 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > sustenance | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/25/2006 4:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | Brandon:
Maybe it is more like a husband and wife. One can love and be intimate with their wife (and come to a "oneness" in ways that they can't with their children, though they can be intimately related to them. I think I just answered my own questions. Now, I think it's com'n...
Yeah, it's comin' now...
Stuff's pretty cool, huh? 
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/26/2006 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: Maybe it is more like a husband and wife. One can love and be intimate with their wife (and come to a "oneness" in ways that they can't with their children, though they can be intimately related to them. I think I just answered my own questions. Now, I think it's com'n...
Corey: I'd say the intended relationship between God and Satan is more like a boss with his star employee. This is my go-to guy when I need something done. I know he'll get the job done, and done right. I can count on him to make me look good. (Sorry for any sexist language. I usually think of Satan as male.)
Anyway, the angels' intended role is more analogous to faithful servants than to beloved children. I believe only humans will be adopted as sons. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
I'd say the intended relationship between God and Satan is more like a boss with his star employee. This is my go-to guy when I need something done. I know he'll get the job done, and done right. I can count on him to make me look good. (Sorry for any sexist language. I usually think of Satan as male.)
Anyway, the angels' intended role is more analogous to faithful servants than to beloved children. I believe only humans will be adopted as sons.
We can say that servants CAN be cared for by their master...and they can express positive, caring feelings for who they serve. I don't see any problem with saying this. I think the MAIN THING is saying that the Imago Dei (which is the real issue here, IMO) allows human beings a UNITIVE ability ("loving God", having the Holy Spirit IN them, etc) that cannot be shared by angelic beings. As long as we make that distinction, I think we are good.
Now, if someone just WANTS to say that there's no heavy emotional sensibilities flowing between angels and God...that can be on that person. But this shouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker, if we have the unitive/non-unitive separation in place.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/26/2006 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | Yeah, I don't want to say that it is unemotional with angels either, but as I recall, Meph Man went from saying that angelic beings could love (because as I said earlier he went from "Let's even say that the BEST FORM of glorification is love. Let's further say, for the sake of argument, that fallen angels have lost the ability to love God." to beings simply being honorific.
If such beings could love before the fall or had the capacity to love before the fall, I don't see why any of that would necessarily change AFTER the fall as with humans. After all, we are granting that there are "grounds of rationality, emotionality and volition" within the nature of angelic beings. Now, maybe this is not unitive in the same sense that humans could arrive at, but if God is essentially related to them in love and they have the capacity (at least) for love, then the question arises as to what exactly would be the difference between unitive and non-unitive love. By the way I'm more of a:
IP: Adaptable Introverts When changes are proposed, they are curious and seek information. Then they assess the information with their internal judgement (values or logical principles) Their information seeking appears adaptable, but they more ahead only in their own time--after they have decided. 
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/26/2006 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I myself don't think that angels lost the ability to love, rather they were never designed for that in the first place, in that they were not created imago dei.
The salient point for me was to think of the dissatisfaction Adam experienced until presented with Eve, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh". In other words, Adam could relate to her in a way that was not possible for him with other creatures that did not share his image. Likewise it seems that God cannot satisfyingly relate in love to creatures that do not possess imago dei. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Yeah, I don't want to say that it is unemotional with angels either, but as I recall, Meph Man went from saying that angelic beings could love (because as I said earlier he went from "Let's even say that the BEST FORM of glorification is love. Let's further say, for the sake of argument, that fallen angels have lost the ability to love God." to beings simply being honorific.
If such beings could love before the fall or had the capacity to love before the fall, I don't see why any of that would necessarily change AFTER the fall as with humans. After all, we are granting that there are "grounds of rationality, emotionality and volition" within the nature of angelic beings. Now, maybe this is not unitive in the same sense that humans could arrive at, but if God is essentially related to them in love and they have the capacity (at least) for love, then the question arises as to what exactly would be the difference between unitive and non-unitive love.
Let's say that you are a person who wanted to grant angels the ability to love God. Non-unitive "love" would be from a subjective perspective that CANNOT RELATE to God as saying "We are one, God!" This is a significant difference, indeed! Just like I cannot relate to my sons by saying "I carried you and gave birth to you, sons!" It's significant.
Understand?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/26/2006 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | | Well, the way that I see it is that parents and children can love each other intimately without "oneness", but this is not the same as spouses who love each other intimately in which "oneness" obtains (as you logic people like to say).
But yeah, I can see what you're saying, and it was the language you were using that was slightly confusing the issue for me. But yeah, so far it's all cool. I looking forward to the next five installments. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 4:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2006 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
By the way, Meph Man, you want to say that it doesn't matter if angelic beings could love. But as Corey says, if they can love, this means that they have the imago dei and if they have the imago dei, then this would mean that they could come into ultimate union (communion) with God. However, I'm not sure that I agree with this. This is why I use the examples of the difference between children's love and spousal love. Parental love for children is such that there can be intimacy with children but not in the same way that there can be intimacy between spouses in which "oneness" or ultimate bonding will obtain.
Two points:
1) Personally, I agree with the sense of your analogy. The difference between spousal love and children's love.
2) If Corey has a view that any manner of loving God is directly related to the possession of the Imago Dei, then that's his personal position. You don't have to believe that. You can hold that there is some manner of loving God that comes SHORT OF ultimate union with God (which it seems like you are already articulating).
Both you AND Corey agree that the Imago Dei is the aspect that determines whether or not one can enter union (or communion) with God. So both you AND Corey can agree that angels are not able to enter union with God like human beings are.
That's what counts.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/27/2006 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | For angels to love God, he/she has to acknowledge who and what God is, prescribe worth to God's existence, and seek to enact conduct fitting toward God's purposes (service that seeks the "betterment" of God). For all of us, this is how we love. The child of God loves no less; however, the child of God loves in a different context: one who has been brought into a special union with God that angels do not have.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/27/2006 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Starkman said...
Is it possible, in view of so few having believed in universalism through the ages, that God has "allowed" a blindness about the truth of Universalism to remain in tact in order to further His purposes? Has God allowed the idea of eternal torment to reign in the theological circles lest it be clearly seen that everyone will be saved? After all, if everyone saw Universalism for what it is, most everyone would play the "Well, I'll wait until I die" game, and what glory would God get out of that?
“Allowed” you say? Do you know what you're suggesting here, Keith? Do I need to point out that it was not mere men making up the orthodox view of eternal Heaven and Hell? Jesus taught about hell over ten times as much as he did heaven. My hats off to Meph for acknowledging, in previous threads, that this is what Jesus believed and taught, he just thinks Jesus was somehow misinformed by myth, ignorant Biblical writers or something else. But, if Jesus was not ignorant and Universalism is the truth, then the God we call Father is amicable with the “father of lies”. Hey, that’s not much of a stretch for those that believe God is complicit in evil or for those that interpret the poetic book of Job literally.
Is that you Keith, do you believe God is divided against himself, filled with both truth and deception?
The good monster?
Hey Spark,
Do you remember the story of the prophet Micaiah warning Ahab about his rebellion and the downfall he would suffer (2 Chron18). The passage notes a conversation between God and His Hosts: "Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up , that he may fall..." (this after Micaiah prophesied that Israel would be wasted on the mountains as sheep that have no shepherd). A lying spirit went out from the Lord to stir up the false prophets to continue their ways, thus "allowing" Ahab to continue in his rebellious ways.
The point, Spark, is that God allows a lot - a whole hek of a lot - of things to happen that often times defly logic or defy justice, righteousness and order. God allows a lot to take place that makes for rebellious people to continue on in their rebellious ways in order to bring them and their fruit to naught.
I have no problem at all believing that God may have allowed the smothering of universalism (or at least the idea of the possibility of universalism) through the ages because of the very delicate and sensitivity of the matter when placed into the hands of rebellious people. "WHAT? You mean it's true? I'm going to get to go to heaven, if I so choose, after I die, and I don't have to decide now? RIGHT ON, DUDE! LET'S PARTY!" That is a far, far worse scenario for this world's spiritual health then for God to keep a hush on what His real intentions are: to try to woo every soul, both before and after death, to come to Him; to make it known that the door of reconcilation will always be open.
I don't mean to imply that God has lied to us; rather, it is that He just might have simply kept quite about the matter of universal reconciliation. Myself, I think that would be a very wise decision. Instead, what we have in Scripture is concentation on the ramification of sin(s), the toll that it will take on the life of sinners who do not repent, who define life and meaning by their own definitions, and, for the majority, who have never heard nor will ever hear of the God of reconciliation.
As I've said, I cannot fathom, not for a moment, eternal torment for a vast, vast amount of people through this world's time and ages who have never even heard of the gospel. Further, I agree with several on this board: it makes no sense to posit eternal torment as a means of payment for sins; the sin is never paid for. Everything about our human makeup and everything we know about the God of the Bible defies a conclusion that assigns everyone but the "saved" off to hell in the name of love or justice. None of that makes sense. None of it at all.
