 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/13/2003 9:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Fred: I'm content to have you miss it, John…
John: I'm content for you not to get it, either, fred.
Doc: Clever come back. At least we’re all content with the other person’s incapacities.
No, Greg. I'm just content to walk away from the discussion and leave these brothers with their own freedom of thought. Neither an incapacity for me or John. Just other things to do.
Best book on Time I've read is Manzaridis' Time and Man. Covered Plato and Aristotle and Augustine, but didn't stop there. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/13/2003 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW: Tom, I see the quibbles about time as being marginal. (I know you don't.) I'm focusing on what is more important...
Tom: I'm all for that! I think most differences of opinion on God's relationship to time are just quibbles, but they become important because of the weight some put on the issue. As far as I can tell after two years of discussing God and time on and off this board, people only talk about God and time because of something ELSE. God and time are never THE issue. The question of God and time is only important because it is believed or not believed to shore up one's view on some other issue.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/13/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
I don't consider quotes from a dictionary to be "verses" (1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.). I also don't see what gives you and others the right to redefine things to your liking, just like when you didn't like me redefining "perhaps". If you can redefine "eternity", I certainly have that same right when it comes to "perhaps".
I might also call to your attention that I never denied that God intervenes in time, I just said that prior to time, God existed outside of time or eternally.
Tom,
quote:
Paul isn't saying, "The world is rational but God is irrational."
Actually you should have said "both Paul's", because I was merely making the observation that it is irrational for humans, but not for God. Did they have Oxyclean or Chlorox when Isaiah wrote that verse? Of course not! So, what ratioanal explanation would they have for this event of recreation? 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/13/2003 4:14 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PoW: Tom, I see the quibbles about time as being marginal. (I know you don't.) I'm focusing on what is more important...
Tom: I'm all for that! I think most differences of opinion on God's relationship to time are just quibbles, but they become important because of the weight some put on the issue. As far as I can tell after two years of discussing God and time on and off this board, people only talk about God and time because of something ELSE. God and time are never THE issue. The question of God and time is only important because it is believed or not believed to shore up one's view on some other issue.
Tom
Good point, Tom. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/13/2003 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: Actually you should have said "both Paul's", because I was merely making the observation that it is irrational for humans, but not for God. Did they have Oxyclean or Chlorox when Isaiah wrote that verse? Of course not!
Tom: They didn’t need Oxyclean or Chlorox to draw rational conclusions about God’s offer to wash them clean. They perfectly understood the process they went though in dying a white cloth black or blue or any other color. They would have understood the “concept” of turning a scarlet cloth white even if they didn’t possess the “means” of doing it themselves. Not understanding HOW a thing is to be done does not render it irrational to us.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/13/2003 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
John wanted us to read Pinnock's From Augustine to Arminius on another thread. This is what he had to say, quote:
God is able to be inside time, and not only outside of it. If he were not able to be within time, he would not be able to be with us on our journey or freely relate to what goes on or make plans and carry them out or experience the joy of victory or the anguish of defeat, as Scripture says God does.
Notice, "not only outside it".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/13/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
The understanding of how to dye something is far removed from how to undye something that had never been dyed. There is nothing about "God’s offer to wash them clean" to be seen in the verse. The "wash you" of verse 16 is in reference to the need for self cleansing, not an offer from God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/13/2003 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: The understanding of how to dye something is far removed from how to undye something that had never been dyed.
Tom: You're making this more complicated and difficult than it is. For what it's worth, "undying" is not "far removed" from "dying," else it would not possess the simple prefix "un-." But that's beside the point, since I wasn't talking about "undying" anything. Nor does it seem to me that the text is.
Paul: There is nothing about "God’s offer to wash them clean" to be seen in the verse. The "wash you" of verse 16 is in reference to the need for self cleansing, not an offer from God.
Tom: Well, v. 16 is not so far away and asking the people to "wash themselves" is, to borrow your phrase, far removed from encouraging works-righteousness if you mean to suggest that God excludes himself from the cleansing act entirely by telling Israel to wash herself. More importantly, "Come let us reason, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as..." sure sounds like a divine offer to me. And what's the benefit of embracing and going with it? Just this, that their sins, though now scarlet, will be white.
I would be surprised (a little) if even PoW (who revels in the belief that God's speaking to us is beyond our understanding  ) would agree with you that God's speech to Israel here must have been irrational to them because they did not possess Chlorox. On the contrary, we have every reason for believing both that God intended to communicate something meaningful to them and that God was capable of choosing words that would get his meaning accross and not hang meaninglessly in the air (which is what irrational language does). Revelation is about uncovering something (even if what is uncovered is only partially uncovered). By suggesting that God knowingly offers up to Israel language he knows would communicate nothing on account of its being irrational to us, you in effect deny the revelatory character of divine speech. You make God out to be obfuscating rather than communicating.
If bringing it about that "their sins which are scarlet become as white as snow" is "irrational" to Israel, then what do you suppose God intended to communicate? Anything at all?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 07/14/2003 04:59:15 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
...even PoW (who revels in the belief that God's speaking to us is beyond our understanding )
Oh shut up, Tom.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/14/2003 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I actually give you more credit for being knowledgable than what you are exhibiting. Everything in the Old Testament wasn't necessarily understood at the time they received it. Some of it was a "mystery" to them. Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (mystery-musterion 27/27)
EDIT: BTW, this is what He was communicating, Isa. 1.19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. as a method of washing themselves, but He wasn't offering to make them obedient.
Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/14/2003 1:36:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul5388 the Greek deflects again.
