Our Moral God

[Clete]

This is true but not without qualification. The Septuagint translation was literally quoted in the New Testament here and there, so at least those passages actually are authoritative translations from Hebrew to ancient Greek. If you disagree with that, then let's have it. The Septuagint was the Bible for many, especially Gentiles but also dispersed Jerusalemites who could read Greek easier than Hebrew, during the Apostolic era.

I say it again, WITHOUT qualification..

No translation is more authoritative than the original language.

I concede that I have reasons against translating it "reason" or "logic" for similar reasons that you have for not liking "Word." You don't like Word because it's too fragmented, more like the bits and pieces that make up logic and language and thought, and so you're wanting to call it "logic" or "reason" because these are structured and integrated and not just interjections.

That isn't the reason I reject the term "word" as a proper English translation of "Logos". I reject it because the term "word" does not mean, to any English speaking person, anything similar to what the term "logos" meant to the Greeks. In fact, the term "word" conveys no meaning whatsoever in its use in John 1. The only reason anyone, including you, gets anything from the passage at all is because someone who understands what the term "logos" means has explained it to them.

And I agree with your concern there too, I do see it, and I do think it is perhaps better to call it something else, and while speech might not be right, because it doesn't necessarily convey that it must also be logical or rational speech, and not just speech without qualification, it is also Biblical, because the Septuagint without ambiguity or controversy translates the Hebrew word for speech in Psalm 33:6 with "logo" which is the same word as Logos.

The term speech would be far better than the term "word" but it would still fall far short of what the term would have meant to the original readers of the opening passages of John's epistle. First of all, as you say, the term logos would only refer to "speech" so long as that speech was rationally sound speech. Logos doesn't just refer to the mere speaking of words but of rational discourse.

More importantly, John is very obviously connecting Jesus, not with a mere abstraction such as speech or discourse but with divinity. "the Logos" was the Greeks conception of the divine order making power of the universe and the light spoken of in verses 4 and 5 is not talking about photons of physical light but the light of understanding, all of which supports the use of English terminology that conveys that kind of meaning such as "reason" or "logic".

So for John to write In the beginning was the Logos, he is not only alluding to Genesis 1:1 from the Septuagint, which is literally the same start, but he's alluding to Psalm 33:6 from the Septuagint, which is also alluding to Genesis 1:1.

This is incorrect. dāḇār (Strong's 1697) is a term that refers specifically to the act of speaking. Logos is referring the thought behind the speaking, the ideas communicated through speaking. Logos is intelligible communication, dāḇār is simple a tool used to accomplish it. Just as hammering nails is not carpentry, so dāḇār is not logos.

"In the beginning" is a very obvious reference to Genesis 1:1 but there is no evidence that John was making any reference to Psalms 33. Even if he were, verse four undermines the point your making anyway.

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth.

"right" and "truth" are words that refer things being consistent, which is all reason and logic are.

It seems all roads lead to logos meaning "reason" even by your own argument.

As I said above it's completely Biblical to translate the Hebrew word for speech into the Greek Logos, since John alludes to Psalm 33:6 and Genesis 1:1 when he wrote John 1:1-3

Except that the term used in Psalms 33 doesn't have the same meaning as logos and that he didn't allude to Psalms 33 in the first place.

But to your point and in somewhat agreement with you, while Word might be an inferior translation because it signifies something simpler than a Person would need to be, I also find the possibility of it being "Logic" or "Reason" problematic because they too appear to be too impersonal, to be made flesh and blood and bone man, and have that mean anything. He would be like Spock from Star Trek, and that's not what I read in the Gospels about Him.

That's just your own misunderstanding of what it means to be logical. Spock is the single most illogical character in the entire Star Trek universe! If you think that's what it means to be logical, you need to think again.

Also, there can be no such thing as impersonal reason. Even the logic displayed by a machine has it's genesis in an alive thinking mind.

Lastly, isn't it normal Catholic doctrine that teaches that God is impassible? I can't think of anything more Spock like than that! The whole premise of that character is that emotion is illogical, which is simply false! An emotional person that doesn't emote would be a contradiction (i.e. illogical) and so it isn't emotion that is illogical or irrational, it is causeless emotion or emotion caused by a false understanding that is illogical. God does not have the problem of having false understanding and He is not impassible and so bears basically no resemblance at all to the character of Spock.

Beyond it though I think logic and reason imply or signify too much. In another post here you got into how math and higher math are different things, and I think the words logic and reason for me also mean too much. Did you know there are literally multiple logics? Which one logic is Logos supposed to mean?

Human beings seem to have an instinct for overthinking things. This is an excellent example.

First of all there are not multiple logics! Logical pluralism will lead you toward the "both and" logic that the mystics in India use rather than the "either or" logic of actual reality.

And yes, I'm fully aware for Bullian Logic and various other mathematical logic systems, none of which has anything to do with the sort of reason or logic we are talking about.

So I've been working with the term "order" recently, and this lends itself to abstractly thinking about the most simple form of order possible, that which yields all logics and maths and language. I think if we can agree on the concept we mean to convey with our terms here perhaps we can find some common ground.

The Greek word for "order" is "kanonizoo" and/or "systima", not logos. John's use of Logos refers to that divine being behind the order (systima) of the universe.

I'm thinking what you mean to say with Logic and Reason is stripped down, fundamental logic or reason, and not different logics or higher maths or anything complicated like that. If this is so, then maybe we can find agreement.

Sound reason is the practice of conforming one's mind to the limitations of reality by removing the contradictory from that which we consider to be truth.

Reason presumes the following axiom...

What is, is. Reality is real. A is A. (Three different ways of saying the same thing.)

This must be so or else no knowledge is possible and determining the truth or falsehood of any claim is moot.

Therefore...

Because a thing cannot both be and not be, a truth claim cannot be both true and false (in the same context) nor can two truth claims that contradict each other both be true (in the same context). The logical pluralism of eastern mysticism ("both/and" logic) ignore these truths and thus land in a quagmire of unavoidable confusion and self-contradiction culminating most explicitly in their intentional ignoring of the choice one must make between EITHER "both/and" logic OR "either/or" logic. In other words, because reality is real, "either/or" logic emerges, no matter how hard you try to ignore it.

God, being the uncreated Creator is the ultimate reality. As such, it seems appropriate to remind you of God's self-given name, "I am". Is it just coincidence then that the God who calls Himself, "I am" inspired John to write that He is the very incarnation of reason? I think not!

 

[Lon]

This's from Greek philosophers. They're the ones who first taught that God and the Good are the same being or entity, that Goodness isn't just an attribute of God but that God is Goodness itself (whatever that means). It's an idea derived from, conjectured, deduced from just reason. The problem with it is that it appears to constrict or delimit God's freedom though, how do you reconcile it?

For me, 'freedom' is and always has been an assumption and desire that enters the conversation as a preconceived notion and granted truth. I question it, simply because my mind works this way at the fall of man. The obtained autonomy came by disobedience. Prior to that, there was no such thing and I logic/reason it was 'good' by God's own assessment. It doesn't really matter to me, just troubles my own perceptions of what must exist as 'freedom.' I've eschewed that simply because I believe it may, potentially, ruin a larger sense of logic. IOW, I felt I had to be willing to evaluate against the notion, to evaluate. Certainly the Greeks wrestled similarly. All of us are greatly influence by Greeks, simply because they were concrete sequential and logically analytical. We operate on that Western mindset by and large. Conversely, Jews had an Eastern mindset.

Can you authenticate anything, by yourself? My answer is no. God is the only self-authenticating entity logically, and by His own being because all (nadda else) comes from Him alone. He is the all in all.

Meaning to say, which is stronger? God? or the Good?

Similar we read "God is Love" in 1 John 4. We do not read 'love is God' thus and similarly we read God is good, but do not read good is God.

Seems that it's the Good which prevails, unless we have a way to check on God to make sure He's always being good somehow.

Nope. There'd be an inconsistency if it weren't true, BUT omnipotence means He has no need to lie. If He wasn't, there is nothing any of us could do about it, thus no reason whatsoever a reason to not tell us the truth. Because this logic is consistent, whatever God says is self-authenticated. Jesus told us God is the only One that 'can' do that.

 

[Lon]

He isn't good because we see Him as good. He is 'good' because His nature is what our definitions come from; this thread has it backwards. Morality is 'right' because it is God's nature, not the other way around. IOW, God is not subject to morality, morality is Him. He doesn't 'act' moral, what He does IS moral and "WE" need to learn the definition, not try to restrict God to our limited understanding. Don't believe me? Read: 1 Corinthians 13:12 1 John 3:2

Love this!

Why [ ... ] does it matter so much to you that logos cannot mean "reason"? What's wrong with the notion that John was equating Jesus with reason?
Clete

Let me see if I can expand on this so it makes a bit of larger contextual sense.

Let me begin here: Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Psalm 33:9 He spoke and it came into existence.

Logos then, is (and I think I agree, impotently to a degree) translated 'word' in the Hebraic sense of "the power of God." It lends (and thus even "Power of God" isn't wholly adequate). Hebrews 1:3 says Our Lord Jesus Christ is the 'exact expression of God.'
"Word" then is an attempt to capture some of the majesty of God very God entering the flesh. I must think with you that "word" is but an inkling of the "expression." Hebrews 1:3 is closer to home (I think) of the intent of 'the exact expression of God.'

So then, if you will, "Reason" also isn't quite enough. I 'think' that is, ever is, the objection, for the most part: not 'just reason' nor 'just Word' (expression) if you will.

 

[Lon]

Whomever that was, it certainly was not the immutable god of Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

It is a logical paradigm: If 'all things' come from God Colossians 1:16-18, then 'becoming flesh' is already from Him inclusive in all things. Perhaps, in my thinking, it'd be a better OV tack to simply say "the universe didn't exist at one time" therefore is a 'new' thing. The logical problem for us on the other side: It 'yet' comes from Him and thus is an expression of His eternal being. The largest discussion point that will ever be the big picture in OV discussion is whether anything exists, apart from God. When we say without Him, nothing exists that exists, it necessarily forces the idea of panentheism Ephesians 4:6 If you allow, it is more important to discuss the biblical truth rather than Calvin, Augustine, or Aristotle (secondary sources). Ephesians 4:6 would mean He became what was already there in Him in the first place.

 

[Clete]

For me, 'freedom' is and always has been an assumption and desire that enters the conversation as a preconceived notion and granted truth. I question it, simply because my mind works this way at the fall of man. The obtained autonomy came by disobedience. Prior to that, there was no such thing and I logic/reason it was 'good' by God's own assessment. It doesn't really matter to me, just troubles my own perceptions of what must exist as 'freedom.' I've eschewed that simply because I believe it may, potentially, ruin a larger sense of logic. IOW, I felt I had to be willing to evaluate against the notion, to evaluate. Certainly the Greeks wrestled similarly. All of us are greatly influence by Greeks, simply because they were concrete sequential and logically analytical. We operate on that Western mindset by and large. Conversely, Jews had an Eastern mindset.

Are you saying that Adam and Eve weren't free until after they ate of the Tree?

Can you authenticate anything, by yourself? My answer is no.

Say self-defeating things much?

By your own statement, your answer cannot be authenticated.

How is it even possible for people to say such things without noticing it?

God is the only self-authenticating entity logically, and by His own being because all (nadda else) comes from Him alone. He is the all in all.

Gobbledygook.

Similar we read "God is Love" in 1 John 4. We do not read 'love is God' thus and similarly we read God is good, but do not read good is God.

Excellent observation!

Nope. There'd be an inconsistency if it weren't true, BUT omnipotence means He has no need to lie. If He wasn't, there is nothing any of us could do about it, thus no reason whatsoever a reason to not tell us the truth. Because this logic is consistent, whatever God says is self-authenticated. Jesus told us God is the only One that 'can' do that.

But not for the reason you gave, Lon.

The reason God's words are self-authenticating is because God is a Trinity.

As Paul told the Corinthians, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

 

[Clete]

Love this!

I did not write what you said this in response too, you did! Your wrote it in post #234

Let me see if I can expand on this so it makes a bit of larger contextual sense.

Let me begin here: Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Psalm 33:9 He spoke and it came into existence.

Logos then, is (and I think I agree, impotently to a degree) translated 'word' in the Hebraic sense of "the power of God." It lends (and thus even "Power of God" isn't wholly adequate). Hebrews 1:3 says Our Lord Jesus Christ is the 'exact expression of God.'
"Word" then is an attempt to capture some of the majesty of God very God entering the flesh. I must think with you that "word" is but an inkling of the "expression." Hebrews 1:3 is closer to home (I think) of the intent of 'the exact expression of God.'

So, first of all Palms 33 does not use the Greek word Logos or any word in Hebrew that means the same thing as logos.
Secondly, the English term "word" does not mean nor does it in any way "capture some of the majesty of God very God entering the flesh". There is no dictionary, no thesaurus, no writings of any kind nor a single spoken example of the term "word" where anything associated with "the majesty of God" is being communicated in any way whatsoever. The singular exception is in the incorrect translation we find in the King James Bible.

So then, if you will, "Reason" also isn't quite enough. I 'think' that is, ever is, the objection, for the most part: not 'just reason' nor 'just Word' (expression) if you will.

There is likely not a perfect translation of Logos into English but that isn't the point. The point is that the term "word" is ridiculously incorrect because it conveys nothing at all of what the Greek's would have understood 'Logos' to mean whereas the term "Reason" or perhaps in the case of John chapter 1, the phrase "Divine Reason" is so vastly superior that there is literally no justification for any preference at all for the use of any other term.

 

[Clete]

It is a logical paradigm: If 'all things' come from God Colossians 1:16-18, then 'becoming flesh' is already from Him inclusive in all things.

By what convoluted logic would you come to such a conclusion?

I dare you to try to state the logic explicitly. You will fail.

Perhaps, in my thinking,...

That's just the problem. I don't think you are thinking. I think you're parroting stuff you heard someone else say without doing any of your own actual thinking.

...it'd be a better OV tack to simply say "the universe didn't exist at one time" therefore is a 'new' thing. The logical problem for us on the other side: It 'yet' comes from Him and thus is an expression of His eternal being. The largest discussion point that will ever be the big picture in OV discussion is whether anything exists, apart from God.

I doubt very much that even you know what the hell you're saying here.

When we say without Him, nothing exists that exists, it necessarily forces the idea of panentheism Ephesians 4:6

No it doesn't! This is stupidity, Lon! Are you even being serious?

What on Earth does Ephesians 4:6 have to do with anything? Is there a reason you didn't actually quote the passage? Where you hoping that people would just be tricked into thinking that the Bible says something that remotedly resembles the drunken stooper you appear to be in with these comments?

Here's the text that you somehow imagine supports this literal nonsense...

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

If you allow, it is more important to discuss the biblical truth rather than Calvin, Augustine, or Aristotle (secondary sources).

Cop out.

We are not talking about Calvin and Augustine or even Aristotle for their own sake but because of the things they taught concerning the nature of God. Besides, if you want to discuss God's immutability, there is no other option but to discuss Socrates and Aristotle and their intellectual progeny.

Ephesians 4:6 would mean He became what was already there in Him in the first place.

This is not just heresy, it's blasphemy!

Can you seriously not think through the things you say enough to get past the tip of your own nose?

By you own statement, you believe that Satan is God! Is God going to throw Himself into the Lake of Fire?
Such an idea is so blatantly blasphemous that I had a hard time even typing those two sentences!

 

[Derf]

It 'yet' comes from Him and thus is an expression of His eternal being.

A "new" expression. One that ISN'T eternal (the heavens and earth has a beginning and will be destroyed by fire). Sounds like a change to me.

 

[Right Divider]

By what convoluted logic would you come to such a conclusion?

It appears that Lon, like many other here on TOL, do not know what a figure of speech is; in this case the generalization. Just like in "real life" where we use many generalizations; so does the Bible.

By Lon's "logic" evil comes from God since "all things" are from God.

 

[Idolater]

God, being the uncreated Creator is the ultimate reality.

idk what that means. It sounds Aristotelian or Thomistic.

... it seems appropriate to remind you of God's self-given name, "I am". Is it just coincidence then that the God who calls Himself, "I am" inspired John to write that He is the very incarnation of reason? I think not!

That's begging the question. I read your argument and I remain unconvinced, but constructrively unconvinced I think.

There is a word LOGISMO /logismon /logismou /logismos which does literally mean reasoning or logic (it's obviously a relative of LOGOS). If your view is correct it's surprising that the Holy Spirit didn't use the word LOGISMO instead of LOGOS, because LOGOS is to LOGISMO as "word" is to "language" or "sentence," or as "reason" is to "reasoning" or "logic." It's too simple or too fragmented a word, if reasoning is what the Holy Spirit means by LOGOS I am surprised He didn't choose c. LOGISMO because it is less ambivalent (it has far fewer different meanings) than LOGOS. For instance we wouldn't be having this discussion rn if He had chosen c. LOGISMOS instead of what He did choose LOGOS.

The order which underlies logic is from God, but is it God? and if it is God, then how? what is the explanation?

I'm suggesting that LOGOS must mean a partite, ordered pattern or form. Partite like an atom is a nucleus made of protons or protons and neutrons, plus electrons, but all together an atom is a simple being, even though it is partite, its smaller parts are basically not capable of existing outside of the context of the atom.

Basically words can't exist outside of language (sentences). That's like trying to imagine a bunch of protons but with no neutrons or electrons. That just doesn't exist. The parts of an atom are discernible but they aren't separable (setting aside nuclear fission for the moment).

So this is why I'm engaging you on your thesis that "Word" isn't the right English word for LOGOS in John 1:1. I think I agree with you, but idk that I agree with you that it should be "logic" or "reason" or even "divine reason," although I think the latter might be more promising.

If LOGOS means some sort of pattern or form, rather than a lone word separated from its natural environment of language and reasoning (like WORD is), this still needs to be explained to me how He can be a Person, because idk what it means to say any person, let alone a divine Person, is ... a pattern or form. Like an abstraction like that? That doesn't speak anything to me, it's like empty meaning. "A form or pattern is a person" (let alone a Person) doesn't mean anything. Are we all forms or patterns? Or just Jesus?

 

[Idolater]

LOGOS must also mean content and not only form.

The Ten Commandments are almost basically called, in Greek, the "10 LOGOSes."

DECALOGUE, DECA 10 LOGUE LOGOS.

 

[Idolater]

I asked this fellow what he thought too. fwiw:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743401189071278537

 

[Clete]

idk what that means. It sounds Aristotelian or Thomistic.

It just means that God has always existed; that He is the only thing that has always been real and everything else that is real came from Him. I have no idea whether Aristotle ever stated anything similar or not and I know next to nothing about Thomism except that a guy named Thomas was closely involved with it.

That's begging the question.

How so.

I read your argument and I remain unconvinced, but constructively unconvinced I think.

I can live with that.

There is a word LOGISMO /logismon /logismou /logismos which does literally mean reasoning or logic (it's obviously a relative of LOGOS). If your view is correct it's surprising that the Holy Spirit didn't use the word LOGISMO instead of LOGOS, because LOGOS is to LOGISMO as "word" is to "language" or "sentence," or as "reason" is to "reasoning" or "logic."

Yes, quite right. Logismo refers to the rules of sound reason just as the word "logic" does in English. However, as you say, the two words are very related to each other and in English (and perhaps in Greek as well, I don't know) the two words are very often used as perfect synonyms and totally interchangeably. "Reason" or "Divine Reason" would be the most technically accurate English translation for Logos. However, those who do translations often like to use transliteration when they find the opportunity, which would lead them to use the term "Logic" instead, which in English is very acceptable and FAR superior to the term "Word" which does nothing at all to convey anything close to what the Greeks would have understood "Logos" to mean.

It's too simple or too fragmented a word, if reasoning is what the Holy Spirit means by LOGOS I am surprised He didn't choose c. LOGISMO because it is less ambivalent (it has far fewer different meanings) than LOGOS.

Well, John used Logos because that was what the Greeks called the divine order creating power of the universe. This why I think "Divine Reason" would be the best English translation possible.

For instance we wouldn't be having this discussion rn if He had chosen c. LOGISMOS instead of what He did choose LOGOS.

It would create other issues because that would have meant something different to John's audience that Logos. The Logismos is related to syllogisms, computations and other forms of formal logic, not the divine mind that orders the universe.

The order which underlies logic is from God, but is it God? and if it is God, then how? what is the explanation?

According to John's gospel, the answer to that question is a definite, "Yes!".

I'm suggesting that LOGOS must mean a partite, ordered pattern or form. Partite like an atom is a nucleus made of protons and or neutrons, plus electrons, but all together an atom is a simple being, even though it is partite, its smaller parts are basically not capable of existing outside of the context of the atom.

No, the Greeks used the term commonly. There isn't any doubt about what the word means.

Basically words can't exist outside of language (sentences). That's like trying to imagine a bunch of protons but with no neutrons or electrons. That just doesn't exist. The parts of an atom are discernible but they aren't separable (setting aside nuclear fission for the moment).

So this is why I'm engaging you on your thesis that "Word" isn't the right English word for LOGOS in John 1:1. I think I agree with you, but idk that I agree with you that it should be "logic" or "reason" or even "divine reason," although I think the latter might be more promising.

Definitely the latter comes the closest to conveying what the Greek's would have had in mind when reading John's gospel. No doubt about it.

If LOGOS means some sort of pattern or form, rather than a lone word separated from its natural environment of language and reasoning (like WORD is), this still needs to be explained to me how He can be a Person, because idk what it means to say any person, let alone a divine Person, is ... a pattern or form. Like an abstraction like that? That doesn't speak anything to me, it's like empty meaning. A form or pattern is a person (let alone a Person) doesn't mean anything. Are we all forms or patterns? Or just Jesus?

Well, the full nature of God is well enough outside out physical existence that there are likely several aspects of His nature that would confound us in this manner. What does it actually mean to say that God IS Love, for example. Then there is the Trinity doctrine and there's several other similar things that we do not have sufficient information about to enable us to nail it down very firmly.

Clete

P.S. EXCELLENT POST by the way!

 

[Lon]

It appears that Lon, like many other here on TOL, do not know what a figure of speech is; in this case the generalization. Just like in "real life" where we use many generalizations; so does the Bible.

By Lon's "logic" evil comes from God since "all things" are from God.

Not at all, why? Because 'assumptions.' For one, Evil isn't an entity. Does it exist 'inside' of God's universe? Of course (but it isn't an entity, it is a deprivatation, a lack). Prove it wrong, and please try and think before assumptions (you've a good mind and I generally think better of your thought process and ability than you do of mine).

 

[Lon]

By what convoluted logic would you come to such a conclusion?

Colossians 1:16-18 John 15:5 Philippians 2:13 Acts 17:28

I dare you to try to state the logic explicitly. You will fail.

Because you think so? You are setting yourself up for a problem to 'your' logic.

Wouldn't it have been better to ask, or are you this self-assured?

If you won't (by declarative) listen, is there a point? Never-the-less I'll give the proof:
1) There is nothing, nadda, that exists outside of God and (Colossians 1:16-18 says it is so in clarity here)
2) God does not exist 'in' anything eternally (John 1:3)
.: (therefore) whatever exists is necessarily 'from' God.

-talking points a) is any point 'assailable?' and show work b) Oddities are simply not dealing with the above proposition, such as 'evil.' Evil isn't a 'thing' but an absence of God and His righteousness, a deprivation. c) Had Jesus been 'flesh' prior? No, BUT the thing is implicit within His creative being. We are not talking about a 'new' thing, but a restriction as man. IOW, God had no restrictions but Philippians 2 is clear, when He became flesh He 'put aside' in a limiting fashion. This is not 'new' as in He didn't know what flesh was, but rather different in every sense that He had not chosen such restriction. He was fully man. Fully man, however, is already a given in that all (all) things come from Him.

You should NOT (neither you nor JR) be pitting one scripture against the other, that would be/is irresponsible. Instead, the two must inform each other in our theology. Don't like it? Proffer a correction or something better then! Quit doing the assertion, relegation, name-calling which is unfit for discussion between member of the body. Do better! Put a bit more love on the bread you are serving instead of this dismal offering.

Shouldn't you both 'be wrestling' with the paradigm 'with' me instead attack me for presenting a scripture? How in the convoluted world that is yours, did you both make that poor decision. What in either of your thinking could have possibly brought it about? Is it a stand-by from Calvinist/Augustine discussion that I've neglected to catch? A reaction to previous conversations that I'm just not seeing such limited scope of response upon? Why not both of you, deal with the scriptures rather. If you believe you are 'not as dumb as Lon' then be of service instead of emoting a frustration. Go to the scriptures and make and incredibly better use of your time than emoting about what is 'nonsense' to you. I'm not happy neither of you understand the problems in your own logic, but these can be corrected and in service, I attempt it below*

That's just the problem. I don't think you are thinking. I think you're parroting stuff you heard someone else say without doing any of your own actual thinking.

Er, no. Restating "Perhaps, IN MY THINKING, ...it'd be a better OV tack to simply say "the universe didn't exist at one time" therefore is a 'new' thing. The logical problem for us on the other side: It 'yet' comes from Him and thus is an expression of His eternal being. The largest discussion point that will ever be the big picture in OV discussion is whether anything exists, apart from God.

I doubt very much that even you know what the hell you're saying here.

Because you don't understand the paradigm. Ask instead of tell. It is why we 'stop' as often as we do. YOU, my friend, stop the thinking process and then another jumps on the bandwagon as if the Open paradigm is the end-all of discussion. VERY simply, follow:
1) There is nothing, nadda, that exists outside of God and (Colossians 1:16-18 says it is so in clarity here)
2) God does not exist 'in' anything eternally (John 1:3)
.: (therefore) whatever exists is necessarily 'from' God.

No it doesn't! This is stupidity, Lon! Are you even being serious?

Read it and weep then: Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Go ahead. Tell God "No it doesn't. "

Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Open theology does a poor job accounting for this passage.

What on Earth does Ephesians 4:6 have to do with anything? Is there a reason you didn't actually quote the passage? Where you hoping that people would just be tricked into thinking that the Bible says something that remotedly resembles the drunken stooper you appear to be in with these comments?

A reiteration: "Through(still) all and in (still) all. Who cares if your mind isn't keeping up. It becomes 'stupid, parroting, convoluted?' Do better or I simply leave you where you were before thread. Why do these always (ALWAYS) wind down to you emoting all over the place with childish rants and 'logic' tossed out the window?

Here's the text that you somehow imagine supports this literal nonsense...

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


Cop out.

We are not talking about Calvin and Augustine or even Aristotle for their own sake but because of the things they taught concerning the nature of God.

I really don't care about this portion of discussion. You say "cop-out" and I say "Scape-goat." It is of no consequence.

Besides, if you want to discuss God's immutability, there is no other option but to discuss Socrates and Aristotle and their intellectual progeny.

No, I can easily just go to scriptures without the hang-up.

This is not just heresy, it's blasphemy!

Well, thankfully, you are not a Catholic pope so it doesn't matter what you think. Do you even know the difference?

Can you seriously not think through the things you say enough to get past the tip of your own nose?

Can you seriously not think? You 'accused' me of it, but you are the one who is emoting AND understanding not a thing I've said (nor has J R).

By you own statement, you believe that Satan is God!

No, by your 'inability' you 'think' that is so. Proof sets are much better than assertions because they show where someone thinking goes off and we can correct it.

*Clete and JR's proposition of truth:

1) Lonnie says all things come from God (true)
2) Satan comes from God (true, but not in that sorry state)
.: ) Therefore God is the author of evil (illogical leap having NOTHING to do with the proof set).

Replace 2) in the proofset with "Evil is a thing" and you'd have Jr's .: assertion, but I disagree with such in the proposition (don't disagree that God created Satan). There is no way either of you can make God the author of evil in my OR your proofsets. It just isn't logical, demonstrably. Please do clear up and give your own proofs, if capable of doings so. I'd appreciate them for clarity and furthering ahead the thread.

Is God going to throw Himself into the Lake of Fire?

Add that to your illogical proof set. This btw, deals with ominpresence and is somewhat connected to discussion, but certainly not the main point or thrust. It is, JR and Clete pay attention, NOT thinking. It is emoting about something you are not following or understanding and a knee-jerk when questions would have better served. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to say I'm a bit frustrated your thinking was checked at the door. I expect better from both of you, not that JR was too forward, but you both have to own your talking points as lacking at this venture.

Such an idea is so blatantly blasphemous that I had a hard time even typing those two sentences!

All from your imagination as well as some tainting by your conversations with Augustine and Calvin. Use a proof set and prove the point else leave it as assertion that has no foundation in our conversation. I get the emote, I do. I think I even understand where it is coming from but I don't believe it serves any of us. It certainly doesn't do a thing for me. I don't believe it has done a thing (at all) for the thread, and it stagnates conversation and needful dialogue. Respectfully, (forgive if it wasn't, I endeavored) -Lon

 

[Lon]

Are you saying that Adam and Eve weren't free until after they ate of the Tree?

Just the opposite.

Say self-defeating things much?

By your own statement, your answer cannot be authenticated.

Correct. You didn't 'defeat' my statement, you proved it! Only God can (and does) declare Himself as self-authenticator. Insomuch as we are in Christ, He authenticates Himself...and us. He does.

How is it even possible for people to say such things without noticing it?

Because you think, at times, shallowly, two-dimensionally and then jump to an absurd. Let me rather ask two things: 1) How did you not know you were 'making' my point, not taking away from it and 2) asking a question about 'your' misapprehension? With you, it is simply because you do this without the courtesy of asking 'what?' Ask more often. It is a good practice and save a bit of this kind of necessity in exchange.

Gobbledygook.

They are scripture quotes 0.o

Excellent observation!


But not for the reason you gave, Lon.

The reason God's words are self-authenticating is because God is a Trinity.

As Paul told the Corinthians, “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

Explain it (John 5:31-6:13)? Let me go first and you can correct and then give your perspective. I'm not sure if in both posts you mean "this is foreign." It'd force me to explain in clarity what I mean or what verses are in mind.

Here is what I mean:

1) God alone 'is'
2) There is no other thing or being that can tell God He 'is'
3) no other being 'is' but was/is created
.: ) God is the only self-authenticating being

Discussion points: a) On #2, the proof is: He must, by His own and only being, have the last word on the matter specifically because there is no other being (apart from Me, there is no other, there is no god). b) because all else comes 'from' God, God is the authenticator of all else and not the things themselves. There is no other 'independent' entity but God which necessitates that 'from' is the authenticator of whatever is dependent. c) another way of .: God is the only one that exists with Himself as His own authentication.

I believe your thoughts come from/are influenced from John 5:31-6:13?

