Oddly enough I watched a good movie the other night called "Mortal Kombat", it's the 2021 version. Based on the video game, Earths greatest warriors had to gather to face the universes evil foes, like I say odd. Are we talking about the devil?
yeah the adversary is the devil, but at the Mae time he is an angel. But, Lucifer and satan are strictly different entities in my religion.
And where did I say this god is made of omniscience? Omniscience is a property a god may have. My bold below What other names here were being attributed to 'him'? Saying a god is omniscient is giving that god a property not a name. And if by chance I have misunderstood you and you mean the bible god is not omniscient... You need to quote the bible where the god says ‘he’ is not omniscient, or are you and others making things up to suit yourselves?
In my religion the devil is neither evil nor moral, he is a mere form of creation that enriches your imagination and make believe. Do you know the devils warrior son, and beautiful daughter? She’s a little demon, and the warrior is this poetic principle. People don’t know this but people believe in the make believe devil enough to be it in their dreams.
This is becoming somewhat bizarre, to be honest. As you say in post #20: "Being that this thread is posted in the Religion section, and talking about angels, then it goes without saying that God is assumed for the sake of the argument." What you should also have added, and what is surely implied, is that angels are assumed for the sake of the argument, and, more importantly, the Bible/scriptures are assumed - as they are the source of such information, at least from the perspective of religion. No scriptures, no understanding of angels. Or God, really. And now you want to dismiss the claims of the Bible, those descriptions? Sure. Okay. Then we're left with "God is..." what, exactly? That's mostly from the Bible/scripture, though. And as you say: "the Bible is a human-made claim about things beyond their ken, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One could conclude from logic alone that something created our universe, but whether that logic is sound is a matter of faith. And whether that something is sentient, intelligent, etc... all just faith. Further, beyond that you have no reason to apply any descriptions, which means you're left discussing... what, exactly? As would applying any definition, if you intend to ignore the descriptions of God in scripture. You know, the descriptions and attributes that religions believe God to have. This being, you know, the religion thread. But, hey, if you really want to throw the Bible (and presumably all other scripture) out of the discussion then go for it. Just be consistent with that approach. There's been no philosophical discussion thus far, has there? And the God you want to speak about, and have those philosophical discussions, is... what, exactly?
If you've ever learned from your own mistakes I'd think learning from other people's mistakes would come natural. Following logical lines of reason, I'll suggest anyone who's suffered a fallen state could be possible teachers for quite a few of us. So yes ... I'd be willing to take a lesson from Lucifers fall from grace. It just seems logical to do so. When my ex mother in law told me I needed to go to church, I reckon she had a reason for doing so. My guess is the church is full of people who umm needed to go for whatever reason they needed to go. Anyway, learning as I go seems at least a little profitable in terms of accountability and/or limiting activities that could prove life altering in a bad way. We should be thanking people like Lucifer for having gone through some of the more difficult lessons of life if only as an example for the rest of us.
I have been striking a balance: a provisional acceptance that, overall, the Bible speaks its truth about God, but that many of the speific details are suspect. Acknowledging the Bible, one can't get away with disblieving in God but one can get away with questioning speciic claims. We're trying to apply some logic to the ostensible actions of an alien mind. Such as 'why give us free will'? Not throwing it away. Just not taking it as carved in stone. We don't "throw away" Newton's Principia Mathematica because it assumes space and time are absolute and gravity is a force. There is no obligation to see it as black-and-white, as you appear to be doing. I seems you insist that 100% of the Bible be accepted or 0%. I disagree. Lots of things are picked apart and their more credible components sifted from their more dubious components. But yes, ultmately you have me over a barrel. I am playing Devil's Advocate here, I can't rigorously defend my case here. My stance is merely "Whether or not God actually exists, I see that there can be some form of internal logic attributed to what he might be thinkng and doing." Though I think it's about run its course.
It was a comment I made to Dave I think, when he was debating Baldee. My point was that God isn't bound to omniscience or any other product of creation. As He(Christian God) is not bound by the universe. Can God choose to be none omniscient? Of course He can.
Jesus did not know everything yet He is God... He limited Himself to a human body, with all its limitations. Obviously you've got the trinity, so at all times God knows everything even if the Son is a human. Jesus was not omniscient.
We were not talking about Jesus. We are talking about the one you said created the universe. This is the one that was suppose to have given humans freewill. So, you have humans in a universe and the god which created them knows all their thoughts and what they are about to do.
I'm simply stating that God can choose to eat rhubarb, drink water and be omniscient. Jesus is God in Christian belief, He is the Word, and He is what was used to create this universe according to the bible. God the Father is the power, is Love.
How can John say ''knows it all", when you (Dave) are saying Jesus / god has turned off it's omniscience. If one knows it all and the other doesn’t, that still leaves one knowing when a human is going to do an evil thing, it will be allowed by the one that' knows it all.'
I was not making a point about free will, I was simply stating that God can choose not to be omniscient, which He did to become Jesus. That's it really.
But, john is saying different from you. Your hunches against John’s ‘sources' " knows it all". Who is John quoting or is he making stuff up? Was John quoting Jesus?
I cannot really contribute that much to the nature of god as I do not think such a being exists. However, Jesus most likely existed and the Bible definitely exists or rather the manuscripts that are sources of the bible. Regarding the trinity, the consensus is that this is a later addition and was not in the original. The actual nature of the trinity was not ironed till the council of Nicaea in 325 CE
I think you're on a slippery slope with that kind of thinking. I think that what is needed here is some clarity about what is actually being discussed. If we're having a discussion about what the bible says about the attributes of God, or whatever, then fine. The bible says lots of things and doesn't say lots of other things, and we need only to consult the bible to see what it does or does not say. On the other hand, if we're interested in exploring questions like "Is what the bible says about X true?", then we need to look outside the bible to decide whether what the bible says is consistent with what we know about our world from independent sources. The bible can't prove itself true; that would be circular reasoning. Also, speaking personally, I get very suspicious whenever people start talking about their truth, or the bible's truth, rather than the truth. Something is either true or it isn't. The whole idea of subjective truths just stinks of "alternative facts" and the like. People can believe all kinds of different things. Those beliefs are all either true or false, for everyone. There's no "true for me, but not for you", if we're actually referencing the same set of facts. Different people can interpret a set of facts in different ways. So, we might all agree that X is written in the bible, but not necessarily agree about what the author(s) of X meant by it, for instance. We might also disagree on who the author(s) were, when X was written, when X was inserted into the biblical texts, etc. But all these things each have one factual answer that is true, even if nobody knows that answer. I don't know what you mean when you talk about "acknowledging the bible". I acknowledge that the bible is a book that contains a whole lot of words, and that it contains certain claims and does not contain certain other claims, etc. But you seem to think that "acknowledging" the bible also requires that you pretend/assume that some its contents are true. I don't see why we need to do that. We can examine matters such as self-consistency, logic, plausibility etc. without having to suspend our disbelief in God. I have no problem with that. The quest, in that case, is to try to sort out the extent to which other lines of evidence tend to support or refute the bible, which is largely a question of finding facts. More sophisticated theists are likely to have all sorts of arguments that are internally logical enough. On the other hand, a lot of theists are not at all sophisticated in their beliefs. They either never consider the matter of logical consistency (or even internal self-consistency), or else they don't let inconsistencies bother them.
