 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > A Critique of a Critique of Eller's Thesis | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/13/2008 5:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | T: I encourage you to continue on with this discussion, Zach. If your belief is true it should withstand the scrutiny, granted it’s presented honestly and rationally. For the truth will ultimately prevail when stood in the light of truthful reasoning.
Z: I'll discuss this with you. That's fine. But Feelin is not in the business of scrutiny, honesty, reason, or truth. Jesus says something about pearls and swine... but apparently he didn't have violence in mind when he said "Do not resist an evil man." Jesus also apparently does not allow children to be abused in Feelin's fairy-tale land.
T: ...but he did none of these things because he was on a specific mission, the cross.
Z: Alright. You've made a claim. Now back it up. The ethic lived by Jesus on the way to the cross is distinct from his general ethic. Quote the verse that says this. I disagree. In the sermon, Jesus preaches nonresistance and the basis for this nonresistance is the character of the Father.
T: He will return again on another specific mission but this time he will look quit different, the Lion.
Z: Please back this one up too.
T: Hmmm.... what image of god best fits the text above, Zach?
Z: This text? In isolation? The first. But I don't read them in isolation. You might want to finish reading those paragraphs you quoted from. "...So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." See why I'm frustrated? These tactics either betray an unfamiliarity with the text or outright dishonesty. Either way, it's hard to see how continued dialog is useful.
T: Let's move on and see what the mother of Jesus has to say about how mercy is for those that fear the mighty arm of God: Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; 49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. -Luke 1:48
Z: "...in the thoughts of their hearts." You see violence in this? Really? Can you at least understand how such eisgesis looks to someone who is not engaged in it?
T: Lets move on a take a look at a bad guy, what does he have to say?
"Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise." - Luke 23:43
Hmmm....it looks like Jesus rewards the criminal that affirms the violence of God:
Z: Once again, where is the violence in this passage (aside from their being crucified)? When is the "violence of God" affirmed? Do you suppose the only thing to fear is violence? And even if I were to accept such a baseless claim, how do you know that Jesus' reward to the criminal is a reward FOR affirming God's violence? Is that really what you think? Jesus said to himself, "Ah, this criminal recognizes that I am sometimes violent. That's reason enough for him to go to paradise." Really?
T: I know, I know, that's all old stuff before the cross, but what about todays church?
The church model is to live in fear of God: Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers. - Acts 9:31
Z: Same answer. You assume the "fear of God" is fear of his violence. But even a cursory study of this phrase in the Bible will teach you that "fear" means just the same thing as "reverence" in this context.
J: People don't do what you're advising, here, for a very simple reason. To infuse meaning into a text that is contrary to the meaning of its author is to admit that the text is wrong.
Z: Not TOTALLY wrong. But yes, wrong about something. What's so hard to believe about that?
J: But by your view, we should read the koran and other religious writings and just infuse our own christian theology into them.
Z: This is not the case at all. "The koran and other religious writings" are not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition of revelation. You are really going out on a limb here Jeff. I could make the same nonsensical claim about your view of scripture. Whatever reason you have for believing the Bible can be used to justify belief in the Koran, right? WRONG! You see something distinctive about the Bible. So do I. It's not the same distinctive. But it's still a distinctive none the less. Just because I don't have YOUR reasons for affirming the Bible and denying other texts doesn't mean I have NO reasons.
J: It provides for no means by which we can determine an outside standard with any significant degree of objectivity.
Z: You've made your claim. It's a negative. So go ahead and try to prove your negative. This is completely ridiculous.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/13/2008 5:25:12 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/13/2008 9:16 PM (GMT -6) | | J: People don't do what you're advising, here, for a very simple reason. To infuse meaning into a text that is contrary to the meaning of its author is to admit that the text is wrong.
Z: Not TOTALLY wrong. But yes, wrong about something. What's so hard to believe about that?
J: But by your view, we should read the koran and other religious writings and just infuse our own christian theology into them.
Z: This is not the case at all. "The koran and other religious writings" are not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition of revelation.
Jeff: What do you mean by revelation? Divine revelation? If so, how can divine revelation be "wrong about something?" If not, I don't know what you mean by revelation, then.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/13/2008 10:11 PM (GMT -6) | | 
It is apparent that Sahid and I, in the interest of brotherly love, should agree to disagree. As such, I wanted to just end my own participation with a couple of thoughts.
It is apparent to me that Sahid holds certain aspects of Jesus's teachings unqualified commands (as he has already stated as far as the "do not resist the evil man"). My guess is most have to do with the Sermon on The Mount specifically. As such it is also my guess that he funnels any verse that seems to contradicts these through them and, as such, as his mind pretty well set as to who Jesus is, what his mission was and who God is. Given that I strongly disagree with that, and feel the WHOLE bible does as well I think it is fruitless to discuss the subject (perhaps I AM the swine   Regardless, I would like to add this point: I do believe there are times when God calls us not to resist the evil man, that we are called to be non-violent, that we are called to turn the other cheek. Just as I believe there are times when God calls us to stop the child abuser with force, to go to war and to protect those who cannot protect themselves by means of force. My disagreement with Sahid is one of the either/or variety and if we can limit God in a character I believe the Bible does not teach about him.
To limit God as such is to limit him by our own views, not by his views. It is to take one part of scripture and deem it above others. My question would be where does one stop? Do we pick and choose our favorites, the ones that make us most comfortable? Are Jesus' words alone authoritative? Or does God speak throguh Paul, the Psalms and others as well? Anyway, I'll stop...I will end my participation in this section with a quote from the end of Charles book momentarily...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/13/2008 11:31 PM (GMT -6) | | "Taking Theology Seriously": From Between Pacifism and Jihad by Charles
"In the final analysis our foundation fot acting ethically is as strong or weak as our grasp of Christian theology. Held in mysterious tension are attirbutes of God's nature such as his holiness, righteousness/justice and wrath with other divine attriubutes such as lovingkindness, mercy and peace. Is his holiness any less in the New Convenant? Does his wrath burn and less today at human wickedness than in times past? Has the moral foundation of the New Convenant changed? Is it diferent than the Old?> Are justice and love diametrically opposing aspects of God's nature? Aren't all humans forgiven through the peace of the cross? And at what price, we might ask, is "peace with God" ulitmately secured?
Peace, regardless of its form, always comes with a price. And that peace is only authentic peace when it has been ordered by justie or righteousness.
We see this priority, justice bearing peace, suggested in the NT in a tantalizing allusion to the figure Melchizedek. The writer of Hebrews notes what is important theological lesson as he makes comparisions bewteeen this Melchizedek and Jesus. Of the former he writes: First, his name means "king of righeousness;" then also king os Salem, means king of peace (7:2). Melchizdek, so mysterious to the reader, is said to be "like the Son of God," in the exercise of his priesthood(7:3).
For the biblical author, this order is not incidental. FIrst righteousness or justice (they are interchangable in both the OT and the NTs). Second, peace. The one is the byproduct , a fruit, of the other. The order is important in both the spiritual and the political realm: first justice, then peace. First right order, then right relationship. Without the former there is no authentic latter. And what is true in the theological realm applies to the political.
Christians live in the constant awareness that our sins are covered by the Lamb of God. But that Lamb, behold, is also a Lion. He is simultaneously the sacrifice and the warrior. The vanuished and the Vanquisher. The Conquered and The Conqueror.
Christian theology, and with it Christian ethics, will need to hold these two realities in tension. Justice and peace, and in that order. One is prior; the other follows. It is our confession of this reality, justice with God resulting in peace with God, that brings us into relationship with God.
In living out our lives we must faithfully give witness to the world of this One who is simultaneously the divine warrior and the divine sacrifice. And it is the smystery of this wonder for which we bow before the Lion-Lamb on bended knee. This mystery brings him eternal praise."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/13/2008 11:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: What do you mean by revelation? Divine revelation? If so, how can divine revelation be "wrong about something?" If not, I don't know what you mean by revelation, then.
Zach: I've talked with you about this many times. You know what I mean. God reveals; we misunderstand. Some of us write down this revelation along with our misunderstandings. Some of these writings are called scripture. They are God-breathed and are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. How are we to know what is revelation and what is not? This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. The Word of God is Jesus. The scriptures are the word of the Word of God, so to speak. Jesus said, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
The writer of Hebrews addresses this subject well: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
When we are speaking of revelation in scripture, yes, we are speaking of "divine revelation." But that's not all. This revelation has a fallible recipient and recorder.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/13/2008 11:54:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/14/2008 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | |
T: ...but he did none of these things because he was on a specific mission, the cross.
Z: Alright. You've made a claim. Now back it up
You're not tracking along here very well, Zach. First, you should not parse a comment I made to Feelinahole and project into it a truth “claim” and then ask me to back it up, the comment is irrelevanat at this juncture. I find this an unproductive practice and a simple deflection of your responsibility in defending the claims you have made. Let my remind you the burden of proof is on you, it is your claim that “God is a pacifist”. Here is your entire quote: “Once again, this bears no resemblance to my situation. I struggled with the biblical text for approximately four years before I found answers in open theism and later non-violence. During my struggle, pacifism was the furthest thing from my mind. A "pacifist God" was not to my own liking.”
My claim is God acts passive at times as well as acts violent at times therefore God can not be a pacifist.
You prove nothing by stating I have only posted part of a passage and then say if we continue reading we'll find language to support a more gentle character of God. Both Feelinahole and I affirm God has a gentle more peaceful side to his character, that’s not the issue. The issue at hand is your claim that this passive side of God is his only side and in doing so you try to deny the violent nature that he can so obviously also display at times.
T: Hmmm.... what image of god best fits the text above, Zach?
Z: This text? In isolation? The first. But I don't read them in isolation. You might want to finish reading those paragraphs you quoted from. "...So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." See why I'm frustrated? These tactics either betray an unfamiliarity with the text or outright dishonesty. Either way, it's hard to see how continued dialog is useful.
How do you affirm the text that states a violent image of god (the first image) and also affirm that god is a pacifist without breaking the law of non-contradiction? Reading the rest of the passage only affirms my position that God’s character is true to both images, there is nothing “dishonest” with me NOT posting the remainder of the text since I DON’T deny that god displays this passive trait, in fact I unequivocally affirm it.
BTW, If you find yourself frustrated, you might want to search your own good conscience and check your “tactics” for honesty.
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/14/2008 4:08:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/14/2008 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: So the gospel writers got something wrong, so what? This doesn't mean I must throw away my New Testament.
J: But Zach, we're not talking about an error. We're talking about a consistent theme of divine judgment that seems to have similarities throughout the whole bible. I'm not gonna have as much time as usual this week to respond. And next week, I'll be away from my computer. So I'm gonna lay out the problems that I see with your own concession, and hopefully we can have time to get some clarity on where we're missing each other.
As I understand you, you have conceded that God does, indeed, raise the dead to be judged, and God's forgiveness is conditional upon repentance and/or faith. You claim, furthermore, that people can make irrevocable choices to be judged, post-mortem. Here are the issues/questions I have:
1) How can there be a truly irrevocable choice to be judged if repentance and forgiveness is available to all? This seems like a contradiction. Irrevocable implies unconditionality, doesn't it?
2) If repentance is a means of foregoing a previous decision to be judged post-mortemly, why is it the only means since you say God doesn't want to hold people accountable and since people can't unilaterally obligate God TO hold them accountable, in the first place. Why can't they just say, at the time, "Nah, I'd rather just die eternally?"
3) How do we know that people actually CHOOSE to be held accountable, post-mortem, in the first place? I went to a catholic vigil last night for a family member, and the whole thing was an appeal to God's mercy. Catholics, at least, don't seem to think they've ever volitionally chose to have merciless accountability. Indeed, I know of absolutely no one who does. Your whole assumption about this seems groundless to me, since every one I've ever known either believes there IS no post-mortem judgment or they hope for mercy if it is available. The fact is, most people believe post-mortem accountability is gonna happen whether they like it or not. That doesn't mean they choose it, much less do they believe they have the power to do so irrevocably by obligating God.
4) Why does God forgive (remit consequences) only those who repent/believe and yet expect us to forgive unconditionally. if our forgiveness is supposed to be like His? It is your claim that we are to be Christ-like (which IS God-like) with respect to forgiveness which seems impossible to reconcile, because of this very distinction that you seem to make between us and God.
It is not sufficient to say that people choose post-mortem judgment. People get out of it by repenting. People can't obligate God. People can't ressurect themselves TO JUDGMENT. To say I choose something I have no power to avail myself of, is like saying I can choose to leap over tall buildings--it doesn't mean God is gonna make me leap over tall buildings. A choice is only a choice from amongst options available to me and realizable by me.
If judgment is gonna happen, it's pretty much up to the God that you claim doesn't WANT to judge and can't be OBLIGATED to judge, TO do it, nonetheless.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/14/2008 6:18:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/15/2008 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
T: You prove nothing by stating I have only posted part of a passage and then say if we continue reading we'll find language to support a more gentle character of God.
Z: But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the passage begins with a violent god and ends with a pacifist god. I'm saying the ENTIRE passage read as a whole does not imply that God is violent. Zach, if not "violent", does the passage imply (or any passage in Scripture) that God is " dangerous"? Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/15/2008 1:20:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/15/2008 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | J: But Zach, we're not talking about an error. We're talking about a consistent theme of divine judgment that seems to have similarities throughout the whole bible.
Z: I was talking about neither. I was talking about this all-or-nothing hermeneutic and hopefully getting rid of it once and for all. I'm happy to talk about the theme of divine judgment. it does extend throughout the Bible. But it is not static. Other themes like priesthood, justice, sin, promise, covenant extend throughout the Bible and change along the way.
J: As I understand you, you have conceded that God does, indeed, raise the dead to be judged, and God's forgiveness is conditional upon repentance and/or faith.
Z: In each case you're right, but you've left off crucial points. I concede that God raises the dead (who themselves have consented) to be judged. I concede that (the reception of) God's forgiveness is conditional... These are significantly more specific claims than what you ascribed to me.
J: You claim, furthermore, that people can make irrevocable choices to be judged, post-mortem.
Z: Maybe I spoke too soon. 
J: 1) How can there be a truly irrevocable choice to be judged if repentance and forgiveness is available to all? This seems like a contradiction. Irrevocable implies unconditionality, doesn't it?
Z: Because an irrevocable choice can be made to refuse God's forgiveness. I can irrevocably choose to never repent or accept forgiveness.
J: 2) If repentance is a means of foregoing a previous decision to be judged post-mortemly, why is it the only means since you say God doesn't want to hold people accountable and since people can't unilaterally obligate God TO hold them accountable, in the first place. Why can't they just say, at the time, "Nah, I'd rather just die eternally?"
Z: Perhaps they can. I'm not really opposed to that idea. If one irrevocably chooses to reject God, that may very well not entail submitting to judgment. The image of death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire is fairly good evidence for plain-old annihilationism.
J: 3) How do we know that people actually CHOOSE to be held accountable, post-mortem, in the first place? I went to a catholic vigil last night for a family member, and the whole thing was an appeal to God's mercy. Catholics, at least, don't seem to think they've ever volitionally chose to have merciless accountability. Indeed, I know of absolutely no one who does. Your whole assumption about this seems groundless to me, since every one I've ever known either believes there IS no post-mortem judgment or they hope for mercy if it is available. The fact is, most people believe post-mortem accountability is gonna happen whether they like it or not. That doesn't mean they choose it, much less do they believe they have the power to do so irrevocably by obligating God.
Z: Sheep and goats. Many will be surprised to find what choices they actually made. I know many Catholics who are choosing the sheep option.
J: 4) Why does God forgive (remit consequences) only those who repent/believe and yet expect us to forgive unconditionally. if our forgiveness is supposed to be like His? It is your claim that we are to be Christ-like (which IS God-like) with respect to forgiveness which seems impossible to reconcile, because of this very distinction that you seem to make between us and God.
Z: I think what I said earlier on the OT violence thread speaks to this:
"Let's standardize our vocabulary. For this the rest of this post I'll only use "forgive" in the sense of a feeling or attitude, and I'll only use "remit" in the sense of acting upon/in accordance with that feeling.
In the case of both God and me, forgiveness is given unconditionally. In the case of both God and me, remission is only achieved by the recipient's acceptance of it. In the case of both God and me, the forgiveness/remission/reconciliation process is taken as far as is possible."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/15/2008 5:54:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/15/2008 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | J: 1) How can there be a truly irrevocable choice to be judged if repentance and forgiveness is available to all? This seems like a contradiction. Irrevocable implies unconditionality, doesn't it?
Z: Because an irrevocable choice can be made to refuse God's forgiveness. I can irrevocably choose to never repent or accept forgiveness.
J: You haven't explained how that's possible. A person can prefer it. But they can not choose what is not an option. If God doesn't want to hold people accountable, all the human preferring in the world can not bind Him to do so. You keep talking as if a person's preference is a choice of an option. I prefer to have a million dollars, but I can't choose it, because it is not an option to me, as I sit here. The same logic applies to the point of discussion unless you know of a verse that says or implies:
1) There actually are people who prefer to be held accountable post-mortemly as opposed to receiving remission (even Pharisees sacrificed for sins),
AND...
2) God will hold people accountable if they, at any time, preferred to be held accountable post-mortemly UNLESS they repent and believe in Him before they die.
J: 2) If repentance is a means of foregoing a previous decision to be judged post-mortemly, why is it the only means since you say God doesn't want to hold people accountable and since people can't unilaterally obligate God TO hold them accountable, in the first place. Why can't they just say, at the time, "Nah, I'd rather just die eternally?"
Z: Perhaps they can. I'm not really opposed to that idea. If one irrevocably chooses to reject God, that may very well not entail submitting to judgment. The image of death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire is fairly good evidence for plain-old annihilationism.
J: Here's where the open theism issue comes in. If they can do that, volitionally, how could God know they'll actually end up being judged? And if He doesn't know it, the ubiquitious post-mortem judgment language in the NT seems confusing at best. I have no reason to believe that anyone would choose to suffer when they don't have to and there is nothing to gain by it.
J: 3) How do we know that people actually CHOOSE to be held accountable, post-mortem, in the first place? I went to a catholic vigil last night for a family member, and the whole thing was an appeal to God's mercy. Catholics, at least, don't seem to think they've ever volitionally chose to have merciless accountability. Indeed, I know of absolutely no one who does. Your whole assumption about this seems groundless to me, since every one I've ever known either believes there IS no post-mortem judgment or they hope for mercy if it is available. The fact is, most people believe post-mortem accountability is gonna happen whether they like it or not. That doesn't mean they choose it, much less do they believe they have the power to do so irrevocably by obligating God.
Z: Sheep and goats. Many will be surprised to find what choices they actually made. I know many Catholics who are choosing the sheep option.
J: Yes, assuming God judges people independent of their wishes, we will all be surprised as to how hypocritical we have been. But that doesn't begin to answer how you know that people prefer to be judged as opposed to simply believing that judgment is an inevitable future event.
J: 4) Why does God forgive (remit consequences) only those who repent/believe and yet expect us to forgive unconditionally. if our forgiveness is supposed to be like His? It is your claim that we are to be Christ-like (which IS God-like) with respect to forgiveness which seems impossible to reconcile, because of this very distinction that you seem to make between us and God.
Z: I think what I said earlier on the OT violence thread speaks to this:
"Let's standardize our vocabulary. For this the rest of this post I'll only use "forgive" in the sense of a feeling or attitude, and I'll only use "remit" in the sense of acting upon/in accordance with that feeling.
In the case of both God and me, forgiveness is given unconditionally. In the case of both God and me, remission is only achieved by the recipient's acceptance of it. In the case of both God and me, the forgiveness/remission/reconciliation process is taken as far as is possible."
J: For the analogy to work (unless you hold to the possibility of all people getting out of judgment when they're ressurected), God would not judge people who simply wanted to avoid accountability despite any previous preference they may have had. People who don't love God will not "accept" accountability if they don't have to. Why would they? What bible verse says they will?
I think you're view works much better, logically speaking, if you say people can opt out of judgment after ressurection. The problem I have with that, though, is that it works much worse hermeneutically. It seems to imply that God ressurects people under the assumption that they will choose suffering that can be of no actual or perceived good to the sufferer. I can't see why God would ever assume such a thing. I don't know anyone who would "accept" accountability that way.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/15/2008 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
"But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the passage begins with a violent god and ends with a pacifist god. I'm saying the ENTIRE passage read as a whole does not imply that God is violent."
M: Zach, if not "violent", does the passage imply (or any passage in Scripture) that God is "dangerous"?
Z: Before I answer. Are we in agreement on this point?
I might agree if I read the passage in isolation. However, I read the passage through the lens of the entire Biblical narrative.
So what’s your answer, Zach? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/16/2008 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | J: You haven't explained how that's possible. A person can prefer it. But they can not choose what is not an option. If God doesn't want to hold people accountable, all the human preferring in the world can not bind Him to do so. You keep talking as if a person's preference is a choice of an option. I prefer to have a million dollars, but I can't choose it, because it is not an option to me, as I sit here.
Z: It is possible because God allows it. The same as every other "how". It IS an option - that is my contention. And once again you've said "HOLD people accountable..." This is not my view. There is a difference between "holding sinners accountable" and "allowing sinners to take accountability". I am arguing that God does the latter and NOT the former.
J: 1) There actually are people who prefer to be held accountable post-mortemly as opposed to receiving remission (even Pharisees sacrificed for sins), AND... 2) God will hold people accountable if they, at any time, preferred to be held accountable post-mortemly UNLESS they repent and believe in Him before they die.
Z: More "holding" accountable. This brings in foreign connotations to my position.
Also, I'm not saying everyone is fully aware of the choice they're making. Actually, I expect few to none are aware. I think conceding to "resurrection to judgment" language has made me more confusing. As with the Babylonian invasion, the "judgment of God" is not literally "the judgment of God".
J: J: Here's where the open theism issue comes in. If they can do that, volitionally, how could God know they'll actually end up being judged?
Z: If there is no "solidification" or "irrevocable decision", then he wouldn't know it, because it would not yet be true.
J: And if He doesn't know it, the ubiquitious post-mortem judgment language in the NT seems confusing at best. I have no reason to believe that anyone would choose to suffer when they don't have to and there is nothing to gain by it.,,, ,,,But that doesn't begin to answer how you know that people prefer to be judged as opposed to simply believing that judgment is an inevitable future event.
Z: But: "As D pointed out. Some do not appreciate the consequences of their actions, and so when forgiveness is refused, they are in for a surprise. Now, if the surprise is so unexpected as to render the person not guilty, I'm sure God will act fairly somehow. Luke 12:47-48 expresses some of this relative accountability albeit in 'judgment language'."
I'm not saying that people understand what they're doing. Do alcoholics "prefer" liver failure? Do criminals "prefer" prison? Do those who refuse Christ's love "prefer" judgment? In all three cases they are choosing their own consequences, but in only the second case is the person being "held" accountable.
J: For the analogy to work (unless you hold to the possibility of all people getting out of judgment when they're ressurected), God would not judge people who simply wanted to avoid accountability despite any previous preference they may have had. People who don't love God will not "accept" accountability if they don't have to. Why would they? What bible verse says they will?
Z: This is why I argue that there must be the option for self-annihilation. But my best guess is that these decisions are usually finalized (or "solidified" ) before death.
J: It seems to imply that God ressurects people under the assumption that they will choose suffering that can be of no actual or perceived good to the sufferer. I can't see why God would ever assume such a thing. I don't know anyone who would "accept" accountability that way.
Z: Neither do I. I think God offers grace which is refusable. I think we make choices - with consequences - without understanding what we are getting ourselves into. That's pretty stupid; but God doesn't force us to be wise.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/16/2008 9:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | Let me ask it this way for clarification:
First, are there any KNOWN means that we can choose at this time, as an object of choice, that will cause me to be ressurected from the dead and judged by God? Does scripture reveal any such thing?
To even say so means that we think we can employ the power of God as a means to our own end--and a power of God contrary to His own desire, at that, by your view. How can that be? Can we obligate Him? How does it work?
Second, do you have any idea what a person does or thinks to "choose" post-mortem judgment? You say they don't know what they're getting into, necessarily. So what is it that you think people are even doing? I literally know no one that does anything like what I think you're saying. Everyone I know believes post-mortem judgment is inevitable whether we like it or not (if they believe in it at all).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/16/2008 11:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/17/2008 12:57 AM (GMT -6) | | J: This would make sense if God did not have to ressurect them for the judgment to occur. Now if you want to say they're not ressurected, fine, but we're right back to the language problem.
Z: I just don't know. There are a lot of strands that we have to make sense of:
#1 (and this has got to be #1) - we are to love enemies as God loves enemies, as Jesus loved his enemies - sacrificially, submissively, non-resistantly.
#2 - Jesus speaks of eternal punishment - weeping and gnashing teeth - regret.
#3 - Revelation speaks to an end of death and hades.
#4 - Jesus speaks of forgiveness.
#5 - Jesus says to the thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise."
#6 - God is just - and this isn't the carte blanche that fundamentalists and Calvinists make it out to be.
There are many others we could add. I'm just trying my best to put them together. Seems to me the justice of God and the love of God don't leave any room for God to unilaterally hold people to his standards and punish them when they fall short. In fact this seems to be the very opposite of justice and love.
Now I think you reap what you sow. If you drink and your liver fails, don't blame God. First of all, it's physiological, not divine intervention. Second, you knew what was going to happen (and if you didn't, it's your fault for not counting the cost). If liver failure ends in death, then we've got an ok analogy for the consequences of sin - with drinking = sin, liver disease = post-mortem suffering, and death = annihilation.
But there is the "resurrection" to judgment. I don't know. Maybe this happens without direct divine intervention - I doubt it. Maybe it's metaphorical - we ARE talking about a guy who called himself a vine. Or maybe it is directly caused by God - I still don't see why this is a problem for my view since (1) people had a chance to opt out and (2) they solidified against forgiveness. If they change their mind post-mortem, then it wasn't a solidified character, a irrevocable choice to begin with. But I believe we can solidify against God. You do too. So how can it be solidification if you think a realization of the consequences "unsolidifies" us? I thought the whole idea of solidification was permanence; I guess we could develop a non-permanent solidification idea. But still, what prevents God from granting us this ability?
J: But even more, you're missing the obvious point that alcoholics don't choose liver failure. They choose the MEANS to liver failure.
Z: No, I am keenly aware of this point. But it's wrong. Our actions have consequences. The alcoholic has TAKEN liver failure upon HIMSELF. The consequences are his just as much as the means are. He didn't know the consequences? That's on him too. He should have learned something about the drink he made a staple of his diet.
J: Being raised from the dead is not a side-effect--it is an intentional CHOICE of God.
Z: First of all, not quite. My position is that we could opt out of this. It's an intentional choice of God to which we have consented. Second, it doesn't matter. When we watch the Oscars, some actor usually reads the winner of each award. He opens the envelope and says, "...and the winner is..." But we all know the actor is not responsible for the outcome. That decision was made earlier by others. So if God opens the envelope, he is still not responsible for the decision we placed inside. It is grace that he gave us a decision at all.
J: First, are there any KNOWN means that we can choose at this time, as an object of choice, that will cause me to be ressurected from the dead and judged by God? Does scripture reveal any such thing?
Z: "We will all be resurrected." My position (potentially) limits this claim. Resurrection is the default. I believe if we sincerely want out, God will honor that.
