ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.

Hats off to your thinking ability in spotting false logic/analogy.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hats off to your thinking ability in spotting false logic/analogy.

Thanks, reading you and Clete makes me sharp.

 

[Clete]

Yes, but you'd have to concede, there is nothing to go back to and this is a new train of thought in theology, or possibly an offshoot from somewhere.

This comment makes no sense!

What else would there to be to go back to except the Bible and sound reason?

You'd also have to figure out where the influences came from since it couldn't have been Greek.

I wouldn't care where they came from. Their irrational and therefore wrong, it doesn't matter where they came from.

(how could you not be interested in commentaries? I love commentaries, please tell me you have commentaries. I think I saw commentaries on Enyart's Battle Royale, You have to have commentaries. Come on Clete, tell me you have at least one)

I don't care about commentaries over and above the Scripture itself and sound reason. I do not make decision about what I believe based on someone else's opinion unless they can establish that opinion as truth with Scripture and sound reason.

Are you noticing a pattern here baloney? It has something to do with Scripture and sound reason and not anyone's personal opinions whether they happen to be Jewish, Greek, Polish, German or Japanese. Get it?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Go away now. PLEASE!

Why?

 

[baloney]

Clete, gravity is subjective. It's relationship that we make with our minds between two or more objects just like most science is subjective.

 

[baloney]

Clete, time dialation because of gravity has been verified through particle acceleration experiments, cosmic ray evidence and gravitational redshift, you LLLIiar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics#Electromagnetism_and_the_speed_of_light

 

[baloney]

Clete, the New Testament perspective of God is influenced by the Greek. hoaxxter!

 

[baloney]

Clete, duration of time is measured mathematically, Fraud!

 

[baloney]

So to summarize, there's no use trying to arrive at some "pure" view of the God of the New Testament by eliminating Greek thought because the New Testament itself is written in the Greek heavily influence through Paul of Tarsus a Hellenized Jew from Asia minor, not mention John Mark and Luke and not to mention the Greek world through the Roman Empire.

The Old Testament has to be read in the light of the New Testament which has Greek influence from the get go.

So your open theism arguments are hooped!

That aboutwraps it up for this thread.

 

[godrulz]

The subjective measure of time is not the same as time fundamentally.

Physical issues and theories about time (gravity, etc.) are not relevant to the relationship of time/eternity with God before creation.

Time is simply duration/succession/sequence. This was experienced by the personal, triune God before matter existed.

Everlasting time, not timelessness, is the picture presented in Scripture (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4= tensed expressions about God).

 

[Lon]

Hey Lonnie.

I disagree, like I was telling baloney, the ancient Hebrew's concept of time wasn't like the greeks, and even if it were, so what? They weren't the most God fearing people through out most of their history. They followed other gods all the time..

Lets just stick to what the Bible tells us about God, not what the hebrews said.

Again, my contention is that it isn't greek influence then, and therefore has a considerable background. Also, Jesus knew and read of those same commentaries (as well as His disciples, who attended synagogue to hear if not read). This is significant.

 

[Lon]

It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.



No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.

But your extrapolation changes components, my analogy did not. So help me out. I'm either not using a strong enough of a tie-in analogy (I totally am not the best at them, but they help me), and/or you've missed the connection.

 

[Lon]

Yes, but you'd have to concede, there is nothing to go back to and this is a new train of thought in theology, or possibly an offshoot from somewhere.[/qutoe]
This comment makes no sense?
How would OV have anything to go back to if the OT scholars have been wrong from the beginning? Nobody ever interpreted scripture correctly? It's my turn, I'm not sure what you are saying. ?
Lon, previous: What else would there to be to go back to except the Bible and sound reason?
Clete, reply: I wouldn't care where they came from. Their irrational and therefore wrong, it doesn't matter where they came from.
This is truly a point where we can appreciate our perspectives that really do speak to the differences. Irrational or not, I am influenced by long held traditions of interpretation. I'm just not that confident in my reasoning, which is sad because I've got a killer IQ score.
I don't care about commentaries over and above the Scripture itself and sound reason. I do not make decision about what I believe based on someone else's opinion unless they can establish that opinion as truth with Scripture and sound reason.
Good, I'm exactly the same way, but maybe I'm a bit more impressed by a good thought. I really appreciate deep thinkers, especially if they can put into words or argument, a belief I've held but not articulated so well. It also helps to support areas of agreement, somebody is better at the language, somebody else is excellent with Church history, and yet another with the cultural context, etc. So while I agree with you, I'm just not an expert in every vantage point in theology. They help, and also give me a check against my own studies.

