ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Time is more fundamental than space (J.R. Lucas 'A treatise on time and space'; He also argues that timelessness is incoherent for a personal being). Time is not a created thing, nor should it be confused with space. Space-time continuum stuff is Einstein's theories, not solid fact (and certainly not applicable to the nature of uncreated Creator before creation).

I agree that eternal now timelessness leads to different conclusions than endless time, the biblical view (not the science fiction view).

 

[Eli_Cash]

Time is more fundamental than space (J.R. Lucas 'A treatise on time and space'; He also argues that timelessness is incoherent for a personal being). Time is not a created thing, nor should it be confused with space. Space-time continuum stuff is Einstein's theories, not solid fact (and certainly not applicable to the nature of uncreated Creator before creation).

I agree that eternal now timelessness leads to different conclusions than endless time, the biblical view (not the science fiction view).

John 8:58 KJV
Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

I'm sure that you have some alternate interpretation of this verse, but Jesus' combination of the present and past tenses in this verse is seems to me to be powerful prima facie evidence that the "eternal now" position is Biblical, and that God is not conditioned by time in the way that humans are. God is before Abraham was.

 

[Clete]

Your name calling is not appreciated. Lon may be wrong on many points, but is not an "idiot"; hence your statement is false.

I didn't ask nor do I care what you do or do not appreciate about what I say or who I say it too. The things Lon says are idiotic and he believes them to be true, that makes him an idiot. Get over it.

This kind of dialog undermines your credibility. Please apologize.

I have no intention of doing anything but calling people who believe and defend idiotic theology with even more idiotic arguments anything other than idiots. And he is apparently incapable of following even the simplest of conversations, replying to posts as though they made some point completely unrelated to the point that was actually made. I will not apologize. As far as I am concerned he is an embarrassment not only to himself but to this website and the whole of Christianity and I won't waste any more time trying to have an intelligent conversation with the likes of him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

John 8:58 KJV
Jesus said unto them, Verily,verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

I'm sure that you have some alternate interpretation of this verse, but Jesus' combination of the present and past tenses in this verse is seems to me to be powerful prima facie evidence that the "eternal now" position is Biblical, and that God is not conditioned by time in the way that humans are. God is before Abraham was.

Jesus isn't making a comment on His eternality, but rather that He existed before Abraham, because He IS God.

Your conclusion does not arrive from a proper exegesis of the text.

Muz

 

[Nang]

I didn't ask nor do I care what you do or do not appreciate about what I say or who I say it too. The things Lon says are idiotic and he believes them to be true, that makes him an idiot. Get over it.


I have no intention of doing anything but calling people who believe and defend idiotic theology with even more idiotic arguments anything other than idiots. And he is apparently incapable of following even the simplest of conversations, replying to posts as though they made some point completely unrelated to the point that was actually made. I will not apologize. As far as I am concerned he is an embarrassment not only to himself but to this website and the whole of Christianity and I won't waste any more time trying to have an intelligent conversation with the likes of him.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Is this the same fella that neg reps Nang, telling her to be nice and apologize to others?

I kinda think this is the fella who believes he is the only person in the world who is not stupid, idiotic, and crazy.

This is the guy who thinks he is the smartest person living, who laments over the fact that the only posts he can comprehend and enjoy are his own.

Everyone's theology is wrong, except his . . .

Is Clete not an example of what Delmar said the other day . . .those who are truly deluded are never aware of that fact ( . . . or words to that effect).

 

[Clete]

Is this the same fella that neg reps Nang, telling her to be nice and apologize to others?

There is not one single time that I have ever told you or anyone else to ever be nice.

Further, when I am harsh or insulting I have a coherent reason for being so that I can explain in some detail if asked or challenged. You on the other hand wouldn't know a coherent reason if one walked up and introduced itself.

I kinda think this is the fella who believes he is the only person in the world who is not stupid, idiotic, and crazy.

On the contrary, there is nothing I know that I was not taught by people much smarter, wiser, and more knowledgeable than I am.

Yes, Nang. "Smarter", "wiser" and "more knowledgeable" are three different things.

This is the guy who thinks he is the smartest person living, who laments over the fact that the only posts he can comprehend and enjoy are his own.

You're so stupid its unbelievable.

I'd be very much surprised to learn that I was anything but marginally above average in intelligence. I have to put a great deal of effort into my posts and learning the arguments that support both your position and my own did not come easily to me at all. I graduated from public school and if not for spell checking technology, that fact would be very evident indeed. In short, I am anything but the smartest person living which only goes to strengthen my dismay at the totally abject stupidity displayed by you and several others on this site.

