Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[RINO Tom]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

[Greatest I am]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

People don't run away from debating you for the reasons that you think they do, dude.

[muon2]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

Not true???

There is only one whole in a monotheistic religion while you are making your God into 3 incomplete whole, a holes that is by making them dimwitted.

Regards
DL

Did I speak of religion? No, I did not. I spoke of the fallacy that multiple aspects of a single entity must each have all the properties of the entity. You invoke that fallacy by saying that each aspect of God must have all the attributes of the whole God.

Correct. I go with the traditional view and not the idiocy that Christianity came up with.

Regards
DL

When you say correct, are you agreeing that your statement relies on a fallacy?

No aspect of the revealed supernaturally based religions should be taken as fact, as they are all based on lies.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?

[°Leprechaun]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

I have yet to see any good arguments for religion, here or anywhere else. There are some good ethical ideas in some religions, but religion, by definition embraces an invisible deity, which has never been proved; what is religion but a crutch? We have autonomy over our own beliefs our own thoughts and our own actions. To surrender to dogma (which is what religion really is, is it not?) People believe because they want to believe, right? I want to believe that I will win the powerball, but that doesn't mean I will. I am not going to surrender to the wishful thinking fallacy, the appeal to emotions fallacy, and certainly not the ad hominem fallacy. These are among the many logical fallacies that some if not many religious people fall for.
To surrender to the idea that we somehow need to believe in order to be "saved" is a fallacy, we don't need to believe in a transcendent reality; believe in yourself, that is the answer.
Religion in the world today is very sectarian and divisive. If you want to take a leap of faith, take a leap of faith and belief in yourself rather than having a codependent relationship with that old time religion. Most Christian sects tend to believe in old time dogmas (faith alone, the crucifixion, the trinity and other fallacies). Spong is right; if religion isn't going to change it will (and should, therefore), die. Nietzsche and other before and after him have made good arguments.
It is difficult to discuss religion with those who are religious, those who make claims with nothing to back up those claims.
I am glad to see that you are not intimated and won't back down Greatest I am. A good offense is a good defense. If religious people don't want their beliefs criticized they can go into their closet and pray. They shouldn't try to force their views on those who are not going to be intimated, or cajoled, or back down from reason, logic, and common sense.

[°Leprechaun]

Here is something that some of you may like, I certainly find these ten traits to be good, for the most part:
https://www.elitereaders.com/10-surprising-characteristics-intelligent-people-have/

[°Leprechaun]

It is highly unlikely that the historical Jesus believed he was God.  So, to me, it's not a problem. 

Good point, and as I've said the idea that he was, doesn't click with me. Why not regard him as you would any other person?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is highly unlikely that the historical Jesus believed he was God.  So, to me, it's not a problem. 

Good point, and as I've said the idea that he was, doesn't click with me. Why not regard him as you would any other person?

As C.S. Lewis pointed out, if Jesus was like any other person, then He really wasn't as impressive or positive a figure as a lot of non-religious cultural Christians would like Him to have been.

[°Leprechaun]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

If "god" by definition is infinite, "he" would have all the properties of the whole. I don't see any error here. Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways. 

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

If "god" by definition is infinite, "he" would have all the properties of the whole. I don't see any error here. Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges.

The number 2 is finite yet is part of the infinite set of finite numbers.

Why then is it so difficult to accept that it would be possible for Jesus to be finite and yet be a part of an infinite God.  Everyday we interact with finite things that are part of infinite things.

It's part of standard Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  One can view Trinitarian theology as one of the earliest applications of set theory and non-reflexive equality developed before we even had the mathematics to properly describe it.

[°Leprechaun]

Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

For the Trinity concept to work, Jesus as well as the Father and Holy Ghost would all have to be all knowing and equal in all ways.  

At the most general level the OP errs by assuming that any aspect of the whole must have all the properties of the whole. Even at the must fundamental level we know that not to be true.

Consider light, particularly a small packet of energy that our eyes can detect as light. I can set up a double-slit apparatus and make that light reveal only its nature as a wave with no properties as a particle. I can also set up a photoelectric sensor and make that light reveal its nature only as a particle with no properties as a wave. A manifestation of light need not have all the properties of the whole.

If "god" by definition is infinite, "he" would have all the properties of the whole. I don't see any error here. Perhaps you are comparing apples and oranges.

The number 2 is finite yet is part of the infinite set of finite numbers.

Why then is it so difficult to accept that it would be possible for Jesus to be finite and yet be a part of an infinite God.  Everyday we interact with finite things that are part of infinite things.

It's part of standard Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, yet the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  One can view Trinitarian theology as one of the earliest applications of set theory and non-reflexive equality developed before we even had the mathematics to properly describe it.

Well, by that logic pantheism is the truth. The infinity of "god" is different than mathematical infinity. To say that Jesus is part of "god" is different than to say that he is "god". If there is only one deity and that deity were all knowing, all present, all powerful, it couldn't be divided. It would be one, and one does not equal three. That is an obvious logical fallacy. Not all Christians believe in the trinity, as I am sure you know. It would seem to me that to believe in a deity one would have to think outside the box. Would this deity be four dimensional, something which our finite minds can conceptualize, but not see with our physical eyes? To be truly infinite would be to infinitely dimensional, but perhaps that is all speculation anyway.
It is a self evident truth that the trinity is not to be taken literally. Can a person literally be born again? The book of proverbs, for example is a book of parable, because proverbs are simply parables and parables, of course are myths. It is erroneous to think that the Bible should be taken literally, yet that seems to be the natural inclination of many people.

[°Leprechaun]

There are three kinds of people:
Those who can count and those who can't.

[°Leprechaun]

Of course, what do I know? There are three things that you lose with old age, the first is memory...
and the other one is... oh what was I saying.... um uh...something about old age..

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do you continue to assert Divinity can't be divided? It's hardly a concept unique to Trinitarianism. It's an integral part of panentheism in all its myriad manifestations. Relations need not be reflexive.

[°Leprechaun]

Why do you continue to assert Divinity can't be divided? It's hardly a concept unique to Trinitarianism. It's an integral part of panentheism in all its myriad manifestations. Relations need not be reflexive.

Unity means, by definition, indivisible...
"One nation... indivisible"
The Earth is one world, not three.
The Universe is one, not three.
I am one person, not three.
Of course there may be many universes, but the idea is ("one") multiverse.
Is it just a case of semantics?
The trinity interpretation of the Bible, the literalistic interpretation divides the deity
into three persons which are not united, Jesus (according the literal interpretation)
is at odds with "the father", if you take it literally and believe it as undeniable fact...
(which I don't), the Jesus is abandoned by his father and doesn't understand why.
If you see the Bible as not literal, then it follows that the trinity is not literal.
The "doctrine" of the trinity as believed by some Christians does not come from the Bible, it
is mere speculation and not biblically based.

[°Leprechaun]

It's very simple. If you divide something it is no longer one. If you cut an apple in half it is no longer united as one apple, but becomes two divided into two parts. It is two not one. So when I say "one can't be divided" I am saying if something is divided it is no longer one.

To suggest that god is three is no different than to say that god has a multiple personality disorder.
If the three persons were integrated they become one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's very simple. If you divide something it is no longer one. If you cut an apple in half it is no longer united as one apple, but becomes two divided into two parts. It is two not one. So when I say "one can't be divided" I am saying if something is divided it is no longer one.

To suggest that god is three is no different than to say that god has a multiple personality disorder.
If the three persons were integrated they become one.

Yet if you divide the set of natural numbers into the sets of natural numbers modulo 0, 1, and 2 you get three distinct sets, each the same size as the original. Infinity is tricky that way. Infinity divided by three is still infinity. Three infinities combined become one.

[muon2]

Why do you continue to assert Divinity can't be divided? It's hardly a concept unique to Trinitarianism. It's an integral part of panentheism in all its myriad manifestations. Relations need not be reflexive.

Unity means, by definition, indivisible...
"One nation... indivisible"
The Earth is one world, not three.
The Universe is one, not three.
I am one person, not three.
Of course there may be many universes, but the idea is ("one") multiverse.
Is it just a case of semantics?
The trinity interpretation of the Bible, the literalistic interpretation divides the deity
into three persons which are not united, Jesus (according the literal interpretation)
is at odds with "the father", if you take it literally and believe it as undeniable fact...
(which I don't), the Jesus is abandoned by his father and doesn't understand why.
If you see the Bible as not literal, then it follows that the trinity is not literal.
The "doctrine" of the trinity as believed by some Christians does not come from the Bible, it
is mere speculation and not biblically based.

But an electron is one entity, and has two aspects - as a particle and as a wave. They are exclusive of each other and when one is present it lacks the properties of the other. It does not happen by dividing the electron - there remains only one electron. By separately recognizing those dual aspects we can for instance build an electron microscope. Though this duality is most measurable in the quantum realm, it is not confined there, only most easily measured at that scale.

There are other behaviors discovered in quantum physics that point to multiple, exclusive and independent states for all things seen and unseen. Light, atoms and those things built of such have the ability to exhibit independent states. Even infinite fields like those governing electromagnetism exhibit multiple discrete states. Why couldn't such behavior apply to the divine? Perhaps better said, a divinity with multiple independent aspects is not inconsistent with what we know about the universe.

[DC Al Fine]

Muon and Nathan, please don't feed the troll.

[RINO Tom]

Muon and Nathan, please don't feed the troll.

