Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/29/2009 5:23 AM (GMT -6)

Wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZKJSNVgqM&feature=related

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/29/2009 8:39 AM (GMT -6)

The Lord loves you, Dr. Morey.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on all of us.

"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen

Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You...

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/29/2009 8:56 AM (GMT -6)

I've never seen a more sad, unloving exposition of divine love in my life. That's the SADDEST thing I've ever hear a theologian say.

Gosh.

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

Post Edited (Tom) : 10/29/2009 3:59:37 PM (GMT-5)

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 10/29/2009 3:25 PM (GMT -6)

Hey really doesn't like humanists, apparently they all make faces and sound like they're going to cry.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/29/2009 5:18 PM (GMT -6)

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/hopko-on-the-wrath-of-god/

Hopko on the Wrath of God

Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary recently did two podcasts on the subject of the Wrath of God. Both are very worth hearing.

Hopko – The Wrath of God

Hopko – The Wrath of God – Part 2

Glory to God for all things!

(o)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 10/29/2009 5:27 PM (GMT -6)

I see two ways it can be. God is love by nature, but love can be severe to our way of thinking. Consequently, many will see divine anger, discipline, natural evil, and judgment as contrary to love, while I don't.

Or, God is not love by nature, and we have no way of knowing whether He loves all people or not (or anyone fro that matter). In that case, it gets down to blind faith. And it's pointless and irrational to argue with people over beliefs that are held by blind faith alone. And if it's pointless and irrational, it can't possibly be obligatory, as I understand it.

How would that speaker account for the rationality of obligation to a God who isn't naturally benevolent? I don't know how to do it. Thus, I couldn't meaningfully argue anything to anybody apart from the ground of divine benevolence. Even my belief that I apprehend an external world of other beings to converse with is ultimately grounded in the beliefs of my Designer's EXISTENCE and BENEVOLENCE.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 10/29/2009 5:50:38 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 10/30/2009 2:05 AM (GMT -6)

And if the latter, Jeff, that is, if God is not LOVE by nature, if he can HATE (as Morey says), then he can lie to those he hates. And if he can lie to those he hates then those he says he loves can't be sure God actually loves them. God may be setting you up for a grand body slam. Calvin explained those who seemingly believed and lived a holy life and then fall away by suggesting that God gave them a deceiving sense of security and peace. It wasn't real.

That's Fracked up!

T

"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 10/30/2009 7:18 AM (GMT -6)

Exactly. For if God isn't benevolent, we have no reason to believe He's faithful/honest, either. To argue as if something is knowable is to imply that:

1) we are designed to apprehend

and

2) the designer has an interest in our adaptation to reality in other respects that involve our sentient capacities.

For if our Designer didn't care about our general adaptation to reality (which is what it means to be benevolent), we have no reason to believe that He adapted our mental categories and aposteriori modes of inference to reality either. It's all or nothing as far as I can tell.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:17 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual