On 8 Sep, 16:20, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Pat <[email protected]>:
>
> > Of course. For example, I don't know your middle name. But, then,
> > how vital is that to what I need to do?
>
> So you feel that God has made you aware of everything that is of
> consequence? When it comes to things of consequence you do, indeed,
> know as much as God?
>
> > If God is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, then He's a
> > liar. Since God has instructed us to not lie, it would be foolish to
> > think that He doesn't follow His own laws.
>
> You deny God the ability to change his mind?
Yes. An omniscient entity that follows His own laws would not lie or
change His mind about anything. Thus why He made such statements as
'everlasting covenant'.
>Since God is the ultimate
> source of truth it is impossible for him to lie not because of any
> external regulation but because everything that he says is, by
> definition, true.
>
> For example at time T1 God could say that for Pat to get into Heaven
> he must do X. That would be true since all that God says is true.
>
> At time T2 God says that X is not correct and instead Pat must do Y to
> get into heaven. That would also be true. Did God lie at T1?
>
> No.
>
> Why not? Because everything that God says, by definition, is true.
>
Alternatively, the entities stating T1 and T2 may not be the
same. One must test the source. In my own experience, I was given
knowledge that I could not have formed from my own mind. This served
as a validation that the entity involved was not a machination of my
own and had knowledge beyond my own. God, and His servants, usually
prove themselves so that there is no confusion. Those that don't are
to be suspected.
> You seem to want to nail God down based on an external source of
> truth. That doesn't sound right to me.
>
Which external source? Logic?
> So, it seems to me that you can never know God's purpose unless you:
>
> A) Make him subject to an external source of judgment for truth and lies
What external source do you intend, here? There is nothing external
to God.
> B) Deny him the ability to change his mind
There are many things God can't do. Omnipotence does NOT mean being
able to do everything concievable, such as round squares and other
illogical premises.
> C) Assume that you know all that God knows vis a vis his purpose
>
Knowing God's purpose and knowing MY purpose are two different kettles
of fish. I would never pretend to know the full extent of God's
purposes in particular. In general, though, His purpose is to perform
all that is possible for energy to do. And that's a huge amount.
> Is that what you do?
>
Partially, as described above and partially not, as also described
above.
> > I think Orn thrashed you enough on this, so I won't do it again.
>
> That is an overstatement. His assertion of tautology was based on what
> I said being slightly misunderstood. I stand by my feeling that
> self-validating experiences are not valid in an argument.
I understand what you're saying but my experience was not just self-
validating. I had to go to an expert in order to decipher/understand
the knowledge I was given. So, in that particular revelatory
experience, it was not self-validated but part of the message was
validated by an expert (a Rabbi) in ancient languages (in this case,
Hebrew). Plus, I've only just started to realise that there was, in
that message, another, hidden message--and I'm still working on
figuring that bit out, as my knowledge of Hebrew (and Kabbalah) has
dramatically increased over the past 20 years.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
