That does not preclude Him from knowing good and evil. You have not proven otherwise. He plainly states in Genesis 3:22 He does know good and evil. His righteousness precludes Him from knowing experientially so two questions are begged: 1) how does He know, and 2) how does the lack of experiential knowledge not compromise His claim of omniscience?
Posts prove otherwise.
Where did I say otherwise?
I beg to differ.
I'm not suggesting it ever experienced any of the information that was copied to the new clone. Moreover, it is no longer your information or knowledge as it was given to the clone just prior to the death of the original. When the original is dead, it no longer possesses anything.
That's neither here nor there due to the fact that you are still just assuming this to be the case, and assumptions are not proofs, evidence or arguments.
I don't have to prove otherwise. I'm not the one making these assumptions. In fact, I'm pointing out that the simple definition of words precludes this as a possibility.
NO. He doesn't. Why are you ignoring my refutation? Address it or concede the point because this repetitiveness is getting old fast.
Word salad. What is experienced is known AFTER the fact.
I couldn't agree more!!! LOL. These are explicitly what you're doing. You're begging the Question, and now that you've admitted it, you've conceded the point.
I don't show up for logical fallacies. Thanks for showing up, but you just conceded the debate. If you'd like to address my refutations, be my guest, but I'm not wasting any more time with you ignoring my posts and pretending that this advances the discussion in any meaningful way.
We're on a wild goose chase. A pointless tangent.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Here's the proof:
See above.
Read them all years ago. In a nutshell, you should note that Schaeffer's claim to historicity flies in the face of Christ's own claims that it is not history that sets one free, but the truth.
So what?
Not really. I'm just bored so I go with the flow. You're the one who is going off on these wild goose chases. I'm just enjoying this pointless ride.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
So perhaps you might want to stop doing that as assuming God is restricted by epistemologies rather than being omnipresent is getting a bit silly.
A distinction with no effective difference.
Not ignoring. Just positing facts you're not ready to accept.
I'll leave you to your belief.Uh huh.
No, as you omitted what I said about life support none the less the body cannot continue to live without the brain unless there is support to make its life sustaining organs function. Lungs, heart, etc...
Actually, patients in a vegetative state have suffered some sort of brain damage. While they're not necessarily on life support because the hypothalamus and brain stem continue to function.
Then you're making the point the patient is not brain dead.
The alleged "empirical fact" you stated above? (There are a number of tests that have been done where electrodes are hooked to a subject's brain and stomach. They're then presented with images and told to click a "like" or "dislike" after seeing each image flashed upon a screen in front of them. What they discovered is that the stomach produces the first electrical impulse which travels to the brain to tell the brain to click the "like" or "dislike" button.) Prove it.
Then it is neither knowledge nor the clone's.
Yes, God is Satan. God is Jesus. God is You. God is Me. All things are both of and from God. As verses in both Old and New Testaments tell us. And there is none other than God, no other creator, no Savior but God. When God is the source for all that is, was, or shall be, there is no thing that exists that cannot be of and from God.
The Bible of the Christians says otherwise. Luke 1.
No, he was known as Yeshua, because Yeshua (Joshua) is Hebrew. And he was called Emmanuel because God told Mary that was to be the name by which he was called. A name that upon hearing it would inform all who did hear whom they were meeting. It was a matter of prophecy that all temple attending Jews would have known well before Emmanuel was born.
When you're speaking of God to Christians you're speaking of Jesus/Emmanuel/Yeshua. Who was divine because he was God.
Interesting. Do you follow your own rules?
Puts a whole new slant beyond, you are what you eat.
No, you just don't understand the point.
We are learning that is not entirely true. You need to update your knowledge. Not only are the two cells NOT identical but they are different in many ways. One example, which might be easier for you to grasp, is the fact that errors creep in. No two replicating cells are identical. They are similar, not identical.
Never said any such thing.
Since Schaeffer never said historicity nor history sets one free, I do not believe you ever read Schaeffer.
Thank you for your time.
Yes, one of the great mysteries of biology is given the ability of the cells to both heal and replicate why does anyone die? There's research happening now tying childhood traumas to autoimmune disease, as well as research showing significant correlations (no causation provable yet) in generational transmission of both psychiatric and autoimmune disease.Puts a whole new slant beyond, you are what you eat.
You are what you think, what you've lived.
That the body regenerates itself over different periods of years, depending upon what organ we're talking about, is also fascinating.
Essentially, we appear to have been created to live as long as those in Biblical times. Sadly, "modern culture" has insured that's not going to happen.
.I would agree. (original sin)Yes, one of the great mysteries of biology is given the ability of the cells to both heal and replicate why does anyone die? There's research happening now tying childhood traumas to autoimmune disease, as well as research showing significant correlations (no causation provable yet) in generational transmission of both psychiatric and autoimmune disease.
The body keeps score.
If this is true it radically informs the doctrines of original sin
I'm new so forgive my question out of ignorance of membership here. Do we know if shnarkle is a Christian? I wondered because of how it appears they argue against scripture quite often.
Forum rules prohibit content that in any way goes off-topic or in any way speaks negatively of a poster. It happens but it is always best to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. You'll understand if I refrain from answering that question. In most cases a SARM member's avatar can be clicked to visit their profile page where most include a little information about themselves. Folks are going to find out one way or another, so I encourage everyone to post a little about themselves on their terms.
I did the research. All you've proven is that you're just here to troll these forums. I'll leave you to it.Not ignoring. Just positing facts you're not ready to accept.
Uh huh.
No, as you omitted what I said about life support none the less the body cannot continue to live without the brain unless there is support to make its life sustaining organs function. Lungs, heart, etc...
Actually, patients in a vegetative state have suffered some sort of brain damage. While they're not necessarily on life support because the hypothalamus and brain stem continue to function.
Then you're making the point the patient is not brain dead.
The alleged "empirical fact" you stated above? (There are a number of tests that have been done where electrodes are hooked to a subject's brain and stomach. They're then presented with images and told to click a "like" or "dislike" after seeing each image flashed upon a screen in front of them. What they discovered is that the stomach produces the first electrical impulse which travels to the brain to tell the brain to click the "like" or "dislike" button.) Prove it.
I was responding to your tangent.
Says you.
I most certainly did. I provided a detailed explanation of the process of cell division along with the definition of cloning. There is no effective difference.
I'm simply replying to your posts. You're the one who decided to go on a wild goose chase, not me.
Repeating yourself after having your posts easily refuted isn't trying.
Correction, he explicitly states that Adam knows good and evil like "one of us" Your assumption that "one of us" must necessarily be referring to God doesn't cut it.
You're still begging the question. The OP contends that God doesn't know the difference between good and evil, and no one has presented ANY evidence that he can. You've just presented a passage that states "one of us" possesses some sort of knowledge of good and evil. 'One of us' is much more likely to be referring to Satan than to God. You have yet to refute this point, much less even address it. Obviously you have no intention of addressing this point so you've conceded the point. Begging the Question doesn't cut it. It's a logical fallacy.
Because as I pointed out already, whatever is experienced is KNOWN, and Omniscience doesn't refer to what is known, but to the faculty itself. It is exclusively with regards to the faculty, i.e. "ALL-knowing". All means all. It doesn't mean knowing as well as what is known.
Your opinion is duly noted and dismissed.
No. We're not.
No. I don't. You need to address the subject of this OP.
Not necessarily, and for the purpose of this OP, it really doesn't matter to begin with. I'm getting tired of your pointless tangents so return to the topic or accept the fact that you've conceded the points presented.
For all practical intents and purposes, they're identical. If not, then you are not identical to who you were just over five years ago.
I stand corrected. What you actually pointed out was that somehow the ontological reality is diminished somehow without God's intellect. Of course this is also a double standard to your point about anthropomorphic representations of God.
Schaeffer's thesis revolves around the historical evidence of Christ. Q.E.D. This is the foundation of his beliefs.
You're welcome.
Correct. What it says is that God says that Adam has become like "one of us". God doesn't say that Adam has become like God. Big difference.
No. it doesn't. The rest of your post is based upon this false assumption so it is irrelevant
Great, then let's not anthropomorphize God into having an intellect that knows the difference between good and evil.
Unlike you, I've presented all the relevant evidence to prove your logical fallacies. Saying I've presented any logical fallacies is not proof.
Uh, yeah, it kinda does mean that's exactly what it means. Satan father's lies. He doesn't father any truths whatsoever. He's the father of lies, not some lies and some truths.
Half truths are not the truth.
Non Sequitur, and Begging the Question. Nowhere does God state that he knows good and evil. He explicitly states that "the man has become like ONE OF US". You assume "one of us" is equivalent to God. It isn't. You have to prove that assumption. It does not follow that "one of us" is equivalent to God.
No. He doesn't, and you're insistence on restating baseless claims ad infinitum only spotlights that you have nothing to refute my position. Thanks for sharing your baseless opinions, but your posts are going nowhere.