XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.magick, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic   
   From: a202010@mail.com   
      
    >> only this new thing called "David Dalton"   
    >> has become a fractalized replica of Primordial All   
    >> and David Dalton and All can get along famously   
    >> and David Dalton can go and create something /new/   
      
    >> sort of like David Dalton becomes a cell   
    >> in the over All larger picture of All   
    >> you may very well find, that,   
    >> Jesus Christ has already accomplished and   
    >> been accomplished in this very thing   
    >> and "All" has already done a new thing   
      
    > So, God does new things, and before time was the  Word   
    > and it was all planned before time began, when Jesus   
    > was the Lamb slain from before the foundation   
    > began to be set in cement, reified by   
    > the definitions of the terms   
    > without question.   
      
      
   God is very accomodating, and that is part of Gods'   
   own personality structure which does not seem to 'change'   
   but, an 'accomodation' may seem like an alteration in plans,   
   for a time, and until such time, that such plans are   
   more perfectly wrought.   
      
   as far as this Lamb Slain, most who speak of that Lamb   
   would say that it was slain -with and at- the foundation   
   of the world and not -before- where the foundation is   
   the beginning of the human beings for whom this Lamb   
   is said to be slain, and not that this Lamb was slain   
   as a pre-conception- -before- [TSM]   
      
      
   one should like to avoid bringing preconceived   
   notions with them in a reading of such a narrative   
      
   because these could cloud one's understanding   
   and get one to see a thing that may not really   
   be there in the text and this would be an   
   intrusion by the puffed up carnal mind into   
   things that he has seen but does not understand   
   fully of himself and also one who may speak of   
   things he has not seen.       Colossians 2:18   
      
   just take for example this   
   thing called 'omniscience'   
      
   -before- one looks at the pages of the narrative   
   how can one establish that God is omniscient?   
      
   all man has to go on is that some   
   phenomenon called knowledge exists,   
   and that he has some smattering of it,   
      
   so, he questions whether   
   God may have 'all' knowledge.   
      
   what he should do next is see if   
   it is possible to -test- this hypothesis.   
      
   can man devise a test that will tell   
   him whether God is omniscient or not?   
      
   it doesn't appear to be probable because   
   man is not omniscient and so, lacks the   
   actual datum by which to compare God's   
   overall knowledge,   
      
   so, man cannot credibly test any   
   claim that God may be omiscient.   
      
   all you can really say is   
   that God -may- be omniscient,   
      
   but this surmise is not useful in building   
   a larger picture of God's own nature,   
   simply because it is untestable by man.   
      
   one should avoid assuming the conclusion.   
      
   having said that;   
      
   now, picking up a book and scouring through   
   it looking at passages which mention God's knowedge   
   base, should not be viewed through man's axiomatic   
   -assumption- that God =is= omniscient when in fact,   
   all man can say is that God -may- be omniscient.   
      
   and so, while we can conclude that God's   
   knowledge of God and the creation is   
   comprehensive,   
      
   we can also acknowledge that God can grant   
   the creation some very definite ability   
   to act on its own without all such action   
   being absolutely known before hand.   
      
   this is knowing all things that are known.   
      
   also, while we can acknowledge that   
   there may be options open to the creation,   
      
   we can just as easily say that God would   
   know what -could- be the outcome of all options.   
      
   so, one can easily see that God -could- say;   
      
   "if A then B   
   and   
   if C then D   
      
   where God knows both B and D   
      
   but where God has left the option   
   of A or C to the creation.   
      
   so this still shows that God can know   
   all possible outcomes without suggesting   
   that God forces a specific outcome.   
      
   when this concerns molecular machinery   
   that doesn't seem to operate by any   
   specific choice of its own, you   
   don't -have- to say that God configures   
   each snowflake each time one appears,   
   but you can if you like,   
      
   and when it concerns a man's optional   
   involvements, in his own destinations   
   we don't -have- to suggest that God   
   has preconfigured a man's life but   
   you can say this if you want to.   
      
   considering passages from such narrative;   
      
   ==   
   Who is wise and understanding among you?   
   Let him show by good conduct that his works   
   are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you   
   have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts,   
   do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom   
   does not descend from above, but is earthly,   
   sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking   
   exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.   
   But the wisdom that is from above is first pure,   
   then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy   
   and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.   
   Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace   
   by those who make peace.      James 3:13-18   
      
   rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith,   
   as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.   
   Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and   
   empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,   
   according to the basic principles of the world,   
   and not according to Christ.    Colossians 2:7-8   
   ==   
      
            James says there is a 'wisdom' that comes from above   
             and a wisdom from below and Paul says don't be lead   
             astray by the 'wisdom' that comes from below.   
      
      
   the "philosopher god" is of a human devise and invention   
   id est, "the god of the philosopher" and is described as   
   being 'omniscient' and so, it may be suggested that   
   no real 'free will' is possible inasmuch as 'god'   
   knows all things in advance and therefore, a man,   
   has no real choice in any matter.   
      
   this suggests that a man has no will of his own   
   because when he acts, he acts according to   
   'god's will'   no matter what he does.   
      
   this describes a 'god' who is at war with itself.   
      
   one problem is that this must contend that   
   'god' thinks as the carnal mind of man.   
      
   and has absolute foreknowledge of all of man's   
   hearsays, rumors, misunderstandings and outright lies.   
      
   it would forced to suggest  that 'god' is responsible   
   for a man's own misunderestandings and outright lies.   
      
   and then you have a 'god' who, essentially is   
   'omniscient' -and- misunderstands -itself- inasmuch   
   as all actions of the man are predetermined.   
      
   which thing must therefore be excluded   
   as contradictory and unreasonable.   
      
   so, when you suggest that 'God' is 'omniscient'   
      
   this 'omniscience' may be tempered   
   -with- a man's own 'free will'   
      
   for starters, this 'god' is -not- the   
   God described in the so-called   
   'revelatory' literature.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)