J: To even say so means that we think we can employ the power of God as a means to our own end--and a power of God contrary to His own desire, at that, by your view. How can that be? Can we obligate Him? How does it work?
Z: I think I've already responded to this. Let me know if I haven't sufficiently.
J: Second, do you have any idea what a person does or thinks to "choose" post-mortem judgment? You say they don't know what they're getting into, necessarily. So what is it that you think people are even doing? I literally know no one that does anything like what I think you're saying. Everyone I know believes post-mortem judgment is inevitable whether we like it or not (if they believe in it at all).
Z: I choose non-forgiveness when I curse at the man who cuts me off while I'm driving. In this moment I choose to believe in right and wrong without mercy. I have not necessarily thought this through as to how this applies to me, but despite this thoughtlessness I've still done it. Somehow this sort of attitude becomes "solidified" - God hardens a heart, so to speak. At some point God gives us over and allows us to have what we've chosen.
M: Zach, if not "violent", does the passage imply (or any passage in Scripture) that God is "dangerous"?
Z: Sorry for the delay. It depends on what we mean by dangerous. Do we mean "able to cause harm"? Then yes, he's portrayed as dangerous in this passage. Elsewhere in the Bible too. Do we mean "a threat to us"? Then no, this passage says exactly the opposite. Those sent out on mission by God are not to be afraid of anything, because the most 'fearsome' and 'dangerous' God is a God who loves enemies and cares for them. Elsewhere in the Bible this idea may have been contradicted. I can't recall a specific at the moment, but something tells me you've got a passage in mind.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/17/2008 1:30:14 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/18/2008 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
M: Zach, if not "violent", does the passage imply (or any passage in Scripture) that God is "dangerous"?
Z: Sorry for the delay. It depends on what we mean by dangerous. (Zach, are you by any chance related to 42nd President of the United States) Do we mean "able to cause harm"? Then yes, he's portrayed as dangerous in this passage. Elsewhere in the Bible too. Do we mean "a threat to us"? Then no, this passage says exactly the opposite. Those sent out on mission by God are not to be afraid of anything, because the most 'fearsome' and 'dangerous' God is a God who loves enemies and cares for them. Elsewhere in the Bible this idea may have been contradicted. I can't recall a specific at the moment, but something tells me you've got a passage in mind.
Zach, according to Merriam-Webster, anyone (or spider deity) that is “able to cause harm”, hurt or injure someone, either physically or mentally, would be considered dangerous.
Dangerous: 1: exposing to or involving danger <a dangerous job> 2: able or likely to inflict injury or harm <a dangerous man> -
Harm: 1: physical or mental damage: injury 2: mischief, hurt
Threat:1: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage. 2: one that threatens 3: an indication of something impending
- Merriam-Webster
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/19/2008 12:12:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/18/2008 9:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: But there is the "resurrection" to judgment. I don't know. Maybe this happens without direct divine intervention - I doubt it. Maybe it's metaphorical - we ARE talking about a guy who called himself a vine. Or maybe it is directly caused by God - I still don't see why this is a problem for my view since (1) people had a chance to opt out and (2) they solidified against forgiveness.
J: It's a problem with your view because
1) You say God's non-intervention NOW is characteristic of God's love. Therefore, He would not intervene in the future to do something He neither wants to do nor is obligated to do. People can't choose what God will do. They can only choose what they will do from some set of options attainable by them, given THEIR capacities.
2) People aren't being held accountable by God NOW whether they ask for forgiveness or not. So the only reason I can imagine why God would ressurect them to do so in the future (assuming He even will judge anyone in the future) is because He simply has some reason for waiting until then (because no one can obligate or compel Him to do so THEN against His will). But this means that God's current non-intervention is not characteristic of His nature or the nature of divine love. Rather, it is characteristic of the conditions required for Him to attain certain temporal ends.
Your claim (by implication) that people can compel or obligate God by what they prefer is ungrounded. Your claim that people even prefer post-mortem judgment is also ungrounded as far as I can tell. The best way out is to say that all divine judgment language really doesn't mean divine judgment at all. But I only hope you can sympathize with those who find that a bit implausible, textually. And having done so, I hope you will realize just how hard it is, for them (me included), to see the bible as portraying a God who is characteristically non-interventionary against human and spirit wills in an absolute way.
From where I sit, if scripture is that unclear, it's not even worth disagreeing over. John even quotes Christ as saying something to the effect that all judgment was GIVEN to him that he might be HONORED. I see nothing in the bible that even hints that God is opposed to works-accountability. I DO see plenty that says He is currently suffering-long in forebearance by postponing it, though. To me, this is because God is perfectly compassionate/sympathetic such that He suffers WITH the victims of wrong-doing.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/18/2008 9:26:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/19/2008 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | J: 1) You say God's non-intervention NOW is characteristic of God's love. Therefore, He would not intervene in the future to do something He neither wants to do nor is obligated to do. People can't choose what God will do. They can only choose what they will do from some set of options attainable by them, given THEIR capacities.
