Open Theism Discussion Board

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

Forum Quick Jump

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

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 9/7/2001 8:00 PM (GMT -6)

A couple days ago, I was reading in John where Jesus asked Simon if he loved Him. Jesus ended up asking the same ? 3 times and Simon could not answer His question the way it was stated. I was pondering that for a bit and something occured to me...

When you look at the whole creation story, all of creation and life as we know it can, more or less, be summed up into God proposing one question. "Do you love Me". From that one question all life as we know it could come into being.

God birthed a question. In order for that question to be answered someone had to be created in order to answer that question. Of course with a question like "Do you love me?" God had to give a binary existance to that creation so that the creation could give an objective (or subjective depending how you look at it) answer to Gods question. And so on, and so on...

Hmmm...
Mr I.

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 9/8/2001 5:17 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Mr. Indifference: A couple days ago, I was reading in John where Jesus asked Simon if he loved Him. Jesus ended up asking the same ? 3 times and Simon could not answer His question the way it was stated. I was pondering that for a bit and something occured to me...

This is a good one to post on the THREE's thread. This is interesting! That explains why God created people with freewills in order to choose to accept God's love or to reject it. Hmmmm...

Thanks for the food for thought,
trosie

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/8/2001 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

I'm not a very good wordsmith on the first attempt, but...

quote:
This is interesting! That explains why God created people with freewills in order to choose to accept God's love or to reject it. Hmmmm...

The words "explains" and "why" cause me to slow down. From a philosophical point of view there is the concept (Concepts are in our heads; as we cannot put God under a microscope.) that God doesn't "need" or "require" and clearly is not "insufficient" in his Trinitarian-ness.

I fully agree with you Trosie so long as this remains a statement aobut us, and about the creation: "...God created people with freewills in order to choose to accept God's love or to reject it." I wonder, though, if MrIndifference means to say more.

One can say from the creation that God intended "from before the beginning" to become incarnate! That you can say; as the object of God's love implies that He will establish a way to do so fully. But I thought on first reading that MrIndifference's idea implied that God was left incomplete without the creation--like the poem I heard in grade school: "I'll make me a man."

MrIndifference and Trosie -- what do you think?

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 09/08/2001 10:44:27 AM

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 9/8/2001 8:12 AM (GMT -6)

Very good point. That aspect didn't really occure to me. Thanks for pointing it out. I remember being taugh that it was within Gods nature, and the nature of Love to share that love communily. Logically I have problems with this. Could God be the example of perfection that He represents in christianity if He had that aspect of incompletion? Of course not. He of Himself is complete. I see this more of a choice than a need. My understanding of 'agape' is that it is a choice or a commitment.

As a man, in theory at least, I can be complete without having to have a wife. On the other hand I may choose to take a wife. Through that choice I change and make her an integral part of me. At that point if she leaves or were to be killed or something of the likes, I would cease to be a whole man. So through that one choice I put myself in a position where my wholeness is dependant on another.

I hope that this analogy helps.

Mr I.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/8/2001 5:39 PM (GMT -6)

Nice

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 09/08/2001 11:59:27 PM

Triskal
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198

Posted 9/8/2001 5:55 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

As a man, in theory at least, I can be complete without having to have a wife. On the other hand I may choose to take a wife. Through that choice I change and make her an integral part of me. At that point if she leaves or were to be killed or something of the likes, I would cease to be a whole man. So through that one choice I put myself in a position where my wholeness is dependant on another.

That's a very good analogy, Mr. Indifference. I never thought about it like that before.

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 9/8/2001 6:05 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
MrIndifference: As a man, in theory at least, I can be complete without having to have a wife. On the other hand I may choose to take a wife. Through that choice I change and make her an integral part of me. At that point if she leaves or were to be killed or something of the likes, I would cease to be a whole man. So through that one choice I put myself in a position where my wholeness is dependant on another.

That is a GREAT way to explain WHY it is that God chose to create people! It shows our importance to God.

quote:
PotOnWheel: I wonder, though, if MrIndifference means to say more.

I bet he indeed does I was simply responding to what I personally got from reading his post.

quote:
PotOnWheel: I fully agree with you Trosie so long as this remains a statement aobut us, and about the creation

God DOESN'T need us to be complete... I like how MrIndifference showed this concept through his analogy: (the paraphrased version) A man can be complete without having to have a wife but if he marries she becomes an integral part of him. He will never be the same if she were to leave or die... he would no longer be complete. God chose us humans to be an integral part of creation.

There's my two cents

trosie

TCTBU
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 42

Posted 9/8/2001 7:07 PM (GMT -6)

I have often wondered why people say that in order to be self-sufficient, or eternal, or whatever it IS that God is, that it is implausible, contradictory, and/or weak to have a need or a desire. Perhaps I am just overlooking or missing one of those points of logic that explain this. But to me, it doesn't take away from God's "Godness" to have a desire to show love or to create. Aren't these two characteristics things that we admire and charish about God, that is, his ability to do so, and the fact that he has done so? However, if we go so far as to assume that God needs to express these qualities, they somehow overtake God and lower him. ? It is strange.

quote:
God chose us humans to be an integral part of creation.

A thought, taking into consideration our free will, but also God's "Godness", perhaps this explains a little more as to why God didn't just obliterate us after a certain amount of time in a fallen existence. Same thing in respect to the angels. Yet, one could just refute that by saying God didn't obliterate us b/c of our free will and God's value of free will. So then, could it be safe to suggest that part of what makes us an integral part of God (which is what I think we've been saying) is our freedom?

Now, while I do agree that we as a creation are not an essential "part" of God, for to say that would imply that we are God, thus making us eternal, I also wonder if it isn't possible that a "desire" (note: I'm not sure if I'm using the right terminology or semantics for what I want to say) to create and to love could be an eternal aspect of God. I mean, how are we to know that he hasn't just been making different creations, such as ourselves, for eternity? Thus, perhaps, not making us or any other creation eternal, but "creating" and "loving" eternal. Could it be possible? I mean if we say that creativity and love are two characteristics of God... Let me know if I am missing any key logicalities. (Is there such a word?)

"Bad theology is the worst taskmaster of all." - Martin Luther

TCTBU
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 42

Posted 9/8/2001 7:26 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
God chose us humans to be an integral part of creation.

"Bad theology is the worst taskmaster of all." - Martin Luther

TCTBU
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 42

Posted 9/9/2001 7:45 AM (GMT -6)

Sorry about the double posting, it kept telling me that it wasn't going through.

"Bad theology is the worst taskmaster of all." - Martin Luther

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/9/2001 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

If Indifference is right in supposing that the purpose of creation was indeed to find an answer to the question, "Do you love me?," then I would think that FREEDOM would HAVE to be an integral part of creation. Without freedom, there's really no point to the question, is there? God would simply determine a "yes" or a "no" (as Calvinist claim he does). And even the "yes" would have about the same value as a talking computer you programmed.

As to the "need " verses "desire," I too like Indifference's analogy. One chooses to need another by choosing to enter into a covenantal relationship with them. In this sense I think it is right to say, and biblical to say, that God needs our love. But its also important to say that he didn't need to need our love.

If a need for love in God explains creation, then
a) you have a deficient Trinity
b) you undermine the "graciousness" of creation
c) you are led to postulate an eternal world, for if God's "need" is eternal, there'd be no explanation for how God's ability to fulfill this "need" through creation took so long.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/10/2001 1:20 AM (GMT -6)

Nicely put!

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/10/2001 2:46 PM (GMT -6)

Why thank you Mr. Pot on Wheels.

You've said a number of nicely put things yourself!

Greg

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 9/10/2001 6:53 PM (GMT -6)

Another Thoughts...

From creation, God created the world to be good. Evil was a byproduct of disobedience. In and of it self, sin is not good, but I see a byproduct of sin that in its own twisted way almost honors God.

There was always the possibility of man to know the wonders of God, but once sin was introduced into the world we gained a point of reference that would help us to see more clearly the glory of God. Through comparing sin and God, I believe that we are now better equipped , than Adam and Eve were before the fall, to understand how glorious God is. Is it possible that now we have a greater ability/possibility to appreciate Gods love? Could this possibly be a positive aspect of sin?

Is this crossing over the old "Line Of Heresy"? Am I going to be burned at the stake for this?

Mr I.

Edited by - mrindifference on 09/11/2001 12:02:52 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/10/2001 9:31 PM (GMT -6)

START THE FIRE!!!!

Actually, the view you expressed is precisely why (or one of the reasons why) some Calvinists believe sin was ordained in the world. Even most other classical theists, whether Calvinist or not, hold that God foresaw the good that could come out of sin and thus decided to create the world he foreknew would have exactly the sin it has.

For my two cents, I see this as the principle par excellance of God turning evil for good. But its always tempting to notice that X results in Y and then conclude that Y could only come about by X. Yes, as it turns out, because of sin we see the greatness of God's love. But I don't think we should conclude that we wouldn't see this greatness had we not sinned.

I really don't think God secretly wanted Adam and Eve to fall.

blessings
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted 9/11/2001 7:30 PM (GMT -6)

Yes, you are very much right. I am not taking the calvinist view on this. I am mostly in awe about how God can take something as hideous as sin and actually make good out of it.

God is just Cool.

Mr I.

Edited by - mrindifference on 09/12/2001 12:31:23 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/12/2001 11:56 AM (GMT -6)

M. I. & Doc--

We know how the Gospel of John talks about Light. And in the Orthodox tradition baptism is even called "illumination." In that "light" I would want to express that my "awe" mechanism and all my perceptions are dulled and distorted by sin. (Think dirty and cracked windshield--that will do!) So the "AWE" you feel would not be such if you were living in sin. A second thing that should be said is something expressed well in a book I am rereading by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, writing about our experience of God in heaven:

quote:
Because God is infinite, this constant "reaching forward" of epektasis, as the Greek Fathers termed it, proves limitless. the soul possesses God, and yet still seeks him; her joy is full, and yet grows always more intense. God grows ever neater to us, yet he still remains the Other; we behold him face to face, yet we still continue to advance further and further into the divine mystery. Although strangers no longer, we cannot cease to be pilgrims. We go forward "from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18), and then to a glory that is greater still. Never, in all eternity, shall we reach a point where we have accomplished all that there is to do, or discover all that there is to know. "Not only in this present age but also in the Age to some," says St. Irenaeus, "God will always have something more to teach man, and man will always have something more to learn from God."

(K. Ware, "The Orthodox Way, p. 138, SVSP)

PotOnWheel

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/13/2001 2:27 AM (GMT -6)

Might I follow up? Here is a short quote about the contrast between sin and walking with God:

quote:
To repent is to wake up. Repent, change of mind, leads to watchfulness. The Greek term used here, nepsis, means literally sobriety and wakefulness -- the opposite to a state of drugged or alcoholic stupor; and so in the context of the spiritual life it signifies attentiveness, vigilance, recollection. When the prodigal son repented, it is said that "he came to himslf" (Luke 15: 17). The "neptic" man is one who has come to himself, who does not day-dream, drifting aimlessly under the influence of passing impulses, but who possesses a sense of direction and purpose. As The Gospel of Truth (mid-second century) espresses it, "He is like one who awakens from drunkenness, returning to himself...He knows where he has come from and where he is going.") (Ware, "The Orthodox Way, p. 114)

PotOnWheel

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 09/13/2001 07:34:18 AM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual