To any theologians here...

[skylark]

Busmaster:
Two answers - either one should be sufficient. God is all-knowing, but he doesn't have to intervene, so we can have the will to make our choices. Also, He trancends time - which we should all know by now, isn't linear. It has a beginning and probably an end

But He has intervened before.. We hear stories of Christian folks receiving His grace. Jump half way across the continent, take a look at Ethiopia... Who needs His grace more? Why would HE intervene for you or any devout Christian and not a couple hundreds thousands of starving children?

Yeah, He transcends Time, beyond the awareness of cultures passed on? ~_^ Cultures who never even heard of Jesus nor God, never had that *free* choice to decide. That is not *free* will to me.

Anyways... For all: The philosophy of wisdom is about the ability to express its practicalism in life. All of these high-level discourses amounts to how much in real-time? Not much. Most people, Christians or not, won't have darn clue what you people are talking about. If you can understand *fully* the will of God, can you teach it? Can you, in a matter of seconds earn the trust of a stranger, and pierce his/her heart with words born freely from your heart? I have.. It's quite beautiful to watch the moment unclasp like a flower. Lata kids

 

[Athanasius]

<< Anyways... For all: The philosophy of wisdom is about the ability to express its practicalism in life. All of these high-level discourses amounts to how much in real-time? Not much. Most people, Christians or not, won't have darn clue what you people are talking about. If you can understand *fully* the will of God, can you teach it? Can you, in a matter of seconds earn the trust of a stranger, and pierce his/her heart with words born freely from your heart? I have.. It's quite beautiful to watch the moment unclasp like a flower. Lata kids >>



I understand your point, but I think you miss one: since these threads generate so much discussion, it obviously does mean a lot to some people in real time. "Most people" matters little when we are on a thread addressed to those with a theological mindset. It is these people specifically, not to "most people generically," whose hearts are often pierced by such discussions.

And yes, I have earned the trust of total strangers in seconds. Why is the one "heart piercing" more valuable than the other?

The heart piercing is what counts. Whether it happens in seconds or centuries is insignificant. Become all things to all people. That means, to the theologian or philosopher, be a theologian or philosopher.

 

[javeed]

This might not apply exactly to your situation or your friends, however, here's the Islamic point of view on the matter as close as I remember:

As a pre-amble, Islam does not have the concept of Original Sin. Every man and woman is responsible for his or her own sins. One is born a clean slate and it is only one's own actions that blacken that. In the end, whether you're heaven-bound or hell-bound, you will know that it is because of your own actions in this world.

As far as free will is concerned, it is a non-trivial explanation, but one that makes sense to me at least. All men (and women) are given free will and we shape our lives based on that free will. This is why, on the Final Day, we will be judged by God for our actions based on our own free will. God is Almighty. Given this, He has complete foreknowledge of every action that will occur at the hands of every creature in the universe based on the free will they have been given. It is this foreknowledge that is fate. Keep in mind that this is not something that can be cheated. If you second-guess yourself and take a different action than you originally intended to take, that too is part of God's foreknowledge. In one sentence, we have Free Will; God just knows exactly how we will use it.

About evil and injustice in the world, the Islamic point of view is that this world is imperfect since the only One that can attain absolute perfection is God. Based on that, the justice you see in the world is imperfect. The Justice of the Just that you will see on the Final Day will be absolute and perfect. The evil and suffering in the world is because it is not perfect. The perfect 'world', which we will see in the hereafter, has absolute and perfect justice.

Again, this is a very simple explanation. If I have used any official theological terms loosely, I apologize. Also, if there are any other Muslims who think I have misinterpretted something, I'd appreciate comments from them too.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Why is the one "heart piercing" more valuable than the other?

I think that as it's not something exlusive to any religion, and being that as you say "the heart piercing is what really counts", it sort of goes a ways towards invalidating such religions. The ability to "pierce the heart" is not some skill of the neurotics who think about these things, it's an energy that is tapped into, and in my experience those who do it best are by most accounts "simple" people. There was an old man around here who used to get up early to wave at passing traffic, seeing the joy in his face, you knew he was on a completely different level. What does that have to do with some silly books written by men?

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< I think that as it's not something exlusive to any religion, and being that as you say "the heart piercing is what really counts", it sort of goes a ways towards invalidating such religions. >>



since i'm probably one of the more vocal proponents of the Heart Piercing, Born again type experience over scholarly religion I think i'll respond by saying I agree with you.

I think it is rather arrogant of us to presume too much about what "God" is or is not capable of doing. I also think it is more than presumptious of us to assume that "God" is limited to One religious organization. Even something as broad as Christianity.

I do believe that Isreal was God's Chosen people, chosen to exemplify, chosen to show the working of God. However, that doesn not exclude God from all other cultures or peoples. hence God existed acted and worked in all cultures and does today, however, Isreal and Christianity was His chosen way of demonstrating His existence to the world.

 

[javeed]

<< do believe that Isreal was God's Chosen people >>



Islam differs greatly from this point of view. Simply put, just like there are no Born Sinners (a la Original Sin), similarly there are no Born Saints (a la Chosen People). It defies the idea of Free Will.

Coming to the point of "piercing the heart", it is not because of anything a man or woman can say that a heart is pierced. It is because of God's will that a heart is "pierced". Without His allowance, no man or woman can affect another's heart.

Just my $0.02

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< Coming to the point of "piercing the heart", it is not because of anything a man or woman can say that a heart is pierced. It is because of God's will that a heart is "pierced". Without His allowance, no man or woman can affect another's heart.
>>



javeed. actually i agree with you. A brief reading of my posts thru this thread will show that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I side with Athanasius. As heady as the discussion can become, and as true as it is that spirituality without application in the market place, if you will, is rather fruitless, we could remember that God, who ever he is, is everywhere and everynow. There are doors that lead to him through the body the heart, and the mind. That is why there are fakirs, monks, and bhakti yogis. It is hopeless, in my opinion, that any will come to the truth regardless of the Way, so I wouldn't be too quick to begrudge intellectual discussion of the subject matter. I don't begrudge being told that it's an empty game either because I wasn't expecting more, but I see no point in condemning it for being empty. What isn't? I guess that's the question. What good is it to tell somebody that the answer is in being if they don't know how to be.

When I listen to Athanasius I hear somethnig, I feel something. There is something about him that tells me he is a somebody of a different and unusual sort. It's probably just son shine. I think he took a real path and speeks from it with understanding. And the things that others say, they make you look at yourself and examine your assumptions. Probably with out a guide that can diagnose us individually, there isn't much that we can do but look at our assumptions. I think there is a big truth somewhere and we don't see it because we believe it's something else or that it's not there. Maybe talking can weaken those opinions. Anyway, I don't see the virtual as anything more than another aspect of reality.

 

[Orsorum]

<< I do believe that Isreal was God's Chosen people, chosen to exemplify, chosen to show the working of God. However, that doesn not exclude God from all other cultures or peoples. hence God existed acted and worked in all cultures and does today, however, Isreal and Christianity was His chosen way of demonstrating His existence to the world. >>



That's a question that my friend and I were debating a couple nights ago... why did God have a "chosen people", where they were given the freedom (sometimes) to commit atrocities in the name of God? How could God have judged these other people and deemed their lives to be less than that of the Israelites? Something that's never quite made sense to me.

 

[Moonbeam]

I forgot to say that I think the question of free will and foreknowledge are sort of moot anyway if you are going to say that even if you try to change your actions God knew you would. What's the difference then between everything I do being God's will or my will. Without fore knowledge or God consciousness myself, everything looks like it's my will. Like Spock said about guessing, "If I'm going to have to guess, I'll make the very best guess I can."

 

I have addressed this question before and raised it on occasion myself.

I notice that some of you seem to have a misconceived notion about what it means to be "all-knowing" also known as omniscient.

I should point out that omnipotent is not the issue we face with this question of free will, for omnipotent means all-powerful. Yes, there are some issues with that too, but that is not exactly the issue with free will.

