They said what they saw… not what it was… if they would say WHAT it was they would be able to explain it… which is completely different from what they perceived.
Ok, but that’s irrelevant isn’t it. What matters is what they perceived. And they perceived the sun dancing. You claimed that God disturbed the natural order in such a way as to make his presence known. But of course THAT is nothing like what the witnesses actually reported. Their statements said that they saw the sun dancing.*
Check the definition of “perception” for a context.
No worries, once again Merriam Webster lines up exactly as I use the term.*
I said that people perceived SOMETHING and they explained it the best they could.*
If the explanation is incorrect it doesn’t mean that SOMETHING was not there…*
Well of course they saw SOMETHING, even with your eyes shut you see something. Now what they SAID they saw was the sun dancing.*Unless we are going to throw out the witness testimony altogether then we have to work on the basis that what they said is what they perceived - the sun dancing.
We don’t seem to be in disagreement on this point, do we?
No… you built a straw man when you explained what God can and cannot do. Not even the Catholic Church, the Church He Himself created does that.
I said that the Christian God cannot make a mistake and can’t be surprised by something. This is because the Christian notion of God is omnipotent and omniscient. So actually by saying that God is “all-knowing” the church DOES say that God cannot be surprised.*
If you disagree regarding Gods characteristics then please let me know. For example if the God you believe in isn’t omniscient then the problem evaporates. Just like Margaret in the train station. In all probability in the end God would be saying something like “woops… oh well, no harm done as it worked out”.
Expected… not necessarily…
Ahh, so it’s starting to look as if you believe God is NOT omniscient yes? I say this because if God was omniscient then clearly he would necessarily have expected this.*
*but “intended”? Did you read the same Bible I did?
“Make disciples of all nations”
“the Grace has appeared for all men”…
etc…
Yes, what’s your point? He never gave a timescale so we can’t say any of those failed.*
Not necessarily. Jesus’s death on the Cross was clearly God’s Will and only a few saw in it the Salvation that it was. Many mocked Him as He stood there.
Right… I’m not sure I understand your point. I never said people can’t make mistakes, that would be silly.*
…Just like people didn’t interpret Jesus’s death as the Salvation.
Incorrect, the clear difference here is that in one case people allegedly lacked all the information (about blood sacrifice being part of Gods plan) while in the other people saw something happening which was not happening.
And once again God cannot evade responsibility for people misinterpreting him. Because he must have known in advance that they would “misinterpret” him, thus it was not a misinterpretation.
Which part do you find difficult to understand?*
If you cannot see your mistake fine… then just answer my question.
What question? I’ve followed the trail back through trying to locate a question I haven’t answered but failed.
And I did explain… several times.
Not as far as I can tell. Looking back the exchange seems to have been your mysterious statement in post 192, my query what you meant, your accusation of conflating, my clarification and repeat of query, your statement that you’ve already explained.*
If it’s not important then please don’t worry about it.
2a (both 1 and 2) is regarding an object. It has no meaning for this application as there is no object in the mention. That’s why I told you that b was the most appropriate one.
Actually there’s no problem with considering an image to be an object in terms of usage in English. Incidentally you’ll note that both 1b(1) and 1b(2) also refer to deception and neither of those are obsolete or referring to objects.
That’s why it’s called a miracle…
I wouldn’t use those words…
Yes. (For the sake of keeping this short)
Great, so we’ve got as far as agreeing (for the sake of discussion):
- The sun didn’t dance.
- People perceived that the sun danced.
- God created a supernatural influence that caused 2. even though 1. was true.
Now all that remains (as far as I can tell) is to determine if God did so deliberately and knowingly (deception) or not (error).*
No… you are saying what you understand of what you read about what the Catholic Church says about God…
Ok, well as I said the relevant bits of what I read about what the catholic church says about God are that 1. He is omnipotent and 2. He is omniscient.
As I’ve said repeatedly, if you disagree with one of these then let me know and I’ll happily adjust accordingly.*
… But it may simply be because you as an atheist cannot really put yourself “in the shoes” of a Christian.
Well I was a Christian for decades, so it’s not so much “putting myself in the shoes of” but rather “remember being”.
You already mentioned you believed He wanted people to see the sun dancing (if I am quoting accurately) which presumes a motive.
Well not quite, I don’t believe that any gods exist, so I don’t see any need to conjecture upon their potential motives. But if one does exist and is perfect / omniscient / omnipotent etc then clearly such a being clearly cannot do something accidentally.
Take care and may God’s Grace abound in you.
D.
Thanks, kind of you to say.
