Does God "CHOOSE" not to know the future?

[Hockeycowboy]

I

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

I state, again (as in my previous post), he warned his followers that there would be tension with their families because of the course of life they chose, following Jesus, but the fighting wouldn't come from his followers; it would be on the part of their non-believing family members.

 

[metis]

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

Just for the record, I make no such assumption.

 

[dust1n]

Just for the record, I make no such assumption.

Good thing. I'm not aware anywhere in the Bible it explicitly makes the case that he can do anything, except Jesus said it once Matthew.

EDIT: Just noticed after like 3 months and 20 something posts that this is in the scriptural debates section, so I'm dippppin.

 

[metis]

Good thing. I'm not aware anywhere in the Bible it explicitly makes the case that he can do anything, except Jesus said it once Matthew.

Yes, and there's statements found in the Tankah, such as God telling the prophet Samuel that He did not know that Saul was going to turn out to be such a jerk as Saul was trying to hunt down David.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, and there's statements found in the Tankah, such as God telling the prophet Samuel that He did not know that Saul was going to turn out to be such a jerk as Saul was trying to hunt down David.

Well, that's interesting, because that calls into question God's omniscience, which the Tankah does plainly state. But, presumably being all-powerful would include knowing everything, since acquiring knowledge is a sort of action, or would at least never be unavailable.

 

[metis]

Well, that's interesting, because that calls into question God's omniscience, which the Tankah does plainly state. But, presumably being all-powerful would include knowing everything, since acquiring knowledge is a sort of action, or would at least never be unavailable.

The apparent variations don't bother me one iota since I'm very far from being a scriptural literalist.

 

[dust1n]

The apparent variations don't bother me one iota since I'm very far from being a scriptural literalist.

Just curious, but what does that entail? Is it like a metaphorical illustration illuminated by God, or He did just do a casual run-over and sign off on it, or is it entirely human made by people who had some sort of special insight into God?

 

[metis]

Just curious, but what does that entail? Is it like a metaphorical illustration illuminated by God, or He did just do a casual run-over and sign off on it, or is it entirely human made by people who had some sort of special insight into God?

I don't know, nor do I even assume that "God" depicted in the Jewish/Christian scriptures is even close to being correct. Instead, I tend to feel that all scriptures try to convey their beliefs in God or Gods, which are probably based on hearsay. Most, if not all, undoubtedly come about from oral traditions passed on down for decades to centuries, and "The myths became the reality", as Joseph Campbell often stated.

Instead, my approach is to take all religious narratives as allegory and see what makes sense and what's useful. It's an imprecise art, no doubt, but it has helped me pick out what is most important with these narratives.

 

[dust1n]

I don't know, nor do I even assume that "God" depicted in the Jewish/Christian scriptures is even close to being correct. Instead, I tend to feel that all scriptures try to convey their beliefs in God or Gods, which are probably based on hearsay. Most, if not all, undoubtedly come about from oral traditions passed on down for decades to centuries, and "The myths became the reality", as Joseph Campbell often stated.

Instead, my approach is to take all religious narratives as allegory and see what makes sense and what's useful. It's an imprecise art, no doubt, but it has helped me pick out what is most important with these narratives.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

 

[metis]

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

You're welcome. Does this in any way parallel your approach, out of curiosity?

 

[dust1n]

You're welcome. Does this in any way parallel your approach, out of curiosity?

I suppose it depends on the book. They are all pretty nuanced, so I suspect having the greatest understanding of basically 1200 BC - 400 BC would a great place to start.

I suspect the identity of Jewish people probably began as a result of Egyptian and Assyrian hegemony on fractured tribes set around the Levant and Judea etc. In as such, the books were a formalization of oral history regarding these tribes and their surrounding neighbors, and the writings were eventually canonized, from materials that sought to reconcile a history, a war for self-determination, and the learned lessons to ensure continuity.

 

[metis]

I suppose it depends on the book. They are all pretty nuanced, so I suspect having the greatest understanding of basically 1200 BC - 400 BC would a great place to start.

I suspect the identity of Jewish people probably began as a result of Egyptian and Assyrian hegemony on fractured tribes set around the Levant and Judea etc. In as such, the books were a formalization of oral history regarding these tribes and their surrounding neighbors, and the writings were eventually canonized, from materials that sought to reconcile a history, a war for self-determination, and the learned lessons to ensure continuity.

Well said.

 

[dust1n]

Well said.

Thanks. At the end of the day, I don't consider texts transcendental, so it's going to hard to even get a basis of intent when so many people are involved and so many unknowns are about.