Having said that, as stated by another member already, this question of free will has plagued the philosophers for a loooooooooooooooong time now, as if to say much of philosophy were meant to find answers rather than continual contemplation and raising more questions.

So, back to the subject of an omniscient being: As far as I understand that terminology, to be all knowing is to see what is to become ahead of us all. If all that is to become of us is already known, then there is no such thing as an alteration of the story line. If the story line is altered, then it no longer constitutes omniscient.

Therefore, how could a being who foresaw all that was to become actually give free will to human beings? It seems like we are living a story line written by some supreme-being; that is, it seems our existence is some illusion from a script written by a supreme-being who has characters all assigned to each of us.

Unless one gives a twist to the word "all-knowing", which then would make it less of an issue (kind of like a strawman strategy), I cannot see how one who professes free will can also profess an all-knowing being.

See, this is the area where I must side with the Calvanists and other Protestants, however condemned as a "cult" by mainstream Christians. There is certainly consistency in this aspect in the doctrines of Calvanists. It is only with the concept of predestination that we can resolve this issue if we are to assume one of this is true about a supreme-being. In other words, it is impossible to have both at the same time.

If we refuse to accept that Christianity be judged by the system of consistency, then we should not assume ourselves the ability of a supreme-being. If we are to argue that His system of logic is different from ours, then we must accept that it is possible that our claims/assertions of what this supreme being is like and his abilities is very much an illusion we make ourselves. Perhaps it is our very illusion that assumes "omniscient"?

Another question that stem about our perception of such supreme being is, how could one who is all-knowing not have foreseen the downfall of mankind, the one He made? How would he have possibly regretted having created beings called Adam and Eve after they had sinned if he had the ability to foresee this?

Lastly, why would the author of Revelation foresee a score of people who made it to this supposed heaven if we indeed had free will?

Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot fathom how this concept could be consistent without dropping one of the beliefs (i.e., either He is not omniscient and we have free will or He is omniscient and we have no free will). The Calvanists and other supposed cults as referred to by mainstream protestants come closest to logic. Perhaps heaven is simply a matter of chance? You do good deeds to your fellow brothers and sisters and accept Christ, and await your luck if your name is amongst the few who made it according to Revelation.

 

[Atrail]

I remember Theo from the Hugstable family.
Lets see there was Rudy, and uh Theo, who else hmmm NM.

 

[Spendthrift]

wow - i just lost everthing that i type, what a pain. lets try again.

i am amazed at how eloquent and insightful the discussion has been up to this point. i wish i could articulate things half as well as athanasius and johnnyreb. keep up the good work!

zakath - there is definitely punishment for original sin (sin nature is probably more accurate). because of adams choice, all humanity has this sin nature and the punishment is spiritual death/eternal seperation from God. athanasius' example of the tree is a great way of explaining it. sin nature persists in human beings because we are all part of the tree of humanity that has been infected with the sin nature. however, because God enterted humanity as Christ, the cure has entered into the tree of humanity. we have to chance to be cured now.


<< Rom 5:12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is the type of Him who was to come;
Rom 5:15 but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift shall not be as by one having sinned; (for indeed the judgment was of one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses to justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by one offense sentence came on all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came to all men to justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous. >>

NKJV

so just as sin has entered into humanity and has infected all men, in the same way the cure has entered into humanity and provides the opportunity for salvation/cure. the Bible is very clear that all of humanity is infected. no one can escape it on thier own. however, through salvation we are made righteous (put into a right relationship with God) through Christ's righteousness (His right relationship with God). thats the best i can do at clarifying why all humanity is affected by adam's decision. it may help to re-read athanasius' analogy as its clearer than my explanation. (so i suppose this isnt really a clarification is it?)

polgara - as i just said to zakath, all men are punished for orginal sin (our sin nature). what you are referring to is a doctrine called "the Age of Accountability". it has been created by the church and basically says that children who die before they reach an age where they can make a conscious decision about salvation, go to heaven. i will emphasize that this is merely church doctrine and that to the best of my knowledge the Bible does not directly say this anywhere (if i am incorrect, someone please point it out to me and ill humbly appologize). so the best we can do is guess on what happens to children when they die. i believe that the above verses from Romans (esp 18 and 19) clearly state that all humanity is infected with this sin nature. this includes children. and as you report Dr. J. Vernon McGee as saying that children are not without sin. how/when God decides to judge them is really an unknown quantity.

luvly - "Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot fathom how this concept could be consistent without dropping one of the beliefs (i.e., either He is not omniscient and we have free will or He is omniscient and we have no free will)." i disagree. i think hoihtah's use of the word antimony is well in order (his post on page two is worth checking out). free will and omniscience only appear to be in conflict. i believe that foreknowledge by God is not the same as events/actions being predestined (reference athanasius' post on the situation with his son running into the street and the wife knowing he would do it).

my pocket change for the discussion

 

[xirtam]

luvly: If we're playing poker, and I look at your hand, have I changed your cards? Or your ability to make free choices based on those cards?

God is pure actuality. He has no potentiality. We cannot change God.

How many years did Truman have free will in The Truman Show? Was it just after he knew the circumstances were stacked, or was it before? His ignorance of the fact that other people knew everything about him did nothing to hinder his choices. I'd call that free will.

So, in short, yes.

We have free will from our perspective. From an objective standpoint, you have to decide what is truly "free."

As far as the discussion on God's chosen people goes, I'd say that they went through a lot more crap than a lot of other civilizations. They were punished severely, and they had strict codes, rules, and regulations that they had to follow. Shoot, they didn't exist as a nation for how many centuries before May, 1948? A ton. And the law was given that by it we might know we have sinned.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's not looking at my hand that bothers me, it's looking ahead to see what I play where the problem is.

I think what Athanasius said about his wife knowing what htheir children would do has problems as an analogy but unfortunately, perhaps, instructive more along the lines that I think. With intuition, a mothers intuition into her children, a mother can know a very lot about what will happen, but that vision is not 100%. Occassionally it will fail and a child will do something surprising and entirely unsuspected, because they have free will and are complex creative beings. Intuition and omniscience are not really the same thing because one is good but the other is infallable.

On the other hand what I don't think people know much about is what kinds of mental phenomenon self realized people are capable of. We read of miracles and all manner of 'psychic' phenomenon attributed to attained individuals. We may have experienced such things ourselves. Maybe some people get glimpses of the future or maybe even more than glimpses, and maybe, if as I say, God is a projection of our real self, than maybe it's jsut a human ability writ large that we imagine God possesses. The chicken egg thing is hard to reconsile. Maybe all we can do is occassionally gilmpse the mind of God and see the future through him. Maybe our minds have a door into another dimension that loops in time and this is just an aspect of physics we don't understand yet.

 

[Spendthrift]

zakath - 1. in answer to your israel being the chosen people question...God started his relationship with the first humans adam and eve. they had experiential knowledge of God. we then (skipping forward a lot) have Noah and his family whom all humans are descended from. they left the ark with the knowledge of God and knowing that He was going to repopulate the earth through them. but somewhere along the line it got screwed up and people stopped worshipping God. after the tower of babel, (genesis 11:10)we start to trace shem's (one of noah's three sons) line and end up at abram (soon to become abraham). for some reason shem's line managed to pass down the knowledge of the one true God, because when God speaks to abram in gen 12:1, abram goes. and God promises abram that if abram will follow Him, God will bless all the peoples of the earth through abram.


<< Gen 12:1 And Jehovah said to Abram, Go out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house into a land that I will show you.
Gen 12:2 And I will make you a great nation. And I will bless you and make your name great. And you shall be a blessing.
Gen 12:3 And I will bless those that bless you and curse the one who curses you. And in you shall all families of the earth be blessed. >>

NKJV

and thats why israel is the chosen people, because God made a promise to abram. and abram obeyed and served God. however, we also know that other people had knowledge and served God. genesis 14:18 makes reference to melchizedek, the king of salem, who "was the priest of the most high God." (NKJV) so we know that at least one other people served the same God as abram. on a special side note...Heb 5:10 (in reference to Jesus) "being called by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek;" (NKJV) here Jesus is associated with the priestly line of melchizedek who was a priest and a king, as opposed to moses' brother aaron and the levitical priesthood. the point hebrews makes (because it was written to the Jews) is that Christ far superior to the Law and to the levitical priesthood. read hebrews 7 if youre interested.

ok back on track.
2. the second topic was about atrocities committed by israel as commanded by God. as you know, God uses His people to accomplish His will. actually its more accurate to say that God uses all people to bring about His plan. tracing God through the Old Testament we see that He uses israel to pass judgement on the people in canaan as well as egypt and a variety of other places. the people in these countries were not innocent. God had over looked their sins for quite a while. so israel was God's chosen instrument to pass judgement on these peoples. we also see in the Old Testament where God uses other nations to punish israel for their transgressions. God is not playing favorites. israel gets punished much more harshly. they are defeated by the amorites, chaldeans (babylonians), romans, and persians to name a few. they are also dragged into exile in babylonia and persia (among others) before finally losing their homeland and being scatter over the face of the earth (until 1948ish). so this all goes to prove that God disciplines for disobedience. He doesnt let things slide and people cannot get away with whatever they want (despite appearances sometimes to the contrary). but God's discipline is always in hopes that it will bring people back into obedience and right relationship with Him. israels job was to spread the knowledge of God throughout all the nations and be a light to the world. they didnt get around to it really until after Christ's death and resurrection, although occasionally foreign people were converted to judaism (think Rahab, Ruth, and also the city of ninevah (jonah))

hope all that helps

 

[Spendthrift]

moonbeam - if its poker, theres only one way you can play your cards and thats to lay them down on the table. if i see them i still cant change what i play

 

[Athanasius]

Moonbeam Quote:

<< When I listen to Athanasius I hear somethnig, I feel something. There is something about him that tells me he is a somebody of a different and unusual sort. It's probably just son shine. I think he took a real path and speeks from it with understanding. And the things that others say, they make you look at yourself and examine your assumptions. Probably with out a guide that can diagnose us individually, there isn't much that we can do but look at our assumptions. I think there is a big truth somewhere and we don't see it because we believe it's something else or that it's not there. Maybe talking can weaken those opinions. Anyway, I don't see the virtual as anything more than another aspect of reality. >>



Well, that is heady praise, to which I only have two responses

1) I write better than I live. Given the number of typos I generate, that isn't saying much

2) As Faramir said to Samwise in The Two Towers: "The praise of the praiseworthy is above all rewards."

 

[Rio Rebel]

Several of you are missing the point with the predestination/omniscience argument.

The argument is not that God's knowing has a casual relationship to the event. God's knowledge does not necessarily cause the event to take place. There is a difference between saying A causesB, and Aimplies B. "If A then B" is implication, not causation.

The argument is that if God can KNOW that an event will take place, then the course of events has already been set; otherwise, God cannot know it. If God knows that I will eat a hamburger tonight at 7, then I will eat a hamburger at 7, and I cannot do otherwise.

The only way to defeat this argument is to disprove one of the premises, or show that the premises do not imply the conclusion. So here it is again:

1. God knows that event X will occur at time Y.
2. Knowledge implies truth; the only way to know "X" is if "X" is true.
3. Therefore, (Event X at time Y) must be true.
4. If (Event X at time Y) is already true, then no set of events can make this false; otherwise, (Event X at time Y) was never true in the first place.
5. Therefore, no set of events, and by extension, nothing that person P can possibly do, would make (Event X at time Y) false.
6. Given 5 above, this is the definition of predestination - Event X at time Y is predetermined.

 

[Spendthrift]

Rio Rebel - your proof assumes that God is confined to time in a linear fashion as humans are. it is more appropriate to assume that God transcends time. since God has no beginning and no end, how could he be confined to time which has a definite beginning and end? "Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM! " NKJV. the greek for "I AM" is ego eimi which more closely means "I exist".

"John 8:58 - Before Abraham was, I am--The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as Joh_1:1)." (excerpt from the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

so God obviously transcends time. therefore, His foreknowledge of an event does not imply His causation of that event.

however, to make a statement either way about how God's foreknowledge effects (or lack thereof) the coures of human events, requires a variety of presuppositions about how God interacts with time. since we really dont know how God interacts with time its all speculation and one guess is nearly as good as another.

in conclusion, i would say that your belief that God's foreknowledge rules out human free will as a possibility, is equally as valid as my belief that his foreknowledge still allows for human free will.

 

[PlatinumGold]

spendthrift

linearity of time is a very abstract concept.

what makes time linear, linear isn't even accurate as we move in only one direction, from past to the future. past being known, future being unknown. past what we've experienced future what is yet to be experienced. obviously the definition of omniscience goes against the first part of that definition, past being known, future being unknown. One could also argue that omniscience goes against the second part of that definition also, experienced and yet to be experienced. if one accepts that omniscience includes experience then by definition God is outside of what we call time.

to speak of it as being linear is actually false. you make it seem as if the fact that He experiences time in a non linear fashion it somehow justifies or explains His omniscience. it could also be argued that His omniscience is what sets Him outside of linear time.

also, as i said time isn't truly linear, we're not speaking here obviously of the clock which is just used to measure the passing of time, time is cannot be stated as being linear if you accept the theories of relativity, as you increase speed you change the rate at which you experience time.

to speak of God relative to Time is very difficult because time is an abstract concept we use to explain what we experience but it isn't real.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Spendthrift, I spent time explaining my position. Athanasius took it seriously, and though he does not accept it, he admits the strength of the argument.

I don't think you've done this argument justice by your explanation. It's just too quick and easy to say "God exists outside of time" as if that explains it all.

And by the way - even if He DOES exist "outside of time", how does that change the argument. Does God know RIGHT NOW what will happen a year from now? If He does, it's predetermined. If you say "God exists outside of time", you've skirted the question. Given the fact that WE exist IN time, then if God exists right now, He either knows or does not know at this moment what will happen a year from now. Otherwise, what could you possibly mean if you say He "exists"?

 

[Spendthrift]

PlatinumGold
"linear - 2: of or in or along or relating to a line; involving a single dimension" (dictionary.com)

i think linear is an adequate word to describe time (although chronological would have been a better term to use in my previous post). we remember the past, experience the present, and predict the future (with varying degrees of accuracy depending on our life experiences).

"to speak of it as being linear is actually false. you make it seem as if the fact that He experiences time in a non linear fashion it somehow justifies or explains His omniscience. it could also be argued that His omniscience is what sets Him outside of linear time."

if God can look at time from the outside and see the creation of the universe and its end, including everything inbetween at the same time then it would explain His omniscience. and yes it could also be argued that His omniscience is what sets him outside of time. admittedly, this may be presumptuous of me and a bit of a stretch to try and define God in this manner.

"also, as i said time isn't truly linear, we're not speaking here obviously of the clock which is just used to measure the passing of time, time is cannot be stated as being linear if you accept the theories of relativity, as you increase speed you change the rate at which you experience time."

unless im missing something, the theories of relativity dont change anything. time is still moving along a line (whether forward or backward) and only involves a single dimension. changing the rate at which we experience time does not change anything. if i am mistaken (which is more than possible) please explain it to me.

Rio Rebel - im sorry you feel that ive not taken your argument seriously.
"I am afraid we are in a position where neither of us can really address the other's point from the inside (so to speak), but will have to keep falling back on our own position which we see as valid on its own merit."
"When we try to do this, we immediately fall guilty of a fallacy of division - we can conceive of AB, but that doesn't mean that we can necessarily conceive of A and B separately."

im going to agree with you here. my understanding of God's omniscience is tied in with my conception of how God may experience time. as with your AB example, i cant have A without B. my personal concept of God falls more along the lines of Netopia's in his post on page 3.

falling back on my previous post, i believe that Christ viewed Himself as outside of the time line.
"Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM! " NKJV. the greek for "I AM" is ego eimi which more closely means "I exist".

"John 8:58 - Before Abraham was, I am--The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as Joh_1:1)." (excerpt from the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

if Christ is eternally existent yet walked upon this earth as completely human for 33ish years, then humans have interacted with one who is outside of time and yet inside time. ill fall back on maetryx's quote from page 3...

"Our difficulty in "visualizing" transcendence does not render it logically impossible. Our language may not go "there", but that is a result of the very nature of transcendence, not a denial of transcendence. "

Christ was fully human and fully God. He had a grasp of His being able to be eternally existent as God and yet confined to the human experience of time during His life on earth. while we may not be able to understand it to the same extent Christ did, i do believe that it is something that we can posess a concept of.

i dont know how to discuss my concept of God's omniscience outside the framework of my concept of His interaction with time.

"We cannot imagine what it would be like to experience something outside of time. Since we cannot imagine it, cannot even BEGIN to conceive of it, it makes no sense to talk about it as if it explains or solves a problem. This does not mean that God necessarily 'exists' inside time, but that God must exist inside time *if He is to be a Being that we can encouter, interact with, and even conceive of."

i believe that if the wording is modified in your above quote, the same thing could be said about omniscience. i think we are stuck in much the same position in regards to omniscience. we can concieve what it is to know, but it is difficult to conceptualize knowing all things past, present and future. metaphors fail us and it is difficult to concieve how one could know the future without the future being predetermined. we have no way to experience this and therefore it doesnt really make sense when we begin to talk about it.

i hope you find this a better treatment of your argument. i appologize that i dont have nearly as much wisdom, learning, and understanding that athanasius and many others here posess.

 

[PlatinumGold]

<< unless im missing something, the theories of relativity dont change anything. time is still moving along a line (whether forward or backward) and only involves a single dimension. changing the rate at which we experience time does not change anything. if i am mistaken (which is more than possible) please explain it to me.
>>



I'm sorry, my explanation was not complete.

linear usually implies 2 directions, forward and backwards, time is in only one direction. as i've said, when we use the term linear to describe time we are only trying to explain 1 aspect of time. linearity explains only that time moves forward. has a past and will go into the future. however, it does not explain all aspects of time hence. linear can be use to explain time but linear does not equal time.

theory of relativity shows that time is much more complex than we commonly perceive it to be. if I stay stationary on this earth and you move away from the earth at near light speed, we will experience time differently. we could say that you and i are moving along 2 different lines of a single instance of time. hence time wouldn't be linear but would be 3 dimensional. of course this is really just playing on words.

to make this discussion more complex wouldn't omnipotence mean that God exists in all points of time SIMULTANEOUSLY and if so, would time be truly linear.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Spendthrift,

Thanks for the further clarifications. I do not ask that you be as eloquent as Athanasius, as long as you don't ask it of me, either (though I have him beaten on brevity, I'm sure.)

Let me throw out a clarification as well. As a theist, I believe that there are things beyond our understanding (or our capability to understand them). This is why the question haunts me - I believe in One greater than myself, but if this One cannot be described within my conceptual framework, how can I talk about Him at all? (Maybe Aquinas was right - in the end, we can't.)

The difficulty, for me, is this: if we say that God is "beyond" or "transcends" the necessary criteria for our experience, that what do we mean when we say He 'exists'? It is one thing to say we can't see or touch something, but we sense it some other way. It's even understandable to speak of things we can't sense, but we could sense if we only discovered them or encountered them - we just haven't yet. But in this case, we're talking of something we CAN'T sense. It's not just a matter of finding Him, or that He's invisible. It's impossible for us to interact with Him.

If I can't understand a concept, then I accept the possibility and simply say I don't understand. But if your concept contradicts logic, then I don't say it's possible and that my understanding is the problem - I say it isn't possible.

So the traditional concept of God, in my view, is not possible. Either God is different than that description, or God defies logic. And since I don't know what it would mean to defy logic yet still exist, I am left with the belief that God is not the way He is described in Western Theism. God is unknowable, but not RADICALLY unknowable - he is bigger than our concepts, but not contradictory to them.