Libertarian free will trumps compatibilistic so-called free will.
God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. If your model was correct, there would be no rape and murder of babies:wazzup:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Libertarian free will trumps compatibilistic so-called free will.
God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. If your model was correct, there would be no rape and murder of babies:wazzup:
In the beginning, creation was very good and God was glad. After the Fall, He was grieved to the core. He did not plan, intend, desire, cause the Fall. After the fact, He responds to it and mitigates it as far as possible. Things are not the way God intended. If they are, we are wrong to oppose evil like we are commanded to (we would be opposing His will and higher purpose).
God knew of the possibility of evil when He created free moral agents, but it was not a foregone conclusion. He knew how He would respond to it if it was actualized. Apart from a proper understanding of sovereignty and free will, we distort the biblical revelation in favor of an ism.
This is a specific case, not a proof text for a flawed view of providence. It supports providential vs meticulous control and shows that God is active in history and responsive to every contingency without being all-controlling (in control does not mean one gets their way in every detail; God could stop murder, but does not. He judges it in the end, so does not consider it His will, but contrary to His will...issues of timing, free will, justice, etc. are relevant in addition to raw power).
Compatibilism is incoherent, contradictory. It compromises the issues.
NO! Nonsense is nonsense!
Believing contradiction or antimony is not always necessary. In this case, there is sufficient revelation and reasoning to resolve the issue. You are clinging to a flawed view instead of adopting a more coherent one that would give the light you need to understand it without contradiction.
Open Theism/free will theism vs determinism is a workable, biblical model that clears the fog.
Other issues are more foggy and will be resolved when we see Him (I Jn. 3:2).
Time without end. It keeps going and going and going...
I'l say what you said:
"NO! Nonsense is nonsense!"
Everything has to start somewhere, how does this make sense?
Who made God?
When did God first come into existence?
you don't believe that so why are you trying to pin that on me?
I think that you and I agree that God has always existed. I would assume that we would also agree that God is able to remember everything that He has ever done or considered. My assumption is that God is also able to discern that actual order in which every event ever happened. (It is true that my view necessitates that God had a first thought or a first action of some sort. I do not pretend to know what that would have been.)
It would seem as though you assume that God is not able to do this, because everything, for Him, is now!
edit: I do, by the way, agree that time did not always exsist. Time is just a concept really , which would not have existed until God considered the duration of or between events.
My point was that trying to explain God being eternal to an atheist is the same as trying to explain compatablism to an open theist.
They both say irrational, doesn't make sense, nonsense, etc.
That was in reference to our salvation, not molecules and atoms, twit.
There is nothing about my explanation of eternity that an atheist should not be able to grasp! Your explanation of compatablism, on the other hand, is as much of a mystery to you as it is to me, but you have convinced yourself that God must be too mysterious to understand!
Go over to the religion section, copy and paste what you said here, and then see if they agree or understand you.
God is uncreated, triune Creator. He is spirit with no beginning and end, totally unique (mind blowing leading to worship vs comprehension).
God is love. It is not a created thing. Time also is not a created thing. It has always been an aspect of the triune God's experiences (endless time, not timelessness=eternal).
Lon
Well-known member
The problem is that this admits to a logical dilemma between endless duration and a point somewhere along the line, where it must logically stop working (a compatiblistic acquiescence). Indeed, whether you understand and see the contradiction or not. You cannot have it both ways. It would be easier on the Open Theist to say God had a beginning because then it would be logical in the rest of assertions. As it sits, you guys don't even see the splinter blinding your own eyes on this matter.
Regardless of what you say, you are NOT being logical, just short-sighted.
Or then again...maybe not. :idunno:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, when you use the quote function and then forge its contents, thereby relegating the very word "quote" to something less than its intended meaning, why would you be surprised at a lack of response. You have in effect signaled your intention to paying less than careful attention to what you are, er, 'quoting'.
If in written forms of discussion one cannot depend upon one's target of discussion to accurately represent one's written words, the chance for meaningful dialog slips towards just being a venue for mockery and other tomfoolery. Sure, that can be your purpose, and it is great entertainment for some, but for others intent on meaningful dialog, such persons will respect the written "conversation" of their opponent, accurately quote them when making a point, thus preserving the record for others who may come along mid-conversation, and have an expectation for the same treatment.
I'm just sayin'. :squint:
AMR
The link to the original post is right there. In the quote. If you want to read the blahbitty-blah, nothing stopping you. Beyond the blah, which I could have just easily cut out and totally ignored, would you suggest I'd altered anything else she said? Specifically, you're not claiming that Nang didn't plainly state that God ordains and controls rapists and molesters, are you?
You'll excuse me if I find this a thin excuse, to say the least. Were I Nang and I felt my words had been distorted in any way I'd respond by pointing that out.
I would expect someone accusing God of rape would respond when called on it. And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying she's done.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
A "thin excuse" for what?
You are projecting your own mindset into my posts. There is little excuse for doing so.
I have responded to you, Mary, and said it is more beneficial to discuss the grace and purposes of God, than it is to dwell on the wicked acts of men. Apparently, you have no interest in doing so.
This accusation against God dwells in your mind and heart, not mine. And it seems as though it is a fixation with you.
If you truly want to resolve this problem of evil, you must be willing to investigate the eternal intents of God Almighty.
Failure or resistance to do so, will leave you in your confused and rebellious state of mind . . .finding unnecessary fault with others who have biblical answers which could edify your soul.
Nang