 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Srobel/Moreland & UR | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | Laika:
Well this morning Jesus showed me Deuteronomy where the innocents would be entering the promised land, which is a metaphor for heaven.
That's cool. I was thinking about the slain firstborn of Egypt and what happened to them. How God's Presence moved through Egypt and all that. Yeah.
************************************
Laika:
In Genesis 6:3 God says He will NOT strive with men forever (evidently 900 years being too much for Him) and He shortened their days for that reason.
Let's see...
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with human beings forever, for they are mortal ; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
To me, this just shows God's Grace to us in death...through the mortality of humanity.
What does this have to do with UR?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | D: If the natural human "logos", placed in us from birth deals with free openness to God's Presence (including God's World)...and infants have NOT YET HAD TIME to develop a "false self"...who's to say that this logos of openness to Divine Presence isn't sufficient for God to relate well to the "logos" of those infants?
T: Given your near pantheistic view of divine-human relationality, I'm not surprised that you'd admit the possibility. You're already on record (against Titian, Greg, and me) as denying TWT1. I don't deny it. Perhaps it's my emphasis on the personal distinction between human beings and God, and on the persistence creative freedom and genuine personal otherness which requires that the human person who is to stand in the relationship share in choosing its way into existence. The "logos" of infants just the possibility of personal becoming for that child. So it deals with free openness, yes. But that free openness has to 'become'--and you only get that through the choice of the person. It must be made, and God cannot make it for us. But we've been all over this before too, so....
1) Brother Turtle, if you call me "pantheist" one more time...I'm coming to Iraq to kick your behind!  Say it with me...
Puuuh-nin-thee-iz-um.
Got it. Good.
2) How was the infant Jesus related to God?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | |
Laika:
In Genesis 6:3 God says He will NOT strive with men forever (evidently 900 years being too much for Him) and He shortened their days for that reason.
Let's see...
When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with human beings forever, for they are mortal ; their days will be a hundred and twenty years."
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
To me, this just shows God's Grace to us in death...through the mortality of humanity.
What does this have to do with UR?
1. People on earth were exceedingly wicked.
2. People were living 900+ years.
3. God says, I will not strive/contend with the wicked forever. 900 years was too much for God.
4. He really means it because He shortens how many years they live, 120 years post flood.
UR says God WILL strive/contend with the wicked forever. Pretty simple contradiction of scripture.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
One Love said...Laika: UR says God WILL strive/contend with the wicked forever. Pretty simple contradiction of scripture.Technically speaking, UR says that God WON'T strive with the wicked forever...because all will eventually be saved.
"Forever" being nine hundred years in Genesis 6.
After nine hundred years, into the fire?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Exactly D (on divine striving). And given the response of God to human wickedness in Genesis, the striving that God is there deciding he's not going to continue forever is that present embodied state under THOSE conditions (life span, etc.). I read God as simply saying, "Hey, I'm not doing THIS forever. Let's adjust things." God isn't saying, "I've only got so much love for human beings. When it runs out, baby, it runs out. My love isn't eternal. But my anger sure as hell is."
Gosh.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Exactly D (on divine striving). And given the response of God to human wickedness in Genesis, the striving that God is there deciding he's not going to continue forever is that present embodied state under THOSE conditions (life span, etc.). I read God as simply saying, "Hey, I'm not doing THIS forever. Let's adjust things." God isn't saying, "I've only got so much love for human beings. When it runs out, baby, it runs out. My love isn't eternal. But my anger damn sure will be."
Sounds absolutely crazy when you say it out loud, doesn't it? Wow...
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika-
FIRST.
Do you believe the choice of angels to remain faithful to God was purely expedient?
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2008 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | D: My point is pretty simple: God designs human beings (their human noetic functioning, the human spirit [lamp of the Lord] ) for BUILT-IN OPENNESS and RESPONSENESS to God's Presence...and this, from God's point of view, constitutes a legitimate "relationship" with the human being.
T: God relates, in one way or another, to everything. And he relates especially to human beings--whether infants or not. But I wouldn't say that God has a interpersonal relationship with infants. That would require a non-divine person on the human side of the equation, and you don't have that with infants.
We're getting off here D. What's the point in all this for the question regarding TWT1's applicability to infants who die? That's all we're concerned about.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/11/2008 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | D: If human infants have full human "logos" with no diffused "tropos"...then, at death, what would that relationship with God that the "logos" grounds be like? I mean, we can posit a functional purgatory for killed infants if we so choose (like John Piper does). Personally, I don't see the need.
T: Then:
1) You don't in fact embrace TWT1. You, with Laika, agree that God can get human being into the relationship of love he created us for apart from their having to choose the relationship at all and without the risk of all the suffering and evil that this world entails.
2) In which case, D, why risk it? If human beings don't require choice to freely determine themselves and become persons (because they can become so by divine fiat), then why would God not go that route and get what he wants without the risk?
T | | Back to Top | | |
| 222 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:47 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 |
|
|