|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes, those are all aspects of the landlord. I'm asking why you add in builder of the universe. Isaiah 9:6-7 doesn't mention it.
Thus we have no mere builder. No autocratic landlord. We have a counselor, a father figure, and a peacemaker. Phat writes:
Your problem is that you make up your own God - one that isn't very plausible.
Your problem is that you don't trust the God of the book, and are afraid to dare imagine One Who exists outside the book. Phat writes:
Until you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "communion", you should stop making that claim. And for the umpteenth-and-one time, the apostle Paul understood that we ALL have a conscience, whether we believe in your fiction or not. So why don't you understand that?
In addition, you guys conflate simple fantasy and imagination...making things up...with an internal impression, communion, and conscience. Phat writes:
We are certainly more effective than your god. What you likely scoff at is the idea that we are becoming our own gods.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Of course you can reconcile them - just like you can reconcile a Hitler who ordered genocide with a Hitler who loved his dog. The God of the Bible has both natures.
... in spite of what fundamentalists might claim you cannot square the image of a god who would not only sanction but command genesis and public stonings, with the nature of God as revealed in Jesus where we are told to love our neighbour. GDR writes:
Only if you look at the New Testament as a "correction" of the Old Testament. There's no justification for doing that.
If we are to understand the nature of the Christian God as espoused by Christianity then we look to Jesus.... GDR writes:
Resurrections don't happen.
..and how have you determined this fact? GDR writes:
What you currently believe is truth IS wishful thinking.
Actually my beliefs aren't based on wishful thinking, but what I currently believe to be the truth. GDR writes:
Yes, and a child's Christmas wishes change over the years.
My beliefs have changed over the years and likely will again. GDR writes:
And the stories about Jesus' life, death and resurrection are what some other scribe attributed to God for whatever reason. There is no clear demarcation between Old and New Testaments. Christians just arbitrarily start the New at Jesus' birth.
Yes, the Bible said that Yahweh ordered genocide. As I have said many times that is what some scribe attributed to God for whatever reason. GDR writes:
Not at all. See Hitler.
It is 100% incompatible with what Jesus taught in the Gospels and what the authors of the Epistles wrote. GDR writes:
Because you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over. GDR writes:
On the contrary, I keep insisting that the only way to understand the Bible is to accept what it says. YOU are the one who insists that we project 21st century sensibilities on it and decide that the New Testament is "right' while the Old Testament is "wrong".
You keep insisting that the only way to understand the Bible is with a simple 21st century method of understanding literature. GDR writes:
That's just your empty belief, no different from the empty belief that Jesus rose from the dead. It's wishful thinking. God did not intervene to cause a world wide flood but there is a truth in the form of a metaphor which can be gained from it.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
GDR writes:
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over.ringo writes:
We all do. We just find ever more creative ways of repeating it.
Because you keep repeating the same thing over and over. ringo writes: The dispensationalists disagree with you. (surprise, surprise)
There is no clear demarcation between Old and New Testaments. Christians just arbitrarily start the New at Jesus' birth.Stam writes: The supposition that the most important division of the Bible is that betweenthe Old and New Testaments has often been expressed in the statement: "The Old Testament is for the Jews; the New Testament is for us." This is quite incorrect, however. First of all, the titles Old Testament and New Testament are not accurate designations of the two sections of the Bible which they are supposed to represent. The covenant of the law (later called the old covenant, or testament) was not made until 2500 years of human history had elapsed. "The law was given by Moses" (John 1:17), about 1500 B.C., as recorded in Exodus 19 and 20. We are told concerning this period of time "from Adam to Moses" that "there [was] no law" (Rom. 5:13,14), i.e., the law had not yet been given. This means that there is actually not one word of the old testament in Genesis. Indeed, Israel did not even emerge as a nation until her deliverance from Egypt described in Exodus. If, therefore, the Old Testament is for the Jews and the New Testament for us, for whom is the book of Genesis? As to the new covenant; this was not made until the death of Christ. "... He is the Mediator of the new testament [covenant] that by means of death ... they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9:15). It was in the shadow of the cross, as our Lord communed with His disciples, that He said: "This cup Is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). This means that the greater part of the four gospel records actually covers old testament rather than new testament history and that our Lord and His disciples all lived under the old covenant at that time. Stam has a lot to say, and makes a well thought out argument. Things That Differ But you and perhaps ZTangle will simply argue that it is at best a new book seeking to explain the reasoning behind the older book and that in the end it is all human opinion anyway. There is no convincing you...you already concluded that your grasp of logic, reason, and reality negated any truths found in Christianity apart from your favored socialist message to go feed the poor and ignore a God in a book. Cant argue with you there. I will keep trying, however. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: C'mon ringo. Different authors, in a different era, in an evolving culture but we are supposed to understand the Bible as one cohesive book. I can understand at least the POV of an inerrantist who sees God as the author but if you accept that the authors are human then your view is ridiculous.
Of course you can reconcile them - just like you can reconcile a Hitler who ordered genocide with a Hitler who loved his dog. The God of the Bible has both natures.ringo writes: Jesus does correct things from the OT but also we can see an evolving understanding of God's nature withi the OT itself. I went through that previously and you just keep asking the same questions. The fact that you don't accept my answers is immaterial.
Only if you look at the New Testament as a "correction" of the Old Testament. There's no justification for doing that. ringo writes: That is your belief. It is also consistent with the arguments that I've heard in numerous debates. I'm not going through it all again, but the historical argument for resurrection is far stronger than the argument against it. Of course, if you start from the view point that it couldn't possibly have happened then anything else is more probable.
Resurrections don't happen. ringo writes: It must be nice to know what and how others think.
What you currently believe is truth IS wishful thinking.ringo writes: This Christian doesn't.
And the stories about Jesus' life, death and resurrection are what some other scribe attributed to God for whatever reason. There is no clear demarcation between Old and New Testaments. Christians just arbitrarily start the New at Jesus' birth. ringo writes: The are few Christians I know that believe in a literal 6 day creation, a talking snake or a literal world wide flood. However, it seems that you as an atheist, (I'm assuming that), are the final word on how a Christian should understand the Bible. On the contrary, I keep insisting that the only way to understand the Bible is to accept what it says. YOU are the one who insists that we project 21st century sensibilities on it and decide that the New Testament is "right' while the Old Testament is "wrong".He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
In your quote, Stam is saying essentially the same as I am saying, that the Old and New Testaments are not two separate books; in fact, there are different viewpoints in the Old Testament and different viewpoints in the New Testament. Stam has a lot to say.... Where the dispensationalists go wrong is in concluding that there are different messages for different times. That's like saying that the Democrats and Republicans have different messages for different times.
Phat writes:
No, I wouldn't say that. I'd say there are 66 books with different viewpoints on overlapping subjects.
Things That Differ But you and perhaps ZTangle will simply argue that it is at best a new book seeking to explain the reasoning behind the older book... Phat writes:
You have that backwards. The truths in Christianity - and in other religions - are derived from logic, reason and reality. The stupidity in Christianity is not. You're just having trouble distinguishing truth from stupidity.
...you already concluded that your grasp of logic, reason, and reality negated any truths found in Christianity... Phat writes:
The socialist message that you spit on is in the Book. The socialist message is the basis of survival for any social species. It's a truth that the Book happened to figure out. Maybe some day you will too. ... apart from your favored socialist message to go feed the poor and ignore a God in a book.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
It isn't clear whether that's your opinion or you're mocking mine.
Different authors, in a different era, in an evolving culture but we are supposed to understand the Bible as one cohesive book. GDR writes:
Is it ridiculous that Hitler ordered genocide and also loved his dog? Why can't somebody have two wildly contradictory natures? Why would you accept one and deny the other? You c'mon.
... if you accept that the authors are human then your view is ridiculous. GDR writes:
We can "see" a lot of things that aren't there - flying sucers, ghosts, etc. - especially if we really, really, really want to see them.
... we can see an evolving understanding of God's nature withi the OT itself. GDR writes:
Maybe you should show your work. Your answers have been nothing but empty opinion.
I went through that previously and you just keep asking the same questions. The fact that you don't accept my answers is immaterial. GDR writes:
Nonsense. The historical argument for Jesus' very existence is tenuous at best. There is no historical argument at all for an event that is biologically impossible. What you call "historical evidence" is no more historical evidence than the James Bond stories.
I'm not going through it all again, but the historical argument for resurrection is far stronger than the argument against it. GDR writes:
There's a whole field of study called psychology devoted to understanding what and how others think.
ringo writes:
It must be nice to know what and how others think. What you currently believe is truth IS wishful thinking. GDR writes:
I'll tell the story again: I was practically born in church. I could quote scriptures before I could read them. In the first third or so of my life I spent more time in church than most people do in a lifetime. So yes, I think I do have a grasp on how Christians think. The are few Christians I know that believe in a literal 6 day creation, a talking snake or a literal world wide flood. However, it seems that you as an atheist, (I'm assuming that), are the final word on how a Christian should understand the Bible.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Just a note, GDR. He also does not claim to be an atheist...I think he calls himself a Deist with a bent towards logic, reason, and reality. Note how he insists that the Bible be strictly read as written, however. I believe ringo wants either arguments based on scripture or based on already written facts or philosophies rather than us simply making them up on the fly. Comments, ringo?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No, I don't call myself anything. Just a note, GDR. He also does not claim to be an atheist...I think he calls himself a Deist with a bent towards logic, reason, and reality. And everybody has a bent toward logic, reason, and reality. Some people unfortunately park their reason at the door sometimes.
Phat writes:
Did you actually read that sentence before you posted it? Why would anybody make their beliefs up on the fly? I believe ringo wants either arguments based on scripture or based on already written facts or philosophies rather than us simply making them up on the fly. Why do you call your saviour Jesus at all? You reject what Jesus said in the Book. Why not just call him George?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I have done no such thing. You jump to conclusions.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What are you talking about? I have done no such thing. You jump to conclusions.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You claim I reject what Jesus said in the book. I do not. I only reject the idea that Jesus and God are confined to the book.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: I only reject the idea that Jesus and God are confined to the book. With the exception of the personal delusions called revelations, all that anybody thinks that they know about Jesus is in the book. Where else could it come from?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes you do. You reject what He said about giving everything. You reject what He said about how to be a sheep or a goat. You belittle the very idea of giving to the poor.
You claim I reject what Jesus said in the book. I do not. Phat writes:
I only reject the idea that Jesus and God are confined to the book.quote: And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You reject what He said about giving everything. I only mention that its not realistic. The evidence seems to show that nobody does it. One could thus argue that everyone rejects that message.
You reject what He said about how to be a sheep or a goat. Was He talking to me? I only question the passage and am mystified why you and jar fawn over it as the central message in the Bible when so few apologists do. I question you more than I do the message. I question why you think its silly for there to be a resurrection yet not silly to hang your hat on Matthew 25.
You belittle the very idea of giving to the poor. I won't try and wiggle out of this one. I need to help the poor more than I do.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
How is that not rejecting it?
I only mention that its not realistic. Phat writes:
The Bible says that the early church did it.
The evidence seems to show that nobody does it. Phat writes:
He was talking about "all nations". There are several ways to weasel yourself out of that but none of them are honest.
Was He talking to me? Phat writes:
The apologists tell you what you want to hear. That's like a doctor telling you to eat whatever you want.
I only question the passage and am mystified why you and jar fawn over it as the central message in the Bible when so few apologists do. Phat writes:
But you ignore the obvious answer:
I question why you think its silly for there to be a resurrection yet not silly to hang your hat on Matthew 25.1. Resurrections don't happen. 2. Paying a debt by killing your creditor's son is stupid. 3. Taking care of the poor and sick is the right thing to do. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024