The "come now let us reason together" verse was to show that God wants to reason with us and that reasoning takes duration/time. That is all. How the figure of speech in that verse about your sins being like scarlet, etc. answers the utter lack of "outside of time" verses in scripture is beyond me.
Again, scripture only portrays God interacting with us using tense language. For us to understand He isn't bound by time/logic/sequence, scripture will have to be presented that clearly shows that.
Oh, and the "it's a mystery" argument doesn't wash.
Edited by - Laika on 07/14/2003 4:25:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/14/2003 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd say he's both inside and outside time. If he created the sun (light)- which is how we measure time, then he logically must have at one time been outside it. If God is eternal, then he didn't
"begin" at any one time, so time is not relevant to him in the same manner as it is to us. He is inside time when he is relating to us- I'd agree. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
I'd say he's both inside and outside time.
With no proof.
quote:
If he created the sun (light)- which is how we measure time, then he logically must have at one time been outside it.
How does it logically follow that when the sun was made, time began?
We could be sitting in the dark and cause-->effect still mean something and "before", "after" and "during" still mean something.
We order things (first, second, third, last) with no relation to the sun.
Genesis1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."
moving takes what? duration/time/sequence
Genesis1:3 "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."
The spirit was moving before the sun was created. So when was time "created"?
quote:
If God is eternal, then he didn't
"begin" at any one time, so time is not relevant to him in the same manner as it is to us.
Logic, if-->then, cause-->effect are relevant to Him. Scripture doesn't present Him as experiencing effects before causes.
"Let us make man in Our image". He's not speaking to humans there, He's doing self talk and it has TENSE. Show me ONE measly non-tense verse. ONE
"time is not relevant to God"
Yep, God's recipe for baking a cake:
1. oven cake take of out
1. eggs two add
1. batter mix
1. cake enjoy
1. degrees heat-pre oven 450
1. milk in thoroughly stir
1. ingredients gather
1. 50 minutes ("what are those?" God asks) timer set
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika - think about it. What is time? Why are there 24 hours in a day? 365 days in a year? B/c of the earth's planetary revolution around the sun, that's why. Without sun, time as we know it does not exist.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | TOO funny, Laika!
"Out of sequence" reminds me of something my wife said once -- "Sometimes I say things without thinking." To which my usual Spock-like reply was, "I think what you meant to say was that you something say things without thinking them through. But it is an absolute physical impossibility to speak without a thought happening first."
Believe it or not, she still loves me. 
Edited by - John Earp on 07/14/2003 8:26:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Laika - think about it. What is time? Why are there 24 hours in a day? 365 days in a year? B/c of the earth's planetary revolution around the sun, that's why. Without sun, time as we know it does not exist.
The measurement of time would be different.
Sequences would still be sequences. You never deal with the "before", "after", "during" ordering of events, why is this?
You never deal with the cause-->effect ordering of time, why is this? I'm sure you understand it. Why just focus on hours, minutes, days? Can you not distinguish between the measure of time and time itself?
What if our light came from glowing dirt? Would my arm feel pain before I hit it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika - think about it. What is time? Why are there 24 hours in a day? 365 days in a year? B/c of the earth's planetary revolution around the sun, that's why. Without sun, time as we know it does not exist.
RD,
Time is duration, or the measurement of change. For God to say, "Let there be light," involved a sequence that required duration or time. Therefore, the idea that time is only coextensive with creation must be false.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
quote:
"Out of sequence" reminds me of something my wife said once -- "Sometimes I say things without thinking." To which my usual Spock-like reply was, "I think what you meant to say was that you something say things without thinking them through. But it is an absolute physical impossibility to speak without a thought happening first."
I asked ENG (Eternal Now God) whether John Earp was married or still a batchelor and ENG said "Yes". And I said, "yes to which? Married or single?" and ENG said "Yes". "Married AND single?", I asked.
"Yes", ENG replied.
"How many years has he been single and married?" I asked ENG.
"Years?" ENG asked.
Edited by - Laika on 07/15/2003 06:17:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | | For FredOnPot'sWheel, a summary of our temporal argument:
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:42 PM (GMT -6) | | The ENG is also so confused that he forces Laika to misspell John Earp's last name.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | John Urp
quote:
The ENG is also so confused that he forces Laika to misspell John Earp's last name.
Before the beginning of time, before logic existed, ENG foreknew AND predestined Laika to misspell John Urp's name. He's THAT interested in micro-managing the minutiae of life, the universe and everything.
Edited by - Laika on 07/14/2003 8:50:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | LOL.
Actually, our branch of the family has always pronounced it as if it were spelled "Arp."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/14/2003 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | John <mumble>
quote:
LOL.
Actually, our branch of the family has always pronounced it as if it were spelled "Arp."
I'll stop now. The horse is dead. A flat, bloody corpse.
I'm starting to read a book on four views of time now, should be interesting.
"kyou ga owatte"
Edited by - Laika on 07/14/2003 8:56:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/14/2003 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | The four views of time ... simple: on the hour, a quarter after, half past, a quarter to!
For all time,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/14/2003 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | OK Earp, explain to me the concept of eternity within our framework of time. Explain to me how it is possible that God has always existed. There was never NOT a time in which he was present. That is mind boggling.
Also, explain to me how God told time before there was a sun and earth. It 's quite obvious that however he did that- it is not something that we can comprehend. He couldn't have said "It's half past 8." B/c that would be nonsensical if not within the framework of human time- which of course is relative to the speed of light. | | Back to Top | | |
| 400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:30 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|