Wow, just realize that was (the all-time great) Nathan ... need to stop reading people's changed usernames and look below that, LOL.

[°Leprechaun]

Apples and oranges... a false dichotomy... You are dividing the divine into spiritual and natural.

A natural divine would be the universe (pantheism? panentheism?)

If you are defining the divine in mathematical or scientific terminology your view of the divine is that the universe itself is divine.

If the divine is spirit only then the divine can't be a person, three persons, or an infinite number of persons. The problem is solved.
It's as easy as ABC 123.
If the divine is infinite, is that the same as saying all odd numbers? Not to my mind.
If you add an indefinite number of odd numbers you get an odd numbers. Add even numbers then you get an even number. Two infinities -- that are therefore not equal. Logically they can't be.
The devil is in the details; do I need to have an infinite knowledge of quantum mechanics to understand why the trinity Dogma is false? No, I don't. It has been argued ad nauseum for millenia. I can't add much to it. Jesus was natural. The divine is spiritual. How can those two be one and the same?
Limited as I am by time and space I have to leave this discussion until my finite person can come back. Although we are going in circles, so what's the point? I shall return when my finite universe allows it.
This discussion is also a tangent. The point of the thread is to ask whether Christianity is moral.
The problem of the trinity is that it involves the doctrine of the vicarious atonement, which is more important than the discussion of math and quantum reality, at least as far as this thread is concerned. So, at least as far as this is concerned the issue is whether the atonement as posited by orthodoxy is a way to avoid responsibility and accountability for ones' actions.

[°Leprechaun]

Correct me if I am mistaken but nuclear weapons are based on dividing atoms and therefore very evil.
(fission).
So I should say not that you can't divide the divine, but that you shouldn't.
You can divide an atom, but that doesn't mean that doing so is necessarily a good thing.

[Greatest I am]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

People don't run away from debating you for the reasons that you think they do, dude.

A great argument. You win this debate.

Argument. Oh wait.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No aspect of the revealed supernaturally based religions should be taken as fact, as they are all based on lies.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

You say that supernaturally revealed religion is based on lies, but start the thread to attack a part of them by the means of a false-premised statement. How is that not hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, some of the very traits you attack in religions such as Christianity?
[/quote]

What false premise, be clear as I am not a mind reader like you, and what can you know for a fact about anything supernatural?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I would pay a lot of money to see muon2 absolutely bitchslap Greatest I Am in an in-person debate, LMAO.

Regards,

RT

So would I. It is harder for theists to run away from arguments, as they mostly do when not in person, whenever morals are being discussed.

I have all who challenge me in real life run away and it is getting boring from being too easy for me.

That fact is likely why the religious hierarchies are crying for decent apologists even as their numbers continue their downward trend.

Good riddance to bad religions.

Regards
DL

I have yet to see any good arguments for religion, here or anywhere else. There are some good ethical ideas in some religions, but religion, by definition embraces an invisible deity, which has never been proved; what is religion but a crutch? We have autonomy over our own beliefs our own thoughts and our own actions. To surrender to dogma (which is what religion really is, is it not?) People believe because they want to believe, right? I want to believe that I will win the powerball, but that doesn't mean I will. I am not going to surrender to the wishful thinking fallacy, the appeal to emotions fallacy, and certainly not the ad hominem fallacy. These are among the many logical fallacies that some if not many religious people fall for.
To surrender to the idea that we somehow need to believe in order to be "saved" is a fallacy, we don't need to believe in a transcendent reality; believe in yourself, that is the answer.
Religion in the world today is very sectarian and divisive. If you want to take a leap of faith, take a leap of faith and belief in yourself rather than having a codependent relationship with that old time religion. Most Christian sects tend to believe in old time dogmas (faith alone, the crucifixion, the trinity and other fallacies). Spong is right; if religion isn't going to change it will (and should, therefore), die. Nietzsche and other before and after him have made good arguments.
It is difficult to discuss religion with those who are religious, those who make claims with nothing to back up those claims.
I am glad to see that you are not intimated and won't back down Greatest I am. A good offense is a good defense. If religious people don't want their beliefs criticized they can go into their closet and pray. They shouldn't try to force their views on those who are not going to be intimated, or cajoled, or back down from reason, logic, and common sense.

In a sense, I wish I was forced to back down on my positions. Then I would lose an argument and actually learn something new. Having a mental paradigm shift is one of the greatest pleasures I know of.

I think that that is what this quote refers to.

Gnostic Christian Jesus said,  "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

This reigning, to me, is talking about our mental positions reigning over other positions.

In a sense, this monarch/me wants to be a peasant again when it comes to arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

Thai is why I have a hard time understanding why some resort to lies to win arguments. They do not recognize the joys of losing an argument and learning something new. They place the win above being correct while I just prefer to be correct.

Regards
DL