It's the other way around! That is, it's very easy to understand that God is love, and that love entails risk. So God created creatures to love and be loved, knowing it was fully possible that His love would be rejected, because that's the way love is.

However, the possibility you are suggesting, that there is a god who would knowingly create creatures that he knew would serve no other purpose than for him to burn alive, torture, and kill; well, the atheist is right! Such a god would be unspeakably cruel and uncaring.

I believe it means He exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously.


For you it hasn’t happened yet. But for God the past, present, and future happen simultaneously.


I agree God knows everything – “the end from the beginning” (which, by the way, isn’t the same thing as knowing everything from the beginning to the end). I also agree He can predict the outcome of certain things based solely on His knowledge of cause and consequence. However, the only way He can accurately know the specific choices specific people will make and the resulting specific outcomes thousands of years in advance is by knowing the future like history.


You believe God knowing the future like history makes it single-threaded. You also believe it makes it impossible for people to make choices resulting in different outcomes. I’m saying these things are not true. I’m saying God can, and does, know the future like history without making it single-threaded or without making it impossible for people to make choices resulting in different outcomes. His ability to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously has absolutely no effect on time or space. Things unfold normally as if God knew nothing or did not exist.


The reason you are having a hard time comprehending my view is because you refuse to believe God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously, and that it has no effect whatsoever on how things unfold in time and space for the rest of us.


Because you believe my view makes it impossible for people to makes choices resulting in different outcomes thus limiting their choices to ones that do not result in different outcomes. I’m saying this isn’t true. They are totally and completely free to choose as they please.


See previous response.


I disagree. This disagreement accounts for why you cannot grasp my view without wondering if I’m not grasping your view.


Good point. “Reality” probably isn’t the best term to describe the difference between us and God as it relates to His ability to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously and our inability to do the same thing. Perhaps “perception” is a better term. Things are different for God since He knows “the end from the beginning.” Being omnipresent in time and space makes Him omniscient. We can't imagine what that's like.

God does indeed exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously, therefore, the future does indeed exist from God’s perspective. It doesn’t exist yet for the rest of us, but, then again, we are not God, we do not exist in the past, present, and the future simultaneously, therefore, the future does not yet exist from our perspective.


How long ago do you think God knew which people would be involved in legislating and enforcing Sunday laws? Has He known it from eternity past? If so, how many choices and outcomes do you think are involved? Do the choices of previous generations have any bearing on the outcome of end-time events? For example, will the choices Adam and Eve made throughout their lifetime and the influence those choices played in the choices their children and grandchildren, and so on, made thereafter have anything to do with the choices and outcomes people will make leading up to and during the Sabbath-Sunday crisis? If so, would you agree we are talking about a tremendous volume of detail?


Do you think God has known forever precisely who will make choices resulting in the Sabbath-Sunday crisis? For example, God knew years in advance that Cyrus would make choices resulting in the Jews returning to Jerusalem.


Thousands of years before the USA came into existence God said it would happen and that she would go on to enforce Sunday laws. Given the gazillion possible ways things could have unfolded since the days of Daniel, why do you believe God knew with absolute certainty things would play out precisely as they have? And, did His knowing so make the future single-threaded?

Kland, please glean answers to your questions from my responses to Tom.

Your response implies you understand precisely why God created FMAs ("free moral agents" AG 40.4) even though He knew exactly which ones would sin and rebel and die in the lake of fire. The truth is, however, God has not yet explained to us precisely why He did so. Neither has He explained why He didn't intervene and prevent the birth of such monsters as Caiaphas, Pilate, Nero, Charlemagne, Hitler, etc. Nor has He explained why He doesn't intervene and prevent innocent men, women, and children from being murdered, raped, abducted, etc. Or, perhaps you believe God does not have the right or power to intervene and prevent such things from happening? If so, I cannot imagine what the atheist would think of such an impotent god.

Does prophecy really demand that the world history play out exactly as it has politically? Unless there is something inherent in christianity which encourages colonialism, and which is lacking in all non-christian cultures, america could have been colonised from the west rather than from the east. Or american preeuropean culture could have developed in a more technocratic way, having the Aztec invade europe rather than the other way around. Would such scenarios have made lasting damage to the propecy?

Thomas, do you think world history has played out the way God described it in prophecy? Or, do you think He may have gotten some things wrong? And, do you think God described nations in prophecy that never materialized?

As I dont think the future is single-threaded, what I am proposing is that many different paths could reach to a prophetically foreshaddowed political situation. Had France won the 100 year war, what is today US could have spoken French now. Had the Spanish Armada not been devastated in a storm, all of America could have been latin America, both continents. Neither of these differences would necessarily change any prophetic situation which US might be involved in as I can tell.

Then had the chinese stayed course in their expansionist phase, California and Australia could easily have been first colonized (by euroasians) from China. If England and China had clashed on the prarie, who knows how history would have played out. But if it would have lead to any prophetically troubling situations, I cant say.

Simply put, unlike HisChild, I do not think that John was seing W Bush and Obama in his vision on Patmos some 1900 years ago..

Thomas, it sounds like you're saying the discovery of North America didn't require Christians fleeing papal persecution in Europe. That part in prophecy about the earth opening its mouth and swallowing up the flood helping the woman didn't have to play out the way it did? How do you envision it playing out if things had involved heathen China instead of Christian Europe? For example, how would the following details have been fulfilled:

1. The dragon-serpent
2. The woman
3. The child
4. The wilderenss
5. The flood
6. The 1260
7. The earth
8. The commandment-keeping remnant
9. The testimony of Jesus

Revelation
12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man [child].
12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Mike, North America was discovered several times, none of which included Christians fleeing papal persecution in Europe. The first Europeans to find North America (as far as anyone today knows) were vikings. These would have been catholic christians who migrated due to political turmoil and seeking economic prosperity. The second time North America was discovered by Europeans would have been Spanish adventurers looking for gold and Spanish Jesuit priests seeking to convert the indians to the Catholic faith. The third and fourth times would have been English, French, maybe Dutch explorers working under the commission of their respective political authorities seeking the natural resources wealth the Spaniards had been gaining from their central American and Caribbean colonies. Some of the colonists that travelled from England to the American colonies would have been seeking religious freedom, but they would have been Puritans seeking freedom from the heavy hand of the Church of England rather than the Catholic Church. Some of the colonists travelling from France would have been Huguenots seeking peace from Catholic persecution. Whether the Huguenots ever were a large group in North America is highly unclear from the Wikipedia article on their history. It also says that this group was not welcome in the French colonies wherefore they found refuge in British or Dutch colonies.
Sweden also organised an expedition which established a colony in North America, on the Delaware river. Like the colonies of the other european countries, it was intended to bring wealth to europe to fund the many conflicts on this continent.

Thus history shows that neither discovery nor initial settlement had anything to do with Christians fleeing. Some level of immigration was fuelled by religious persecution, but only to a minor degree Catholic persecution.

Revelation 12 says that the earth swallowed up a flood spewn from the mouth of the dragon. If your theory is that persecuted christians that could flee to the earth (north america), then you are basically saying that the French Huguenots and the British Puritans (and Roman Catholics who were also persecuted by the Anglican priesthood) were the dragons weapon against the woman but that their removal to America saved the woman from the dragon. I am sure this is not quite what you would have in mind..

If again the wilderness the woman sought refuge in was America, would that not create need for rewriting the prophetic timetables?

The dragon, being that it is initially found in both heaven and on earth is surely the devil and his forces. Not particularly affected by changing this particular part of history.

The woman, the wine plant of Gods true people before and after Jesus, would have continued growing in the three branches of the eastern church, the catholic church and the protestant church.

The child, Jesus, would have lived, teached, died and resurrected in the first century AD still.

The wilderness, since the persecution of woman by the dragon starts before the European discovery of America, Americas colonisation should hardly affect this part?

The flood, the serpent use a flood to persecute the woman, to carry her away. The earth swallow the flood thereby saving the woman. Flood = people? Does the serpent harass the woman with European overpopulation which is defused by millions of Europeans moving to America? Still the woman is saved by the earth taking that which the serpent used as a weapon against her. If the flooding is representing those you mention migrating to America, the persecuted Puritans and Huguenots, if they are the serpents weapon against the woman, would that not make the persecuted congregations actually doing harm to the Church, who was subsequently saved by their migration?

The 1260, a time period of wilderness refuge for the woman. Since no one is proposing this to be tied with the discovery of the Americas, their colonisation would not obviously be tied with it.

The earth, a continent which had the largest and most well organised cities in the world (with possible exception of east Asia) and with empires counting millions of inhabitants would hardly be "sparsely populated" unless you sport a very politically incorrect view of who may be counted when counting populations (not to mention how unchristian such a view would have to be).

The commandment-keeping remnant, being that they are mentioned as the remnant of the seed of the woman, whos first seed was Jesus, they would be the brothers (and sisters) of Jesus.
Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Also not affected by different scenarios of the history of America.

The testimony of Jesus, was the reason John was on Patmos in the first place.
Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Obviously it is not bound to any events taking place on the American continent 1400 years into the future.


PS. It is easy to see different outcomes for the world history also when you consider that Christianity could easily have held the position in China that Buddhism holds today, had certain events taken different turns. Christianity was introduced already around 635 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism_in_China .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East
How would prophecy have played out if North America had been colonised by east Christian Chinese rather than west Christian europeans?