Z: I guess I just don't understand. Do you see my view having God do something he doesn't want to do? Do you see my view having people obligate God? I deny both.
J: In another thread you claimed that God doesn't hold people accountable. This is why you are claiming that somehow people hold themselves accountable. And they CAN do that. They can pluck their own eye out when they pluck someone else's eye out and so on. But what they CAN'T do, is make God pluck their eye out (or whatever He will supposedly do post-mortem).
That being the case, I have no reason to believe there is such a thing as divine judgment based on your view. Because I can't imagine why anyone would decide to inflict harm on themselves for their wrong-doing, post-mortem, if they are not doing it now. What would explain it? And we have no idea, under your view, how God would do it if He doesn't hold people accountable.
On the other hand, if God DOES hold people accountable, then why not Ananias and Sapphira? Why does timing matter if it is divine love that is at issue?
J: Your claim (by implication) that people can compel or obligate God by what they prefer is ungrounded.
Z: Never made that claim. Nothing I said implies it. I claim that God is free, faithful, and loving. If he wants to respond to us lovingly and consistently, that's his free choice.
J: Then God doesn't judge after all? Then all that language in scripture is saying what, exactly?
J: Your claim that people even prefer post-mortem judgment is also ungrounded as far as I can tell.
Z: Also not my claim. I said we have the capacity to make choices with bad consequences and sometimes do. Don't you agree?
J: Absolutely. But it seems inconceivable to me (and most other people, I gather) that I can choose something now that will result in me being ressurected from the dead at some time future to my death apart from an additional voluntary action of God to bring it about. And since I know of no one that consciously prefers to be judged in ressurection or knows that future ressurection is a natural consequence of their actions, I don't know what it means to say people choose it, directly or indirectly.
The bottom line is, you, like everyone else, brings certain beliefs to the text that you think are intuitive. You, Greg, and the rest of us are apt to remind people when we are reading words into texts. But we all do it. The question is, do we really know that God doesn't hold people accountable? Do we really know that love, per the scriptural definition of it, entails non-intervention in behalf of someone being beat to a pulp? You say yes to both questions. Most people don't. So I'm trying to figure out how you know what so many don't that justifies what you're reading into the texts.
So far you seem to be declaring an intuition that can't be explained or analyzed any further. If that's the case fine. All I can say, is I have no such intuition. By your view, it seems that morality would mean the same thing whether we are created beings or not. I can't make any sense of that view. To my mind, "rightness," apart from relativism, requires that there are ends for which we exist. And this means that we are created.
Thus, when a person does things they know that are contrary to those ends, they can choose suicide if they want to keep from hurting their Maker. If they don't, they are choosing to tread upon their Maker's sensibilities. That God would motivate such a person to achieve His ends doesn't seem unloving to me. Because there are true victims to the actions of wrong-doers.
And if God didn't motivate those perpetual wrong-doers who won't commit suicide, we have the problem of the absolute with-holding of good to those He supposedly loves. I know this withholding of good doesn't bother you near as much as it does most. But such an absolute withholding of good bothers many people so badly that judgment seems completely loving to them, even though they find it utterly sobering and a bit terrifying also. But sobriety and godly fear is exactly what the otherwise unmotivated need to do better.
Post-mortem judgment is the best that God can do and still have a world, NOW, where choices can be made that are not completely motivated by fear by all. Perpetual shock and awe--due to continuously occuring judgment--in this world would tend to do that. God prefers that at least SOME be motivated by better motivations. This is the best I can come up with. I understand your difficulties. It's just that there are difficulties either way you go.
That being the case, I find scripture perfectly plausible as it is written. Consequently, it is the language of NT wisdom literature like the Sermon and much of James that needs to be contextually interpreted with the most care. You seem to do the exact opposite. You want to take the Sermon unconditionally and literal as if anything that contradicts its unconditional interpretation is suspect or to be treated figuratively. I can't imagine any linguist taking that approach.
How, given that, do you handle Christ's unconditionally-quoted statement (in Luke, I think) that he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery? Do you say that verse rules out divorce and remarriage for any cause? See, Greg doesn't. And that's why his hermeneutic in the Sermon seems problematic, to me. If you see that verse as truly unconditional, then how do you explain the passage in the sermon that talks about divorce for fornication? I was thinking you had earlier said that you think divorce is allowed for fornication. Is that the case?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/19/2008 3:19:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:49 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 |
|
|