Spoiler

John 5:31-6:13

King James Version

​

31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
6 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples.
4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,
9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

 

[Right Divider]

Not at all, why? Because 'assumptions.' For one, Evil isn't an entity. Does it exist 'inside' of God's universe? Of course (but it isn't an entity, it is a deprivatation, a lack).

Evil is not the "lack" of something. It is the opposition to something.

Prove it wrong, and please try and think before assumptions (you've a good mind and I generally think better of your thought process and ability than you do of mine).

Yes, I think that your thought process has lots of issues. Like the way that you just described "evil" as the lack of something.

 

[Lon]

Evil is not the "lack" of something. It is the opposition to something.

Thus the 'opposite' of something 'lacks' something else and is thus a privation (read below and be informed, it is good for the mind!).

Yes, I think that your thought process has lots of issues.

In order to 'think' you have to entertain, NOT dismiss: It is literally where 'thinking' stops. Interactions are proof unto themselves.

Like the way that you just described "evil" as the lack of something.

Read a bit for education and expounding your box a bit (then please get back to me, its a decent article):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good

Note with me, after reading, there are those who don't agree (like you). It isn't a 'lack of thought process' over the difference however AND discussion on point would certainly facilitate more thinking than "you have thinking problems." The latter, also in my estimation of you, is below par on your 'ability' which means when it is said, it says more about your unwillingness to meet on a mutually intellectual ground. I quite often agree with you on a good many points. Wouldn't you rather think then 1) That I must at least sometimes think rather well (agreeing with you) and 2) That perhaps where I don't, interaction might actually change a mind?

The "you don't think very well" doesn't, in fact, open a person up. It is a 'slam' intended to shut them and conversation down. When that happens, do you reckon such a win? Or is it just bullying in the short and long run? The goal of bullying another to silence always assumes one thing: The person will not/cannot meet the discussion point with any thought of their own, on point. So I go away based on a mean-spirited slam, you go away as one who did the slamming. It can come from not grasping the other fellow, but it doesn't thereby conclusively mean it is their particular. A better tack than 'you don't think very well' is 'can you explain this? This is not my experience or understanding."

Do you feel better about "you don't think well" ? Did Christ gain any kind of acknowledgement or benefit (preaching to myself as much btw)? Am I a poor thinker? My experiences and grades suggest that I'm adequate. Thus then, I have to believe it is you with the issue on point, and not necessarily regarding your intellect (I think not). I can readily assess intellectual and academic prowess. This one isn't that huge however. The link should suffice.

On the subject point, note that a privation theory says that a thing isn't evil in and of itself as a thing, but is a demonstration of a a lack of what 'should' have been there. "No remorse" regarding a criminal, is 'privation/ a lack' for instance.

 

[Right Divider]

Thus the 'opposite' of something 'lacks' something else and is thus a privation (read below and be informed, it is good for the mind!).

By that thinking, everything is the lack of something else thereby making it pretty meaningless.

A glass water that is half full is lacking a half a glass of water. etc. etc.

You posts are just way to long winded for me. I'll avoid replying to your posts going forward so as to not rub you the wrong way any longer.

And, again, evil is not the absence of good. It is the opposition to good.

 

[Lon]

By that thinking, everything is the lack of something else thereby making it pretty meaningless.

Well, describe why. My immediate response is 'no it does not' but I have to be able to explain a thing, if you would. In the article, there is a discussion of pain as 'problematic' to the privation idea. The proffered truth: "Pain isn't just a lack of feeling good, it is an intense feeling all its own."

The idea of privation meets this on three levels: 1) That pain is a nerve receptor God put in us, therefore is 'good' in intent (the rule rather than the privation of the rule), and 2) that it isn't a lack thereof, but part of our original anatomy, so inadequate for what we are talking about, as a counterpoint. IOW, pain, while undesirable, has a good purpose. It is the privation of the good purpose that is the problem. 3) When we are talking about privation, it is always about a misuse, not the thing itself, such that the privation is seen as the 'not using it properly' is what evil is, not the creation of it and as such at least attempts if not adequately for all, to show God is not the author of Evil. The 'thing' God created. The 'misuse of the thing' is an action, not a thing, if such makes sense.

A glass water that is half full is lacking a half a glass of water. etc. etc.

Not quite following, a bit more please.

You posts are just way to long winded for me. I'll avoid replying to your posts going forward so as to not rub you the wrong way any longer.

As I said, I appreciate you. That is sincere. I also appreciate your thoughts and read you often. You are certainly correct I'm longwinded (I'd thought I'd gone short enough here though ). Apologies.

And, again, evil is not the absence of good. It is the opposition to good.

As you read the link and a small summation above, does any of it make sense?