We must make sure the control of the Tabernacle, for powerful testimonies are to be borne in it in favor of the truth. This is the word of the Lord to you and to others. Elder A. T. Jones will work in every possible way to get possession of this house, and if he can do so he will present in it theories that should never be heard. I know whereof I speak in this matter, and if you could have seen the end from the beginning, if you had believed the warnings that have been given, you would have moved understandingly. {11MR 214.4}

Well, my question has to do with why does he reject God, but others don't. I would not agree that God hasn't revealed things to cause him to reject Him. I'm not sure that the atheist would concur with the idea that the reason he rejects God is due to him hating God hasn't shared with him certain things. An interesting side thought is, does God hold people responsible for that which He does not reveal? The point is, how does one reach the atheist?

Regarding ignorance, I had in mind, Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge). Do you have another definition?


Well, maybe God hasn't chosen to reveal the complexities of the time-space continuum to me and its existence or not before its current existence. But the question involves us, which does have the present concept of space and time.

No, she confirms my position! The only way God could exist simultaneously in the past, present and future is if the past, present and future simultaneously existed. You can understand that, can't you? I mean, that makes sense, doesn't it? How could it be otherwise?

Now let me how you, from the quotes you've cited, that she is agreeing with what I have said.



This is what I've been saying. God is omniscient. This doesn't say that God simultaneously exists in the past, present and future.



This is the same thing I've been saying as well. It says that God sees the future as clearly as He sees the past. It doesn't say that the past, present and future simultaneously exist, or that God simultaneously exists in the past, present and future.



Again, this is exactly what I've been saying, and NOT what you've been saying. I *said* that the past, present, and future being like to God meant that He sees the future as clearly as the past. This is *exactly* what she's saying here. She is NOT saying that God *exists* in the past, present and future simultaneously, but that He sees these with a clear vision.



And, once again, this is making the same point I made. I *said* that God "inhabiteth eternity" means that God is eternal, which is just what she says here. Just look at the topic sentence of the paragraph: "God has always been." The whole point of the paragraph, from beginning to end, is that God is eternal.

The rest of the quotes are like the above, making the same points I've been making. No quote says that the past, present and future exist simultaneously, or that God exists simultaneously in the past, present and future. To assert this doesn't even make sense. Or, more accurately, the only way it could make sense is if the past, present, and future were simultaneous, in which case time wouldn't exist.

All atheists reject the concept of a god. There is no limit to the reasons why. But they boil down to selfishness. No, God does not hold us responsible for light He hasn't revealed. A good way to reach atheists is to be Christlike. I agree with your definition of ignorance. The reasons why atheists are ignorant varies from person to person.


You asked, "If God knows which way it will play out, it can, and only can, play out in that one way?" Here's another question, Does why and how God knows the future like history make any difference? I believe it does. His ability to exist in the past, present, and future simultaneously does not in the least alter or change our time-space continuum. Things unfold and play out as if God were bound by our natural laws the same as us. His knowing so changes nothing. It is just one of many the mysteries we cannot fathom. It's no different than not being able to explain how God can everywhere at the same time.

The problem is the definition of eternity. If we don't even know how to define time, how are we going to define eternity, much less understand it?


Or if God existed out of time, which is Augustine's view. It's interesting that Augustine says God is an eternal present, and Ellen White uses a very similar expression referring to Him - she says He is "an eternal presence." As someone said, we can never truly say, "I Am", for the moment we say it the split second we call the present has already become the past.
What you are affirming, Tom, is that God is subject to time, like us. If He is not subject to space, why does He have to be subject to time? Aren't both His creatures?

The statement is pointing out there was never a time when God did not exist, nor will there be a time when He does not exist.



I'm affirming that God experiences time, and His communications to us reflect this.



"Subject to" is not the concept I'm conveying. "Exists in" is the concept. God exists in time and space.

Also, the other idea I was expressing is that the past already happened (for God, as well as man), the present is happening now (for God, as well as man), and the future has not yet happened, but will happen, (for both God and man).

Or, more simply, the future has not yet happened yet. It is fundamentally different in character than the past, because the future includes possibilities (as well as certainties), whereas the past does not (there are no possibilities in the past; just what happened).

Your first sentence says it makes a difference, while your second sentence looks to be saying that it doesn't.



You mean to us, or to God? This can only mean to us. So your idea is that the past, present and future don't really exist to God as they do for us. That is, for God, there is no past, present, or future. That's what you're saying, right? But the fact that there isn't a past, present, or future for God doesn't mean these things don't exist for us. This is your point, right?

The problem here isn't with what God knows or doesn't know, but with what is or is not. That is, does the past, present, and future really exist? (in terms of one happening after the other). Or are they simultaneous?



God knows things as they are. The issue is not, and never has been, whether God's knowing something changes what the thing He knows is like. One can only wonder why you feel constrained to keep repeating this.



That's God's knowing something doesn't change it is not an unfathomable mystery. It's just what one would expect.



It is different. "Everywhere at the same time" is different than "Everytime at the same time."

Tom, I agree with Rosangela. Time and space are creations that serve Him - not the other way around. God is no more bound by time than He is by space. They are fundamentally inseparable. You are unwilling to believe God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously therefore you cannot believe He knows the future like history. Your view of time does not permit you to believe God exists in and out of time, that He is not bound by time or space, that the past, present, and future already exist in time and space.

Tom, how do we measure time? It is based solely on earth's revolution on its axis and its path around the sun? Or, does it include our heart beats? For example, pretend people are in a spacecraft speeding away from earth into space. How would they measure time?

Regarding what?



This is a red herring. No one has suggested that God serves time and space. I said that God exists in time and space, and that He communicates to us in ways which express this. I've denied that the past, present, and future exist simultaneously.



The fact that God exists in space does not mean God is bound by space. The same is true regarding time.



What are?



It's not that I'm "unwilling" to believe God exists simultaneously in the past, present and future, but I believe this idea of yours is incorrect. There's no evidence in inspiration that this is the case, and it would mean that the past, present, and future exist simultaneously, which seems clear to me would mean that time doesn't exist.



I have said nothing about this. You have not the least reason to assert this, that I'm aware of. If you're aware of some reason for asserting this, please mention it.



Nor this. Same comment.



This is the real issue! Yes, I completely disagree with this.

So it is your belief that the future already exists? That's an interesting idea. What does this mean?