/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing mob completely side-stepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment.

Nobody says that the man hasn't been stoned already. This entire article is based on the logical fallacy of the "argument from silence". It's based on if's.

It is not conclusive. If the gospel author had meant this, he would have included explanation about it. He didn't because that's simply not what this is about.

Why would you have an act of Christ but not the explanation that makes you understand it?

This is just an attempt to make Christ like the OT.

It remains that Christ broke the Sabbath. What's the rationalisation for that one?

>(It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the man with whom the woman had committed adultery was in league with the accusing crowd.)

C'mon… I'm dropping it for good now. Too many "maybe", "and what if", and "not beyond the realm of possibilities", which just means "maybe".

Trying way too hard to force Christ into not breaking the old laws.

But I'm willing to see each and every rationalisation. The extent to which people don't want to hear Christ is truly impressive.

>>3848

Nah, you're letting the maybe's which are there to offer context, not as the main argument, to detract from the crux so as to remain with this hippie feel-good interpretation of Christ as a tree hugging anarchist. He didn't break the Sabbath, or violate Mosaic Law. The adulterous woman issue is a great example of this, s He wouldn't have convinced the Pharisees with this "haven't you ever sinned :(((?" nonsense.

>But hey, let's go to the end of this: do you think women who cheat should be stoned to death?

Look at when this happened Chronologically. Christ had not yet performed the Atonement, Mosaic Law was still completely in effect and He knew it. Had he broken the Law and sinned, He would have been unable to perform the Atonement, as He would have went against the Law God Himself (Christ Himself, to Trinitarians) first instituted. If Jesus sinned, He was not God. If He ever Broke the Law of God, He was not a God.

>You can't say no now if you agree with your analysis. I cannot believe you think Christ wants us to stone cheating women.

Do not forget who first told the Hebrews that it was not only good but demanded that they should stone these whores: it was God the Father; either Christ Himself or His Father depending on your view. This law is Holy and honorable, not some vile thing to be treated with disgust like you seem to do.

That said, I personally would not be against this. If a secular government chose to employ this, we'd be duty bound to stone them. But due to the Atonement, NOT stoning them is now an option to consider.

>Trying way too hard to force Christ into not breaking the old laws.

We can take examples in which you think Christ broke the law, one by one, and see where it leads us.

>>3846

Christ did not break the Sabbath. He made the Sabbath even holier because he healed the sick man. The Sabbath is about resting but also worship and helping others.

>>3831

>>The OT says to stone adulterous women, and Christ saves a woman from being stoned for just that reason

>This section was added later and is not authentic. This event was a fabrication.

I've also read that it was inserted later. Since you are already aware of it, why hasn't this bothered you, in regards to the accuracy of the NT?

>>3875

>I've also read that it was inserted later. Since you are already aware of it, why hasn't this bothered you, in regards to the accuracy of the NT?

You just have to accept the reality that the Bible is imperfect. But God answers prayers and speaks to prophets. Heavenly Father will always give wisdom to those who ask of it.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5

>>3831

MR, how is the event of the adulterous woman a fabrication?

>>3866

>Nah, you're letting the maybe's which are there to offer context,

They are the foundation of this argument. Without them, there's no reason to assume anything other than what the author presents to us, which is very straightforward.

>this hippie feel-good interpretation of Christ as a tree hugging anarchist.

I think this is the origin of this article: it seeks to twist Christ's intention back to the OT. The problem you'll face is that if there was no change from the OT, there was also no reason for Christ to come.

>He didn't break the Sabbath, or violate Mosaic Law.

He did break the Sabbath in more ways than once.

>The adulterous woman issue is a great example of this, s He wouldn't have convinced the Pharisees with this "haven't you ever sinned :(((?" nonsense.

Is this somehow more of a miracle than walking on water now? It's the obvious meaning represented by the author. If your meaning was intended, the author would have indicated it somehow, but he never does. There isn't a single line in the passage that points to this contrived interpretation, nothing. The article continuously imagines what could be, only highlighting that at no point is there anything suggesting this interpretation. It's wishful thinking at its finest.

>Look at when this happened Chronologically. Christ had not yet performed the Atonement, Mosaic Law was still completely in effect and He knew it.

This has to be a joke. I've literally never heard of this argument before. Is this specifically LDS belief or more general?

> (Christ Himself, to Trinitarians)

You will tell me that you believe Christ believes in stoning adulterous women, but you won't believe that Christ is God, despite Christ saying so multiple times. How do you do this? We should make a thread on LDS doctrine at some point. I have tons of questions for you on that specific topic.

>>3866

>not only good but demanded that they should stone these whores:

You literally give me chills sometimes. I don't believe God actually demanded this crap; I believe humans wanted this to happen, as they don't need God to ask them to do that sort of crap. Anger and cruelty shouldn't use God as an excuse. It's what Isis does and I don't believe it's of God. This stuff makes me seriously think we should have listened to Marcion and dropped the OT entirely.

>This law is Holy and honorable, not some vile thing to be treated with disgust like you seem to do.

If you can find it in your heart that throwing stones at people until they die is a beautiful thing, then I don't know what to say in response. I feel the same disgust as Christ did, so I'd not participate to such demonic acts.

>>3872

>He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44

What's written about Him is what is written about the messiah, i.e. that He would save His people.

What Christ is doing there is use their religious base to get them to believe in Him. Nobody there assumes that there's a chance for a Jew not to believe in Moses. He's making the connection between past prophets and Himself as the Messiah.

> the transfiguration

I thought this might be what you were thinking of, but I wasn't sure exactly what happened there.

I'm fine with all this but it doesn't exclude changes in covenants; Christ merely says He is the continuation (and end) of the process. I really need to start a thread about LDS, because I keep having these questions and comments and if I tackled them here, it'd never end.

>>3874

All right, stop, because what you did just there is what I do about "breaking the Sabbath" which ends up meaning making it better and etc.

You don't do this to other cases where you can't apply this logic, though. You don't say Christ didn't want to stone the woman because love is the improvement and real meaning of the law, but for this one, you do.

You know why you do? Because you can't rationalise this one back to the OT. Christ broke Sabbath by doing things, multiple times. Yes, He explains it very well, but on a base level, it is breaking the Sabbath; on a more spiritual level, it isn't, but that's because Christ asks us to see higher, which you do in this one case but not in the stoning case. In that stoning situation, you prefer to stay at base level.

That's a double-standard and it reveals the pick-and-choose nature of these interpretations: once it's literally, once it's not.

>>3875

The event isn't a fabrication, but the connection is not explicit. It isn't explicitly said that it's the same woman, that much is true, but with context, it becomes increasingly obvious, more so to the contemporary reader.

>well at noon = avoiding other women

There's a whole context there that isn't mentioned because it's obvious to the readers of the time. I think I explained this somewhere above.

It's not a fabrication, though, I maintain. The reason why she's at the well at noon is the same as to why others want her stoned: she's an adulterous woman and for this, other women have rejected her, which makes her go get water at noon, while everyone else gets water at dawn and dusk. That stuff is obvious to desert people but if you live in Austria and get water from the tap, it won't ring any bell.

>>3879

see

>>3892

>>3891

The sabbath is still valid m9

t. adventist

The only thing Christ did about it was to show that the Sabbath its not a burden. It was something to be delighten

>>3907

>Yes, I did. I said that I wouldn't stone faggots because I don't think Christ would because of His own 2nd Commandment.

What does the Second Commandment have to do with stoning? Do you mean the 6th? I'm going to assume you meant the 6th: the original text says "You shall not murder," not just "kill", and the difference that is murder is defined as the unlawful act of killing; there are lawful acts of killing, such as the stoning of adulterous people, in the OT.

If you really meant the Second, I confess I'm lost.

>>3907

>Either you are confusing the two Mormons

I am. I didn't realise there were two Mormons on this board until about 5 minutes ago in the Mormon thread, where the other Mormon mentions you.

I went by flags, and assumed that sometimes you used your trip and sometimes not.

I made the same mistake with Discipulus, who became every Catholic flag on this board to me.

My bad.

>The story of the woman who was about to be stoned is not contained in the earliest manuscripts.

I wasn't aware of that. But I doubt it. The manuscripts virtually haven't changed from their original editions; the parts that did change or were added have square brackets around them in most Bibles, and they're generally just a line or a verse, never a whole passage as suggested here.

Nevertheless, if you have some references for this, I'd like to read about it.

>But it's still clear that Christ considers Moses to be a true prophet. If Moses was a true prophet then the list of abominations must also be true.

I wouldn't make that connection myself since we're not even sure Moses wrote any of the Torah; experts generally think he didn't write any of it (again, if I remember correctly).

> Christ did not say "You should have believed Moses, except for that one chapter where he talks about the list of abominations. It's the year 30 for fucks sake, get with the times."

I think Christ meant specifically about the long line of prophets leading to the Messiah, Himself. I honestly don't remember if Moses announced the Messiah himself or not.

>>3915

> Lets get real here. You just want to convince yourself that the chapter in Leviticus was not really God talking to Moses so you don't have to worship a God who thinks homosexuals are an abomination. This is a personal issue to you for whatever reason and that's why you've made an arbitrary distinction between that and Moses' other prophesies.

You seem to use a much wider definition of "prophesy" than I do. By "prophesy", I mean "predicting the future" exclusively.

As to it being a personal issue, I suppose the same can be said of any Christian who would rather the text mean what they personally prefer rather than something else. You'd rather Jesus consider homosexuals an abomination. My problem isn't so much that I'd rather have Jesus who doesn't consider them an abomination, my problem is that I am not certain that He does.

You think my disagreement on these points is just me pushing my own agenda. Believe what you want but I'm really just trying to understand Christ, and I am of the opinion that Christ did not forget to stress out repeatedly what mattered the most, and that does not include homosexuality and the likes.

As to the passage, according to wiki, experts disagree on it. I have no idea what to make of it. Both sides seem to agree that the story is authentic even if John didn't write it himself.

> that's why you've made an arbitrary distinction between that and Moses' other prophesies.

That's where the word "prophesy" is used different by you and I. Moses receiving laws is not something I describe as a prophesy (though I understand your meaning); to me, the "prophesy" was 100% about future things, such as the Messiah. Stop assuming that I just want to believe what I want and not the rest and that because of this, I interpret texts this or that way. I start from the text, not from my personal opinion.

>cafeteria Christian

New one to me. I'm accused of this fairly often, and the more it goes on, the more I think you're right. I think about this on a daily basis, I just always assumed that it was better to be a confused Christian than not to be Christian at all.

>you've got to provide an actual reason why false prophesy is included in the Torah and this is tolerated by Christ.

My reasoning is not grounded in nonsense. I've given you reasons for my skepticism: Moses probably didn't write it, experts think it's a sort of handbook for Rabbis from which they can select what they prefer, more or less, etc. We look at the Torah and pretend that the Hebrews had no debate over it. The Talmud is a reality and there isn't a lot that the Hebrews took the way you think every Christian and Mormon should take. By the time Christ was born, the Hebrews were divided into many subgroups with various beliefs. The Torah was much more discussed amongst Hebrews than among Christians. I suppose it's more difficult to criticise a text that doesn't come from one's own culture and wasn't written by one's own fellow.

>>3915

>What makes this particular prophesy false but the others true? How is that distinction made, and most importantly, why didn't Christ make that distinction Himself and rebuke the Leviticus 18 prophesy of Moses if it were false?

Leviticus 18 isn't a prophesy to me, as I explained above. I didn't have those two things in mind.

My understanding of Christ after reading the gospels is that Christ came to change the law, to make them fulfilled, which I understand to mean closer to home, more precise, but that way, more subtle also. Love your neighbour as yourself being the main commandment, as Christ said. Because I believe in Christ's commandment, I have a hard time believing in some of the OT customs and this idea is supported by Christ's behaviour, on which we have disagreements.

