God is not omniscient

Originally posted by @js357
When it comes to public forums, I see ulterior motives everywhere, if influencing people in a particular direction is ulterior and not overt.

Do you ever see someone posting because they like to debate and discuss a particular subject and don’t have ulterior or overt motives?

[i]Originally posted by @romans1009[/i
Do you ever see someone posting because they like to debate and discuss a particular subject and don’t have ulterior or overt motives?

Is that your motive in your first post or at least early one in this thread? Ostensibly you are inquiring whether your correspondent knows a particular parenting technique. But aren't you also defending the idea that God is omniscient?

quote:

You’re not familiar with the idea of a parent asking their child a question when the parent already knows the answer?

Example: Parent walks down hallway and notices his child’s room is a mess. Asks child, “Did you remember to clean your room like I asked?”

Example 2: Parent hears from another parent that his child was at a party and did not go to the library as the child said he was going to do.

Parent asks child, “So how was the library? Did you get a lot of studying done?”

Do you understand the reason for doing this? It’s to see how the child responds. Does he lie? Does he tell the truth but make excuses? Does he apologize? etc.

God did the same thing in the book of Job when He twice asked Satan, “From whence comedy thou?” You don’t think God knew where Satan was. In that instance, I think it was a conversation starter.

Originally posted by @js357
Is that your motive in your first post or at least early one in this thread? Ostensibly you are inquiring whether your correspondent knows a particular parenting technique. But aren't you also defending the idea that God is omniscient?

quote:

You’re not familiar with the idea of a parent asking their child a question when the parent already knows the an ...[text shortened]... u don’t think God knew where Satan was. In that instance, I think it was a conversation starter.

Yes, I’m defending the idea that God is omniscient because that’s what I believe. That doesn’t mean I’m proselytizing.

Is one not allowed to speak well of God without having an ulterior motive?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Yes, I’m defending the idea that God is omniscient because that’s what I believe. That doesn’t mean I’m proselytizing.

Is one not allowed to speak well of God without having an ulterior motive?

Yes, when you said that “Some believers just like talking about God and the Bible and are not here to proselytize anyone” I said “That’s fine.”

Now you add, “I’m defending the idea that God is omniscient” and that’s fine too. Just consider that you are now admitting that there is this ulterior motive. All this little side bar is about is whether I see ulterior motives here and there. I do, and your replies provided an example.

Edit: It’s not a big deal!

Originally posted by @js357
Yes, when you said that “Some believers just like talking about God and the Bible and are not here to proselytize anyone” I said “That’s fine.”

Now you add, “I’m defending the idea that God is omniscient” and that’s fine too. Just consider that you are now admitting that there is this ulterior motive. All this little side bar is about is whether I see ult ...[text shortened]... otives here and there. I do, and your replies provided an example.

Edit: It’s not a big deal!

Typically "ulterior motive" relates to a hidden, nefarious purpose to one's words or actions. There is a negative connotation to it. Saying things to support your position on a matter doesn't exactly fit the bill. You made a point in your post... can it not likewise be said that you had an ulterior motive?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Typically "ulterior motive" relates to a hidden, nefarious purpose to one's words or actions. There is a negative connotation to it. Saying things to support your position on a matter doesn't exactly fit the bill. You made a point in your post... can it not likewise be said that you had an ulterior motive?

You are right, your intentions were not hidden, which is the one negative connotation I find in the definition of ‘ulterior’.

I said “I see ulterior motives everywhere, if influencing people in a particular direction is ulterior and not overt.” It was a general answer to a general question. I contrasted ulterior with overt. My only criticism is a general one which does not apply to you, as your motive in this exchange, to defend the rationality of God’s actions, is well known and can’t be hidden.

So i’m not going to carry this further. Draw the conclusions that make sense to you.

Originally posted by @js357
Yes, when you said that “Some believers just like talking about God and the Bible and are not here to proselytize anyone” I said “That’s fine.”

Now you add, “I’m defending the idea that God is omniscient” and that’s fine too. Just consider that you are now admitting that there is this ulterior motive. All this little side bar is about is whether I see ult ...[text shortened]... otives here and there. I do, and your replies provided an example.

Edit: It’s not a big deal!

No idea what you’re talking about. For what you said to make sense, one could not have a position on anything and state the position without having an ulterior motive.

Do atheists on here have ulterior motives? I think I’ve already asked you that question and frankly won’t be surprised if you continue to ignore it.

Originally posted by @js357
You are right, your intentions were not hidden, which is the one negative connotation I find in the definition of ‘ulterior’.

I said “I see ulterior motives everywhere, if influencing people in a particular direction is ulterior and not overt.” It was a general answer to a general question. I contrasted ulterior with overt. My only criticism is a general o ...[text shortened]... hidden.

So i’m not going to carry this further. Draw the conclusions that make sense to you.

And what do you think my motive is in defending the “rationality of God’s actions?”

I’m a big believer in Isaiah 55:8-9 and have indicated that (and the principle behind it) more than a few times on here. How does that square with what you think my motive is in defending “the rationality of God’s actions?”

BTW, I’m glad you think my posting is “fine” and your objections to it do not constitute “a big deal.”

Now I can finally get a good night’s sleep.

Originally posted by @romans1009
No idea what you’re talking about. For what you said to make sense, one could not have a position on anything and state the position without having an ulterior motive.

Do atheists on here have ulterior motives? I think I’ve already asked you that question and frankly won’t be surprised if you continue to ignore it.

I can easily admit that having ulterior motives is not imo a function of belief in deity so why would I ignore the question. It does however sound like a thread killer.

Originally posted by @sonship
I am a Christian, a disciple of Jesus - no more and no less.

You are as you define yourself

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Well, first, I disagree that any single perspective can ever be the "entire" point of a complex text like the Bible.

2nd, you are on a forum with lay people. If you want only "reputable biblical scholars", then you came to the wrong place.

3rd, I have no spiritual ego. Mocking won't get you anywhere. Good arguments will.


Welcome to the Spirituality Forum.

You are right that a single perspective, such as mine or yours, cannot be the entire point of a complex text like the Bible. However, coming from the educational background that I do - two masters in theology and a doctorate - I have never heard anyone reputable or non-reputable (so you get the latter distinction 😉 ) cite this text to debunk God's omniscience.

I will continue to cite scholarship - you all may be lay people (using your words), however, scholarship (such as Barth, Oden, Hayes, etc) is worth consulting (even for lay people).

I did not mock you. Again, you are moving into the realm of an ad hominem.

My impression of most of the posters in this forum is they like to think they have original thoughts but in reality most of what they say does not even rise to the level of error - its just nonsense.

What I gave you in my above post are good arguments. I presented the uniqueness of your post and that it is unknown to scholarship (which makes it suspect). I then appealed to the original text (I have several Masoretic Texts in my library) to show what the text implies - this is not something you can do likely as it is unlikely that a lay person such as yourself knows ancient Hebrew. I then stated a universal truth - just because someone asks a question does not mean they don't know the answer to the question.

If we as humans ask questions that we know the answer to then certainly God can do the same since we are but a shadow of his habits and practices.

Originally posted by @alphazero
I find it interesting what 'issues' non-theists and non Christians sometimes latch onto in the Scriptures. The account given in Genesis 3 has never before, in my experience or knowledge, been cited by anyone to debunk God's omniscience.

The simple fact is, God is in the habit of often asking questions of his creatures to bring a response (hopefully, r ...[text shortened]... the text bring this issue up. You are a first and frankly you miss the entire point of the text.

Mostly an aside, but in the same book (Gen 3) the serpent, in similar fashion, asks Eve a question to which he also knows the answer: "Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?'” The motive was somewhat the same--to invoke a response. But in the serpent's case it was insidiously loaded with an error that begged to be corrected. Incidentally, that is a tactic I often see used here in the forum.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Mostly an aside, but in the same book (Gen 3) the serpent, in similar fashion, asks Eve a question to which he also knows the answer: "Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?'” The motive was somewhat the same--to invoke a response. But in the serpent's case it was insidiously loaded with an error that begged to be corrected. Incidentally, that is a tactic I often see used here in the forum.

I agree 100%. We often ask questions we know the answer to already - or, in some cases, should know the answer to already.

Language is fundamentally used this way - which is what made BigDog's post so nonsensical. We all know the difference between a rhetorical question and a real question. Yet, BigDog blurred the lines between the two. Perhaps he sincerely does not believe God was being rhetorical - yet, that should not be difficult to correct given the weight of the rest of Scripture and the context of the passage.

Originally posted by @alphazero
I agree 100%. We often ask questions we know the answer to already - or, in some cases, should know the answer to already.

Language is fundamentally used this way - which is what made BigDog's post so nonsensical. We all know the difference between a rhetorical question and a real question. Yet, BigDog blurred the lines between the two. Perhaps he sin ...[text shortened]... e difficult to correct given the weight of the rest of Scripture and the context of the passage.

No offense to BD but I sense from what little I've seen that he has assigned a lack of omniscience to God and is now trying to force-fit Scripture to give the assignment support.

I have some different beliefs, and I kind of like to think they are right, and I'm always testing them vs. Scripture to see if they can pass the test. For example, I believe that our reality--the entire universe as we perceive it--is virtual or holographic. I toy with the idea, knowing that I'll never be in any position to prove it. However, I strongly believe the Scriptures are true. So, if I find any verses in the bible that contradict my virtual universe theory, I will discard the idea. I have other different beliefs and find myself on constant alert for any verses that would discount them. That said, I would never preach any spiritual beliefs outside of Scripture--or especially contradictory to it--as an absolute truth.

Anyway, the point is, I think BD is engaging in the same kind of reverse theory proof but in his case, I see too many Scriptures that contradict it. I could not hold on to it.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
No offense to BD but I sense from what little I've seen that he has assigned a lack of omniscience to God and is now trying to force-fit Scripture to give the assignment support.

I have some different beliefs, and I kind of like to think they are right, and I'm always testing them vs. Scripture to see if they can pass the test. For example, I believe ...[text shortened]... proof but in his case, I see too many Scriptures that contradict it. I could not hold on to it.

If I am following you correctly, you believe we are all a virtual reality, but a virtual reality of what or who?

That view is somewhat similar to 'Christian' Science which postulates that we are all just thoughts in the mind of God - nothing is real, pain isn't real, death isn't real, etc.

There would be no direct or explicit passage of Scripture to counter your possible view (for obvious reasons) - the concept of a hologram or virtual reality would have been unknown to the ancients. At least, if I understand what you mean.

However, there may be indirect passages. John 1:14, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". If you view is true, then that means God became part of the hologram or virtual reality. I see that as being very problematic. The Word became flesh carries very real connotations (i.e. sarx, 'flesh'😉. This is real stuff we are talking about. Matter is real; things are real; not virtual. God is really in the flesh - not a virtual reality manifestation of it. Hence, John says in 1 John 1:1, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands..."

It is as if the Apostle is making a deposition - 'I really heard Jesus, I really saw Jesus, I really touched Jesus.' This isn't a figment of our imagination or a manifestation of something else or a virtual reality. It is a very real thing.

Just my thoughts.