[MarkBsnr]

***No, I think a dog can understand “if I do this then I get a yummy treat or a pat on the head which I like”. That’s not too complicated for them, and it IS understanding. Dogs don’t obey commands for no reason, at least at first. And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the “king”, etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.***

Are you comparing a dog getting a yummy treat to our everlasting life? We really do have completely different theologies, sir. And a completely different understanding of God.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: ***No, I think a dog can understand “if I do this then I get a yummy treat or a pat on the head which I like”. That’s not too complicated for them, and it IS understanding. Dogs don’t obey commands for no reason, at least at first. And just from personal experience our dog treats every individual family member differently, based on his perceived station for us. I am the “king”, etc. That HAS to involve some understanding.***

Are you comparing a dog getting a yummy treat to our everlasting life? We really do have completely different theologies, sir. And a completely different understanding of God.

LOL! No. I am arguing against the proposition put forth by Kosta that we can either understand everything of God, or virtually nothing of Him at all. I was saying that just as a dog can have SOME real understanding, although it is not exhaustive, so too can humans have SOME understanding of God that is perfectly true, although not exhaustive. That's it. :) I would actually expect you to agree with me on this.