>>3918

LDS theology offers an explanation which I believe to be true, regarding why you feel the way you do, if you want to hear it.

>>3926

>I could say the same for your retro-active continuity error of making Christ act as if the Atonement had already happened.

I never said that. I don't have this vision where the change needs to take place immediately after Atonement but not before, simply because Christ is already teaching the new way before His sacrifice and since He's God, He can't be too late or too early with Himself, nor can anyone else if they follow Him.

>The Cross, man, its everything.

The cross didn't become an important symbol until centuries later. What mattered most to early Christians was the Resurrection, more than the Passion. It's still that way for the Orthodox. My Utah friend had a similar view of the Catholic crucifix, she thought it was too much focus on the dark side and not enough on the good news: the victory of Christ over death.

>And this is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy into the Gnostic beliefs of the OT being evil (and therefore not of God) or man-made (and therefore not of God), whereas I do believe that it was Jesus Christ Himself who gave men Mosaic Law and demanded the things in the OT.

I'm not a Gnostic. It's not that I believe the OT God is evil, it's that I think He's more fiction than fact, more Hebrew than God, more cultural than spiritual.

I don't believe the world was created evil, or for evil purposes (not unless we're discussing conspiracy theories, but that's another thing).

>>3928

>LDS theology offers an explanation which I believe to be true, regarding why you feel the way you do, if you want to hear it.

I don't think I'll like it, but I'm curious as ever, hit me!

>>3945

>imply because Christ is already teaching the new way before His sacrifice

There's a big difference between preparing the world for the Atonement and acting as if it had already happened. For the adulterous woman, there was no way her sin would be washed away, the Atonement had not yet taken place. The timing is key, and so is adherence and respect for the Law that He Himself introduced in the first place; and it wasn't this broken, vile "in between" thing, it was holy and righteous in its own way

If anything, the New Law is a test of our resolve; its so much easier to kill a sinner than to love him.

>The cross didn't become an important symbol until centuries later.

Not the Cross per se, but what it represents: the Atonement. I'm reiterating the importance of the Atonement.

>I'm not a Gnostic.

>it's that I think He's more fiction than fact, more Hebrew than God, more cultural than spiritual.

>not a Gnostic.

I got bad news for you, you might be at least somewhat Gnostic.

>I don't believe the world was created evil, or for evil purposes

If God commands you to stone a woman to death, how can that be evil? God has commanded it.

>>3947

When it comes to things like birth, race, class and circumstance, there's little that's coincidence. As in, God knew you in your pre-mortal existence, He knew what your resolve would be and what your inclinations would be; He knew you'd be the type to fiercely oppose to Old Law, and have this intrinsic affinity for the New Law (how deep it goes, only you know). God placed you in the time, place and circumstance where you could best excel, but also be tested. You have this drive for knowledge, and you struggle with God's actions in the past, but I imagine loving others comes easier to you; this is God's idea. Likewise, a person like me who would have had no trouble performing justice in the Old Law was born today, because that is my challenge: to love others. And there's no cheating God on that department.

I don't think your aversion or disbelief in the Old Law is an evil thing, not necessarily, and I think God has accommodated for that in your life.

>>3948

Thank you my friend, I will read this.

>>3948

>A prophecy consists of divinely inspired words or writings, which a person receives through revelation from the Holy Ghost. That's the definition I am using because that is what the LDS church uses.

I understood this eventually, but know that to others, "prophesy" will mainly mean foretelling.

>I just think that perhaps no amount of evidence will convince you. If the passage omitted homosexuality and was solely about bestiality for example would you really have such a hard time believing it?

It'd be the same, because the reasons for my doubt are the same.

>I think the bombardment of gay propaganda in today's world makes many people repulsed to even consider that Christ was "homophobic".

I don't think Christ was scared of homosexuals; as to repulsion, that probably wasn't the only thing that repulsed Him, though that's an argument from silence either way.

>Could you imagine someone preaching a sermon today about how it's a sin to fuck your dog? Of course not because it's so obviously wrong that it would be unnecessary to do so.

Leviticus does that. And having studied cultural anthropology, nothing is "obviously" wrong. You'd think swallowing 20 old men's cum is "obviously wrong", but that used to be the rite of passage of certain tribes, to become an adult, to fill yourself with the manly seed of all the elders of your tribe. From their point of view, it makes perfect sense and nobody questions or winces at the act. There are countless examples of stuff like this, so I'd not be surprised that the Hebrew did all sorts of "obviously wrong" stuff, some of which we know. Bestiality is mentioned, so one must assume it's happened. It happens today. Humans don't change much.

In other words, yes, I can imagine sermons about how it's wrong to fuck your dog. I can imagine even more easily in the times of Christ, yet He doesn't mention sex much at all.

>Talmudists believe this. It's a Talmudic Jewish idea that you can pick and choose from the Torah. Christ never taught such a concept.

To be fair, they picked and chose the Torah, to begin with. They wrote the books, they chose which would be in the Torah. The process was always "pick and choose" right from the start. The Talmud only continues what always happened.

>>3949

>There's a big difference between preparing the world for the Atonement and acting as if it had already happened. For the adulterous woman, there was no way her sin would be washed away, the Atonement had not yet taken place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Christ forgive sins long before the Atonement?

He forgives people's sins, it's one of the reasons why high priests want Him dead, and He does this before the Atonement. I think this brings down the rest of the argument.

>>3949

>I got bad news for you, you might be at least somewhat Gnostic.

Somewhat Marcionist, sure, but I don't see how I'd be Gnostic, since I don't share anything of their views.

There's a difference between believing that Jehovah is the demiurge and believing that the OT isn't the word of God.

>>3949

>If God commands you to stone a woman to death, how can that be evil? God has commanded it.

I believe God is infinitely outdone by Himself, that is, justice, goodness, love. God wouldn't ask me this, and I don't believe He ever asked anyone to do this, you know my opinion by now.

>>3949

>When it comes to things like birth, race, class and circumstance, there's little that's coincidence. As in, God knew you in your pre-mortal existence, He knew what your resolve would be and what your inclinations would be; He knew you'd be the type to fiercely oppose to Old Law, and have this intrinsic affinity for the New Law (how deep it goes, only you know). God placed you in the time, place and circumstance where you could best excel, but also be tested. You have this drive for knowledge, and you struggle with God's actions in the past, but I imagine loving others comes easier to you; this is God's idea. Likewise, a person like me who would have had no trouble performing justice in the Old Law was born today, because that is my challenge: to love others. And there's no cheating God on that department.

That's one of the most interesting ideas I've been exposed to since I came to 8chan, as far as religion is concerned.

>>3954

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Christ forgive sins long before the Atonement?

Its not like forgiveness for sins was a new concept, it just didn't work the same way and for every single person on earth, not just Hebrews. You could sacrifice offerings, you could asks the priests for forgiveness, John the Baptists forgave people (with proper authority) and likewise Christ forgave specific individuals which was ok. This is not the same as the New Law under after the Atonement where anyone ever can be forgiven and all they have to do is believe in Christ and repent.

>He forgives people's sins, it's one of the reasons why high priests want Him dead, and He does this before the Atonement

Nah its not the same. It was wrong, to them, because *He* was doing it.

>There's a difference between believing that Jehovah is the demiurge and believing that the OT isn't the word of God.

That's why I said you're only somewhat Gnostic. Its not like its a unified school of thought, they have various beliefs and theories that some Gnostics accept and some reject. The idea of the OT being false, evil or corrupt is one of those.

>justice, goodness, love.

I guess then we just have fundamentally different definitions of these words, and if they don't fit your criteria then they can't be from God.

>That's one of the most interesting ideas I've been exposed to since I came to 8chan, as far as religion is concerned.

I'm glad you found it interesting. Pre-mortal stuff is pretty cool but sadly its mostly theoretical. Hopefully more will be Revealed in my lifetime.

>>3951

>In other words, yes, I can imagine sermons about how it's wrong to fuck your dog.

I think you missed the part where I said TODAY… I meant that it would be completely absurd for an American baptist preacher for example to preach a sermon about that TODAY. That's the entire point. In the time of Christ, in Judea, it would be ridiculous to preach against homosexuality because the Jews of the time already believed that it was "obviously wrong" like I said.

>nothing is "obviously" wrong

It's called cultural taboos. Homosexuality was a cultural taboo to the Jews of Christ's time. It was "obviously wrong" to them.

>>3964

>Its not like its a unified school of thought, they have various beliefs and theories that some Gnostics accept and some reject.

When talking of Gnostics, I'm talking about actual Gnostics from back then, not whoever today trying to emulate Gnosticism. It was a group of Christians with their own interpretation of gospel. I share nothing of their beliefs. Not to my knowledge anyway.

>The idea of the OT being false, evil or corrupt is one of those.

I thought they assumed the God of the OT was not our God, simply. I'm not doing that, I don't assume there's an evil smaller deity anywhere.

>>3967

Ok, I was referring to Gnostic from today as well. Marcionism is essentially a form of Gnosticism in how it differed from "mainstream" Christianity btw.

>I thought they assumed the God of the OT was not our God, simply.

Yeah, they do that. That or otherwise being dismissive of the OT, like Marcion. What's your gripe with it, simply? That you think many of those things were just the uninspired words of men that got put in there and that God never had anything to do with Mosaic Law?

>>3968

>Yeah, they do that. That or otherwise being dismissive of the OT, like Marcion. What's your gripe with it, simply? That you think many of those things were just the uninspired words of men that got put in there and that God never had anything to do with Mosaic Law?

I'm thinking, sometimes, that Christ might have been born in another religion and culture and He would have said the same stuff.

I agree that this approach doesn't quite match with the big picture, with all the prophets and such. That's how I used to see things. Now it's more like I incorporate the OT but with reserve.

I'm still working on my understanding.

>>3973

>I'm still working on my understanding.

Heck, aren't we all.

> Now it's more like I incorporate the OT but with reserve.

This is the thing, a lot of people seem to like Jesus and profess faith in Him because they only see a certain side of Him (the "nice" side), but dismiss or put aside more unpleasant things. Or, fundamental aspects of the theology like OT stuff. The problem is, the OT is what lends validity to Jesus Christ's claims to being Divine, because His life plays out just like OT prophecies.

Anybody can be a "nice guy", that's not such an outlandish achievement. But for Christ to be a God, the OT has to be true.

>>3974

>The problem is, the OT is what lends validity to Jesus Christ's claims to being Divine, because His life plays out just like OT prophecies.

I see that more today than I did some time ago. I recently read a whole book about "The Bible" (for dummies, for kids), and it was very enlightening in that I learned tons of things I wouldn't have learned from simply just reading the Bible. Like I didn't know Paul's epistles were ordered by importance, which is why Romans is the first.

For now, I'm getting the idea that Christ being born there and then wasn't just a coincidence, so I'm more open to the idea that it was planned, announced, and that God may just have helped the Hebrews to get there, although why all this was necessary, I don't know, unless God improvised depending on the Hebrews' actions. As stated elsewhere, I believe God doesn't know the future, so that makes it more likely to have a God who tries various things and see how we react, which also fits Genesis, "And He saw that it was good," which sorta suggests He wasn't 100% sure that it would be. I'm down with that.

I used to think that the OT God was an alien overlord using technology, and I still think some parts of it definitely fit that better than anything else, especially the Ark or how to behave when "God is amongst Hebrews", which in itself is a most odd notion.

>>3967

>I thought they assumed the God of the OT was not our God, simply. I'm not doing that, I don't assume there's an evil smaller deity anywhere.

Psalm 82 does suggest the writers of the Old Testament once believed God was once one of many Gods. (Possibly the chief God.) The writer then besmirches the lesser Gods for not doing their duties.

>>3918

Man you have your theology mixed up.

Love thy neighbor is not "a law" instead is a way in which Jesus summed up the whole law. The rest of the law is summed up with the other command: "love God…"

The Bible says that the law is good, then why would God remove something is good?

>>3975

Why is God's all knowingship hard for you to accept?

If God didn't knew what would happen then he wouldn't have prefect knowledge. Which would mean God is not perfect.

>>4003

>the writers of the Old Testament once believed God was once one of many Gods.

The first commandment suggests the same, but from God directly.

>>4006

>The Bible says that the law is good, then why would God remove something is good?

Perfecting is not removing. Christ also said that divorce, for instance, was allowed by Moses due to people's hardened hearts, but that it hadn't been this way before and shouldn't. Here is a potential change that isn't about "removing" but perfecting.

As to having my theology mixed up, I don't see how what you said was so different from what I said.

And love your neighbour definitely is a law. A spiritual law more than a simple everyday law, but to discard it as some lesser rule when you yourself say it's the whole law…

>Why is God's all knowingship hard for you to accept?

Because it makes God evil, so I reject the notion. Same reason why Catholics reject Protestant predestination.

>If God didn't knew what would happen then he wouldn't have prefect knowledge.

God can choose to have things exist that He can't know about, that's not a problem to me. It's even necessary if you want to preserve God's goodness. Being perfect doesn't mean you can't make choices. God isn't evil, but He chooses to let evil exist for ulterior, and good, reasons. Same with not knowing the future. The future doesn't exist, there is nothing to know about it. God remains ominiscient and perfect. If we have free will and can take real decisions, then this idea shouldn't shock you. God allows us to be free.

>>4388

>>4388

>God's omniscience makes him evil

>God allows us to be free

how can you simultaneously believe these two statements?

>>4448

In context it makes sense. God's actualised omniscience would make Him evil, that's why He hasn't chosen to make us in a deterministic manner, just as our universe isn't deterministic, as proven by quantum theory and the likes.

>God reserves His omnipotence by not intervening in our decisions

>God allows us to be free

>God reserves His omniscience so we can be free and He not evil

Although it's not that God can know and chooses not to, it's that God chose for us to be able to make decisions that can't be guessed in advance, just like God can't second-guess Himself either, or He'd be forced to act a certain way, which would rob Him of His own free will, which can't be. That one thing cancels any idea about God knowing the future. God can't know what doesn't exist, by definition, and the future is one of those things. It's a word we use, but the future, by definition, doesn't exist. Can God know anything about the non-existent cat I have in a box? No, because there's no cat. Same problem here.

>>4449

why does omniscience make God evil?

he can be aware of every choice we make but still allow us to make them, the two are not mutually exclusive

>>4450

>why does omniscience make God evil?

>he can be aware of every choice we make but still allow us to make them, the two are not mutually exclusive

Same thing as with Predestination. If you know someone is evil and will rape someone else, and you do nothing, you partake of the act because you let it happen, knowingly. It's evil in two ways because one, the innocent person gets raped and two, the rapist goes to hell.

If God knows in advance that this will happen no matter what, then He cannot escape responsibility in this. Predestination makes God the author of sin, as the anti-Predestination theologians had it; it's even truer here.

You could argue that even with a limited foresight into the future, or even with none at all, you could argue the same thing about God's non-interventionist stance. If God doesn't know the future but lets the rape happen, is it very different… I'm thinking aloud here, bear with me.

Forget the rape example, it doesn't work. Where the example works is about human's final destination: if you create a person and know where they will invariably go, you become responsible for it, and that's something I can't believe about God.

But more than that, for God to know the future, God would have to be stuck on railroad tracks Himself, because if He knows what happens in the future, He can't change His future behaviour, and that can't work in my opinion. Knowing the future changes things. God's behaviour in the Bible doesn't suggest much foresight either, at least not certain foresight.

I'm aware my position on this is not popular and not share by many.

>>4453

Nice.