Does God "CHOOSE" not to know the future?

[Brickjectivity]

You guys are really getting into you, but I haven't heard anyone discuss whether God changes the past. Wouldn't that put a crimp into everything?

 

[Skwim]

Sorry.

/scratches her head/

Its right here:

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

If God created good, evil comes with the package. Its not that he agrees with evil. Its just when you create a positive, there will always be a negative "with it."

So, God created evil And that is okay. Thats how you were saved, by product of sin. If there was only good coming from God, then there would be no evil. If God did not create evil, how would it exist? How could the devil be the devil if god didnt create the angel (with the tendency to do evil) to begin with?

You kinda nee evil to be saved. Id say, as it says in Psalms as well, God created it for a reason. I dont see how that could be a problem?

Hockeycowboy addressed this very issue in post 232 when I asked him (post 231)

"Guess you missed my remark in post 219:

"So if god didn't mean he created evil, as in the past, then when he said "I. . .create evil" either he was doing so at that very moment,or was doing so at that very moment and continues to do so. Take your pick.

So, what's your choice ?

☐ God was creating evil at the moment he was speaking

☐ God was creating evil at the moment he was speaking and continues to do so"​

Might want to take a look at his answer. HERE

 

[Robert.Evans]

I believe it is.



Contrary to popular belief, I believe the evidence points to the notion YHVH is not only the Father's name, but a distributed family title shared by the entire YHVH/God family, which would include the Son. It is semantically similar to a surname in our modern society. An analogy would be my son and I (his father) are both named Mr. Smith (fictitious name). Therefore, we are both referred as "Smith". I am [Mr.] Smith--the father. My son is [Mr.] Smith--the son.

Similarly, YHVH/God the Father is identified in scripture as [Mr.] YHVH. His sons(s)--including Christ and the angels--are known as "elohim" and at times identified as [Mr.] YHVH. As they are all part of the YHVH family.

Don't have too much problem with that; but who then is the God of the old testament (OT)? Is that the father, son, or someone else? He does after all, command some things which people now would consider to be wrong. Is there an evil God in this family of Yhvh and if so, who is it? And if there is not, then how can Yhvh say that he does such things?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God was creating evil at the moment he was speaking and continues to do so"

Id pick this. But there is too many posts. What are you getting at?

I also agree with the "here" post when he talks about god continously using people to do evil (like kill) to protect his people.

So if he didnt create evil, he sure is self promoting it. I stoped thinking about the nature of the Christian god after stoped reading the Bible.

Also, how does that connect to "when you create good, bad comes with the package"?

 

[Skwim]

Id pick this. But there is too many posts. What are you getting at?

That Hockeycowboy evidently finds god's remark so troubling that he can't face it. However, that doesn't stop him from changing the subject and babble on about irrelevancies.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why do I ask? Because, opinions are a dime a dozen. We need to support what we believe with Scripture!
And I see you're Muslim, so that would be the Koran for you, the Bible for me. There is some agreement, between the two. Especially with regard to conduct. One big difference, tho, is that the Bible never supports Christians killing anyone, only to love others, even their enemy.

"I come not bring peace, but the sword." -- Jesus

Similarly, YHVH/God the Father is identified in scripture as [Mr.] YHVH. His sons(s)--including Christ and the angels--are known as "elohim" and at times identified as [Mr.] YHVH. As they are all part of the YHVH family.

Well, I have to say that's the most unique way I've heard it explained...

 

[james2ko]

Don't have too much problem with that; but who then is the God of the old testament (OT)? Is that the father, son, or someone else?

1. I believe it was God the Son. I believe The OT was a lesson for the Son on how us humans tick in preparation for His role as Savior. Although, The Father is referenced at times.

He does after all, command some things which people now would consider to be wrong.

2. Paul tackles this issue in Romans 9. His rhetorical answer concerning God's hardening of Pharoah's heart preventing Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites earlier than God prescribed:

Rom 9:18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and He chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
Rom 9:19 Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven't they simply done what He makes them do?"
Rom 9:20 No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the One who created it, "Why have you made me like this?"
​

In other words, how dare we puny humans question God's sovereignty?

Is there an evil God in this family of Yhvh and if so, who is it? And if there is not, then how can Yhvh say that he does such things?

3. Yes. Satan is still part of the family, as he is referred to as one of the sons of God (Job 1:6; Job 2:1). God utilizes satan and his demons as unwitting agents to carry out, what we would deem, "evil" aspects of His ultimately good plan. This is how God can claim:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (RWB)

Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come? (NIV)

Ecc 7:13 Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what He has made crooked? 14 When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other. Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future. (NIV)
​

And many more.

 

[Oeste]

Which one?

Which ever one he is talking about.
Pay attention.

Good questions, and a good observation.

Which God are we talking about...God as viewed by the Watchtower or God as viewed by traditional Christianity?

The Watchtower God is at times future ignorant because he can choose not to see it. Even when he does he is limited by man's free will possibilities. It's a God very similar in concept to Jupiter, Odin, and Zeus:

Of course, the Watchtower no longer teaches that God lives in the constellation Pleiades as "truth", but they still think in terms of a spatial god...in other words, a god in our own image.

In contrast, the traditional Christian view of God is much different:

God does not live in His creation but transcends it. All of man's free will possibilities lie within the creation of His making (including time...past, present, future), so God "sees" all potential possibilities. There is nothing that could possibly occur beyond His purview.

It's a much different view of God than that held by pagans, and radically different from that of the Watchtower. The first illustration shows a God who can "choose not to know", the second a God who knows all there is.

 

[cambridge79]

i would have a possible explanation better than "he choses not to know the future"

You may consider god and you like the relation between you and your puppy.
now with a puppy you know he is gonna poo on the floor, yet you wait till he actually pooes on the floor and than you scold him so ultimately he is not gonna poo on the floor on the long run.
you could think god knows you're gonna sin and he lets you sin so he can scold you.

problem is this raises two more question:
- god would actually consider us very stupid. I mean, i love my dog but i don't have very high expectations from him, if he can roll on his back and give me the paw i'm already satisfied. that's why i treat him this way.
- god would have some anger management problem, because if he knows you're gonna sin when you're actually going to sin it makes no sense that he goes so angry that he floods the whole planet or nukes two cities.

so i'm not sure the possible solution i've provided solves more problems that it raises.
( and this because ultimately we're trying to put sense in something that lacks it )

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"I come not bring peace, but the sword." -- Jesus

"Love your enemy." -- Jesus.

Was he contradicting himself? No, he never did. How must a person understand this, "I come not to bring peace, but the sword" then?

Well, did he ever carry a sword? No. Though, On the night before his death, he asked Peter to bring a sword. But when it was used, he told Peter to put it back in it's sheath. "For everyone who lives by the sword, will perish by the sword."
So he wasn't supporting the idea of using swords and killing others.

He was aware, however, that his true followers would endure persecution from their families, and be hated by the world; they would use swords and violence against his followers.

To understand his words as you implied it, would be to contradict his other statements.

Take care.

 

[Skwim]

"Love your enemy." -- Jesus.

Was he contradicting himself? No, he never did. How must a person understand this, "I come not to bring peace, but the sword" then?

Well, did he ever carry a sword? No. Though, On the night before his death, he asked Peter to bring a sword. But when it was used, he told Peter to put it back in it's sheath. "For everyone who lives by the sword, will perish by the sword."
So he wasn't supporting the idea of using swords and killing others.

He was aware, however, that his true followers would endure persecution from their families, and be hated by the world; they would use swords and violence against his followers.

To understand his words as you implied it, would be to contradict his other statements.

Take care.

So you pretend that the sword (Matthew 10:34) isn't metaphorical but an actual sword, and address the contradiction as such. Other than being ridiculous it's kind of disheartening.

 

[Robert.Evans]

1. I believe it was God the Son. I believe The OT was a lesson for the Son on how us humans tick in preparation for His role as Savior. Although, The Father is referenced at times.



2. Paul tackles this issue in Romans 9. His rhetorical answer concerning God's hardening of Pharoah's heart preventing Pharaoh from releasing the Israelites earlier than God prescribed:

Rom 9:18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and He chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
Rom 9:19 Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven't they simply done what He makes them do?"
Rom 9:20 No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the One who created it, "Why have you made me like this?"
​

In other words, how dare we puny humans question God's sovereignty?



3. Yes. Satan is still part of the family, as he is referred to as one of the sons of God (Job 1:6; Job 2:1). God utilizes satan and his demons as unwitting agents to carry out, what we would deem, "evil" aspects of His ultimately good plan. This is how God can claim:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (RWB)

Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come? (NIV)

Ecc 7:13 Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what He has made crooked? 14 When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other. Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future. (NIV)
​

And many more.

You have reminded me of that idea I heard years ago, that the garden scene and the OT is Jesus. But there is a problem in that I think. The general idea is that he came to show a better way; a better understanding of the Text. Do you agree? Yet he says, do not say anything bad about your brother, let alone strike him; and also that you don't retaliate against your enemy- is that not hypocritical? How can he say basically, 'be good', though not like me in the OT when I was telling them to kill man and woman. How then would he be an example? What are you saying then? He has changed? Learnt the error of his ways? Is that why he was crucified? I think there has to be a good and an evil. But I think saying that one who is supposed to be sinless (which he wouldn't be) and the perfect sacrifice, would then be wrong. So surely he would have to be wholly good- not evil.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Good questions, and a good observation.

Which God are we talking about...God as viewed by the Watchtower or God as viewed by traditional Christianity?

The Watchtower God is at times future ignorant because he can choose not to see it. Even when he does he is limited by man's free will possibilities. It's a God very similar in concept to Jupiter, Odin, and Zeus:

Of course, the Watchtower no longer teaches that God lives in the constellation Pleiades as "truth", but they still think in terms of a spatial god...in other words, a god in our own image.

In contrast, the traditional Christian view of God is much different:

God does not live in His creation but transcends it. All of man's free will possibilities lie within the creation of His making (including time...past, present, future), so God "sees" all potential possibilities. There is nothing that could possibly occur beyond His purview.

It's a much different view of God than that held by pagans, and radically different from that of the Watchtower. The first illustration shows a God who can "choose not to know", the second a God who knows all there is.

My understanding would be that he knows how all things ineract with each other, from atom to atom, from man to man. So he knows what will happen as he knows the reaction that will take place. How does he know this? Because everything follows a pattern- nothing new under the sun said the wise man... as it is written

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Love your enemy." -- Jesus.

Was he contradicting himself? No, he never did. How must a person understand this, "I come not to bring peace, but the sword" then?

Well, did he ever carry a sword? No. Though, On the night before his death, he asked Peter to bring a sword. But when it was used, he told Peter to put it back in it's sheath. "For everyone who lives by the sword, will perish by the sword."
So he wasn't supporting the idea of using swords and killing others.

He was aware, however, that his true followers would endure persecution from their families, and be hated by the world; they would use swords and violence against his followers.

To understand his words as you implied it, would be to contradict his other statements.

Take care.

But he did say he came to turn families against one another.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you pretend that the sword (Matthew 10:34) isn't metaphorical but an actual sword, and address the contradiction as such. Other than being ridiculous it's kind of disheartening.

I think it would mean both as it is scripture and has to work on many levels.

 

[metis]

Though I agree in part, How is it a bi-product?

Because you can't have one without the other. If something is "good", then there must be something that's "bad". If all was supposedly "good", then we wouldn't be using that term.

Like I sometimes tell my grandkids when they're down, "It's the bad days that make the good days good".

 

[james2ko]

You have reminded me of that idea I heard years ago, that the garden scene and the OT is Jesus. But there is a problem in that I think. The general idea is that he came to show a better way; a better understanding of the Text. Do you agree? Yet he says, do not say anything bad about your brother, let alone strike him; and also that you don't retaliate against your enemy- is that not hypocritical? How can he say basically, 'be good', though not like me in the OT when I was telling them to kill man and woman.

1. I believe the central tenet of the bible is obedience to God's commands. If God commands us or a spirit being to perform an evil act, it is not considered "sin". Sin would be disobeying His command. King Saul found that out the hard way (1 Sam 15). God commanded Him to kill all the men, women, children, and animals of the Amalekites. Saul killed every man, woman, and child but spared the sheep and oxen. Yet God considered Saul's disobedience as the evil act! (vs 19). Abraham also obeyed an evil command by God to sacrifice a human life.

If God can command us to "sin", it stands to reason He, through His evil agents, can also make us sin to fulfill His sovereign, yet ultimately good plan (1 Ki 22:20-23). In the NT, Christ and the apostles seem to place their focus on expounding God's "good" commands.

How then would he be an example?

2. I don't believe He's trying to be our example . We are simply to obey what He commands. Us mortals operate on a much different level than immortals. We cannot perceive the future results of our good or evil actions, but God can. This great existential chasm allows Him to operate above His own law, while demanding humans to obey it. This is the principle Paul is trying to convey in Romans 9:18-20. This paradox is what prompted Paul to conclude:

Rom 11:33 Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand His decisions and His ways! (NLT)​

What are you saying then? He has changed? Learnt the error of his ways? Is that why he was crucified? I think there has to be a good and an evil. But I think saying that one who is supposed to be sinless (which he wouldn't be) and the perfect sacrifice, would then be wrong. So surely he would have to be wholly good- not evil.

3. Jesus explicitly stated the Father is the only One who is "good" (Mar 10:18). There seems to be a fundamental difference between being "good" and being "sinless". Scripture indicates Christ was the latter. But not necessarily the former.

 

[Skwim]

Jesus explicitly stated the Father is the only One who is "good" (Mar 10:18). There seems to be a fundamental difference between being "good" and being "sinless". Scripture indicates Christ was the latter. But not necessarily the former.

So, do you think Jesus ever told a lie? How about teasing the girls. Think he ever smooched anyone?

 

[james2ko]

So, do you think Jesus ever told a lie? How about teasing the girls. Think he ever smooched anyone?

I know He never told a lie because scripture says He was without sin. Nothing in my bible about him teasing girls or smooching.

 

[dust1n]

When "good" is created, "evil" is a by-product of that same creation. One cannot exist without the other.

Which is pretty much yet another contradiction considering he can supposedly do anything.