quote:

---

I thought Rabbi Brad Hirschfield's stuff was VERY interesting. . .Can I get a witness, Meph?

---

Oh, fo SHO, Brett! I was feelin' him...deeply. Understand some of the stuff THAT man was sayin', you wouldn't have any problems understanding my views to a LARGE extent.


*****************************


Some VERY brief thoughts about CHRISTIAN belief that I had as I've been reading the PBS website.

1) Process theology has the potential to BLOW UP...for real. Think about it. It's the ONLY THING that I know of that really gets a personal, all-lovingk, all-influential God pretty much COMPLETELY off the hook...but NOT with an easy solution! God's struggling and suffering just like WE are. God's fighting just like we are AT ALL TIMES. And God has NO HANDS but ours (as John Cobb would say). Who would suffer like this God who works ONLY through such deficient tools? Anyways, hope in HUMANITY is, at the same time, hope in God...while hope in God gives us more of a REASON to hope in humanity. This type of theism has IMMENSE benefits in situations like these. The only problem is that we'd ultimately have to deny a God that ACTUALLY speaks and acts unilaterally...which means that any given religious experience (including God "talking" to you and miracles) would be more HUMAN INTERPRETATION OF and EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSE TO divinely initiated aims than anything else. So much for the Risen Christ actually having a CONVERSATION with someone...

Honestly, if I could bring myself to believe process theology completely, I would in a heartbeat. NO...FRIGGIN...LIE. But guess what...

2) Open view theism ultimately just ain't gonna cut it entirely. Not with a LOT of folx. Like I said before, to the extent that we grant God SIGNIFICANT unilateral power, the ethical question raises its ugly head like a cobra. And strikes us, it does. On one end, people would say that God is as weak as HELL if he can't do more than what he's doing...and point to Sept. 11th as evidence. On the other hand, people would say that IF HE COULD do more, then his so-called "greater good" plan is causing too much suffering...and universalism in paradise BETTER be there to make up for all of this. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem worth ANY of the gratuitous evil (as I've defined it before)

3) Calvinists like John Piper better get SUPER-eschatological and SUPER-mysterious. "We don't understand, but we KNOW that 1) God knows things we DON'T know and 2) God's got this all under control. Hey, this intricate plan of God's will ALLLLLL make sense on the other side, when we are with God." That's about ALL they can bet things on. (Perhaps, ultimately, that's all open view theists can say, too. Hmmm...)

My continued solution for those who believe in a UNILATERALLY powerful, speaking, acting God: Theistic bootlicking. See, you think I'm joking. But ask yourself, what can REALLY get you past the existential angst of atrocites, bewildering requests by God, and tons of dark nights of the soul? Can even open view theism get you past all that? (Answer=no.) I know that looking to the "great bye and bye" doesn't do it for me. And neither does rejoicing in free will. Personally, I have to 1) give God his props as God the Creator...along with FULL rights and priveleges and 2) BELIEVE that the Christ Work is ENOUGH to cover all the madness...enough to hold to God ultimately being "for us". That's all.

Again, just some thoughts.

quote:

---

Open view theism ultimately just ain't gonna cut it entirely. Not with a LOT of folx. Like I said before, to the extent that we grant God SIGNIFICANT unilateral power, the ethical question raises its ugly head like a cobra. And strikes us, it does. On one end, people would say that God is as weak as HELL if he can't do more than what he's doing...and point to Sept. 11th as evidence. On the other hand, people would say that IF HE COULD do more, then his so-called "greater good" plan is causing too much suffering...and universalism in paradise BETTER be there to make up for all of this. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem worth ANY of the gratuitous evil (as I've defined it before)

---

quote:

---

But we forgot something. The infinite genius has a unique ability. He actually has the power to SO CONSTRAIN his oppenents options that only ONE play is possible.

---

Can't a real chess player do that? Get his oponent into a fix where there's only one move he can make?

mephi:

quote:

---

Actually, there's something else that's quite important. The infinite genius has set up rules so that AT ANY GIVEN TIME, he can actually DICTATE what play his opponent MUST take. For real.

---

Sorry? I was under the impression that this wasn't allowed. God can't just take away free-will like that...

The way I understand the "settling" of the future, is that the settled things are what God has decided he's going to do. Jesus' second coming is settled, but that's because God's going to do it and he knows that he will. OT prophecy was settled because often is was just declaring what God was going to do. Why does God have to limit free-will to do this? Hmm?

God basically settles the ends without settling the means as such.

mephi:

quote:

---

So, no matter whether the genius is...

--playing according to the moves of the other player (which he can perfectly anticipate)
--manipulating the game via his OWN moves
--dictating the moves of the opponent directely

---

Er... perfectly anticipating the moves? Surely only perfectly anticipating the possible moves? What the opponent will actually do can't be known until it happens. After all, the oponent could go and do something stupid...

Mephi:

quote:

---

The greater-good idea. Essentially like in Calvinism. Right?

---

Except very different. In calvinism it would be a chess game where God plays both sides, because God controls everything that happens in the universe and everything happens according to God's will.

OV says that it's a real chess game with a real and formidable opponent.

But hey.

lots of love

Tim

quote:

---

Sorry? I was under the impression that this wasn't allowed. God can't just take away free-will like that...

The way I understand the "settling" of the future, is that the settled things are what God has decided he's going to do. Jesus' second coming is settled, but that's because God's going to do it and he knows that he will. OT prophecy was settled because often is was just declaring what God was going to do. Why does God have to limit free-will to do this? Hmm?

God basically settles the ends without settling the means as such.

---

Nope. I've asked about this over and over. In open view theism, God DOES have the ability to do things compatibilisticallly. HE JUST COVENANTS NOT TO USE THAT POWER MUCH OF THE TIME. Otherwise, it would be JUST like what BJS is saying: NOTHING could be "settled" for sure, only made highly probable. Ask Doc.



**********************************************

Tim:

quote:

---

Er... perfectly anticipating the moves? Surely only perfectly anticipating the possible moves? What the opponent will actually do can't be known until it happens. After all, the oponent could go and do something stupid...

---

What I meant was that God knows ALL moves that can be made. There is no move that God is unaware of. This is the implications of infinite intelligence.


**********************************************


Tim:

quote:

---

Except very different. In calvinism it would be a chess game where God plays both sides, because God controls everything that happens in the universe and everything happens according to God's will.

OV says that it's a real chess game with a real and formidable opponent.

---

If you want to call it a real game, cool. It's like a chess MASTER playing a straight up NEWBIE. What kind of challenge is THAT? Remember, in this view, it's basically IN THE BAG that the opponent won't win. This is a FIXED fight.

And it is just like Calvinism in that it is the greater good idea that drives it.


**********************************************

BJS:

quote:

---

Good analogy, Doc. It's very helpful. However, I still don't understand how God can partly settle something without overriding free will. I'm not so sure, as Tim suggested, that all "settled" things discussed in Scripture can be described as actions that only God is going to take, exclusive of all other free wills. Is it even possible to separate the effect of God's actions from the effect of other free will actions? Chaos theory tells us everything is too interconnected for that kind of neat separation, doesn't it? In my mind, in order to ensure ("settle") anything about the future, all free will would have to be suspended/limited for those purposes.

---

Ah...the problem still remains, eh, Brett? You make the point that's NOT being addressed. How is it possible for God to make 100% CERTAIN that a particular historical event WILL HAPPEN in the future...if God can ONLY react to the opponent. Answer: God can't. We've danced this dance before, y'all...


Thanks,

quote:

---

1) Does open view theism allow for God to operate in a compatibilistic manner, such that God CAN render it such that free-willed beings WILL CERTAINLY do what God wants? Yes or no.

---

quote:

---

1) Does open view theism allow for God to operate in a compatibilistic manner, such that God CAN render it such that free-willed beings WILL CERTAINLY do what God wants? Yes or no.

No. On an individual level, God cannot render that a free-willed being will CERTAINLY do what God wants. We have been given freedom, and God won't take that back. It's part of the rules, and God can't cheat. After all, I'm sure satan would be the first to shout "unfair!"

---

Uh, oh. So God cannot act in ANY way do compatibilism with free-willed beings? Are you absolutely SURE about this? I'm am pretty sure that the warfare worldview DOES allow for compatibilism of some sort. Doc, care to clear this up?

And Tim, think about the 3 denials before the rooster's crow? Think of all the "creational factors" that could have gone wrong with this? How was Jesus SURE that it WOULD come to pass?

DOC!!!!

quote:

---

Four persons of severely limited intelligence who each only know two or three rules of the game of chess (viz. what a pawn and knight can do) walk into the room right on the 14th move. They observe the rook being taken by the opponent. Knowing nothing of the first 13 moves; knowing nothing of the possibilities that open up and close in any attempt to defend the rook; knowing nothing about the opponent; and knowing nothing about the rules of the game of chess, one newcomer cries out that the infinite genius is a fool… for he lost the rook! Another concludes the infinite genius just doesn’t care what happens to his pieces. Another concludes the game is unintelligible, a sheer mystery, and is probably controlled by the infinite genius.

But the fourth knows and trusts the genuis. He concludes there are rules he does not know about and that the rook would have been spared if it could have been spared. He concludes that the opponent is real, formidable, but doomed to defeat – despite the loss of the rook.. And so he relaxes. The outcome is settled. The rules are settled. But the play is not.

---

And what Meph Man said:

quote:

---

2) Open view theism ultimately just ain't gonna cut it entirely. Not with a LOT of folx. Like I said before, to the extent that we grant God SIGNIFICANT unilateral power, the ethical question raises its ugly head like a cobra. And strikes us, it does. On one end, people would say that God is as weak as HELL if he can't do more than what he's doing...and point to Sept. 11th as evidence. On the other hand, people would say that IF HE COULD do more, then his so-called "greater good" plan is causing too much suffering...and universalism in paradise BETTER be there to make up for all of this. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem worth ANY of the gratuitous evil (as I've defined it before)

and

See, you think I'm joking. But ask yourself, what can REALLY get you past the existential angst of atrocites, bewildering requests by God, and tons of dark nights of the soul?

---

Is it possible that Sept 11 was God acting unilaterally? After all, we see as Meph has pointed out that God has endorsed certain GROSS evil (if we can call any actions that God does or endorses evil).

Second, though this could be God acting unilaterally, is it possible that this could have been a judgement of God?

I know Greg would not want to define it that way, based on his Sept 11th speil, and possible bias against fundamentalist Christianity i.e. Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's take on 9/11 and Greg's take on Christ being our definitive portrait of God and everything else should be interpreted against that back drop thingy, but I think it is safe to say that not all OT's would necessarily endorse what Greg is saying on his Sept 11th speil.

For, i.e. Pinnock and Brow in "Unbounded Love" speak of judgements prior to the final judgement (in terms of individuals, our own personal lives, families and nations) in their Chapter "Judgement: Caring Love" and "Advent: Active Love" read especially "Mini-Advents" where they speak about judgements in accordance with with recent modern events, (you might want to read the whole book but here is a condensed version:

www.brow.on.ca/Books/ULove/UL06.htm
www.brow.on.ca/Books/ULove/UL07.htm

But it seems to me that
A) These guys speak contrary to Greg's views on judgement.
B) I don't need to go the route that Meph Man says others would,-- that is that, the "atrocious" actions that happened on that fateful day of 9/11, were "God as week as hell" or "God working out his plan is too much suffering."

I think that what I am left with this.

1. God was acting unilaterally on Sept 11th.
2. I don't know if this was "judgement?" or whether "this was all God had to work with" and he had to end up with the "lesser of two evils" or as Greg would say, "the rook would have been spared if it could have been spared." Therefore, I cannot say with certainty what God's role in this was (at least for the time being).

OK. Tear it apart.












Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/07/2002 7:45:16 PM

quote:

---

Is it possible that Sept 11 was God acting unilaterally?

---

Yes. Very much so. In fact, that's one of my big points. Presupposing as we do that

1)God has significant unilateral power...AND
2)God can sometimes be facilitate situations of death, suffering, and pain for "greater good" ends...

...we would NEVER know definitively what God was doing on Sept. 11th. It could have been divine judgment. It could have been God working hard as he could. Bottom line: WE JUST DON'T KNOW. So, to me, the easiest thing would be to 1) stem the evil as best as we can and 2) go to God during our trials. What else needs to be done, right?

But as you've looked at that PBS website, you can probably see that the very idea that God MIGHT be involved more directly in allowing or orchestrating Sept. 11th is abhorent to many people. They wouldn't even CONSIDER that possibility, because it goes against their view of what God does. (Hey, SPECIFICALLY look at the Islamic scholar dude. That was, I believe, paradigmatic of what's going on in theologizing today.)

So, I'm with ya, Brandon.

Holla,

quote:

---

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I truly believe something. I believe that we are moving towards a one world religion. Think about Vatican II. Think about the rampant movement towards universalism and annihilationalism. Think about the more liberal fringes of Islam that are occuring now. I believe that we are moving towards the idea of a God who is basically:

1) a repository of unconditional positive regard or love.
2) a source for hope (either here or for the life after)
3) a source for principle of life-affirming paradigms (justice, love, etc)
4) a source of dignity for human beings
5) a God who, IF personal, has relinquished all rights of lordship to his Creation.
6) an unbiased universalist, IF there is an afterlife (Possibly annihilational AT WORST)

The God of the Future I see will be little more than this. A great big cheerleader/shoulder to cry on/being to hope in. Theology will be nothing more than purely human attempts at imaginative, yet utterly pragmatic coping mechanisms for life in the form of worldviews...using the paradigm above. Lord? Master? King? Sovereign Ruler of the Heavens? These terms will be useless. In looking at some of the theological shifts in the major religions like Judaism, Islam and Christianity, I definitely see this as a trend. The exclusivity of Christ is being sacrificed (or expanded to meaninglessness) more and more. Of course, postmodernism and its buddies (pluralism, multicultural sensitivity, etc) have some things to do with it. I honestly fear that the day may come when the statement "Jesus is Lord" may become superfluous as we continue to look to the Great Big Heart in the Sky and thank Him/Her/It/They/Us for everything.

---

Hmmm...Looking at that PBS show website, and all the articles, I'm beginning to wonder if I was more right than even I would have liked. God bringing death and destruction? HUSH YO MOUTH, you morally defunct being, you! ::rolling eyes::: Sheesh...



PS: Check it out. "The 9/11 Letdown" by Frederica Mathewes-Green
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/112/story_11254_1.html&boardID=45165

PSS: Tim asked:

quote:

---

Here's a few questions. Why would God make Peter deny Jesus, just to make sure prophecy was fulfilled? Surely it would be God's fault, not Peter's?

---

Why would God incite (either directly or INdirectly) David to count the people, and then use the situation to bring death to hundreds of people?

Samuel 24:1-17
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab and the army commanders with him, "Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are." But Joab replied to the king, "May the LORD your God multiply the troops a hundred times over, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king want to do such a thing?"

The king's word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king to enroll the fighting men of Israel. After crossing the Jordan, they camped near Aroer, south of the town in the gorge, and then went through Gad and on to Jazer. They went to Gilead and the region of Tahtim Hodshi, and on to Dan Jaan and around toward Sidon. Then they went toward the fortress of Tyre and all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites. Finally, they went on to Beersheba in the Negev of Judah. After they had gone through the entire land, they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.

Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand. David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing." Before David got up the next morning, the word of the LORD had come to Gad the prophet, David's seer: "Go and tell David, 'This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.'"

So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me." David said to Gad, "I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men." So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, "I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall upon me and my family."

Friggin nice, huh?

Now, to be nice, let's look at this...

1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

Ok. Same event. But 1 Chr says that SATAN rose up the incited David. Let's not even go the route of touting biblical contradictions, ok? Let's try to reconcile this. Since God has been known to use evil spirits in his employ (the "lying spirit" in 1 Kings) and ALLOW Satan to have his way with people (Job), it seems like a good hypothesis to say that God decided to LET Satan do his dirty work FOR him. Right? But either way, God doesn't look like too good of a guy, now does He?

But hey, God would NEVER have anything to do with making Peter sin...or any atrocity like Sept. 11th...right? Hmmm...


PSS: With what's directly above, I was wondering. For the more christocentric crowd. What do YOU think that Jesus would have said about God's actions here. Would he have had PROBLEMS with it? If so, what would he have said about them? Would he use the tools of justification that we do? That God's blatent use of David's incited sin to kill up a bunch of his people was some type of NECESSARY thing that HAD to happen, given creational factors? If Jesus wouldn't have had a problem with it, why do WE have problems with it? Just thinking...

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/07/2002 8:31:46 PM