Thread: Omniscience or free will? -- Question for Christians

I know many Christians believe they have free will, but they also believe their God is omniscient. Omniscience means he knows everything--past, present and future.

So, there lies a problem. If he knows everything from now until the end, how can you believe there's free will then? If God knows you're going to do X can you do Y instead? No, not if he's truly omniscient. If you truly believe God is omniscient then you can not believe you have free will. They contradict one another.

That contradiction brings up the problem that either God isn't omniscient or you don't have free will.

Just attach a Supernatural Form 777. Problem solved

Originally Posted by Matrix: Reloaded

The Oracle: Do you see her die?
Neo: No.
The Oracle: You have the sight now, Neo. You are looking at the world without time.
Neo: Then why can't I see what happens to her?
The Oracle: We can never see past the choices we don't understand.
Neo: Are you saying I have to choose whether Trinity lives or dies?
The Oracle: No, you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it.
Neo: No. I can't do that. I won't.
The Oracle: Well, you have to.
Neo: Why?
The Oracle: Because you're the One.

If a 'Creator' can live outside of Space and Time, then the fact that he knows what you're going to do really doesn't have any bearing on your free will. When you make a decision, your decision was already determined, because it is the only possible outcome that could have come from the events that led up to that moment. Even though you are consciously making the decision, right then and there, the truth is that you really have no choice, but to make the decision that you are making, because it is who you are. Even if you try to trick yourself and say "Well, I would normally do this, but now I'm going to do that," that attempt at self-deception is simply a manifestation of the infinite number of variables that unequivocally caused you to make such a deviant decision at the time. It is still 'your choice' to do so, but any being (omniscient or not), with the ability to see outside of Space and Time, can very easily know what you're going to do in the (read as: your) future, because they are simply looking at a proverbial snapshot of what has happened, is happening, and will happen, all at once.

I'm agnostic, btw. This is completely from a non-religious stand-point.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

If a 'Creator' can live outside of Space and Time, then the fact that he knows what you're going to do really doesn't have any bearing on your free will. When you make a decision, your decision was already determined, because it is the only possible outcome that could have come from the events that led up to that moment. Even though you are consciously making the decision, right then and there, the truth is that you really have no choice, but to make the decision that you are making, because it is who you are. Even if you try to trick yourself and say "Well, I would normally do this, but now I'm going to do that," that attempt at self-deception is simply a manifestation of the infinite number of variables that unequivocally caused you to make such a deviant decision at the time. It is still 'your choice' to do so, but any being (omniscient or not), with the ability to see outside of Space and Time, can very easily know what you're going to do in the (read as: your) future, because they are simply looking at a proverbial snapshot of what has happened, is happening, and will happen, all at once.

I'm agnostic, btw. This is completely from a non-religious stand-point.

Thank you. Also, looks like the second Matrix had a little more of the philosophical spirit than I thought.

If you look at time in the context of it being a dimension rather than linear and one-directional as we see it, it makes sense, though.

I don't see why knowing what will happen should mean no one has free will. Someone might know what you're going to choose with your free will. Knowing the future doesn't imply determinism.

I guess I could see a complete lack of free will if broken down to a quantum level. In the end I don't control the polarity of atom clusters, only perhaps the interaction of many of those atom clusters. But I don't have influence over the deepest parts of them.

No matter the case, I don't think this is a big problem for us, and that we can continue to prosper and grow the same nevertheless.

I think the bigger problem is:

1) Knows what will happen

2) Loves us and wants the best for us

--> therefore, god is evil if anyone ends up in hell.

Schoepenhauer: Man is free to do as he wills, but not to will as he wills.

Compatibilists: winning since 300BC.

Originally Posted by Xei

Schoepenhauer: Man is free to do as he wills, but not to will as he wills.

Compatibilists: winning since 300BC.

This.

In regard to all elements of life, the universe and everything, nothing is more preferable than compatibility; it is the essence of attraction.

hell is not an eternal place so no god is not evil if you end up there your own choices would be what landed you there to experience by equal measure what you dealt out to others without justifiable reason...Its called purgatory

Edit Im not Christian btw but I do know if one reads the bible with an open and level headed mind many insights can be garnered..the same insights can be gained elsewhere also, so this is by no means advocating you do.. only ever do what you feel called to

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I know many Christians believe they have free will, but they also believe their God is omniscient. Omniscience means he knows everything--past, present and future.

So, there lies a problem. If he knows everything from now until the end, how can you believe there's free will then? If God knows you're going to do X can you do Y instead? No, not if he's truly omniscient. If you truly believe God is omniscient then you can not believe you have free will. They contradict one another.

That contradiction brings up the problem that either God isn't omniscient or you don't have free will.

Unfortunately this goes beyond understanding of Christian Literature so I'm forced to advocate my own point of view. I would also be interested to see how an actual Christian responds, though. (So far it seems the responses have been from every point of view except Theistic).

But the way I've heard Source described (let's call this the Holy Ghost to keep Christians in the loop), it is omniscient. The Father, however, is not omniscient. The Father is no more powerful than any other sort of King, he is a thought-form given power through worship and belief. One POV claims that he emerged from our imagination, another claims he was the first being to drop in to Universe Bound By Desire since the last Great Cleansing and that there's always one guy to drop in first and this guy almost always think they created everything to follow because they desired company so bad. The point is I believe one of those two. I'm not sure which one but to have this discussion with me one has to accept that any sort of reference to an Omniscient God is in respect to the Holy Ghost, not to The Father.

That being said, the Holy Ghost is not bound by desire and therefore its omniscience means nothing and does not contradict our free will in anyway. From this standpoint, free will comes in two layers. In the first layer it exists as an abstract concept, beneficial for discussions in behavior. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. That phrase should really go something like "You can't bring a horse to water, only lead it." People reject force. There's something instinctive in every human psyche that makes it resist any action it does not cause of its own volition. This need to choose is incredibly important, not just to humans but to everything. Imagine a cat walking toward its bowl of food, and suddenly you push it along to make it go faster. That cat will resist, even though you're pushing it right to the object it desires.

This applies metaphysically as well. God cannot save anyone. People cannot just have that sort of energy pour into them, they respond in panic. To open the God Connection, one must choose to allow it in. Things like free will and the devil are not metaphors for the laws of the universe, they are qualities of our evolution described in a format that people can understand. God Gave us free will because it makes a species more sustainable if they have an intrinsic need to feel as though they make all their own decisions.

Even if these decisions are really just reactions happening on a cellular level, the action must emerge from within the organism, not without. And there is no Omniscient God bound by desire. Desire filters awareness.

Omniscience means knowing what you will do, not choosing what you will do. Historians (assuming for the sake of argument that history is entirely accurate) know what people in the past chose to do, but that doesn't mean that said people didn't have a choice, simply that we know which choice they made. Given little about God is truly understood, it's entirely possible and highly probable that He is totally beyond the realm of human comprehension. As far as we know, God is not affected by what we call time or can bypass it via mechanisms unbeknownst to us. If we assume this is true, God could effectively know all the decisions we have ever made and will make in our subjective "future". Thus, He is omniscient and we maintain free will.

There is no contradiction. Humans have free will to make choices, but their decision-making is based on rule-sets, and you can predict how someone will behave without even being omniscient.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Unfortunately this goes beyond understanding of Christian Literature so I'm forced to advocate my own point of view. I would also be interested to see how an actual Christian responds, though. (So far it seems the responses have been from every point of view except Theistic).

But the way I've heard Source described (let's call this the Holy Ghost to keep Christians in the loop), it is omniscient. The Father, however, is not omniscient. The Father is no more powerful than any other sort of King, he is a thought-form given power through worship and belief. One POV claims that he emerged from our imagination, another claims he was the first being to drop in to Universe Bound By Desire since the last Great Cleansing and that there's always one guy to drop in first and this guy almost always think they created everything to follow because they desired company so bad. The point is I believe one of those two. I'm not sure which one but to have this discussion with me one has to accept that any sort of reference to an Omniscient God is in respect to the Holy Ghost, not to The Father.

The Father is God. God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It's a wide common believe that the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are all the same being, just different forms. They all three have the same traits as the other.

God doesn't need worship or belief to obtain power, he's supposed to be omnipotent. That means he's already all-powerful. He's also supposed to be perfect which would also negate the need for worship and belief to get power.

God wouldn't have a desire for company if he were truly perfect. A being that is perfect will never have the need to create anything and would never have a need to create something to have power because if he had to do either of those he wouldn't be perfect.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That being said, the Holy Ghost is not bound by desire and therefore its omniscience means nothing and does not contradict our free will in anyway. From this standpoint, free will comes in two layers. In the first layer it exists as an abstract concept, beneficial for discussions in behavior. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. That phrase should really go something like "You can't bring a horse to water, only lead it." People reject force. There's something instinctive in every human psyche that makes it resist any action it does not cause of its own volition. This need to choose is incredibly important, not just to humans but to everything. Imagine a cat walking toward its bowl of food, and suddenly you push it along to make it go faster. That cat will resist, even though you're pushing it right to the object it desires.

This applies metaphysically as well. God cannot save anyone. People cannot just have that sort of energy pour into them, they respond in panic. To open the God Connection, one must choose to allow it in. Things like free will and the devil are not metaphors for the laws of the universe, they are qualities of our evolution described in a format that people can understand. God Gave us free will because it makes a species more sustainable if they have an intrinsic need to feel as though they make all their own decisions.

Even if these decisions are really just reactions happening on a cellular level, the action must emerge from within the organism, not without. And there is no Omniscient God bound by desire. Desire filters awareness.

It seems to me being that God is omniscient he knew Adam would eat the forbidden fruit before he even created him as he has to know the past, present and future. Omniscience is believed by the majority of Christians that God knows everything that ever happened, is happening and will happen. So, that being said, when God decided to create Adam and Eve he already knew they'd betray his word and Adam would eat the forbidden fruit thereby taking away the freewill for Adam to choose. He was predestined to go against God's word. Adam didn't have a choice in the matter being that he was already destined to eat the fruit.

Even the Bible supports predeterminism which denies free will:

Ephesians 1:3-6
Ephesians 2:4-10
Romans 8:28-30
Romans 9:10-15
Romans 9:16-19
2 Timothy 1:9
Acts 13:48
2 Thessalonians 2:13
Revelations 13:8
Ecclesiastes 7:13
2 Thessalonians 2:9-13

They show that people have no choice in a lot of matters because God has created them to be a certain way. Just look at Revelations 13:8, it clearly states God has created one group of people that will conform with Jesus and a group that will not. Therefore they have no free will to choose. They're predestined for Hell. What omnibenevolent being creates people predestined for Hell?

Now I'm not Christian but there is an interesting factor which renders me in agreement with the stance of most of the scripture.

God knew Adam would eat the fruit because that was Adams choice...however god does not create men with thier choices predetermined...it just means god is outside of time so it can see the choices oneself makes all in an instant. I feel this conundrum of questioning gods benevolence versus his omniscience is really a misunderstanding that god doesn't really create anything with specific intention. God does not have a choice that it itself exists. And all possibilities exist because god exists, now all possibilities existing does not mean that an infinite number of individuals have to experience all possibilities - simply because the possiblilites exist... I see this as the Akashic Record; sea of information/potential factor. All moments exist simultaneously as holographic imprints, and intention navigates and chooses those possibilities to become lived i.e. an infinite number of timeliness. However I do not feel not everyone in a timeline is infact experiencing those events as a first hand life experience...imo via esoteric experiences, some people experience alt-timelines as "dreams" in a detached state of awareness whereby all events occur and oneself responds how they would in real life but they don't actually feel any sensations of the experience because they are passively aware. Its like a program that operates on accord of the individuals who are experiencing the timeliness as their everyday life - they project the expectation of responses into the individuals that are merely "dream characters" ( so the dream characters have no choice in their actions - this is what I feel is the nature of dreams which are not abstract i.e. they do not have nonsensical events and one cannot tell they are dreaming).

Therefore god cannot be blamed for the choices one makes. On the other hand individuals can be responsible for negative choices of those who proceed them... i.e. a man may be forced to steal in order to feed himself and his family because rich people define unrealistic standards in the structure of society, therefore the rich condemn themselves at a spiritual level whilst they limit the choices of others who they would then have the gall to lock up for stealing. The man who I seen as guilty by the eyes of the rich is in truth innocent in spirit. Thus people cannot judge only spirit can – it will use justified persons in its processes tho.

Regarding the nature of Yahweh in the OT I would say that he is a fraction of the infinite oneness in its descended state of depletion after manifesting existence. In other words he was in amnesia of true oneness but had a innate desire and inbuilt understanding that being worshipped could enable him to ascend his frequency back to a level of completeness via the holy spirit (absolute oneness). This could not be accomplished unless Christ came and served as a mediator between the heavenly realm and the separated metaphysical/physical realm of Yahweh (as a creator God - portion of infinite potential manifest)

So Yahweh is the father, oneness is the holy spirit and Christ is the son. Christ is a portion of yahweh that was left behind in the creation process so that the holy-spirit could merge with him before he incarnate and then saturate Yahweh as he descended with the link back to oneness.

So effectively Yahweh was redeemed by Christ, and then once Yahweh was restored to awareness of oneness, Christ was then enabled to ascend back to the havens because Yahweh (and all beings within him) was not restricted to the finite boundaries of his own creation.

Now in light of the holy spirit explained (oneness) it can be contended that the “dream characters” of any particular timeline are operating on auto pilot via the Akashic Records (directed by the holy spirit) So the holy spirit animates the beings who are not truly there in their own spirit essence (because they only exist as individuals making conscious in timelines where they are making conscious decisions on their own accord,) Meaning the dream characters are like a hive consciousness of which simulate the circumstances for others who choose (on their own accord) a given stream of events as their time line of waking life. This I feel is one function of the holy spirit. The other is to redeem those who have been forced to make choices against their own accord so that they may ascend (upon death) into a higher potential time-line or the paradise existence of eternity (heaven) but thats another story all together and it is spoken of throughout all religions and ancient cultures.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I know many Christians believe they have free will, but they also believe their God is omniscient. Omniscience means he knows everything--past, present and future.

So, there lies a problem. If he knows everything from now until the end, how can you believe there's free will then? If God knows you're going to do X can you do Y instead? No, not if he's truly omniscient. If you truly believe God is omniscient then you can not believe you have free will. They contradict one another.

That contradiction brings up the problem that either God isn't omniscient or you don't have free will.

Actually, the contradiction isn't omniscience or free will - but whether or not God is separate from creation.

If God is an old man sitting in the sky - separate from you - how could you have free will? This being, far far away, created you, knowing you would sin before even creating you, knowing you would be punished for the sin, still went ahead knowing all of this and created you so you can be punished!!! Its a headache!

How could that ever be free will?

But mystics look at God's omniscience with a personal and enlightening clarity "I only know that which I experience. I can only know God if I experience God". (Mystics also conclude that it is possible to experience God)

Mystics understand that knowingness is an active state of awareness, not abstract knowledge found in a text book. Without this fundamental philosophy that "to know is to experience" we look at Gods omniscience, at Gods all-knowingness as distant and as far removed as reading about dolphins and claiming we know dolphin.

There is only one way to know what it means to be a dolphin and that is to be a dolphin!!!!

If God knows everything, well then by Gods will God must be everything and everyone!!

Now look at what the mystics have done. Where as before omniscience and free will seemed at odds with each other, now the two have united as one. For the mystics, your free will is Gods will to be you and also fulfills Gods omniscience of you.

Which brings me to my last point, free will is not about the free will do do what ever you want to do, but the freedom to be you. This is why not expressing ourselves leads to emotional problems versus a red stoplight stopping your car. As the mystics say, choose to be! Seriously, they think its divine.

nituJ, I'm still not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that God knowing what you will do is tantamount to predestination. Predestination, in Christianity, is mostly specific to Calvinism. You also seem to be leaving something out in this argument:

Originally Posted by nituJ

It seems to me being that God is omniscient he knew Adam would eat the forbidden fruit before he even created him as he has to know the past, present and future. Omniscience is believed by the majority of Christians that God knows everything that ever happened, is happening and will happen. So, that being said, when God decided to create Adam and Eve he already knew they'd betray his word and Adam would eat the forbidden fruit thereby taking away the freewill for Adam to choose. He was predestined to go against God's word. Adam didn't have a choice in the matter being that he was already destined to eat the fruit.

You seem to be assuming that God is creating Adam with the intention of making Adam sinful or to eat the forbidden fruit. Just because God knows that a person he creates will be sinful or not when they are created, does not mean he chose that path for them, they did. He simply knows. You seem to be arguing more whether God is benevolent, but somehow coming to the conclusion that we have no free will.

Let me ask you this: if your beef is with how God knew that the person he was going to create would be sinful before he created him (assuming God can see his own future and not just that of which he created) and still be considered benevolent, what would you say to him giving you the gift of life at all? For some, life sucks, yes, but would you rather have existed or never existed at all? I guess the answer to that question depends a lot on you, but personally, though I'm atheist, if I turn out to be wrong, I would be pretty happy (despite the shitty times in my life) that God gave me a chance to live at all.

Originally Posted by snoop

You seem to be assuming that God is creating Adam with the intention of making Adam sinful or to eat the forbidden fruit.

Of course I'm saying he created Adam with the intention of making him sin. God already knew before he ever made Adam that he'd eat the fruit. If God goes ahead and creates him then he's making it inevitable for Adam to eat the fruit, Adam can't choose to not eat the fruit. He's destined to eat the fruit.

Originally Posted by snoop

Just because God knows that a person he creates will be sinful or not when they are created, does not mean he chose that path for them, they did. He simply knows. You seem to be arguing more whether God is benevolent, but somehow coming to the conclusion that we have no free will.

According to Christianity all of us Atheists will go to Hell and by you saying that we choose our path implies to me you believe we choose to go to Hell since that's the consequence of our lack of belief.

This reminds me of an episode of the Atheist Experience where a caller called in and stated Atheists choose to go to Hell which got shot down by Jeff Dee (I think it was) who said he chooses not to go to Hell. Then the caller kept trying to argue that yes, he indeed does choose to go to Hell. Obviously no one would choose to go to Hell, but according to your statement that this is the path we choose we do in fact choose to go there.

Originally Posted by snoop

Let me ask you this: if your beef is with how God knew that the person he was going to create would be sinful before he created him (assuming God can see his own future and not just that of which he created) and still be considered benevolent, what would you say to him giving you the gift of life at all? For some, life sucks, yes, but would you rather have existed or never existed at all? I guess the answer to that question depends a lot on you, but personally, though I'm atheist, if I turn out to be wrong, I would be pretty happy (despite the shitty times in my life) that God gave me a chance to live at all.

I like my life, to be honest with you. I would have rather existed, but thankfully for me I lack belief in any deity and I feel I can choose as I want. I see omniscience as a logical contradiction as the other traits--omnipotence and omnipresence--of God.

The Bible supports the claim by saying God destines people for Heaven or Hell before he creates the person. To me, that isn't giving free will. In Christianity, if free will exists, can you say it's logical to believe a person chooses to be eternally tortured knowing that someone like me realizes if I am wrong I will be burning in Hell? I would hope your answer would be no.

I guess I'll throw in my two cents in from a Christian perspective but I'm extremely impressed by the replies I've seen here, so there is not much for me to add.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

It's a wide common believe that the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are all the same being, just different forms. They all three have the same traits as the other.

This is not true. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 separate and distinct entities.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

God doesn't need worship or belief to obtain power, he's supposed to be omnipotent. That means he's already all-powerful. He's also supposed to be perfect which would also negate the need for worship and belief to get power.

God doesn't need our worship. Nowhere in the scriptures has it ever been implied that God needs anything. Now on the other hand God commands or request our worship because it's beneficial to us. Anything else humans worship doesn't appear to benefit us and it only brings more harm to us than good.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

This is not true. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 separate and distinct entities.

They're all the same though, according to Christianity. Even the Bible says they're all "one". All three of them together make up what is known as "God".

1 John 5:7
King James Version (KJV)
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God doesn't need our worship. Nowhere in the scriptures has it ever been implied that God needs anything. Now on the other hand God commands or request our worship because it's beneficial to us. Anything else humans worship doesn't appear to benefit us and it only brings more harm to us than good.

Many people believe he does need our worship in order for him to have power, this includes Christians. When they claim that, they're contradicting their God.

How does anything else humans worship appear to not benefit people and bring them more harm than good? Over one billion Muslims would disagree with that saying, "Anything else worshiped besides Allah causes more harm than good." Worship and prayer only brings "good" because the people that partake in it see it as that.

It's like the scenario where a boy grows up in a gang infested town:

1. Boy goes out and gets shot at but all of the bullets miss. God is good by not letting him get hit.

2. Boy goes out and gets shot at but only a few bullets hit leaving him with non-life threatening injuries. God is good for not letting the damage be worse or even possibly fatal.

3. Boy goes out and gets shot but suffers from extensive damage which leaves him in a mental state where he can't take care of himself and needs a permanent caretaker. God is good for not letting him die.

4. Boy goes out and gets shot and suffers from fatal injuries and dies. God is good for not letting him suffer.

No matter the outcome of anything, God is going to be "good" for whatever happens.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

They're all the same though, according to Christianity. Even the Bible says they're all "one". All three of them together make up what is known as "God".

1 John 5:7
King James Version (KJV)
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The Textus Receptus pertaining to 1 John 5:7 - 8 is a grammatical anomaly. The reason I say this is because the Greek word describing "One" in this particular passage is presented in the neuter form hen, which doesn't mean one GOD. This is even more evident when referencing the word GOD in the New Testament, GOD is always associated in the masculine form and gramatically adjectives (such as "one") associated with it must also present itself within a masculine form. (i.e, heis - masculine form.)

John demonstrates (Majority Text), John 5:6 "This-One He-is the-One having-come through water and Blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the Blood. 5:7 "And the Spirit it-is the-thing bearing-witness, because the Spirit it-is the truth." 5:8 "Because THREE they-are THE-ONES BEARING-WITNESS, the Spirit and the water and the Blood, and THE THREE-ONES for the ONE-THING they-are." 5:9 "If THE WITNESS OF-THE MEN we-accept, the witness of-the God greater it-is, because this it-is the witness of-the God which He-has-born-witness regarding the Son of-Him.”

John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8, which comprise “the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him” in verse 5:9, to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” in verse 5:8, who comprise the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8.

When the Greek neuter "One" (hen) is applied to persons, it means "ONE-THING". In other words they have become united in something such as "objective, purpose, plan" "will," etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father. That is why Jesus states that he and the Almighty Father are one (but not one in the same) They are essentially in accordance with one another sharing identical purposes, plans, objectives, or whatever the case may be.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Many people believe he does need our worship in order for him to have power, this includes Christians. When they claim that, they're contradicting their God.

Well you're not talking to many people right now. Your discussing this with me and this doesn't make sense and I've already demonstrated why it doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

How does anything else humans worship appear to not benefit people and bring them more harm than good?

One good example here would be cigarettes. They cause all sorts of problems and they provide absolutely no benefit to us whatsoever.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Over one billion Muslims would disagree with that saying, "Anything else worshiped besides Allah causes more harm than good." Worship and prayer only brings "good" because the people that partake in it see it as that.

Well everyone's not going to agree with me, which makes us the unique people we are. In that same sense as a Christian I follow the one true God Yahweh and I cannot agree with the following of a pagen deity.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

No matter the outcome of anything, God is going to be "good" for whatever happens.

Well of course, God surely isn't evil. God is good.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The Textus Receptus pertaining to 1 John 5:7 - 8 is a grammatical anomaly. The reason I say this is because the Greek word describing "One" in this particular passage is presented in the neuter form hen, which doesn't mean one GOD. This is even more evident when referencing the word GOD in the New Testament, GOD is always associated in the masculine form and gramatically adjectives (such as "one") associated with it must also present itself within a masculine form. (i.e, heis - masculine form.)

John demonstrates (Majority Text), John 5:6 "This-One He-is the-One having-come through water and Blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the Blood. 5:7 "And the Spirit it-is the-thing bearing-witness, because the Spirit it-is the truth." 5:8 "Because THREE they-are THE-ONES BEARING-WITNESS, the Spirit and the water and the Blood, and THE THREE-ONES for the ONE-THING they-are." 5:9 "If THE WITNESS OF-THE MEN we-accept, the witness of-the God greater it-is, because this it-is the witness of-the God which He-has-born-witness regarding the Son of-Him.”

John comparatively (this is like that) equates “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” in verse 5:8, which comprise “the witness of the God / the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him” in verse 5:9, to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” in verse 5:8, who comprise the “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in verse 5:9, hence the masculine gender in verse 5:8.

When the Greek neuter "One" (hen) is applied to persons, it means "ONE-THING". In other words they have become united in something such as "objective, purpose, plan" "will," etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father. That is why Jesus states that he and the Almighty Father are one (but not one in the same) They are essentially in accordance with one another sharing identical purposes, plans, objectives, or whatever the case may be.

How can one God be three persons?
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well you're not talking to many people right now. Your discussing this with me and this doesn't make sense and I've already demonstrated why it doesn't make sense.

Well, if you see why that problem makes no sense to you; why don't the other problems make no sense to you?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

One good example here would be cigarettes. They cause all sorts of problems and they provide absolutely no benefit to us whatsoever.

I'm guessing you're speaking of addiction. How many people do you know that are addicted to smoking claim to have deep respect for the cigarettes they smoke? I believe if you asked them, "Do you want to stop smoking?" They would say, "Yes." They don't worship cigarettes, they're addicted to them.

Also, we were speaking of worshiping deities. A cigarette isn't a deity.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well everyone's not going to agree with me, which makes us the unique people we are. In that same sense as a Christian I follow the one true God Yahweh and I cannot agree with the following of a pagen deity.

Yes, that's fine, but I was showing that your claim of, "Anything else humans worship doesn't appear to benefit us and it only brings more harm to us than good," is just an opinion as Muslims would claim the worship of Allah is beneficial and anything worshiped besides him is more harmful than good.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well of course, God surely isn't evil. God is good.

