ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

SO WHAT?!

Are you serious here or was this a joke?

The majority thought the Earth was not only flat as a fritter but the center of the whole Universe at one time.

Could they have all said that you think the Earth is round but that's only because you're being too logical about it? If not, why not? How would you refute those who thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the planet had they used your "You're being too logical!" argument?

No, the majority did not believe the earth was flat, dig out your history books again. Many did sure, many OVer's believe that God is not prescient.

You didn't even read my post, did you, Lon? The syllogism was YOUR ARGUMENT, not mine you stupid, slobbering idiot!

This made me laugh and of course sets up the rest of your treatise here. Yelling doesn't make the argument. I will sure take the failure to communicate accusation but instead of asking me to clarify: this nice piece.

Why is it that you and your ilk are unable to follow a simple conversation?


Since you've brought up this totally off the subject point, why aren't you a Catholic? This is THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that the Catholics made against Luther!

Catholics: "Along comes Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and all the other reformers. Thank God smarter more intelligent people are here to explain how stupid the rest of us have been."

Refute the Catholic argument, Lon!

I know I can! Can you?


There is no such thing! You made that up out of thin air!
Define "super-logical" for us, Lon. What does it mean to be super-logical? How do we know when something is super-logical instead of irrational since they look EXACTLY alike in every respect.


Why couldn't Hitler have made the same argument in a defense of his murdering millions of people? Why couldn't Al Gore make the same argument in defense of the man made global warming hoax? Pick any truth claim at random, any one at all, and tell me why some lunatic could use your "super-logic" to explain why no-one else understands it him?


Okay, that's it! I'm done with your stupidity.

I've wasted my last bit of effort having conversations with the likes of you. My time is entirely too important to waste it on retarded morons who don't understand plain and simple English sentences that my own 8 year old daughter could easily follow and understand.

Good bye, Lon. I hope you don't die believing the lies you blindly believe in.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Alright, I'll meet you halfway and not respond to anything you post from here out either. My hope is that God will continue to impress upon us His truth and that we will believe first, and figure out the gist/logic afterwards.

 

[Yorzhik]

Just don't forget, Lon, when you get to the pearly gates, God will send you to hell for loving Him. It's because He loves you.

 

[godrulz]

Sander's also said "God sometimes makes mistakes."

Job is just a book written by a mere man? I never knew how alien OV was against traditional theology. You are doing an adequate job of showing we have much with which to disagree and it may indeed lead to cult assessment in the future.

God does not make mistakes. Either Sanders needs to word things more carefully or you need to put his quote in context of his larger teaching. He is also not infallible and is right and wrong about different things.

Job is inspired, but not everything in the book is truth or revelation. Job's Comforters were rebuked by God for their false opinions and perspectives. The words of Satan are accurately recorded (inspiration), but they are not divine revelation, but lies.

 

[godrulz]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.

Yes, this even refers primarily to the OT and secondarily to the NT.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I never said it is illogical, I said it is superlogical. It is logic that alludes us infinitely because we are finite.

I, too, would like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Since God is supernatural, he can defy the laws of nature.
If God is superlogical, can he defy the laws of logic?

Is this what you mean?

thanks

 

[LightSon]

Open Theism as a catalyst could just as easily have been a cow running through your living room.

Did you make this imagery up? I love it.

If you tweak it, you could get dynamic with something like "Open Theism as a catalyst could just as easily have :sheep: in your living room."

 

[LightSon]

Premise one:The infinite is not logical.
Premise two:You are using a logical approach to understand the infinite.
Therefore your approach is doomed to failure.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you just used logic to refute the veracity of logic! In other words, you used a line of reasoning (logic) concerning the infinite to come to the conclusion that the infinite cannot be understand via logic.

Scripture says, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD....."

To be able to "reason" is another way of having "rational" thought. From the Isaiah quote above, I have to believe God is rational, otherwise, why does He use "words" to attempt to communicate? Words mean something. And as soon as they don't, there is no "reason" to attempt to reason.

 

[LightSon]

The syllogism was YOUR ARGUMENT, not mine you stupid, slobbering idiot!

Your name calling is not appreciated. Lon may be wrong on many points, but is not an "idiot"; hence your statement is false. This kind of dialog undermines your credibility. Please apologize.

 

[godrulz]

argumentum ad hominem?

boo!

 

[Lon]

Just don't forget, Lon, when you get to the pearly gates, God will send you to hell for loving Him. It's because He loves you.

Sure, make fun of what you don't understand. Classic.

Then ask yourself this question: If it is so clear that OV is right, why would the majority continue to reject it? If the classic view is so wrong, why do the majority NOT have the logical problem you seem to be seeing? How 'smart' are the OV theists really?

Thanks for your support as OVer's Light and GR. It helps me to remember that not all OV theists are of the same strain.

 

[Lon]

God does not make mistakes. Either Sanders needs to word things more carefully or you need to put his quote in context of his larger teaching. He is also not infallible and is right and wrong about different things.

Job is inspired, but not everything in the book is truth or revelation. Job's Comforters were rebuked by God for their false opinions and perspectives. The words of Satan are accurately recorded (inspiration), but they are not divine revelation, but lies.

Thanks, this puts your view into proper perspective, forgive the hasty assessment but also thanks for clarifying what you were trying to say.

 

[godrulz]

Thanks, this puts your view into proper perspective, forgive the hasty assessment but also thanks for clarifying what you were trying to say.

You are not an 'idiot nor a moron', but you are also slow to have an OpTh eureka moment like I did as a new Christian with very little exposure to the technical details.

 

[Lon]

I, too, would like to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Since God is supernatural, he can defy the laws of nature.
If God is superlogical, can he defy the laws of logic?

Is this what you mean?

thanks

Clete was correct that I made up the term, but not the concept. I'm just left hunting for the right word at times but it is akin to 'super-smart' where we know someone is speaking out of our league on a particular subject: Like astro-physics.
There are many many things that God knows that we couldn't comprehend. What we can do, is trust that He knows what He is talking about and if there seems to be a dichotomy between prescience and freewill, it isn't in our league to be able to discuss explain or qualify it. For me, it is just admitting that God is infinitely smarter than this finite man.

 

[Lon]

You are not an 'idiot nor a moron', but you are also slow to have an OpTh eureka moment like I did as a new Christian with very little exposure to the technical details.

Thanks, I don't really get worked up over that comment from others. I asked for the IQ of one of my students once when he said something similar. It isn't pretty, but they get the gist most of the time. As to Eureka, I often pray the same for you. There is something hindering you from seeing these things as clearly as I see them from the traditional position and my hope has always been, in posting here, that something I say could lead to that moment. I honestly believe OV to be the wrong position. There are too many problems with the constraints it puts on God for me.

 

[Delmar]

... Greeks have not deluded me...

That's the thing about delusion. Those who truly are, don't ever know it.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sure, make fun of what you don't understand. Classic.

That's a mean thing to say. I'm not making fun, and I understand.

Then ask yourself this question: If it is so clear that OV is right, why would the majority continue to reject it? If the classic view is so wrong, why do the majority NOT have the logical problem you seem to be seeing? How 'smart' are the OV theists really?

Thanks for your support as OVer's Light and GR. It helps me to remember that not all OV theists are of the same strain.

The majority in the US hasn't felt that killing babies should be a priority.

So that proves the majority is not always right. Can you tell us when we should believe the majority and when we shouldn't?

 

[Lon]

That's the thing about delusion. Those who truly are, don't ever know it.

Ok, let me ask you.
1. The world has gone to hell until Sanders, Pinnock, Boyd?

Let me clarify. It is only the TOL version that condemns the rest of us, including Calvinists. Even if you don't, look at the followers here: Everywhere I turn there are OVer with whack extremism on any one particular subject where all the rest of us are going to burn.