Are you noticing a pattern here baloney? It has something to do with Scripture and sound reason and not anyone's personal opinions whether they happen to be Jewish, Greek, Polish, German or Japanese. Get it?
That all being said, you are absolutely right, scripture first. Commentaries are a check, and help if we are stuck. I care about checking my theology, so that's the important point. I mean if I didn't check on what the OT theologians believed, after Baloney's post, I'd not have asked then about the greek influence. Commentaries can help, even if you were not to agree with the stance, you can find what someone believed.
Resting in Him,
Clete

In Him
Lon

 

[Philetus]

This is like saying 'a car cannot fly, so therefore, neither can it's creator.'
The car is wrong, logical, but wrong.

The car wasn't made to fly.

We were created to collaborate.

The car wasn't given life.

We were.

 

[Philetus]

So to summarize, there's no use trying to arrive at some "pure" view of the God of the New Testament by eliminating Greek thought because the New Testament itself is written in the Greek heavily influence through Paul of Tarsus a Hellenized Jew from Asia minor, not mention John Mark and Luke and not to mention the Greek world through the Roman Empire.

The Old Testament has to be read in the light of the New Testament which has Greek influence from the get go.

So your open theism arguments are hooped!

That aboutwraps it up for this thread.

Thank goodness that's over.

 

[Philetus]

Clete, gravity is subjective. It's relationship that we make with our minds between two or more objects just like most science is subjective.

Have you have been watching cartoons again?

Go ahead, gravity is subjective. Cars CAN fly! You can do it, Evil Kenevil.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Posted by DFT_Dave
As I said, God has no knowledge of what does not exist, I was not talking about our knowledge. If we are finite then by definition we are limited to present activity only, and I want a yes or a no from you on this. Only if God creates the activity for us can it become known to him before we do it, right? Your stuck in a contradiction if you believe future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable. The problem has never been how can God know the future if he has granted us free will, the problem has always been, how can God know the future if he created us finite? It doesn't matter if you say God is infinite or timeless, you have to regard the world as finite if you accept it Biblically, or else the world is eternal.

Posted by Lonster
The problem is that it doesn't, in fact, exist to us. Our logic is tied to this limitation. It however has nothing to do with God. We are the finite, limited beings. He is infinite (which means He reaches to and beyond where, what, and when we go. Infinite means already there, and surpasses. Infinite by definition has no boundaries, none. So when you ask, "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?"
You've already exceeded your limitation. You cannot know. We recognize faulty logic when we see it. It is an illogical question that hits the ceiling of our logic ability. We are finite, but He's infinite. The question cannot be answered, but more importantly, it cannot be denied or affirmed one way or the other. It is either recognized as philosophically ludicrous, or it is the ceiling of our logical apprehension. Either way, it points to a God who is infinite and gives boundaries in our logical ability we can recognize and appreciate. We are only 'so' smart.

Posted by DFT_Dave
It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.

Posted by Lonster
This is like saying 'a car cannot fly, so therefore, neither can it's creator.'
The car is wrong, logical, but wrong.

Posted by DFT_Dave
No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.

Posted by Lonster
But your extrapolation changes components, my analogy did not. So help me out. I'm either not using a strong enough of a tie-in analogy (I totally am not the best at them, but they help me), and/or you've missed the connection.


This is a break down of what you are accusing me of inferring;

"A car cannot fly"=If a man is finite (not infinite) and cannot have foreknowledge of future activity.

flight=foreknowledge of future activity

"then neither can its creator"=then God is finite (not infinite) and cannot have foreknowledge of future activity.

This is a strawman argument because I said and meant something different;

"If the creator of the car did not make it to fly"=If God made us finite we cannot have foreactivity

flight=inability to act into the future

"we will never see it in the sky and neither will the creator"=neither we nor God can have foreknowledge of future human activity if we cannot have foreactivity.

Now if your sharp, and so far I give you credit for that, you can argue that I have still left God being "finite" under your, and all those "no-name" commentary writers, definition of what it means to be "infinite". And this is where I would like this thread to go, what does it mean for God to be infinite?

Is God "infinite actuality" or "infinite potentiality"?
One of these views makes him "timeless (without time)", the other gives him "unlimited amounts of time". One of these views makes eternal time "circular", the other makes eternal time "linear". One of these views leads to "determinism", the other leads to "free will". In one of these views God is "singular being", in the other God is "plural being (Trinity)" One of these views supports the "Open View" the other supports the "Closed View". I will use Aristotles critique of Plato, Augustine, and C. S. Lewis to make my point, you can use those commentaries, but please, only if you add a name and a date--Pre-Socratic or Post-Socratic.

 

[Philetus]

If God made us finite we cannot have foreactivity.

Let's see if I get this.

In other words if God is in the future 'seeing/knowing' my future actions/decisions, then it follows that I'm there doing/making them. Which begs the question: transcending what?

I'll put my money on "infinite potentiality".

 

[elected4ever]

Let's see if I get this.

In other words if God is in the future 'seeing/knowing' my future actions/decisions, then it follows that I'm there doing/making them. Which begs the question: transcending what?

I'll put my money on "infinite potentiality".

:spam:

 

[Philetus]

:spam:

Enjoy your lunch, E.