ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

Where does it say that?

I'm trying to get you to realize the premise of omnipresence.

Your scripture isn't used by most OVer's for what you are suggesting because they understand this. You said God is everywhere He wants to be.
I don't believe "where He wants to be" is a necessary qualifier for what we are discussing here. He doesn't need to go down and see. He has perfect present knowledge. Maybe an OVer can help clarify. They agree with me on this point.

 

[eveningsky339]

I'm trying to get you to realize the premise of omnipresence.

Your scripture isn't used by most OVer's for what you are suggesting because they understand this. You said God is everywhere He wants to be.
I don't believe "where He wants to be" is a necessary qualifier for what we are discussing here. He doesn't need to go down and see. He has perfect present knowledge. Maybe an OVer can help clarify. They agree with me on this point.

I actually had a discussion with a certain OVer who supported her premise that God is not omnipresent by asking the question, "Does God really watch me take a dump? :vomit: " This is the strongest argument I have seen for this belief, though this person obviously never took into account the fact that God invented the particular function which she refers to as "taking a dump".

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm trying to get you to realize the premise of omnipresence.

Your scripture isn't used by most OVer's for what you are suggesting because they understand this. You said God is everywhere He wants to be.
I don't believe "where He wants to be" is a necessary qualifier for what we are discussing here. He doesn't need to go down and see. He has perfect present knowledge. Maybe an OVer can help clarify. They agree with me on this point.

And I disagree. I believe God over you. And God said He needed to go down and see.

You are calling God a liar.

 

[godrulz]

I actually had a discussion with a certain OVer who supported her premise that God is not omnipresent by asking the question, "Does God really watch me take a dump? :vomit: " This is the strongest argument I have seen for this belief, though this person obviously never took into account the fact that God invented the particular function which she refers to as "taking a dump".

If God did not know or see this, He would lack knowledge of something man, demons, angels, etc. could know. This qualifier of omnipresence (not standard OTh.) actually leads to a compromise of Open Theism omniscience.

 

[godrulz]

And I disagree. I believe God over you. And God said He needed to go down and see.

You are calling God a liar.

Even Open Theists recognize anthropomorphism is some contexts. We just don't make the settled theist mistake of making literal passages anthropomorphic (like God changing His mind). We should be careful to interpret in light of clear passages lest we create a contradiction with a wooden literalism.

It is not calling God a liar if we deny Catholic transubstantiation based on 'this is my body'. The issue is a wrong interpretation (yours), not calling God a liar (right interpretation dispels this lame accusation). Disagreeing with your view is not tantamount to calling God a liar.

 

[Lighthouse]

Even Open Theists recognize anthropomorphism is some contexts. We just don't make the settled theist mistake of making literal passages anthropomorphic (like God changing His mind). We should be careful to interpret in light of clear passages lest we create a contradiction with a wooden literalism.

It is not calling God a liar if we deny Catholic transubstantiation based on 'this is my body'. The issue is a wrong interpretation (yours), not calling God a liar (right interpretation dispels this lame accusation). Disagreeing with your view is not tantamount to calling God a liar.

There is only one way the very words of God, in the verses provided, can be taken. To say He didn't mean what it says in this instance is to call God a liar.

This isn't someone writing, "then God went to see," it is God, Himself, stating, "I will go down now and see..."

If we accept that God did not know what Adam would name the animals because the Bible tells us that He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them, then we cannot reject God's own words when He states that He is going to see if something He has been hearing is true.

 

[godrulz]

I agree with the Adam naming animal issues because it can be taken literally without contradicting other passages (though it contradicts some theologies).

When God said, 'Adam, where are you?', was this coming down to play hide and seek or is it a rhetorical question (join the rest of Open Theists who do not take it literally, but rhetorically).

Nothing is hidden from the eyes of the Lord (Psalms).

 

[Lighthouse]

I agree with the Adam naming animal issues because it can be taken literally without contradicting other passages (though it contradicts some theologies).

When God said, 'Adam, where are you?', was this coming down to play hide and seek or is it a rhetorical question (join the rest of Open Theists who do not take it literally, but rhetorically).

Nothing is hidden from the eyes of the Lord (Psalms).

It shouldn't surprise you that the majority of the OV on this board disagree with you.

 

[godrulz]

It shouldn't surprise you that the majority of the OV on this board disagree with you.

It should surprise you that the majority of academic, high profile, published, credentialed Open Theists disagree with the amateurs influenced by one book/teacher on this board.:deadhorse:

 

[Lighthouse]

It should surprise you that the majority of academic, high profile, published, credentialed Open Theists disagree with the amateurs influenced by one book/teacher on this board.:deadhorse:

No, it shouldn't surprise me.

And it also shouldn't surprise me that you're intellectually dishonest enough to falsely accuse me of only learning from one source.

 

[Lon]

It shouldn't surprise you that the majority of the OV on this board disagree with you.

Most, if not all, will support both GR's and my proposition.

Consider:

Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.

Were the Israelites literally carried off from Egypt by eagles, or did they walk across the Red Sea?

Jer 49:22 Behold, he shall come up and fly as the eagle, and spread his wings over Bozrah: and at that day shall the heart of the mighty men of Edom be as the heart of a woman in her pangs.

Does God literally have protective wings or is this a picture of loving protection in metaphor?

 

[Lon]

Even Open Theists recognize anthropomorphism is some contexts. We just don't make the settled theist mistake of making literal passages anthropomorphic (like God changing His mind). We should be careful to interpret in light of clear passages lest we create a contradiction with a wooden literalism.

It is not calling God a liar if we deny Catholic transubstantiation based on 'this is my body'. The issue is a wrong interpretation (yours), not calling God a liar (right interpretation dispels this lame accusation). Disagreeing with your view is not tantamount to calling God a liar.

"Alleged" mistake. You do have to see God changing His mind as one though, it is our colloquial term and isn't stated this way in the text. Remember the Hebrew simply means "to sigh." No scripture ever says "changed His mind."

Thanks for standing for the right position here.

Lighthouse, this is not an OV vs. traditional discussion. Eventually it leads to that, but for this premise we agree. It is in application that we argue.

 

[Lighthouse]

Most, if not all, will support both GR's and my proposition.

Consider:
Were the Israelites literally carried off from Egypt by eagles, or did they walk across the Red Sea?


Does God literally have protective wings or is this a picture of loving protection in metaphor?

You're a moron. Anthropomorphisms are quite clear when read. And they are not comparable to God stating that He would go down and see if what He had been hearing was true.

 

[godrulz]

"Alleged" mistake. You do have to see God changing His mind as one though, it is our colloquial term and isn't stated this way in the text. Remember the Hebrew simply means "to sigh." No scripture ever says "changed His mind."

Thanks for standing for the right position here.

Lighthouse, this is not an OV vs. traditional discussion. Eventually it leads to that, but for this premise we agree. It is in application that we argue.

I think the NIV does use that phrase in places?

http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-the...nt-god-changing-his-mind-an-anthropomorphism/

 

[godrulz]

You're a moron. Anthropomorphisms are quite clear when read. And they are not comparable to God stating that He would go down and see if what He had been hearing was true.

Is everyone a moron who disagrees with you? Time to grow up, Mr. Rude. Mature people can disagree without juvenile putdowns (lack of character is not germane to Open Theism, Lon).

 

[Lighthouse]

"Alleged" mistake. You do have to see God changing His mind as one though, it is our colloquial term and isn't stated this way in the text. Remember the Hebrew simply means "to sigh." No scripture ever says "changed His mind."

Thanks for standing for the right position here.

Lighthouse, this is not an OV vs. traditional discussion. Eventually it leads to that, but for this premise we agree. It is in application that we argue.

Wrong. The original word means "repent," and repent means "to change one's mind."

 

[Lon]

I actually had a discussion with a certain OVer who supported her premise that God is not omnipresent by asking the question, "Does God really watch me take a dump? :vomit: " This is the strongest argument I have seen for this belief, though this person obviously never took into account the fact that God invented the particular function which she refers to as "taking a dump".

Habakkuk 1:13 (NIV)
Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrong.
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

Psalm 5:4-6 (NIV)
4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
with you the wicked cannot dwell.
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong.
6 You destroy those who tell lies;
bloodthirsty and deceitful men
the LORD abhors.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

It seems whatever is most vile is presented to Him. God abhors and hates sin, He is not ignorant of it.

 

[Lon]

Wrong. The original word means "repent," and repent means "to change one's mind."

Show me:
1Samuel 15:29
נחם
nâcham
naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

Further yet, show me:

re⋅pent

1 [ri-pent]
–verb (used without object) 1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act. 2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent. –verb (used with object) 3. to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one's injustice to another. 4. to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act.

 

[Lighthouse]

Show me:
1Samuel 15:29
נחם
nâcham
naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

Further yet, show me:

re⋅pent

1 [ri-pent]
–verb (used without object) 1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act. 2. to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent. –verb (used with object) 3. to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one's injustice to another. 4. to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act.

Well, we clearly have that nacham means repent.

Now:

re·pent 1 (rĭ-pěnt') Pronunciation Key
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents

v. intr.

1. To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
2. To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
3. To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins.

v. tr.

1. To feel regret or self-reproach for: repent one's sins.
2. To cause to feel remorse or regret.

[Middle English repenten, from Old French repentir : re-, re- + pentir, to be sorry (from Vulgar Latin *paenitīre, from Latin paenitēre).]

re·pent'er n.

Repent
Re*pent"\ (r?-p?nt"), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Repented; p. pr. & vb. n. Repenting.] [F. se repentir; L. pref. re- re- + poenitere to make repent, poenitet me it repents me, I repent. See Penitent.]1. To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or omitted to do. First she relents With pity; of that pity then repents. --Dryden. 2. To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction. Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. --Ex. xiii. 17. 3. (Theol.) To be sorry for sin as morally evil, and to seek forgiveness; to cease to love and practice sin. Except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish. --Luke xii. 3.

 

[Lon]

You're a moron. Anthropomorphisms are quite clear when read. And they are not comparable to God stating that He would go down and see if what He had been hearing was true.

Again consider what you are saying about God if you assert this position from -Genesis 18:20-21 as literal.
1) If God had to go down and see, He cannot even be said to have perfect present knowledge (i.e. He couldn't know without looking, the action had already taken place). Every OVer will fight you tooth/nail over this. They believe God has perfect present and past knowledge.
2) He couldn't be omnipresent. He'd actually have to travel from one place to another. He couldn't be listening to prayer from me without leaving you where you are to hear my request. He couldn't know all men's hearts and thoughts all at once.

Please, for your sake, learn today.

You know I'm not a moron or stupid. Be honest about people, not hurtful. I haven't given you any reason to be mean. I haven't reacted to you in a hurtful or angry rhetorical manner at all. I'm speaking gently, truthfully, and carefully. I'm addressing the post and treating you with respect.