ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lighthouse]

I always pray before engaging you. I pray that I may be gracious, yet assertive with what I believe is true. I pray as I address your attacks on others that you will understand. I pray that I might not return evil for evil (I struggle). I don't actually 'like' to engage you because I find you caustic and trite, without exception. So you corrected my spelling and grammar and I your's. I suppose all your English teachers were perfect (not really, I think you have rose colored glasses - I'm certainly not perfect, you proved that).

So, on we go, you batting at my character, aptitude, intelligence. When you say I'm oblivious, I acquiesce that I ignore you a bunch but I will continue to come to other's defense as I believe is fitting for a believer. It does entrench us against one another, but I will not back down from it. When you attack others and I see it, I'm compelled to address it.

In case you haven't noticed I don't engage you very often. Even when you've directly addressed me. Well, that's because I figured out a long time ago you're not worth engaging. You're not smart enough to have a logical discussion.

So now it's back to talking to others while you remain just another person in the room.

 

[Lon]

You're an idiot, Lon.

Man, you really considered 'spurring one another on to love and good works there.'

God knowing what He is going to do is not a problem. His plans exist. Therefore His knowledge of those plans is able to exist as well.

However, if God has not yet thought to do something, then there is no plan; i.e. the plan does not exist. And if the plan does not exist then God does not know of the plan. He doesn't know that He will plan to do it in the future, because He has not yet thought of it.

Colossians 1:16 & 17 What could not be that He doesn't know?

Talk about circular reasoning, and faulty logic.

Just because your wife decided to cook bacon and eggs does not mean you have to eat them. You still must choose whether or not to eat them.

What if she burns the bacon because she is distracted by one of your children? Will you then eat the bacon?

If God knows you will choose something, yes you will choose it. But could you choose otherwise? Yes or no?

You assume an easy answer here. When we are talking about 1)hypotheticals 2) what I nor you can really say for sure about.
How can it be merely yes or no when I haven't any understanding of Foreknowlege? I don't possess it. I can speculate and philosophize at best.
Hypothetical: If a psychic told us we'd meet a dark stranger, must we then meet a stranger for that person to be truly psychic? If we don't, does it prove they are not? If God foreknows, as I believe, then it is true knowledge and it cannot be any other way. This does not mean we lost choice however, it simply means that choice was known.
So, either we are going to deny His Foreknowledge (OV) or we are going to see it as not constraining our choice. Because, according to Colossians 1, everything (you and I) are made by Him and for Him, I believe whatever we do is not only predictable by God, but intimately 'known' (foreknowledge).

I was correcting your spelling, moron. You shouldn't have boasted about teaching English.

Like I corrected yours when you were trying to correct E4E.
I agree, I rely too heavily on spell-checkers these days. Your complaint is noted and appreciated, I will endeavor to do better.

You've made your perception clear.

You believe that I am just like whichever open view proponent you read to support your argument against it. And you're wrong. We do not all think alike, or even agree on what makes the future open, or what the root of causality would be if it were true.

I do understand that this bothers you. I do not try to go out of my way to do so, just on points I think are important.
The fact is, I don't think of you like others on here. I think you have a big chip on your shoulder and I hesitate to ever engage you.

 

[tetelestai]

You're not smart enough to have a logical discussion.

You're an idiot, Lon.

You are one of the most oblivious people on this board.

Lighthouse every time you post stuff like this, I think of the following post:

Can we call you Outhouse? It is a more accurate name.

 

[Lon]

In case you haven't noticed I don't engage you very often. Even when you've directly addressed me. Well, that's because I figured out a long time ago you're not worth engaging. You're not smart enough to have a logical discussion.

So now it's back to talking to others while you remain just another person in the room.

A few thoughts for both of us

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be like your Father in heaven,

Heb 10:24 And let us take thought of how to spur one another on to love and good works,

Jam 3:9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people made in God's image.
Jam 3:10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters.

 

[godrulz]

Shame on all of us at times for our lack of godly character, our immaturity in dialogue about the things of God and His Word, our lack of love and unity due to peripheral issues, etc.

We should value relationships and not grieving the Spirit over being right on non-essential things (dealing with enemies of the cross is not the same as debating free will).

I disagree with Lon, but do not diss him to this degree nor underestimate his heart or mind.

 

[King cobra]

As with Lighthouse, I argue that your conclusion is incorrect. You are making a[n] [il]logical leap from know to eradication of choice. 'If' I chose chocolate (I wouldn't), then God would have known such that He would have said 'chocolate' in the first place. What you are proving is that we created beings have no ability to qualify, quantify, or logically apprehend Foreknowledge. When you change the scenario, you forget one thing: God would know of the change. You are trying to apply human constraints in our logic to God's ability. EDF in no way can be connected to loss of choice. It is like saying, "That actor couldn't have done that another way, it is on film. It's a done deal. He has no other choice."
This is incorrect: The actor acted as he chose. It is true that it cannot now be changed, but it is untrue that he had no other choice.

Respectfully, you are not seeing my point; or you’ve chosen to give it no acknowledgment. I’ll try again, this time using your actor analogy.

God, knowing the actor’s (let’s call him Clark) future exhaustively, tells him before filming a certain scene, “You are going to say, ‘Frankly my dear, I don't give a darn!’"

Now, for whatever reason, Clark decides no one is going to tell him how to interpret his line, not even God! So he uses his free will and delivers a more insolent word to the delight of the director who then decides to wrap the scene.

Will you have God go back in time to tell Clark he is going to say, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”?

Ah, but now, for whatever reason, Clark decides to repent of this kind of language. So he uses his free will and delivers a euphemism instead to the delight of the director who then decides to wrap the scene.

Will you have God go back in time to tell Clark he is going to say, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a darn”?

Yikes, this could go on forever!

In other words, if we have free will, God could not tell us what we will do at any given moment, and then expect us to always acquiesce.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In other words, if we have free will, God could not tell us what we will do at any given moment, and then expect us to always acquiesce.

The point is that we do not have the "free will", that is, libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference, you claim. Thus, you are only playing 'what-if' word games with no Biblical warrant to support the existence of a wholly autonomous creature premises of your arguments.

The only "free will" you possess is the liberty of spontaneity, that is, to choose according to your greatest desires at the moment of your so choosing. Nothing more. Nothing less.

AMR

 

[King cobra]

The point is that we do not have the "free will", that is, libertarian free will, the liberty of indifference, you claim. Thus, you are only playing 'what-if' word games with no Biblical warrant to support the existence of a wholly autonomous creature premises of your arguments.

The only "free will" you possess is the liberty of spontaneity, that is, to choose according to your greatest desires at the moment of your so choosing. Nothing more. Nothing less.

AMR

I'm not arguing Biblically. I'm arguing logically.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'm not arguing Biblically. I'm arguing logically.

Please draw a distinction between the two. If you can. :squint:

 

[King cobra]

Originally Posted by King cobra:
I'm not arguing Biblically. I'm arguing logically.

Please draw a distinction between the two. If you can. :squint:

One primarily appeals to the Bible; one primarily appeals to logic.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by King cobra:
I'm not arguing Biblically. I'm arguing logically.

One primarily appeals to the Bible; one primarily appeals to logic.

Again, how are they differentiated? I am confident you cannot appeal to logic without a presupposition that God exists, therefore, from a Biblical warrant. To assume that truths exist necessarily assumes a Truth-Maker.

AMR

 

[godrulz]

Without long 'here' links, the difference between liberty indifference/spontaneity?

Some choices are neutral and not driven by an overriding desire. Do you really believe God determines the desires, but we chose and are thus responsible?

Talk about philosophical double speak.

Why does Calvinism have to invent so many rationalizations rather than accepting the obvious understanding to these issues?

 

[King cobra]

Again, how are they differentiated? I am confident you cannot appeal to logic without a presupposition that God exists, therefore, from a Biblical warrant. To assume that truths exist necessarily assumes a Truth-Maker.[/COLOR]

AMR

You just differentiated them.