2. If OV is so clear that "an eight year old can understand" why isn't it clear to me?

I do have a high IQ and only 1% of the populace ever gets the genius score. If it is so clear a babe can understand it, why isn't it clear?

3.

That's the thing about delusion. Those who truly are, don't ever know it.

How then, would you ever know you aren't the one deluded? I do see every problem OV has with traditional theology. Two years ago I came to this board, I'd never seen or worked through OV theology until then. I'd seen Process Theology and Post Modern Theology, but this was a particular strain I'd not encountered.
I wrestled honestly, and long and hard with the questions and concepts.

The questions OV purports to answer aren't answered. The same accusations against traditional theology are easily turned around back on OV. What I find is that OV hasn't even begun to answer those same questions yet, they are just pointing fingers at the orthodox position which leads to obscurring the real discussions, not answering anything.

For instance: OV recognizes God knows 'when' and even 'before' to some degree some evil is done. It still occurs which means the same thing it does to Calvinists. Instead of really working on this with us, OVer's would rather look at the problem it causes for the other guy. This is obscurring, not engaging, nor even real dialogue discussion.

Until OV can stop pointing the finger and actually engage the real discussion, I don't believe A) that a child could understand nor B) that you can address who is delusional because you guys aren't even discussing the real subject matter but skirting the issue with accusation.

 

[Lon]

That's a mean thing to say. I'm not making fun, and I understand.

Wasn't intended to be mean, but you commented in the context of Clete giving me the 'rights' and I believed you were chiming in. Forgive me if it came across curtly, I was being engaged from all sides and it was admittedly brief and thus not as meaningful as a longer dialogue would have been.

As far as I've heard, the majority of the OV minority don't believe the rest of us are hell-bound for our traditional stance. See GR for comments and insight on this particular point.

The majority in the US hasn't felt that killing babies should be a priority.

So that proves the majority is not always right. Can you tell us when we should believe the majority and when we shouldn't?

We are at the mercies of our lawmakers to some degree. In the 60's, when prayer went out of school, we began to realize that Democrats had become increasingly liberal. I'd always been Democrat up until then. They were the ones that pulled for the people. Even after the sixties, Carter was a moral man and was troubled by the direction our country was going and so were the rest of us. It is only recently that the Republicans had finally gained enough seats: This reveals that the majority really are trying to make a difference in these liberal laws. Something was lost and the majority, while not understanding all of what was lost because they aren't Christian in the same way pre-sixties Americans were, they do sense that they want something akin to what was lost.

So, the majority, I believe are right. There are 1000 births to every 65 abortions.

of the 301,139,947 living in America, less than one million act upon their belief by getting abortions. Our laws favor the minority at present (about 800,000 abortions a year).

We need to continue to vote, picket, and lobby for law changes as our law system requires. We are active in trying to stop this attrocity with our minority populace.

 

[godrulz]

Lon: I think you do not fully understand OT. If you think it limits God, you are off track.

 

[nicholsmom]

Lon: I think you do not fully understand OT. If you think it limits God, you are off track.

The key understanding this perspective is in the idea of the space-time continuum. Lon believes with the traditionalists (me included) that space & time are creations of God - that they are, in fact, part of the creation that we know as the universe. There is a detail here that is rather subtle: the space-time continuum includes both space (not just what is in space, but the actual distance between the stuff that is in the space - the actual space or place or location with its size and distances intact) and time (not just what occurs between times or the measure of time between events, but the time itself with its sizes and durations intact). So that "before" the creation of all that we know, there was something other than the space-time continuum. I use the term "before" for lack of something more creative than I can conceive - perhaps "outside of" would be better, but then again...

The belief that God exists both in the space-time continuum and also apart from that continuum is one that comes with the perception that the belief that God only exists in that continuum is one that limits God. Surely you see that the perspective yields this perception.