ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

Does that mean that the animal did not have to die?

Do you think Jesus did not have to die either?

What does that have to do with anything? Of course you are attempting to change the subject because you do not have a reasonable response to the point which I made.

I know what you will say, these are rhetorical questions.

"Where are you?"

--Dave

ps Oh, if God is timeless and spaceless, he's not really in the Garden is he?

Not rhetorical.

I will ask you again in the hope that you will make your answer clear:

Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?​

 

[genuineoriginal]

You have a "thinking" problem.

Since it was an "offering" which was killed then that means that that animal was already "offered" BEFORE he was killed.

It is the blood and parts of a slain animal that is offered.
Nothing less is acceptable, so nothing is "offered" before the animal is killed.

 

[DFT_Dave]

What does that have to do with anything? Of course you are attempting to change the subject because you do not have a reasonable response to the point which I made.

I will ask you again in the hope that you will make your answer clear:

Do you believe that God could not locate Adam?​

Yes, God knew where Adam was and God knew what had happened because these events were past and present realities. God's questions are rhetorical. The account of Abraham was a test to see what he would do in the future, an event that was not a past or present reality.

Now answer my question, how can a timeless, spaceless God actually be present and then absent in the Garden?

If the, "the offering was completed BEFORE the animal was slain" as you say, then it does not have to be killed in order for the Law to be fulfilled and neither would Jesus have had to been killed, he is the Lamb of God.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is the blood and parts of a slain animal that is offered.
Nothing less is acceptable, so nothing is "offered" before the animal is killed.

In some cases it was but in most cases it was a "live" animal which was offered.

Offerings are killed

Since it was an "offering" which was killed then that means that that animal was ALIVE and already "offered" BEFORE it was killed.

Every now and then it is necessary to use your common sense.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, I acquiesce, but again that's why I said perhaps I meant exhaustively and also acquiesced that some things are definitive (I was hunting for a better descriptor for what I was attempting to convey).

So, yes, we can 'definitively' say God has no beginning, yet, it does boggle my mind in the sense that I cannot escape finite thinking to apprehend the infinite in totality. So with that, I agree that what we apprehend partially is 'definable,' but I'd still not reckon that as 'definitive' (exhaustive).

That's why "God gave us a rational mind". We do not have to know everything about him or anything else, exhaustively. God gives us revelation for what we cannot know and we reason the logical conclusions for that. If God communicates to us that he is timeless, or in time, we can conclude certain things to be logically consistent with either.

But the very idea that God speaks to man and reveals himself to us is a logical conclusion if God is in time and moves, communication is movement that requires sequence because it is information from him to us. A timeless God is also immovable and does not act in sequence, as I'm sure you know, and could not logically speak or reveal himself to man.


--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes, God knew where Adam was and God knew what had happened because these events were past and present realities.

Since God actually knew the location of Adam then His following words spoken to Israel cannot be understood "literally," can it?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).​

This is a clear case of figurative language but for some reason the open Theists are not capable of spotting figurative language when it is used in regard to God.

Now answer my question, how can a timeless, spaceless God actually be present and then absent in the Garden?

So are you now arguing that God does not exist outseide of "space"?

BEFORE the creation of the universe, which includes space, He existed so common sense dictates that the eternal state is outside of "space." But that does not mean that God cannot transcend the eternal state because we know that He is omnopresent:

"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Ps.139:8).​

"Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord" (Jer.31:33-34).​

You open theists want to put God in a box and imagine that it is impossible for Him to transcend time and space despite the fact that all things are possible with Him.

If the, "the offering was completed BEFORE the animal was slain" as you say, then it does not have to be killed in order for the Law to be fulfilled and neither would Jesus have had to been killed, he is the Lamb of God.

In order for the atonement to be made it was first necessary to offer the animal. Then it was killed. That is not difficult to understand. The offering was prior to the killing of the animal.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Since God actually knew the location of Adam then His following words spoken to Israel cannot be understood "literally," can it?:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" (Gen.3:8-9).​

This is a clear case of figurative language but for some reason the open Theists are not capable of spotting figurative language when it is used in regard to God.

So are you now arguing that God does not exist outside of "space"?

BEFORE the creation of the universe, which includes space, He existed so common sense dictates that the eternal state is outside of "space." But that does not mean that God cannot transcend the eternal state because we know that He is omnopresent:

"If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there" (Ps.139:8).​

"Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord" (Jer.31:33-34).​

You open theists want to put God in a box and imagine that it is impossible for Him to transcend time and space despite the fact that all things are possible with Him.

In order for the atonement to be made it was first necessary to offer the animal. Then it was killed. That is not difficult to understand. The offering was prior to the killing of the animal.

The statement by God is rhetorical. Do you not understand the meaning of rhetorical?

"And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day".

How can God's presence be both outside of space and time and inside of space and time, at the same time? How can God be everywhere/omnipresent and nowhere/spaceless--outside of space and time?

God can transcend the "temporal state" but he can't transcend the "eternal state", and he can't be both "eternal/timeless" and be "temporal/in time" without obvious contradiction.

Not only would the statement "where are you" be figurative, God's presence would be figurative as well if God is timeless and spaceless. And if God's very presence could not be taken literally then Adam and Eve's actual existence comes into doubt as well.

--Dave

 

[Lon]

That's why "God gave us a rational mind". We do not have to know everything about him or anything else, exhaustively. God gives us revelation for what we cannot know and we reason the logical conclusions for that. If God communicates to us that he is timeless, or in time, we can conclude certain things to be logically consistent with either.

But the very idea that God speaks to man and reveals himself to us is a logical conclusion if God is in time and moves, communication is movement that requires sequence because it is information from him to us. A timeless God is also immovable and does not act in sequence, as I'm sure you know, and could not logically speak or reveal himself to man.


--Dave

It isn't either/or, but a yes/and.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It isn't either/or, but a yes/and.

You mean both/and, don't you?

In either case you know that would be and illogical contradiction or impossible, right?

--Dave

 

[Lon]

You mean both/and, don't you?

In either case you know that would be and illogical contradiction or impossible, right?

--Dave

David, if you create something, you can both be a part of and apart from the created item. Like a toy train is bound to a track, yet I, as at least the assembler am not at all bound to the track, yet I am with the train on the track the whole way around the Christmas tree (Thanks AMR for the visual in your photo section!).
God created us, He put us on a track called time, duration, sequence. He is with us as we are on the track.

Think for a moment with me: If God were in durative time, His past, which goes on forever, would never allow Him to get to our now unless time is no factor for Him. God is logically beyond even the open view's understanding of time that they wish Him subjected to, else we'd not exist. Now couldn't happen. So even according to open view parameters, God cannot be constrained but is relational to duration.
As I told you earlier, these conundrums escape my mind at points (brilliant or otherwise). I can only assert here, that logically, God must be unfeddered by time's restraints. It is the only logical conclusion for me either way it is sliced.

 

[DFT_Dave]

David, if you create something, you can both be a part of and apart from the created item. Like a toy train is bound to a track, yet I, as at least the assembler am not at all bound to the track, yet I am with the train on the track the whole way around the Christmas tree (Thanks AMR for the visual in your photo section!). God created us, He put us on a track called time, duration, sequence. He is with us as we are on the track.

Think for a moment with me: If God were in durative time, His past, which goes on forever, would never allow Him to get to our now unless time is no factor for Him. God is logically beyond even the open view's understanding of time that they wish Him subjected to, else we'd not exist. Now couldn't happen. So even according to open view parameters, God cannot be constrained but is relational to duration.

As I told you earlier, these conundrums escape my mind at points (brilliant or otherwise). I can only assert here, that logically, God must be unfeddered by time's restraints. It is the only logical conclusion for me either way it is sliced.

But time is not a track because time is not a thing in itself, not something you can handle, feel, or see. Time is an aspect of something that exists and is active--experiences change or movement. The creation of something that had never existed before proves there is movement, change, and time/sequence in God.

The "track" that God put us on is not called time, it is called planet Earth. We are bound by our "finite" existence on earth, not by time. We can only do one thing at a time. God does as many things as he "freely" chooses to do, he is not bound to one thing at a time nor everything all at once.

Since moments of time do not exist as something that God must pass through, an "infinite" regress of them does not exist that would prevent him from getting to here and now.

--Dave

 

[genuineoriginal]

In some cases it was but in most cases it was a "live" animal which was offered.

Since it was an "offering" which was killed then that means that that animal was ALIVE and already "offered" BEFORE it was killed.

Every now and then it is necessary to use your common sense.

You don't seem to have any clue what an altar was or how it was used.

ALTAR

ALTAR (Heb. מִזְבֵּח, mizbe'aḥ, derived from the root zbḥ (זבח), meaning "to slaughter [as a sacrifice]"), originally the place where sacrificial slaughter was performed (e.g., the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen. 22). According to biblical law however, animal slaughter was never upon the altar but nearby. Moreover, the altar was not restricted to animal offerings; it also received grain, wine, and incense offerings. Thus, whatever the original intention of the word altar, it was extended to designate the place for offering all oblations. Finally, this definition does not mention all the uses of the altar, since non-sacrificial functions are also attested: testimony (e.g., Josh. 22:26–29) and asylum (see below).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God can transcend the "temporal state" but he can't transcend the "eternal state", and he can't be both "eternal/timeless" and be "temporal/in time" without obvious contradiction.

You conveniently failed to address what I said here:

So are you now arguing that God does not exist outside of "space"?​

BEFORE the creation of the universe, which includes space, He existed so common sense dictates that the eternal state is outside of "space."​

The word "space" is defined as being three dimensational and hence a part of the universe.

Now answer a question for me.

Since God existed before the creation of the universe and therefore before the creation of "space" then did He not exise apart from "space" at one time?

How can God's presence be both outside of space and time and inside of space and time, at the same time?

Just because God is not bound by time and space does not mean that He cannot interact in both time and space. You put God in a box and say that if He exists outside of time then he can have nothing to do with the very thing which He Himself created.

The truth of the matter is that He fills both heaven and earth:

"Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord" (Jer.31:33-34).​

The statement by God is rhetorical. Do you not understand the meaning of rhetorical?

Do you not know the difference between a "statement" and a "question"? The subject under discussion was not a "statement" but a "question":

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " (Gen.3:8-9).​

Here is an example of a rhetorical QUESTION:

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal.3:2).​

A "rhetorical question" is a questioned designed to make a statement and not draw an answer. By the quiestion Paul was making a statement and that statement was that we receive the spirit by the hearing of faith and not by the works of the law. So tell me what statement was being made here in this so-called rhetorical question:

"Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? " (Gen.3:8-9).​

God can transcend the "temporal state" but he can't transcend the "eternal state'

God inhabits the eternal state but He fills both heaven and earth so you are wrong again:

"Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord" (Jer.31:33-34).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You don't seem to have any clue what an altar was or how it was used.

I know exactly what an altar was and how it was used. As your article says, "whatever the original intention of the word altar, it was extended to designate the place for offering all oblations."

It was the place for "offering" oblations. The actual killing was not done on the altar, as the article says: "According to biblical law however, animal slaughter was never upon the altar but nearby."

Therefore common sense dictates that the act of "offering" and the act of "killing" were two separate and distinct things.

That is exactly what I have been saying!

 

[genuineoriginal]

I know exactly what an altar was and how it was used. As your article says, "whatever the original intention of the word altar, it was extended to designate the place for offering all oblations."

It was the place for "offering" oblations. The acr=tual killing was not done on the altar, as the article says: "According to biblical law however, animal slaughter was never upon the altar but nearby."

Therefore common sense dictates that the act of "offering" and the act of "killing" were two separate and distinct things.

That is exactly what I have been saying!

Please use the common sense God gave you.
If the actual killing in the Temple was not done on the altar, but was done nearby, then live animals were not offered on the altar. They were only offered after they were killed.

:doh:

 

[Lon]

Since moments of time do not exist as something that God must pass through, an "infinite" regress of them does not exist that would prevent him from getting to here and now.

--Dave

Do you realize you just explained God's ability to transcend time?

 

[godrulz]

Do you realize you just explained God's ability to transcend time?

God is not limited by time, but sequence/succession/duration (time) is the reality even for an eternal being.

 

[Lon]

God is not limited by time, but sequence/succession/duration (time) is the reality even for an eternal being.

You've just agreed with my point, repeated about 10x's in thread.
"Relational to, not limited by."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please use the common sense God gave you.
If the actual killing in the Temple was not done on the altar, but was done nearby, then live animals were not offered on the altar. They were only offered after they were killed.

Just answer one question for me. Was Isaac dead when he was offered upon the altar?:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Just answer one question for me. Was Isaac dead when he was offered upon the altar?:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21).​

Abraham was not offering his live son, he was offering his son's life.
:wave2: