Favourite Genesis

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Again, I think you are struggling with the whole 'omniscient' thing.

What have I said that makes you think that?

Ah nothing; you just forgot to put a “Sir” in, so I didn’t realise there was a barb attached 😉

@ghost-of-a-duke said

Again, I think you are struggling with the whole 'omniscient' thing.

Only when one craftily (sic) replies to me instead of Petewxyz.

Or was it vice versa

@divegeester said
Our classification is irrelevant to the point in question, it merely serves as a reference.

The key questions remaining unanswered by your theology are:

- How do you know we are in God’s image now? Or not.
- As we are constantly evolving (as are all living things), at what point were we in God’s image?
- If we were once in God’s image is evolution improving us from that image?

There are of course others but these are the key ones I think.

Bad reading comprehension FTL.

I've answered these questions.

Too bad you didn't like my answer.

@suzianne said
Bad reading comprehension FTL.

I've answered these questions.

Too bad you didn't like my answer.

You would have been better off allowing Ghost of a Duke and Petewxyz to continue to bury your “answers” rather than keep digging them up and presenting them as trophies.

@divegeester said
We aren’t discussing me.

We are discussing what the bible says about how selected principle characters have interacted with God and how God himself has acknowledged through the bible that he has, on occasion, changed his mind.

On the contrary. You wrote:

"I also want to take this a little further and propose that in the case of the biblical God, we are able to influence him perhaps in the same why that a human child can influence its parents who are content to change their mind based on the outcomes being positive “strategically” - to use your word."


When you say 'we are able" I assumed you included yourself in that 'we.'

@divegeester said
Only when one craftily (sic) replies to me instead of Petewxyz.

Or was it vice versa

Not at all.

It is definitely yourself who fails to understand the divine attribution of omniscience, in much the same way as you fail to understand the biblical significance of altruism.

@ghost-of-a-duke said

It is definitely yourself who fails to understand the divine attribution of omniscience, in much the same way as you fail to understand the biblical significance of altruism.

I had a bet with someone about how long it would be before you needed to downshift into your altruism riff.

@divegeester said
What have I said that makes you think that?

Ah nothing; you just forgot to put a “Sir” in, so I didn’t realise there was a barb attached 😉

The Bible uses human ways to speak about God, the technical term for which is anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphic language represents God’s unchanging attributes in the changing circumstances and different moral conditions of His creatures. Passages such as Genesis 6:6 need to be taken into consideration with Numbers 23:19. In doing so, we will understand that from our human viewpoint God seems to change His mind about people, but He is only represented to us that way that we might relate to our omniscient God.

God’s mind doesn’t change because it doesn’t need to change. He knows everything, and He knows the end from the beginning. God has no plan B because there are no deficiencies or flaws in His plan A.


https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/does-god-change-his-mind/

@divegeester said
I had a bet with someone about how long it would be before you needed to downshift into your altruism riff.

It is indeed your Achilles heel.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not at all.

Yes indeed.

Previous page 10th post you accuse Petewxyz of “craftily” replacing omniscience with omnipotence.

A few posts later you follow up and tell me “again” that I am confusing one with the other.

If you want to accuse someone of being “crafty” you should take care in who you are replying to. I expect Petewxyz wondered why you were being so honest with him when he would be expecting you to overlook it.

I was surprised myself and for a moment your stock went up a few points, but then the reality of what had happened occurred to me.

I was going to let it pass, but as you seem determined to lie about your mistake...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It is indeed your Achilles heel.

It’s just another topic where we disagree, try not to carry it around in your knapsack of urbane grudges.

@divegeester said
Yes indeed.

Previous page 10th post you accuse Petewxyz of “craftily” replacing omniscience with omnipotence.

A few posts later you follow up and tell me “again” that I am confusing one with the other.

If you want to accuse someone of being “crafty” you should take care in who you are replying to. I expect Petewxyz wondered why you were being so honest with him ...[text shortened]... curred to me.

I was going to let it pass, but as you seem determined to lie about your mistake...

My post to Pete was tongue in cheek. It didn't even require an emoticon.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
My post to Pete was tongue in cheek. It didn't even require an emoticon.

Ahh, that’s what it was. Right.

@divegeester said
It’s just another topic where we disagree, try not to carry it around in you knapsack of urbane grudges.

It isn't just 'another topic.'

It is a serious flaw in your Christian understanding and a marvelous example of you digging a hole deeper for yourself.

"Altruism doesn't exist" You cry.
"But Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of all humanity. The ultimate act of altruism which, as a Christian, you are expected to emulate."
.......Deathly silence.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
When you say 'we are able" I assumed you included yourself in that 'we.'

It was a collective noun not an invitation for you to make the discussion personal, although you keep trying to do so.