Philetus
New member
God laughing at us and even with us fits nicely.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
God laughing at us and even with us fits nicely.
Philetus
New member
All God had to do was show up in the flesh, live a sinless life, say who He was and let fallen humanity do what it could only do in such close proximity to His holy presence to preserve its own self. It could have happened any time, anywhere. God in His wisdom chose what He considered to be the 'fullness of time", that is: the right (best?) time and the right place.
God's presence in the Person of Jesus was and is such a threat to our fallen way of being in the world that it was inevitable that Jesus would die.
It was 'foreordained [by God] before the foundation of the world' (whatever that means ... the very beginning of creation or the beginning of a fallen world that perceived itself to be independent of God) but, it was only in the fullness of time that the divine plan of salvation in Jesus the Christ was manifest (revealed, made known, became visible?).
God's presence in the Person of Jesus was and is such a threat to our fallen way of being in the world that it was inevitable that Jesus would die.
It was 'foreordained [by God] before the foundation of the world' (whatever that means ... the very beginning of creation or the beginning of a fallen world that perceived itself to be independent of God) but, it was only in the fullness of time that the divine plan of salvation in Jesus the Christ was manifest (revealed, made known, became visible?).
:first: POTD
elected4ever
New member
being a laughing stock is a good thing to you?
Sorry, Knight. But that's how Einstein came up with his relativity theory. He said if you were traveling at the speed of light and saw a clock that was not, you would watch the clock spinning through hours of time. Sure, maybe in practicality I couldn't and I said I didn't mean God was moving at the speed of light. It was an analogy.
But since Einstein showed one way that it's possible it's no unreasonable to believe in an all powerful God seeing the future. Moving at the speed of light would be experienceing the future relative to a person who is not moving the speed of light.
If the future does not exist for that person not moving the speed of light, how could it be experienced by a person traveling that fast.
You still haven't answered how moderns science considers time to be a dimension like space.
You're trying to set these limits on God, yet you believe he created everything even our free will and that he reads our minds etc. It's self-defeating.
But since Einstein showed one way that it's possible it's no unreasonable to believe in an all powerful God seeing the future. Moving at the speed of light would be experienceing the future relative to a person who is not moving the speed of light.
If the future does not exist for that person not moving the speed of light, how could it be experienced by a person traveling that fast.
You still haven't answered how moderns science considers time to be a dimension like space.
You're trying to set these limits on God, yet you believe he created everything even our free will and that he reads our minds etc. It's self-defeating.
Philetus
New member
I really meant 'us' in the generic sense. But, yes, I'm glad we have a God who can laugh at us rather than always deal with us as we deserve.
Aren't you? I would certifiably think so.:crackup:
(Don't tell or I'll take it back.)
Until you figure out that we are not discussing time as a measurement (i.e., which can be affected by the physical universe) yet time as in the simple idea that one event follows another event and so on you will remain hopelessly lost in this conversation.
elected4ever
New member
NO, not in the sense that reference conveys it.
elohiym
Well-known member
God is light (1John 1:5). While some may interpret that God is not a photon, or in a photon, he is able to dwell in a photon as surely as he is able to dwell in men. If God can dwell in something or someone at the quantum level, then he is able to have the same experience as that which he dwells in. For example, God can make donkeys speak and rocks "cry out," and he can be tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin.
It has been proven scientifically that there is no lapse in time between photons at opposite ends of the universe. If for simplicity we assume a photon is emitted from a star at point A and reaches a planet at point B some 20,000 light years later, if God can "see" from the perspective of a photon at point C, then he would see what we perceive as thousands of years of past history without any lapse of time.
God declares the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10) and knows men before he even forms them (Jer 1:5) because he is not bound to time. He can exist in time, as we perceive it, but he also exists in a realm that we cannot perceive. It is best that we do not limit God to our perception.
It has been proven scientifically that there is no lapse in time between photons at opposite ends of the universe. If for simplicity we assume a photon is emitted from a star at point A and reaches a planet at point B some 20,000 light years later, if God can "see" from the perspective of a photon at point C, then he would see what we perceive as thousands of years of past history without any lapse of time.
God declares the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10) and knows men before he even forms them (Jer 1:5) because he is not bound to time. He can exist in time, as we perceive it, but he also exists in a realm that we cannot perceive. It is best that we do not limit God to our perception.
Philetus
New member
Seeing 1000s of light years as 'history' PAST through a telescope isn't a strong argument for seeing the nonexistent FUTURE.
It is also best not to exaggerate God's abilities by our imaginations.
elohiym
Well-known member
The future between point B and point C existed in my example. Also, I never used the word "telescope" in my example, nor is God a telescope, but light.
Likewise, it is best to not exaggerate, or even suggest, God's disabilities.
Did God make a donkey speak? Could God make the rocks "cry out," or was Jesus telling a lie? If a rock can speak for God, then it is by no means an exaggeration to claim a photon can see for God.
To claim that there is a lapse in time for God, when it is proven that there is no lapse in time for photons is problematic for the open view.
elohiym
Well-known member
Even if that was completely true, which it is not, my argument doesn't hinge on God being physical light. If a rock can speak, then a photon can see. God is in all and through all. You would like to claim that God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift.
Last edited:
The Johannine use of light vs darkness is moral, not physical. Where does it say rocks can speak? Jesus used hyperbole to make a point.
I have often said that God cannot make a rock too heavy to lift since this is a logical contradiction/absurdity. It is NOT a limitation on omnipotence to not be able to do the impossible (make square circles, married bachelors, pregnant and not pregnant at the same time, etc.).
Philetus
New member
God has no disabilities! The future doesn't exist.
Donkeys and rocks have nothing to do with a nonexistent future.
I can understand why God would have a donkey speak or rocks to cry out in praise (because of a misspoken/misguided prophet or silent children), but why would God need a photon (or a telescope or trifocals or anything else) to see? Disability? Is God near-sighted or far-sighted in your view?
I know, its absurd.
Donkeys and rocks have nothing to do with a nonexistent future.
I can understand why God would have a donkey speak or rocks to cry out in praise (because of a misspoken/misguided prophet or silent children), but why would God need a photon (or a telescope or trifocals or anything else) to see? Disability? Is God near-sighted or far-sighted in your view?
I know, its absurd.
Philetus
New member
:thumb:
And God said, "Let there be me!" and there was me.
I don't think so.
Have you noticed how much neon-gnosticism is showing up in these threads lately?:crackup:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Oh, pooh on you . . .
You . . . who would ignorantly and wickedly desire to put all blame on God for sin, rather than on man created in His image, who indeed sinned while being endowed with secondary powers of cause and effect.
BTW, DFT_Dave . . .you come across as an angry mortal who is nothing but a (still sinful) blow-hard.
You do not come across as a holy, redeemed son of God.
But those not indwelt by Christ's Holy Spirit, have a really hard time mimicking that wonderful state of grace.
Nang
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
The issue is does the Bible reveal God as timeless and foreknowing of all future events without having to be the cause of all of them. Along with that I have decided to include does the Bible reveal God to be present in all events as well. So I thought it would be good to start with the Book of Genesis and look at certain texts through the open view (OV), the closed view (CV), and the closed view/free will (CVF) and compare the them to see which view the text supports. Its seems most of us understand and agree on the differences between the three views.
1. The Creation account shows time in God; He existed before he created the world, He performs a sequence of events, the creation is finished and is in God's past.
2. Every event up to the flood looks clearly OV to me.
3. God is "grieved", "repentant", and "angry", and then wipes out his creation and all mankind except Noah and family. And according to CV this is all predetermined and according to CVF this is all known before the world was created just not predetermined. I go with not predetermined nor foreknown as the only way to look at these passages without reading anything into them.
Answered by Lonster
I do this too, but clearly our logic and meaning are opposed.
We agree then that one of us is reading something into these passages since we have opposing interpretations, I see OV, you see CVF. But the difference is that I take these passages literally, you do not. You, and all other CV and CVF theists resort to analogies, metaphors, figurative language, change the definition of words, etc. which means of coarse that you take a literal understanding of God from some source other than the Bible.
Posted by Lonster
You can't take an apple out and say 'this is not a pear.' I mean you can, but it doesn't prove that there are no pears. Here is a verse that you believe teaches limited foreknowledge, but it is suggestive, not theological. It is deductive, not inductive.
Posted by Dave
These verses are "instructive" not "suggestive" concerning God's nature and character. Scripture forms OV theology, and if these scriptures do not form your theology, what pray tell, does?
Answered by Lonster
Sorry, training in exegesis probably here. We take straight doctrine from doctrinal passage. In Historical passages we find treatise in doctrine, but they are written more to teach a truth in historical context. I agree we get doctrine from such, like an example or case study, but we have to be more careful to check and recheck our work.
Yes, you have to check your work against your other view God. And I am making a case study to show that the Old Testament reveals God to us, literally.
Posted by Lonster
I know of no theological position that would suggest God isn't emotionally involved with His people, and grief is what we see here. In fact, even when we see repent, or relent, it is most often translated from this same word for grief. This doesn't deny exhaustive foreknowledge, nor simple foreknowledge. Have you ever watched a movie over again? I have, my wife has. She still cries at exactly the same spots. Interesting. The mere fact that we watch things over again after we've already seen them gives us a basal understanding of how God could be emotionally involved in our plight. So I'm seeing more of a discussion concerning God's relational ability in this text, which is indeed a point of discussion between us, but I'm not catching your drift concerning foreknowledge.
Posted by Dave
That's funny, I see God's nature and character, and not merely his "relational ability". And as far as the destruction of the world, in the CV and CVF, God watches it over, and over, and over.....in the OV God saw it only once. I hope you will eventually "catch my drift", I'll slow down and go over this again if you need me to.
Answered by Lonster
Dave, you are you and not other OVer's here, but please indulge the linguistics. All I have to work with is what I have been given, and I try to state what I have been given without bias, but I'm not OV. The very thing you said 'funny' about is almost verbatim what I've been told in here.
You're not "without bias" and what you have said is "not verbatim" what you've been told here.
Posted by Lonster
Going along the same train of thought: Did God literally remember here?
Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark.
Posted by Dave
To remember simply means to direct ones thoughts back on something else. Here the Bible reveals to us the way God thinks, if this is not the case then where do we go to find out how he really thinks? Can you tell me?
Answered by Lonster
"to have (something) come into the mind again" Otherwise it is just bringing a thought to forefront. There is a difference. Even you agree that God knows all. My point is that we understand this figuratively, God doesn't forget but our sins through Christ, and even that we must examine for understanding.
In OV, God is free to think and do what he wants, as much at one moment that he wants, when he wants. This is important to understand here because this relationship of "infinite potentiality" with freedom of will in God is in sharp contrast to God as "pure actuality" with no freedom of will to make any kind of choices. For God to remember Noah does not mean he forgot about him, it means that he was not thinking about him while he was working the details of the flood he was controlling. God's thought potential is infinite and he does not bring to mind all that he can possibly think about. We are made in his image and in a very limited way have minds that work in the same way. Because you understand God from the Greek philosophic model, you can't image God doing anything but thinking everything thinkable in a never ending eternal moment--no freedom there.
Posted by Lonster
If not what do we make of it? Do we understand this the same way God tells Abraham "Now I know your heart...?"
Posted by Dave
Yep, God tested Abraham so he could find something out that he didn't foreknow foresure, if this is not the case then please tell me why he tested him?
Answered by Lonster
So why couldn't this be the same? I'd hope you would appreciate a sense of our position here. We see that tests are for us. They reveal what we are made of, what we know, what we believe and live according to. If God knows our thoughts before we speak it, and He know our hearts (and He does) , this is a mute point.
We should make sure we're reading the same Bible, because mine says that it is God who says "now I know", God referring to himself. Your Bible seems to say that it is Abraham that says "now I know". I hope you see how this misrepresents the passage. God does not know our thoughts before we think them, and certainly not before we were created--this is hardly a mute point.
The issue is does the Bible reveal God as timeless and foreknowing of all future events without having to be the cause of all of them. Along with that I have decided to include does the Bible reveal God to be present in all events as well. So I thought it would be good to start with the Book of Genesis and look at certain texts through the open view (OV), the closed view (CV), and the closed view/free will (CVF) and compare the them to see which view the text supports. Its seems most of us understand and agree on the differences between the three views.
1. The Creation account shows time in God; He existed before he created the world, He performs a sequence of events, the creation is finished and is in God's past.
2. Every event up to the flood looks clearly OV to me.
3. God is "grieved", "repentant", and "angry", and then wipes out his creation and all mankind except Noah and family. And according to CV this is all predetermined and according to CVF this is all known before the world was created just not predetermined. I go with not predetermined nor foreknown as the only way to look at these passages without reading anything into them.
Answered by Lonster
I do this too, but clearly our logic and meaning are opposed.
We agree then that one of us is reading something into these passages since we have opposing interpretations, I see OV, you see CVF. But the difference is that I take these passages literally, you do not. You, and all other CV and CVF theists resort to analogies, metaphors, figurative language, change the definition of words, etc. which means of coarse that you take a literal understanding of God from some source other than the Bible.
Posted by Lonster
You can't take an apple out and say 'this is not a pear.' I mean you can, but it doesn't prove that there are no pears. Here is a verse that you believe teaches limited foreknowledge, but it is suggestive, not theological. It is deductive, not inductive.
Posted by Dave
These verses are "instructive" not "suggestive" concerning God's nature and character. Scripture forms OV theology, and if these scriptures do not form your theology, what pray tell, does?
Answered by Lonster
Sorry, training in exegesis probably here. We take straight doctrine from doctrinal passage. In Historical passages we find treatise in doctrine, but they are written more to teach a truth in historical context. I agree we get doctrine from such, like an example or case study, but we have to be more careful to check and recheck our work.
Yes, you have to check your work against your other view God. And I am making a case study to show that the Old Testament reveals God to us, literally.
Posted by Lonster
I know of no theological position that would suggest God isn't emotionally involved with His people, and grief is what we see here. In fact, even when we see repent, or relent, it is most often translated from this same word for grief. This doesn't deny exhaustive foreknowledge, nor simple foreknowledge. Have you ever watched a movie over again? I have, my wife has. She still cries at exactly the same spots. Interesting. The mere fact that we watch things over again after we've already seen them gives us a basal understanding of how God could be emotionally involved in our plight. So I'm seeing more of a discussion concerning God's relational ability in this text, which is indeed a point of discussion between us, but I'm not catching your drift concerning foreknowledge.
Posted by Dave
That's funny, I see God's nature and character, and not merely his "relational ability". And as far as the destruction of the world, in the CV and CVF, God watches it over, and over, and over.....in the OV God saw it only once. I hope you will eventually "catch my drift", I'll slow down and go over this again if you need me to.
Answered by Lonster
Dave, you are you and not other OVer's here, but please indulge the linguistics. All I have to work with is what I have been given, and I try to state what I have been given without bias, but I'm not OV. The very thing you said 'funny' about is almost verbatim what I've been told in here.
You're not "without bias" and what you have said is "not verbatim" what you've been told here.
Posted by Lonster
Going along the same train of thought: Did God literally remember here?
Gen 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle which were with him in the ark.
Posted by Dave
To remember simply means to direct ones thoughts back on something else. Here the Bible reveals to us the way God thinks, if this is not the case then where do we go to find out how he really thinks? Can you tell me?
Answered by Lonster
"to have (something) come into the mind again" Otherwise it is just bringing a thought to forefront. There is a difference. Even you agree that God knows all. My point is that we understand this figuratively, God doesn't forget but our sins through Christ, and even that we must examine for understanding.
In OV, God is free to think and do what he wants, as much at one moment that he wants, when he wants. This is important to understand here because this relationship of "infinite potentiality" with freedom of will in God is in sharp contrast to God as "pure actuality" with no freedom of will to make any kind of choices. For God to remember Noah does not mean he forgot about him, it means that he was not thinking about him while he was working the details of the flood he was controlling. God's thought potential is infinite and he does not bring to mind all that he can possibly think about. We are made in his image and in a very limited way have minds that work in the same way. Because you understand God from the Greek philosophic model, you can't image God doing anything but thinking everything thinkable in a never ending eternal moment--no freedom there.
Posted by Lonster
If not what do we make of it? Do we understand this the same way God tells Abraham "Now I know your heart...?"
Posted by Dave
Yep, God tested Abraham so he could find something out that he didn't foreknow foresure, if this is not the case then please tell me why he tested him?
Answered by Lonster
So why couldn't this be the same? I'd hope you would appreciate a sense of our position here. We see that tests are for us. They reveal what we are made of, what we know, what we believe and live according to. If God knows our thoughts before we speak it, and He know our hearts (and He does) , this is a mute point.
We should make sure we're reading the same Bible, because mine says that it is God who says "now I know", God referring to himself. Your Bible seems to say that it is Abraham that says "now I know". I hope you see how this misrepresents the passage. God does not know our thoughts before we think them, and certainly not before we were created--this is hardly a mute point.
- Status