Open Theism Discussion Board

BBBCanada said...
OK. I'll say it like this. What's the difference between saying, "He may have actually made a book worth reading..."? and saying, "It ain't worth shit?" Geez...

Besides the choice of words... the other difference is that F's statement seemed -- TO ME -- to compare that last book of Greg's (that he didn't feel was worthwhile) to other books by Gref that F felt were worthwhile.

I don't see F actually differing with T on the value of SOME of the books, only on THAT book.

So, it would seem to me that F should have the space to say that.

But lets leave the quad-lettered expressions out of it. If we want to make such room for eachother. And lets allow others to not like something.

Finally, lets constructively ask them to list for us the particulars they did not like and then to make an analysis of why the suppose it did not work for them.

That's how I had non-art majors do their museum trip papers. They could hate something; but if they could explain why they could get an "A."

OK, before I even get to Smith's article (everything is on my laptop. Hopefully, I should have it back tmw. Crap. I hate that! I'm going through withdrawals man!) In the "North Korea Tests Nuclear Bomb" thread on this page: http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=10&m=88060&p=2 Meph Man you said this:

Meph Man said...
(Brandon:
Seriously, do you see what I'm saying Meph Man? Take your "testimony." One could say, "All you're doing is tacking God on to what is THE important issue and that is REALLY loving others."

What? Are you serious?

Let me try to be more clear.

I am saying this:
The ONE THING...the SOLE THING that each individual person should be concerned with in their lives is growing into loving unity with God in Christ.

Not love of neighbor.

Not fixing of society.

Not doing the right thing.

The ONLY THING that we should be concerned about is seeking God FOR GODSELF with all of our hearts, minds, and strength.

And whatever God does from that, God does.

Is this more clear? Because this is what I'm trying to say.)

Now Smith talked about the "pendulum swing." Smith said this:

"...evangelicals have swung from a kind of pietistic stance of withdrawal and suspicion to a strident, triumphalistic program for "taking America back for God."

Then Smith goes on to say, "The Myth of a Christian Nation, a new book by St. Paul pastor and former professor at Bethel College Greg Boyd, provides a sign that the pendulum might be headed back the other way."

Now, what is that other way? It is back toward a "pietistic stance of withdrawal." Now, Meph Man, when I read your statement above, especially where you say that the sole thing is to love God wholeheartedly AND then you say, "NOT love your neighbour." It is very hard to see that this is not (at least eventually) a pietistic stance of withdrawal or a potential critical distancing of cultural engagement and hence, a part of what it means to have "dominion."

Most Christians see this as a false bifurcation. Jesus said that the Greatest commandment was to love God with all of our heart. He then says, And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In other words, each is askew without the other.

Now, I know you will probably say something like, "If the Fall had not taken place there would have been no need for the "Second Commandment. We would have lived in perfect harmony. There'd be no need for fixing society or ethics or yada, yada, yada....

But A. I'm not too sure about that given our finitude and that Plantinga makes the case that we would have eventually fallen anyway. And...

B. We live on this side of the Garden now. And...

C. Given our creaturely status and being all that God created us to be (human flourishing), the second commmandment would contribute to this. That is, even if the human race had not sinned, it seems to me that there would have still been the need for ethics (I'm not talking about if sin was present. I'm talking about God making the world such that dominion over it requires rules i.e. there would still be the need for stop signs, though going through a stop sign by accident is not inherently evil. Thus ethics, in this regard would contribute to this. That is, because of our finitude ethics contributes to this human flourishing. In other words, even in "perfect harmony" we will still have cultural activities and engagements with require ethical contemplation. Which is to say that ultimately, I don't know if it is all that wrong to say that by loving our neighbour (being concerned about human flourishing in every manner) we are actualizing loving God.

But looking at B. Now that we ARE on this side of the Garden of Eden we hope to restore that innocence. And loving God by loving my neighbour (for what is "pure religion" if loving God is divorced from real life or concretely James 1:27 Here, I simply don't mean helping old ladies and homeless kids. Don't I love God when I strive to be all that he has created and called me to be? If I'm called to be a painter, do I not love God when I, his little child paint to the bestest of my abilities. Human flourishing?) seems to be a in part what it means to restore that innocence.

Whatchu guys got?

I know Meph Man that you will want to say that what I mean by loving God AS a painter is similar to saying, "Ministry or whatever I DO for God flows from my time spent loving God, praising him, worshipping him, etc." But my problem with this is not so much that I'm not in agreement with this. My problem is that sometimes we don't recognized that sinning and hence, not loving God is the failure to "take our invited place at the Royal table." This plays itself out in many relationships with women who are not only dominated by men but ALLOW themselves to be related to others (especially men) in this way.

To tell you the truth? I've never thought so much that what I DO for God is "works oriented." Yes, I've "worked" for God in hopes of pleasing Him (and that can be sooo subtle that we sometimes don't even know we're doing it). But much of what I DO is just LIVING. Believing that I'm where God if not wants me, has me for the time being.

Sometimes, I feel sooo honored to be a bus driver.

One more thing. Steve Fry http://www.stevenfryministries.com/sfm_home.php talked about this some years ago. I still have a series by him called, "Encountering His Presence" and "Encountering His Love." In one of those series he speaks about how God spoke to him about spending time in prayer as oppose to watching the Flintsones on TV with his kids. That watching TV was JUST AS SPIRITUAL as spending time in prayer.

I said all that to say that not only Meph Man, do I think you need to tease out what beautification/glorication means theoretically? But in the concrete realities of life.

To put it another way that is reminescent of Steve Fry's series?

Prayer? Or Sex with your spouse?

You're not loving God any more than when you have GREAT SEX with your wife Meph Man. Or for you ladies? With your hubby. icon_brows2 Catch my drift? Anything outside of that is just a little too pious for me.

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b

"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's all-loving nature." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :)

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b

"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's all-loving nature." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :)

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b

"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's all-loving nature." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :)