Jesus. His problem like that of most of christianity is equating salvation to Heaven as opposed to equating it with what the scriptures show being SAVED is and that is victory from the wages of sin which of course is death.
Oh yes, that was my understanding just before I exited the faith. The only way I could deal with Christianity was to assume that Universalism was true. And the funny thing is that many of the early Christians were Universalists. And it's not in any way contrary to the Gospel as its enemies would have us believe. They ignorantly claim that if everyone gets saved, then Christ did not need to die, ignoring the fact that it was through the cross that God achieved universal salvation. How stupid is that? The arguments against it are usually very lame and the prejudice against it is utterly mindless, as we see on the CARM website which allows all topics to be discussed except two: Satanism and Universalism! Hard-core Christians who set themselves up as "defenders of the faith" can be so totally nuts sometimes.

[joel]

Richard, I ask a clarification from you;


The only way I could deal with Christianity was to assume that Universalism was true.

Are these observations of you correct;
1.) You have departed from "Christianity", i.e. the outward, "church".
2.) You view the teachings of the "church" is mostly "man-made".
3.) Universal salvation is taught in the scripture, and you embrace it now.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, I ask a clarification from you;


The only way I could deal with Christianity was to assume that Universalism was true.

Are these observations of you correct;
1.) You have departed from "Christianity", i.e. the outward, "church".
2.) You view the teachings of the "church" is mostly "man-made".
3.) Universal salvation is taught in the scripture, and you embrace it now.

Joel
1.) Yes.

2.) Yes and No. The question cannot be answered so simply.

3.) No. As stated, I became a Christian Universalist while I was Christian. It is a doctrine that asserts that all people will be "saved" through Christ. I am not now a Universalist because I do not believe there is any need of "salvation" in the Christian sense.

[CWH]

1.) Yes.

2.) Yes and No. The question cannot be answered so simply.

3.) No. As stated, I became a Christian Universalist while I was Christian. It is a doctrine that asserts that all people will be "saved" through Christ. I am not now a Universalist because I do not believe there is any need of "salvation" in the Christian sense.

So sad, RAM has given up his first love! He has embraced his own style of atheism known as non-theism. "The fool says in his heart, there is no God". I can correctly say that RAM is now a confused bird vacillating here and there.....Christian to Preterist to Non-theist, Universalist to Non-Universalist. RAM is now like the church of Ephesus who needs to repent:thumb::

1 'To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.


Jesus said in Matthew 5:13, 'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot" meaning you are the Christians of the world, but if a Christian has lost his belief in Christianity i.e. in Him, how can he believe in Me again? What good is he except to be punished.

Repent RAM, Repent!:thumb::thumb:

God's Love and Blessings to all.

[Bob May]

So I guess the question that an honest believer should ask himself is this:
How can I distinguish an answered prayer from an outcome affected only by time and chance?
RAM, I honestly cannot answer that question sufficiently as virtually any attempt will be purely subjective and therefore meritless. The only answer I can give that would over any varifiable evidence that the result was due to God answering prayer would be if something truly miraculous happenned to bring about the petitioned outcome.

I see this a little differently. We enter into the family of Abraham when we believe in something unseen and begin to seek after it.

Jesus said that even if one were raised from the dead they would still not believe. Miracles whether varified or not can and will be explained away by those who will not believe. And they are rare as far as I know.

He also said that many would come in his name saying that he was Christ and would decieve many, so I don't have much use for what passes for organised "Christianity."

But I dissagree with subjectivity being meritless. Rather I think it is the whole point. Did anyone around Abraham see what he saw as worthy of seeking? How many saw the dove descend on Jesus? Or when Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus,.. One saw something and one heard something (the description varies) but neither experienced exactly what Paul experienced.

Mt 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. (Jesus was right outside of Jerusalem, the seat of the law when he made that statement. And to be "under a fig tree" is, if I remember correctly, a symbol of studying the law.

