Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 140 by onewithhim]


[center]
Genesis flood: A small delay in the plan.
Part Six :If only God can know God, then humans can't[/center]

That it doesn't matter, for example, if some human says that "God couldn't be omniscient, or, the kind of God he should be, because he does not know everything all the time." It is God who decides what "omniscient" means and what kind of God he should be, and if he chooses to NOT know everything all the time, he is still the kind of God he should be, because only he is capable of defining what he should be.

I think you have the right idea. That "only the god itself can have a real idea of what the god actually is," and what he should be.

As an agnostic who is always quick to point out my own ignorance about gods of any kind, I have to agree. If there IS such a thing as an omniscient "God" out there, it would be the only one to know what it is in any meaningful way.

It almost seems that you agree with agnosticism, but that would surprise me very much. I take it that you believe not only in a particular kind of god, but you also seem to believe in a particular set of characteristics of the god. If we can't know what those characteristics really are... why believe that they exist in the god?

It seems contradictory to me.

Merry Xmas .. the kids all left, now I can play with my new toys all on my own...

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 140 by onewithhim]


[center]
Genesis flood: A small delay in the plan.
Part Six :If only God can know God, then humans can't[/center]

That it doesn't matter, for example, if some human says that "God couldn't be omniscient, or, the kind of God he should be, because he does not know everything all the time." It is God who decides what "omniscient" means and what kind of God he should be, and if he chooses to NOT know everything all the time, he is still the kind of God he should be, because only he is capable of defining what he should be.

I think you have the right idea. That "only the god itself can have a real idea of what the god actually is," and what he should be.

As an agnostic who is always quick to point out my own ignorance about gods of any kind, I have to agree. If there IS such a thing as an omniscient "God" out there, it would be the only one to know what it is in any meaningful way.

It almost seems that you agree with agnosticism, but that would surprise me very much. I take it that you believe not only in a particular kind of god, but you also seem to believe in a particular set of characteristics of the god. If we can't know what those characteristics really are... why believe that they exist in the god?

It seems contradictory to me.

Merry Xmas .. the kids all left, now I can play with my new toys all on my own...

But I believe we CAN know what God's characteristics are. They are evident throughout most of the Bible, and we can also see a revelation of his characteristics in the things he created. (Romans 1:20) We certainly can know what his characteristics are, and I was just bringing out that we have no right to say what it is that he must be. If he wants to refrain from knowing something for awhile, he can certainly do that, and humans should not criticize him.

Enjoy your new toys. (I'm glad Xmas is all done for now!)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 142 by onewithhim]

We certainly can know what his characteristics are, and I was just bringing out that we have no right to say what it is that he must be.

I'm with Blastcat on this one. This looks contradictory to me. We can know what God's characteristics are (in this case, omniscience), but we have no right to say what he must be, it is God who decides what 'omniscience' even means?
That looks to me like you don't know what God's characteristics are. For all you know, God changed the definition of 'omniscient' and didn't bother telling you.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 142 by onewithhim]




[center]
Genesis flood: A small delay in the plan.
Part Seven : Have our Xmas cake and eat it too[/center]

That it doesn't matter, for example, if some human says that "God couldn't be omniscient, or, the kind of God he should be, because he does not know everything all the time." It is God who decides what "omniscient" means and what kind of God he should be, and if he chooses to NOT know everything all the time, he is still the kind of God he should be, because only he is capable of defining what he should be.

I think you have the right idea. That "only the god itself can have a real idea of what the god actually is," and what he should be.

But I believe we CAN know what God's characteristics are.

Ok, you believe that only God really knows what God is, and you also believe that you can really know what God is.

That's a contradiction.
You are believing two opposite propositions.

________________________


Boring Logic Lecture Alert:

Law of Non Contradiction
In order for something to be contradictory, it must violate the law of Non Contradiction. This law states that A cannot be both A (what it is) and non-A (what it is not) at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, you have contradicted yourself if you affirm and deny the same statement. For example, if I say that God knows everything but then also say that God does not know everything, I have contradicted myself.

One way that logicians describe the law of Non Contradiction is with this kind of notation:

~(p ∧ ~P)

You are telling us that you believe P and ~P at the same time and that would be :

(p ∧ ~P), which expresses a contradiction.

________________________

They are evident throughout most of the Bible, and we can also see a revelation of his characteristics in the things he created. (Romans 1:20) We certainly can know what his characteristics are, and I was just bringing out that we have no right to say what it is that he must be.

If I say that I have no right to say what God is but then also say I have the right to say what God is, I have contradicted myself.


I think this is what you have told us:

1. We have no right to say what God must be.
2. And you seem to have the right to say what he must be, because you take it.

That's another contradiction.

If we say that P represents: " I have the right to do it ", then you are telling us:
"I have no right to do it but I have the right to do it"

In logical notation: (p ∧ ~P), which expresses a contradiction.

I know that logic might be really boring, but when someone is contradicting herself, what she is saying does not make what we call "make sense".

We can all GUESS what God is like ... if that's what you mean.
And I suppose you can base your belief on a guess too... if that's satisfactory for you. I like to believe only what I have a good reason to think is true.. not on guesses.

You can't have it both ways.... and I think right now, that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

That kind of logic doesn't compute with me.

If he wants to refrain from knowing something for awhile, he can certainly do that, and humans should not criticize him.

It's not about criticizing the God for not wanting to be omniscient. If God is omnipotent, he can do whatever he likes. If God is infinitely good, then whatever he does is "all good". The only thing that I am criticizing right now is your reasoning.


[center]God either knows everything, or he doesn't know everything.
It can't logically be both.[/center]

Enjoy your new toys. (I'm glad Xmas is all done for now!)

Thank you.
I have an extended family.. Xmas ends for me almost when it's about to begin again. ( lots of turkey )

[marco]

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5

Those who are meek will eventually prevail over those who are strong. They will inherit the land where they are now downtrodden. This says exactly the same as the first shall be last. It echoes "He shall put down the mighty and exalt the humble."

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that this means that, contrary to what is known of astronomy and the life of our solar system, humble people will live on the planet Earth into a foolish eternity, growing not old and eating apples, possessed of a humble digestive system. This is a preposterous interpretation that defies science.

It could with equal plausibility mean that some land in the Middle East will be given to those who were crushed and went humbly to slaughter: thus it could be a reference to the Jews getting their land. All the same, it is surely wrong to guess one of the interpretations and then claim this is the true one. Who is the arbiter in this?

[Claire Evans]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

"I think it has a spiritual meaning when it says the meek will inherit the earth:
Mainly, however, our inheritance is spiritual (Acts 20:32); we are heirs in the kingdom of Christ (Ephesians 5:5), and citizenship in that kingdom is available now on this earth (cf. John 3:3-5; Colossians 1:13)."

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... -the-earth


1 Peter 1:4New International Version (NIV)

4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you,

Jesus said His kingdom is not of this earth:

John 18:36


Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

We also have this:

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Matthew 24:3


And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

The earth is being destroyed. We have the likelihood of nuclear warfare, the oceans being contaminated by radiation, suffering, etc. It's not a world where I want to live in.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 142 by onewithhim]

We certainly can know what his characteristics are, and I was just bringing out that we have no right to say what it is that he must be.

I'm with Blastcat on this one. This looks contradictory to me. We can know what God's characteristics are (in this case, omniscience), but we have no right to say what he must be, it is God who decides what 'omniscience' even means?
That looks to me like you don't know what God's characteristics are. For all you know, God changed the definition of 'omniscient' and didn't bother telling you.

Unfortunately I guess he didn't tell you either.

[Divine Insight]

The earth is being destroyed. We have the likelihood of nuclear warfare, the oceans being contaminated by radiation, suffering, etc. It's not a world where I want to live in.

But none of that would matter. Remember Jesus is the guy who can say to a mountain, "move" and the mountain will move. And this is the religion that proclaims that "With God all things are possible".

So after the nuclear holocaust Jesus will just say to the world "Renew yourself" and the earth will become as pristine as the day God had first made it. And those who have been saved in the end time will have their radiation burns magically healed and their bodies returned to pristine condition.

And everyone will live happily ever-after.

Except for all those nasty people who had to be thrown into the lake of fire. But we don't care about them right? They got what they deserved.

[onewithhim]

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5

Those who are meek will eventually prevail over those who are strong. They will inherit the land where they are now downtrodden. This says exactly the same as the first shall be last. It echoes "He shall put down the mighty and exalt the humble."

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that this means that, contrary to what is known of astronomy and the life of our solar system, humble people will live on the planet Earth into a foolish eternity, growing not old and eating apples, possessed of a humble digestive system. This is a preposterous interpretation that defies science.

It could with equal plausibility mean that some land in the Middle East will be given to those who were crushed and went humbly to slaughter: thus it could be a reference to the Jews getting their land. All the same, it is surely wrong to guess one of the interpretations and then claim this is the true one. Who is the arbiter in this?

Even scientists say that they have no answers as to the origins of the universe and other matters, matters that people who believe in God have taken on to answer. If God were a reality---which scientists can't say for sure that he is not---then it stands to reason that he could cause the solar system to last forever. He created it, he certainly can see to it that it never peters out.

Why do you say people who live forever "eating apples" would have a "humble digestive system"? We will have digestive systems just like we have now. We will eat much more than apples. It is not absurd if you really think about it. Science doesn't say anything definitive against this idea.

The Scriptures mean much more than merely the Jews getting their land back. Psalm 37 says that those hoping in Jehovah will live on the earth forever. It usually isn't a good idea to leave off half of the verse.

Who is the arbiter? Jehovah has the final word, and he has appointed his Son to handle things for awhile.

[marco]

Even scientists say that they have no answers as to the origins of the universe and other matters, matters that people who believe in God have taken on to answer.

Yes, but we were talking about the life of a star, which scientists DO know about. The proposition that the elements in the sun are of finite duration is better than the proposition that planet Earth will exist forever. This sounds awfully like the old notion that the earth is the centre of the universe.

I believe you have misinterpreted Matthew to give this weird notion of eternal Earth. The verse: The meek shall inherit the land - simply means that the downtrodden won't always be downtrodden. The Beatitudes are meant to give comfort to the poor, meek, sorrowful; they weren't intended propose some new-age science. That is wishful thinking and simply ignores the obvious meaning in favour of an absurd one.


You constantly tell me to "read up" on this or that. It would be wise to question the beliefs you have been sold; the sellers may not have God's approval.