Perhaps you would like to explain your version of timelessness.
Timelessness is a state without temporal relations. Without
any temporal relations.
But, just so you know, I am not arguing what "suits" me, but rather what I have come to know...not by my own fallible logic, but by the knowledge of One greater than us both. So, even though we argue...it is no contest. I do this as a genuine attempt to share the great things that I have been entrusted with.
I don't say that you consciously obfuscate the matter. But you are inconsistent in presenting this "knowlegde of the One greater than us both". You keep shifting in your references. You talk about things that have a temporal relation, while assuming that they don't have a temporal relation.
I believe that you are genuine. I cannot say anything about whether you have been "entrusted with [...] great things". (Though I don't believe it.)
What I
can say though: you are definitly doing it wrong.
Let me present you with an example... an analogy from a topic that does indeed deal with "truth": mathematics.
We make a definite statement... let's say "every whole number can be written as one distinct product of prime numbers".
We can claim that as "knowledge", as something revealed to us by a higher power, based on higher knowledge.
We might be faced by people who doubt our knowledge, who don't accept, who don't understand, who deny this. (And believe me: in this special case, I have met some of these people.
)
And now our ways split.
I can take you by the hand, and lead you through the streets of Lon... err, numbers. And I can show you, step by step, why this statement must be true, why it cannot be false... I can prove it to you.
You keep on asserting "knowledge", urging me to accept your knowledge, to test your knowledge without telling me how to test it, unable to tell me where I got it wrong if my tests are negative. In your attempts to explain yourself, you keep mixing stuff - mixing whole numbers and rational numbers and real numbers and sums and products.
Your initial statement is, in this case, still correct. But you don't show any understanding of it. I can show that it is correct... you cannot.
But now we are faced with a statement that we don't know is correct. A statement that goes against anything that I consider "true". A statement that, as I see it, is full of holes and contradictions, empty claims and meaningless terms.
I ask you to guide me through it, to show me where I am wrong... to prove it to me. And you cannot.
Not a sign of truth nor falsehood per se. But a sign that your claim of knowledge is false.
I am, in my finite, human state, simply trying to paint you a picture...just as God has done with all of creation. But instead of you looking at the picture for what is behind it, you look only to the surface...and miss the intended message. My little analogies/word pictures, such as they are, are an extra PS, a personal invitation. I am his messenger. Are you sure you want to continue in such contempt?
Do you really think that this is contempt? Do you think that I am not sincere, not "genuine", that I am making fun of you, being deliberately obnoxious. Or rebelling against the authority of God or dogs and pigs unworthy of your wisdom or whatever else Christians think about unbelievers?
If you do, if you think that, we can end this conversation. There is no way we could ever find common ground.
But if you do believe me when I tell you that I am interested in understanding you, and that I am just trying my best to make you understand... consider this.
We both, in our finite, fallible, human state, are trying to get our positions across. We want to make each other understand what we are talking about.
I present a human message. I cannot claim authority or "higher knowledge". If I fail to communicate, I fail myself. Sometimes humans fail.
But you... you are a messenger for GOD! For the ultimate authority! For the source of knowledge and wisdom! You are HIS messenger, and HE entrusted you with a messege of enormous importance for us! Or so you think.
Don't you think that this ultimate wise and knowing God would find a better way to get his extremly important message understood by the people? Would he not at least find a way so that it is not constantly misunderstood?
I have my explanation for why he doesn't. What is yours?
