 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Doc's 1/2/04 Sermon | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/6/2005 11:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Carleone
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Sure, he finally caught wind of who he was dealing with. What size is boots do you wear?
LOL
courtnspark, if you ever go to the early service, look me up
Take my advice Corey, kiss the ring and save yourself a night out with a horse's head. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/6/2005 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
quote:
So, as it relates to the discussion here so far, my thoughts have been that indeed there was the 2nd Law (and even physical death) from the very beginning, but God’s original design had some component which would counteract this, at least for us humans. Maybe this is what is symbolized by the Tree of Life? Anyway, when humanity fell, that regenerative provision was removed. What do you think?
If we were to posit this, would it be the sin of a literal ADAMIC COUPLE that would be the reason for the removal of the regenerative provision and the downward spiral across Creation?
It'd still come down to a restorationist type idea. Problematic.
----------------
Tom:
quote:
About a literal Adamic couple, Greg and I agreed at dinner that night (did you catch this?) that even if one assumes an evolutionary history of the human race which was at some point in time endowed by God with his image, you still have SOME point in time and a particular couple (or generation) that was endowed divinely. So you still have some historical starting point for a unique and special humanity.
Oh, yeah, I remember you talking about that, all right. This is what a lot of theistic evolutionists try to say as a possiblity. But why? Why even posit this when it's not necessary? So, you posit theistic evolution? Are you STILL going to posit the ESSENTIAL restorationist (Pandora's Box) line of the Creation story with that? Why?
I really don't understand. WHY bother and why play the game?
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/6/2005 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Carleone
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Carleone
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Sure, he finally caught wind of who he was dealing with. What size is boots do you wear?
LOL
courtnspark, if you ever go to the early service, look me up
Take my advice Corey, kiss the ring and save yourself a night out with a horse's head.
It's O.K., everything is cool.
Corey, Vinnie went home already so send someone else out to start your car, OKay?
Sure deal, if I see anyone packing at WHC I will surly give my respect.
P.S. Am I being tailed? How did you know I was just thinking about warming my car up?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/6/2005 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
John 7:37-38 (NRSV)
On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, "Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, [38] and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water.' "
John 7:38 he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;'
John 6:33 for the bread of God is that which is coming down out of the heaven, and giving life to the world.'
34They said, therefore, unto him, `Sir, always give us this bread.'
35And Jesus said to them, `I am the bread of the life; he who is coming unto me may not hunger, and he who is believing in me may not thirst -- at any time;
Revelation 2:7
He who is having an ear -- let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: To him who is overcoming -- I will give to him to eat of the tree of life that is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Revelation 22:2
in the midst of its broad place, and of the river on this side and on that, [is] a tree of life, yielding twelve fruits, in each several month rendering its fruits, and the leaves of the tree [are] for the service of the nations; (All verses cited Young's Literal Translation)
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/6/2005 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Carleone
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Carleone
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Yahweh Carleone
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Sure, he finally caught wind of who he was dealing with. What size is boots do you wear?
LOL
courtnspark, if you ever go to the early service, look me up
Take my advice Corey, kiss the ring and save yourself a night out with a horse's head.
It's O.K., everything is cool.
Corey, Vinnie went home already so send someone else out to start your car, OKay?
Sure deal, if I see anyone packing at WHC I will surly give my respect.
P.S. Im I being tailed. How did you know I was just thinking about warming my car up?
Tailed? By moi?
Nice shirt.
Your getting me nervous, I can’t spell, I can’t type.
LOL
Later | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/6/2005 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
selah: Saying Paul was wrong about Adam/eve but not wrong about this and that takes quite a lot of insight, don't cha think? How do we do that Meph?
Mephi: I hear where you are coming from. This is the EPISTEMOLOGICAL quandary that leads to the doctrine of inerrancy. Look at "Across the Spectrum" as Paul and Greg completely dismantle that argument. Seriously.
A couple things. First, I think you're hearing me, but I also think you're hearing various theological arguments echoing in the far corners of your mind at the same time. If you were really hearing me Mephi you might respond with an actual answer to my questions. Know what I mean?
Second, I probably wouldn't make out very well if I had to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. I'm aware of the arguments on both sides and find both/all arguments regarding scriptural accuracy kind of pointless. Why? Because if one says the bible is inerrant, they still tend to use that to support their views. If one argues that it isn't, they also tend to use THAT to support THEIR views.
All that aside. I'm just saying talk to ME. When I say "how do you do that?" I REALLY want to know HOW YOU DO that, that's all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
quote:
selah: Oh, and I think you may have him on the Venus Fly trap thing
meph:Oh, do I? Why? Because it sounds absurd? Because it sounds loony as hell? See here's what we have to understand about a chief underpinning of Doc's theology. When you break EVERYTHING down, a chief assumption is the following:
Anything that is essentially involved with VIOLENCE or DETERIORATION of any sort CANNOT be of the Kingdom of God or God's will.
Soooo...anything that has one being preying off of another being to sustain life is VIOLENCE and therefore not of the Kingdom. So that rules out the food chain and all that. Anything that has deterioration involved is not of the Kingdom. So that rules out entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Carnivorousness is one being preying off another being for it's own life...so VENUS FLY TRAPS (plants that eat bugs) must, BY DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY DO, by essentially demonic...a malicious perversion of the "original" vegatarian creation! Heck, the entire EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS involves entropy AND all that. So it MUST mean that the evolutionary process was NOT of God...and influenced by the Devil.
If something is perverted/under demonic influence it doesn't disqualify it from being "of the Kingdom." I didn't hear Greg say that. I heard him say that lions (under influence of the god of this age now) will be restored in Heaven...lay down with the lamb and all that. I also heard him say that there is still good/beauty in creation which means carnivorousness animals/plants are not "essentially demonic" they are influenced that way (just as we are) but they can still be beautiful etc. Have you seen a baby lion - how cute!
The venus flytrap note was kind of a joke. I thought you picked a clever example so I pulled it. I DO think we could say venus flytraps are under the dominion of the god of this age because they cause suffering of little bugs. Then again, I've heard Greg say he thinks bugs are of the devil too! (ha. Got cha GB) REally, I could go either way (who cares!), those things are ugly...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
quote:
Do you understand what is happening here, Selah? This is why the early church fathers he mentions say what they say about it HAVING to be the case that demons are behind all that. And even though Doc tries REALLY hard to separate himself from the idea of "a demon being behind every bush" it ends up becoming that in a significant way.
me: I don't take issue with there being "a demon behind ever bush" maybe, deep down, he doesn't either. Why NOT think that way? It sure would help us "stay awake" in a warfare type situation if we knew our enemy prowled around us...seeking whom he may devour... (I do think Greg uses that term PASTORALLY to HELP people keep from getting all wacky in fear of satan or "devil made me do it " type stuff). Which I think is good and necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mephi: quote:
...You said that you don't take all the implications...
This is what I tell Doc. It's not cool that you take what you want from an worldview and conveniently leave all the nonsense out. Take all the cookies and conveniently leave out all the crap. "Yeah, I'll take the restoration view and the explanation of evil...but venus fly traps being essentially demonic? Nah, can't get with that."
Meph, I have been in class and church WITH you where we've seen and heard inconsistencies in what Greg says, right? 100% huh. Well, what I want to say is this, believe it or not, I'm the same way and so is Tom and yep... SO are you. We are all struggling to do our best and to articulate it well - hopefully for the Good. But we are dealing with a very complex subject. At least we are in dialogue about what we don't understand - that's cool. Very good. BUT, beloved non-demonic meph, you too are guilty of this and sometimes gravely so...and you will always be to some extent. Just like the rest of us.
SO, I will wait to see your following statement come to pass, but I won't hold my breath. If you can work this out and be "consistent as all get out." That's amazing! If paul WAS wrong about adam and eve I would imagine the task of working out the implications of that would take quite a while ... for they are many. So keep the night fires burnin' and the coffee pot on. Let me know when you're done. ok. ok.
Oh, also, my current understanding of what Boyd/Eddy were talking about in Accross the Spectrum regarding the epistemological quandary that leads to the doctrine of inerrancy argument is that the errors in Scripture are pretty apparent-especially in minor matters of science (like the primative view of the world). I don't remember them using Paul "being wrong" as an example (did they?) I could be wrong (its been a while!) but, I'm attending their conference on the 21/22 to dig a little deeper. How's that?
quote:
Mephi:"Hey, if I've got a view...like Paul
possibly being wrong...you can bet your sweet bippy (ala
Laugh-In from the 60s ) that I'm going to be consistent
as all get out. I'm not just gonna do some cafeteria-line
theologizing just to make it though."
Laugh-In?...must be before my time
quote:
At any rate, let me say this...I MAY (and I stress that word, MAY) be able to accept the idea of Satan having so much power...leading to the Venus fly trap and the 2nd law of thermodynamics being essentially demonic. (Just saying it makes me feel silly!)
me: PTL. Let me know when it happens. 
Feeling silly is Good. 
Mephi: quote:
But...
me: Did anyone else sense a "but" was coming?
quote:
ONe thing that I cannot fathom...at all...is the restorationist view of Creation which one HAS TO TAKE in some form in order for this whole thing to be BIBLICALLY consistent with the two axioms:
1) Death is the enemy of God
2) Death came through sin (in particular, Adam's sin)
As I've been trying to tell people forever, it seems like now, the ONLY WAY that Doc's view really holds together is if one takes a LITERAL VIEW of Adam and Eve in restorationist fashion. The gap theory. To say this view is speculative is the LEAST that could be said about it. I know...I know...Doc will say it's "abductive" reasoning he uses to put everything together. But it's still problematic. Especially when there's very strong argumentation for the literary view of the Creation stories. Even Doc says this. And check out what Old Testament scholars like Terrence Fretheim and Walter Bruggeman say about the Creation stories. It's interesting what you can say when you are not bogged down in systematics!
me: You're right...you've been very consistent on this one. Gotta give you that. I guess we go with one thing at a time then. First, satan, then adam. I won't even mention how much I like the gap theory and that I understand why Greg says its "abductive" reasoning he uses to make sense of all the views and their objections. I'll keep that on the DL until you settle the satan/demon thing. shhh.
running as usual,
thanks for your response,
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/6/2005 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
quote:
First, I think you're hearing me, but I also think you're hearing various theological arguments echoing in the far corners of your mind at the same time. If you were really hearing me Mephi you might respond with an actual answer to my questions. Know what I mean?
