A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in :

There's no logic problem. If I made a choice and God knew
what it was going to be how does that limit my choice? I don't
have the ability to know what I was going to do.

It is a matter of view - if someone knows your choices
in advance - do you choose? NOTE - this is not the same
as if someone guesses your choices in advance, because
in this case you can do otherwise and surprise the
one that thought they knew. If someone knew (with 100%)
it - it feels hard for me at least to call it a choice.

And God can do
logical contradictory things from our perspective.

From my perspective he can do almost anything. I don't think
we have enough knowledge to know God's limits.

The triune
nature of God is a good example.

The triune nature has never been a problem too me.
The problem I have is to see why it should be a problem.

The problem is we try to understand things from our limited perspective.
Imagine if you could create a 2 dimensional world. All that the creatures
know is left, right, forward and back. There is no up or down. You
decide to let them see you and you touch the flat plane,
your hand enters and passes through it and there are ovals where
your fingers intersect.

They claim they saw God, he was an oval over here, another says
yes but he was over there, another says you're all wrong he's
in five places at once. The actual difference is much greater
but we can't expect all answers to fit into our reference point.

Yes - this is correct. But - personally I think that most people
makes to much huss about understanding things by interpreting
some part of the Bible exact. The Bible is written by humans.
Humans are not faultless. Humans at that time had in many respects
very limited knowledge about the reality. The messages from God
may have been distorted in lots of ways. So - even if there
are a profound truths behind it all - we cannot take what we
read so literally.

One example of that is "almighty". First - we claim that we know
what "almighty" means exactly. So exact that we start to play
logical games where we try to trick the believers into contradictions.
Second - we claim that God is outside our understanding. If the
second is true - then the first is just interesting plays with words.



/Roland

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in :

I fiddled with it some more and it is more complex. I don't
understand what scores are yet though. I'll read up on it.


Yes - Xnews is complex - and somewhat strange.
But once set up - it works fantastic.


/Roland

Roland Karlsson

"Fletis Humplebacker" !

There's no logic problem. If I made a choice and God knew
what it was going to be how does that limit my choice? I don't
have the ability to know what I was going to do.


It is a matter of view - if someone knows your choices
in advance - do you choose? NOTE - this is not the same
as if someone guesses your choices in advance, because
in this case you can do otherwise and surprise the
one that thought they knew. If someone knew (with 100%)
it - it feels hard for me at least to call it a choice.



It is still a matter of choice because his knowledge is
outside of my linear timeline. He can view my life at any
point. From God's perspective he knows what I will do so you
could say I had no choice but to do them but from my
perspective I do have choices because I can't see the future.
This is why these kinds of questions seem contradictory,
they assume the two perspectives should be in harmony.





And God can do logical contradictory things from our perspective.


From my perspective he can do almost anything. I don't think
we have enough knowledge to know God's limits.



We can't assume any limit to what we can't know.



The triune
nature of God is a good example.


The triune nature has never been a problem too me.
The problem I have is to see why it should be a problem.



People like things simple and neat.




The problem is we try to understand things from our limited
perspective. Imagine if you could create a 2 dimensional world. All
that the creatures know is left, right, forward and back. There is no
up or down. You decide to let them see you and you touch the flat
plane, your hand enters and passes through it and there are ovals where
your fingers intersect.

They claim they saw God, he was an oval over here, another says
yes but he was over there, another says you're all wrong he's
in five places at once. The actual difference is much greater
but we can't expect all answers to fit into our reference point.



Yes - this is correct. But - personally I think that most people
makes to much huss about understanding things by interpreting
some part of the Bible exact. The Bible is written by humans.



Agreed.



Humans are not faultless. Humans at that time had in many respects
very limited knowledge about the reality. The messages from God
may have been distorted in lots of ways. So - even if there
are a profound truths behind it all - we cannot take what we
read so literally.



Some things are meant to be literal, others figurative. I agree
there is some danger in building too much doctrine on any one
aspect unless it is consistent throughout. If a concept is important
enough it is repeated and in harmony.




One example of that is "almighty". First - we claim that we know
what "almighty" means exactly. So exact that we start to play
logical games where we try to trick the believers into contradictions.
Second - we claim that God is outside our understanding. If the
second is true - then the first is just interesting plays with words.



/Roland


True enough. The "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it"
type of stuff assumes God lifts things in the first place, we
humanize what we can't relate to. That's true in religion too
by the way so it's a buyer beware type of thing and with all things there's
pressure to conform but the Bible does not discourage thinking. For me it's
been the opposite.

Roland Karlsson writes:

Using the formalism you have
in Relativity theory, you have one objective reality, not
many.

If anything, relativity says the opposite: what you see depends on your
point of view, and no point of view reflects an objective reality.

But in space-time the problems are no longer there.

That doesn't mean that space-time is an objective reality.

Einstein did not like it - because "God did not play dice".

I agree with him.

And yes - Einstein never thought that it was complete -
powerful yes - but probably in som sense bogus.

I agree with him there, too.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Roland Karlsson writes:

You have to instantiate the word omnipotent. You have
to know in what context the being is omnipotent.

Without a qualifier, none is required.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Using the formalism you have
in Relativity theory, you have one objective reality, not
many.

If anything, relativity says the opposite: what you see depends on your
point of view, and no point of view reflects an objective reality.

Observers that are aware of Relativity Theory do totally
agree about events in space-time. No problems at all.
Observers that think that there is a universal time
- or a universal space - have problems - because there
is none.

You take Relativity Theory too far, adding
properties that it does not have.

But in space-time the problems are no longer there.

That doesn't mean that space-time is an objective reality.

As a matter of fact - nothing is. But this has nothing to
do with Relativity Theory. That has to do with that all
our models ar just models - we cannot prove that they are
correct.


/Roland

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

You have to instantiate the word omnipotent. You have
to know in what context the being is omnipotent.

Without a qualifier, none is required.

Without a qualifier, we don't know what is required.


/Roland

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

You have to instantiate the word omnipotent. You have
to know in what context the being is omnipotent.

Without a qualifier, none is required.

Without a qualifier, we don't know what is required.


/Roland

Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote in :

The triune nature has never been a problem too me.
The problem I have is to see why it should be a problem.

People like things simple and neat.

I think the triune (hmmm ... did not know that word before
is as simple as it gets. "You shall not have any Gods
beside me!" OK - I don't see three Gods - so I see no problems.
Why make things complicated?


/Roland

Fletis Humplebacker ! wrote in :

The triune nature has never been a problem too me.
The problem I have is to see why it should be a problem.

People like things simple and neat.

I think the triune (hmmm ... did not know that word before
is as simple as it gets. "You shall not have any Gods
beside me!" OK - I don't see three Gods - so I see no problems.
Why make things complicated?


/Roland