Mt 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

The True Church is made up of believers. Those who have come to know that Jesus came from God the Father. He brought Grace and Truth and those who come to the realisation that this Grace that has been given to us begin to grow in the awareness of what that means. The Gospel was given in an announcement by an angel (Gabriel?) "Peace on earth good will toward men."
Around Christmas time each year we reinterpret that to mean "Peace between men, good will between men." But that is not the message. The real message is the end of the law. Do good get good, do bad get bad etc. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thse who accept the message and believe the message are freed from the law.

If we are a part of that message and believe it we benefit from it. If we believe it for a moment and then move away from it, how can we benefit from it? That was Paul's message for the Galatian's. "Who has bewitched you?"

When Jesus said we could move "This Mountain", where was he?
Which mountain could we cast into the sea?
And what was the stipulation he put on seeing this great miracle?

Casting a mountain into the sea would be impressive and probably make the evening news. Then it would be explained as something even if just an anomaly of some sort.
But casting the law into the sea by someone who has been tormented for years by their inability to keep the law no matter how hard they tried is a great miracle that cannot be explained away.

To open blind eyes would be a great miracle to a person who has been blind from birth. But to that same person it would be a much greater miracle ot have come to an awareness of Grace and Truth.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So sad, RAM has given up his first love! He has embraced his own style of atheism known as non-theism. "The fool says in his heart, there is no God". I can correctly say that RAM is now a confused bird vacillating here and there.....Christian to Preterist to Non-theist, Universalist to Non-Universalist. RAM is now like the church of Ephesus who needs to repent:thumb::

1 'To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.


Jesus said in Matthew 5:13, 'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot" meaning you are the Christians of the world, but if a Christian has lost his belief in Christianity i.e. in Him, how can he believe in Me again? What good is he except to be punished.

Repent RAM, Repent!:thumb::thumb:

God's Love and Blessings to all.
Hey there Cheow,

You are completely mistaken. I have not given up my first love! My first love is TRUTH. That's how it is now and that's how it was when I was Christian. And my love for TRUTH compelled me to speak truth. What else could I do? What else do you think I should do?

Should I LIE like the Christian apologists who spit on Christ when they deny the truth to protect their false doctrines about the Bible as when they say that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God?" If they had ONE OUNCE of integrity they would admit the truth that there are errors if in the Bible, and that murdering babies is not "good" and that the creation story is absurd if taken literally, and so on and so forth. But they can't do that because they hate the truth and they love lies.

And now will you repent of your attempt to pervert truth by saying that non-theism is atheism? You know you are liar because you know that I have said that I believe there probably is a God, and no atheist could ever say that. I just do not believe in the "sky daddy" Zeus-style God of traditional Christian theism that intervenes in human affairs and answers prayers and all that. I have explained this a dozen on this forum. You have no excuse for your LIES. You really need to admit the truth and apologize.

Thanks!

Richard

[CWH]

Hey there Cheow,

You are completely mistaken. I have not given up my first love! My first love is TRUTH. That's how it is now and that's how it was when I was Christian. And my love for TRUTH compelled me to speak truth. What else could I do? What else do you think I should do?

Should I LIE like the Christian apologists who spit on Christ when they deny the truth to protect their false doctrines about the Bible as when they say that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God?" If they had ONE OUNCE of integrity they would admit the truth that there are errors if in the Bible, and that murdering babies is not "good" and that the creation story is absurd if taken literally, and so on and so forth. But they can't do that because they hate the truth and they love lies.

And now will you repent of your attempt to pervert truth by saying that non-theism is atheism? You know you are liar because you know that I have said that I believe there probably is a God, and no atheist could ever say that. I just do not believe in the "sky daddy" Zeus-style God of traditional Christian theism that intervenes in human affairs and answers prayers and all that. I have explained this a dozen on this forum. You have no excuse for your LIES. You really need to admit the truth and apologize.

Thanks!

Richard

Yeah, your definition of liar is anyone who do not agree with you.....looks like almost everybody in this forum is a liar to you. Let me show you what a liar means:

From dictionary:
A person who made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

From the Bible:
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:20
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

1 John 5:10
Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

Are these God's words or are these words invented by men who were liars? I have no intention to pervert any truth. What is truth to one may not be truth to another....it's a matter of mutual agreement.


