This isn't true.



Nor this.

The error you've been making is to misuse the word "reality," using it as if it were "perception of reality." This has nothing whatsoever to do with some idea you have regarding God's existence in time.

The difficulty in our discussion has to do more with your use, or misuse, of words than anything else, and refusal to answer questions put to you.

MM, all this philosophical talk is interesting, but I'm concerned about you. I keep trying to find a practical application to all this. It appears to me, that you dismiss the atheist and dismiss Rodriguez' concerns of such view. Do you not have any desire to reach out to the atheist and others who hold a similar view basis as yours? And yet, you offer no practical means other than giving the suggestion that he needs to be told he is ignorant of his ignorance. Do you truly think that would be helpful to him?

But then again, it does fit in with your view, though not really sure of which view of which reality. If you believe it's already played out and our reality can't play out differently from God's reality, then it's already played out and nothing, absolutely nothing, you can do can affect the already played out result of the atheist. So that would shed light on what seems to be your apparent dismissal of the atheist.

Tom, I didn't use the word "reality" in my last post. Have you ever been to heaven? Of course not. So, God's reality includes an experience in time and space which yours does not. It has nothing to do with perception. In this case, it has to do with the fact God is omnipresent whereas you are not. This fundamental difference between you and God accounts for His reality including things yours does not. It's not two realities; instead, it's God's existence and experience in time and space including things ours does not.

By the way, how do you discuss things about God with an atheist which require believing God actually exists? It's like trying to discuss computers with an aboriginal from Borneo.

Kland, you are wrong about me.

Tom, John 3:16 makes it clear Jesus knew He would succeed on the cross. Otherwise, He lied to Nicodemus. Nowhere in the Bible does it represent Jesus expressing doubt about it. He knew with absolutely He would succeed on Calvary.

I was referring to the posts you wrote where you used it. This wasn't clear?



This is like talking to a wall.

To repeat, "God's reality" doesn't make sense. I've explained why. You ignore what I write, not even responding to the points made.



You're either not listening to what I'm saying, or not caring, and simply choosing to talk about something else.



I'll try yet again. "Reality" is what is. This is not "perception of reality" which is what you are talking about.

It doesn't make sense to talk about "God's reality" and "our reality." There's only reality, and something other than reality.

That you keep using the phrase "God's reality" either means you're not understanding what I'm saying, or don't care. If you disagree with this point, you could at least acknowledge it, and offer some sort of counter argument, as opposed to simply ignoring it.



What's this have to do with anything?

I'm going to try again to ask what I've been trying to ask for what seems like several weeks now, and may well be. Is the future open, or is it fixed? What is reality? Not "God's reality" and "our reality," since there's only one reality.

Which is it?

No it doesn't. Jesus knew there was a risk involved in what He was doing.



A lie is a falsehood told with the intention of deceiving. If Jesus was assuming a risk in His mission, it's your claim that Jesus was telling Nicodemus a falsehood with the intention of deceiving him? How so?



The Bible represents God as taking risks. Unless you don't believe Jesus Christ was tempted at the cross, then Christ was at risk. Or do you think Christ could not have failed against the temptations He faced?



If Christ knew with absolute certain He would succeed in His mission, then there was no chance He could have failed. This is really what you wish to assert? There was no chance Christ would have failed?

Because if this is really what you wish to assert, then Christ wasn't really tempted, as temptation is not temptation without the possibility of failure.

You introduced it.


That’s why I prefer to use the word “experience”. Because of who and what God is His experience in time and space includes experiences ours cannot. Do you at least agree with this concept in principle?


Again, God’s experience in time and space includes experiences ours cannot.


Would you say, then, that reality is the same for us and the many different species of unfallen beings scattered throughout God’s vast universe? If so, what word do you use to describe the fact their experience in time and space includes experiences ours cannot?


Somewhere somebody brought up trying to explain to an atheist what God is like. Never mind.


As we live and breathe, the future is wide open. However, there is the matter of unfulfilled prophecy to consider. Nevertheless, just because God knows exactly how the future will play out it does not mean we are not free to choose as we please. God’s knowledge of the future merely reflects the choices we were free to make and, of course, the way Jesus managed the outcome of our choices.

Jesus became a human and, as such, He possessed the necessary traits and attributes to sin and fail. However, just because Jesus could have sinned and failed it does not mean He had no idea He would certainly succeed. Again, where in the Bible does Jesus specifically say, There is a chance I will fail? In the past, you have answered this question by citing unrelated passages and then insisted a similar principle serves to answer my question. By the way, as you know, there are dozens of places where Jesus states unequivocally He will succeed. John 3:16 in one such place. Here’s another one – “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” And, here’s another one – “Let not your heart be troubled . . . I will come again, and receive you unto myself.”


If Jesus had no idea He would certainly succeed, why, then, did He express it in no uncertain terms? Not once did Jesus imply or insinuate He might not succeed. Every time He spoke about it, He emphatically stated, “I will”. For example:

1. I will give you rest.
2. I will build this church [upon the Rock].
3. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
4. I will [drink this wine and eat this bread] with you in my Father's kingdom.
5. I will go before you into Galilee [after I am risen again].
6. I will raise him up at the last day.
7. I will come again.
8. I will come to you.
9. I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
10. I will send unto you [the Comforter].
11. I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice.
12. I shall be perfected [on the third day].


Could sin, could fail, is not the same thing as, have no idea He would certainly succeed. By the way, to answer your question, yes, by becoming a human being Jesus possessed the wherewithal to sin and fail.


“He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. {13MR 18.1}

Of course God's experience is different than ours. Even our experiences are different. This has no bearing on the subject, however. Reality is affected by our experiences.



Which is an example of exactly what I'm talking about. That is, you're not listening to what I'm saying (or not hearing it), and simply choosing to talk about something else.



This is simply another example of the problem. "Reality for us" is the perception of reality. It's not reality. This is a different subject.



I haven't been talking about this, and this doesn't have a bearing on what I have been talking about.



Is the future wide open, or fixed? In reality? Choose one, please.