Everyone knows (no assumptions) that God exists (Romans 1:20). This is a Biblical reference.

That a free will agent can be contraire regardless of any verbalized statements renders EDF merely predictive. This is a logical reference.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse every time you post stuff like this, I think of the following post:

Do you like quoting perverts?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You just differentiated them.

Everyone knows (no assumptions) that God exists (Romans 1:20). This is a Biblical reference.

That a free will agent can be contraire regardless of any verbalized statements renders EDF merely predictive. This is a logical reference.

I give up. For the last time, there is no such thing in reality as a "free will agent" as you have described "free will". The rest is just an exercise in linguistic parlor tricks. Carry on with your fruitless exercise.

AMR

 

[Ktoyou]

I give up. For the last time, there is no such thing in reality as a "free will agent" as you have described "free will". The rest is just an exercise in linguistic parlor tricks. Carry on with your fruitless exercise.

AMR

Amen, A ‘free will agent’ I guess that is an agent for something one might call free will. I doubt the agent will find it.

 

[godrulz]

I give up. For the last time, there is no such thing in reality as a "free will agent" as you have described "free will". The rest is just an exercise in linguistic parlor tricks. Carry on with your fruitless exercise.

AMR

I give up. For the last time, there is no such thing in reality as a compatibilistic agent as you have described compatibilism. The rest is just an exercise in linguistic parlor tricks. Carry on with your fruitless exercise...without me.:dizzy:

Molinists, your middle knowledge is no better, so don't get comfortable.

 

[tetelestai]

Do you like quoting perverts?

Here is the problem Lighthouse.

Over here in the “Exclusively Christian” part of TOL your name calling and childish behavior doesn’t really bother anyone. However, over in the “Religion” section where you are supposed to be an ambassador of Christ, it’s a problem.

Here is what an atheist thinks of you:

That's Outhouse for ya. Pretty typical of Christian behavior here too. Can't make an intelligent argument, resort to name calling. Just the kind of person I want to be. Where do I sign up?

Another atheist:

Yeah, Lighthouse pretty much sucks.

Another atheist:

Lighthouse, I've been reading some of your other posts. This is the level of your arguments. Sad.

And a Satanist:

Ya know, I never understood why this kid is held in such high esteem around here...he's obviously got major issues to work on.

You’re not exactly Billy Graham over there.

Yes, they are perverts, homosexuals, atheists, agnostics, and all sorts of other things that unbelievers are.

What they don’t need is to be called names by you like the following:

Faggot.

This gives them the impression that all Christians act like you do.

Why would they ever want to be a Christian if they think that how you act is how a Christian acts?

Therefore, you should grow up.

 

[Lighthouse]

Here is the problem Lighthouse.

Over here in the “Exclusively Christian” part of TOL your name calling and childish behavior doesn’t really bother anyone. However, over in the “Religion” section where you are supposed to be an ambassador of Christ, it’s a problem.

Here is what an atheist thinks of you:



Another atheist:



Another atheist:



And a Satanist:



You’re not exactly Billy Graham over there.

Yes, they are perverts, homosexuals, atheists, agnostics, and all sorts of other things that unbelievers are.

What they don’t need is to be called names by you like the following:



This gives them the impression that all Christians act like you do.

Why would they ever want to be a Christian if they think that how you act is how a Christian acts?

Therefore, you should grow up.

1. The unrepentant reacted to Christ the same way when He called them names.
2. What makes you think these people would accept Billy Graham?
3. What makes you think I want to be Billy Graham?
4. A faggot is a faggot, period.

 

[King cobra]

I give up. For the last time, there is no such thing in reality as a compatibilistic agent as you have described compatibilism. The rest is just an exercise in linguistic parlor tricks. Carry on with your fruitless exercise...without me.:dizzy:

Molinists, your middle knowledge is no better, so don't get comfortable.

I could never have said it better! :thumb: