 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Searching for the "Ground of the Soul" | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/24/2011 10:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | Similtude:
You would think Greg would have embraced UR by now!
Dude, Tom and me are TRYIN'!! LOL!
*************************************
Similtude:
They end up falling back on what seems intuitive to them even after trashing intuition where it seems to entail a Designer. They want their cake and eat it too.
and...
In fact, I'm convinced, upon reflection, that teleology is not ultimately intelligible except in terms of open theism. But even the theistic camp would be resistant to concede that if true on account of the politics involved in defending traditions. I suspect open theism will continue to be vigorously resisted or enlisted in the cause of theistic views like process theology, etc which provide no grounds for believing God is competent enough to be rationally hoped in. ID'ists, even, tend to be quite antagonistic to open theism, erroneously associating it with the problems of radical process thought.
After reading Nesteruk's "Light from the Christian East", I'm convinced that openness to the future is INHERENT to the EO view...insofar as the contingent relationship of Creation to the Uncreated NECESSITATES an openness of Creation to ongoing, future possible interaction with it's immanent Source, God.
"This implies that a particular appearance of space and time in the physical universe is not complete in itself and is open to the unfolding rationality of God, whose presence in the space and time of the universe has not an essential but a hypostatic character."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/24/2011 10:53:00 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/24/2011 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Simitude:
If Adam and Eve believed what we believe--that the benevolence of God implies something like UR--they wouldn't have hidden. They would have accepted whatever consequences were necessary to render the moral order rational knowing full good and well that when all was said and done ("finished," if you will) it would all be worth it. In that sense, perfect love casts out all fear--even fear of deserved consequences. Deserved consequences are NECESSARY to render creation ultimately benevolent in a RATIONAL way that can be apprehended by discursively inferring beings.
Exactly. And this is the reality that WE can live in BECAUSE of the full implications of the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus. How many people do you know who "hide" from God by refusing to perceive, talk to or listen to God? Basically hiding from God by "strategically attending" to something else? Basically, believing that if we don't attend to God or invoke his Presence, we are "away" from God. Only a two-story view allows one to "hide" from God through willed ignorance or unbelief.
************************************
Similtude:
In short, creation must ultimately be both intellectually and non-intellectually satisfying to be intelligible. To abandon rationality in hopes of "disproving" the necessity of accountability is to abandon the mode of existence by which intellectual satisfaction occurs. Only fear can move a person to such irrationality--not love. Love REJOICES WITH THE TRUTH no matter how severe the short term consequences.
This is why atheists will ALWAYS be in some form of despair, regardless of how they "feel" about their life situation. They cannot see themselves as an individual BEFORE GOD...let alone an accountable, yet forgiven SINNER before God.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/24/2011 10:46:06 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/24/2011 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Dude, it's funny.
Atheists that try to argue with you, promoting secular VALUE(S), are inconsistent with the ultimate conclusions of their position...so as to almost not be worth arguing with.
Atheists that are consistent with the ultimate conclusions of their positions won't argue with you at all. They're too busy immersed in meaninglessness and ennui.
Moral of the story: Why bother?
LOL! 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/24/2011 10:51:32 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/24/2011 11:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
The more you analyze it, both open theism and UR seem to be entailed in rationality.
Agreed. Which is why holding a one-story view of Uncreated/Created relationality (and the open theism and EUR involved) grounds and LIBERATES human rationality from the "sickness unto death" and the existential paralysis caused by contemplating the "void." It renders the very DRIVE for intelligbility intelligible. 
This FAITH is how the "children of God" are liberated from the "bondage of decay" and the "futility" laid upon Creation "in hope" by God...I'd say.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/24/2011 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | | D: The idea is not to reduce humanity to divinity...nor is it to deny the ultimate reality of the created. It's to say that the divine ground (God Himself working on our behalf via the Creator Spirit) is a NECESSARY ASPECT of Creation…
T: Right. But I didn’t get that from your original question. You’re question seemed to assume that if we take everything ‘created’ away from a human person, the divine ground would STILL constitute a ‘human person’. That’s what Jeff and I were disagreeing with. But we’re good.
So can we say this (from both angles)? — A) God is the necessary divine ground for all created actualities and B) Created entities are the necessary created/non-divine means for the fulfillment of divine logoi. If you remove the divine grounds/logoi, you have no created anything. But if you remove everything created then you have only abstract logoi as contemplated in the divine mind.
D: I don't think that you are aware, Tom, of how many evangelical Christians don't understand or believe what you just said: that God ACTUALLY and TRULY grounds us at all times and that we are absolutely "no-thing" without God Himself working on our behalf continually.
T: I’m often surprised to find how some evangelicals I thought would get it don’t and how others I thought wouldn’t get it really do. This morning in Sunday School was pretty amazing. I’ve been teaching a bunch of Willard’s stuff on the spiritual disciplines, and today I was focusing on ‘mindfulness’ and ‘intentionality’, specifically intending all our actions and conscious thoughts “as unto Christ.” So I talked about seeing Christ in all things and making Christ the ultimate goal and telos of all our actions. So the one guy I thought would get it (a seasoned, well-read evangelical), objected to the notion of God being “in all things.” It sounded too pantheistic and spooky. But then one lady I didn’t expect to understand it (a recent believer from our Recovery program; totally unchurched background and abusive history) said, “Oh, absolutely. I see it that way all the time. I work in an assisted living place where we have to service handicapped people,” she said, and added, “Whenever I choose to see Christ in the people I serve and see myself as actually serving Christ, I’m just flooded with a sense of peace I can’t describe.”
D: That God grounds even SATAN this way.
T: For sure. Not many are ready to hear about that, but I wouldn’t have any problems pressing that truth and letting the chips fall wherever.
T
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/25/2011 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So can we say this (from both angles)? — A) God is the necessary divine ground for all created actualities and B) Created entities are the necessary created/non-divine means for the fulfillment of divine logoi. If you remove the divine grounds/logoi, you have no created anything. But if you remove everything created then you have only abstract logoi as contemplated in the divine mind.
Sounds good to me. Just highlight the obvious assymetrical nature of the INSEPARABLE relationship between Uncreated and Created. Basically, nothing can separate us from the love of God. Literally.
***************************
Tom:
I’m often surprised to find how some evangelicals I thought would get it don’t and how others I thought wouldn’t get it really do. This morning in Sunday School was pretty amazing. I’ve been teaching a bunch of Willard’s stuff on the spiritual disciplines, and today I was focusing on ‘mindfulness’ and ‘intentionality’, specifically intending all our actions and conscious thoughts “as unto Christ.” So I talked about seeing Christ in all things and making Christ the ultimate goal and telos of all our actions. So the one guy I thought would get it (a seasoned, well-read evangelical), objected to the notion of God being “in all things.” It sounded too pantheistic and spooky. But then one lady I didn’t expect to understand it (a recent believer from our Recovery program; totally unchurched background and abusive history) said, “Oh, absolutely. I see it that way all the time. I work in an assisted living place where we have to service handicapped people,” she said, and added, “Whenever I choose to see Christ in the people I serve and see myself as actually serving Christ, I’m just flooded with a sense of peace I can’t describe.”
Point taken. Cool testimony,too. Some thoughts...
1) What is with the evangelical fear about pantheism? I've never understood it.
and...
2) Remember? Out of Love for Christ, be the "hands and feet" of Christ to Christ (in "the least of these" ), in the power of the Spirit of Christ. That seems to be straight up Christianity...being the Body of Christ in the Spirit. Right? Interestingly enough, that perspective that the lady takes is very similiar to the stance that Mother Teresa lived by her whole entire time of ministry. Quite interesting.
*************************************
D: That God grounds even SATAN this way.
T: For sure. Not many are ready to hear about that, but I wouldn’t have any problems pressing that truth and letting the chips fall wherever.
I can hear it now..."Whaddya MEAN saying that the Spirit of Jesus is 'inside' of Satan right now?! Whaddya MEAN God loves Satan and thinks he's still beautiful, even right now?!"
Yeah...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/25/2011 9:27:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/25/2011 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
J: I see no practical difference in God continually causally sustaining our existence and particularity vs. God creating beings that can not cease to exist except by a divine act of annihilation. For even with the latter, it seems that God's competence and benevolent intent for us is what gets us to eternal life and UR, not the distinct ontologies per se.
The latter view takes a stance that gives created existence some level of divinely granted aseity. Self-existence that is extinguishable only by God Himself taking that "eternity" that exists within Creation by divine fiat. But that is not an accurate stance. It simply IS the fact that the Spirit of God is continually sustaining all aspects of our "existence and particularity" at every moment. (That's just standard EO doctrine, actually.)
To me, the competence and benevolent intents are demonstrated by the obvious SELF-GIVING action of God that even allows us right here and now to have this very conversation. Morning by morning, new mercies I see...all I have needed thy hand hath provided...
But that's just me.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/25/2011 9:21:57 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/25/2011 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: I don't think that you are aware, Tom, of how many evangelical Christians don't understand or believe what you just said: that God ACTUALLY and TRULY grounds us at all times and that we are absolutely "no-thing" without God Himself working on our behalf continually.
J: I see no practical difference in God continually causally sustaining our existence and particularity vs. God creating beings that can not cease to exist except by a divine act of annihilation. For even with the latter, it seems that God's competence and benevolent intent for us is what gets us to eternal life and UR, not the distinct ontologies per se.
Tom: I agree Jeff. Positing the truth of creatio continua over a more deistic God-World relation doesn’t get you UR automatically. It could be (logically speaking) that the God who actively sustains the world is not a God of love who will without fail seek the highest good of all things. Some agree that God actively sustains all things but that since God is not love he’ll actively sustain those in hell for all eternity. So creatio continua does not itself entail UR. We have to argue separately that God is unfailing love and thus love’s interest in the well-being of what exists is that which sustains the world.
-------------------------------
D: What is with the evangelical fear about pantheism? I've never understood it.
Tom: Can you not understand the concern to disassociate biblical theism from pantheism?
D: Out of Love for Christ, be the "hands and feet" of Christ to Christ (in "the least of these" ), in the power of the Spirit of Christ. That seems to be straight up Christianity...being the Body of Christ in the Spirit. Right?
Tom: Yes, but that’s not pantheism, right? Pntheism would destroy the sort of loving relationship and service you see, for example, in Mother Theresa. Christ’s identifying himself with the plight of the homeless and imprisoned so that “in as much as” we serve the poor we also serve Christ does not equate to pantheism. With pantheism you don’t have grounds for any “in as much as X served Y, X served Z.” With pantheism, all is Z and Z is all. There are no non-Z realities or entities. And without any X and Y that are not-Z you can’t have the mediation necessary to ground the relational truth needed to say “in as much as….” Pantheism is a grave threat to biblical theism and loving relations between God and creation...
...right?
------------------------------
D: That God grounds even SATAN this way.
Tom: For sure. Not many are ready to hear about that, but I wouldn’t have any problems pressing that truth and letting the chips fall wherever.
D: I can hear it now..."Whaddya MEAN saying that the Spirit of Jesus is 'inside' of Satan right now?! Whaddya MEAN God loves Satan and thinks he's still beautiful, even right now?!"
Tom: Ha. Yeah. But I would only get people to see the logic involved in “omnipresence.” Just get them to see that God is immediately present to/in Satan, on every level. That’s all; just that omnipresence means the sentient presence of God can’t be excluded or shut out of any created thing and that God as creator is the ever-present active ground of things that exist. Just get THAT much. Let it simmer a few years. If you jump right into the next step about the love of God and what that entails, you won’t be able to set the hook at all.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 7/25/2011 10:50:38 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/26/2011 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | D: The latter view takes a stance that gives created existence some level of divinely granted aseity.
J: But if God, by virtue of His essential benevolence MUST keep us in existence eternally via the former, what practical difference does it make? We aren't self-existence either way. So we still don't have the aseity that belongs to God alone.
D: Self-existence that is extinguishable only by God Himself taking that "eternity" that exists within Creation by divine fiat. But that is not an accurate stance. It simply IS the fact that the Spirit of God is continually sustaining all aspects of our "existence and particularity" at every moment. (That's just standard EO doctrine, actually.)
J: I'm not EO, so I don't believe that is a sufficient ground. Consequently, I can't be dogmatic about it.
D:To me, the competence and benevolent intents are demonstrated by the obvious SELF-GIVING action of God that even allows us right here and now to have this very conversation. Morning by morning, new mercies I see...all I have needed thy hand hath provided...
J: Is the mercy of God OBVIOUSLY demonstrated in God sustaining the fire that burns a house down with a mother and child trapped in it? Either the mercy of God is obvious in both, or it's obviously demonstrated in neither per se. It's our intuitive belief in the teleological/eschatological nature of creation that gets us to the belief that current goodnesses are related to a future elimination of futility/vanity. Nothing more, nothing less, as far as I can tell.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2011 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | J: Is the mercy of God OBVIOUSLY demonstrated in God sustaining the fire that burns a house down with a mother and child trapped in it? Either the mercy of God is obvious in both, or it's obviously demonstrated in neither per se. It's our intuitive belief in the teleological/eschatological nature of creation that gets us to the belief that current goodnesses are related to a future elimination of futility/vanity.
T: Good point. I think the obvious advantage of creatio continua (besides some consistency issues philosophically speaking, e.g., the difficulty of maintaining a doctrine of omnipresence, and thus of God's omniscience of present realities, on any cosmology other than creatio continua) is that it serves better to preclude my thinking of myself in terms of being really 'separate' and 'independent' from God, as if God can be 'absent' over there while I'm here. And that sort of thinking can have bad consequences.
T (earlier): So creatio continua does not itself entail UR. We have to argue separately that God is unfailing love and thus love’s interest in the well-being of what exists is that which sustains the world...
(now): So, in light of your comments, Jeff, we'll eventually need to offer a plausible explanation of why God's maintaining a burning house with mother and child inside is not an abandonment of their best interests. But this will get us back into the old "Carlie" thread question--Does God every sacrifice the well-being/best interests of the ONE (now) in preference to the well-being of the MANY (now), even IF ultimately the best interests of ALL come together?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/26/2011 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | D: What is with the evangelical fear about pantheism? I've never understood it.
Tom: Can you not understand the concern to disassociate biblical theism from pantheism?
D: Out of Love for Christ, be the "hands and feet" of Christ to Christ (in "the least of these" ), in the power of the Spirit of Christ. That seems to be straight up Christianity...being the Body of Christ in the Spirit. Right?
Tom: Yes, but that’s not pantheism, right? Pntheism would destroy the sort of loving relationship and service you see, for example, in Mother Theresa. Christ’s identifying himself with the plight of the homeless and imprisoned so that “in as much as” we serve the poor we also serve Christ does not equate to pantheism. With pantheism you don’t have grounds for any “in as much as X served Y, X served Z.” With pantheism, all is Z and Z is all. There are no non-Z realities or entities. And without any X and Y that are not-Z you can’t have the mediation necessary to ground the relational truth needed to say “in as much as….” Pantheism is a grave threat to biblical theism and loving relations between God and creation...
...right?
What I mean is this: I've tended to see evangelicals really concerned about Christians being pantheistic in their own identification with Christ...or "seeing Christ everywhere." Anything that seems to merge Christ and the believer too much is seen as implicit pantheism. But that's what I could never understand. Jesus Christ is the only "Immanuel" and "Logos" of God whereas all other humans are not. Saying that believers can fully participate in the ongoing life of the risen Christ by the Spirit of Christ is not "merging" Jesus with the believer; it is saying that the Spirit of Christ is working in, through, and with the believer, allowing the believer to freely re-present Christ to the world in all of her human dimensions.
Basically, true orthodox Christianity doesn't lend itself to pantheism. PanENtheism, all day. But NOT pantheism.
******************************************
Tom:
I think the obvious advantage of creatio continua (besides some consistency issues philosophically speaking, e.g., the difficulty of maintaining a doctrine of omnipresence, and thus of God's omniscience of present realities, on any cosmology other than creatio continua) is that it serves better to preclude my thinking of myself in terms of being really 'separate' and 'independent' from God, as if God can be 'absent' over there while I'm here. And that sort of thinking can have bad consequences.
YES. This belief keeps one from wasting time using various attempts to "catch" God's attention...or "hide" from God. God is IMMEDIATELY PRESENT to Creation (including myself)..and it can be no other way.
Seriously. I think back to my grandfather...and what he and my old church really BELIEVED about petitioning for the presence of God. That God could somehow be "near" or "far". And what I learned as a result...and had to UNlearn.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/26/2011 10:01:31 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/26/2011 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
Is the mercy of God OBVIOUSLY demonstrated in God sustaining the fire that burns a house down with a mother and child trapped in it? Either the mercy of God is obvious in both, or it's obviously demonstrated in neither per se. It's our intuitive belief in the teleological/eschatological nature of creation that gets us to the belief that current goodnesses are related to a future elimination of futility/vanity. Nothing more, nothing less, as far as I can tell.
The "mercy of God" is God sustaining every aspect of time, space, matter, and energy that is necessary for us to have any and all inter-subjective experience, aesthetic evaluation, and teleological movement...regardless of WHAT personal experience we are having. Said another way, the "mercy of God" is the always present "joy of being"; enjoyment of God's gift of one's own existence. The mercy of God would seem obvious just before the fire was burning, yes? In other words, if someone were to have peered in on the sleeping child and mother, safely nustled in their beds, and asked if the "mercy of God" were displayed there and then...many would say "yes". How would that change because an chance electrical fire began and got out of control, killing both mother and child?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 7/26/2011 9:59:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 118 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:35 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|