Finally, I have also stated, along with Meph, that Scripture seems to support ETC. I have been quite clear about that. But I have also posted a few of my thoughts about some of the so-called ace-in-the-whole Scriptures that seemingly support ETC. I think that we read our modern twentieth-century thinking into some of these passages without giving thought to what was going on back then. For instance, when Jesus turned to the Pharisees and said, "You will die in your sins if you believe not that I am He..." (John 8:24), was Jesus saying, "You're going to die and suffer in eternal torment forever and ever and ever because you did not believe that I am He. Yes, you most certainly will pay for your sins and for not believing in me by suffering for eternity"? Well, most Christians will say yes, that's what Jesus meant. I find, though, after thinking about Jesus' statement to those Pharisees - some of whom may have been decent people (no more of a sinner than you or me) just trying to make sense out of eveything and very concerned for both their people and their country - that the last thing Jesus would be telling these people is a message about eternal torment. That's not even stated in the passage. It isn't consistent with the reason Jesus came, and it says nothing about the God of love whom Jesus claimed to represent.
So, to answer your question again, yes. I firmly believe that God may very well have allowed the realty (or idea) of universal reconcilation to remain remote. It furthers His purposes and His glory, and it protects people from a lot more pain and suffering that they already go through. It's just a thought.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 9/27/2006 10:16:17 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/27/2006 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Starkman: For angels to love God, he/she has to acknowledge who and what God is, prescribe worth to God's existence, and seek to enact conduct fitting toward God's purposes (service that seeks the "betterment" of God). For all of us, this is how we love. The child of God loves no less; however, the child of God loves in a different context: one who has been brought into a special union with God that angels do not have.You NAILED it, Starkman!Completely NAILED it to the wall. And...you integrated this VERY WELL with my description of love. Was that intentional?
Was that intentional? Of course! Who's words do you think I was struggling like a dog to remember in order to communicate the point? Yours, ma man! I just wished I could have found that one thread where you defined love. I could have quoted you directly.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2006 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | My description of love...
------------------------------
Love is when a being A acknowledges another being B’s unique existence, and ON THAT BASIS ALONE,
1) attributes positive worth to B’s individual, unique existence,
2) shares some aspect of themselves with B and,
3) seeks, whenever possible, to empower the other being B to have the ability to become more of a being before God and him/herself in such a way that the empowered being B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering being A.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/27/2006 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hey Spark,
Do you remember the story of the prophet Micaiah warning Ahab about his rebellion and the downfall he would suffer (2 Chron18). The passage notes a conversation between God and His Hosts: "Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up , that he may fall..." (this after Micaiah prophesied that Israel would be wasted on the mountains as sheep that have no shepherd). A lying spirit went out from the Lord to stir up the false prophets to continue their ways, thus "allowing" Ahab to continue in his rebellious ways.
The point, Spark, is that God allows a lot - a whole hek of a lot - of things to happen that often times defly logic or defy justice, righteousness and order. God allows a lot to take place that makes for rebellious people to continue on in their rebellious ways in order to bring them and their fruit to naught.
I have no problem at all believing that God may have allowed the smothering of universalism (or at least the idea of the possibility of universalism) through the ages because of the very delicate and sensitivity of the matter when placed into the hands of rebellious people. "WHAT? You mean it's true? I'm going to get to go to heaven, if I so choose, after I die, and I don't have to decide now? RIGHT ON, DUDE! LET'S PARTY!" That is a far, far worse scenario for this world's spiritual health then for God to keep a hush on what His real intentions are: to try to woo every soul, both before and after death, to come to Him; to make it known that the door of reconcilation will always be open.
I don't mean to imply that God has lied to us; rather, it is that He just might have simply kept quite about the matter of universal reconciliation. Myself, I think that would be a very wise decision. Instead, what we have in Scripture is concentation on the ramification of sin(s), the toll that it will take on the life of sinners who do not repent, who define life and meaning by their own definitions, and, for the majority, who have never heard nor will ever hear of the God of reconciliation.
As I've said, I cannot fathom, not for a moment, eternal torment for a vast, vast amount of people through this world's time and ages who have never even heard of the gospel. Further, I agree with several on this board: it makes no sense to posit eternal torment as a means of payment for sins; the sin is never paid for. Everything about our human makeup and everything we know about the God of the Bible defies a conclusion that assigns everyone but the "saved" off to hell in the name of love or justice. None of that makes sense. None of it at all....
Keith,
IT DON’T MAKE SENSE, you say? Jesus spoke in parables; his message was both concise and obscured. How can that be, it DON’T MAKE SENSE? The answer my friend lies in the spirit of those that interpret it.
Your interpretation of Micaiah might be exactly correct, for those that Miciah was addressing. But, his audience did evil in the eyes of the Lord, they where rebels of God. Are you a rebel of God?
Micaiah was wrong to say that God sent demonic angles and spirits. He was speaking sarcastically (the king sensed this, he was afraid and did not trust in Miciah’s prophesying), making fun of the messages from the pagan prophets by showing that they were telling the king only what he wanted to hear. Somehow, Micaiah’s tone of voice let everyone know he was mocking the pagan prophets. When confronted, he predicted that the king would die and the battle would be lost. Let’s not take Micaiah’s story out of context and fool the readers. We see here in 22:14-15 that he says the king will live. Then as we continue reading, we here him lie about God sending evil. It is not until 22:28 and 22:35 that Micaiah starts speaking the truth and says the king will die.
But Micaiah said, "As surely as the Lord lives, I can tell him only what the Lord tells me."
When he arrived, the king asked him, "Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?" "Attack and be victorious," he answered, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand."
The king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?" Then Micaiah answered, "I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the Lord said, 'These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.' "
The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?" Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, 'I will entice him.' " 'By what means?' the Lord asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the Lord. 'Go and do it.' - 1 Kings 22:14-22 (NIV)
Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!" - 1 Kings 22:28 (NIV)
All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died - 1 Kings 22:35 (NIV)
So Micaiah lied, does that make God a liar? The Bible is filled with liars, adulteress, prostitutes, murders, etc. does this carry over to the character of your God?
So yes my friend, one could say God’s wisdom ‘allows” you do be fooled. But, if God want’s to deceive you with lies, let me ask you this, what message does satan yearn to deliver upon you, the Truth? Let me answer this rhetorical question with a yes. Hmm… does IT MAKE SENSE to the spirit of man? Let me try and explain, lies have no power with out some measure of truth. Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden'?" - Genesis 3:1 (NRSV)
To perjure yourself is to deny the whole truth and nothing but the truth. DP knows that within the ambiguity of truth is the opportunity for evil, he has told you as much.
Satan has no power without some measure of truth; neither does Meph, you or I. A lie is to be economical with the truth, a privation of pure truth. This will not be the case in the full light of God's new creation. Here in this shaded world we search to undercover God’s true beauty, but when we add any measure of untruth, parasites begin to engender all that is not of God.
p.s. Jeff, does this help answer your question?
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/27/2006 3:53:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 9/27/2006 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Spark,
My point in refering to Micaiah was not to demonstrate that God lies, that Micaiah lies or that anyone lies. The whole point is summed up in the Micaiah event itself; God will allow people to be deceived! God will allow people to believe what they want to hear. It's really quite simple. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about it. If some Christians believe in eternal torment, that doesn't make it true. It just means that that is what they believe about life after death for the unsaved. If God saw fit to let the doctrine take its course, just as He has done with other doctrines, be they true or false, then it has served God's purposes; it has kept mankind out of more trouble than he is already in.
I mean, let me ask you: do you believe that every person who does not hear about Jesus is going to hell? Do you believe that every single person who does not accept Christ is going to hell? Do you believe that it is fully just, righteous and proper for someone to suffer for eternity because they did not ask Christ to come into their hearts?
Let me say that if you answer "yes" to all those questions, that doesn't mean your right. It doesn't mean that you've based your beliefs on sound culturally understood Biblical exegesis either. It might just mean, though, that you have interpreted Scripture in modern twentieth-century thinking instead of first-century thinking. It might mean that you haven't thought through the reality of your position. It might mean a lot of things, Spark, but, regardless, it just can't be concluded cut-and-dry that everyone's off to hell when they die if they don't become Christians while here on earth. Heavens, if that's really the way it is, I don't know that I'd want to hang around a God with that kind of amoral and passionateless concern for the lost.
There's more going on here than meets the eye, Spark, and I'm just willing to allow for God to have let eternal torment doctrine run the course when it must might not be true. No one's lying. No one's false prophesying or anything like that. It's just God using the tools we give him: sinful humanbeing stuff.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 9/27/2006 5:05:48 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/28/2006 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
My point in refering to Micaiah was not to demonstrate that God lies, that Micaiah lies or that anyone lies. The whole point is summed up in the Micaiah event itself; God will allow people to be deceived! God will allow people to believe what they want to hear. It's really quite simple...
P1 Lying is not important.
P2 God allows people to be deceived.
P3 God allows people to believe what ever they what.
P3 Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
C Universal Reconciliation is true.
Forget about it, Keith. Just include me in with all the people God can’t trust with the truth of UR. Let his protection keep me in the dark, continuously believing the myths of men. I can’t comprehend it. I bow down to Mephi and his mighty men, those few good men. I guess Jack was talking directly to ignorant men like me when he said, in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”
Blinded by the Light,
Mark
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. | | Back to Top | | |
| 279 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:18 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 |
|
|