I mean, I truly sympathize with anyone living before WW2. Just the sheer difficulty and uncertainty of life, and the complete devoid of any other knowledge other than basically tons and tons of experienced relayed mostly by their immediately family and tribal societies by direct teaching, there's no reason that at the time I'd likely have a better manner to living. I suspect most worked so much as to never really afford too much time getting to sit around and reflect on this things to their fullest extent. It's not much different nowadays. Most of the laws and rules are assembled by chieftains and warlords to settle petty squabbles among their ranks. I have no particular reason to believe that witty, empty, aphorisms of the ancient past are more salient than anything I might able to come up with.

I mean, I obviously believe in no god, or morality, or teleology, or knowledge per se, so I don't think these people have any special basis. But it probably it has a lot of evolutionary basis for social cohesion in a world that is ultimately empty, and that human natural language has no ability to describe. Same for the mythology of humanity in general, which has a natural inclination to make up stories where heroes endure the harsh reality and make to the supposed pay off at the end. Psychologically, it makes sense to me humans tend to be attracted to these stories which offers them the comfort that their own adversities will be rewarded, if they do the rights beforehand; that they can assured great things will triumph.

 

[metis]

Thanks. At the end of the day, I don't consider texts transcendental, so it's going to hard to even get a basis of intent when so many people are involved and so many unknowns are about.

I mean, I truly sympathize with anyone living before WW2. Just the sheer difficulty and uncertainty of life, and the complete devoid of any other knowledge other than basically tons and tons of experienced relayed mostly by their immediately family and tribal societies by direct teaching, there's no reason that at the time I'd likely have a better manner to living. I suspect most worked so much as to never really afford too much time getting to sit around and reflect on this things to their fullest extent. It's not much different nowadays. Most of the laws and rules are assembled by chieftains and warlords to settle petty squabbles among their ranks. I have no particular reason to believe that witty, empty, aphorisms of the ancient past are more salient than anything I might able to come up with.

I mean, I obviously believe in no god, or morality, or teleology, or knowledge per se, so I don't think these people have any special basis. But it probably it has a lot of evolutionary basis for social cohesion in a world that is ultimately empty, and that human natural language has no ability to describe. Same for the mythology of humanity in general, which has a natural inclination to make up stories where heroes endure the harsh reality and make to the supposed pay off at the end. Psychologically, it makes sense to me humans tend to be attracted to these stories which offers them the comfort that their own adversities will be rewarded, if they do the rights beforehand; that they can assured great things will triumph.

It appears that we are pretty much on the same page here-- therefore you might really want to reconsider your position.

 

[dust1n]

It appears that we are pretty much on the same page here-- therefore you might really want to reconsider your position.

Ah, well only if all religious people took a nuanced view at their own literature, and everything else in the world as well. Though, anyone could use a hearty dose of that on a continuous basis, nonreligious included.

 

[metis]

Ah, well only if all religious people took a nuanced view at their own literature, and everything else in the world as well. Though, anyone could use a hearty dose of that on a continuous basis, nonreligious included.

Yep. As an anthropologist (retired), the study of religions is terribly important since it is considered one of the five basic institutions that all societies as far back as we can them have (the other four are family, political, economic, and education). I have never met a single anthropologist who pretty much doesn't question just about anything and everything when dealing in this area since there's simply no objectively-derived evidence even for there being a god or gods, plus we see so many variations of beliefs without having any ability to tell which may be right.

However, I am not going so far as to say that there can't be one or more. Since you can tell somethings about an artist by looking at their work, if god(s) do exist, I tend to think it's likely to be so intertwined with nature that maybe they're inseparable. But then, what do I know?

 

[12jtartar]

Hello all! It's been awhile since I've posted on here but, as some of you know I have a JW friend that I visit with every week. The past couple of weeks we've been discussing how God can choose not to know the future. He (my friend) says that it is his belief that God didn't know Adam was going to sin, nor did He know that satan was going to tempt them. My friend explained that, "if God knows what I'm going to do tomorrow at 6:00, then I don't have free will because God knows I'm going to do it." I tried to explain that God knows the choice he (my friend) is going to make, but he didn't understand that. What are your beliefs/understandings/opinions on this? I believe God knows everything and does not choose not to know.

djhwoodwerks,
Think!!! If God knew beforehand everything that any person was going to do, it would mean that God had all these wicked things that men did in His own mind. If God knew before they happened, it would mean that nothing ever done would be a surprise to Him. Remember, over some things that happened, God felt hurt in His heart, and some things he regretted, Genesis 6:5-7. Why would God feel regret, and destroy all people, except Noah and his family, if He already knew that the ruining of the earth was going to take place?? If God created men and placed them on earth and knew everything they were going to do before they did it, then the responsibility would be God's, because once God knows what is going to happen, in MUST happen that way, and especially, if it is written down. The evil that men would do would have been in God's mind before any man did evil.
For just the reason you stated, God does not look ahead, or foreknow men's actions, because if He did, people could say that they had no choice, because God had already decided their actions.
Remember, God is going to bring everyone to judgment for their actions, and it would be unjust if their actions were already preplanned, and God is always just in all His dealings, Deuteronomy 32:4,5, Job 34:10,12, Revelation 22:12, Romans 2:2-13.
When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect, and He stated what He wanted them to do, Genesis 1:26-28. They were created to live forever, they could only die, if they rebelled against God, Genesis 2:17. God had given them everything they could want. For all God's blessings, He gave them one way that they could show Him that they appreciated all the things He did for them, Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil !!! At that time three was no evil, the rebelling against God was the evil that they would know, if they decided to obey Satan instead of God.

 

[Tumah]

Hello all! It's been awhile since I've posted on here but, as some of you know I have a JW friend that I visit with every week. The past couple of weeks we've been discussing how God can choose not to know the future. He (my friend) says that it is his belief that God didn't know Adam was going to sin, nor did He know that satan was going to tempt them. My friend explained that, "if God knows what I'm going to do tomorrow at 6:00, then I don't have free will because God knows I'm going to do it." I tried to explain that God knows the choice he (my friend) is going to make, but he didn't understand that. What are your beliefs/understandings/opinions on this? I believe God knows everything and does not choose not to know.

I think that G-d knows everything since He is everything and He is Himself.
Only, to make the creation possible, before the creation He constricted Himself. One of the effects of this constriction, is that G-d's knowledge doesn't affect/effect the creation where He doesn't want it to. Specifically, that usually applies to an individual's ability to make choices that effect his spiritual standing. And in a more limited scope, to a nation's.

 

[Skwim]

djhwoodwerks,
Think!!! If God knew beforehand everything that any person was going to do, it would mean that God had all these wicked things that men did in His own mind. If God knew before they happened, it would mean that nothing ever done would be a surprise to Him. Remember, over some things that happened, God felt hurt in His heart, and some things he regretted, Genesis 6:5-7. Why would God feel regret, and destroy all people, except Noah and his family, if He already knew that the ruining of the earth was going to take place?? If God created men and placed them on earth and knew everything they were going to do before they did it, then the responsibility would be God's, because once God knows what is going to happen, in MUST happen that way, and especially, if it is written down. The evil that men would do would have been in God's mind before any man did evil.
For just the reason you stated, God does not look ahead, or foreknow men's actions, because if He did, people could say that they had no choice, because God had already decided their actions.
Remember, God is going to bring everyone to judgment for their actions, and it would be unjust if their actions were already preplanned, and God is always just in all His dealings, Deuteronomy 32:4,5, Job 34:10,12, Revelation 22:12, Romans 2:2-13.
When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect, and He stated what He wanted them to do, Genesis 1:26-28. They were created to live forever, they could only die, if they rebelled against God, Genesis 2:17. God had given them everything they could want. For all God's blessings, He gave them one way that they could show Him that they appreciated all the things He did for them, Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil !!! At that time three was no evil, the rebelling against God was the evil that they would know, if they decided to obey Satan instead of God.

So god's omniscience is off the drawing board. Not for reasons of impossibility, but for the implications it has on the characteristics people need him to have. God must be A, B, and C, and have X, Y, and Z; therefore, god cannot be omniscient. People need him to be surprised. People need him to feel hurt. People need him to regret. People can't have him being responsible for any of the bad that happens. And, people can't have his knowledge robbing them of choice.

"These are the things I need in my god; therefore, my god must have them. In other words, my needs trump any kind of reality that may contradict them." ..........Interesting.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So god's omniscience is off the drawing board. Not for reasons of impossibility, but for the implications it has on the characteristics people need him to have. God must be A, B, and C, and have X, Y, and Z; therefore, god cannot be omniscient. People need him to be surprised. People need him to feel hurt. People need him to regret. People can't have him being responsible for any of the bad that happens. And, people can't have his knowledge robbing them of choice.

"These are the things I need in my god; therefore, my god must have them. In other words, my needs trump any kind of reality that may contradict them." ..........Interesting.

It's not a case of what "people need"; it's what God's Word itself says! He was surprised; He was hurt; He did regret! That was the reality. Grief, read the accounts.