Everyone's theology is wrong, except his . . .

To one degree or another, everyone's theology is wrong - period. That includes mine! All I've ever wanted is for someone to show me where and how. Bob Enyart has successfully done this to a larger degree than any other single person in my life. I was, at one time, blown by every wind of doctrine. I was an Arminian as a small child (I didn't know that I was, but I was), a Calvinist as a teen, and then meandered all over the place from the World Wide Church of God to TBN style Pentecostalism to the Church of Christ to Baptist and everything in between. In short, there's hardly anything that you can come to me with that I haven't seen a hundred times before. When I'm shown to be wrong, then I change my position accordingly. The fact that it has gotten exceedingly hard to show any error on my part is only evidence of the length of time my theology has been tempered by the test of time and my on going willingness to capitulate to the Scripture and sound reason.

Is Clete not an example of what Delmar said the other day . . .those who are truly deluded are never aware of that fact ( . . . or words to that effect).

No, Nang - YOU are an example of what Delmar said the other day. You wouldn't change your theology if God HIMSELF came down from heaven and told you that your theology was an insult to both Him and those who have chosen Life rather than death at His pleading.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

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.

Ignoring the other discussion about my treatment of Lon for the time being, I want to respond specifically to this post, if you'll allow me to do so.


Excusing the fact that you've misunderstood what was being said, I think this response is breathtakingly brilliant! Had Lon said this I think I would have fainted!

I agree with your point ENTIRELY!!!
The difficulty is that the syllogism that you quoted was not MY argument but rather it was my recitation of Lon's argument in the form of a syllogism! Your response was essentially a restatement of my entire argument against Lon's position. Lon has painted himself into a philosophical corner from which there is no escape. His theology is completely and utterly unfalsifiable for exactly the reason you stated. Lon might at well believe that purple Elephants fly out of his nose every time he sneezes. There would be no way to refute the belief given his myriad of philosophical escape hatches he's built into his theological worldview. He can believe anything he wants and no one could ever prove him wrong because he's taken away the only tool by which anything can be proven wrong, that tool being rational thought. All he has to do pull out his "super-rational" trump card and whamo-bammo debate over!

If he reads this post and is willing to concede the point, perhaps I will be willing to rethink his "idiot" status. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen but in deference to you, I will agree to be watching for it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

The fact that it has gotten exceedingly hard to show any error on my part is only evidence of the length of time my theology has been tempered by the test of time and my on going willingness to capitulate to the Scripture and sound reason.

It has become exceedingly hard to find theological error on your part, because you do not present anything that can be described as theological dogma. You are not an apologist, but a reactionary.

Your posts consist of personal attacks; which do not come even close to being polemical. I have never seen you successfully or consistly present Open View beliefs, without getting into cage-fight mode.

And what is this "my theology has been tempered by the test of time . . ." stuff? Open View and Clete have not been around long enough to make any such claim.

And when recently have you shown "willingness to capitulate to Scripture and sound reason"? I have followed your career for the last couple of years, and your only MO is anger and hatefulness shown to anyone who tries to reason with you.

If you ever applied yourself, and presented a calm, well-thought out presentation of your beliefs, and a willingness to discuss your views apart from emotionalism and name-calling (and turning all attempts at conversation into debates, which you always prematurely declare you have won before the conversations are finished!), I would applaud you, whether I was the person to interact with you or not, and I would respect you, whether I agreed with you or not.

For such actions would manifest signs of maturity that your psyche and your audience desperately need to see . . .

Nang

 

[Clete]

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.

Since godrulz is out of pocket at the moment, let me offer a response that I think he would agree with, even if he wouldn't put it the following terms.

Your premise is that both space and time are ontological. That is that they have an independent existence in and of themselves, that they are not merely abstractions (i.e. ideas). If this premise is not true then your conclusion that God is limited by them is invalid.

The Open View teaches that in regards to time (and perhaps space as well but not necessarily) God cannot be said to be limited by it even if He lives "in" it because to say that God lives "in time" is only just a manner of speaking because time is not something that someone can be "in" or "outside" of in the first place. Time does not exist! Time is an idea. When you talk about time you are discussing duration and/or sequence (a phrase I picked up from godrulz, by the way.) Now, if you are a physicist, you might discuss time in another context in which case it would have a different, more mathematical definition but that doesn't change the fact that when you and I and the average Joe talks about time, we aren't referring to the same thing that Einstein is referring too but are merely talking about duration and sequence.

This fact is readily acknowledge by the most hard core Calvinist, like Nang who are quick to concede that God does not experience either duration nor sequence but such a position cannot be put forward without contradiction and thus it must be false. The very sentence "God exists outside of time." contains within it an implied contradiction because to say that something or someone exists implies that they have duration and so the truth claim could be restated as "God endures without duration.", which is clearly a self-defeating truth claim.

Thus, given the irrational nature of such a belief, along with the wealth of Biblical evidence that suggests that God experiences both duration and sequence, the doctrine of divine timelessness should be reject as false.

In short, your premise is that time is limited when in fact time is merely an idea intended to express duration and sequence and thus is no more limiting than whatever it is your applying it to. God then has infinite duration and unending sequences and therefore has an infinite (i.e. unlimited) amount of time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

The Open View teaches that in regards to time (and perhaps space as well but not necessarily) God cannot be said to be limited by it even if He lives "in" it because to say that God lives "in time" is only just a manner of speaking because time is not something that someone can be "in" or "outside" of in the first place. Time does not exist! Time is an idea.

Time and space are creations of God, which exist and have their being in God; who transcends His creation and does not function in subjection to His creation.

This fact is readily acknowledge by the most hard core Calvinist, like Nang who are quick to concede that God does not experience either duration nor sequence but such a position cannot be put forward without contradiction and thus it must be false.

What do you believe is contradictory?

The very sentence "God exists outside of time."

First, God does not exist as His creation "exists." God is self-existent; therefore, God is greater than what He has made, including time and space. God is not limited by what He has created; God is not dependent upon what He has created, thus the (poor) expression "God exists outside of time." I understand what the expression is meant to convey, but it is theologically faulty.

contains within it an implied contradiction because to say that something or someone exists implies that they have duration and so the truth claim could be restated as "God endures without duration.", which is clearly a self-defeating truth claim.

I have never expressed the belief that "God endures" time. God "endures" sinners who exist within temporal time, but that is a different subject.

Thus, given the irrational nature of such a belief, along with the wealth of Biblical evidence that suggests that God experiences both duration and sequence, the doctrine divine timelessness should be reject as false.

Ah yes, it is the OV theist who claims God "endures" time in linear sequence, which declares God subject and dependent upon time for His (supposed) existence. This is untrue. God is self-existent and independent of His creation, including time and space.

God then has infinite duration and unending sequences and therefore has an infinite (i.e. unlimited) amount of time.

Your argument does not answer the debate, but just makes your case harder to sell. One will have a hard time defining the "eternal" as being "unlimited time." Attempting to describe infinity by using finite terminology, most often fails.



Nang

 

[Clete]

Nang,

As usual, your post is completely unresponsive. You are either ignoring the arguments made or are too obtuse to understand them.

It might help if you actually read the whole post before you begin responding to it. Your having asked me what it was that I found contradictory immediately prior to quoting me stating the contradiction sort of gives away the fact that you were responding as you read. Try reading the whole post first and then ask yourself, "Do I understand the nature of the argument that Clete has presented?" If you cannot restate my argument in your own words, then, for your own good, don't respond at all until you can. Otherwise, you only do yourself and your position more harm than I ever could by myself.

Of course, I am only telling you this because I know that you will ignore the advise.

In response to your attempt at an argument I simply restate my original premise which you didn't even address...

Time is not created. You can't even say "God created time." without contradicting yourself. Time is not a thing. Time is an abstraction; an idea. It is not a place that one can be "inside" or "outside" of. God either experiences duration and sequence or He does not. You cannot even postulate the notion of God not experiencing duration without contradicting yourself. Thus God does experience duration because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. Thus since God does experience duration, He experiences time, by definition.

That's the last time I will repeat the argument for you, Nang. If you don't get it, live in ignorance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Nang,

As usual, your post is completely unresponsive.

No, Clete, my post was in response to your post . . .

You are either ignoring the arguments made or are too obtuse to understand them.

Uhhhh . . . what "arguments" are you talking about, or what are you trying to avoid answering yourself?

I won't let you continue to get away with these tactics, Clete. . .You cannot avoid answering posts by such silliness.

It might help if you actually read the whole post before you begin responding to it. Your having asked me what it was that I found contradictory immediately prior to quoting me stating the contradiction sort of gives away the fact that you were responding as you read. Try reading the whole post first and then ask yourself, "Do I understand the nature of the argument that Clete has presented?" If you cannot restate my argument in your own words, then, for your own good, don't respond at all until you can. Otherwise, you only do yourself and your position more harm than I ever could by myself.

Translation: Clete presents NO theological argument but demands those he opposes, present one in his stead, and then he insists and demands they must argue against what they might imagine Clete's argument might be, so that Clete might counter his opponents, at best, misrepresenting his (non-existent) arguments, or at worst, prove to them to be STUPID for not understanding his intellectual brilliance (nevertheless, unposted, undefined, unstated, and not legally established on the TOL archives!)

Do you get all that, folks . . .Clete is a religious fake; a false teacher; a theological shyster! An empty cup; a dark hole . . .etc, etc. . . .

Of course, I am only telling you this because I know that you will ignore the advise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The correct spelling is "advice."

Of course, I will restrain from calling you "stupid" for making such a minor spelling error. . .

Nang

 

[Eli_Cash]

Jesus isn't making a comment on His eternality, but rather that He existed before Abraham, because He IS God.

In that case he would have said "before Abraham was I was, because I'm God". But instead he is explicitly connecting his existence with God's "eternal now" existence. Your view seems to claim that the divinity is explicit and the temporal consequences are implicit. But the context makes it clear that what is being discussed is Jesus temporal character, which it seems is atemporal, and his temporal character implies his divinity. Your view implies that Jesus was using a grammatically incorrect figure of speech to say that he was God. While this is possible, I'm more inclined to take his use of tense as meaningful in itself.

 

[Nang]

Time is not created.

Incorrect.

"Time" is measured, and the measurement of time is according to the created stars and light created in heaven for such purpose. Time as created man knows it, has beginning and end, according to the Genesis account.

Time is an abstraction; an idea.

Incorrect. All of God's creation is meant to measure (and limit) time.

It is not a place that one can be "inside" or "outside" of. God either experiences duration and sequence or He does not.

Created man exists within created (temporal) time and space, created by God to contain his earthly experience. Time and space have nothing to do with God's eternal Being.

Thus since God does experience duration, He experiences time, by definition.

God does not experience time by duration, or by definition.

God created time, and is not subject to His creation to experience His duration or be described according to time-limited definition.

Nang

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

You don't understand. We are all going to hell, OV and SV. It's because God loves us.

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.

So you are saying the majority didn't decide the elections they voted in?

 

[drbrumley]

Incorrect.

"Time" is measured, and the measurement of time is according to the created stars and light created in heaven for such purpose. Time as created man knows it, has beginning and end, according to the Genesis account.




Incorrect. All of God's creation is meant to measure (and limit) time.



Created man exists within created (temporal) time and space, created by God to contain his earthly experience. Time and space have nothing to do with God's eternal Being.



God does not experience time by duration, or by definition.

God created time, and is not subject to His creation to experience His duration or be described according to time-limited definition.

Nang

Well at least we now know physics is not your strong suit either, along with theology.

 

[LightSon]

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, Just for the record, I am not OV. Nor do I identify with Calvinism. If forced to choose, I lean towards Calvinism, but am a long ways from embracing it. OVers make a number of fair points. Frankly I do not know what I am, and just want to keep my ears and mind open for now. I enjoy getting both sides to discuss the matter.

What I do know is that a spirit led person is slow to anger and demonstrates a Christlike humility. How we control our tongue is a key indicator. It is the spiritual man whose arguments I am most keen to hear. Doctrine is important, Christlike character is paramount.

Regards.

 

[Nang]

Lon, Just for the record, I am not OV. Nor do I identify with Calvinism. If forced to choose, I lean towards Calvinism, but am a long ways from embracing it. OVers make a number of fair points. Frankly I do not know what I am, and just want to keep my ears and mind open for now. I enjoy getting both sides to discuss the matter.

What I do know is that a spirit led person is slow to anger and demonstrates a Christlike humility. How we control our tongue is a key indicator. It is the spiritual man whose arguments I am most keen to hear. Doctrine is important, Christlike character is paramount.

Regards.

Well, then give your utmost attention and lend spiritual credence to Lon, who is a most Godly and patient and good man in Christ . . .

While contrasting him with those OVT'ers who constantly oppose and denigrate his Christian witness.

I will be watching to evaluate your conclusions . . .

Nang

 

[Nang]

Well at least we now know physics is not your strong suit either, along with theology.

Oh . . .so you admit OVT'ers lived by the law of (humanistic, pagan) physics!

Is that better or worse than having Augustine agree with Christian views?

Nang

 

[drbrumley]

Wow, science is pagan now and humanistic?

Maybe you didn't know this, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but science explains Gods creation.