|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: First of all, this is a generalization. It is like telling you that "Doctors want to keep you sick". Not all of them do. If in fact, the apologists all wanted to tell me what I wanted to hear, the question would then be:
The apologists tell you what you want to hear. That's like a doctor telling you to eat whatever you want.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.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: Different authors, in a different era, in an evolving culture but we are supposed to understand the Bible as one cohesive book.ringo writes: Well actually neither. The "are" was supposed to be "aren't". Sorry.
It isn't clear whether that's your opinion or you're mocking mine. ringo writes: As I pointed out to Percy every religion consistently holds the Golden Rule as part of their doctrine as I wanted to show that there is commonality among religions. Percy quite rightly pointed out that the same is true within secular institutions. I think that we can conclude then that this is something that is a universal fundamental attribute that we are all called to. 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. Ergo, if there is a god then we should be able to safely assume that this is an attribute of that deity, and that we can be confident that this generic deity would not order a genocide or public stoning for that matter.
ringo writes: You obviously know how some Christians think. You seem to insist that Christians have to understand the Bible the way that Faith and ICANT do. I'm a Christian and I understand it as a library of books by authors with their various sources of material, their biases, their own cultures, their neighbouring cultures etc. I do believe that there is a true understanding of God written into the overall narrative within the Bible, and that He metaphorically speaks to us through those Scriptures. 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. You obviously have a grasp on how some Christians think, but as you know within Christianity there are a wide variety of views, and just maybe you don't know how all of us think. I certainly don't. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
ringo writes: I apologize for answering a comment in a post to Phat. But you ignore the obvious answer:1. Resurrections don't happen. How do you know that? I have read the arguments against resurrection on this site, but also in the works of scholars such as Borg, Crossan and others. It all comes down to your statement that I quoted. The starting point for every argument I've encountered is that. The resurrection story is false because we know it is impossible. I agree that our scientific understanding of things dictates that the resurrection couldn't possibly have happened. However, that assumes that scientific law as we understand it is immutable. Firstly we can easily show that scientific laws that we believe to be immutable have turned out to be wrong, and require what we believe to be adjusted. Who knows where that will go in the future. QM certainly shows us that things we thought were absolutes aren't. Also, I have pointed out previously that the universe and our lives exist. Now you can believe that this is the case simply as a result of nothing but blind chance over and over again, with interconnecting blind processes. I find that a way to much of a stress. I contend that there is one overarching process or agency and that the agency is intelligent. or some form of deity Once I have accepted that then I think it is reasonable to subjectively conclude that ultimately there is purpose. Therefore I reject the deistic idea of a deity that brought us into existence and immediately lost interest. If I am correct that this deity would have an ongoing interest, then it follows that in some way this deity influences the creation. As I've said in other posts the concept of the Golden Rule seems to be ubiquitous. It is as near as I can see in all religions and also in secular society. Certainly we go against the rule all the time but no matter how deep down we push it we know that it is there. From that I deduce that the Golden Rule is the best guide that we have as to the nature of the deity. I go further and suggest that the Golden Rule is the part of us that is truly of the deity. As a Christian I see it as the still small voice of His Spirit reaching out to us. All of this is of course subjective, but if I am correct and this deity is responsible for our existence then I see no reason to reject the possibility that he/she/it could reach into time and interfere physically. If we accept then, as I do, the possibility of this happening then we are in a position to ask why resurrection. Firstly, it seems reasonable to have a human that perfectly embodies the humanness we are called to, to have that message vindicated and confirmed. Secondly, we all seem to have a desire to leave a mark on the world one way or another. We want to have purpose. We write obituaries so our loved ones will be remembered. We take pictures, carve our initials into things, we take pictures, we record ourselves, we have Remembrance days etc. Also of course we have children where we leave our genetic imprint on the world, and in general we are interested in our ancestors representing our own genetic history. Resurrection then is God saying to us that our lives and all life ultimately matters. That death is not the final answer and that our lives do have an ultimate meaning and purpose. If I am correct in all of that, then the possibility of Jesus' resurrection can't be dismissed. If I use this as a starting point, rather that it didn't happen because it is scientifically impossible, then I contend that the actual resurrection of Jesus makes far more sense of the Gospel accounts than any other alternative understanding. I realize that the majority of you will reject all this as fairy tales, wishful thinking and all of the other pejorative terms that you use, but I thought that I'd use this post to explain my rationale for what I believe. Edited by GDR, : wrote stress instead of stretch for some unknown reason Edited by GDR, : also noticed that I had Phat instead of ringo in the quote boxHe 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 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
It's pretty much the definition of apologetics. They want to defend what they/you believe.
ringo writes:
First of all, this is a generalization. The apologists tell you what you want to hear. Phat writes:
Why do you always go there? Why can't somebody just be wrong?
Are they all lying? Phat writes:
Yes. Again, that's the definition od apologetics, willfully ignoring what they don't like in order to defend what they do like.
Are they all willfully ignorant? Phat writes:
You shouldn't trust my mind. You should use your own.
Why should we trust your one mind in regards to the truth... Phat writes:
That "entire culture" is still a small minority. There are other "entire cultures" with completely different theologies. Fifty Million Nazis can't be wrong is not valid logic. ... and reject an entire culture that you claim has it wrong?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
That doesn't follow at all. The Golden Rule applies to how we treat other humans. We don't treat cows as we would want to be treated. So a "higher power", such as God or any other alien invader would not likely have the same policy toward us.
Ergo, if there is a god then we should be able to safely assume that this is an attribute of that deity... GDR writes:
Apparently you've never heard of science fiction.
... we can be confident that this generic deity would not order a genocide or public stoning for that matter. GDR writes:
Not at all. I insist that we don't take talking snakes and giant floods seriously because we have no reason to think they are possible. Similarly, I insist that we don't impose a "loving nature" on God because we have no reason to think that is the case.
You seem to insist that Christians have to understand the Bible the way that Faith and ICANT do. GDR writes:
I don't claim to know how everybody thinks. I just wait for you to tell us what you think and then I point out how your thinking is wrong. You obviously have a grasp on how some Christians think, but as you know within Christianity there are a wide variety of views, and just maybe you don't know how all of us think.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
Nope. Nobody has suggested that science is immutable. As soon as you can produce scientific evidence that resurrection is possible, we can start to examine the evidence for resurrection of Jesus. Until then, resurrection is just as impossible as walking across the Pacific Ocean or flapping your arms to the moon.
I agree that our scientific understanding of things dictates that the resurrection couldn't possibly have happened. However, that assumes that scientific law as we understand it is immutable. GDR writes:
"Why resurrection?" has never been the question. You might as well ask, "Why vanilla ice cream?" Who cares? If we accept then, as I do, the possibility of this happening then we are in a position to ask why resurrection. The question is "How resurrection?"And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: You need to allow yourself the luxury of being metaphorical and idealistic rather than so stiff and starchy collared in regards to evidence. Resurrection can be symbolic. It is, in essence, a new birth. Turning over a new leaf. Wholesale repentance and repudiation of an old lifestyle and embracing a new one. Whether or not God raised Jesus in physical actuality, He was raised metaphorically and (unlike any human before Him) completely. Death and imperfection lost their sting. Nobody has suggested that science is immutable. As soon as you can produce scientific evidence that resurrection is possible, we can start to examine (any) evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Until then, resurrection is just as impossible as walking across the Pacific Ocean or flapping your arms to the moon.Until then, resurrection is just as impossible as walking across the Pacific Ocean or flapping your arms to the moon. We visualized crossing the Pacific Ocean long before we even knew if there was a destination. (we thought we may fall off the edge). We visualized going to the moon long before we could even fly. Stop thinking of the resurrection as a necessary objective fact and start looking at it as a metaphorical ideal. Until one man accomplishes anything, that thing is impossible to accomplish. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Stop thinking of the resurrection as a necessary objective fact and start looking at it as a metaphorical ideal. Yes. Once Christianity has done that we will all be speaking closer to reality. Unfortunately, others in your (where is jar?) Cult of Ignorance do not view the subject in such metaphorical terms and insist on its physical reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Yes where *is* jar, anyway? I hope he is healthy.
Personally, I, like GDR, believe that the resurrection literally happened, but for the sake of facilitating a bridge between evidence-based information and belief, I offer up the metaphor. The flood could be said to definitely be the same way, as evidence in no way suggests a global flood. The metaphor is more clear in that circumstance, but the resurrection could serve as an example of how one man (sent by God, incorporating Holy genetics-- ie sinless blood) showed how atonement could become a once and for all action based on 100% faith and trust. The metaphor still does not prove anything apart from the fact that now that the way has been shown, humans are capable of doing it also. Most Orthodox and conservative Christianity would chastise me for making the action metaphorical, but I am doing so for the sake of argument with a stubborn contrarian, our own Mr. ringo. His whole argument is that humans have to do it because God clearly won't. (Either through absence or indifference) and he supports his argument that today's Christians ignore the message of Matthew 25(Doing it yourself) by citing the behavior of the majority of Christians he sees. He could be right. Granted I would have problems giving everything up and having 100% trust. I maintain that nobody does so. In addition, it bothers me that I am expected to go be a martyr for the sake of the poor. ringo cites the early church as having done so...according to the book. His conclusion is that if we become a martyr for somebody else, someone will become a martyr for us someday. (From each according to his ability to each according to their need.) I argue that humans are incapable of being Christlike on our own due to original sin and selfish natures. Thus the resurrection made possible a way, but I myself am unable to follow the example. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.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: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
The entire Christian belief system hangs on the historical reality of the resurrection. Without that your case - such that it is - collapses.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Since when has any belief hinged soley on evidence? Your error is insisting that it must be so. Christianity will likely outlast your money in the bank...propped up by mere faith.
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: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: Since when has any belief hinged soley on evidence? Your error is insisting that it must be so. Christianity will likely outlast your money in the bank...propped up by mere faith. You're confused as usual Phat. Christianity is built on the claim of the resurrection. It's claimed to be a real historical fact not an analogy or a metaphor. Should that claim be disproven, Christainity is disproven. What people that call themselves Christians believe is quite another issue. No doubt they would continue to believe whatever they believe now and you'll have people like GDR shifting his ground to include the metaphor.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I argue that even if you found solid evidence that the resurrection was real, you would still have issues with the God of the Bible and would fight tooth and nail to preserve your intellectual independence. Am I wrong?
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 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Tell it to GDR.
Resurrection can be symbolic. Phat writes:
In the context of Jesus, that doesn't make any sense. Why would HE need to repent and repudiate His old lifestyle?
It is, in essence, a new birth. Turning over a new leaf. Wholesale repentance and repudiation of an old lifestyle and embracing a new one. Phat writes:
Tell it to GDR. Stop thinking of the resurrection as a necessary objective fact and start looking at it as a metaphorical ideal.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: I argue that even if you found solid evidence that the resurrection was real, you would still have issues with the God of the Bible and would fight tooth and nail to preserve your intellectual independence. Am I wrong? If it was proven beyond all doubt that the resurrection and all the parephenalia surrounding it was real, why would I still try to say that it's false? That would be an absurd position to take. I follow evidence wherever it takes me; my atheism isn't a belief, it's a conclusion. I'd still reject all the baloney in the OT. But you've changed the point, which was that if the resurrection is not historical, then Christianity fails as a hypothesis.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024