I guess I didn't.
********************
Selah:
quote:
I'm just saying talk to ME. When I say "how do you do that?" I REALLY want to know HOW YOU DO that, that's all.
So...when you ask the question:
Saying Paul was wrong about Adam/eve but not wrong about this and that takes quite a lot of insight, don't cha think? How do we do that Meph?
...you are asking how I believe that we should go about discerning what Paul was right about and what he was wrong about? Is that right?
***********************
Selah:
quote:
If something is perverted/under demonic influence it doesn't disqualify it from being "of the Kingdom." I didn't hear Greg say that. I heard him say that lions (under influence of the god of this age now) will be restored in Heaven...lay down with the lamb and all that. I also heard him say that there is still good/beauty in creation which means carnivorousness animals/plants are not "essentially demonic" they are influenced that way (just as we are) but they can still be beautiful etc. Have you seen a baby lion - how cute!
What I'm saying is that insofar as something exhibits elements of violence, death, or deterioration, to that extent that something does NOT reflect the Kingdom of God. Carnivorousness as a phenomenon, Doc would say, IS essentially demonic. It is NOT representative of the God of self-giving love, in his mind. He and I have talked on this a NUMBER of times. I've gotten this established VERY clear from him. Just like I know you HEARD HIM say that he believes that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is essentially demonic. He believes that the "bondage to decay" IS the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You heard that, right?
****************************
Selah:(emphasis mine)
quote:
I don't take issue with there being "a demon behind ever bush" maybe, deep down, he doesn't either. Why NOT think that way? It sure would help us "stay awake" in a warfare type situation if we knew our enemy prowled around us...seeking whom he may devour... (I do think Greg uses that term PASTORALLY to HELP people keep from getting all wacky in fear of satan or "devil made me do it " type stuff). Which I think is good and necessary.
Wow. Hey...do you, cutie. (This ain't a put down. I do think you're quite the cutie. )
****************************
Selah:
quote:
Meph, I have been in class and church WITH you where we've seen and heard inconsistencies in what Greg says, right? 100% huh. Well, what I want to say is this, believe it or not, I'm the same way and so is Tom and yep... SO are you. We are all struggling to do our best and to articulate it well - hopefully for the Good. But we are dealing with a very complex subject. At least we are in dialogue about what we don't understand - that's cool. Very good. BUT, beloved non-demonic meph, you too are guilty of this and sometimes gravely so...and you will always be to some extent. Just like the rest of us.
SO, I will wait to see your following statement come to pass, but I won't hold my breath. If you can work this out and be "consistent as all get out." That's amazing! If paul WAS wrong about adam and eve I would imagine the task of working out the implications of that would take quite a while ... for they are many. So keep the night fires burnin' and the coffee pot on. Let me know when you're done. ok. ok.
Heh. Some of the implications of Paul being wrong about Adam and Eve being literal are not that hard to fathom at all. It shuts down completely the idea of inerrancy and CERTAIN VIEWS of infallibility. Which means our ideas of biblical authority would be altered accordingly. It means that we reexamine some of the arguments where he (or people influenced by him) uses Adam and Eve in his reasoning. I think this would obviously affect many complementarians who use the 1 Timothy passage to bolster their view. We'd definitely have to work out some things hermeneutically. And I'm willing to go ALL THE WAY where this leads. I'll be dat.
***********************
Selah:
quote:
Oh, also, my current understanding of what Boyd/Eddy were talking about in Accross the Spectrum regarding the epistemological quandary that leads to the doctrine of inerrancy argument is that the errors in Scripture are pretty apparent-especially in minor matters of science (like the primative view of the world). I don't remember them using Paul "being wrong" as an example (did they?) I could be wrong (its been a while!) but, I'm attending their conference on the 21/22 to dig a little deeper.
No, they didn't. What I wanted to refer to his how they dismantle the main argument behind inerrancy: the epistemological need. Millard Erickson makes a HUGE deal about this in his Systematic Theology. But...Oh, screw it...I want EVERYONE to hear this...page 20-21 Accross the Spectrum. All italics Boyd and Eddy.
__________________________
The epistemological objection. One of the strongest driving forces behind the theory of inerrancy is the worry that if we admit that the Bible can be mistaken on any point, then we cannot be certain of the Bible on any point. If we must judge what is and what is not true in Scripture, then we are its authority rather than it being our authority. Three thing may be said in response to this objection.
First, even if this objection were valid, it would not address the issue of whether the Bible is inerrant. A person cannot reject facts simply because they place the person in an epistemologically awkward situation. So, too, a person cannot legitimately argue that the Bible must be inerrant on the grounds that it would cause epistemological difficulties for his or her theology if it were not so. The issue of whether the Bible is inerrant must be settled by an honest investigation into whether the Bible in fact contains any errors. That above investigation suggests that it does.
Second, if this objection were valid, it would adversely affect the inerrantist position as much as the infallibist position, for, in the light of textual criticism, the inerrantist admits that the Bible we possess today contains errors. Despite some acknowledged textual errors, however, they continue to be confident that they possess an adequately accurate version of the Bible. If they were consistent with the logic of their objection, however,they should conclude that we cannot trust any passage in the Bible unless we can trust every passage in the Bible. The argument regarding how one can trsut the Bible despite its occasional scientific or historical errors directly parallels the inerrantist's ability to trust the Bible despite it occassional textual errors. Inerrantists cannot object to this stance unless they are willing to apply their objection to their own position.
Third, having said all this, we must now insist that that the objection is simply not valid. On what basis can we demand that a source be without error in all respects before we give it credence in some respects. We customarily accept a source to the extent thta we have reasons for accepting it, and we reject it to the extent that we have reasons for rejecting it. This essay has supplied good reasons for rejecting some of what the Bible says about the natural world and history. At the same time, though they cannot be addressed in this essay, there are good reasons for accepting what the Bible says about faith and practice. Among other things, all the historical and personal reasons for accepting Jesus as the Son of God are reasons for accepting the Bible is infallible on the matters he himself trusted it for. Thankfully, this does not require that we pretend that the errors in the Bible are not there.
____________________
The crux of the argument used here is damaging! Of course, they wouldn't talk about Paul possibly being wrong. That would get them in some SERIOUS issues with other evangelicals. But, the arguments that they use work just as well. Now, if someone have good reasons to believe that the Creation stories really are MYTHIC and that there very well may NOT have been a literal Adamic couple...can we not say that Paul may have been wrong on this HISTORICAL matter. Just like Paul would have most likely believed in a 3-tiered worldview where heaven was in the sky and hell was UNDER THE EARTH (of course he wouldn't have known about outer space, galaxies and whatnot)...he could have held to a literal Adamic couple and fall. I follow Emil Brunner in the way he deals with the Adamic couple NOT being literal.
***********************
Selah:
quote:
You're right...you've been very consistent on this one. Gotta give you that. I guess we go with one thing at a time then. First, satan, then adam. I won't even mention how much I like the gap theory and that I understand why Greg says its "abductive" reasoning he uses to make sense of all the views and their objections. I'll keep that on the DL until you settle the satan/demon thing. shhh
Again, I dig this idea...
Death, decay (entropy), carnivorousness, and natural disasters were God-ordained (or God-ACCEPTED, rather) things, given the type of world God wanted to create. These things were ACCEPTABLE ALLOWANCES for God to actualize his creation. Satan just pushed these things BEYOND THE SCOPE of what God wanted to allow for.
This would make SENSE. Rather than saying that God NEVER intended for carnivorousness or the 2nd law of thermodynamics...and that demonic forces were COMPLETELY behind their emergence. (YES, Doc has indeed said this!) Satan basically pushed things too far. However, even with THIS, the problem of Paul would still loom large.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/6/2005 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | You know what? I'm feeling like I know less and less. Gosh. We're finding time travel, laws of physics, entropy, and all kinds of stuff in the Bible. I don't know.
I feel like a very few things are pretty clear to me from Scripture:
1) God exists and God is love. God hates sin, which if it doesn't mean he is always and everywhere opposed to it with every fiber of his being doesn't mean much of anything.
2) God created the world and us in it. It seems pretty clear to me that creation was "good." It was all good when God got finished.
3) We screwed it up. Screwed it up bad. If this too was God's own determination then I don't know what to make of the claim that creation was "good." It seems so obvious to me that Genesis makes a sharp distinction between the "good" that God is responsible for leading up to human sin and all the sin that begins to multiply after WE screwed creation up and it hasn't worked right since.
4) Jesus fixes what's wrong with us and creation. Part of it he fixes now and part he'll fix when he comes back.
5) God wants me to love him and wants me to follow Jesus.
I honestly don't know much more than this. I'm friggin tired of this stuff.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/6/2005 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I don't even know some of the stuff YOU know...
1) God exists and God is love. God hates sin, which if it doesn't mean he is always and everywhere opposed to it with every fiber of his being doesn't mean much of anything.
Sure.
2) God created the world and us in it. It seems pretty clear to me that creation was "good." It was all good when God got finished.
I don't know what "good" means. Some people think the beauty of the "circle of life" and evolutionary process is "good". Some people (like Doc) say it's not. What the hell...
3) We screwed it up. Screwed it up bad. If this too was God's own determination then I don't know what to make of the claim that creation was "good." It seems so obvious to me that Genesis makes a sharp distinction between the "good" that God is responsible for leading up to human sin and all the sin that begins to multiply after WE screwed creation up and it hasn't worked right since.
Honestly...this is just starting to look like another myth (like Pandora) that was an attempt to explain the world. And OF COURSE, it would be OUR fault (or the WOMAN'S fault, hmph)...whatever the hell THAT looks like...
4) Jesus fixes what's wrong with us and creation. Part of it he fixes now and part he'll fix when he comes back.
Cool.
5) God wants me to love him and wants me to follow Jesus.
Yep.
So #1, 4, and 5 are the only ones I have any real surety on.
I guess we're in the same boat, Tom.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/6/2005 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Honestly...this is just starting to look like another myth (like Pandora) that was an attempt to explain the world. And OF COURSE, it would be OUR fault (or the WOMAN'S fault, hmph)...whatever the hell THAT looks like...
Tom: Now you're talkin! It's the woman's fault. Let's blame Selah. Selah, come here you rackin frackin party crashing son of a.... Mephi and I wanna kick your butt!
Mephi: So #1, 4, and 5 are the only ones I have any real surety on.
Tom: You're cool with:
1) God exists and is love. (You know enough of what "love" is enough to say "Yeah, that's God," but you don't know what "good" looks like. How's that? I think we know what good is from Jesus. Jesus tells us what good is. Do we have any other alternative?)
4) Jesus fixes what's wrong with us and creation.
5) God wants us to love him and look like Jesus.
But you don't see...
2) Creation was good (because a good God created it), and
3) Creation is now screwed up. It's full of evil.
If you're not clear on 2 and 3, then what is it that you think Jesus "fixes" in us and creation (in affirming 4)? If God is love, and he fixes what's wrong with us and creation and wants us to be like the one who fixes creation, then don't you HAVE to posit some event that marks our and creation's 'going bad', that which constitutes creation's NEEDING fixing? Is it plausible, reasonable, likely, or meaningful to affirm 1, 4 and 5 and also claim that WE and CREATION today are precisely what the God of the #1 you affirm decided we should be? That's what I can't do. So the alternative (and what seems clear to me in Scripture--whether it's literal or myth or whatever, the same fundamental point is being made) is that something God DIDN'T will or design for creation happened, from which God redeems and saves us. What else does our affirming #4 and #5 (especially 4) mean?
At least we agree that it's Selah's friggin fault!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/6/2005 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: (emphasis mine)
quote:
But you don't see...
2) Creation was good (because a good God created it), and
3) Creation is now screwed up. It's full of evil.
If you're not clear on 2 and 3, then what is it that you think Jesus "fixes" in us and creation (in affirming 4)? If God is love, and he fixes what's wrong with us and creation and wants us to be like the one who fixes creation, then don't you HAVE to posit some event that marks our and creation's 'going bad', that which constitutes creation's NEEDING fixing? Is it plausible, reasonable, likely, or meaningful to affirm 1, 4 and 5 and also claim that WE and CREATION today are precisely what the God of the #1 you affirm decided we should be? That's what I can't do. So the alternative (and what seems clear to me in Scripture--whether it's literal or myth or whatever, the same fundamental point is being made) is that something God DIDN'T will or design for creation happened, from which God redeems and saves us. What else does our affirming #4 and #5 (especially 4) mean?
I should have been more clear. I can get with 2 and 3 as you've stated them above. What I specifically meant by my statment was...
with respect to 2, I don't know what the heck "good" means hardly. Does a "good" Creation INCLUDE entropy, death, the food chain, and whatnot...or is it entropy, death, the food chain, etc...that make Creation NOT good? See what I'm saying?
with respect to 3, I don't see how WE (meaning human beings) screwed this up ORIGINALLY. If one doesn't hold to the existence of an Adamic couple...how could WE be the people to mess up the FUNDAMENTALS of Creation.
This is what I meant...
PS:
Mitochondrial Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/6/2005 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi again, hope y'all don't mind me poking my head in here, but I just had a question... and I've never taken physics! shhh. Don't tell! ( haha, so how do we get this fire-stuff again?) So all the physics buffs out there, correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, that wasn't the question...here it is: Could it be possible that when God created life, universe, and everything He also created the 2nd law of thermodynamics but things with life were not designed to attack and destroy His creation? I was trying to find out what causes cells to stop regenerating and it seems that it is when the body is attacked so much, things break down. Perhaps there was a balance of entropy and regeneration before there was the carnivorous attacks perpetuated by sin going on that disturbed the balance? So in other words, before sin entropy and regeneration is equal. With sin, the scale is tipped. Part of the reason I wonder if the 2nd Law of thermodynamics was already in existence is, well, Adam and Eve were told to eat... they had to digest... somehow. This probably sounds really corny. Sorry. Anyway, thought I'd just throw this out there.
I do think it's quite plausible that demonic forces could be encouraging everything (that is alive) to attack everything, and sin itself is an encouraging force. Double negative, but doesn't make positive  (ok.. I admit the last sentence was just to be silly!)
PS, Meph, can you please remove the picture you had on your last post?
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/6/2005 10:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
quote:
Anyway, that wasn't the question...here it is: Could it be possible that when God created life, universe, and everything He also created the 2nd law of thermodynamics but things with life were not designed to attack and destroy His creation? I was trying to find out what causes cells to stop regenerating and it seems that it is when the body is attacked so much, things break down. Perhaps there was a balance of entropy and regeneration before there was the carnivorous attacks perpetuated by sin going on that disturbed the balance? So in other words, before sin entropy and regeneration is equal. With sin, the scale is tipped. Part of the reason I wonder if the 2nd Law of thermodynamics was already in existence is, well, Adam and Eve were told to eat... they had to digest... somehow. This probably sounds really corny. Sorry. Anyway, thought I'd just throw this out there.
Not corny. Makes sense. Sort of.
********************
Violin:
quote:
Meph, can you please remove the picture you had on your last post?
Something TOLD me that this was going to happen. Hmm. I tell you what. I'll take it down...sure. But I'd really like for you to explain to me why it's a big deal. Not trying to be funny or anything. I'd just like to know. Why? Well, I know that there are tons of Adam and Eve pictures from the Renaissance era that are up everywhere that show a woman's breast every now and again. And I don't see so much problem displayed with those. Next, when we are talking about different cultures even currently, there ARE cultures who look pretty much like our Mitochondrial Eve there. (Check out the Smithsonian book "Human" $60 but worth it! Or maybe some National Geographic). So in light of all this, I'd like to know what is so offensive about this representation of a primative human female holding a baby? Again, I'm not being funny. I REALLY want to know this.
Note to others: As a courtesy to Violin, I've taken down the picture. If you'd like to see the picture in question, it is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/6/2005 10:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Check this paper out, if you want...very interesting. Please read ALL THE NOTES TOO. This guy is obviously a young-earther...who believes that the earth is like no more than 10,000 years old.
I just find it interesting how our beliefs can be justified by hard work and research...
Hmmm...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/viewcreation.pdf
Here's a note on the fall of the angels...
From note 22 on page 7,
Classic "gap theorists" claim that vv. 3-31 describe a re-creation following judgement on the pristine world created in 1:1. The impulse of some to separate Gen 1:1 from vv. 3-31 to allow time for the angelic rebellion to materialize is based on a dubious assumption about the nature of angels. As Duane A. Garrett explains in Angels and the New Spirituality (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 118, it is possible that
"some angels became blessed and the other became devils in the first instance after their creation. That it, God created all angelic being with fantastic innate powers and knowledge and, in the first moment of their creation, the free will to determine whether to seek their fulfillment in God or in themselves. Their very first act was to decide about God one way of the other, and the decision stuck for all eternity. If that seems unfair, remember that at their creation they already knew more that we will ever know in this lifetime, so they had enough information on which to base a decision.
In this interpreation, the one thing that angels did not have at the moment of creation was the bliss of a direct vision of God in all His glory. They had innate knowledge of God, but not direct knowledge of God. They could attain direct knowledge of God only by His grace; once they had received it, they could never lose it or desire anything else. After the beatific vision, they could never fall into sin. Before that moment, however, they had to decide whether to seek blessedness in God's grace or in their own persons. Being angels, they did not need time to think about their decision. As Aquinas put it, 'they were all of them good in the first instant, but in the second the good were set apart from the wicked.'"
Sooooo...this helps lead to there being a 10,000 year old earth.
And wait till he gets to the part about the divine fiat creating of the SUN, MOON, and ALL THE STARS (think GALAXIES, y'all) on the 4th day...AFTER the creation of the earth.
Hmmm...let's just forget about everything we know about solar system formation, okay?
Alllllllllrighty, then!
It's so interesting...I have to quote again...From Across the Spectrum, Page 57. Part of a discussion presenting argumentation for young earth.
"But what about starlight? If this light originated from a star in its present location and traveled to us, it is argued, it would have to have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us. True enough. But why should we assume that the light had to originate in this fashion? If we allow Scripture to teach us, we find that the purposes of stars are to give light and to measure seasons for us on earth (Gen 1:14-19). If that is the case, God would of course have created the stars in such a way that their light already reached us."
Yeah. Soooooo...God made ALL THE STARS and "old light" just for little old us. Yep. Sho nuff.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/7/2005 12:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
If you're not clear on 2 and 3, then what is it that you think Jesus "fixes" in us and creation (in affirming 4)? If God is love, and he fixes what's wrong with us and creation and wants us to be like the one who fixes creation, then don't you HAVE to posit some event that marks our and creation's 'going bad', that which constitutes creation's NEEDING fixing? Is it plausible, reasonable, likely, or meaningful to affirm 1, 4 and 5 and also claim that WE and CREATION today are precisely what the God of the #1 you affirm decided we should be? That's what I can't do. So the alternative (and what seems clear to me in Scripture--whether it's literal or myth or whatever, the same fundamental point is being made) is that something God DIDN'T will or design for creation happened, from which God redeems and saves us. What else does our affirming #4 and #5 (especially 4) mean?
I think one reason Christians have a problem with the idea of evolution is that, since evolution leaves no room for a literal original sinless Paradise, evolution cannot account for the Christian doctrine of sin.
Ok, so, what if evolution is basically true (Creation is an ongoing process, not literal Paradise, literal fall, etc.) . . .
1. Perhaps the idea of SIN is that, at some point, some creatures evolved to a point where they have freedom and the moral responsibility that goes with that. What would that mean? That we now have a responsibility to DO OUR PART in bringing about what Creation is intended to become (and a responsibility NOT to INTERFERE with what Creation is intended to become). We sin whenever we don't do our part in bringing about what Creation is intended to become or whenever we use our freedom irresponsibly and actually interfere with what Creation is intended to become.* Jesus came to announce and bring about the Kingdom, not some Paradise in History. We do not have a responsibility to GO BACK to a pre-fall paradise (because there was no literal pre-fall paradise). Rather, we have a responsibility to GO FORWARD with God in bringing about His Kingdom.
*(Note, this is a very expansive view of sin. It can include just about anything, depending on one's ideas about what Creation is intended to become. It can include everything from generally not worshiping the Creator to stealing your little sister's candy.)
2. Perhaps the idea of Paradise (in inspired Creation accounts) is actually eschatological.
3. Perhaps the idea of a Fall is a metaphor for the fact that Creation is not now what it is intended to become. (An apt metaphor particularly for those, like Paul, who assume a primitive cosmology.)
P.S. Havn't thought it through completely, but I'm thinking that this view of sin could fit with just about any theory of the Atonement currently available.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/7/2005 12:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Mephi: Honestly...this is just starting to look like another myth (like Pandora) that was an attempt to explain the world. And OF COURSE, it would be OUR fault (or the WOMAN'S fault, hmph)...whatever the hell THAT looks like...
Tom: Now you're talkin! It's the woman's fault. Let's blame Selah. Selah, come here you rackin frackin party crashing son of a.... Mephi and I wanna kick your butt!
Mephi: So #1, 4, and 5 are the only ones I have any real surety on.
Tom: You're cool with:
1) God exists and is love. (You know enough of what "love" is enough to say "Yeah, that's God," but you don't know what "good" looks like. How's that? I think we know what good is from Jesus. Jesus tells us what good is. Do we have any other alternative?)
4) Jesus fixes what's wrong with us and creation.
5) God wants us to love him and look like Jesus.
But you don't see...
2) Creation was good (because a good God created it), and
3) Creation is now screwed up. It's full of evil.
If you're not clear on 2 and 3, then what is it that you think Jesus "fixes" in us and creation (in affirming 4)? If God is love, and he fixes what's wrong with us and creation and wants us to be like the one who fixes creation, then don't you HAVE to posit some event that marks our and creation's 'going bad', that which constitutes creation's NEEDING fixing? Is it plausible, reasonable, likely, or meaningful to affirm 1, 4 and 5 and also claim that WE and CREATION today are precisely what the God of the #1 you affirm decided we should be? That's what I can't do. So the alternative (and what seems clear to me in Scripture--whether it's literal or myth or whatever, the same fundamental point is being made) is that something God DIDN'T will or design for creation happened, from which God redeems and saves us. What else does our affirming #4 and #5 (especially 4) mean?
At least we agree that it's Selah's friggin fault!
Tom
well, well, well, so now Selah's to blame huh? We HAVE come a longgggg way in our research haven't we. hmmm. Blame the girl. weeeeeeeeak, weak. You guys are well aware of the FACT that girls saved everything aren't you? Gee, what would happen if I weren't here to help you right now? WHAT would you do with the POE and world history? Nothin' that's what. come on, admit it. Jesus likes us better. your just jealous. pooor ...poor sad sorry you......TOM 
just kidding.
IT IS MY fault! All of it!! the jig is up. I give. Take me away...
(but please take me BACK to Florida...whatever you do don't leave me here to freeze!!!) Mephi, don't cha think FREEZING cold weather is from satan? come on! you gotta know that!!!
pax
P.S. Seriously Tom, you can't get tired of all this. I need you to stick around. BTW did you see my question about the Carlie thread? I thought we disagreed on something over there. Didn't we? I'm sure agreeing with you over here - until the blame selah post anyway 
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/7/2005 1:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
About a literal Adamic couple, Greg and I agreed at dinner that night (did you catch this?) that even if one assumes an evolutionary history of the human race which was at some point in time endowed by God with his image, you still have SOME point in time a particular couple (or generation) that was endowed divinely. So you still have some historical starting point for a unique and special humanity.
Or historical starting points (plural). But this doesn't mean that Creation was subsequently ruined or screwed up. Just that it is was only a STARTING POINT. Creation is still becoming.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/7/2005 2:00 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
mephi: So...when you ask the question:
Saying Paul was wrong about Adam/eve but not wrong about this and that takes quite a lot of insight, don't cha think? How do we do that Meph?
...you are asking how I believe that we should go about discerning what Paul was right about and what he was wrong about? Is that right?
me: yep that's right. see, we can do this :)
***********************
quote:
mephi:
What I'm saying is that insofar as something exhibits elements of violence, death, or deterioration, to that extent that something does NOT reflect the Kingdom of God. Carnivorousness as a phenomenon, Doc would say, IS essentially demonic. It is NOT representative of the God of self-giving love, in his mind. He and I have talked on this a NUMBER of times. I've gotten this established VERY clear from him. Just like I know you HEARD HIM say that he believes that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is essentially demonic. He believes that the "bondage to decay" IS the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You heard that, right?
me: Yes. ok. I guess I don't have a problem with that. I (gulp) agree with Greg...really. It seems to make sense. Let me ask you this: Why not believe that? Have you ever see a dying person? slow deterioration, pain, all that.
How do you see God in that process?
**************************
quote:
me:I don't take issue with there being "a demon behind ever bush" maybe, deep down, he doesn't either. Why NOT think that way? It sure would help us "stay awake" in a warfare type situation if we knew our enemy prowled around us...seeking whom he may devour... (I do think Greg uses that term PASTORALLY to HELP people keep from getting all wacky in fear of satan or "devil made me do it " type stuff). Which I think is good and necessary.
Mephi: Wow. Hey...do you, cutie. (This ain't a put down. I do think you're quite the cutie. )
me: well alright! can I use my cuteness to convince you of a real satan and then someday...a real adam? sweet.
****************************
quote:
mephi:
Heh. Some of the implications of Paul being wrong about Adam and Eve being literal are not that hard to fathom at all. It shuts down completely the idea of inerrancy and CERTAIN VIEWS of infallibility. Which means our ideas of biblical authority would be altered accordingly. It means that we reexamine some of the arguments where he (or people influenced by him) uses Adam and Eve in his reasoning. I think this would obviously affect many complementarians who use the 1 Timothy passage to bolster their view. We'd definitely have to work out some things hermeneutically. And I'm willing to go ALL THE WAY where this leads. I'll be dat.
me: Thanks for goin easy on me here. Like I said, I'll wait patiently.
***********************
quote:
mephi: No, they didn't. What I wanted to refer to his how they dismantle the main argument behind inerrancy: the epistemological need. Millard Erickson makes a HUGE deal about this in his Systematic Theology. But...Oh, screw it...I want EVERYONE to hear this...page 20-21 Accross the Spectrum. All italics Boyd and Eddy.
me: It's one thing to talk about dismantling the main argument behind inerrancy and quite another to USE that clever dismantling to support whatever's on the table at the time. But, anyway, I hear you. Thanks for your work in typing this out! I'll be thinking about more about it during the class - end of Jan. Until then, think about this: maybe Emil Brunner and YOU are being deceived by....could it be? SAAATAN!
____________________
quote:
mephi: The crux of the argument used here is damaging! Of course, they wouldn't talk about Paul possibly being wrong. That would get them in some SERIOUS issues with other evangelicals. But, the arguments that they use work just as well. Now, if someone have good reasons to believe that the Creation stories really are MYTHIC and that there very well may NOT have been a literal Adamic couple...can we not say that Paul may have been wrong on this HISTORICAL matter. Just like Paul would have most likely believed in a 3-tiered worldview where heaven was in the sky and hell was UNDER THE EARTH (of course he wouldn't have known about outer space, galaxies and whatnot)...he could have held to a literal Adamic couple and fall. I follow Emil Brunner in the way he deals with the Adamic couple NOT being literal.
me: just a note to say I really am listening. I guess I should admit that it's a valid argument. it is. there. I did it. more later...
***********************
quote:
meph: Again, I dig this idea...
Death, decay (entropy), carnivorousness, and natural disasters were God-ordained (or God-ACCEPTED, rather) things, given the type of world God wanted to create. These things were ACCEPTABLE ALLOWANCES for God to actualize his creation. Satan just pushed these things BEYOND THE SCOPE of what God wanted to allow for.
This would make SENSE. Rather than saying that God NEVER intended for carnivorousness or the 2nd law of thermodynamics...and that demonic forces were COMPLETELY behind their emergence. (YES, Doc has indeed said this!) Satan basically pushed things too far. However, even with THIS, the problem of Paul would still loom large.
me: ok well, good. one step at a time.
love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
| 187 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:44 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 |
|
|