A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

[marketandchurch]

This was the post that got me banned on Christian Chat:

Then God doesn't care about the goodness and decency of an atheist, a buddhist, etc. And if that is the message you are telling me, then there is no point to being a good person. There is no point of fighting on behalf of the oppressed, as America did, in WWII. The only purpose of fighting the Japanese, and beating back the Nazi's should have been so that we could bring more people to christ...is that what your saying? Should America be sending food and aid to heathens in Haiti? Should America be helping out muslims in disaster relief fallowing a natural disaster, unless it is to bring them to Christ? Is a person's only value to you, there potential to become a convert? They have no humanity beyond that?

You have an old testament my_adonai, and you are to be as obsessed with its obsessions, as you are with the new testament's. And the Old Testament's preoccupation is fighting evil, championing the good, and making a more ethical existence, during this lifetime.

And unless you think Christians alone can make this lifetime a little better, a little less genocidal, with a little less starvation, a little less torture, etc, it is an unethical message to peddle, that a good God would demand goodness, unless one doesn't believe in his son. Then one's goodness is pointless. One might as well not care about not gossiping behind other people's back, destroying someone's dignity in public, sleeping with a coworker's wife, extorting an elderly couple that one was hired to help, raping a pre-pubcescent child, killing another human being because of their skin color, etc, etc, etc.

Apparently, I was challenging people's faith, and was just there to be anti-christian, in saying that a Good God would not send to hell decent people, simply because they do not believe in his Son. I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus. I feel that I am not alone, even within the Christian community, in thinking this as I've heard many catholic priests, and mainstream protestant pastors, while I was growing up, distancing themselves from such a belief. I don't know where people on this forum stand, but I'll put it up for debate:

• Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.

If you agree with me, and are a Christian, please square your response with the rest of the New Testament. What I'm looking for is scriptural consistency to back up your position, and more importantly, how one will then re-read the entire message of the New Testament, if one wants to hold that position. I say this because I don't want you to drop scripture, simply because it doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs, but I am looking for how one can reinterpret the New testament, if one drops that central tenant, & for the rest of us, impediment, to everlasting life. Is there room for this? Or is the New Testament rigidly in the affirmative about Christ being the only way to heaven? Which is fine. That's their theology, but let's see where this goes.

[Clownboat]

I have been preached at enough throughout my life. Ironically, much of it was the same scare tactic that you just employed. (You will die, you are bad, you will burn!)

Whatever dude. I suggest you leave the scare tactics to the terrorists, if your god were true, he would have a better way to reach out to the ones he loves.

But he is not it seems, so I have nothing to fear and your words are empty.

I do hope that you will try debating and leave the preaching for church. This being a debate site after all.
Be well.

You are offended by my definition of God's will?

Not in the least. You see, I don't believe that you know that will of any god, so why would I take any offence?

My evidence comes from the Bible.

All 40,000 denominations seem to get their evidence from the Bible. I really don't understand your point here.

You don't like the warning? If I warned you not to jump off a tall building and that the result would be death would you consider that offensive too or would you go ahead and take the plunge?

What? You're not even close. I don't appreciate your preaching here on a debate site, but it doesn't bother me enough to report it.
I only was suggesting to you to leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. That does not equal not liking your warning.

The Bible is God's will revealed. Where do you get your ideas?

I use my brain. If there is a god, I would be using the brain that he gave me. The fact that you seem to prefer to get your ideas from a book written thousands of years ago by men is not my issue.

I have been accused of NOT supplying evidence for my assertions.

I assume you are talking about your preaching posts here.

How strange, then that those who oppose the Bible are allowed to make whatever fantastic claim they wish WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN.

We are all free to question claims here. You included. What we should all avoid doing is making claims that we are not prepared to back up with evidence.

If you believe God should act differently from the way He has revealed Himself to be, then present your case. Don't just sit there and be a nay sayer. It proves only that your argument is false, contradictory, and totally baseless. It proves you don't know the basis of your own argument.

Off topic, so I will be brief.
- He should have told us that woman are not the property of men.
- Slavery is wrong.
- Genocide is wrong.
- And that the earth is round.

If YOU have evidence to support your antithesis, then let's have it. Cough it up if you can and try to make it stand in the light of truth.

What is my antithesis?

But I think you cannot and so your post devolves into nothing more than protest - which in and of itself proves nothing.

I pointed out that you were preaching and using scare tactics. It is on you if you want to call that protesting. Either way, do you feel I should not be allowed to protest? What should happen to me if I were to protest something you say?

As for constant warnings I have also presented a way to escape - EVERY SINGLE TIME. The truth here is not that hell awaits, but that the writer simply doesn't want to accept the opportunity to escape it.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot show us that you speak the truth. You can only claim that you do. This is why I called your claims empty. Evidence that you speak the truth, and I will need to "eat my words".

And I've read nothing about opposition to the offer of peace, forgiveness, love and acceptance from God. Nothing at all. What's wrong with that part?

If you wanted opposition, all you had to do was ask.
- I am not OK with human sacrifice. Due to this, I appose this offer. I don't really understand why you desired this opposition, but there it is for you.

The focus of opposition has been entirely upon the negative. I have included the whole picture - the warning of destruction as well as the offer of salvation.

Would you expect people to appose things they like? Did you think this sentence through?
For myself, I am all to familiar with this "whole picture". Hearing it from you is just redundant.

The world works the same way. Behavior results in consequences. The truth is out there. It's also true that many live like spoiled children, don't want to play by the rules and cry foul when the laws of physics reveal themselves.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Life simply isn't fair and that's the truth. Deal with it.

What is your point? What kind of response (debate) are you even looking for?

But Jesus has come to save us from our sins and debauched ways.

Is this preaching, or can you show that you speak the truth. Maybe you forgot to start (or end) it with "IMO"?

Something is wrong with that?

You realize, you just asked me if there is something wrong with sacrificing a human to a god. As I said above, I am not OK with human sacrifice.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft.....

I hear ya, I really do.

[JohnA]

I have been preached at enough throughout my life. Ironically, much of it was the same scare tactic that you just employed. (You will die, you are bad, you will burn!)

Whatever dude. I suggest you leave the scare tactics to the terrorists, if your god were true, he would have a better way to reach out to the ones he loves.

But he is not it seems, so I have nothing to fear and your words are empty.

I do hope that you will try debating and leave the preaching for church. This being a debate site after all.
Be well.

You are offended by my definition of God's will?

Not in the least. You see, I don't believe that you know that will of any god, so why would I take any offence?

My evidence comes from the Bible.

All 40,000 denominations seem to get their evidence from the Bible. I really don't understand your point here.

You don't like the warning? If I warned you not to jump off a tall building and that the result would be death would you consider that offensive too or would you go ahead and take the plunge?

What? You're not even close. I don't appreciate your preaching here on a debate site, but it doesn't bother me enough to report it.
I only was suggesting to you to leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. That does not equal not liking your warning.

The Bible is God's will revealed. Where do you get your ideas?

I use my brain. If there is a god, I would be using the brain that he gave me. The fact that you seem to prefer to get your ideas from a book written thousands of years ago by men is not my issue.

I have been accused of NOT supplying evidence for my assertions.

I assume you are talking about your preaching posts here.

How strange, then that those who oppose the Bible are allowed to make whatever fantastic claim they wish WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN.

We are all free to question claims here. You included. What we should all avoid doing is making claims that we are not prepared to back up with evidence.

If you believe God should act differently from the way He has revealed Himself to be, then present your case. Don't just sit there and be a nay sayer. It proves only that your argument is false, contradictory, and totally baseless. It proves you don't know the basis of your own argument.

Off topic, so I will be brief.
- He should have told us that woman are not the property of men.
- Slavery is wrong.
- Genocide is wrong.
- And that the earth is round.

If YOU have evidence to support your antithesis, then let's have it. Cough it up if you can and try to make it stand in the light of truth.

What is my antithesis?

But I think you cannot and so your post devolves into nothing more than protest - which in and of itself proves nothing.

I pointed out that you were preaching and using scare tactics. It is on you if you want to call that protesting. Either way, do you feel I should not be allowed to protest? What should happen to me if I were to protest something you say?

As for constant warnings I have also presented a way to escape - EVERY SINGLE TIME. The truth here is not that hell awaits, but that the writer simply doesn't want to accept the opportunity to escape it.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot show us that you speak the truth. You can only claim that you do. This is why I called your claims empty. Evidence that you speak the truth, and I will need to "eat my words".

And I've read nothing about opposition to the offer of peace, forgiveness, love and acceptance from God. Nothing at all. What's wrong with that part?

If you wanted opposition, all you had to do was ask.
- I am not OK with human sacrifice. Due to this, I appose this offer. I don't really understand why you desired this opposition, but there it is for you.

The focus of opposition has been entirely upon the negative. I have included the whole picture - the warning of destruction as well as the offer of salvation.

Would you expect people to appose things they like? Did you think this sentence through?
For myself, I am all to familiar with this "whole picture". Hearing it from you is just redundant.

The world works the same way. Behavior results in consequences. The truth is out there. It's also true that many live like spoiled children, don't want to play by the rules and cry foul when the laws of physics reveal themselves.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

Life simply isn't fair and that's the truth. Deal with it.

What is your point? What kind of response (debate) are you even looking for?

But Jesus has come to save us from our sins and debauched ways.

Is this preaching, or can you show that you speak the truth. Maybe you forgot to start (or end) it with "IMO"?

Something is wrong with that?

You realize, you just asked me if there is something wrong with sacrificing a human to a god. As I said above, I am not OK with human sacrifice.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft.....

I hear ya, I really do.

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

[ttruscott]

...

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

IF HE created someone knowing they would end in hell or to end in hell, then malicious is too light a word...

therefore it is obvious that the GOD who is love did nothing like this.

I wonder if you are like the others who hammer this question, ignoring the answer in favour of keeping up the attack.

By choosing to fill heaven with only those who wanted to be there with HIM by their own true free will, He allowed others to choose to reject HIM as their god and to reject HIS promises of election and salvation from future sin, warning that to choose against HIM had the eternal natural consequence of making them addicted to sin and evil.

Demons which are created by the natural consequence of unredeemed non-belief, go to hell.

I also contend that hell is not as a punishment for sin but is a natural consequence of making yourself totally other to GOD's will (ie, heaven), so other that they can never ever fulfill HIS purpose for their creation (ie, heaven), so other they have new names, demons and devils and as outside of HIS grace that could break their addiction to sin, even though if HE could they would be atoned for,

they are irredeemable in HIS sight, never be fit to live in heaven with the righteous, the necessary prerequisite to living there.

So two natural consequences apply to those who chose to be eternal non-believers:
1. They become evil as demons and devils are evil and outside of GOD's grace.
2. They are put outside of all of GOD's creation which HE created for HIS pleasure.

Just like jumping into a lake makes you wet, rejecting YHWH as your GOD and HIS promise of salvation makes you eternally evil and sent to hell, that is, there is no intent to punish or to cause suffering though that in fact will be the case in these natural consequences.

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell? HE doesn't, but HE does let people make true free will decisions to reject HIS divinity and power by faith in HIS being a false god without power, a faith that has the inevitable consequences...they choose to go to hell because they did not believe HIM when HE said that it was inevitable.

Focusing on their non-belief instead of their irredeemable demon-hood is soft soap...

Peace, Ted

[Clownboat]

...

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

IF HE created someone knowing they would end in hell or to end in hell, then malicious is too light a word...

therefore it is obvious that the GOD who is love did nothing like this.

I wonder if you are like the others who hammer this question, ignoring the answer in favour of keeping up the attack.

By choosing to fill heaven with only those who wanted to be there with HIM by their own true free will, He allowed others to choose to reject HIM as their god and to reject HIS promises of election and salvation from future sin, warning that to choose against HIM had the eternal natural consequence of making them addicted to sin and evil.

Demons which are created by the natural consequence of unredeemed non-belief, go to hell.

I also contend that hell is not as a punishment for sin but is a natural consequence of making yourself totally other to GOD's will (ie, heaven), so other that they can never ever fulfill HIS purpose for their creation (ie, heaven), so other they have new names, demons and devils and as outside of HIS grace that could break their addiction to sin, even though if HE could they would be atoned for,

they are irredeemable in HIS sight, never be fit to live in heaven with the righteous, the necessary prerequisite to living there.

So two natural consequences apply to those who chose to be eternal non-believers:
1. They become evil as demons and devils are evil and outside of GOD's grace.
2. They are put outside of all of GOD's creation which HE created for HIS pleasure.

Just like jumping into a lake makes you wet, rejecting YHWH as your GOD and HIS promise of salvation makes you eternally evil and sent to hell, that is, there is no intent to punish or to cause suffering though that in fact will be the case in these natural consequences.

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell? HE doesn't, but HE does let people make true free will decisions to reject HIS divinity and power by faith in HIS being a false god without power, a faith that has the inevitable consequences...they choose to go to hell because they did not believe HIM when HE said that it was inevitable.

Focusing on their non-belief instead of their irredeemable demon-hood is soft soap...

Peace, Ted

For all you know, the Bible is a test so that all those who choose to believe in this homicidal god are known, and then not allowed into heaven.

Meanwhile, people who are naturally good (not good out of fear) will be rewarded with an eternity in heaven.

If there is a god that is good, would he want to be with people who are naturally good, or with people that are good because they fear some sort of hell? Would this good god really send good people to hell, while technically a murdering child molester can have a death bed conversion and go to heaven because he will never be tempted to murder and rape again (because he is conveniently dying)?

These are your beliefs and your claims, but they don't make sense to me. What is not clear is if they make sense to you, or you just believe this because of the book you seem to worship.

If I were a god, I would want to be surrounded by people that are good naturally. Would you really prefer that they believe a book over being good on their own?

[JohnA]

...

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

IF HE created someone knowing they would end in hell or to end in hell, then malicious is too light a word...

therefore it is obvious that the GOD who is love did nothing like this.

I wonder if you are like the others who hammer this question, ignoring the answer in favour of keeping up the attack.

By choosing to fill heaven with only those who wanted to be there with HIM by their own true free will, He allowed others to choose to reject HIM as their god and to reject HIS promises of election and salvation from future sin, warning that to choose against HIM had the eternal natural consequence of making them addicted to sin and evil.

Demons which are created by the natural consequence of unredeemed non-belief, go to hell.

I also contend that hell is not as a punishment for sin but is a natural consequence of making yourself totally other to GOD's will (ie, heaven), so other that they can never ever fulfill HIS purpose for their creation (ie, heaven), so other they have new names, demons and devils and as outside of HIS grace that could break their addiction to sin, even though if HE could they would be atoned for,

they are irredeemable in HIS sight, never be fit to live in heaven with the righteous, the necessary prerequisite to living there.

So two natural consequences apply to those who chose to be eternal non-believers:
1. They become evil as demons and devils are evil and outside of GOD's grace.
2. They are put outside of all of GOD's creation which HE created for HIS pleasure.

Just like jumping into a lake makes you wet, rejecting YHWH as your GOD and HIS promise of salvation makes you eternally evil and sent to hell, that is, there is no intent to punish or to cause suffering though that in fact will be the case in these natural consequences.

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell? HE doesn't, but HE does let people make true free will decisions to reject HIS divinity and power by faith in HIS being a false god without power, a faith that has the inevitable consequences...they choose to go to hell because they did not believe HIM when HE said that it was inevitable.

Focusing on their non-belief instead of their irredeemable demon-hood is soft soap...

Peace, Ted

You have not answered my questions at all.

All you did was offer that humans have free will. So, you are arguing that your god did not have a plan in mind when he created the universe and life. Your god is not all knowing since he does not know if I will by my own free will decide to repent or not. So, your god did not know that Ada.Eve would sin when he created them. That suggests your god is weak and incompetent.

Here are my questions again. Try to answer and remember that you have to deal with this isse that if humand have free will, then your god can not be all knowing. or if you god is all knowing, then humand can not have free will.


Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

[ttruscott]

...

You have not answered my questions at all.

There was only one question: Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell? I answered it. I did not answer any others though I expect my answer covers a multitude.

All you did was offer that humans have free will. So, you are arguing that your god did not have a plan in mind when he created the universe and life.

The fact that you do not like or accept free will as the answer is immaterial...you have your faith, I have mine.

To argue that free will proves GOD did not have a plan for our creation is so limited... free will is how HE decided to fulfill HIS plan.

Your god is not all knowing since he does not know if I will by my own free will decide to repent or not.

GOD knows everything fully and perfectly about that which HE decreed to be created and everything fully and perfectly about all the possibilities rising from that creation. HE did not decree the result of our true free will choices, letting us choose.

If you think that makes HIM weak, good luck with that...

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

I refer you to my first answer as adequate to this except in your oppositional state. It sounds to me like you did not even read my answer let alone think it through...

Peace, Ted

[JohnA]

...

You have not answered my questions at all.

There was only one question: Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell? I answered it. I did not answer any others though I expect my answer covers a multitude.

All you did was offer that humans have free will. So, you are arguing that your god did not have a plan in mind when he created the universe and life.

The fact that you do not like or accept free will as the answer is immaterial...you have your faith, I have mine.

To argue that free will proves GOD did not have a plan for our creation is so limited... free will is how HE decided to fulfill HIS plan.

Your god is not all knowing since he does not know if I will by my own free will decide to repent or not.

GOD knows everything fully and perfectly about that which HE decreed to be created and everything fully and perfectly about all the possibilities rising from that creation. HE did not decree the result of our true free will choices, letting us choose.

If you think that makes HIM weak, good luck with that...

Why would a good god send a non-believer in him to his hell?

Did this good god not know that the non-believer will not repent when he created the non-believer? So, this good god had no plan in mind when he created the non-believer?
Or did this good god know the non-believer will not repent, but created him solely to end up in his hell? How can this be a good god then since he is being malicious by creating some people with the sole intention to make then end in hell?

I refer you to my first answer as adequate to this except in your oppositional state. It sounds to me like you did not even read my answer let alone think it through...

Peace, Ted

Actually, there were 5 questions. You answered one, suggesting free-will.

free will is how HE decided to fulfill HIS plan.

Can you explain this?
I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick pick B.
1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
2) Or are you saying that your god KNEW in advance that I would pick B, therefore A and C was never really an option since I could never pick them?

If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
If you say Point 2, then it means your god is all knowing, but I have no free will.

Thank you.

[Danmark]

Can you explain this?
I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick pick B.
1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
2) Or are you saying that your god KNEW in advance that I would pick B, therefore A and C was never really an option since I could never pick them?

If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
If you say Point 2, then it means your god is all knowing, but I have no free will.

Thank you.

[emphasis applied]
John, I think this is a false construction. I'm referring to the phrase in bold.

This supposed god, admittedly an imaginary construct, by definition is omniscient; therefore, he knows the future which includes knowing you will choose 'B.'

Mere knowledge of what is going to happen does not constrain you. You are still free to choose 'A' or 'C.' You have those options still. The imaginary god simply knows what you will choose. It only seems that you don't have a choice, because in this academic exercise you know what 'god' knows. In reality you would not.

Let's suppose you knew that 'god' knew you would chose 'B' and therefore, just to spite him or to prove some point, you chose 'A.' You would be free to do so.

But 'god' already knew this, that you would choose 'A.' The problem is that your finite knowledge will always be subservient to 'god's' perfect and infinite knowledge, by definition.

None of this of course has anything to do with reality. It is merely an academic exercise since there is no 'god' as described above.

[JohnA]

Can you explain this?
I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick pick B.
1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
2) Or are you saying that your god KNEW in advance that I would pick B, therefore A and C was never really an option since I could never pick them?

If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
If you say Point 2, then it means your god is all knowing, but I have no free will.

Thank you.

[emphasis applied]
John, I think this is a false construction. I'm referring to the phrase in bold.

This supposed god, admittedly an imaginary construct, by definition is omniscient; therefore, he knows the future which includes knowing you will choose 'B.'

Mere knowledge of what is going to happen does not constrain you. You are still free to choose 'A' or 'C.' You have those options still. The imaginary god simply knows what you will choose. It only seems that you don't have a choice, because in this academic exercise you know what 'god' knows. In reality you would not.

Let's suppose you knew that 'god' knew you would chose 'B' and therefore, just to spite him or to prove some point, you chose 'A.' You would be free to do so.

But 'god' already knew this, that you would choose 'A.' The problem is that your finite knowledge will always be subservient to 'god's' perfect and infinite knowledge, by definition.

None of this of course has anything to do with reality. It is merely an academic exercise since there is no 'god' as described above.

Maybe I should be more clear:

I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick pick B.
1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
2) Or are you saying that your god KNEW in advance that I would pick B, therefore A and C was still options, but not options that I could pick - Option A and C existed, but I could never pick them since god already "decided and approved" me picking B due to his omniscience.

If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
If you say Point 2, then it means your god is all knowing, but I have no free will.

Is that better?

God either knows what I will eat for lunch tomorrow or not; a true dichotomy.

It is a well know issue this human free will vs god's foreknowledge; they being mutually exclusive.

[ttruscott]

...

Can you explain this?
I have to make a choice between 3 options: A, B, C.
I decide and pick pick B.
1) Are you saying that your god did not know if I would pick A, B, or C?
2) Or are you saying that your god KNEW in advance that I would pick B, therefore A and C was never really an option since I could never pick them?

If you say Point 1, then it means your god is not all knowing, but I have free will.
If you say Point 2, then it means your god is all knowing, but I have no free will.

Thank you.

Sure. POINT 1. HE did not know because HE did not decree what you should pick. What verses tell us HE is all knowing in the sense that you are using the words? Acts 15:18 'Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.' HE knows 1. HIS works 2. from the creation of the physical universe.

Using this verse which says HE knows all HIS works, as our guide, here are ten more verses about HIS all knowing:

Job 37:16 Do you know the balancings of the clouds,
the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge. Perfect in knowledge about HIS works...NOT the works HE let us do.

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit. Understanding is not the same as knowledge...

1 Samuel 2:3
Talk no more so very proudly,
let not arrogance come from your mouth;
for the LORD is a God of knowledge,
and by him actions are weighed. Not quite a GOD of ALL knowledge.

Isaiah 55:9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. Well above our thoughts ≠ orthodox omniscience.

Job 28:24 For he looks to the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens. Again referring to what HE has made and HIS awareness, not HIS knowledge...

1 John 3:19-20
By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. Close, but this everything refers to all our secrets not the everything of everything...

Hebrews 4:13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. HE is aware of us and all our secrets again...

Isaiah 46:9
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done. HE has a full knowledge of what will happen on earth - a ramification of predestination, not showing ALL knowledge...

Psalm 139:4
Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. This could refer to our choices but since HIS all knowing is about HIS works after the creation of the physical universe, it is about our predestinated lives here on earth.

Nowhere does the scripture come close to what you describe as omniscience. I know the churches teach it that way and I disagree with them too. HE is all knowing about what HE has decreed to be reality and to happen but if HE did not decree it, and so does not know it, it does not impinge on HIS GODly character as expressed in any of these verses...it only offends the minds of the orthodox who love their doctrine more than the Spirit.

Of course if you have a verse that says straight out GOD knows everything about everything, even our true free will choices....

You see, there are two definitions of omniscience of old. One, the current favourite, is that GOD is omniscient by nature. HE is that which knows all about all. The other is omniscience by decree, that is, HE knows all about what HE decreed to be reality and all the possibilities of what HE has decreed into reality. Both of these are very old doctrines but the Catholic Church won out with the current favourite and the other was condemned to heterodoxy.

So you have your definitions and I have mine and it surprises me not that yours conveniently hangs orthodox Christian doctrine out to dry because orthodox Christian doctrine is all wet and a foolishness. I would not convert until I knew what was really going on and when I found out, I gave it all my faith, and it was not orthodoxy.

Neither do I plan to change my doctrine because a non-believer accepts a false doctrine from a false church and thinks my definitions of all knowing impugn HIS divinity when I know it does not.

Peace, Ted