You know you are liar because you know that I have said that I believe there probably is a God, and no atheist could ever say that. Why doubt RAM; why "there PROBABLY is a God". just be confirmative and say "there IS a God" if you are not an atheist or a non-theist. It doesn't make sense to sit on the fence; it's like saying, there was probably a Jesus Christ or a Nero Caesar or Abraham. What truth is this?


Love God for He loves us first and sacrificed for our sin.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yeah, your definition of liar is anyone who do not agree with you.....looks like almost everybody in this forum is a liar to you.

Bullshit. I love it when intelligent people disagree with me. I learn a lot from them, and am delighted to publicly state when I am in error. And I never call anyone a "liar" without providing direct evidence of that fact.

I don't know why you are trying to pervert truth by falsely calling me an "atheist" but I am guessing it is because you think that "atheist" is a big fat insult. I looks like adolescent name calling.

If I were an atheist, I would shout it from the rooftops. Why not? I have nothing to lose. To fundamentalist Christians, my position as a non-Christian non-theist is nearly identical to "atheist" in their tiny little minds. If I considered myself an atheist, I would simply state it right along with everything else I think is true.



Let me show you what a liar means:

From dictionary:
A person who made a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

From the Bible:
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:20
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

1 John 5:10
Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.

Are these God's words or are these words invented by men who were liars? I have no intention to pervert any truth. What is truth to one may not be truth to another....it's a matter of mutual agreement.

Your first definition from the dictionary is accurate. It was all that was needed. Your quotes from the Bible are irrelevant because they refer only to specific lies, not to the meaning of "to lie" in general. Your final statement is false. Truth does not depend on mutual agreement. If that were true then it would be false because I don't agree. Get it? I just proved that your idea that truth depends upon "mutual agreement" is false.

Truth is truth. I'm amazed that fundamentalist Christians seem further from the truth than most other people. Unfortunately, I know why - it is because their minds and morals have been destroyed by trying to support false doctrines like the idea that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" and "it is good to kill little babies" and "the Bible is not biased against women."





You know you are liar because you know that I have said that I believe there probably is a God, and no atheist could ever say that.


Why doubt RAM; why "there PROBABLY is a God". just be confirmative and say "there IS a God" if you are not an atheist or a non-theist. It doesn't make sense to sit on the fence; it's like saying, there was probably a Jesus Christ or a Nero Caesar or Abraham. What truth is this?

Love God for He loves us first and sacrificed for our sin.
Why doubt? What kind of question is that? I "doubt" because I don't "know" and I am not willing to lie and say that I know something when in fact I do not!

But you are correct about one thing, it is like saying "there was probably a Jesus Christ or a Nero Caesar or Abraham." All historical knowledge must be couched in the language of probability because we have no "absolute knowledge" for those things. But the evidence for the existence of Nero is of a different order altogether than the evidence for Abraham or Christ. We have many documents written at the time of Nero, including inscriptions in stone, records of the exact length of his reign and even the dates of his birth and death! This gives any reasonable person very good reasons to conclude that he "probably" existed with great certainty (though no knowledge of ancient history is absolutely certain). We have nothing like that for Abraham or Christ. The best reason we have for believing they existed is because it is hard to explain how Judaism and Christianity arose without them. But that's not very direct "evidence' and there are other explanations that some find even more compelling. And since the story of Abraham is set around four thousand years ago (2000 BC) there is no archeological evidence for his existence whatsoever.

And how is it that you ignored the evidence that you lied? You know what I said is true! I said "You know you are liar because you know that I have said that I believe there probably is a God, and no atheist could ever say that." So there it is. You are getting tangled in your lies. It would be best if you simply admitted your error and apologized. That's what I would do in your situation.

There's no need for this discussion to be so confrontational Cheow. You started this spat by falsely calling me an atheist. There was no need for that, especially since it is not true.

All the best.