Joshua 6:21-24

If he is truly good then why would he condone the murder of the innocent men, women and children in that town? He also murdered livestock for crying out loud.

That's just one part that shows God isn't purely good.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

If those relations are the real claims, then this is brilliant.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well everyone's not going to agree with me, which makes us the unique people we are. In that same sense as a Christian I follow the one true God Yahweh and I cannot agree with the following of a pagen deity.

Do you have some main reason for believing in the Christian God but not the others?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

How can one God be three persons?
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see you posted a link from Christainanswers.net. I don't agree with a lot of things they stand by. For one, I'm an Old Earth Creationist I stand by the belief that the Earth is (4.5Gya), whereas, they hold the belief that the Earth is roughly 20,000 years old. I also believe in biological evolution and they dismiss things like that. So yea my views are completely different in many areas than theirs. You may want to read these.

The Nicene Creed and the Trinity
Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Well, if you see why that problem makes no sense to you; why don't the other problems make no sense to you?

What other problems?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I'm guessing you're speaking of addiction.

Then you're guessing wrong. the Origin of cigarettes.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Also, we were speaking of worshiping deities. A cigarette isn't a deity.

My response above.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Yes, that's fine, but I was showing that your claim of, "Anything else humans worship doesn't appear to benefit us and it only brings more harm to us than good," is just an opinion as Muslims would claim the worship of Allah is beneficial and anything worshiped besides him is more harmful than good.

And I just demonstrated that it wasn't an opinion, referencing the worshiping of cigarettes.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Joshua 6:21-24

If he is truly good then why would he condone the murder of the innocent men, women and children in that town? He also murdered livestock for crying out loud.

That's just one part that shows God isn't purely good.

If I had a nickle for every-time I've seen an Atheist quote this passage I'd be a rich man. Before I get into this, understand something, God is, necessarily, sovereign. Sovereignty implies that God is in absolute control of the universe. This is rightfully apparent as in the case that God has created all living things and has sustained them by His grace. Thus, all things owe each second of their lives to Him. We don’t deserve anything, only God deserves anything–which is our adoration, thanksgiving, praise and worship.

Now let's examine the charge you've imposed. God is evil for allowing and endorsing the complete destruction of Jericho, which includes women, children, and animals. Now in my observation I don't believe any women or children were present or executed. I say this because all the battles were with military outposts and soldiers, where women and children would not have been present. The fact of the matter exist within these narratives, that there is no record whatsoever that women or children were actually killed by anyone. God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land. It was the land that was (and remains today!) paramount in the minds of these Ancient Near Eastern peoples. The Canaanite tribal kingdoms which occupied the land were to be destroyed as nation states, not as individuals. The judgment of God upon these tribal groups, which had become so incredibly debauched by that time, is that they were being divested of their land. Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.

Therefore it is completely misleading to characterize God’s command to Israel as a command of pure evil. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. There may have been no non-combatants killed at all. As it should be, considering there is no record of the killing of women and children, as I believe didn't occur. Such scenes may have never taken place, since it was the soldiers who remained to fight. It is also stands to note as to why there were plenty of Canaanite people around after the conquest of the land, as the biblical record attests.

Some other factors to consider regarding this passage from Geisler and Howe

Originally Posted by The book of Biblical difficulties

1) The Canaanites were far from innocent. The Canaanites abhorrent immorality is described in Leviticus 18, which includes descriptions of such Canaanite practices as child sacrifice (see Leviticus 18:21, 24, 25, and 26). These people were not walking around minding their own business. They were a dangerous, defiled nation (Geisler, 137).

2) God had given Palestine more than 400 years to repent, starting with the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:16. The people of the land, however, had not repented (137).

3) In regards to killing everyone, including women and children, the fact of the matter is that they were part of a people whose depravity was such that anyone who came in contact with it was polluted (see Leviticus 18 once more). Geisler and Howe further put forward the controversial view that children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven (they cite 2 Samuel 12:23 for this) and so God was being merciful by bringing them to Him rather than having them condemned for eternity (138–I am not endorsing the latter part of this argument, but I think it was worth repeating here).

4) God’s sovereignty means that He who has created life may also take it (138).

5) The threat of such a vile, violent, and corrupt people meant they must be eradicated so as not to lead astray God’s chosen people, who had already shown themselves susceptible to such apostasy (138).

I have a question for you.

Let's just assume for a moment that the classical God of Abraham does indeed exist (i.e., omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent/omnibenevolent/necessary/sovereign/etc.). If this God does indeed exists and one of God's essence implies sovereignty (ultimate authority in the universe) who is high enough to pass judgement on such an entity?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Do you have some main reason for believing in the Christian God but not the others?

Well, I wasn't always a Christian and wasn't raised as one but when I became a young adult I had a sort-of-an-awakening I would call it.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I see you posted a link from Christainanswers.net. I don't agree with a lot of things they stand by. For one, I'm an Old Earth Creationist I stand by the belief that the Earth is (4.5Gya), whereas, they hold the belief that the Earth is roughly 20,000 years old. I also believe in biological evolution and they dismiss things like that. So yea my views are completely different in many areas than theirs. You may want to read these.

The Nicene Creed and the Trinity
Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I don't believe we're going to settle with this as there's evidence for both and seems to be a matter of opinion although the trinity is a wide belief.

One of the links talks about how there's a lack of speaking about the Trinity in the Bible as proof it isn't true. If that's why you don't believe it I'm going to have to ask you these things:

Do you believe the crucifixion of Jesus was a gruesome ordeal?
Do you believe Jesus was resurrected?
Do you believe there will be a Rapture?
Do you think Satan is a bad guy?
Do you believe when people die they either go to Heaven or Hell?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What other problems?

The fact that God is supposedly perfect yet is able to create imperfect things. The fact that his omnipotence is a logical contradiction.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Then you're guessing wrong. the Origin of cigarettes.

My response above.

I'm sorry, but now you're implying that Christians that smoke are willingly and knowingly worshiping a sun-god or Baal? Seems pretty foolish to me. I'm pretty sure my mother would disagree with you. So, no, they're not worshiping Gods by smoking. That's like saying when a person bows their head they're praying. People smoke because they're addicted to the nicotine in the cigarette, not because they want to worship a sun-god or Baal.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

And I just demonstrated that it wasn't an opinion, referencing the worshiping of cigarettes.

Yes, but obviously Christians don't worship a sun-god or Baal, so the claim is still wrong.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If I had a nickle for every-time I've seen an Atheist quote this passage I'd be a rich man. Before I get into this, understand something, God is, necessarily, sovereign. Sovereignty implies that God is in absolute control of the universe. This is rightfully apparent as in the case that God has created all living things and has sustained them by His grace. Thus, all things owe each second of their lives to Him. We don’t deserve anything, only God deserves anything–which is our adoration, thanksgiving, praise and worship.

Why does he deserve it? Why does a perfect being feel he deserves something?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Now let's examine the charge you've imposed. God is evil for allowing and endorsing the complete destruction of Jericho, which includes women, children, and animals. Now in my observation I don't believe any women or children were present or executed. I say this because all the battles were with military outposts and soldiers, where women and children would not have been present.

Yet the Bible states women and children were murdered. Does the Bible contain yet another lie?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The fact of the matter exist within these narratives, that there is no record whatsoever that women or children were actually killed by anyone.

There's also no record Jesus was ever born besides the Bible saying so, are you going to lack belief in that now?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land. It was the land that was (and remains today!) paramount in the minds of these Ancient Near Eastern peoples. The Canaanite tribal kingdoms which occupied the land were to be destroyed as nation states, not as individuals. The judgment of God upon these tribal groups, which had become so incredibly debauched by that time, is that they were being divested of their land. Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.

Therefore it is completely misleading to characterize God’s command to Israel as a command of pure evil. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. There may have been no non-combatants killed at all. As it should be, considering there is no record of the killing of women and children, as I believe didn't occur. Such scenes may have never taken place, since it was the soldiers who remained to fight. It is also stands to note as to why there were plenty of Canaanite people around after the conquest of the land, as the biblical record attests.

Some other factors to consider regarding this passage from Geisler and Howe

I'm sorry, but to me, killing innocent men, women and children is evil.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I have a question for you.

Let's just assume for a moment that the classical God of Abraham does indeed exist (i.e., omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent/omnibenevolent/necessary/sovereign/etc.). If this God does indeed exists and one of God's essence implies sovereignty (ultimate authority in the universe) who is high enough to pass judgement on such an entity?

I can't logically assume that as those traits are logical contradictions, but I feel anyone can judge anyone by saying they're evil when they kill innocent men, women or children. It's also evil to create a person who has no chance of getting into Heaven.